Some "less desirable" features in CMBO

[Juardis]

Absolute spotting!!! Unfortunately, it won't be fixed in CMBB, but damn is it frustrating. A tank on the other side of a map should not all of a sudden see a hidden unit just because an infantry squad of his happened to stumble upon that hidden unit.

The TAC AI preferentially targetting AT teams even when the AT team is identified as "infantry?". Next preferential target is HQ units. Did several tests on this with buttoned up hetzers rotated 90 degrees. Then ran a plt of guys, including a zook, across open ground right at a spot behind the hetzer. 4 out of 5 times the hetzer spotted the running guys and all 4 times it targetted the zook team.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Juardis:

Absolute spotting!!! Unfortunately, it won't be fixed in CMBB, but damn is it frustrating. A tank on the other side of a map should not all of a sudden see a hidden unit just because an infantry squad of his happened to stumble upon that hidden unit.

Hear hear !

The TAC AI preferentially targetting AT teams even when the AT team is identified as "infantry?". Next preferential target is HQ units. Did several tests on this with buttoned up hetzers rotated 90 degrees. Then ran a plt of guys, including a zook, across open ground right at a spot behind the hetzer. 4 out of 5 times the hetzer spotted the running guys and all 4 times it targetted the zook team.

I think that this is an issue. The player should get more spotting info even when playing with full FOW, at least the same amount the AI is using when determining what to target. If the AI can spot men carrying conspicuously large tube shape objects the player should get a heads up before you hear that WHOOHS sound when the first round leaves the tube. Especially since the AI seems to be able to make the difference.

[Ari Maenpaa]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MikeyD:

I've never found a vehicle unable to rotate to a target. They may do other odd things, but not that... unless your talking German halftracks, they don't seem to bother moving if a target ius outside their mg field of fire.<hr></blockquote>

Your comment made me to examine this one more closely. I think that I found the reason for my problems: Moving orders. When a vehicle has moving orders pending, even with a long pause first, it won't rotate it's hull to any direction. So moving orders "take away" vehicle's freedom to rotate it's hull.

Is this realistic? Not, if you ask me. Please fix/sumfink it BTS

Ari

[Redwolf]

Well, here is my pet list:

[WAKE UP! later edited for clarity: My list is "what annoys me about CMBO", nothing more.

Only some of the items are quick-fixable bugs, some are only fixable by programing nontrivial extensions, some are a matter of taste or conviction. And yes, the game is great, the good points make more than good for these cases, although the desire to play game with fewer problems like Tacops is of course raised.

Thanks for your attention!

]

[Further edited after calmind down and reviewing the list]

- smoke round shooting bugs

- tungsteen doesn't suffer enough from increased angles

- Tiger. King Tiger and Panther too weak against US 75mm (see Rexford posts)

- killing unarmoured vehicles by HE bug. The whole damage model seens to be reused from the infantry model and is inadaequate for vehicles

- no burst fire, increased rate of fire in emergency or self-defense. Hurts MGs, which can be overrun too easily and guns like the 25pdr, which in real life could deliver exceptially many shells in short time

- 25 pdr offboard arty has much too slow ROF

- mortar vehicles not able to fire indirect

- model for multiple-rounds AA guns is insufficient, hit chance too high if you take in mind that the hit has full effect as if all rounds hit, while the chance is that one of these rounds hits. Better than nothing, of ourse, but it can be very irritating that some vehicles has a nearly-sure hit probability, while the long 88 doesn't

- 3" mortars with its small crew and hence it is cheap. The crew is small so that the Bren Carrier isn't overloaded. I'd rather accept the Bren carrier reality stretch

- Bunkers are best attacked by Stuarts, Greyhounds and Daimler ACs

- Panther turret model is too simple, punishes the tank too much

- Overall, turrets always point wrong and entierly unrealistic. In real life, they would point to a possible threat. Again, punishes slow-turret tanks more than it should, even is the turret speed is right. Makes turretless vehicles stronger in comparision than they historically were, but urretless vehicles till come with a price rebate like the turret was as useful as in reality

- pricing oddities like the Hetzer or the British 95mm, which has a so effective HC round that the Cromwell VI and VIII are amoung the best tank hunters in the game, at the same price as the 75mm version

- Entering a new password is only once. Mistype and you can't reload later

- Strange bogging chances. Compare StuG III and Panzer IV in mud [edited, probably nonsense, the StuG IV is the one with the same ground pressure than the Pz IV, I need to re-test]

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

- killing unarmoured vehicles by HE bug. The whole damage model seens to be reused from the infantry model and is inadaequate for vehicles<hr></blockquote>

Could you expand on this please, redwolf? I recall a discussion on this subject a few months back and I want to get your take on it.

BTW, I like your list. After I think about it for a while I may add several items to it. It might be useful to condense all our serious gripes into a single master list.

Michael

[Redwolf]

[unarmoured vehicles killing bug]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Could you expand on this please, redwolf? I recall a discussion on this subject a few months back and I want to get your take on it.

<hr></blockquote>

See thread 017981 for a bigger discussion. Please note that what I said there is partly outdated knowledge.

Basically two issues:

- direct hit is not modeled. You always see the round hit the ground and the vehicle only suffers from the blast effect

- when shooting on an unarmoured target, movement of the target is not taken into account, the shell will land behind

It also doesn't help that MGs are not modeled with exceptional bursts on emergencies, something a MG gunner facing a SdKfz 7/2 would surely do.

In later discussions to the thread above Steve said that Charles fix the no-direct-hit bug (for CMBB), but I didn't get the impression that it was complete. It is still the infantry damage model that is used for unarmoured vehicles, while I think they need their own. Of course, implementing a third damage model costs time and later needs to be patched, but we'll see how CMBB turns out.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

BTW, I like your list. After I think about it for a while I may add several items to it. It might be useful to condense all our serious gripes into a single master list.

<hr></blockquote>

I am not sure I like it myself :-/

I am beginning to loose CMBO fun, especially since I cannot be sure that a given opponent will push the game engine and have to decide whether to do so myself. It's kind of the nuclear option in TOAW, but less fun.

It doesn't help that the tournaments with realistic scenarios are all filled up (but it seems the wannabe-nordic one might be for me).

I also think there are bugs in the units pricing formular, but that is a matter of taste, of course. And this applies even to scenarios, as victory points are done based on flags and knockout points and your costly German halftracks will still do a lot of damage to your victory level even if you got them for free in the scenario. It also doesn't help that most scenario designers don't understand the flag/unit cost relationship for victory level and determine the number of flags on the number of places they want a fight over, and don't place "double" flags so that there are enough for the size of the forces. Usually coming up with far too few so that the outcome of the battle is only dependent on the knockout points, and it doesn't really matter who sits on the flags. Maybe I should write a guide for that...

[Pak40]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

Your comment made me to examine this one more closely. I think that I found the reason for my problems: Moving orders. When a vehicle has moving orders pending, even with a long pause first, it won't rotate it's hull to any direction. So moving orders "take away" vehicle's freedom to rotate it's hull.

Is this realistic? Not, if you ask me. Please fix/sumfink it BTS

Ari<hr></blockquote>

To put it blunly, you just used the wrong order. Issuing a Move or Move Fast command is equivelent to saying "Move to this location, do not stop to engage enemy"

If you use anything other than a Hunt command then the movement orders overrides the necessity to rotate and engage an enemy, even while your tank is in it's pause phase.

I always use the Hunt command with assault guns when moving in the face of an enemy. "Shoot and Scoot" tactics don't work with assault guns since there is no turret, therefore the only alternative is to use HUNT or just sit tight. You can use the FAST command to dash behind cover, but this is dangerous since the assault gun can't defend itself(if enemy is outside the firing arc); the dashes should be as short as possible so that any enemy gun doesn't have time to aim and shoot.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

I am beginning to loose CMBO fun, especially since I cannot be sure that a given opponent will push the game engine and have to decide whether to do so myself. It's kind of the nuclear option in TOAW, but less fun.<hr></blockquote>

That's one reason why I only play against the AI. People say that is sucks, but I find that it performs in a fairly historical way, and except for buying hordes of 20mm Flak, isn't teribly gamey.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

Well, here is my pet list:<hr></blockquote>

Good list. Some of these refer to units that will not appear in CM2. I'll comment on a few of the others, since I have nothing better to do at the moment

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>- killing unarmoured vehicles by HE bug. The whole damage model seens to be reused from the infantry model and is inadaequate for vehicles<hr></blockquote>

As you noted, this has been fixed in CM2. You said it sounded like the fix was not complete, but IIRC Steve did not say anything about how it was fixed.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>- no burst fire, increased rate of fire in emergency or self-defense. Hurts MGs, which can be overrun too easily and guns like the 25pdr, which in real life could deliver exceptially many shells in short time<hr></blockquote>

Fixed for MGs. I don't know about other types of units.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>- Overall, turrets always point wrong and entierly unrealistic. In real life, they would point to a possible threat. Again, punishes slow-turret tanks more than it should, even is the turret speed is right<hr></blockquote>

Well, I wouldn't say it always points the wrong way. I would like to see a "Point Turret" command that could order a tank to point its turret independent of the hull, until a target came into view.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>- Strange bogging chances. Compare StuG III and Panzer IV in mud<hr></blockquote>

I don't see a problem here. The ground pressure of the StuG III is much higher than the Panzer IV. It should bog more.

I pretty much agree with the rest.

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[bodman]

Hello,

Speaking of goofy Tank AI. Does anyone remember how terrible the tank AI was in The Close Combat series? I think CMBO puts that series to shame.

Bodman

[Pak40]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by bodman:

Hello,

Speaking of goofy Tank AI. Does anyone remember how terrible the tank AI was in The Close Combat series? I think CMBO puts that series to shame.

Bodman<hr></blockquote>

Oh yea, bumper tanks!

[Ari Maenpaa]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pak40:

To put it blunly, you just used the wrong order. Issuing a Move or Move Fast command is equivelent to saying "Move to this location, do not stop to engage enemy"

<hr></blockquote>

My bad

Yep, you are of course right. Somehow I thought that the limitations of Move and Move Fast commands would apply to a tank only when it's moving. Thanks for correction.

Ari

[Redwolf]

For fairness, I should add to my list that many items are not simple bugs that BTS should address ASAP or somefink.

Some more serious items require computation models to be added or heavily extended. BTS had to stop somewhere getting more complex to get the game out. As for compromises, I can't point out an existing computation that I would let out or simplify in favour of some of those items.

Still, there are other bugs like the 3" mortars crew, the smoke round shooting, 25pdr, password entry and maybe some of the small-round-deadliness that I bet are a one-liners to fix (after you found the line that could easily make it into a 1.13 patch. For which I would pay the full CMBO price again.

I also forgot the prisoner bug in TCP/IP games, which is probably a bitch to find for a programmer, but I guess it has to be done for CMBB anyway and I'd like it backported to CMBO.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

That's one reason why I only play against the AI. People say that is sucks, but I find that it performs in a fairly historical way, and except for buying hordes of 20mm Flak, isn't teribly gamey.

<hr></blockquote>

My personal favourite item in CM would be a computed opponent loadable into the executable via a DLL interface, like quake and friends have. Program your own AI and maybe let two versions of it fight it out.

Or let boring PBEMs be finished by your AI

Seriously, Michael, there are a lot of players out there who mean it if they say they play realistically. You still need to except 50% junk games, at least until your find your buddies.

Also there are some tricks to "tune" the existing AI in scenarios, I hope I can put some more thought into that.

[Andreas]

Michael, Redwolf, why don't you try the opponent finder on the Scenario Depot (link in my sig), pick a historical scenario by a reputable designer, or one with good reviews, or both, and specify in your message that you are after historical playing? Worth a shot I would think.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Michael, Redwolf, why don't you try the opponent finder on the Scenario Depot (link in my sig), pick a historical scenario by a reputable designer, or one with good reviews, or both, and specify in your message that you are after historical playing? Worth a shot I would think.<hr></blockquote>

Actually I did, looking for duel games (two games of same scenario started at once). No response so far, I think this duel thing isn't everyone's taste...

[Pak40]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

Still, there are other bugs like the 3" mortars crew, the smoke round shooting, 25pdr, password entry and maybe some of the small-round-deadliness that I bet are a one-liners to fix (after you found the line that could easily make it into a 1.13 patch. For which I would pay the full CMBO price again.

I also forgot the prisoner bug in TCP/IP games, which is probably a bitch to find for a programmer, but I guess it has to be done for CMBB anyway and I'd like it backported to CMBO.<hr></blockquote>

Redwolf,

I've read your posts in this thread and it seems that most of your "bugs" are in fact not bugs. A bug is something that is either a mistake in the programming or an undesired affect (from the point of view of the programmer). Most of your concerns fall into the "wish list" category.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> smoke round shooting bugs

- tungsteen doesn't suffer enough from increased angles<hr></blockquote>

You're kidding? Tungsten suffers increadibly from sloped armor. In fact, regular AP rounds have a better chance of penetration at 60°

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Tiger and Panther too weak against US 75mm (see Rexford posts)<hr></blockquote>

Huh? Last time I checked the 75mm bounced off of these two tanks frontally.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - killing unarmoured vehicles by HE bug. The whole damage model seens to be reused from the infantry model and is inadaequate for vehicles<hr></blockquote>

You have a point, but this is not a bug. put this on your wish list to remodel the way artillery affects vehicles. I personally have no problem with this since unarmored vehicles are more susceptable to artillery than humans.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - no burst fire, increased rate of fire in emergency or self-defense. Hurts MGs, which can be overrun too easily and guns like the 25pdr, which in real life could deliver exceptially many shells in short time<hr></blockquote>

good point, but this is not a bug. put it on your wish list to remodel in future versions.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - 25 pdr offboard arty has much too slow ROF<hr></blockquote>

I have seen other threads with this concern but I have no concrete evidence. Mortars can fire faster too, does that mean that BTS should change their rate of fire?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - mortar vehicles not able to fire indirect<hr></blockquote>

Yea, this was not a good design by BTS. put this on your wish list.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - model for multiple-rounds AA guns is insufficient, hit chance too high if you take in mind that the hit has full effect as if all rounds hit, while the chance is that one of these rounds hits<hr></blockquote>

I always wondered about this, however, the game was intentionally designed this way so it's not a bug. put it on your wish list.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - 3" mortars with its slow crew. I'd rather accept the Bren carrier reality strtch<hr></blockquote>

is it slower than the german/american counterparts? If so then you may have point.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Bunkers are best attacked by Stuarts, Greyhounds and Daimler ACs<hr></blockquote>

I've never had this impression but I've never really run the tests.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Panther turret model is too simple, punishes the tank too much<hr></blockquote>

elaborate on this please. This is a wish list item not a bug.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Overall, turrets always point wrong and entierly unrealistic. In real life, they would point to a possible threat. Again, punishes slow-turret tanks more than it should, even is the turret speed is right<hr></blockquote>

True, but not a bug. Wish list item.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - pricing oddities like the Hetzer or the British 95mm, which has a so effective HC round that the Cromwell VI and VIII are amoung the best tank hunters in the game, at the same price as the 75mm version<hr></blockquote>

The 95mm guns is a very inaccurate gun(slow arching velocity) which makes it a very poor tank hunter, along with the fact that it has a slow ROF and few HEAT rounds.

I don't understand how you think that a tank with the 95mm is a good tank hunter, unless you always engage enemy tanks under 150m which I find unbelievable.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Entering a new password is only once. Mistype and you can't reload later<hr></blockquote>

good point, should be in your wish list

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Strange bogging chances. Compare StuG III and Panzer IV in mud <hr></blockquote>

Never seen or heard anyone say anything about this.

I also don't know anything about the prisoner tcp/ip bug, can you elaborate?

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I've read your posts in this thread and it seems that most of your

"bugs" are in fact not bugs. A bug is something that is either a

mistake in the programming or an undesired affect (from the point of

view of the programmer). Most of your concerns fall into the "wish

list" category.

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, as I pointed out in my followup. It is a list of things that annoy me, no matter if they are software bugs, design mistakes, design omissions or matters of taste.

[tungesteen]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

You're kidding? Tungsten suffers increadibly from sloped armor. In

fact, regular AP rounds have a better chance of penetration at 60

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, and it should be worse, tungsteen is great shooting at a Tiger 1, it sucks shen shooting at a Panther. Read rexford's posts, he's the expert. Note that I don't blame BTS for doing it "wrong" in CMBO, since CMBO was done before rexford's book. Still, the issues annoys me when I play and I would like to have a patch for it, that is all my list was about.

[Tiger and Panther too weak against US 75mm (see Rexford posts)]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Huh? Last time I checked the 75mm bounced off of these two tanks

frontally.

<hr></blockquote>

What can I say? I can only repeat, read Rexford's posts, he is the expert. The front is OK, as I understand, but side hits from 75mm against Tiger are too dangerous in CMBO. If you don't like rexford's posts, read Villers-Bocage accounts, how Cromwells shoot point-black at the back of Tiger 1's turrets.

[killing unarmoured vehicles by HE bug. The whole damage model

seens to be reused from the infantry model and is inadaequate for

vehicles]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

You have a point, but this is not a bug. put this on your wish list to

remodel the way artillery affects vehicles. I personally have no

problem with this since unarmored vehicles are more susceptable to

artillery than humans.

<hr></blockquote>

I'm not talking about arty, arty is fine against them. I am talking a tank shooting at them. Read the thread I pointed Michael to or Steve's announcement that Charles fixed it for CMBB.

[ - no burst fire, increased rate of fire in emergency or

self-defense. Hurts MGs, which can be overrun too easily and guns

like the 25pdr, which in real life could deliver exceptially many

shells in short time

]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

good point, but this is not a bug. put it on your wish list to remodel

in future versions.

<hr></blockquote>

My list *is* a wish list. It isn't a bug, but an underdeveloped computer model. It will be addressed in CMBB for MGs and the 25pdr isn't in anyway.

[

- 25 pdr offboard arty has much too slow ROF

]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I have seen other threads with this concern but I have no concrete

evidence. Mortars can fire faster too, does that mean that BTS should

change their rate of fire?

<hr></blockquote>

Take a 25pdr FO and shoot it empty and see how logn it takes. I had a 10 turns arty test game, it isn't long enough, you need 15 turns for preparation and firing it empty. No other arty module has such a low rate of fire, and that is very bad since the 25pdr was the single howitzer in WW2 that was known for its *high* rate of fire.

This is the one single FO case where ROF is extremly low, not off by a few percent. I wouldn't want a higher rate of fire for any arty, that would cost too much ammo given that you have to fire for whole turns.

It is not a bug, it is a change request.

[ - 3" mortars with its slow crew. I'd rather accept the Bren carrier

reality strtch

]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

is it slower than the german/american counterparts?

<hr></blockquote>

I am sorry, I meant small crew, not slow crew, I re-edited the post. The thing is too cheap for its lethality because of its small crew. On the other hand, it is fragile. It has the small crew because the Bren carrier has a two-man crew and BTS didn't want more than 5 men on the carrier.

I'd say, better make the carrier too capable than to make th 3" mortar that cheap.

[

- Panther turret model is too simple, punishes the tank too much

]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

elaborate on this please.

<hr></blockquote>

No. See countless threads on the issue. The Panther's turret is driven by the main engine, and can only rotate fast when the engine is spinning high. But then really fast. Not modeld and just put on "slow".

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

This is a wish list item not a bug.

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, dammit.

But rather, it is a statement of what annoys me in CMBO. Fixing it would require a bigger computer model and that is pretty much to ask for for an old game.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

The 95mm guns is a very inaccurate gun(slow arching velocity) which

makes it a very poor tank hunter, along with the fact that it has a

slow ROF and few HEAT rounds.

I don't understand how you think that a tank with the 95mm is a good

tank hunter, unless you always engage enemy tanks under 150m which I

find unbelievable.

<hr></blockquote>

The HEAT is extremly effective and the accuracy is not much less than the 75mm. You can kill Jagdpanthers and Panzer IV/70 with no problems. You usually have enough HEAT rounds for each enemy MBT or tank hunter.

[

- Strange bogging chances. Compare StuG III and Panzer IV in mud

]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Never seen or heard anyone say anything about this.

<hr></blockquote>

Come on, it only takes 3 minutes to try it out. Make a scenario with mud, place soem StuG III and Pz IV on it and drive them forward.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I also don't know anything about the prisoner tcp/ip bug, can you

elaborate?

<hr></blockquote>

If prisoners are taken in a TCP/IP game, the game often crashes or hangs, depending on who hits the next button first.

With all respect, but you should have reviewed some of the excellent threads on the issues above before accusing me of posting glibberish. I also made it very clear that only some of the items are quick-fixable bugs, some are only fixable by program serious extension, some are a matter of taste or conviction.

My list is "what annoys me about CMBO", nothing more.

And yes, the game is great, the good points make more than good for these cases, although the desire to play game with fewer problems like Tacops is of course raised.

[Pak40]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

If prisoners are taken in a TCP/IP game, the game often crashes or hangs, depending on who hits the next button first.<hr></blockquote>

I've never experience this and have played many TCP/IP games where prisoners have been taken. I guess I'm just lucky.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

With all respect, but you should have reviewed some of the excellent threads on the issues above before accusing me of posting glibberish. I also made it very clear that only some of the items are quick-fixable bugs, some are only fixable by program serious extension, some are a matter of taste or conviction.

My list is "what annoys me about CMBO", nothing more.<hr></blockquote>

Re-read my post. Did I ever accuse you of posting glibberish??? You have valid complaints, I was only stating that they are not bugs (except the prisoner TCP/IP thing).

Everything you stated is a "wish list" of improvements that you and many others would like to see. I have no problem with that. But, I highly disagree that it takes so much away from the game that is almost unplayable. These are just little things that barely distract from the overall experience of the game. It's time for BTS to move forward and finish CMBB; and we can all expect these improvements to be in that game.

Sorry if I sounded like I was bashing you. I tend to get upset when a company makes a the best tactical Wargame ever, works hard to satisfy its customers, works hard to make it very bug free, and STILL gets ripped by someone who thinks the left bogey wheel on the MkIVF2 doesn't wobble 4.5 ° in either direction like it should. But that's just me.