V1.1 A MAJOR BUG ???

[Maximus]

Thanks Steve. That was what I was trying to say in the first half of your post.

I didn't mean to say that BTS was pissed off or anything, what I meant to say was that they, (namely KwazyDog) was a little aggrivated that several of you all were complaining about something without having any in-game experience with it yet. In that response, I say, try playing a game or few. I think you will see that this feature is quite an improvement from the previous patches.

For example, I just played a QB with British Challenger tanks with FAST TURRETS, well guess what, they used their TURRETS, they didn't rotate their hulls hardly at all. Of course I never had them within infantry-AT range. IMHO, all this hubbub is going to come into play in only close-quarter battles where there is a target rich environment.

BTS, I wouldn't change anything and I'm serious! I think if these guys just started playing the damn game instead of sitting here and complaining about it, I think they'll start to like the feature.

The feature really plays in for the slow turret AFVs, it has hardly any effect on fast turreted vehicles. The fast turreted vehicles will use their turrets just as they should.

Regarding tanks as the Tiger tank, I believe it has IMPROVED the tanks survivability and deadlyness. It can get its gun to bear more quickly to dispose of threats (while getting its front armor to the front of a threat) instead of its hull just sitting there and rotating that SLOOOWWW turret.

But again, ALL of this comes down to FOW and the QUALITY of the crews, and maybe even the individual TC's personality, but I kinda doubt that one.

Try turning off FOW and seeing if any of this "erradic" behavior takes place. I bet it don't.

[FutbolHead]

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

Does anybody have a proof that tanks (even fast-turreted ones) in WWII rotated their hulls to face every pesky infantry unit, that appeared in LOS???

[This message has been edited by ciks (edited 01-12-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, since that isn't represented in the game, it hardly matters. I haven't observed tanks change facing to every infantry unit which appears in it's LOS.

. <----- That's the point that you missed.

The point I was making, is that while one camp was offering that decisions were made based on historical training information, the other camp was saying, but we disagree, we don't like it, without offering contradicting evidence or source material.

[Tiger]

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

Will this include the slope modifier for the front panther glacis Rexford mentioned in another thread? Charles mentioned it would be easy as the correct modifier is already in there, it's just using the wrong one vs HVAP.

Thanks,

Tiger

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hi Guys,

Actually, I think I should stand in here as Ima being quoted.

Max, I don't think aggravated is quite the right word (hehe, well maybe a little, but I think that issue has been cleared up thanks Bruno ). I was just a little dismayed earlier in this thread that a feature was being put down that some hadn't as of that time tested. I found it hard to understand how some could be so passionate about CM and a feature being wrong when they hadn't yet seen it in action.

That being said though I think its good that people have now given it a go and and basing their opinions on experience with the new patch. I have no problems with people disagreeing with the new feature as I have said all along, and an glad that those whom are are doing so with reason on their part. I just wanted people to give it a chance.

Personally I don't have a problem with the hull rotation as I mentioned earlier. But, I do tend to keep my tanks as far back as possible (but with clear LOS to the battle of course!) and thus I haven't had the experiences here that some are mentioning.

With that being said, my opinion is only that of one person, me I am not necessarily right and it is good that others are now weighing in with facts and examples.

Dan

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

[Guest KwazyDog]

Tiger, yes, I believe so

Dan

[Bruno Weiss]

Well, one thing I've never said is that I'm incapable of changing my perspective. That doesn't mean I have changed my mind, it does mean in the course of the discussion I've read what every one else was posting and given it thought.

I would frame my concern(s) this way. First, I'm more concerned about the (and I'm looking for the correct identifier here), the stability, integrity, or not necessarily perfect (no such a thing), but to borrow a phrase from the work site, best business practice of the process or methodology that is used to consider, then approve or adopt inclusion features within CM. That in and of itself, does not say that the hull turning is a good thing, or not a good thing. It is almost separate other than it acted as a trigger to the concern. Again, my read has always been that a process of documentation, "and" just as importantly a "scope of commonality", was necessary to put it within the realm of CM.

Why? Because I believe that BTS stands out in the crowd of game companies for a good many reasons, and one of those reasons is the ideals and philosophy used and adhered to which brought us CM to begin with. The concern being, if the process is altered then that could result in a diminished stability, or integrity, of the process model, thus potentially allowing for other changes which could detract or diminish the value and quality of what we know as CM.

If that clears up at least that much. So, there is more than a technical concern (at least on my part), that goes beyond whether or not it works, how well, to what degree, and that concern is not dependent upon experiencing the change. It comes about prior to, and separately from, the change.

The second concern, is the one which after reading all the statements, and particularly Bulletheads tests results, is more focused upon the technical aspects of the change, post inclusion and as it works in application. The "does it do it all the time", "can someone steal home base with it", what are all the circumstances, etc., etc., and on that level then, those who state it must be tried to really understand how it works are entirely correct. From the postings, and Bulletheads tests, it became obvious that there are a vast amount of variances involved, and no absolute can be attached to the change.

With these "two" concerns intertwined, I don't doubt some of the counter-concerns or misunderstanding as to what was being said, coupled with my previous, now infamous, smoke screen, it resulted in a complete distraction even to myself to where I'm not sure that even I was clearly separating the two.

So, while I'm currently running a 1.1 game, and will see what I make of the technical, "in application" changes and what they result in, I have not seen a good explanation as to the first concern about the inclusion process. That is an important process, a process that BTS created, adhered to, and for good reasons which I fully agree with. After all has been said though, I'm no less comfortable or concerned as to how, under that process this change came to be included.

While your correct Futbolhead in that the volume of photographic evidence does not necessarily prove that the hull turn change "is not" historic, neither does the German training doctrine prove "it was" historic from the perspective of the BTS inclusion process model. To characterize that amount of photographic evidence as "nitpicking", I would think would be another logical presumption overlooking all of the volume of photos, videos, private and official. That is your opinion, just as this is mine, and everyone else and their third cousin on here have their opinion. (Ergo, one of my points. How are we including things in CM now, by opinion, by popularity, or by the stated BTS inclusion process model?). I could easily say that to presume that all turreted armor of all nationalities acted in the same manner coincidentally subscribing to "German" training doctrine, was a nitpicking reason for inclusion as a change and certainly as previously prescribed by the BTS inclusion process model.

Which, does nothing to resolve any concern as to the integrity of that BTS inclusion process model with regard to this change. Whether it is a good change, or not a good change, doesn't play into that because there are probably a hundred guys out there with what they believe are good changes that could be included in CM, some more popular than others, and some making all sorts of rational and logical sense, at least and certainly to those in favor of them, but for the inclusion process of historical documentation to a scope of commonality which has thus far, prevented them from being included.

Hope I've framed it better.

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

"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).]

[Loki]

I've been reading this thread since Wednesday but held comment untill I had a good chance to play. Now that I've played several battles I have no problem with the 1.1 patch

I have played several scenarios and have found the rotation to be as expected. In one all tank scenario I had a Stuart on hunt orders stop, turn its turret on a Tiger, fire, and then keep moving on. Rather than turn its hull and NOT have a chance of surviving, it did the correct thing, kept its hull in a position to move fast afterwards.

I also played a scenario where only 1 side had armour, and found the tanks to act intelligently with regard to hull turning. No units kept tuning 1 way then an other like a previous post had said. Most of the time the tanks only turned their turrets due to the fact they were surrounded.

I did NOT notice a trend of hull turning that could be exploited in 2 player games. The hull turning issue is dead IMO.

The AI seemed more intelligent on this build. Once scenario I have been testing actually did flanking manuvers just as I had done a dozen times. I hadn't seen the AI react with flanks on the beta exe's.

Is it me or are buildings more likely to get destroyed now? I have seen alot more building crumble and more fire's from ricochets in woods. This is more realistic IMO.

Thanks BTS

[LuckyStrike]

'best business practice', 'process or methodology', 'scope of commonality', 'value and quality', 'inclusion process model'

Bruno, would you happen to be an IBM consultant by any chance?

Just messin with ya.

[Maximus]

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

'best business practice', 'process or methodology', 'scope of commonality', 'value and quality', 'inclusion process model'

Bruno, would you happen to be an IBM consultant by any chance?

Just messin with ya.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree...taking nothing away from Bruno's exquisit post there...but what the hell is he talking about??????

Isn't he who's running for Mayor, or is that someone else? If so, then I kinda pity his town for no-one will be able to understand him. LOL!

[tailz]

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

So, while I'm currently running a 1.1 game, and will see what I make of the technical, "in application" changes and what they result in.... SNIP

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem... In all fairness Bruno, I will permit you to fill my tanker's gunsights with your infantry, and I'll let you know what happens... let me know which open field you'll be assembling them in, and I'll hustle some forces over there... don't worry about the VP locations, I'll take care of them for you...

{just imagine how good it'll feel to knock me on my arrogant ass, eh Bruno?)

[Bruno Weiss]

LuckyStrike wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bruno, would you happen to be an IBM consultant by any chance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, nice name Lucky. Actually that isn't way too left of the mark, let's just say I'm in IT Interoperability Architecture. And Maximus, don't ask what that is or we'll end up beating the Peng thread for sure.

Maximus wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Isn't he who's running for Mayor, or is that someone else? If so, then I kinda pity his town for no-one will be able to understand him. LOL!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now since when does anyone understand what a politician has to say. Anyone that thinks they understood what either of the Presidential wannabe's said, is making that "logical presumption" that I'm concerned about above.

Ah but more to the point, I betcha Steve knows exactly what I said.

Tailz wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>let me know which open field you'll be assembling them in, and I'll hustle some forces over there...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not with the map you came up with. It's more like the Laotian highlands but for a rice paddy or so. Hehe, you wanna hustle out in the open on this map? You just tell them Canucks of yours to wander right on out there. "I love the smell of Canadian bacon in the morning."

I spect this one, with this map, will end up being something of a barroom brawl and can only shiver wondering what this terrain would have been like at night. Man, back to DaNang.

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

"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 01-13-2001).]

[Guest rune]

Gentlemen, gentlewomen, and Mace,

It has been stated that it was in a training manual, but was it in regular practice during the war [ie the rotate hull to the threat]. To get the answer, I once more have my mother calling my Uncle who served on Tigers during the war on the Eastern Front. There were a couple of people on the board who know I have consulted him before on getting the answer to the Navhwhatchamacallit. My mom will call Germany later today and ask some questions that I asked her to ask. [i don't speak German unfortunately]

Answers this afternoon if all goes well.

Rune

[Bruno Weiss]

Okay, had to do some searching. The question being raised; what is a BTS or CM inclusion process model? Maybe this will help those who don't know what is being said, to better understand. First, what is a process model. Any purposeful set of specifications or requirements, and a process of analysis, which result in an effect (inclusion or exclusion within CM in this case), can be termed a " process model". I don't believe BTS or Steve ever called it that, but it can certainly be termed that, but regardless that is what it is. For example:

quote from Steve: (this is from the MG42 Bovine Sponge thread and a snip)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Bovine MG Sponge example probably happened once or twice in the entire ETO, so there is no justification for adding it no matter how legit or effective that tactic was for that particular platoon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be a part of the "process." A rational determination based upon a set of requirement criteria which in this case, in the final analysis, failed to meet the requirements of sufficient "scope of commonality". It "did" happen, and it "was" logical and beneficial, however it was not "common" enough, nor "widespread" enough to justify inclusion in CM.

Another example:

Steve wrote: (This is from the Infantry Smoke Grenades thread)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, Andreas is also correct. Your assumption that since it is in the FM that it was regularly practiced is also "speculation", especially because there is little accounting of such wide spread use in veteran's reports. While the LACK of reporting does not prove the tactic wasn't used regularly, the LACK of widespread mention raises questions that would otherwise not be asked if it were mentioned regularly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here it is noted, that just because a Field Manual held that it was a part of the training doctrine or prescribed field operational doctrine, that didn't necessarily make it so because there would have had to have been secondary documentational evidence. Again, this amounts to a process of analysis. Pretty good one too I believe.

Another example, along the same line.

Steve wrote: (Same thread, Infantry Smoke Grenades)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IIRC, Doubler basically showed that US Army FM prescribed doctrine for attacking fixed fortifications and river crossings was tossed out the window. But now, 56 years later, if you picked up one of those FMs you would be mislead if you believed that those tactics were used regularly AND were proved successful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve aptly points out that it is known, that the FM was basically overtaken by events, and subsequently disposed of as far as operational use was concerned. Further pointing out that, to refer to it today, without the knowledge that it was in fact laid aside, would be misleading, though in point of fact, based upon it's context alone one could make a good justification that indeed it's contents were factual, and historically applicable.

Now, as I stated earlier. CM is as of a high a quality as it is, and as historically accurate as it is, because a process of requirements or criteria coupled with an analysis as to the historical scope of commonality of any given proposed feature for CM meant that such proposed feature(s), changes, or alterations, were submitted to a process and had to meet a criteria before being included. That insured that CM was of a far higher caliber than other wargames, and about as historically accurate as could be possible. (Yes, it is a game, but anyone know of a more historically accurate, operationally sound, and or better representative of WWII squad level combat that is out there?). I don't. And, I'd like to see it stay that way.

I do not include the above quotes for any reason other than to demonstrate what I was referring to about a BTS inclusion process model and what makes it that, and also to bring this back to what I tried to frame earlier as a concern as to how things get included in CM, or more specifically how this change was included in CM.

It can be said I suppose that this "hull turning" feature is not a change at all. Since it was there and didn't work, so it was hidden, but isn't a change since a fix made it work and so it just seems like one? Okay maybe, but it was inserted somewhere, sometime and at that point represented some sort of change.

I think the bottom line is, a bunch of people wanted it, most were on the fence, a few didn't want it and the rest weren't aware of it. Now we have it. Most seem to like it, a bunch don't mind it, and a few don't like it or haven't made up their minds about it. And all that is fine. But the point as to how it came to be is of more importance I believe than if everyone likes it, or doesn't mind it. I suppose the most disconcerting part of all, is that the interested level in "a" or "the" BTS "inclusion process" of how something gets into CM does not seem to be very high. It (the hull turning change), may well have met all those criteria and passed the analysis and I missed it, and it's just that no one has yet to point it out. I would have thought so after 109 pages. Up to now though, all I have seen is that it was a part of "German" Training doctrine, not American, not British, but German. (And, like the case with the American FM and smoke grenades potentially, how is it known that training theory was applied in practice?). Point being, how do we know. We know there are a devil of a lot of pictures of tanks firing on targets with turrets at all angles of degrees off of the hulls front, and that seems to fit into the "had to have been secondary documentational evidence", as stated with regard to the smoke grenades.

Do I want the change taken back? No, I think at this point that wouldn't make much sense, and most believe it is an improvement. Why take back what seems to be an improvement? The debate now centering around if, and how, to tweak it. What I would like to see, is that CM (CM2, CM3, etc), remain the "best dance in town", by insuring that the process for inclusion which has maintained CM's high degree of quality is not overtaken, forgotten about, or put aside when some popular notion arises that otherwise might not meet the process used up to now to determine inclusion. I can only hope that I'm not the only one who places such a value on that process.

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

"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 01-13-2001).]

[Guest rune]

Answers from my Uncle:

It was not only taught to them to face the target [at about a 30 degree angle if he recalls correctly], but done in actual combat. This is also true for rotating the hull to use the bow mg against infantry. He recalled one time where another tiger crew destroyed 5-6 t-34s, but got reprimanded for not rotating the hull while bringing the gun about. At least in his unit, that part of training was never dropped.

Rune

[Dr. Brian]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there is a simple solution. Program the logic as an expert system. You'll need to come up with rules, but it'll be easier in the end.

I'm so sure of it. This is just such an awesome and perfect application for an expert system.

It has a well defined, narrow domain (tank combat). And there are tons of experts to input their expertise into the knowledge base. All you need is someone who can be the knowledge engineer, and there are a lot coming out of the colleges now.

Anyway, just to throw more gas into it.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Jeff Heidman]

The thing is, there is a VERY simple solution.

Do not have tanks rotate their turret or hull to engage any enemy target more than 30 degrees off their current facing unless it is a threat.

What is a threat? Simple. THe following are NOT threats:

1. Any ifantry target type greater than 250m away.

2. Any vehicular/gun target type that does not mount a weapon capable of penetrating the side armor of the vehicle.

In the case of only paritally identified targets (Infantry? Gun? Tiger?) assume it is a threat, and rotate (hull and gun)accordingly.

Is it a perfect solution? No. But is considerably better than what we have now.

This solves the problem of tanks getting killed because they turned away from the threat location, and does not result in any change to the interface.

If the player wants the tank to engage infantry, he can order them to do so.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Watson & Crick]

Before anyone calls me a nanny-noo-noo or a chicken little, I played the betas and did not notice anything unusual. Although this is my first post, I have been coming to this board for 3 months or so, mostly for comic relief I had planned to save my first post to the Peng thread, but my conscious got the better of me.

With that said, here are two annoying things that happened to me last night in a QB w/ me being the attacking germans against the AI defending americans. I will try to recall the events as they happened, but 1) i was slightly oiled and 2) I suffer from early onset alzheimers. Hence anything "hazy" will be followed by a "?"

Annoying problem #1

turn ?, my hunting panther and overwatching hetzer (both regular) spots a shermie at their 12:00 o'clock. All Tanks exchange shots, no hits. shermie blows smoke, sh*ts his pants & hides behind a building.

turn ? +1 or + 2 Panther & hetzer continue to hunt towards hidden sherm. they complete their hunt command. Panther spots a few harmless GI'S w/ peashooters ca. 175-200 feet? meters? away fighting my grunts. Panther starts to rotate its hull & turret to this "threat" Panther is now completely rotated & ready to target GI's. The panther has rotated 90 deg from its originally position relative to the hidden sherm.

Guess what the gamie AI did? The sherm pops out from behind the building, pops my perpendicular panther. Panther explodes. I simmer. Hetzer then waxes the gamie sherm.

My b*tch. Although, I suffer from early onset alzheimers (did I mention that earlier?), It would be nice if the AI did not. I mean c'mon, the panther is squared away from the hidden sherm, yet instead of just rotating his turret at these harmless GI's (pinned by about 4 of my squads no less) and giving them a taste of lead, he has to rotate the hull. I mean if I was in that panther, i would forget about my early onset alzheimers & keep my hull square to this known sherman threat. Blasting geriatric GI’s is ok, but DO NOT MOVE THE TANK PLEASE!

I was so ticked that I immediately quit the game & then being the gamey drunken buzzard that I am, restarted the autosave game. As some of you may know, quitting & restarting may give you a different outcome from the original turn. This time, the events almost occurred as described, except, the panther spotted the GI's later so it only managed to rotate the hull & turret ca. 45 deg.

So I said fine, I'll just play it out w/out my precious panther.

Slightly less annoying problem #2.

In this same game, my hetzer refused to target ANY GI's except those carrying bazookas. When I gently pointed out that there is a morter or squad in plain site (i.e. the OPEN GROUND!) he would fire from the main gun. Lest i forget, the hetzter had nearly all his rounds!

In a different QB the other night w/ the Germans defending, I can't recall if this was beta 24 or v 1.1 (PROOF that I am not a nanny-noo-noo & have early onset alzheimers), the defending hetzer had no trouble targeting infantry w/ his main gun and sending their binary bits to the binary graveyard.

Annoying problem # 2,

whoops i guessed I just detailed that one.

Damn you BTS for depriving me of sleep with this clever game of yours

[Bruno Weiss]

Rune wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was not only taught to them to face the target [at about a 30 degree angle if he recalls correctly], but done in actual combat. This is also true for rotating the hull to use the bow mg against infantry. He recalled one time where another tiger crew destroyed 5-6 t-34s, but got reprimanded for not rotating the hull while bringing the gun about. At least in his unit, that part of training was never dropped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent Rune. Thanks for asking your Uncle. While not conclusive, never the less it is pretty good evidence. This is what I believe should have been a part of the process described by BTS as I've cited, that would/should/could have taken place prior to such a change being included in CM. To the extent that it met all of the conditions cited by Steve on prior efforts to include something, and to the sufficient level of historical documentation as to avoid a back alley brawl over whether or not it was applicable and to what degree in the first place. And maybe something else, I'm just starting to see a potential need for. Some method (beyond an open beta), for gaining (as much as possible anyway), a general consensus. No, I don't have some magic answer for that at the moment. Give me time though, and I'll come up with another hundred pages though.

Though I must admit, no one seems to be much interested right now. Everyone is having too much fun in the cat fight over who thinks who is the biggest Kahunna on the battlefield to worry about things like integrity, stability, process, or authenticity. Hell of a shame too because CM didn't just fall out of the sky, it was created through process, and ideals, and the BTS Manifesto translated into developmental application. Wonder what the next tooth gnashing for including something in CM or CM2 will be over. One could only imagine. What'da think Steve, we need a process? We appear a little short on consensus here. Now don't go getting all bent, just razzing you on account of I know full well that you care about the process, your the one that has maintained the high ideals, even if your the only other one at the moment that seems to understand why. And I watched ya try to be the Irish cop in the midst of the "crew use" skirmish.

Seriously though Steve, and you know better than I. BTS is attempting to do something no other company wants to do, nor is dedicated enough to do, and listen to the consumer, communicate with them, take their information and desires, as well as stick to principles and all the while be competitive. That ain't no easy road to travel. Manifesto or no. I'm just suggesting that any tool that might help you (BTS), is certainly worth thinking about. After all, other game companies don't have to worry about all this, (BTS Manifesto), they just toss some halfhearted (pretty box cover), thing out there, with little if any commitment much less a continuing dedicated committment, and go about their way. A new, novel, and unique, way of doing business (BTS Manifesto), might, might I say, require a new, novel, and unique, method or tool to assist in the endeavor.

Say Rune, you might do us all a big favor at the moment. If it is possible, and if your Uncle would be obliging and wouldn't mind too much, could you pose a couple of more questions to him.

For example.

"What were they taught and how was it practiced about hull turning in a multiple target environment?"

"That is, with regard to the various levels of threats, and hull turning priorities in a multiple target environment, (i.e., infantry, versus soft targets, versus suspected target areas but as yet unidentified, etc.), how were they instructed, and how in practice did it pan out as to what to do, and how. What sort of determination priorities did the Commander use, etc.?"

You can look through the threads on this and phrase the questions better, or come up with more that are applicable to what the current debates over the AI's actions are. Just thought I'd give you a start.

Thanks Rune, by golly I appreciate it and tell your Uncle thanks very much. Hmm, and someone said "I" was an "IBM" consultant.

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

"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 01-13-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

oh...

Bump just for fun

-tom w

[Bruno Weiss]

You just hadda do it huh...

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

"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)

[Guest ciks]

I wanted to pick this thread up, because i red BTS Steve's post from another topic.

1.12 fixes a slight problem with non-threatening targets so you will probably like that (should be released soon).

Since our hot discussions in this thread, i've played some more games and came to consider, that hull rotation is a good feature, i think everyone now agrees to it.

Question is: does this fix, mentioned above will make tanks not turn to face a crew or some jeep (or other non-threats) km away, only to open its side to possible advancing enemy armour?

[Guest ciks]

I wanted to pick this thread up, because i read BTS Steve's post from another topic.

1.12 fixes a slight problem with non-threatening targets so you will probably like that (should be released soon).

Since our hot discussions in this thread, i've played some more games and came to consider, that hull rotation is a good feature, i think everyone now agrees to it.

Question is: does this fix, mentioned above will make tanks not turn to face a crew or some jeep (or other non-threats) km away, only to open its side to possible advancing enemy armour?

[This message has been edited by ciks (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Guest ciks]

damn this double posting

just noticed the new DELETE check box in the post-edit page. finally

[This message has been edited by ciks (edited 01-23-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by ciks:

I wanted to pick this thread up, because i read BTS Steve's post from another topic.

Since our hot discussions in this thread, i've played some more games and came to consider, that hull rotation is a good feature, i think everyone now agrees to it.

Question is: does this fix, mentioned above will make tanks not turn to face a crew or some jeep (or other non-threats) km away, only to open its side to possible advancing enemy armour?

[This message has been edited by ciks (edited 01-23-2001).]

Good question

I guess we'll see when they release it.

-tom w

[Schugger]

Well, I don't have anything to add to the hull rotation discussion, but I became once again victim to the Alien Critter Syndrome.

This means, when I upgraded from 1.24 beta to official 1.1 patch they ( the Critters ) beamed down and - by using a futuristic cloaking device - stole or ate all the ammo of my beloved sharpshooters and useless flamethrower units.

Has anyone else noticed this and, if that is the case, is there any way to fix the problem?