V1.1 A MAJOR BUG ???

[Guest ciks]

Exactly my point, Jeff.

Thank God, i'm not alone!

[Bruno Weiss]

Henri wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You get a court-appointed lawyer, ant it is Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, lol Henri. Good one.

FotbolHead wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The side in agreement with tanks changing their facing and not just rotating the turret have based this on historical information that they have read.

The side that disagrees with the "new" way tanks work admits that they have no data to support their view, they just think or feel it's wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an important crux of the entire issue. The discussions as to "try it and see", and/or "I tried it and I like it", or "I tried it and I don't like it", do not address what you have zeroed in on and what I've posted before and which I have not seen substantially addressed. There is a vast difference between the inclusion of something in CM, and the subsequent experimentation of that something with regard to how it plays out in application in CM, "and" the justification for inclusion in CM in the first place generally being agreed upon as needing historical evidence and a sufficient commonality of scope.

I would disagree with your summation for the following reasons:

(a) The only substantiation of historical relevance thus far stated, is that it was decided in this forum that German "Training" doctrine taught this tactic. Unless I missed something, I have not seen where it has been acknowledged or generally agreed to that this theory of training ever transpired into actual documented battlefield practice, or more importantly that such a practice was of a sufficient commonality of scope to justify inclusion into CM. At least from what I've read, not under the often written justifications in this forum of exclusions of other desired features for the exact same reasons. It has mainly been a logical presumption, but not one based upon documentation of scope.

( The fact that, "German" training doctrinal theory stressed the tactic, does not address American, British, or Commonwealth training doctrine. I may have missed that also, but I have not seen where it was agreed to that those Nationalities specified and taught the same tactic. Yet, the feature has been adopted to "all" turreted armor regardless of Nationality.

© A thousand pictures of German and Allied armor in the midst of combat can be shown with vehicles firing on targets with their turrets aimed at the target, and their hulls aimed substantially in a different direction. To me it would seem then that I must conclude in all of these many many cases, unless the photographer happened by coincidence to catch the picture at the moment just "prior" to the vehicle turning its hull toward the target, that the voluminous photographic evidence would seem to repudiate the logical presumptions being made that "German Training doctrine", equated to a commonality of scope of sufficient magnitude to presume it was something that was automatically subscribed to. So much so, and to the extent then that it would also automatically apply to that of American, British, and Commonwealth armored tactical theory and training, as well as commonly applied battlefield practice.

It would seem to me then, that the reasons for the new change are based upon the idea that this may be the right and proper thing to do, possibly of a presumed logical extention, and possibly because it provides a fix to a game problem, and possibly for a good many other reasons including the popularity of the idea. But not because of historical evidence of a commonality of scope that it was applicable to all Nationalities, and all turreted vehicles, in battlefield practice as an automatic tactical reaction.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-12-2001).]

[PawBroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xavier:

Merci Pawbroon <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

De rien.

Il ne faudrait pas décourager les rares français qui postent encore dans le forum officiel.

Bonne année en passant pour Magnus et toi...

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

You are not Obsessive-CMpulsive, you are Allied-Retentive.

Mark IV

[This message has been edited by PawBroon (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Panther131]

Jeff H. Agreed. Wow...I actually agree with Jeff H.

Well, seriously I agree completely. A little bit more control over your units is absolutley necessary. Way too often I find in some situations I am shouting "Just shoot" or "Dont turn the hull" when I have ordered it to rotate a certain way or move a certain way and it would literally do the opposite of what I ordered it to. This is a problem becouse it becomes so very frustrating to watch in horror as your 300 point AFV gets itself killed becouse it decided to "turn its hull " at infantry 30 - 40 meters away. I had brought this up before but it was pretty much knocked down before anybody really responded by Babra. This person stated that it was my tactics, and that I shouldnt be out in the open. Geesh. 30 - 40 meters away? in the open? A halftrack conscript crew being targeted 30 - 40 meters away while I am in a firefight with a sherman firefly? Geesh. Typical peng response.

Heh.

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Guest ciks]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A thousand pictures of German and Allied armor in the midst of combat can be shown with vehicles firing on targets with their turrets aimed at the target, and their hulls aimed substantially in a different direction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

they were shooting while in "Fast Move" order

[aka_tom_w]

My previous issue and PROBLEM with this AI hull rotation thing was that it was TOO predictable.

I must withdraw that.

I'm not one to argue for MORE mirco management.

I think they way it is now with AI directed hull rotation (I played Villes Bocage last night) is not as automated as I thought.

I like the idea that each tank and each TC under AI command has a MIND of its own, and doesn't do EXACTLY what you tell it all the time. Remember, this is the SAME for both commanders so we are all hobbled by TCs under AI control that are well, disobedient. That part does not realy bother me so much as the fact that if the AI hull rotation was so automated you could ALWAYS could on it, that you could exploit it.

I am now of the opinion that is NOT so predictable that you can exploit it. I think EVERY battle field situation is different and AI hull rotation is not exactly predictable, this has a the effect that it cannot be exploited for gamey play, but it may drive someflooks here NUTS now that hull rotation is NOT under their direct micromanagement control.

I'm not having a big problem with this one, other that the one time I saw that Panther Twitch/Dance/do the "hokey pokey" whatever...

I think that twitching tank syndrome should be looked at because it does take away from the immersion factor and really reminds you are infact playing with a computer that can't make up its mind.

but over all I think v1.1 is a HUGE improvement.

And lets not EVER forget HOW much work went into TCP/IP! for me that head to head live TCP/IP play is STILL the BIGGEST thrill!

Thanks again!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Jeff Heidman]

My concern now is that there appears to be a re-emergence of a problem that got a HUGE amount of discussion back in the 1.03 days, namely the propensity for vehicles to rotate to engage low priority targets to their flanks and inevitably getting waxed as a result.

This was discussed a lot. I had thought that by 1.05 the issue was mostly resolved with tanks generally not turning to engage low threat targets of opportunity to their flanks without an explicit order to do so. Now that behavor appears to be back.

Quite simply, I would prefer that my armor assets never turn their turret (much less their hull) more than 10-20 degrees to engage a non-threat target unless I order them to do so.

I cannot think of a single instance where I had wished that a unit of mine had turned to engage a non-threat target during the turn. If I want the tank to engage some infantry off to the side (and I often do), I can wait until the orders phase and order it to do so, and live with the consequences. I can think of several cases from the pre-1.05 days, and now from last night, where I lost units that I should not necessarily have because the TacAI decided it knew better than I do about where my tanks should face.

I do not even mind the TacAI doing things that result in undesireable effects as long as they do it for reasons that make overall sense. Turning the entire tank away from a serious AT threat to engage a bunch of infantry 350m away that are being well dealt with by other assets does not make any sense at all.

I like the fact that when appropriate the TacAI does stuff that I do not tell it to, even if it does result in it getting waxed. If it would have been a TD over on my flank that my Panther turned to engage resulting in a side hull penetration, I would have applauded my opponent for making a good move (flanking my asset with deadly forces on both sides), but that was not the case, so I am just annoyed that I lost a tank because the computer is stupid, not because I did anything wrong.

Jeff Heidman

[Fuerte]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

As KwazyDog has told me in private, he wonders why BTS even bothered doing the Beta Patches if no one was going to use them.

...

Sorry to keep on rambeling like this, saying the same thing over and over, but trust me, this is the exact same sentiment in the BTS camp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the problem is also with BTS... if they get upset if someone posts a bug report.

I don't know if the new behaviour is good or bad, but because there already is a command to set the direction of the vehicle, then if the AI didn't NEVER change the direction automatically (within a minute), it would still be playable. The player would be responsible for moving the tank and setting it's direction. But because the AI already moves the vehicle in some cases (when new threats appear the tank may retreat automatically), it can also change the direction. But if it didn't do it, it would still be ok. Better or worse, I don't know.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

As KwazyDog has told me in private, he wonders why BTS even bothered doing the Beta Patches if no one was going to use them.

The way I look at this situatiom is that for those that did use the beta patches, found no problem with this hull rotation thing and now that the final patch is out, we get bitchin' from all around from people who didn't use the Beta patches. Like I keep saying, sounds like a "Johnny come lately" to me.

In other words, people had their chance to participate in the "creating" of this final patch and they didn't take part and now they see fit to complain about something they don't like.

Sorry to keep on rambeling like this, saying the same thing over and over, but trust me, this is the exact same sentiment in the BTS camp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is, I *did* particpate in the beta patch, at least I have been using them for quite some time. The issue I am talking about just never came up. If it had come up, I would certainly have said something then instead of now, bu it didn't.

The thing is, I am not a professional beta tester. I made no attempt to exercise the betas in an effort to assure myself that they were perfect in every way.

I am rather surprised to hear that BTS is upset about this. I certainly understand their desire for finality for CMBO, but *I* am not the one who made the bug, nor am I the one responsible for finding it in a timely manner. It seems like they are getting mad at the messenger.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-12-2001).]

[jshandorf]

All I have to say is that I don't want any tank of mine to rotate it's hull at a NONE AT threat. Period.

Wouldn't it be simple to code that?

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fuerte:

So the problem is also with BTS... if they get upset if someone posts a bug report.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. You missed my point. BTS will receive criticism when it's backed by something other than speculism. The majority of the people complaining about this issue have not EVEN TRIED the new patch yet.

And my other point was that they released FOUR Beta Patches for people to try out before the final was released and people, for whatever reason (which still escapes me), chose not to use them and now they're complaining about the final product.

Ever hear of "taxation without representation"? Well consider the latest patch taxation. BTS gave all of us a chance of "representation" before they taxed us and for those that didn't "represent" themselves are now complaining.

It's like bitching about a newly elected polititcian, but you didn't go out and vote yourself. So what right do you have in complaining then? BTS gave us a chance to vote and this is what we got.

IMHO, the people that are having trouble of understanding this concept apparently don't understand what democracy is, or fail to participate, of which I don't understand.

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

"Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII

"Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

No. You missed my point. BTS will receive criticism when it's backed by something other than speculism. The majority of the people complaining about this issue have not EVEN TRIED the new patch yet.

And my other point was that they released FOUR Beta Patches for people to try out before the final was released and people, for whatever reason (which still escapes me), chose not to use them and now they're complaining about the final product.

Ever hear of "taxation without representation"? Well consider the latest patch taxation. BTS gave all of us a chance of "representation" before they taxed us and for those that didn't "represent" themselves are now complaining.

It's like bitching about a newly elected polititcian, but you didn't go out and vote yourself. So what right do you have in complaining then? BTS gave us a chance to vote and this is what we got.

IMHO, the people that are having trouble of understanding this concept apparently don't understand what democracy is, or fail to participate, of which I don't understand.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?!

Okay, bub. I DOWNLOADED AND PLAYED EVERY BETA PATCH! BUT I didn't see this problem, but odds are it was because I don't put my armor in a situation where it has to swing 90 degrees to engage targets so I never saw it. BUT if the problem is there then HELL YA I want it changed.

It is stupid for ANY tank to swing it's hull to engaged infantry outside the AT threat range (i.e. 200 meters).

So climb down off your frickin' horse and quit tellin' people they have no right to complain. They bought and paid for the game so yes they do.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

[Jeff Heidman]

Maximus, what are you talking about?

This has nothing to do with democracy. There is no vote, there is no taxation. it is a company trying to put out the best product possible, and doing a very good job of it.

Whether or not someone chose to partake of the opportunity to test the beta is irrelevant, and many of the people you appear to be addressing DID use the beta. I did.

How you get from people not noticing a problem until now to them not understanding democracy is beyond me.

Try a little less rhetoric, and a little more substance.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

BTW, I like your sig. Minsc and Boo are a riot. They get a spot in my BG2 party just for the laughs. Combine them with the talking sword, and you have a perfect match.

"Butt-kicking for goodness!"

Jeff Heidman

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

All I have to say is that I don't want any tank of mine to rotate it's hull at a NONE AT threat. Period.

Wouldn't it be simple to code that?

Jeff

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Define a NON-Anti tank threat when FOW tells your TC he does not know what AT equipment those two men might be packing over in that tree line?

IS that a broken two man remnant of a rifle squad?

OR a two man AT team about to toast you?

Or a couple of FO's??

The Tac AI (Read: virtual TC), because of FOW, (which is still not as complete or extreme as it could be) cannot know with certainty if a the two men it spots at the treeline are a threat or not and so for now at least they ARE treated as a threat.

I understand that the AI has been programed to know about, easily identify, and IGNORE, bailed crews, so we are ahead of the game on that one!

your thoughts?

-tom w

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Define a NON-Anti tank threat when FOW tells your TC he does not know what AT equipment those two men might be packing over in that tree line?

IS that a broken two man remnant of a rifle squad?

OR a two man AT team about to toast you?

Or a couple of FO's??

The Tac AI (Read: virtual TC), because of FOW, (which is still not as complete or extreme as it could be) cannot know with certainty if a the two men it spots at the treeline are a threat or not and so for now at least they ARE treated as a threat.

I understand that the AI has been programed to know about, easily identify, and IGNORE, bailed crews, so we are ahead of the game on that one!

your thoughts?

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

None AT threat:

1. Any infantry type at a range > 200m.

2. Any identified vehicle without a gun capable of penetrating your side/rear armor.

3. Any identified gun which cannot credibly penetrate your side/rear armor.

Clearly, unidentified vehicles and guns are a different story, since you have no idea what their threat level might be, hence they will liekly be treated as a threat regardless.

Personally, when it comes to infantry, I would go so far as to say it is not a threat until it is within 100m, or has actually fired an AT round at you.

Ideally, you would have a threat scale, with dedicated AT weapons on one end, and scaling down. But for the purpose of KISS, I would be happy with a binary threat/non-threat determination. There could even be some fudge for crew error.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Panther131]

Maximus: would you kindly let BTS comment on how they feel about this themselves?

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-12-2001).]

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Define a NON-Anti tank threat when FOW tells your TC he does not know what AT equipment those two men might be packing over in that tree line?

IS that a broken two man remnant of a rifle squad?

OR a two man AT team about to toast you?

Or a couple of FO's??

The Tac AI (Read: virtual TC), because of FOW, (which is still not as complete or extreme as it could be) cannot know with certainty if a the two men it spots at the treeline are a threat or not and so for now at least they ARE treated as a threat.

I understand that the AI has been programed to know about, easily identify, and IGNORE, bailed crews, so we are ahead of the game on that one!

your thoughts?

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? Are you actually kidding or what?

If there is infantry within 200 meters of my tank I would have no problem with the tank turning its hull to engage because there COULD be an infantry AT weapon there and it CAN threaten the tank.

Now if there is some infantry spotted BEYOND 200 meters can you at ALL explain why it would be a good idea to swing the hull?

Gawd, I really wish people would think about what they are talking about before they ask such obvious questions.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote;

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is not a problem that is going to be fixed very easily. The TacAi is just not sophisticated enough. The only solution is to give the player the option to take some of that out of the hands of the TacAI. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, this is not the solution. As we have discussed before, doing so would get us in just as much hot water because we would be arguing over the threshold where the TacAI would ignore the player's choice because some new situation developed that could not have been anticipated during the Orders Phase. Very much like the months and months of testing/tweaking that went on with player designated targets vs. what the AI wanted to do.

The solution is to have a built in "memory" for each unit and to have quite a bit of logic built to utilize it. This is not something we think we can do for CM2, unfortunately. So we will just have to find a way of making this system work better for now.

Fuerte wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So the problem is also with BTS... if they get upset if someone posts a bug report.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not the case. We do not get upset when people post "bug reports" no matter when they happen. We do get upset with people who complain about something they have never tried themselves, then publicly ridicule and berate people that have as being somehow incompetent, yet at the same time saying "I don't beta test because it isn't my job". It is a convenient way to shield oneself from the same criticism, so it is best for people in glass houses to not throw boulders.

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am rather surprised to hear that BTS is upset about this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misunderstand. We are not upset with people discussing this topic as such. We ARE upset with how it started off. I think Madmatt and I made that VERY clear a few pages ago, and credit goes to Bruno for realizing this and being far more constructive (and not insulting) since.

jshandorf wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All I have to say is that I don't want any tank of mine to rotate it's hull at a NONE AT threat. Period.

Wouldn't it be simple to code that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it isn't People are looking at this as a black and white issue with CLEAR parameters that can be predicted in every case. Wrong. It doesn't work that way. The 2 YEARS that we have been working on the TacAI has shown us that very, very, very few things that people think are "simple" are far more complicated than they are. And there will never be a perfect solution that fits all situations all the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is stupid for ANY tank to swing it's hull to engaged infantry outside the AT threat range (i.e. 200 meters).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is your opinion. And it is one that many people in this thread do not agree with. Turning a hull towards an infantry target allows the bow MG (which nearly all tanks have) to be brought to bear on the target. You are looking at this thing far too narrowly.

So... what does all this hubbub mean? I am not sure yet. Most of this thread is useless discussion, so it is hard to see what the real issues are (if any) that we should address. But we will continue to monitor it and see what, if anything, we should be scheduling for a 1.1.1 fix (which will contain only essential, game threatening fixes. No feature enhancements, no tweaks for the sake of tweaking, and certainly no major coding work).

Steve

[Bruno Weiss]

Maximus wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IMHO, the people that are having trouble of understanding this concept apparently don't understand what democracy is, or fail to participate, of which I don't understand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I'd have worn my best suit if I'd know I was running for mayor.

This statement hones in on my questioning of what process is used to include or exclude features in CM. I won't bother to reprint them, thus far they have not been addressed.

This statement though would make it appear that inclusion is by popularity of election. I know better than that, or thought that I did. But frankly, being one who was on the fence about squad level smoke grenades being included in CM, and subsequently reading they are not because of the lack of documentation and scope of commonality, I had arrived at the conclusion that such a principle made very good sense. Perhaps we should have a popular election to see if the idea of squad level smoke grenades also pass the inclusion test. (And, before this is misinterpreted. I am not attempting to insult BTS, I know full well they have ideals, and principles which they use to determine inclusion and exclusion. I am addressing Maximus assertion that the beta testing is some sort of a voting mechanism). And, to be sure I am calling BTS on how those well stated ideals and principles applied to the inclusion of the hull turning change.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-12-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

What? Are you actually kidding or what?

If there is infantry within 200 meters of my tank I would have no problem with the tank turning its hull to engage because there COULD be an infantry AT weapon there and it CAN threaten the tank.

Now if there is some infantry spotted BEYOND 200 meters can you at ALL explain why it would be a good idea to swing the hull?

Gawd, I really wish people would think about what they are talking about before they ask such obvious questions.

Jeff

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still think it is a FOW issue

RANGE FINDERS!!!!!!

What Range Finders???

How does Mr Virtual TC know that those two guys eyeing his tank in the woods over there are OUT of range, I say 250 m in this game just to be on the safe side because other that a personal GUESS how does mr. TC know he is out of range, Well he coudl fire a round or two from the main weapon and try to determine the range that way but we don't want him to waste time or rounds of ammo when there is NO threat,

How can he really know that possible threat is out of range?

Maybe its a Mortor team 200 m is NOT out of range for those pests! But, granted Mr. Virtual TC would find out quick enough if they were lobbing mortor rounds in his direction...

-tom w

[Bruno Weiss]

Steve (BTS) wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You misunderstand. We are not upset with people discussing this topic as such. We ARE upset with how it started off. I think Madmatt and I made that VERY clear a few pages ago, and credit goes to Bruno for realizing this and being far more constructive (and not insulting) since.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys, "All", let me make a statement here. Steve is very right, and I thank him for being forthright. The fact is, all of the hub bub about BTS being upset about the reporting of this, or discussing of this, or debating of this, was for the most part if not altogether created indirectly by none other than myself. It came about because in a momentary lapse of reason, if not table manners, I became overly sarcastic, bombastic, and demonstrated a unique ability to metamorphosis my human form into that of a jackass. Steve, MadMatt, Kwazydog, and I'm not sure but maybe Scott also, all called me on it, (verbally tossed me out the door), and rightfully so. I admit I was wrong, and I apologize for it. Not only because it became grossly unfair to BTS, and maybe Kwazydog too (caught in the crossfire late at night), but also because it detracted in a major way from the points of what were being discussed, and the concerns of those who were reporting what they were seeing or experiencing, and those who had concerns, as I do, as to the process of acceptance for the change. In that regard, it points out even further what Steve aptly made clear; if you want BTS to listen to what you are saying, it is much easier, more relevant, and less detracting if you keep it civil, provide them (as MadMatt put it), a modicum of respect (I'd say benefit of doubt, but either is pretty good), and even in the heat of debate remember we are all the same side. We may differ in opinion, but we need not differ in principle. (No I didn't say that, somebody like Thomas Jefferson did), but it's true.

Now, as the "jackass" of the week, and one who still believes there is some validity somewhere down deep in this discussion if we can find it, and with what little bit of an arse I have left after Steve and crew handed it back to me, will everyone please layoff BTS from the standpoint of accusations. They only serve to distract everyone, and I'm the one to blame for that aspect of this issue.

I know full well, whether some of us agree with them (BTS) on this or not, that they, like we, want the best thing for the product, and that means by dammies that we all share the same principle.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-12-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

(snip)

But we will continue to monitor it and see what, if anything, we should be scheduling for a 1.1.1 fix (which will contain only essential, game threatening fixes. No feature enhancements, no tweaks for the sake of tweaking, and certainly no major coding work).

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve

Thanks for the response here.

Its good to know you are still reading our rantings and debates.

As long as the v1.1 tac AI hull rotation is not totally automated and easily predicatable, I think its ok.

I have not found it completely predictable, so I don't think there is any thing there to exploit in a gamey way.

-tom w

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I still think it is a FOW issue

RANGE FINDERS!!!!!!

What Range Finders???

How does Mr Virtual TC know that those two guys eyeing his tank in the woods over there are OUT of range, I say 250 m in this game just to be on the safe side because other that a personal GUESS how does mr. TC know he is out of range, Well he coudl fire a round or two from the main weapon and try to determine the range that way but we don't want him to waste time or rounds of ammo when there is NO threat,

How can he really know that possible threat is out of range?

Maybe its a Mortor team 200 m is NOT out of range for those pests! But, granted Mr. Virtual TC would find out quick enough if they were lobbing mortor rounds in his direction...

-tom w

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I am just amazed at how the obvious just slips by you.

1. You are about to tell me that you no human who, from day to day, visually sights in targets at different ranges could not tell when something is "about" 200 meters away? You would have to be daft to believe that.

2. Please answer what good hull rotating your front armor would do against mortars? Mortars hit the TOP armor.

Once again, please think about what you are suggesting before you write it. It will save all of us here time and headaches.

Jeff

[FutbolHead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Henri wrote:

(snip

I would disagree with your summation for the following reasons:

(snip)

© A thousand pictures of German and Allied armor in the midst of combat can be shown with vehicles firing on targets with their turrets aimed at the target, and their hulls aimed substantially in a different direction. To me it would seem then that I must conclude in all of these many many cases, unless the photographer happened by coincidence to catch the picture at the moment just "prior" to the vehicle turning its hull toward the target, that the voluminous photographic evidence would seem to repudiate the logical presumptions being made that "German Training doctrine", equated to a commonality of scope of sufficient magnitude to presume it was something that was automatically subscribed to. So much so, and to the extent then that it would also automatically apply to that of American, British, and Commonwealth armored tactical theory and training, as well as commonly applied battlefield practice.

It would seem to me then, that the reasons for the new change are based upon the idea that this may be the right and proper thing to do, possibly of a presumed logical extention, and possibly because it provides a fix to a game problem, and possibly for a good many other reasons including the popularity of the idea. But not because of historical evidence of a commonality of scope that it was applicable to all Nationalities, and all turreted vehicles, in battlefield practice as an automatic tactical reaction.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only thing that invalidates my summation at this particular point in the thread is that you have finally offered up evidence to support your view, evidence that you suggest opposes the other side's opinion.

The problem with your photographic evidence is this. While it may be "voluminous", that only means something when put into perspective of the whole. How much combat is actually represented by ratio in pictures? How many photos are propaganda (See our great war machine in action)? These are nit-picky points, granted, but they have some validity.

Additionally, I disagree with you reduction of the significance of training doctrine. Yes, quite often in stressful situations, human beings don't do what they are supposed to do. This is represented quite nicely by the AI. However, when people aren't "freaking out", when they are acting on instinct or are reacting without thinking, that is heavily influenced by training. Generally, it's training that keeps people alive. Acting in contradiction to sound training gets people killed in combat.

You do seem to have valid concerns when you suggest the American tactics as well as other nations could or should be represented differently in terms of this AI feature.

But my main point was this, at least this time you have offered some evidence to support your view / contradict the other view rather than just saying you don't agree with it.