Has the "SNEAK" command changed?

[Runyan99]

One problem is that Sneaking units will not stop (or fire) if NOT fired upon, even when the enemy is 10 feet away. As such, I believe it it is possible for two Sneaking units to "sneak" right by and through one another.

For more info on this see

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013844.html

[This message has been edited by Runyan99 (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Scott Clinton wrote:

> So, your 'solution' of "moving short distances" will require that your men spend half of thier time doing nothing for fear of having them literally walk past/through the enemy.

That's the nature of the situation. Try and convince me that given a "move to contact" command, SOP will not become "plot move for squad straight through forest and wait until they run into enemy". That's not a snobbish remark – if something works for you, I'm delighted. But such a procedure would be unrealistic and inadvisable, and therefore should not have lines of code devoted to it in CM.

David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Everyone knows that it is just not possible for a platoon leader to say "Move that way until you run into something, then shoot at it".

That would be completely unrealistic.

Jeff Heidman

P.S. What a surprise. Yet another example where Combat Missions is perfection and any perceived problem is evidence of the players basic stupidity!

[Jeff Heidman]

The problem with David's position (as usual) is that he is confusing tactics with interface.

You are claiming that the current set-up is sufficient because any perceived problem with the limitations imposed by the games interface can (in your opinion) be resolved through the use of appropriate tactics.

First of all, that is incorrect. You continue to contrive specific examples that support your point while ignoring the examples that do not. You state that it is ok for two squads across a field to ignore each other, but why is that? Maybe I do not WANT my squad to ignore another one across a field! You can't just show a single example, say how your system deals with that specific example, and declare victory. You need to show that in all cases your system works in a realistic and manageable manner.

But even presuming you are correct, it is irrelevant. The interface should not enforce what some particular person defines as good tactics. If ordering a squad to advance into those woods until contact will result in that squad getting blown away, so what? That onus is on the player. If he gives bad orders, he should pay the price. The game should not keep him from doing something stupid, since then the game must define what is "correct" procedure in *every* case, which is clearly undesirable.

This is just like the bazooka debate, where you made the interesting claim that having LATW teams sit and stare at each other at short range because they have no personal weapons is completely realistic because they shouldn't be unsupported anyway. Well, as the player I should have the ability to leave my LATW teams unsupported without arbitrary consequences, and I should have the ability to send my troops into certain death without arbitrary consequences, like they walk right past an enemy unit at 10m without firing a shot.

Arguing that it is reasonable for 20 men whose mission is to kill one another walk right past each other in plain sight because you think it reflects good tactics just makes you look like you are unwilling to accept that CM is less than perfect.

Lastly, not even BTS agrees with you. Check this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013896.html

Jeff Heidman

[David Aitken]

Runyan99 wrote (in thread "Sneak command in v1.1b22"):

> In play against the computer today two of my squads were Sneaking side by side through some woods, when they both spotted an enemy flamethrower DIRECTLY in front of them which was firing at the 3rd squad in the platoon. I expected these 2 squads to either 1) Stop and fire at the flamethrower or 2) Continue sneaking but fire on the move.

> They did neither. They continued to move right next to and past the flamethrower, even as it continued to fire. Once both squads had PASSED, the Green flamethrower unit surrendered.

So what's the problem here? Your third squad was being fired upon and was presumably taking cover or returning fire. Your first and second squads overcame the enemy unit in question and it surrendered.

When opposing forces meet, especially on a small scale, the automatic reaction is not necessarily to open fire. Regardless of the wisdom of such feelings, a soldier is as likely to want to avoid bloodshed as he is to want to kill the enemy. Part of the training of a soldier is to instill in him a hatred for the enemy and an automatic impulse to kill, because the human response is to try to resolve the situation without violence, despite the inherent danger. There is also the element of fear – if you shoot, the enemy will shoot back – and it is not unknown for opposing forces to pass each other by in surprise.

Furthermore, if a Sneaking squad encouters an enemy unit and automatically opens fire, they start an engagement and attract the attention of nearby enemy forces. As the intention of the Sneak command is to avoid contact at all costs, the reaction when encountering the enemy should not necessarily be to open fire. If the enemy fires, your squad will return fire. But if no-one fires, there is the potential for an engagement to be avoided, and even for the enemy to be captured without bloodshed.

David

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sure, but in how many of these situations is the enemy a serious threat? Opposing squads might spot each other across an open field, but that's not a big problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you insist on clouding the issue? The threat level is not the issue. It never has been the issue and never will.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only contentious situation I've heard of is where two squads Sneak past each other in woodland.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you are not reading the posts. This happens in ANY situation where visual contact range is reduced including heavy fog, urban, night and yes heavy woods.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The chances of this happening would be greatly reduced if people allowed their men to stop and look around, as I keep saying, instead of just marching them straight towards the enemy and waiting for contact. The more you stop, the greater the chance that the enemy will walk into you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the risk of repeating myself this is just more bull****.

YOU are using gamey tactics as a work-around and trying to rationalize the behavior as somehow being “realistic”. This “stopping” to listen is pure bull. Listening is not why you do it (whether you know it or not). I have never seen nor heard of any huge benefit of having sneaking units stop in regards to their spotting abilities. There is only a marginal gain in spotting for units using the “SNEAK” command because they are already moving very slowly and quietly. On top of that, the engagement ranges we are talking about are very short. So, spotting, once the LOS is not blocked is often a given.

What you are really doing is EXACTLY as I described above: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>…having your squad/team move for 15-30 seconds...stop and hide...move for 15-30 seconds...stop and hide...etc. etc. all so you don't risk walking right past an enemy "SNEAKING" in the other direction! This is NOT done for 'stealth' so don't confuse yourself. No, this is done so that the AI does not walk opposing units through/past each other at point blank range without anybody firing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are trying to rationalize this as some ‘super-stealth’ mode. It is not. You are simply doing the only thing you can do with the limited command set and the artificial 60-second turns the game imposes on us. And on a side note: You are doing the exact same thing that every other experienced player has been doing for a very, very long time, including me. But this is just a work around and an inadequate one at that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is an issue in woods, in which situation spotting takes longer, and if the enemy is waiting for you they'll have seen you and opened fire before you see them, whereupon the Sneak command would work its magic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm…then perhaps you need lessons from me? I frequently spot the enemy first while “SNEAKING” and the enemy is in ambush. It happens most often when I have the more experienced troops. But, my oh so experienced troops will continue to “SNEAK” right on into the kill zone unless I plot 5-10m advances per 60 seconds, over and over again. Whereas in reality the unit would simply “MOVE TO CONTACT” and stop as soon as the ambush was seen instead of moving into the kill zone like robots.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am against the unnecessary modification of the game. By that I mean, broadly speaking, the addition of features requested by those who can't seem to use the available features properly, or who become upset when their units don't do exactly as they had intended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By this same ‘logic’ you could argue that the “CRAWL” command should be removed… Another stawman? Absolutely. Nobody asked or mentioned this, save you. I would expect units with a “MOVE TO CONTACT” order to react differently according to the situation and their experience level, their morale level, etc. BUT, in general, I would expect them to take cover and fire on the first enemy seen and not stick to their order to move like robots and ignore the enemy they have just spotted..

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>> I dont want my men continuing to walk on after they discover an enemy ambush ahead.

If it really is an ambush, chances are the enemy will fire, in which case the Sneak command would be perfectly adequate. But that misses the point, which is that if you allow your men to stop and look around every so often, they will have a much greater chance of (1) spotting the enemy approaching or an enemy ambush, or (2) catching the enemy coming in the opposite direction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don’t see it do you? Having your men “look around” is bull. The gain from not moving is very, very small for units using the “SNEAK” command. They are already using slow, stealthy movement. All you gain is a required work-around because of the turn structure. I have spotted units in ambush AS MY MEN WERE MOVING many, many times. Before I also started using this lame work-around tactic you seem to think is so realistic, my units would continue to sneak forward until the end of the turn or until the were fired upon.

In reality a sneaking unit should have the option to take cover at the first sign of the enemy. NOT as you suggest only after they have moved their requited/plotted 10m per minute! Here is your situation that is so much better and more realistic: In a heavy woods a squad starts it’s 10m plot for the minute…moves for 10-15 seconds and then sits…and sits….next turn….moves 10m and sits….and sits…next turn moves one meter spots enemy units after moving one meter but wait! they can’t take cover nor can they fire, no they must continue to move the remainder of their required 10m move. When they do finally stop they are just on top of the enemy’s ambush marker…just as the MGs open fire. Yeah, that works well. I would expect you to now suggest that we should have used 5m plots? :roll:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>> And don't tell the only reasonable way to advance is to sneak 5 meters a minute. That'd be the way I'd do it if I had 2-3 hours time to take my objectives, but I'm usually on a tight schedule.

Where did you get those figures from? Just because someone suggests being more cautious doesn't mean you have to grind to a halt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because if you don’t you risk spotting an enemy unit…and having you men do NOTHING for 55 seconds. That is except continue to walk more and more into the enemy’s kill zone.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>> It's tough **** being a pointman in my company, but that's the way it is. Advance until you meet the enemy, then hit the dirt and wait for backup.

I'd like to see you imposing such doctrine on real soldiers – or trying it for yourself in woodland or a demolished city. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read a book, that is what being pointman is all about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If anything is gamey, it's the fact, as has been discussed before, that battles in CM tend to progress much quicker than they do in reality. It's exactly this kind of situation which is responsible. In reality your men wouldn't just march on until they fall over the enemy – they would advance very slowly, in woodland in particular, taking plenty of opportunities to stop and look around. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what you seem to forget is that you units are just that units. Not single men. When you plot a “SNEAK” command THEY ARE ALREADY taking short stops and listening. Using bounding over-watch, etc. etc.

Quit trying to rationalize the work-around that everybody has been using for over six freaking months into some great, superior and enlightened tactic that you discovered, because its not.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 12-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree. Everyone knows that it is just not possible for a platoon leader to say "Move that way until you run into something, then shoot at it".

That would be completely unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have got to be kidding! Giving a team or a squad the order to take point and to drop and take cover at the first sign of the enemy in heavy terrain is somehow “unrealistic”?!?!?!?!?

You people baffle me sometimes, you really do...

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

You have got to be kidding! Giving a team or a squad the order to take point and to drop and take cover at the first sign of the enemy in heavy terrain is somehow “unrealistic”?!?!?!?!?

You people baffle me sometimes, you really do...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh.

Scott, relax and learn to appreciate sarcasm. I know that this is an internet forum, but I thought I laid it one thick enough that it would get through.

Jeff Heidman

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> Everyone knows that it is just not possible for a platoon leader to say "Move that way until you run into something, then shoot at it".

If you had bothered to read the whole thread, you would have seen that Runyan99 has made this point and I have explained my reasoning.

> You continue to contrive specific examples that support your point while ignoring the examples that do not. You state that it is ok for two squads across a field to ignore each other, but why is that? Maybe I do not WANT my squad to ignore another one across a field!

The point is that the enemy unit does not present an immediate threat to your squad. If it opens fire, your squad will return fire – but otherwise your men will wait for specific orders. There is no problem with that, unless you want to claim that the squad is not doing precisely what you had in mind – but soldiers will never do precisely what you had in mind, either in CM or in reality.

> You can't just show a single example, say how your system deals with that specific example, and declare victory. You need to show that in all cases your system works in a realistic and manageable manner.

That is the basis of my argument Jeff. This "move to contact" order would probably work in the specific circumstance where opposing forces trip over each other in heavy woods, but what about when your squad catches a glimpse of an enemy unit in the distance? Should "move to contact" be a stealthy advance or a bold offense? It is this which will cause as much trouble as it prevents.

> The interface should not enforce what some particular person defines as good tactics. If ordering a squad to advance into those woods until contact will result in that squad getting blown away, so what?

So that is very clearly bad tactics – not as defined by a particular person, but as defined by anyone with half a clue on the subject – and as such should not be exclusively supported in the interface.

> That onus is on the player. If he gives bad orders, he should pay the price. The game should not keep him from doing something stupid, since then the game must define what is "correct" procedure in *every* case, which is clearly undesirable.

Indeed, but neither should the game provide the player with bad orders to give. You are provided with commands, the building blocks of orders. A player who never issues their units more than one command per turn is a bad player. A proper order will comprise several commands. Providing a spectrum of different commands is to endorse the ignorance of proper orders.

> This is just like the bazooka debate, where you made the interesting claim that having LATW teams sit and stare at each other at short range because they have no personal weapons is completely realistic because they shouldn't be unsupported anyway. Well, as the player I should have the ability to leave my LATW teams unsupported without arbitrary consequences, and I should have the ability to send my troops into certain death without arbitrary consequences, like they walk right past an enemy unit at 10m without firing a shot.

You increasingly seem unprepared to do any lateral thinking. Exactly what is the problem if two AT teams are in close proximity but fail to engage in combat? You don't know exactly what they're doing, and CM does not simulate exactly what they're doing. CM works on abstractions, and as such, it is a poor basis for complaint when you see something in the game which doesn't look right. If there is some serious anomaly involved, you are justified in complaining – but not just because something doesn't look or work exactly as you were expecting.

> Lastly, not even BTS agrees with you. Check this thread:

Actually, Steve endorses the basis of my argument.

Big Time Software wrote:

> The main problem is determining what is "contact". Is contact a MMG firing at you from 1000m, or is it only another Squad in effective small arms range (oh... say 100m)? And depending on what terrain you are in, and the type of "contact", does the unit stop or keep on going?

David

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, knock off the heated discussion. There is ABSOLUTELY no need to get all hot under the colar about this issue. Let's keep this a discussion and not some sort of "who can abuse the other guy more" contest. Otherwise I'll lock this one up pronto. Scott, you in particular are in mind when I say this.

Now, doing my part to keep this a discussion...

We have talked about a "Move to Contact" command several times very recently. We understand that there is, in fact, a need for such a command. We are also painfully aware that it is NOT easy to implement quickly or correctly.

Sure, we could toss in an order that is labled "Move to Contact" very easily, but I can promise you that nobody would be even remotely happy with it. So unhappy that the player wouldn't use it but would instead spend his valuable gaming time bitching about it on this BBS

The main problem is that a whole lot of TacAI programming, testing, tweaking, testing, tweaking, testing, tweaking, etc. is needed for this order to work correctly. It is a huge undertaking. Anybody that has been here and seen discussions about targeting, the Hunt order, when to do evasive moves, etc. should know that this is not an easy thing to implement.

Since there are fairly adequate work arounds in the game as is, the "Move to Contact" order is not a high priority for us. It will not be programmed into CM until we rewrite the game engine. If it were easier to do than that, or there were less important things on The List, it would already be in the game.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

David posted while I was composing my own post. This is the most important thing that he said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is the basis of my argument Jeff. This "move to contact" order would probably work in the specific circumstance where opposing forces trip over each other in heavy woods, but what about when your squad catches a glimpse of an enemy unit in the distance? Should "move to contact" be a stealthy advance or a bold offense? It is this which will cause as much trouble as it prevents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well put. Unless we do a crud load of TacAI programming, followed by repeated cycles of testing and tweaking, it will in fact "cause as much trouble as it prevents". Probably cause even MORE trouble.

You guys, unless you were Beta testers, have NO idea how hard it was to get (say) tank targeting behavior to the place it is today. I can't even guess at how many man hours were spent on this one feature before releasing the Beta Demo even, not to mention 1.0 or the most recent 1.1 patch. We spent the time on this because it is critical and there is very little chance that the player can work around logic errors. Move to Contact is not nearly as necessary, but it would probably involve a similar amount of effort to make it work even "OK". So for this reason alone, it isn't going to happen any time soon.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

I cna always count on David to only look at that which supports his conclusions, no matter how contrived.

BTS (actually Steve) comes right out and states that they are looking into a "Assault Move" and a "Move to Contact" order. Of course, you take one comment out of context and ignore the blatant comment stating that they disagree with you.

And your response to the LATW issue is *precisely* what I mean.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Exactly what is the problem if two AT teams are in close proximity but fail to engage in combat? You don't know exactly what they're doing, and CM does not simulate exactly what they're doing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM simulates *precisely* what they are doing: absolutely nothing. Sure, there are *some* examples where it might be the case where they would not engage in combat, but the problem is that your supposedly ideal system makes them not engage in combat every single time. Under no circumstances can they fire at each other at short range. You are using a contrived example (where there is some conceivable reason for them to hold fire) and claiming that it is justification for every case.

Try a little lateral thinking David. Like, for instance, the idea that the game could be improved (thank God BTS does not have your viewpoint) or that, heaven forbid, you might just be wrong once in a while.

Your entire argument can be summed up by the contention that any time anything happens that is not reasonable, it is an "abstraction". Bullocks. Sometimes things happen that just plain are not reasonable, and hence they should be adjusted.

Now, it might be the case (as Steve mentioned) that some things are difficult to implement, but that hardly means they are not desirable, or that the current system is not flawed. If your argument is that the current system is flawed, but that the effort is not worth it, then stick to that and dispense with the argument that the current system is impervious to improvement.

Funny how there is *nothing* in the game that you find to be TOO much control. Apparently CM has struck the exact perfect balance.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The point is that the enemy unit does not present an immediate threat to your squad. If it opens fire, your squad will return fire – but otherwise your men will wait for specific orders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. What they do is continue on their merry way just as if they had never spotted the enemy for the remainder of their plot…just like robots. Even if they are walking into a ‘kill zone’.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no problem with that, unless you want to claim that the squad is not doing precisely what you had in mind – but soldiers will never do precisely what you had in mind, either in CM or in reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your stawman arguments are really beginning to tire me. Simply telling a squad to drop to cover when the enemy is spotted is infinitely more realistic than either having them continue on as if they saw nothing, or the micro management of 5-10m plots you seem to endorse.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This "move to contact" order would probably work in the specific circumstance where opposing forces trip over each other in heavy woods, but what about when your squad catches a glimpse of an enemy unit in the distance? Should "move to contact" be a stealthy advance or a bold offense? It is this which will cause as much trouble as it prevents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It should be neither (another strawman?!). A single command does not an advance make. Whether that advance is “stealthy” or “bold” should not depend on the type of command given to a single unit. The command is as simple as the name we have been giving it. The units should/could move until first contact, then take cover. Period. If it is not used properly, it will fail. So what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Big Time Software wrote:

> The main problem is determining what is "contact". Is contact a MMG firing at you from 1000m, or is it only another Squad in effective small arms range (oh... say 100m)? And depending on what terrain you are in, and the type of "contact", does the unit stop or keep on going?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, this never seemed to be a “problem” with the “HUNT” command, did it? Why would that be so?

Perhaps because now BTS already has a finished product and we are NOT talking about development code. No, we are talking about a patching a complete game. Programming the AI for this new parameter/command is not a quick and easy task to be done in a patch…thus I don’t expect it prior to CM2. But it should be no more difficult than the programming for the “HUNT” command and I see no reason not to expect it in CM2. I sure as hell don’t want to fight in Stalingrad with SMG squads at point blank range without it!

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Jeff:

Sorry, but next to some of the other arguments your sarcasm did not appear that much of a ‘leap’.

Ping not withstanding smiles do serve a useful purpose on the Internet sometimes.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Steve:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>. Move to Contact is not nearly as necessary, but it would probably involve a similar amount of effort to make it work even "OK". So for this reason alone, it isn't going to happen any time soon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of use are not asking for it "any time soon". We just are voicing our concerns that it be included in CM2 (or ASAP).

I was one of the first to ask for this command. Yet I don't think I have uttered a peep about it in close to six months...

But the TCP patch is soon to be out, and I still have not heard if it will be ever in CM, or CM2 for that matter. Then when I saw a misleading post suggesting that SNEAK now performed this "MOVE TO CONTACT" funtion...I raised the issue again.

Will we see a command/parameter such as "MOVE TO CONTACT" in CM2?

BTW I would much prefer a configurable parameter than simply another command

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[David Aitken]

Scott Clinton wrote:

> Will we see a command/parameter such as "MOVE TO CONTACT" in CM2?

Good to see you're paying close attention to what people say, rather than just recognising whether someone agrees with you or not and responding accordingly.

Big Time Software wrote:

> Since there are fairly adequate work arounds in the game as is, the "Move to Contact" order is not a high priority for us. It will not be programmed into CM until we rewrite the game engine.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Funny, this never seemed to be a “problem” with the “HUNT” command, did it? Why would that be so?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhmmm... who said there were no "problems" with the way Hunt works? Certainly not a bunch of people on this Forum or quite a few of our Beta testers

Before we made Hunt largely ignore ANY small arms/infantry stuff the order was a real mess. Tanks would stop for practically any reason and would wail on whatever happened to trigger it. We have been tweaking this order ever since the order was first introduced (oh... about 2 years ago ). In fact, there were several changes made in various 1.1 Beta patches which affected the way the Hunt order works. In other words, we are still very much in the test/tweak state of being with this order.

As you say, we are not planning on doing MAJOR work (and this is nothing short of major) for a patch. To do so will harm CM2 - Eastern Front's timely release. It will also harm the eventual rewrite of the game engine. The reason is that it is NOT even remotely simple to implement, even though Hunt is largely working as we want it to right now. Actually, vehicle Hunt is coded to be almost the exact opposite of what a Move to Contact order would require.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Scott Clinton wrote:

> Will we see a command/parameter such as "MOVE TO CONTACT" in CM2?

Good to see you're paying close attention to what people say, rather than just recognising whether someone agrees with you or not and responding accordingly.

Big Time Software wrote:

> Since there are fairly adequate work arounds in the game as is, the "Move to Contact" order is not a high priority for us. It will not be programmed into CM until we rewrite the game engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can always count on David to address the meat of the issue.

(Scott, that was more sarcasm).

Anyway, it would seem we have our answer to the question.

BTS has recognized the limitations of the current system, and will look into adressing it in an appropriate time frame. Which is not any time soon.

Jeff

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> I cna always count on David to only look at that which supports his conclusions, no matter how contrived.

You are doing exactly the same thing. However, I am not inclined to accuse you of doing this, or anything else, by default. I take your arguments at face value, instead of assuming that you are acting in a certain manner or being driven by a certain belief. You, on the other hand, make a point of entering discussions on the basis of your conviction that I will dispute any suggestion that the game should be modified, which is obviously untrue to anyone who keeps an eye on all of the discussions on this board, rather than just looking for the criteria "Aitken"+"disagree".

> Try a little lateral thinking David.

Sounds good, unfortunately that's what I just said to you. Try saying things because you have reason, not just because you feel the need to argue with me.

> We can always count on David to address the meat of the issue.

There you go again – you only care that I'm speaking and why, not what I'm actually saying.

David

[Guest Scott Clinton]

David:

What happened to your "realism" argument?????

According to all of your previous posts the command should NEVER be added into the game, re-write or not.

I did not think that asking Steve for a clarification on what an re-write of the "engine" is would be too much, and apparently neither did he.

BTW the post was addressed to him, ie someone with a clue, not you.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

which is obviously untrue to anyone who keeps an eye on all of the discussions on this board, rather than just looking for the criteria "Aitken"+"disagree".

> Try a little lateral thinking David.

Sounds good, unfortunately that's what I just said to you. Try saying things because you have reason, not just because you feel the need to argue with me.

> We can always count on David to address the meat of the issue.

There you go again – you only care that I'm speaking and why, not what I'm actually saying.

David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David, don't flatter yourself into thinking that I enter any discussion based on whether or not you are doing your normal schtick.

The difference between you an me is that I am willing to judge any argument based on its merits rather than whether or not it conflicts with my idea of the status quo. My track record speaks for itself. I am as willing to defend the way CM works when appropriate as I am willing to point out when it does not work.

I am not afraid to agree with those who I have argued with in the past, nor am I afraid to argue with those who I have agreed with in the past. But in neither case will I make an argument to defend the status quo simply because it is the status quo.

Jeff Heidman

[David Aitken]

Scott Clinton wrote:

> What happened to your "realism" argument?????

> According to all of your previous posts the command should NEVER be added into the game, re-write or not.

Sorry, did I change my mind? Not only does it seem you're not reading my words, but now you're seeing words that I've never written.

> I did not think that asking Steve for a clarification on what an re-write of the "engine" is would be too much, and apparently neither did he.

It says a lot when you ask the question in response to the answer.

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> David, don't flatter yourself into thinking that I enter any discussion based on whether or not you are doing your normal schtick.

I'm not talking about whether or not you enter a discussion, but how you do it. The fact that you define something as my "normal schtick" illustrates your bias, and the comment "What a surprise. Yet another example where Combat Missions is perfection and any perceived problem is evidence of the players basic stupidity!", as some of your opening words in this argument, is a perfect example. It is clear that you were not concentrating on the topic, but rather simply arguing on the premise that I am speaking from some unshakable belief in the perfection of the game.

> But in neither case will I make an argument to defend the status quo simply because it is the status quo.

And you imply that I will, which shows just how flawed some of your convictions are.

David

[Jarmo]

Hey, I go away for a couple of hours and another interesting

debate has been concluded without me!

I assume the "rewrite of the engine" means there'll be no

advancing to contact in CM2?

BTW, a good thing I was away. Otherwise I would have flamed

Jeff H for his sarcasm, that I took at face value. Man! You gootta

use them smilingens or wear asbestos underwear.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, time to close this up.

Steve