Will S

I normally try to not get involved in forum discussions, because I find they devolve into petty back and forths, however as the opponent on the opposing side I'd like to contribute my view and hope to provide some clarity and some thoughts that may have been overlooked. First off, I don't see anything from my perspective in the game, or based on Bull's explanation that points to any sort of bug or needs any review. He asked me to submit my turn and password for review, which I declined. But I'll give my perspective.
The game is early morning in winter. Visibility is very short, infantry has been making contact at less than 100m, in some cases infantry has been within 50m before being noticed. Firing and muzzle flashes change that of course, and a unit firing can be seen at a much greater distance, as can units moving at a faster or more noisy pace. (Also unit makeup, type, experience, quality, motivation, proximity to command, movement or lack there of ALL have input into how one unit functions compared to another. So there is almost no such thing as an apple to apple comparison in this game.) The LOS line tool shows a blue line going out much further than what visibility actually is, and this is in keeping with what I have seen in all other CM games. The blue line is a guide, which I use as a best case guide, not as a sure thing indicator. If a unit saw another at 900m through trees that is quite amazing and in this game I would not expect that to happen repeatedly or for that occurrence to be a tell tale for how other units should spot. Maybe that unit had a brand new pair of binocs, or there position was just right to see through a small gap in the trees and they caught a muzzle flash. Maybe the units closer didn't have binocs, or their's were fogged up, dirty or otherwise not 100%, or maybe they didn't have any. Maybe the unit that did good spotting was a very experienced unit and maybe the other one wasn't, or maybe that had nothing to do with it. Maybe they were occupied more with their immediate situation, or they were communicating their next plan since they were in close proximity to enemy forces and not paying attention to what was going on further away. Maybe the terrain, (which is not level) somehow obscured their view from the position they were in, or maybe the snow was really deep where they were and they were dealing with that. Maybe they dug themselves a snow hole to keep their heads down from the mortar shrapnel falling to their rear and couldn't see out. Maybe maybe maybe maybe.... Having myself spent a significant portion of my life in forest, wilderness, mountains, very deep snow of all qualities, I can say with 100% certainty that sometimes dealing with your immediate situation is all encompassing and in the real world there are micro features and small terrain undulations that can not be modeled in this game, but would most certainly exist in the world that this game is supposed to model.
As for the unit that broke and ran toward the "enemy side of the map", I feel there are some details in the explanations that have been left out. Like most people, I have seen this undesirable behavior before in CM games, but I also believe that in this instance there are more factors in play. The American unit that broke and ran toward German lines had few or no better options. The American attack was coming along the extreme map edge, and attacks that come against the map edge like that put themselves in a position that severely limits their maneuverability and options and puts the force in a bad spot to begin with. So out of all possible directions, 180 degrees of space was not available to the unit in question. Out of the remaining 180, there was an exploding and burning tank behind them as well as mortar shells falling in the same direction a bit further behind the destroyed tank. So take away the 60 degrees of area that would have been directly toward the American lines. The next area, off the unit in questions left flank, are buildings where contact has been made between forces and potentially might give cover to more German units. So that isn't a good direction for the American unit to run. Take away another 60 degrees on their left. This leaves the remaining 60 degrees to their front, where nothing is exploding and no enemy troops are immediately obvious or in hiding, although it is toward the German "side" of the map the area to the units immediate front does not offer good cover to enemy. Due to the unit having such limited movement against the map edge, there is very little choice (especially good choice) in which to move. The unit broke and ran forward along the map edge, which is the only path that moved them away from exploding tanks and shells and not closer to an area of cover and concealment that one could easily assume housed enemy troops. Pretty much from what I have seen the unit was in a very bad spot, against the map edge, close to enemy occupied buildings, under fire, and unsupported. With that much going against them it would have been difficult to choose a better option, and definitely not the AI bugging out from what I see.
Now I'm not saying the retreat function can't be improved, it definitely can. I just think that in many instances in which people complain about any one of the many topics that get complained about, there are many factors that get overlooked or go unaccounted for. There are so many factors in this game that relying on any one, or complaining about any one to me seems to be losing the overall focus and tactical thinking that leads to success. I am not a programmer but I would think that maybe a way to deal with the retreating forward syndrome would be to have the default fall back option to be along the most recent path of advance that the unit took, since most likely the path of advance was along the most conducive and unexposed path available to that unit. I also really don't like it when an unbuttoned tank commander gets shot by small arms fire (happens very easily) and then the standard response is for the tank to pop smoke and retreat, often into a more exposed position than they were in. That is one aspect I feel could be improved. Tanks should not retreat in the face of small arms fire. (Just saying that because I know IanL has a direct line!)
When I have one of those "WTF?" moments, I try and sit back and think about all the possible things going on I can't see in the game. I also try to think about how I could have commanded my units better and not allowed my men to get in a bad position to begin with. Usually I come up with a list of how I could do better that is longer than how the game could be better. Other times it's just straight bad or good luck depending on your perspective and luck is also a real world phenomenon, but I have found looking closer at how I could command better and use better tactics gives me less of a chance to have bad luck, or have bad luck effect me in a significant way.
I know that the game being talked about is still in it's early stages and that both sides have significant forces that have not been engaged.

I normally try to not get involved in forum discussions, because I find they devolve into petty back and forths, however as the opponent on the opposing side I'd like to contribute my view and hope to provide some clarity and some thoughts that may have been overlooked. First off, I don't see anything from my perspective in the game, or based on Bull's explanation that points to any sort of bug or needs any review. He asked me to submit my turn and password for review, which I declined. But I'll give my perspective.
The game is early morning in winter. Visibility is very short, infantry has been making contact at less than 100m, in some cases infantry has been within 50m before being noticed. Firing and muzzle flashes change that of course, and a unit firing can be seen at a much greater distance, as can units moving at a faster or more noisy pace. (Also unit makeup, type, experience, quality, motivation, proximity to command, movement or lack there of ALL have input into how one unit functions compared to another. So there is almost no such thing as an apple to apple comparison in this game.) The LOS line tool shows a blue line going out much further than what visibility actually is, and this is in keeping with what I have seen in all other CM games. The blue line is a guide, which I use as a best case guide, not as a sure thing indicator. If a unit saw another at 900m through trees that is quite amazing and in this game I would not expect that to happen repeatedly or for that occurrence to be a tell tale for how other units should spot. Maybe that unit had a brand new pair of binocs, or there position was just right to see through a small gap in the trees and they caught a muzzle flash. Maybe the units closer didn't have binocs, or their's were fogged up, dirty or otherwise not 100%, or maybe they didn't have any. Maybe the unit that did good spotting was a very experienced unit and maybe the other one wasn't, or maybe that had nothing to do with it. Maybe they were occupied more with their immediate situation, or they were communicating their next plan since they were in close proximity to enemy forces and not paying attention to what was going on further away. Maybe the terrain, (which is not level) somehow obscured their view from the position they were in, or maybe the snow was really deep where they were and they were dealing with that. Maybe they dug themselves a snow hole to keep their heads down from the mortar shrapnel falling to their rear and couldn't see out. Maybe maybe maybe maybe.... Having myself spent a significant portion of my life in forest, wilderness, mountains, very deep snow of all qualities, I can say with 100% certainty that sometimes dealing with your immediate situation is all encompassing and in the real world there are micro features and small terrain undulations that can not be modeled in this game, but would most certainly exist in the world that this game is supposed to model.
As for the unit that broke and ran toward the "enemy side of the map", I feel there are some details in the explanations that have been left out. Like most people, I have seen this undesirable behavior before in CM games, but I also believe that in this instance there are more factors in play. The American unit that broke and ran toward German lines had few or no better options. The American attack was coming along the extreme map edge, and attacks that come against the map edge like that put themselves in a position that severely limits their maneuverability and options and puts the force in a bad spot to begin with. So out of all possible directions, 180 degrees of space was not available to the unit in question. Out of the remaining 180, there was an exploding and burning tank behind them as well as mortar shells falling in the same direction a bit further behind the destroyed tank. So take away the 60 degrees of area that would have been directly toward the American lines. The next area, off the unit in questions left flank, are buildings where contact has been made between forces and potentially might give cover to more German units. So that isn't a good direction for the American unit to run. Take away another 60 degrees on their left. This leaves the remaining 60 degrees to their front, where nothing is exploding and no enemy troops are immediately obvious or in hiding, although it is toward the German "side" of the map the area to the units immediate front does not offer good cover to enemy. Due to the unit having such limited movement against the map edge, there is very little choice (especially good choice) in which to move. The unit broke and ran forward along the map edge, which is the only path that moved them away from exploding tanks and shells and not closer to an area of cover and concealment that one could easily assume housed enemy troops. Pretty much from what I have seen the unit was in a very bad spot, against the map edge, close to enemy occupied buildings, under fire, and unsupported. With that much going against them it would have been difficult to choose a better option, and definitely not the AI bugging out from what I see.
Now I'm not saying the retreat function can't be improved, it definitely can. I just think that in many instances in which people complain about any one of the many topics that get complained about, there are many factors that get overlooked or go unaccounted for. There are so many factors in this game that relying on any one, or complaining about any one to me seems to be losing the overall focus and tactical thinking that leads to success. I am not a programmer but I would think that maybe a way to deal with the retreating forward syndrome would be to have the default fall back option to be along the most recent path of advance that the unit took, since most likely the path of advance was along the most conducive and unexposed path available to that unit. I also really don't like it when an unbuttoned tank commander gets shot by small arms fire (happens very easily) and then the standard response is for the tank to pop smoke and retreat, often into a more exposed position than they were in. That is one aspect I feel could be improved. Tanks should not retreat in the face of small arms fire. (Just saying that because I know IanL has a direct line!)
When I have one of those "WTF?" moments, I try and sit back and think about all the possible things going on I can't see in the game. I also try to think about how I could have commanded my units better and not allowed my men to get in a bad position to begin with. Usually I come up with a list of how I could do better that is longer than how the game could be better. Other times it's just straight bad or good luck depending on your perspective and luck is also a real world phenomenon, but I have found looking closer at how I could command better and use better tactics gives me less of a chance to have bad luck, or have bad luck effect me in a significant way.
I know that the game being talked about is still in it's early stages and that both sides have significant forces that have not been engaged.

I normally try to not get involved in forum discussions, because I find they devolve into petty back and forths, however as the opponent on the opposing side I'd like to contribute my view and hope to provide some clarity and some thoughts that may have been overlooked. First off, I don't see anything from my perspective in the game, or based on Bull's explanation that points to any sort of bug or needs any review. He asked me to submit my turn and password for review, which I declined. But I'll give my perspective.
The game is early morning in winter. Visibility is very short, infantry has been making contact at less than 100m, in some cases infantry has been within 50m before being noticed. Firing and muzzle flashes change that of course, and a unit firing can be seen at a much greater distance, as can units moving at a faster or more noisy pace. (Also unit makeup, type, experience, quality, motivation, proximity to command, movement or lack there of ALL have input into how one unit functions compared to another. So there is almost no such thing as an apple to apple comparison in this game.) The LOS line tool shows a blue line going out much further than what visibility actually is, and this is in keeping with what I have seen in all other CM games. The blue line is a guide, which I use as a best case guide, not as a sure thing indicator. If a unit saw another at 900m through trees that is quite amazing and in this game I would not expect that to happen repeatedly or for that occurrence to be a tell tale for how other units should spot. Maybe that unit had a brand new pair of binocs, or there position was just right to see through a small gap in the trees and they caught a muzzle flash. Maybe the units closer didn't have binocs, or their's were fogged up, dirty or otherwise not 100%, or maybe they didn't have any. Maybe the unit that did good spotting was a very experienced unit and maybe the other one wasn't, or maybe that had nothing to do with it. Maybe they were occupied more with their immediate situation, or they were communicating their next plan since they were in close proximity to enemy forces and not paying attention to what was going on further away. Maybe the terrain, (which is not level) somehow obscured their view from the position they were in, or maybe the snow was really deep where they were and they were dealing with that. Maybe they dug themselves a snow hole to keep their heads down from the mortar shrapnel falling to their rear and couldn't see out. Maybe maybe maybe maybe.... Having myself spent a significant portion of my life in forest, wilderness, mountains, very deep snow of all qualities, I can say with 100% certainty that sometimes dealing with your immediate situation is all encompassing and in the real world there are micro features and small terrain undulations that can not be modeled in this game, but would most certainly exist in the world that this game is supposed to model.
As for the unit that broke and ran toward the "enemy side of the map", I feel there are some details in the explanations that have been left out. Like most people, I have seen this undesirable behavior before in CM games, but I also believe that in this instance there are more factors in play. The American unit that broke and ran toward German lines had few or no better options. The American attack was coming along the extreme map edge, and attacks that come against the map edge like that put themselves in a position that severely limits their maneuverability and options and puts the force in a bad spot to begin with. So out of all possible directions, 180 degrees of space was not available to the unit in question. Out of the remaining 180, there was an exploding and burning tank behind them as well as mortar shells falling in the same direction a bit further behind the destroyed tank. So take away the 60 degrees of area that would have been directly toward the American lines. The next area, off the unit in questions left flank, are buildings where contact has been made between forces and potentially might give cover to more German units. So that isn't a good direction for the American unit to run. Take away another 60 degrees on their left. This leaves the remaining 60 degrees to their front, where nothing is exploding and no enemy troops are immediately obvious or in hiding, although it is toward the German "side" of the map the area to the units immediate front does not offer good cover to enemy. Due to the unit having such limited movement against the map edge, there is very little choice (especially good choice) in which to move. The unit broke and ran forward along the map edge, which is the only path that moved them away from exploding tanks and shells and not closer to an area of cover and concealment that one could easily assume housed enemy troops. Pretty much from what I have seen the unit was in a very bad spot, against the map edge, close to enemy occupied buildings, under fire, and unsupported. With that much going against them it would have been difficult to choose a better option, and definitely not the AI bugging out from what I see.
Now I'm not saying the retreat function can't be improved, it definitely can. I just think that in many instances in which people complain about any one of the many topics that get complained about, there are many factors that get overlooked or go unaccounted for. There are so many factors in this game that relying on any one, or complaining about any one to me seems to be losing the overall focus and tactical thinking that leads to success. I am not a programmer but I would think that maybe a way to deal with the retreating forward syndrome would be to have the default fall back option to be along the most recent path of advance that the unit took, since most likely the path of advance was along the most conducive and unexposed path available to that unit. I also really don't like it when an unbuttoned tank commander gets shot by small arms fire (happens very easily) and then the standard response is for the tank to pop smoke and retreat, often into a more exposed position than they were in. That is one aspect I feel could be improved. Tanks should not retreat in the face of small arms fire. (Just saying that because I know IanL has a direct line!)
When I have one of those "WTF?" moments, I try and sit back and think about all the possible things going on I can't see in the game. I also try to think about how I could have commanded my units better and not allowed my men to get in a bad position to begin with. Usually I come up with a list of how I could do better that is longer than how the game could be better. Other times it's just straight bad or good luck depending on your perspective and luck is also a real world phenomenon, but I have found looking closer at how I could command better and use better tactics gives me less of a chance to have bad luck, or have bad luck effect me in a significant way.
I know that the game being talked about is still in it's early stages and that both sides have significant forces that have not been engaged.

I normally try to not get involved in forum discussions, because I find they devolve into petty back and forths, however as the opponent on the opposing side I'd like to contribute my view and hope to provide some clarity and some thoughts that may have been overlooked. First off, I don't see anything from my perspective in the game, or based on Bull's explanation that points to any sort of bug or needs any review. He asked me to submit my turn and password for review, which I declined. But I'll give my perspective.
The game is early morning in winter. Visibility is very short, infantry has been making contact at less than 100m, in some cases infantry has been within 50m before being noticed. Firing and muzzle flashes change that of course, and a unit firing can be seen at a much greater distance, as can units moving at a faster or more noisy pace. (Also unit makeup, type, experience, quality, motivation, proximity to command, movement or lack there of ALL have input into how one unit functions compared to another. So there is almost no such thing as an apple to apple comparison in this game.) The LOS line tool shows a blue line going out much further than what visibility actually is, and this is in keeping with what I have seen in all other CM games. The blue line is a guide, which I use as a best case guide, not as a sure thing indicator. If a unit saw another at 900m through trees that is quite amazing and in this game I would not expect that to happen repeatedly or for that occurrence to be a tell tale for how other units should spot. Maybe that unit had a brand new pair of binocs, or there position was just right to see through a small gap in the trees and they caught a muzzle flash. Maybe the units closer didn't have binocs, or their's were fogged up, dirty or otherwise not 100%, or maybe they didn't have any. Maybe the unit that did good spotting was a very experienced unit and maybe the other one wasn't, or maybe that had nothing to do with it. Maybe they were occupied more with their immediate situation, or they were communicating their next plan since they were in close proximity to enemy forces and not paying attention to what was going on further away. Maybe the terrain, (which is not level) somehow obscured their view from the position they were in, or maybe the snow was really deep where they were and they were dealing with that. Maybe they dug themselves a snow hole to keep their heads down from the mortar shrapnel falling to their rear and couldn't see out. Maybe maybe maybe maybe.... Having myself spent a significant portion of my life in forest, wilderness, mountains, very deep snow of all qualities, I can say with 100% certainty that sometimes dealing with your immediate situation is all encompassing and in the real world there are micro features and small terrain undulations that can not be modeled in this game, but would most certainly exist in the world that this game is supposed to model.
As for the unit that broke and ran toward the "enemy side of the map", I feel there are some details in the explanations that have been left out. Like most people, I have seen this undesirable behavior before in CM games, but I also believe that in this instance there are more factors in play. The American unit that broke and ran toward German lines had few or no better options. The American attack was coming along the extreme map edge, and attacks that come against the map edge like that put themselves in a position that severely limits their maneuverability and options and puts the force in a bad spot to begin with. So out of all possible directions, 180 degrees of space was not available to the unit in question. Out of the remaining 180, there was an exploding and burning tank behind them as well as mortar shells falling in the same direction a bit further behind the destroyed tank. So take away the 60 degrees of area that would have been directly toward the American lines. The next area, off the unit in questions left flank, are buildings where contact has been made between forces and potentially might give cover to more German units. So that isn't a good direction for the American unit to run. Take away another 60 degrees on their left. This leaves the remaining 60 degrees to their front, where nothing is exploding and no enemy troops are immediately obvious or in hiding, although it is toward the German "side" of the map the area to the units immediate front does not offer good cover to enemy. Due to the unit having such limited movement against the map edge, there is very little choice (especially good choice) in which to move. The unit broke and ran forward along the map edge, which is the only path that moved them away from exploding tanks and shells and not closer to an area of cover and concealment that one could easily assume housed enemy troops. Pretty much from what I have seen the unit was in a very bad spot, against the map edge, close to enemy occupied buildings, under fire, and unsupported. With that much going against them it would have been difficult to choose a better option, and definitely not the AI bugging out from what I see.
Now I'm not saying the retreat function can't be improved, it definitely can. I just think that in many instances in which people complain about any one of the many topics that get complained about, there are many factors that get overlooked or go unaccounted for. There are so many factors in this game that relying on any one, or complaining about any one to me seems to be losing the overall focus and tactical thinking that leads to success. I am not a programmer but I would think that maybe a way to deal with the retreating forward syndrome would be to have the default fall back option to be along the most recent path of advance that the unit took, since most likely the path of advance was along the most conducive and unexposed path available to that unit. I also really don't like it when an unbuttoned tank commander gets shot by small arms fire (happens very easily) and then the standard response is for the tank to pop smoke and retreat, often into a more exposed position than they were in. That is one aspect I feel could be improved. Tanks should not retreat in the face of small arms fire. (Just saying that because I know IanL has a direct line!)
When I have one of those "WTF?" moments, I try and sit back and think about all the possible things going on I can't see in the game. I also try to think about how I could have commanded my units better and not allowed my men to get in a bad position to begin with. Usually I come up with a list of how I could do better that is longer than how the game could be better. Other times it's just straight bad or good luck depending on your perspective and luck is also a real world phenomenon, but I have found looking closer at how I could command better and use better tactics gives me less of a chance to have bad luck, or have bad luck effect me in a significant way.
I know that the game being talked about is still in it's early stages and that both sides have significant forces that have not been engaged.