Thorsten Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 I find this whole argument rather interesting. Let me try to give a bit of my perspective. I get to use $100,000 flight simulators at work. I have flown them until I was physically exhausted, and I have monitored students flying them until I was bored to tears. Needless to say, PC simulators don't do much for me. Now, I could go onto websites devoted to Flight Unlimited or Falcon 4.0 and tell them how crap their programs are compared to million dollar Evans-Sutherland full motion flight simulators or the Frasca procedures trainers that I use at work, but what would be the point of that. So I don't see why someone should come on here and dump on the creators of Combat Mission simply because they tried the game and didn't like it. If you don't like it, or if you got your hopes up and were disappointed, then start searching for a game that is more appealing to you, whether that is PiTS or Hidden & Dangerous or whatever. As to the two issues that have sprung up out of this, targeting and FOW. Targeting seems pretty much taken care of. I just have to add that I recently learned the wonders of area fire, especially for guns. As for FOW, well let's take an analytical view here. It seems to make sense that there are several stages, from 'crew?' to 'machine gun?' to 'MG 42' to 'MG 42' with full numbers information. It is unclear to me exactly how these translate into real life terms, thus it's hard for me to find fault with them. Does 'crew?' mean that I can see three or four people moving while hauling some large piece of equipment? Can I only make out the equipment at the 'machinegun?' or 'mortar?' stage? At what point can I definitely tell how many people are in the unit? Maybe some changes are in order. As was stated, BTS will probably reduce some info for certain stages. There could be other changes, such as being able to make out the number of people in the unit, while not knowing how many are wounded and not knowing exactly what type of unit it is. I really can't say what should or should not be done, though, so I hope BTS makes the right judgements. Thorsten PS Technically, only full motion simulators are called flight simulators. Ones that don't move are called procedures trainers. Thus all those flight sims at the local software store are mislabeled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Thorsten, good post (nice job too ). We don't mind people coming here and trying to make the game better through rational discussion. This is a good thing, and we have been doing it for well over a year now on this BBS (and oh boy was that a smart thing to do!). Our only beef comes in when people focus on one out of 1000 features that is either "terrible" or "missing". Far too often the argument is presented that if x is bad then the rest of the alphabit is crap as well. Such people only hurt their own cause, since arguing from such a point of view removes objectivity and vision from their side of the argument, and both are required for us to treat such a person seriously (i.e. instead of a spoild child or simple jerk). Argue strong, fine, but don't lose sight of the big picture. Also, for crying out loud give us some credit for making wargames for a living! Far too often gamers think that just because they play games they know more than the people that make them. Shoot me dead if I ever try to do something liek argue a technical point about my car with the engineer who built the thing, for that will be the day that my brain has ceased to function Makes me think of the line, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV". Guess who I wouldn't want doing any surgery on me, and guess who I wouldn't want to see designing a game without some real design experience? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Western Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Hey Steve this is a great game, but man take the chip off your shoulder. And could you explain the difference between a tank being hull down, and part way behind a house. This is my understanding. In the hull down case only the top of the tank is in LOS, but if the tank is behind a house and the front appears to be sticking out, when you have an LOS to it you can see all of it not just the part sticking out. Is this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zackary Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Hello, again! Not sure who your remarks were directed at, Steve, but I didn't personally find anything pushy or "know-it-all-ish" in what Kraut wrote. I thought Kraut did a good job of expressing the issue from his perspective and without invective. (Yes, I did notice everyone's use of smiley faces, but smilies really don't do much to lighten the tone of a long-ish post.) On another note, I would have liked to see Kraut, BTS, and Fionn respond to my previous post in this thread. It could have shed some more light on the issue and allowed us to proceed more productively in this thread. I continue to adhere to my view that a unit (other than perhaps conspript and green units) should independently retarget only in the two circumstances I outlined above. Charles of BTS wrote: ====================================== They give a heavy weight to the unit the player has selected and only switch away when there is a significant reason for doing so (which can also be something as simple as the original target going out of LOS). ====================================== None of us (the players) know the formula used to represent a unit's re-targeting decision-making, we therefore have no way to discuss or evaluate the perceived "correctness" of the formula. All we can do is evaluate the actual decisions we see made on the battlefield. I addressed in my prior post the limitations that I think there should be on re-targeting, and the need for what I termed a "guard" or "overwatch" command. I won't repeat that discussion here. Fionn said that he thought that if our units were consistently retargeting, we should probably open our eyes and learn something (paraphrase), and that the retargeting feature was likely saving us from ourselves. Frankly, I don't want to be saved from myself. I want my units to act realistically (i.e., defy my commands in certain circumstances), but not to substitute their judgment for mine. That is totally against the U.S. military hierarchy. Lieutentants (and other junior officers) do not (as a rule) substitute their judgment for the judgments (read: direct orders) of their Majors (or any other superior officer), except in dire circumstances. If I am giving bad orders, then my men and I will pay for it. That is how the lessen should be learned. To recap, I see two flaws: The absence of a "guard/overwatch" command, and too prompt retargeting. That said, let me say that I enjoy the game, have always been a supporter of BTS, and have tremendous respect for Fionn. My pre-order has been on file for at least two months (don't remember the exact date). I don't know whether the commands/adjustments I advocate are feasible at this late hour. If not, that is a perfectly acceptable, should be clearly admitted (by BTS), and gracefully accepted (by us, the gamers). It is not, however, a reason to be overly defensive or non-responsive (e.g., Oscar & Hagen). If BTS disagrees with Kraut's observation that units ignore direct commands too readily, or my argument that a "guard/overwatch" command should exist, that too is perfectly acceptable, but should be so stated. At that point, the argument is over and we can all go about our business of programming or playing this enjoyable game. ------------------ Zackary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagen Posted November 2, 1999 Author Share Posted November 2, 1999 ________ It is not, however, a reason to be overly defensive or non-responsive (e.g., Oscar & Hagen). ________ Sorry, I am not quite sure what you mean. I am infering that you are saying that I was overly defensive or non-responsive? I apologize if you misinterpreted something I posted. -Hagen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 "To recap, I see two flaws: The absence of a "guard/overwatch" command..." Having been playing CM for like a month now I feel that this is a redundant command. Your units are essentially automatically on overwatch unless you give them specific targeting orders, or hide them, or give them movement orders. They will fire at targets of opportunity as they present themselves. Your positioning of the units and facing etc have a lot to do with what sectors they overwatch. Also if you are really hot and bothered about a certain area you can have them area target that area and sometimes your hunch may pay off. However two possible tweaks might be: 1. Specify type of unit to fire at (Would only really effect certain units since there aren't a lot of types outside of vehicles with multiple systems). 2. Specify a specific area to look at in overwatch. But then again you have to cut the mustard on how big that area is. And how strict to be with fire discipline. Still it hasn't been a big issue so far in my experience since any targeting faux paux the currently overwatching unit makes can be corrected in the next turn by giving it a real targeting command for the newly presented threat. (And if everything depends on that one shot that wasn't made then odds are there was probably something wrong with the overall plan or tactics in the first place. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Zackary, One quick comment (so many posts, so little time)... You are referring to lieutenants etc not retargetting but following orders BUT the game complaints are directed at retargeting by SQUADS (headed by corporals and sergeants). Look for self-preservation when doing retargetting ok? BTW so far I've not gotten a single case in which the retargeting people experienced could not be explained by showing them how "effective fire" works. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Specify a specific area to look at in overwatch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you do this, ie have sectors, will the squad spot easier, (in that sector), since it is paying more attention to that sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Fionn: Then you should read mine in the "Spectator" thread. The AI needs a 'tweak' there. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zackary Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Thanks for the feedback. Hagen, First, I do not lump you into the same category as Oscar, so please do not think that. Nor did I think you were being defensive. I do however think that you dodged several questions that BTS, Fionn, etc..., threw at you. Second, thanks for coming back to post on this thread. I had thought you abandoned the thread because of the heat you were taking. Glad to see you here. Fionn, (1) Ok, you got me on the technical point of the appropriate level of command we are dealing with (NCO v. low level officer), but (2) that has absolutely nothing to do with my point which was that soldiers (grunts, NCOs, or commissioned officers, take your pick) do NOT lightly disregard the direct orders of their superiors. (3) You may be absolutely right that re-targeting generally occurs in self-preservation circumstances. (At this point, I should make a (belated) disclaimer that I have not yet personally had much difficulty with the retargeting command (but then again I have not yet played more than a full game (not because I don't enjoy this game, I do, but time constraints . . . Alas . . .))) This does not address the "Guard/Overwatch" issue that I see a need for. (4) Amen, to your point about so many posts, so little time. I have been reading every single post on this forum up until last Friday. The volume of posts have gone up exponentially, and I simply cannot keep up. I keep meaning to post about a couple of little issues that I actually personally have, but I feel as though I shouldn't until I am caught up on all the posts to make sure my concerns haven't been addressed. Dang! And I don't begin to try to respond to as many posts as you do, Fionn. I know I'm grateful for all your dedication and responsiveness. (5) I'm sure you've explained it in another recent post from this weekend, so I won't ask you to repeat your thinking on "Effective Fire" here. I hope to get caught up on this board . . . eventually! Los, No offense intended, I also have a lot of respect for you having read everyone of your posts the past several months (up until last Friday), but I think if you reread my second to last post in this thread, you will see that the geographically designated/limited overwatch is what I was talking about. This is the situation brought up by . . . Kraut? . . . where he wanted to have his MMG provide relief to a forward position that was under assault rather than to take opportunity fire at a passing unit. I think his point, which I fully endorse, is that the superior officer should be able to order the MMG team to disregard opportunity fire, even though it would be more "effective fire," in support of the priorities of the commander, ASSUMING the MMG team itself was not itself under attack by the other unit. More to the point, the MMG team will ordinarily obey those orders unless it is itself under attack from another direction. Thank you all again for your thoughts. ------------------ Zackary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but then again I have not yet played more than a full game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then you are not speaking from experience. Play the game more to decide for yourself if there is an issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Didn't send me an autosave Scott... Of those who have, they've all interpreted stuff wrong. BTW I'm still looking at the pics u sent. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopkins Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Let me say first I'm loving the demo! Very cool game. I showed it a couple of friends that are big into Unreal, etc and they where amazed. They said "wow, it's like a whole world" } I thought they where going to jump into the screen when they saw one tank push a burning tank out of the way as it drove out of the ditch to get a clear shot at the 88. } To the point at hand. I must admit I've gotten just a little frustrated at my guys retargetting as well. I think what many of us want is a way to have the soldiers think "that guy just stepped behind a tree... if I watch for a sec maybe he'll pop his head back out." Perhaps some sort of area bias,as was suggested earlier, you could use a variation of the ambush marker, or a facing bias. Perhaps if the bias is set the unit pauses longer before attempting to retarget(unless an emergency presents itself of course) Just something to think about. No question yall have vision! tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Zackary, About your comment about units not routinely ignoring their commander's orders, I agree. However, from my military experience (Army and Air Force) in the type of combat that is being simulated by CM, Company commanders are not directing each individual rifle squad to fire at particular targets. It's more like "Lt, take your platoon and secure the buildings on that side of the town over there. I don't care how you do it, just get it done." Company commanders don't micromanage--they don't have time. Even platoon commanders let their squad leaders run their squads. Obviously I'm not saying that people just run around doing whatever they want, but I think you get my point. Also, I have a question for everyone here about the German sharpshooter in the Ries scenario. Has anyone seen him do much? I left him in his starting point, the second floor of the church, and by the end of the 30th turn, he had only taken two shots and made one kill--despite the fact that something like a hundred Americans drifted through his LOS. What gives? When I think of a sharpshooter, I imagine that guy in "Saving Private Ryan" taking out targets as fast as he could work the bolt and pull the trigger. Just wondering if I'm expecting too much out of him. All in all, I think CM is an awesome game (and it's still only beta! Wow) My hat's off to the team at BTS. ------------------ Kyle Albert Three Axis Interactive http://www.threeaxis.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Ooops sorry zackary, i didn't even see your post. See, after i'm done reading fionns huge and verbally challenging (in a good way) posts, i need to guzzle a few beers and smoke a pack of cigarettes (and i don't even smoke ... lol). So i probably missed your first post. Ok, now i read it ... yes, some "guard" command would be really helpful. Or, how about a "defend-arc" like in cc. You have an area, say form 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock you want to defend (you know the enemy is running through there), so you order you unit to focus on that area. Just a quick thought there ... basically anything to reduce the effects of massive retargeting will help. I also feel a bit disturbed at some of the comments i see from steve and other "defenders" of CM. I feel there is an issue here, and try to explain my viewpoint. It always happens (not just in this thread but in the past months with other issues) that at some point things start to come down to "they don't know ****, so they're wrong" or "they have no experience in gaming, never even played the real game". It might be, but how the hell are we supposed to know. I'm not gonna take anyones word for anything ... i'll keep an open mind and continue to look into the issues i raise, but i won't let myself and my viewpoints be shoved under the carped like that ! I'm no OSCAR ! Again, the re-targeting is an issue for me, but steve or fionn said there will be some small tweaks to help out a little. I'll have to check out the real demo to see if that helps. But even without these tweaks, i feel there is still a good deal of game for your money here, it's just i feel it would be more enjoyable with the tweaks. Others might not think so, including the makers, but they get to post here too ... fair enough huh ? MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Off-topic: Don't really like to see that "defenders" label, to be honest. I happen to really like the way CM is doing stuff and am also merely explaining my viewpoint (and so are the other "defenders"). But let's not even start a debate about it. I think I know what you mean, and it's all fine. On-topic: All units in CM are basically on overwatch all the time. Simply face them in the direction you want them to focus at! Maybe it's not in the "manual" that came with the demo, but facing DOES have an impact on gameplay (units running FAST, e.g., are spotting MUCH better to the front than to the sides). I believe that many suggestions here on this board would be cleared up by a detailed documentation. Well, that'll change with the full version and/or demo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 In response to Kyle's remark about the sharpshooter. He did next to nothing in my scenario, too. In fact, he was the only unit left with any ammo. All he did was fire at a Sherman and button it up. Everyone of my Germans are getting medals for heroically routing the Americans except that lazy bastard. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Gauchi - don't you think that buttoning up - with all the good things that means for you - the USs main fire support platform is a valuable result? JonS ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I have to close this thread up because it is over the BBS software danger limit. But Peter, the "chip" comes from working for 2 years WITHOUT PAY to make a great game only to have people rip into it from the perspective that they know more than we do even though they aren't the ones making the game (and 99% have never made a game in their life). I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt that you would react any kinder to such responses from people if the situation was similar. i.e. say you are a structural engineer, worked for 2 years for no pay, and had some food services worker come in and say your building is going to collapse because you don't know what you are doing. So we try to keep calm, but there is no reason to hold back when the peanut gallery is disrespectful and a tad too full of itself. Call it a chip if you want, but I call it a perfectly normal human reaction to the irrational and irresponsible. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts