stoex

BFC's business model is certainly not based on making their games as commercially attractive as possible, instead it is based heavily on a fan-base that is relatively steadfast in sticking with BFC's products despite their weaknesses (which they most definitely have a few of in my book). I regard myself a member of this fan base. However, despite the fact that I like CMBN, as far as I am concerned I would hope that BFC slow down their 'pushing the envelope' mentality regarding 'engine features' and 'realism' of the CM series in favor of more time spent on analyzing and improving what they already have in terms of user friendliness (GUI and customizability of the interface and game options, presentation and management of save games/battles, editor functionality, etc. etc.) as well as actually implementing the features they advertise so that they work properly and consistently under common and less common circumstances (see threads about spotting, foxholes, bridges etc. etc.). Also in terms of making the game accessible to more folks in more ways (RT MP pause, TCP/IP WeGo, coop MP, in-game PBEM management etc. etc.). The only actual feature I want at this point is AI triggers. Everything else I find lacking is actually there, it just isn't implemented/made accessible in very useful ways. If they actually let enthusiasts provide extra functionality (moddability of rulesets, behaviours, etc.) instead of just extra content (graphics and sound), that would also be a step in the right direction. These are the things that will have the greatest influence on my decision to buy when the next CM main title shows up. More than the content (units, terrain, etc.). My 0.02...

Well said, hoolaman. I might also add that the graphics for the compass supplied with the game are called 'compass arrows' and 'compass background'.

I agree. UI in general is not BFC's strongest suit. But they make great games - can't have everything, I guess.

For me they are more like Fright Fear F***ing up Failure

urc, I totally agree with you, spotting under the circumstances in the tests should be near instantaneous 90% of the time. And it should never take more than 20 seconds max.

That's all fine for infantry, but what do you do about AFVs of all types? How many men is a Sherman worth (or different variations of them), how many a PSW 222, how many a StuG or a halftrack? Ammo should count as well, 100 men with no ammo at all are no match for 10 well armed enemies. Loads and loads of variables...

Yes, that is possible. Slow, but possible . Be aware that saved games can be very large, as in up to 40MB in certain cases (large map, many units, campaigns).

Another +1 for more sorting options and stat displays in the repository. That thing could use a medium-sized overhaul.

I just tried something quick and dirty in GIMP for the compass. Not sure if I like the feel myself, but I thought I'd put it out there for other folks who aren't too hot about what we have in the game now. It's different, in any case. I think it might be more intuitive for some folks (including me). Check this out: The good: I switched the two images around so that the ring now turns and the 'needle' (the red arrow at the top) doesn't. This way the needle always points to the direction you are currently looking in. This feels 'more right' to me than the other way. I also don't have the problem any more that I'm never sure which end of the needle is the one that's pointing in the right direction. Plus, it seems to me that the timer is more legible under some circumstances in my version. The bad: It's smaller due to the fact that I had to switch the two images (half size in fact). Might be hard for some folks to read. Also, due to the fact that the rotation direction can't be reversed, I had to 'mirror' the directions East and West. This sounds bad at first, but personally when I look at it (while not rotating the camera) I have no problem telling which way I'm looking. 'West-North' is the same as 'North-West', after all . Last but not least, it's butt-ugly because I suck at doing graphics or art of any kind. In summary, I still really hope that BFC can make two quick adjustments to the compass thingy in some patch (at least I think they would be quick): 1. Make the two images the same base size. Would make modding easier. This would certainly be easy. 2. Give us the option to reverse the rotation direction of the rotating part. Then modders could make perfectly normal compasses with little effort. It would seem to me this should be very quick to code as well just by adding a switch to a x(-1) at the right place. No? Anyhow, let me know if any of you folks want to try it out to see if it works for you and I'll upload it. If a few folks like it, maybe someone can even make a prettier version. This is as good as it's likely to get coming from me.

MikeyD, you just made things go from bad to worse for some of us, as in German we call your 'speedometer' the 'Tachometer', and your 'tachometer' the 'Drehzahlmesser'. Anyhow, +1 for a real compass. It's more inuitive IMO, and it would behave like what it looks like. Camera direction indicators are for minimaps.

Sorry, akd, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. First off, if foxholes were considered to be as high as a standing man for spotting puposes, why would units not be able to spot empty foxholes from further away than 100m? Why would 'standing man height' foxholes be easier to spot when they have 'prone man height' soldiers lying down in them? Finally, my men consistently fail to ever spot enemy standing up behind a high wall, which doesn't surprise me considering the high wall is quite a bit taller than a standing man. So why should they spot foxholes under the same circumstances? There is clearly something else going on here, I think. On a slightly different note, I do agree that occupied foxholes should be spotted somewhat easier than unoccupied ones, but the difference in RockinHarry's test (100m unoccupied, 300m occupied) seems a bit drastic considering the men inside the foxholes are supposed to be hiding.

Welcome to the forum, Top Hat. As far as I can tell, the print in the manual is so small to begin with, it would hardly be legible after resizing down to make the whole thing fit in the DVD case. Then again, I'm no expert either. Bonus points for one of the most unusual first posts I've ever seen, by the way. Hope someone more helpful comes along soon!

Summarizing: I firmly believe that a hiding soldier is only able to spot only things that he can see from a prone position. However, there seem to often be more things visible from a prone position than you think, Blackcat. Its just about where you lie down...

Blackcat, The answer is not 'no' in all those situations. Bushes and all other types of vegetation except trees (AFAIK) are fully abstracted in terms of spotting. This means soldiers can see through bushes, crop fields, tall grass, etc. to a certain degree even when prone. They can certainly see along open ground when prone as well. I am unsure as to the exact workings concerning foxholes, trenches and bocage berms. However, the behaviour we are talking about makes sense in situations where the types of vegetation I mentioned above are the cover/concealment your troops are in while hiding. You can, for instance, hide infantry in a wheat field or a forest and they are theoretically able to spot (albeit with penalties for being 'hiding') enemies all around them. They will also incur a concealment bonus for 'hiding', meaning the enemies will not spot them as easily as they would if they were just lying there prone without hiding. I totally agree that hiding behaviour could use a tweak here and there, by the way. The short 'spotting' thing they do while hiding is more or less just to signify that they are attempting to spot while hiding, just that they are not very good at it in that situation because they do it a lot less than if they are not hiding. Beat me again, womble. You and I really cross-post a lot...cheers!

lol - nice one, Blackcat. Took me two readings to get it

Basically, you're understanding correctly. I don't quite see why you think this is so bad though. Maybe it's just the term 'hiding' that bothers you. If you want to be behind a wall and look over it, that's not really hiding to me, but taking cover. You can't really look over a wall in real life and be really well hidden either, because you will be skylighting yourself against the background, or at least adding a very distinguishable feature to an otherwise straight wall. If you want your men too see stuff really well, don't hide them - instead, have them find a position with good cover and concealment and let them just spot from there. If you want them to hide, you really want them to avoid being seen at all costs, using every opportunity available to them. This includes NOT peeping their heads over a wall but remaining prone behind it. In-game as well as in reality, walls are simply not the ideal place to spring ambushes from. That may be the base problem here.

Well, not really, stikkypixie. The way that hiding units sometimes jiggle around a little bit, and the way the man with the binos sometimes puts them to his eyes (regardless of hiding or not), are just eye candy. They do not correspond in any way to the shifting of statuses between 'hiding' and 'spotting'. In fact, the whole graphical representation of soldier facing is only abstractedly factored into LOS checks - otherwise no CMBN unit could ever spot anything behind it, which they do, though. What CMBN soldiers certainly do not do when they are hiding, as you said, is raise their heads to the next higher level for LOS calculations, which is the eye level of a kneeling soldier, and would be necessary to see over a low wall. Whatever hiding soldiers do with their heads has no effect on how well they can spot. Being prone and hiding are the only things which influence this in terms of the soldiers themselves. Terrain, smoke and weather play roles as well, of course.

No, rather the same way that a tank is an AFV. Same as an armoured car.

That's precisely what I'm saying, Erwin. The combination of HIDE and a COVERED ARC order works precisely the way one would want it to, EXCEPT when the unit with the unit with the covered arc is positioned in such a way that it cannot see the whole or a part of the area covered by the arc. If an enemy enters the arc but is not visible to the unit with the arc order, it will not be fired upon. Which is totally realistic IMO. Blackcat, the spotting limitations you mention do apply to a certain degree. Again, realistic IMO. However, units HIDING anywhere will not stick up their heads but remain prone always (as you can see when watching them in-game). Spotting is WYSIWYG in that you can't see over a wall if you don't raise your Mk 1 Eyeballs up above that wall. This is not a spotting limitation but a game convention issue. Hiding units are prone by definition, and while they do incur abstracted spotting penalties compared to prone units which are not hiding, their most severe penalty in this respect is that they are prone and ONLY prone, and CANNOT see anything which they would need to be in a different posture to see.

Merriam-Webster has this: 1: artillery fire laid on a line close to friendly troops to screen and protect them 2: a vigorous or rapid outpouring or projection of many things at once <a barrage of protests> In the military sense, you are probably right, but on the other hand, a lot of ordinance dropping on an area of any shape may generally be referred to as a barrage as well. BTW, other dictionaries are not so strict about the line in military use. see here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/barrage

You can Hide-Ambush just fine in CMBN. The only problem is that in certain situations your hiding units may not be able to see units that come into their covered arc. They can't ambush what they can't see (imagine hiding behind a stone wall yourself, now try knowing when some dude on the other side of the wall is exactly 150 ft away...difficult!). There is also perhaps an issue with self-preservation not overriding arcs in some situations, but there are ways to cope with this as well, since mostly it is just bad tactics that allow an enemy unit to wander around 'behind' or beside a friendly unit with a (too narrow?) covered arc.

While they may not have been very common, bridges over roads or rails (with the sunken terrain and/or berms that go with them) offer some interesting tactical options. I strongly hope BF will do some more tweaking to pathing on, under and around bridges to improve their feel and reduce associated problems. A good man is planning on releasing a campaign sometime soon, and one of the missions in it depends completely on accurate pathing under bridges. Which basically means he won't be releasing it soon after all, I guess. BFC, fix or do sumfink!

Allow me: The sleepers on the steel bridge are longer than the ones on the stone bridge, but both use the same texture, The longer ones are just stretched. This means that the steel plates and bolts that attach the rail to the sleepers cannot be made to be in the correct position for both types of bridge (shame on BF for providing only one texture option). Here are pics of Juju's excellent mod in the version fitted to the steel bridge. In the other version, the mountings are outside the rails on the steel bridge, but fit the rails on the stone bridge. Stone bridge with misalignment Steel bridge with properly aligned mountings. Hope that helps with understanding, the choice is still yours. Oh darn, beat me, Juju. Took too long with the pics.

There's definitely something not quite right if the empty foxholes are only spotted at 100m, but the ones that have men hidden in them are spotted at 300m. Nice find, RockinHarry - now get this setup to a beta tester asap!

[serious] funkeesax, interesting idea. Basically the idea of RT with enforced pauses has been mentioned before, to me it is the best idea if it is done properly and with enough options. I would like to see the following: -) Players may decide how long to have the action phase between pauses. -) Players may decide whether to have a timer on the orders phase and how long it should be. -) Players may decide whether to allow watching replays during the orders phase or not. This would be the all-encompassing solution IMHO. You could play TB like it always was, or RT as it is now, or anything in between. Plus all of the necessary stuff is in the game already (except for the timers, which seem rather trivial - and, well, except for the replays in RT. huh.). But I'm probably talking out of my ass anyway. [/serious] Wait, am I the psychopath voting for cheesecake in the Senate? Cool!