Not in the beta - PLEASE can it make the final?

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

I've seen the posts requesting the scoring in Ops bug to be fixed, but I haven't seen anyone re-requesting this old but very important scoring chestnut yet -

PLEASE can we have full kill scores for units at the end of a scenario, not the present Fog of War effected stats. The FOW kill scores during the scenario are very realistic, but I and many others really want to know exactly who did what to who at the battles end.

Otherwise thanks BTS for your continued work on this excellent game.

------------------

"We're not here to take it - We're here to give it"

General Morshead's response to the popular newspaper headline "Tobruk Can Take It"

[Guest Mongo Lloyd]

ditto

[Maj. Bosco]

I'll second that again (third it?). I'd really like to know exactly what did what during the game. Especially now that I play so many games in the fog it's hard to get accurate figures. Thanks

[Snoop]

I agree 100%

[Mr. Clark]

Would be nice!

[Guest David Harrison]

I ordered CM last Friday in anticipation that this bug would be fixed. Sorry to see that it wasn't

[Guest Madmatt]

Umm guys? It's not a bug and we have stated several times before why it is not so.

Fog of War is fog of war and you don't always know what everyone did or didn't kill. Now that being said maybe we can make a change to this in the future but we do not view it as a fault of the game.

Madmatt

p.s. Scoring for the ops will be dealt with though for the official v1.1, as promissed.

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 11-29-2000).]

[JoshK]

While not a fault, it would be a welcome improvement to have non-FOW kill stats in the AAR.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think Matt misunderstood the question, but his answer is still pretty much correct.

The request is for end game kill tallies to be accurately accounted for, without FOW limitations on perfect info DURING the game.

This is something we do plan on implementing. But the reason it works the way it does now is not because there is a "bug". A "bug" is something that doesn't work as intended. In this case, what we have here is a shortcoming of the original kill tally design.

Most people think "what's the difference, it still doesn't work". From a customer's standpoint, we agree 100%. However, a bug is generally easy to fix. A design problem is generally more involved. So for now we haven't fixed the problem (and we do agree it is a problem) because it is not that simple from a coding standpoint to fix. More important things, like TCP/IP, got our full attention. But we will get to it eventually for sure.

Thanks,

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-29-2000).]

[JoshK]

Thanks Steve.

I find it amazing how short the "to do list" must be getting. Based on the general lack of clamor here, it seems that almost everyone has got his or her pet want in. That is a credit to BTS' customer service, your enthusiasm of WWII, which causes you to want new things as well, and the high level that version 1.0 shipped at.

Now that I have buttered you up, how about those M16 SPAA and the ability for U.S. HQ units to call in artillery?

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

Thanks for the response. I thought it wouldn't be straightforward to introduce this feature, but it's great to know that you are aware there is a sizeable number of CM addicts looking out for it.

Okay, I'm done, and off my soapbox for good on this topic. Too busy having fun with the new patch anyway

------------------

"We're not here to take it - We're here to give it"

General Morshead's response to the popular newspaper headline "Tobruk Can Take It"

[John Kettler]

Steve,

I'm glad this matter is being addressed, but I'd like to add a further request for a detailed breakdown on casualties and equipment, especially motorized equpment. It's rather offputting to sweat blood to earn the win, then find that your clever trapping and destruction of, say, a Hetzer platoon and 251s and 250s trying to overrun your troops gets listed as "seven vehicles."

It would be even more wonderful if there was some presentation of game stats by major category--average engagement ranges for infantry and antitank combat, rounds per kill, etc. This would be a huge help to the weapon performance analysts among us.

As it stands, our AARs are mostly mental, our troop deployments derived from them based less on military science than feel. Operational research (OR) was born during World War II, but we have no such data coming from our battles, have no SOPs, no tactical drills, etc. We could use some help here, especially those involved in operations and the Combat Mission Meta Campaign.

Thanks!

John Kettler

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

As it stands, our AARs are mostly mental, our troop deployments derived from them based less on military science than feel. Operational research (OR) was born during World War II, but we have no such data coming from our battles, have no SOPs, no tactical drills, etc. We could use some help here, especially those involved in operations and the Combat Mission Meta Campaign.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John is spot-on here, and I would like to add that it would be invaluable for scenario design to get a better clue of what happened. Currently what I do for testing is that I play a scenario I am designing against the AI, and at some critical junction save and surrender. Unfortunately that means that in the screen all my vehicles are described as knocked out, while on the map those that were not knocked out all count as abandoned. It is impossible though to see whether they were abandoned pre- or post surrender.

So while I don't feel I need a very detailed screen for my games, it would be great to have it for design purposes.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-30-2000).]