Auto-sneak-exhaustion not improved in 1.01

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Even single bursts gotten off the defenders towards your HMGs (which the defenders will get off no matter how hard you supress them) will take your HMGs out of the game for an inappropriately long amount of time.

Ok, now I'm at a loss of words. Just a few posts ago you asked how to move MGs forward, and you got a few answers, including one by me.

Now you're again complaining that you can't do it, but what you have written now suggests that you haven't even tried those tips. Are you even interested in trying a different approach for once?

Dschugaschwili

[Joel]

Originally posted by redwolf:

If you want to make me happy then you point out to me how I can move a HMG into effective range in an infantry-only attack with only spots of cover, without getting it out of business for 15+ turns on minimal fire which should be good for 3-4 turns of slackery.

Redwolf, your question implies this behavior happens all the time, but you always mention the same single test result.

I have also run some tests with a fire lane scenario similar to yours :

- 4 lanes with 1 Regular HMG facing 1 Regular Maxim in each lane.

- turn 1 : Maxim holds fire while HMG moves forward.

- turn 2 : Maxim fire.

- turn 3 : Maxim holds fire until end of test.

In v1.01, I did 12 runs with 4 HMGs in each one. This led to only 3 HMGs out of 48 taking more than 5 turns to recover to "OK" and "Ready" status.

That means that what you complain for happens roughly ONCE IN SIXTEEN TIMES.

I'd suggest you do some more test runs with v1.01 before asking for code changes.

As for the so called "ideal conditions" in the test, I wouldn't call them "ideal" when each HMG is out of command in bare open terrain facing one Maxim dedicated to ruin its life for a full minute.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Relative. If we were to make Teams relatively closer to Squads relative to the whole, this would be less realistic because the realistic differences between the two would diminish. And nobody, not even you, has made a case for them being able to move around with greater ease than they do now.

Not with greater ease but perhaps with a (slightly) greater speed. The HMG team tires fast (which is good and proper on the whole) but they can not run short distances. IMO it would be more realistic to have the HMG team run that 50 meters to the cover instead of having it Sneak/Crawl it all the way. They would be equally sapped but they would be exposed for a shorter time period than they are if they Crawl. If there was a separate Sneak mode that would make them move stealthily but not lose their stamina in the process.

And that is what this thread is about, not about how quickly a MG assistant gunner can get a belt out and load a MG. That is something entirely different that you have, for some odd reason, dragged into this discussion.

That is incidental. Even you must realise that is only enhancement to a point, not a separate issue as such.

Or do you want to get me going on the lack of RPM's for the überFinnish Maxims ?

I just had a mortar team defend itself, quite well in fact, against an enemy infantry assault without losing its mortar.

Lucky you.

So I don't understand what it is you are saying here, except for perhaps pointing out that occasionally some foolish specialist would ignore all his training. According to your perception of training effects in combat this would not happen

Admittedly the reports I have read about FO's having to defend themselves against infantry attacks does pertain only überFinnish FO's. I am currently reading an autobiography of a Finnish FO and it is a recurring theme. They had SMG's and rifles and they had to use them quite often to beat back Soviet infantry while calling in fire mission. Either the Finnish FO's were deployed more towards the frontline than in the rest of the armies. Or there is something in the differences between the others and the Finnish fire direction practises and firing procedures that allowed them to do this.

Then again having their land line go dead may have left them with nothing much to do but take pot shots at the enemy while waiting for the comms pukes to get the line working again.

And in case you can not discern it this is a side issue not worth getting too much worked up about.

Absolutely agree. And that is why a HMG Team in CM can handle a HMG better than a Squad can Or are you saying that because a HMG team can operate a HMG better than a Squad that they should somehow be better at returning fire under fire than a Squad, even though the Squad is better trained in the use of rifles and LMGs than the HMG team? Don't you see here... your argument is irrelevant when looking at how each handles incomming fire. It has zero to do with their weapons training. And just to repeat again, this discussion is about Exhaustion, which has nothing to do with training.

What happens before Exhaustion sets in can not be ignored.

Lets say we have a HMG team and a squad traverse an open location. Both get shot at. Hitting the deck is reasonable in almost all circumstances. What would be the most reasonable way to respond to the new threat: start crawling for near by cover, sprint for near by cover or return fire in place ? All this is situation and experience level dependant of course.

I assume the members of the squad act according to their training for the first few seconds (dive, roll/crawl or crawl/roll, observe, fire) within a few meters from their respective locations. What then ? Instead of starting to crawl 50 meters even a reasonably green squad would most propably ascertain the direction the fire is coming from and start out returning suppressing fire. If they get suppressed and they need to relocate would they really opt to crawl out or use other modes of movement, like pulling out by the section using overwatch.

A HMG team would hit the deck and depending on the situation either make a dash for a location they can set up and start firing or set up in place and start blasting. Having them crawl extended distances is the least realistic option. Have YOU tried crawling with a tripod or a Maxim MG and keep low yourself at the same time ? I have and I must tell you that I can imagine a war time HMG team would more likely look for a nearby cover and make a run for it rather than hit the deck and start crawling for it, especially over such distances as 50 meters. I imagine it would not be beyond them to drop what they are carrying and revert to using their rifles and sidearms in case setting up or other use of the HMG is out of the question.

It is a bit of a shame the TacAI and the command set favour advance and aggressive manouvering. There is little for defensive manouvering to offer in them.

Correct. And what is the basic, automated thing troops of all flavors are most interested in? Staying alive.

Yes. There is one fallacy in your reasoning though. A squad has to get sufficiently suppressed for the survival instinct to get the better of the trained instinct and after that they would propably not CRAWL extended distances (50 meters) to save themselves. If panicked enough they would most propably make a dash for it. Or a series of dashes depending on the distance. If they are able to keep their wits and they remember their training they are not likely to get sapped crawling around doing nothing. They would look for a location which provides even a token LOS cover and start up towards the direction the fire is coming from. If they need to pull out, as stated above, dashing using section overwatch would be the most appropriate means of movement in a sitaution like that.

This is exactly what they do. The conditions being discussed here are basically so bad that the unit has already decided that the risk of moving is better than the risk of setting up shop and defending from where they are at.

Are they using the old CMBO Sneak part or the old CMBO Crawl part of the CMBB Sneak command ?

No, you are wrong because you are treating this thing in an overly simplistic way. For example, we have been talking about units out in the open. How is the Maxim going to be fired when there is nothing handily available to fire from other than the tripod?

You assuming tabletop type terrain with no features. OK. The team is carrying stuff like several (presumably) metallic ammo boxes. Even a folded tripod can be used.

In a more realistic terrain any suitably located elevated firm terrain feature can be used.

Also, as someone else pointed out this is not about one guy being Rambo with a HMG. This is about a team of 4-6 men with heavy loads of ammo and other weapon specific equipment.

For a much better and much more appropriate references for HMG teams I suggest you dig up your copy of Väinö Linnas The Unknown Soldier and the two movies (1950's and 1980's edition) based on it.

All belts are prone to jamming when they are not set up in the prescribed way. Perhaps some less than others, but this is still totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Not when talking about alternate ways of using the equipment.

Tero, could you PLEASE stay focused? We are not talking about the difference in seconds one weapon takes to set up vs. another. That is, like much of the above stuff from you, totally irrelevant. And no, they are all pretty much treated equally, although I think there is a lower chance of JAM for water cooled MGs. But this, like the rest of your distracting side coversation, is irrelevant.

You brought up the nth degree. I just asked about what you meant by that. I would have expected you to be able to sort that out. You yourself brought it up.

I trusted you to be able to discern it. This is a side issue not worth getting too much worked up about.

No, because Redwolf got them into a bad situation while on the move, they decided they wanted to get out from that spot, and Redwolf did not try to influence that decision.

So basically Redwolf is the one to blame for this feature not working for him the way it is supposed to ?

True, we could in theory use a seperate SNEAK command for this type of unit in this type of situation. However, Assault or Advance works damned well for something like a Tank Hunter. For something like a Scheck, use Sneak only for the last portion of the move. In real life Sneaking while standing up in most cases isn't any different than what Advance will yield in the game. Standing up means you have a good chance of being spotted.

Yep. But would you really need to Crawl in covered terrain to be stealthy ?

From my experience, Tank Hunters do very well with the Sneak command. Do you have some direct experience to say otherwise, or are you just arguing to argue?

Experience. Especially AT teams with no stand off capable weapons would really benefit from a Sneak that does not zap away their stamina. Especially in covered terrain and/or when the Universal Spotting production studios are resposible for the feature attractions.

Not for me. I use it in the same way the TacAI does, as well as being more creative with it in general. But that is not limited to the Sneak command as a good player can do all sorts of things the TacAI isn't coded for.

The thing is you can not get the Sneak part without the Crawl part. How do you move troops in a stealthy manner if Sneaking means crawling and the player can not tell for certain (or precisely) when to swicth from other modes to Sneak ? The AI is taking care of a lot of stuff. Setting up way points and ordering modes of movement is (too) often (too) arbitrary when the terrain features large tiles and even a millimeter on the screen can be the difference of life and death of the troops. Move to Contact was a definitive step in the right direction but combining Sneak and Crawl was a definitive set back.

Sure, the playtested it for a year. How else do you expect to figure out a couple billion possible permutations? By testing them one at a time out of context?

How do you determine a permuatation is out of context ? If you set up parameters to follow and they are followed no wonder the end result is what you expected them to be when you started out. What happens when an "illegal" permutation is observed ?

I think it is fine the way it is now. They will do this, but not in crappy circumstances like the ones discussed to death in this thread.

I think the very functionality of the feature is best tested in such crappy circumstances. The Gauss curve assumes there are samples at the very tip of the both ends of the line. The fact that the vast majority of the incidencies are within the norm does not make the far end occurancies any less relevant.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Andreas:

How about you respond to me pulling Erickson style total BS out?

Unless I overlook something you only claim the defenders were weaker than their number of divsions suggests and somehow Manstein fails to mention that in "Lost Victories". Neither of that surprises me.

You are not going to suggest the Soviets had nothing left to shoot at infantry, do you?

[ November 27, 2002, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[rune]

Not sure if this is a duplicate or not.

1. You stated in your original message, that the Crimea was an all infantry battle and was flat. I think you meant the initial assault, but did NOT state that.

2. From The Battle of Crimea 1941-1942 (Military Chronicles series 2002/1) book, the 22nd Panzer [i typo'ed and put in the 2nd], the 22nd served in the Crimea, but obviously not in the initial assault. On May 1942, they fought near Feodosia, which is in the Crimea.

3. In the above book, a photo is captioned :"5. Pz.Kpfw.IVAusf.F1, which belonged to the 22nd Panzer Division Wehrmach, on the maintenance and repairs base of the Crimean Front. April 1942."

4. The quote about LAH in full is this:

"After the successful Campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece, the LAH was refitted and brought up to Divisional status, but only in name, and then attached to the 54th Armee Korps for the invasion of the Soviet Union. The LAH was part of Amy Group South, and as such, did not itself see combat until it was used to assault the Tarter Ditch blocking the way into the Crimea. Next, LAH was transferred to Panzer Group 1 to take part in the massive encirclement of the Kiev Pocket. Still under Panzer Group 1, the LAH then took part in the drive on Rostov"

So, instead of insulting, try asking for sources. YOU stated your original quote wrong, which i responded to. Their were must definitely tanks used in the Crimea, mainly Pz38t(e) and some older Panzer IVs.

I am sure you will rush out and offer an apology, so I am done with this thread. yes, this is sarcasm]

Rune

[aka_tom_w]

Is this "The Song That Never Ends"

or is it just "The Thread That Never Dies"?

lol

-tom w

[rune]

More information:

http://www.magweb.com/sample/scou/subcouri.htm

For LAH:

www.feldgrau.com

More on the battles in the Crimea:

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/campaign_awards/shields/krim_campaign.htm

The bottom line was that Panzers served in the Crimea, but not til March of 1942. To say that the Crimea was an all infantry battle is wrong.

Yes, I know you now say the opening assault. I have different sources saying different things about LAH. Trying to see if parts were split apart, which IS a possibility.

Rune

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by redwolf:

If you want to make me happy then you point out to me how I can move a HMG into effective range in an infantry-only attack with only spots of cover, without getting it out of business for 15+ turns on minimal fire which should be good for 3-4 turns of slackery.

I've read most of the thread, but I could've missed it if this suggestion has already been made... I apologize if you've already somehow shown this won't work:

If your HMG is being suppressed so easily, doesn't that mean it's already within effective range? Particularly since most German MGs have a higher FP at a given range than their Soviet counterparts. Why not stop where you are, or earlier if your troops really don't like that spot (keep panicking/routing), and shoot from there?

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

This is exactly what is broken. Even single bursts gotten off the defenders towards your HMGs (which the defenders will get off no matter how hard you supress them) will take your HMGs out of the game for an inappropriately long amount of time.

What amazes me is that you can read all of this thread and still say things like this. Or perhaps you are playing some other Combat Mission game I am not aware of?

Martin,

Good points (again) that the Germans didn't require tanks to move over open ground. There are other ways than brute armor force to move a force forward. And as I have said for years now... one can not draw any tactical conclusions from looking at operational (or higher) results. The two are interrelated, but not directly so. Therefore, trying to make an argument using one level of operations does not hold water when trying to prove a point about a different level. At least as it applies to this sort of discussion.

Holien,

Redwolf, those guys are picking at your words and it is to be expected. You are saying something is broke in the game. Other people with a lot of experience (actually a hell of a lot of experience ) are trying to understand what you are saying and to see if it is true or not.

Well put. This is not a lynch mob trying to roast an unbeliever. We (meaning the majority of this thread) have tried to replicate Redwolf's problems and we have found that, on the whole, his statements were factually incorrect. This is another case of misguided blame being cast on the system instead of on their own play style, tactics, or understanding of how the real war worked. Now, I am not saying that Redwolf is some ignorant RTS moron or anything (far from it), just that he is wrong in his conclusions about both how the game works and how real battles like this were conducted.

Dschugaschwili

Now you're again complaining that you can't do it, but what you have written now suggests that you haven't even tried those tips. Are you even interested in trying a different approach for once?

It appears so. He has been repeating the same factually flawed, grandious claims (admittedly, far more now reserved than before) through this entire conversation, despite good faith attempts by many people to simply point out that if he does things differently (i.e. more realistically) he will have better results. But yet it appears he still resists admitting that his initial claims were quite well off base. That's fine, but it doesn't do his repuation any good to keep fighting a debate he long ago lost fair and square.

Steve

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by rune:

Yes, I know you now say the opening assault. I have different sources saying different things about LAH. Trying to see if parts were split apart, which IS a possibility.

So what kind and number of assault-capable AFVs did LAH have? As posted by Martin Rapier this wouldn't do a big deal anyway. What kind of sources say LAH was involved? I tend to think that Manstein's own account may in case be the best one if you want to know where each of 11th Army divisions was at which time.

11th Army got 22nd Panzer later, for the Kerch battles, but who started talking about anything than the Perekop breakthrough of 24th Sept to 26th anyway? Only this period has any relevance to this thread, as it has the open terrain and infantry-only attack that in my opinion is not possible in CMBB right now. You can as well drag Normandy into this thread, or Hastings for that matter...

[rune]

Your quote:

"You think this is unrealistic? Then explain how the Germans entered into the Crimera in 1941 - with green and regular troops, infantry only."

Your post about HQ ans green units and flat terrain is gone. At NO time do you state just the initial assault. I called you on it, now you shift directions.

YOU were not clear. I posted some of the sources. I guess they are all wrong.

Whatever..

Rune

[rune]

And for everyone else. I created a huge infantry battle of a historical attack against one of the Hedgehogs at Kursk. The Germans attack a fortified position across OPEN ground. Amazinly, in the play tests, the Germans do make it through barbwire and other surprises and took the hedgehog.

According to some, this would be impossible. I will send the scenario to anyone who wants to play it from the German side. See for yourself if proper tactics can do what is claimed impossible.

Rune

[Redwolf]

[EDIT - deleted - If anyone is saying I talked about anything else than the entry into the crimea please do so with concrete quotes. I never deleted anything from my posting here]

[ November 27, 2002, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

If your HMG is being suppressed so easily, doesn't that mean it's already within effective range? Particularly since most German MGs have a higher FP at a given range than their Soviet counterparts. Why not stop where you are, or earlier if your troops really don't like that spot (keep panicking/routing), and shoot from there?

The whole point about this thread is that the fire which makes the MG exhausted is *not* effective fire. It is only effective because the game behaves like it does. There is absolutely no point to deliver this amount of firepower to any other unit in any other circumstances.

[Tarquelne]

I will send the scenario to anyone who wants to play it from the German side. See for yourself if proper tactics can do what is claimed impossible.

Ok, on the negative side, I'll have to admit that I actually looked in this topic again. Say it was a mistake?... no offer no explaination, maybe no one will think about it. And I wouldn't be contributing anything to the discussion, just mooching a scenario. Of course, how much more "contributing" could the topic stand?

On the plus side, I could get a "historical attack" against a Kursk Hedgehog from rune... Hmm...

Hi, rune. My name is Bill. I'd like a copy of the scenario. You can send it to Tarquelne's e-mail - tarquelne@neo.rr.com (also in profile.)

I promise to play it from the German side.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

Not with greater ease but perhaps with a (slightly) greater speed. The HMG team tires fast (which is good and proper on the whole) but they can not run short distances.

This is part of a totally different issue that has been discussed many, many times since the CMBO Beta Demo. The problem is that the game engine lacks that kind of fidelity. But in the context of this discussion, I don't think it would make any difference even if we could allow them to sprint short distances.

IMO it would be more realistic to have the HMG team run that 50 meters to the cover instead of having it Sneak/Crawl it all the way. They would be equally sapped but they would be exposed for a shorter time period than they are if they Crawl.

But they would also be exposed worse to whatever fire they received. On top of that, Sprinting commits the unit to a rather risky course of action which the player is going to have very little capability to influence (in general). With Sneak I can cancel the orders completely and leave the unit where it is, redirect it to someplace else, let it continue or put off that decision for another turn.

If there was a separate Sneak mode that would make them move stealthily but not lose their stamina in the process.

This has zero effect once a unit is spotted, which is exactly what we are talking about in this thread. So in the context of this discussion, this would do nothing.

Admittedly the reports I have read about FO's having to defend themselves against infantry attacks does pertain only überFinnish FO's. I am currently reading an autobiography of a Finnish FO and it is a recurring theme. They had SMG's and rifles and they had to use them quite often to beat back Soviet infantry while calling in fire mission. Either the Finnish FO's were deployed more towards the frontline than in the rest of the armies. Or there is something in the differences between the others and the Finnish fire direction practises and firing procedures that allowed them to do this.

No, I think it is primarily because you are reading a book written by an FO and no historical book I have ever seen has had a similar focus. My assumption here is that "all the time" did not mean every battle. And yes, I do know that FOs for other nations were often caught up in the fighting. However, CMBB simulates this to some degree with defensive fire capabilities. But, then again you are making this discussion unfocused again so let's drop the back and forth about this, OK?

What happens before Exhaustion sets in can not be ignored.

Of course not, but you are pulling things out of context and that is not helpful.

Lets say we have a HMG team and a squad traverse an open location. Both get shot at. Hitting the deck is reasonable in almost all circumstances. What would be the most reasonable way to respond to the new threat: start crawling for near by cover, sprint for near by cover or return fire in place ? All this is situation and experience level dependant of course.

Correct. And completely contrary to Redwolf's claims, the TacAI does all of these things depending on circumstances.

It is a bit of a shame the TacAI and the command set favour advance and aggressive manouvering. There is little for defensive manouvering to offer in them.

Sneak is a purely defensive move so I don't agree with your assessment.

Yes. There is one fallacy in your reasoning though. A squad has to get sufficiently suppressed for the survival instinct to get the better of the trained instinct and after that they would propably not CRAWL extended distances (50 meters) to save themselves. If panicked enough they would most propably make a dash for it. Or a series of dashes depending on the distance. If they are able to keep their wits and they remember their training they are not likely to get sapped crawling around doing nothing. They would look for a location which provides even a token LOS cover and start up towards the direction the fire is coming from. If they need to pull out, as stated above, dashing using section overwatch would be the most appropriate means of movement in a sitaution like that.

Again, contrary to Redwolf's claims... this is what the TacAI does. The unit first tries to shrug off the enemy fire (if very light, of course), then it tries to make it to better cover. This can be using a Run order or Sneak, depending on circumstances. If it feels that this is something it can't do, it remains in place trying to survive there instead of risking going elsewhere. Panicked units are a whole nother ball of wax.

Are they using the old CMBO Sneak part or the old CMBO Crawl part of the CMBB Sneak command ?

Sneak in CMBB is roughly what CMBO Crawl used to be in terms of cover and speed.

You assuming tabletop type terrain with no features. OK. The team is carrying stuff like several (presumably) metallic ammo boxes. Even a folded tripod can be used.

In a more realistic terrain any suitably located elevated firm terrain feature can be used.

You are assuming a generalized positive ability in unfavorable terrain. Go out into a field. Even a farmer's "shaped" field. Close your eyes and walk blindly, then drop down on your belly and look for something higher than you. Finding the kind of conditions you speak of is not out of the question, but it is far more unlikely than likely in open terrain. Plus, you again are underestimating the problems of firing a full auto weapon on no platform. Having seen most of the weapons in CMBB fired for real in ideal circumstances (actually, fired most myself ), your understanding of how MGs work in non ideal circumstances is fundamentally flawed.

Plus, this is still irrelevant to this discussion

For a much better and much more appropriate references for HMG teams I suggest you dig up your copy of Väinö Linnas The Unknown Soldier and the two movies (1950's and 1980's edition) based on it.

I don't have that, so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it that Finnish über MG gunners routinely strapped belts of ammo all over themselves, put their AT Toothpick behind one ear, and then marched upright into combat firing a Maxim with one hand from the hip while feeding the belt with the other hand. I stand corrected

Not when talking about alternate ways of using the equipment.

Sure, but that is also irrelevant to this discussion.

You brought up the nth degree. I just asked about what you meant by that. I would have expected you to be able to sort that out. You yourself brought it up.

To address your off topic point. What I should have done was simply ignore all your clutter arguments.

I trusted you to be able to discern it. This is a side issue not worth getting too much worked up about.

Then why did you inject it into this discussion? I didn't mention what a great sandwitch I had for lunch today, so perhaps you should try to not mention things that you yourself understand are irrelevant. Otherwise I must assume that you DO think it is relevant and therefore I have to respond as such.

So basically Redwolf is the one to blame for this feature not working for him the way it is supposed to ?

Yup. Just like the people who want to do SMG rushes at MGs like in CMBO are to blame for their squads being mowed down and the survivors running back panicked.

Yep. But would you really need to Crawl in covered terrain to be stealthy ?

If you don't think you are going to be observed, no. If you do think you are going to be observed, not chatting and clanking things won't do you any good if the enemy can actually see you moving about.

Experience. Especially AT teams with no stand off capable weapons would really benefit from a Sneak that does not zap away their stamina. Especially in covered terrain and/or when the Universal Spotting production studios are resposible for the feature attractions.

The kind of Sneak you are talking about doesn't work if the enemy has already spotted you. Use Advance instead of Sneak more.

The thing is you can not get the Sneak part without the Crawl part.

True, but again I point out... what good does sneaking around do if you are already spotted and under aimed fire? Nothing. So having this command doesn't change one bit how the system functions.

The AI is taking care of a lot of stuff. Setting up way points and ordering modes of movement is (too) often (too) arbitrary when the terrain features large tiles and even a millimeter on the screen can be the difference of life and death of the troops. Move to Contact was a definitive step in the right direction but combining Sneak and Crawl was a definitive set back.

I don't agree in general, and obviously think this is yet another example of you distracting us from the discussion in this thread. Like MG team training, this is irrelevant.

How do you determine a permuatation is out of context ? If you set up parameters to follow and they are followed no wonder the end result is what you expected them to be when you started out.

Our testers were never told how to play the game or what to do while they were playing it. Because of that they had no idea what the "end result" was supposed to be. And your statement clearly indicates that you have never play tested a game. But let me give you a hint... play testing is very much like what you are doing now. The difference is that a good play tester focuses in and determines what, if anything, might be wrong. They don't invent things and they don't bring up irrelevant issues. That just bogs down the whole process and makes the tester, effectively, useless to us. We don't have time to argue for argument's sake, which is something I think you quite enjoy (based on our many back and forths over the years).

What happens when an "illegal" permutation is observed ?

We seek to fix it, if possible, of course.

I think the very functionality of the feature is best tested in such crappy circumstances. The Gauss curve assumes there are samples at the very tip of the both ends of the line. The fact that the vast majority of the incidencies are within the norm does not make the far end occurancies any less relevant.

I have seen no indication that there is anything significant we need to concern ourselves with. The problems brought up by Redwolf are of his own making and the results are not unreasonable. With the exception that we might need to put a cap on recovery time, but that is something no player should ever experience in a real game because it is within his ability to control it.

Steve

[ November 27, 2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Pingu]

There seems to be an awful lot of misdirection going around this forum. Me, couldn't care less. You see I happen to be enjoying THE most tactical war game ever played. Sure it's not perfect but lets not get carried away, who could go back to playing c&c, close combat etc. Quiet in the audience. No, of course not. No other game comes close to providing the tactical nuances that this game throws at you.

I could cite myriad examples of how my infantry didn't respond to certain commands, but my favourite is the "A Warm place to sleep" scenario that I loaded up with the the 1.01 patched game. Managed to get a few squads in a Heavy Building plus an Anti-Rifle squad, the building came under heavy fire from Panzers, my men soon wanted out, sneak commands appeared from all the squads in the building.

Stay and defend that building mr, I ordered. Two or more turns in a row this happened, had to halt the sneak and give hide orders. Did this amend my stance to 'if you get a few idiosynchronies then the game is bugged', nearly but then ............................

The whole building collapsed and crushed the squads within, a few unfortunates survived. All along they had been telling me, let me out, let me out, I dont wanna burn. But did I listen. Well I do now.

And a thankyou to BF for not only providing this game but being patient and responsive in all of your posts. cheers!!!!!!!!

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I didn't mention what a great sandwitch I had for lunch today, so perhaps you should try to not mention things that you yourself understand are irrelevant.

What kind of sandwich was it? If it was so great why didn't you have two? And will you have a great sandwich tomorrow?

This raises a number of serious questions about BFC's sandwich modelling.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

The thing is you can not get the Sneak part without the Crawl part.

True, but again I point out... what good does sneaking around do if you are already spotted and under aimed fire? Nothing ...</font>

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

What kind of sandwich was it? If it was so great why didn't you have two? And will you have a great sandwich tomorrow?

This raises a number of serious questions about BFC's sandwich modelling.

Indeed. Steve, did you save any of the sandwich for us? It's not enough for you to just tell us anecdotes about your great sandwich; sandwiches can be great in a lot of ways, but we need specifics, especially if we want to reproduce the sandwich.

How large was the sandwich? Were there any bugs in the sandwich? Did you spot any other sandwiches while you were eating this sandwich? Are you sure you properly identified all of the ingredients in the sandwich, or was there extreme fog of hunger?

Did you eat so much you had to crawl away from the table, exhausted?

[Battlefront.com]

Gentlemen,

Let me take a few seconds here to address the "sandwitch" issue. It is not relevant to this discussion, but it was relevant to a nice aftertaste burp. And burps are very much like bursts of small arms fire, which of course is what makes units drop and Sneak all the time. So I suppose this is indeed related and therefore won't clutter up this discussion.

My nice sandwitch was a new meat substitute based on mushrooms. It took the form of a chicken pattie, which was oven cooked and served on toasted bun. Obviously, what was also in that bun is paramount to this discussion, so I shall dive a bit deeper into the description.

There was a healthy blop of Nayonase, which is a vegan mayonase substitute. On top of this was organic letuce and onion an non dairy cheese. 'twas delicious

Now, I know what you are all saying... how do these imitation meat and animal products adequately simulate the real things? I suppose since this is related to the sandwitch, which is related to burpping, which is related to this thread's topic, I shall continue just a bit more...

The new chicken like "meat" is fantastic. I still eat chicken every so often, and I think this new product is BETTER than the real thing. Obviously this is compared to chicken patties, not to something like Chicken Kiev (note the Ost Front relevance!). This was the first time I ever had this and can say I will be having a lot more of them in the days to come.

The Nayonase tastes identical to Kraft's Mirical Whip. It just doesn't have any of the nasty stuff which I suspect Kraft adds to make their products worse for your health than they otherwise would be. I've subjected carnivor friends of mine to blind taste tests with this stuff and they can't tell which is Nayo and whichis Mayo.

The organic letuce is just nice to have without the pesticides and whatever genitically modfied crap ADM or the like is pushing this month. Onions... same thing there. The non-dairy cheese does contain a milk enzyme, but it has no fat or cholestoral. Not as good as the real thing, but 100 times better than the vegan crap my wife eats

The bun, however, is your typical crappy enriched white rolls which contain nothing but preservatives and a pinch of God only knows what kind of flour. Hey, gotta live on the edge sometimes!

Washed it all down with fresh apple cider made in the next town over. For desert... exactly 2 Chips Ahoy cookies. Again, just to keep my life interesting and on the edge

Now, I expect this will conclude your curiosity concerning my lunch.

Thank you for your interest in this topic. I hope it has helped you all understand our modeling of the Sneak command.

Steve

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by redwolf:

It would be my first scenario and it is avoidable that I screw something up, unrelated to the discussion here. Looking at the style of argumentation in this thread this will lead to people bashing the scenario and by inappropriate extension of unrelated scenario mistakes take it as proof that my original point was wrong.

I understand your concern about posting a first scenario. I've been building them since the beta test days on CMBO and I still haven't publicly posted one.

Here's another suggestion: I'll create a "Manstein at Perekop" inspired scenario and send it to you. Then you can pick the flaws in it.

That's quite genuine, incidentally. I know bugger-all about the battle, the terrain, the forces, etc, so I'd be surprised if it didn't take a few passes before the scenario captures the nature of battle.

[manchildstein (ii)]

wasn't there a stug detachment in the early phases of the crimea campaign... plus some armored cars, motorcycles, and aa trucks and such?...

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by rune:

And for everyone else. I created a huge infantry battle of a historical attack against one of the Hedgehogs at Kursk. The Germans attack a fortified position across OPEN ground. Amazinly, in the play tests, the Germans do make it through barbwire and other surprises and took the hedgehog.

According to some, this would be impossible. I will send the scenario to anyone who wants to play it from the German side. See for yourself if proper tactics can do what is claimed impossible.

Rune

i find that the more suppression i can apply with some units, the more i can move 'other dudes' forward....

[Priest]

This stopped being amusing the last hundred times it was brought up.

So now you ask then why am I sticking my head in here? Well two reasons really.

1.) Steve plays paintball! COOL! So do I. Real rush. A might pricey once addicted but damn fun.

2.) I just played another CMBB game. I have played quite a few as you can imagine. This like many others where I was on the attack (when the situation warranted) I was able to shift my machine guns and other HWP units successfully. I have not seen this "wacky" thing everyone has been talking about. Now how have I accomplished this? Well simple first off I decide if I am going to need to move my support teams very far beyond my intitial setup area. If so then I identify the area(s) in which I want to eventually place my support weapons (after transit there). Now two really wierd things happen, first I use these things called infantry and armour to secure those areas and thus provide security for the advancing HWP teams. Next I use this thing called (doctor evil hand quote gestures) "cover" to advance those HWP troops. If I cannot expend the resources or there is not "cover" for me to move through then I am really screwed and should not move my HWP teams up. Need to find another plan.

So basically RedWolf if anything you should be asking for a map preview instead of these (IMO) non-factors that are completely related to unrealistic hopes and band aids for bad tactics.

In other words I agree with BFC and the beta testers, not sure what the hell the issue is as it has never happened to me, and as far as I can tell unless I go tromping off in the great wide open with my MG teams am I ever going to have the unlikely chance to see it.

So don't use bad tactics. Seems simple enough.