"SMG GAP" A Proposal...Take 2

[Jaldaen]

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

One of the most frequent discussions we have here is about new orders I think the discussion has been exhausted long ago. Plus, we have already implemented all the new orders we are going to do for CMBB. So I'll take a look at the thread, but nothing will come of the suggestions there unless we have already addressed them.

Steve[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for taking a look, it's nice to know that BTS is always listening...

-Jaldaen

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So the real problem with spotting is that multiple units with LOS to a unit each get a shot at seeing the unit. If one is successful, then all benefit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Unfortunately, the only way to counteract this is to make every spotter and spottee on a peer to peer basis with each other. That is the backbone of Relative Spotting and it is far more complex than it might appear since it touches upon spotting, targeting, C&C, interface, AI, TacAI, etc. Basically, the whole game really needs to be reprogrammed around Relative Spotting, which is why attempting to layer it on top of the existing system isn't a good idea.

Through experience we are pretty sure that we can see the point of diminishing returns before we start. Since we are so short on time (game developers ALWAYS are), and we plan on rewriting the engine as soon as CMBB is released, there are better places to expend our energies right now.

Steve

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Lewis wrote:

Exactly. Unfortunately, the only way to counteract this is to make every spotter and spottee on a peer to peer basis with each other. That is the backbone of Relative Spotting and it is far more complex than it might appear since it touches upon spotting, targeting, C&C, interface, AI, TacAI, etc. Basically, the whole game really needs to be reprogrammed around Relative Spotting, which is why attempting to layer it on top of the existing system isn't a good idea.

Through experience we are pretty sure that we can see the point of diminishing returns before we start. Since we are so short on time (game developers ALWAYS are), and we plan on rewriting the engine as soon as CMBB is released, there are better places to expend our energies right now.

Steve

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What will be really interesting is to see how Lewis solves borg spotting in his own game, which I will gladly buy when it is finished (who is your publisher by the way?) On a different discussion list there has been a lot of suggestions trying to find a flow chart that would be programmable for things like relative spotting without making the game impossible to play, and most ideas end in some sort of updating register that defines if a unit is in sight, multiplying in complexity as you add more units, and multiplying in complexity as you add more variables and need to recheck variables on a regular basis.

How close are you to alpha in your coding Lewis, and do you have a way figured out to handle the borg spotting issue?

[Tero]

>The contact marker is removed if the unit

>is spotted elsewhere or if a friendly

>unit "spots" the contact marker location

>enough to know that nothing is there.

Ah ! What if there is still something there ? Absolute spotting negates or inhibits spotting unless you get a second opinion from a unit with a better spotting ability ?

>Yes, this is supposed to be able to happen.

How realistic is that ? Two unbuttoned tanks facing each should be able to spot each other on their own right but because the oversight committee of spotting has decided the value is not over the treshold to turn the last know position marker into a full blown spotted unit they fail ? I would have thought the knowledge that there is a unit in the area would make spotting and ID'ing easier, not more difficult.

>I can not speculate what caused this in

>your particular game.

How much data is needed ?

>Area Fire is blind. There is absolutely

>no "thinking" about what *might* be there

>or might not be.

Really ? When there is a contact marker to indicate the type of unit. "We saw a tank there a minute ago and for all we know it is still there. But since that location is in LOS but we can not confirm it is still there, for some curious reason, lets fire HE instead of AP."

>HE, small arms, or grenades are used. AP

>ammo is not used since a target must be

>present for AP to work. Getting an AP

>round "close" means little.

True. But will the fire actually hit and inflict damage on a non-infantry, well armoured unit capable of withstanding the HE impact ? And how will the impact be presented to the firing unit ? Will it upgrade the marker from last known position contact to unidentified (or indeed identified) vehicle ?

Area fire targets the ground but what about non-infantry units that "levitate" above the ground in the target location.

[New Age Santa]

yes but if X=Y-L SO we have X-Y(Y7)=x20(-y)

SO in theory if we have the soldiers contact the moonbase at secter X-78 Y-56 the Germans have unlimited spotting, but due to SPielburgian fuzzy movie logic the fatc they are Nazis instantly obcures their LOS because their racist attitudes blind them. Using the Speilburgian math equation you can easily say a Sherman 105 can take out a entire platoon of Konigstigers from ranges of 80,000 meters, due to the moon bases gravitational effects, however the Germans can call in a UFO airstrike of lightning plasma. This should explain the new system implimented in CM2.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ah ! What if there is still something there ? Absolute spotting negates or inhibits spotting unless you get a second opinion from a unit with a better spotting ability ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand you here. If the LOS is broken to all friendly units, at least enough so that they are not actively spotting it, BUT the unit remains there... the situation is the same as if it moved. At least so far as the other player is concerned. In other words there is no way of knowing if the enemy unit is still there or not until you get in and establish better LOS. One unit is all that is needed to do this. How elese should it work?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How realistic is that ? Two unbuttoned tanks facing each should be able to spot each other on their own right but because the oversight committee of spotting has decided the value is not over the treshold to turn the last know position marker into a full blown spotted unit they fail ? I would have thought the knowledge that there is a unit in the area would make spotting and ID'ing easier, not more difficult.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does, so I repeat... I have no idea what set of circumstances led to the situation you described. It sounds like, to me, that they didn't have LOS to each other. The "spotting market" part of your statement leads me to believe this, since if they were in LOS they would have spotted each other. Do you *really* think that 1.5 years after the game was first released that we wouldn't have that bit working correctly?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How much data is needed ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actual game file. From what you described, I'd say they didn't have LOS to each other. But since I haven't seen the game, I can't even guess as to why.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Really ? When there is a contact marker to indicate the type of unit. "We saw a tank there a minute ago and for all we know it is still there. But since that location is in LOS but we can not confirm it is still there, for some curious reason, lets fire HE instead of AP."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm... would you fire precious AP rounds at shadows? I think not. At least not normally. What you are asking for is "gamey".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>True. But will the fire actually hit and inflict damage on a non-infantry, well armoured unit capable of withstanding the HE impact ? And how will the impact be presented to the firing unit ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It works just like artillery striking areas where you don't have LOS. A HE round does not care if the target is in LOS or not. Why should it? So just like artillery fired blindly, the only way you will know if you hit something is to see a plume of smoke. Otherwise, you don't get to see anything. Sounds right to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Area fire targets the ground but what about non-infantry units that "levitate" above the ground in the target location. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea what you are talking about (again ).

Steve

[Tero]

>I don't understand you here. If the LOS is

>broken to all friendly units, at least

>enough so that they are not actively

>spotting it, BUT the unit remains there...

>the situation is the same as if it moved.

Up to a point, yes. I agree spotting infantry is trickier but NOT spotting a large piece of equipment should be not that hard. Especially if was sitting in the middle of the road the last it was seen and it still sitting there.

The friendly units KNOW they are facing a specific enemy asset and it has been "positively" identified, right ? Should they be mindfull of its presense (state of alertness), regardless of its current disposition ? Are they aware of the enemy assets capabilities pertaining movement ? When they reach a position which has LOS over the spot where friendly units last saw the asset should they (or should they not) check out that spot first to see if it has indeed moved or not ? If it has moved no problem. You extrapolate its last known trajectory given the prevailing tactical situation and terrain features and make your best quess based on that. If it has not moved, then what ?

"Sorry, sir. I can eyeball the location the tank was last seen in but due to circumstances beyond my control I can not say if it is there or not. Damn these PoS binoculars. I can spot new contacts with them without any problems but if I try to reacquire old known contacts they fog up."

>At least so far as the other player is

>concerned. In other words there is no way

>of knowing if the enemy unit is still there

>or not until you get in and establish

>better LOS. One unit is all that is needed

>to do this.

In our case it was not enough.

>How elese should it work?

The way you describe. But it did not work in this particular case.

>It does, so I repeat... I have no idea what

>set of circumstances led to the situation

>you described. It sounds like, to me, that

>they didn't have LOS to each other.

The LOS line was green.

>The "spotting market" part of your

>statement leads me to believe this, since

>if they were in LOS they would have spotted

>each other.

That was our impression too.

>Do you *really* think that 1.5 years after

>the game was first released that we

>wouldn't have that bit working correctly?

Dunno. Have you ?

>The actual game file. From what you

>described, I'd say they didn't have LOS to

>each other. But since I haven't seen the

>game, I can't even guess as to why.

I'll look it up and send it.

>Uhm... would you fire precious AP rounds at

>shadows? I think not. At least not

>normally.

Agreed. But what if you hit but there is no damage and the other guy has an AP round chambered and you have just revealed your position by firing first ?

I think there should be an option. TacAI does not know what the player is trying to hit. I think it should at least know the class of target being engaged.

>What you are asking for is "gamey".

More realistic than gamey. What if you know you have a chance of taking out a pillbox with your AP shot but your HE can not do it and you have a contact marker of a pillbox that you can engage with area fire command but not directly ?

Unless of course you mean that persistent contact markers are gamey in themselves.

>It works just like artillery striking areas

>where you don't have LOS. A HE round does

>not care if the target is in LOS or not.

>Why should it? So just like artillery fired

>blindly, the only way you will know if you

>hit something is to see a plume of smoke.

>Otherwise, you don't get to see anything.

>Sounds right to me.

Will the firing unit divert from area fire to engageing the target to save itself when the enemy fires back ?

>I have no idea what you are talking about

>(again ).

Has it been tested that unspotted armour under the cover of a contact marker are not impervious to direct area fire hitting its location.

[Geier]

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

Has it been tested that unspotted armour under the cover of a contact marker are not impervious to direct area fire hitting its location.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it has. Halftracks will get knocked out by HE rounds hitting close to them. Firing high caliber AP at something you can't see is stupid and not SOP in any army at any time.

Some of the things you ask, like: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Will the firing unit divert from area fire to engageing the target to save itself when the enemy fires back?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This just shows that you should consider spending more time playing the game and doing your own tests instead of being obnoxious. Just a suggestion.

I realise that CM can not be everyones cup of tea but I get the feeling that you are enjoying complaining and arguing more than anything else?

[Maastrictian]

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

What will be really interesting is to see how Lewis solves borg spotting in his own game, which I will gladly buy when it is finished (who is your publisher by the way?) On a different discussion list there has been a lot of suggestions trying to find a flow chart that would be programmable for things like relative spotting without making the game impossible to play, and most ideas end in some sort of updating register that defines if a unit is in sight, multiplying in complexity as you add more units, and multiplying in complexity as you add more variables and need to recheck variables on a regular basis.

How close are you to alpha in your coding Lewis, and do you have a way figured out to handle the borg spotting issue?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still very currious to hear Lewis's responce. It sounds like he has thought about these problems alot and I'm sure he deals with them well in his game.

--Chris

[Tero]

>Yes it has. Halftracks will get knocked out

>by HE rounds hitting close to them.

Not quite what I mean. What about tanks receiving a direct hit ? You can not fire at houses with area fire if there are enough contact markers in the house but no full blown contacts to make the fire aimed at a specific target. Will you be able to issue area fire orders ON the contact marker when there is an actual unit under it ?

>Firing high caliber AP at something you

>can't see is stupid and not SOP in any army

>at any time.

Well, lets assume the unit actually KNOWS the marker stands for a tank spotted earlier (and by Jove BTS has included ID tags on the contact markers to simulate this). If they decide or they are ordered to fire blind at the contact should they pick HE or AP for that particular target, IF they know it is a tank and they carry both ? Troops shot blind at moving brushes during WWII so would it be too unrealistic to let the guns fire appropriate rounds according to the class of target they are supposed to be engageing ? If the human commander so wishes ?

>This just shows that you should consider

>spending more time playing the game and

>doing your own tests instead of being

>obnoxious.

On the v1.2 BETA days a PBEM opponent of my lost his last operational Sherman to a Pzschreck when he ordered area fire on its last known spot marked by a contact marker. I had moved it a few meters to the left and it was able to fire 5 (five) rounds at the Sherman. The Sherman spotted the schreck after the second shot but did not deviate from its area fire target until the 5th round took it out. Even the hull MG did not fire at it eventhough the target was well within its arc of fire. My opponent took the matter up with BTS. Their reply was (to this effect): "the TacAI can not know what you are trying to shoot at when you issue the area fire order so we see no fault in the TacAI in this respect". Ever since that I have been very cautios with the area fire order so as not to subject my units to sudden death because they will not deviate from it to save themselves.

>Just a suggestion.

Suggest all you want.

>I realise that CM can not be everyones cup

>of tea but I get the feeling that you are

>enjoying complaining and arguing more than

>anything else?

I do love a good DEBATE.

I see a lot of complaints on this board. What makes one complaint better than another ? Do you jump on all of them like this ?

I do not start my every post with a "Hail, BTS, Full of Grace" but that does not mean I hate the game. Quite the contrary, it is the best tactical game around. But it is not picture perfect and without flaws and blemishes and imperfections. I quess am not just PC enough to take a place in the band wagon blindfolded. I try not to be antagonistic about the issues but I am not afraid to stand alone in a crowd either.

[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

In a recent PBEM we had two unbuttoned tanks face eachother for two turns well inside LOS and the markers did not change from contact to full blown ID'd unit until we got some help from additional units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[sarcasm] Well, we all know this could never have happened in real life. Eveyone knows that it would be impossible for 2 vehicles to fail to see each other after being in LOS for two whole minutes! I've always felt that one of the big failures of CM is that tanks are too hard to spot. [/sarcasm]

[Username]

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

I'm still very currious to hear Lewis's responce. It sounds like he has thought about these problems alot and I'm sure he deals with them well in his game.

--Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am busy with computer problems so you can do a search. My game isnt realtime execution like BTS but an impulse based game.

[Slapdragon]

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

I am busy with computer problems so you can do a search. My game isnt realtime execution like BTS but an impulse based game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It still would have spotting? Or are you going with a full - blown borg spotting model (like playing ASL on a board, the other guy is always visible). What is your impulse time base?

[Geier]

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

>You can not fire at houses with area fire if there are enough contact markers in the house but no full blown contacts to make the fire aimed at a specific target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can always fire at houses that you have a LOS to. If there are no "full blown contacts" there are no specific targets. No specific target no direct fire opportunity.

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

>Firing high caliber AP at something you

>can't see is stupid and not SOP in any army

>at any time.

Well, lets assume the unit actually KNOWS the marker stands for a tank ... Troops shot blind at moving brushes during WWII so would it be too unrealistic to let the guns fire appropriate rounds according to the class of target they are supposed to be engageing ? If the human commander so wishes ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want to be able to order a tank/gun to fire relatively small lumps of metal into the vicinity of a possible/probable tank because they might hit something they can't even see?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the v1.2 BETA days a PBEM opponent of my lost his last operational Sherman to a Pzschreck ...

I honestly fail to see what this has to do with your earlier suggestion? First you want to be able to tell a gun/tank to fire AP as area fire. Then you want the tank/gun to have the intelligence and initiative to counter your direct order and fire at a threat and quickly too. Do you want the game to be smart enough to figure out why you are ordering it to area fire at a spot?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

[sarcasm] Well, we all know this could never have happened in real life. Eveyone knows that it would be impossible for 2 vehicles to fail to see each other after being in LOS for two whole minutes! I've always felt that one of the big failures of CM is that tanks are too hard to spot. [/sarcasm]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Vanir, your blind fold is slipping, you must march in lock step with everyone else against Tero.

Boy, I think psychologists should come up with a name for a condition where you think that you are the only one who sees the truth, and in which you think that everyone else is blind folded and out to get you....

[Username]

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

It still would have spotting? Or are you going with a full - blown borg spotting model (like playing ASL on a board, the other guy is always visible). What is your impulse time base?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes of course. but the game is built around battlefield intel also. sometimes your own units arent reported at 'CM' level.

i did a writeup here once sio search on it. in fact, most of my thoughts were in that post and I cant find it.

i am getting a new MB and athlon to work reliably and have some consulting/interviews next week. if all fails, i get 20 weeks unemployment so i will be back to code.

damn athlons are a pain in the butt.

lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

yes of course. but the game is built around battlefield intel also. sometimes your own units arent reported at 'CM' level.

i did a writeup here once sio search on it. in fact, most of my thoughts were in that post and I cant find it.

i am getting a new MB and athlon to work reliably and have some consulting/interviews next week. if all fails, i get 20 weeks unemployment so i will be back to code.

damn athlons are a pain in the butt.

lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles codes on a G4 (I think he used to use a G3). I have a Pentium that barely works, but my G4 is a great machine.

[Username]

I formally apologize to AMD. I had a problem with a video card and my MB/CPU swap wasnt thier fault.

I went from PII to 1200MHz Athlon and its a real jump in performance.

I am buying AMD stock monday because I think that anyone that gets a $300 check from the US gov and doesnt take a bite outa the great mem/MB/CPU deals around is a stiff.

Lewis

[Tero]

>You can always fire at houses that you have

>a LOS to. If there are no "full blown

>contacts" there are no specific targets. No

>specific target no direct fire opportunity.

Have you tried firing a mortar at a house with infantry contact markers but no targetable enemy units in it ?

>You want to be able to order a tank/gun to

>fire relatively small lumps of metal into

>the vicinity of a possible/probable tank

>because they might hit something they can't

>even see?

Would you want to fire HE against a tank ?

The operative pharse here is "they can't even see". There is a contact marker abstracting a previously spotted enemy asset. Given the limitations of absolute spotting as it is modelled now the player can not be really sure what his units see or do not see.

>I honestly fail to see what this has to do

>with your earlier suggestion?

You suggested I should to do some playing when I asked Steve wether a unit will revert from area fire to engage a targer unmasking near its area fire target. I provided you with an gaming experience.

>First you want to be able to tell a

>gun/tank to fire AP as area fire.

These are two separate issues.

>Then you want the tank/gun to have the

>intelligence and initiative to counter your

>direct order and fire at a threat and

>quickly too.

That was actually my opponents wish. And I do second his motion. I fail to see how it would be unrealistic to wish the TacAI to engage targets of opportunity to save itself instead of blasting away on some suspected enemy positions.

>Do you want the game to be smart enough to

>figure out why you are ordering it to area

>fire at a spot?

Well, the contact marker DOES indicate what was there the last time. And the player as the commander is trying to flush out what the contact marker indicates, doesn't he ? Why fire area fire if it is only to till some land to plant some potatoes and not to engage a specific enemy asset class that was last seen in that very location ?

You order area fire at a last known position of an AT asset and an AT asset engages you some ways from the position you are flushing out. What would you do IRL, continue firing at the last known position or target the new contact that is dangerous ? If the TacAI does not know my intentions it must surely at least quess I do not intend it to keep on firing at a suspected position when the unit is at risk of being taken out.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Tero, I got your saved game that you sent to me and Steve and maybe others. Upon looking at it, it immediately became obvious that you had neglected to mention one very small detail: the game is at NIGHT in a RAINSTORM! LOS range is 96m max and the tanks are 85m from each other

[ 07-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Tero, I got your saved game that you sent to me and Steve and maybe others. Upon looking at it, it immediately became obvious that you had neglected to mention one very small detail: the game is at NIGHT in a RAINSTORM! LOS range is 96m max and the tanks are 85m from each other

[ 07-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mere details, does not change a thing.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Tero, I got your saved game that you sent to me and Steve and maybe others. Upon looking at it, it immediately became obvious that you had neglected to mention one very small detail: the game is at NIGHT in a RAINSTORM! LOS range is 96m max and the tanks are 85m from each other

[ 07-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you forgot to mention one very small detail: the unit doing the spotting is Elite and both tanks are standing still in the middle of the road.

If we were talking about infantry I would agree that these factors could be significant. But we are talking about two tanks in the middle of the road.

I trust you tried both LOS and target commands. The LOS command does not come up with ? after the ID for the tank as it does for the infantry unit in the building. How normal is that in a situation like this ?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Being elite does not give a unit 100% perfect spotting ability.

Frankly, I can't believe you actually think there is something wrong with this. The tanks are obviously close to the limit of sight in those conditions.

Besides which, this is one single incident. Anything can happen once. This is like those people who see their Panther get weak spot penetrated by a Stuart and say "BTS fix of do somefink".

As for the question marks... The tank has been identified (contact level 4). The infantry units have not (contact level 2 or 3).

There's nothing wrong here, and I see no reason to waste any more time on it.

[Geier]

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

>Have you tried firing a mortar at a house with infantry contact markers but no targetable enemy units in it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do it all the time. What is your problem here? I have no trouble at all ordering this, nor does my opponents. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The operative pharse here is "they can't even see". There is a contact marker abstracting a previously spotted enemy asset. Given the limitations of absolute spotting as it is modelled now the player can not be really sure what his units see or do not see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you want to be able to fire relatively small lumps of metal into an area where your troops think a unit has been? You are going about this the wrong way. If you want to kill a tank (and kill it now) that you can't see you only have two options.

1. Get a LOS to it with a unit capable of destroying the tank.

2. Order artillery (any large calibre indirect firing gun capable of immobilizing/destroying the tank) to fire at the area where you think the tank is.

Those are the options in RL anyway. No, the operative phrase is "previously spotted." Now you see it, now you don't.

You can always be sure of what your troops can and can't see. That is what the LOS tool does. You must already know this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What would you do IRL, continue firing at the last known position or target the new contact that is dangerous ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a trooper you are not firing at "the last known position", that is not an issue, you are firing at an area that your commander tells you to fire at. Please trust me (and everyone else) when I say that you never ever want to fire large calibre AP at a location, ie as area fire. If a threat pops up elsewhere you either continue to obey your last order (Elite troops almost never disobey orders, think about that) and figure that your brilliant commander have you covered, or you disobey a direct and specific order and try to kill the new threat. I've seen both happen in CM.

I think you might suffer under several misapprehensions of what CM does and what is represented. There might be several faults with CM but I haven't seen you present even one so far. Accepting that someone else (not me, I mean the game designers and beta testers here) knows more about something than you do isn't a bad thing you know.

[Tero]

>Being elite does not give a unit 100%

>perfect spotting ability.

Agreed. But does it give a bonus over the other experience levels ?

And actually I do think the fact that they both are in the middle of the road is more decisive factor here.

>Frankly, I can't believe you actually think

>there is something wrong with this.

I disagree. What a surprise.

>The tanks are obviously close to the limit

>of sight in those conditions.

Yes. But would it have been any different if it was a fresh contact we are talking about here ?

Even with Hide orders I think it would be very difficult to hide a beast like that in the middle of the road. And in case you missed this: the LOS line stays green on both sides of the contact marker all the way to the limit but is cut short at the contact marker when you draw it across it.

So all indications point to the direction that the tank crew is definitely seeing something at that spot but for some reason the contact is not being upgraded. If this was happening in other terrain than on a road I could chalk it up as obstructions such as brushes or tall grass. But since it is on the road I would like an explanation from BTS on the occurance. **** happens however does not cut it.

>Besides which, this is one single incident.

Yes. But does it bear any indications to underlying problems perhaps ?

>Anything can happen once.

Statistically the chance can be minimal. Then again not. We are talking about a program with hardcoded algorithms and a predetermined set of variables. It could be a freak occurance due to all of the planets aligning which happens simultaneously with sun spots, eclipse and full moon. But all of these events can be calculated beforehand and so the convergence can be expected, simulated and tested. Perhaps once in a blue moon but still.

>This is like those people who see their

>Panther get weak spot penetrated by a

>Stuart and say "BTS fix of do somefink".

Can a million flies be wrong ?

And what if all those weak spot penetrations were on Allied tanks (I think I have not seen any on Jumbos but I have seen them way too often on Panthers and Tigers) ? What kind of reaction would you think that would raise ?

While it could be statistically possible it just plain feels wrong. But lets not get into that.

And BTW I am not calling fo a "do somefink", I'm just equiring "is this a bug or what"

>As for the question marks... The tank has

>been identified (contact level 4). The

>infantry units have not (contact level 2 or

>3).

Actually the other tank in my arsenal took 4 shots at it previously but having missed all I decided to swiched the man at the bat. You can understand why I wanted not to lose the first tank that engaged it.

The infantry had been also engaged and I had to pull it back as it was getting beaten by that enemy tank.

Anyways, with such novelties as radios (and the fact that they were all in the same area) would it be terribly unrealistic to assume I as the commander was sending that tank to specifically hunt that enemy tank down ? Would it be fair to assume that the TC would have been told what he was up against and where it was last seen so he could be on the lookout for that very spot specifically ?

[ 07-21-2001: Message edited by: tero ]