Patch update...

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Grunts:

These guys at Battlefront are on the money with this game as they were with CMBO. I bought CMBO the first day it was available and the same with CMBB.I just wish that other companies making wargames could learn a little something from these guys. [snips]

Given that Battlefront's products knock all the others into a cocked hat, you'd certainly hope so, wouldn't you?

I'd like to add my thanks to the list. It is tempting to say, when you see such a superb game as CM:BB, and recognise the foundations of thorough research and expert software development that it must be built on, that "It doesn't get any better than this": But, due to Battlefront's very sound policies of "continuous improvement" and actually listening to their customers, in fact, it does! Are we lucky, or what?

Now, if Matt would like to add "change the unit information display for the ZiS-3 so that it shows a calibre length of L/41 instead of L/52" to the patch list, then Trofim Vissarionovich Picksky will recommend him and the rest of the crew for the Order of the Magnificent Bolsheviks for Heroic Production of Really Neat Stuff.

All the best,

John.

[Schoerner]

Yep, BTS is a company with not only superb products, they also show all the time, that they keep contact to the customers and therefore are making their excellent products even better.

Can anyone name a company with the worldwide best product in a certain category AND taking care that much about the customers' wishes and keeping a direct contact?

I guess it's not easy for a company, to find the right balance between contact to the customers, without being to much influenced and loosing the focus what was the key for the initial success and developing the own ideas.

[ November 12, 2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

These guys at Battlefront are on the money with this game as they were with CMBO. I bought CMBO the first day it was available and the same with CMBB.I just wish that other companies making wargames could learn a little something from these guys. [snips]

Given that Battlefront's products knock all the others into a cocked hat, you'd certainly hope so, wouldn't you?</font>

[Joques]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Can anyone name a company with the worldwide best product in a certain category AND taking care that much about the customers' wishes and keeping a direct contact?

Yes, actually Oleg Maddox does just that in the world of flightsims with IL-2 and the forthcoming IL-2: Forgotten Battles.

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

These guys at Battlefront are on the money with this game as they were with CMBO. I bought CMBO the first day it was available and the same with CMBB.I just wish that other companies making wargames could learn a little something from these guys. [snips]

Given that Battlefront's products knock all the others into a cocked hat, you'd certainly hope so, wouldn't you?

I'd like to add my thanks to the list. It is tempting to say, when you see such a superb game as CM:BB, and recognise the foundations of thorough research and expert software development that it must be built on, that "It doesn't get any better than this": But, due to Battlefront's very sound policies of "continuous improvement" and actually listening to their customers, in fact, it does! Are we lucky, or what?

Now, if Matt would like to add "change the unit information display for the ZiS-3 so that it shows a calibre length of L/41 instead of L/52" to the patch list, then Trofim Vissarionovich Picksky will recommend him and the rest of the crew for the Order of the Magnificent Bolsheviks for Heroic Production of Really Neat Stuff.

All the best,

John.</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

John, email me with your proof that it should be L/52 (this stuff aint my cup of tea so I cant comment) and I will pass it ahead to Charles to look at.

Actually, Matt, what John said was that it is already L/52 and it should be changed to L/41.

Michael

[Wallybob]

er....bump.

[Col Deadmarsh]

BTS, what about the apparent problem with units not firing on the opposition by themselves? I've only played one battle so far and yet I had multiple turns where my mg's wouldn't fire on a target they could plainly see.

Is anybody else seeing this too?

[Jev.Dk]

Ive seen my two T34 not firing HE at Inf, only mg fire. Clear LOS, range about 200 meters or so, and the tank had a CA well covered over the area(Not Armour CA) and it only fired HE when I gave it a target. Plenty of ammo and all. Dunno If this is old news. Havent had the time to read all the way through the thread.

And YES. Great work BFC, me thinks all that bitching over at GI is only cause they are envious of "our" team

Jev

Aka

Fluffy The Sheep

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Jev.Dk:

Ive seen my two T34 not firing HE at Inf, only mg fire. Clear LOS, range about 200 meters or so, and the tank had a CA well covered over the area(Not Armour CA) and it only fired HE when I gave it a target. Plenty of ammo and all. Dunno If this is old news.

Kind of. I used to see this all the time in BO.

Michael

[Voxman]

Yes, same problem here!

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

BTS, what about the apparent problem with units not firing on the opposition by themselves? I've only played one battle so far and yet I had multiple turns where my mg's wouldn't fire on a target they could plainly see.

Is anybody else seeing this too?

[roodboy]

When is the patch available and where do you download it from? Thanks.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I've only played one battle so far

Have you been wasting time making a living?

and yet I had multiple turns where my mg's wouldn't fire on a target they could plainly see.

Is anybody else seeing this too?

Aargh, yes.

In the "normal" kind of scenario, you know with valleys and trees and whatnot, I suppose it's not as big a deal, somehow. But units do seem to me reluctant to open fire, as if that weren't the reason for them being there.

We can't know what's abstracted away... sometimes the enemy may seem like they're in sight, but in "truth" our units really had no "good" shot at them, perhaps.

Yet other times, it seems irrefutable to me that they are just too reluctant. I just played, (or tried to) a City based scenario, which aggravates the problem. I watched with dropped jaw as my squads witnessed an enemy squad traipse out of one building and down the road into another... while they just sat there and watched. Ohmigod.

While on the flip side, I had tried Advancing my squads *ten* meters outside of their buildings, to immediately Advance right back inside, as a way of getting the opposition to reveal itself... The opfor did. Those peek-a-boo squads typically got three or four casualties just in that ten meters...

It makes me wonder whether it has been accidentally programmed that the opfor AI will open fire more readily than my AI.

Well I certainly have nothing conclusive to say, but FWIW they do seem overly reluctant to me too.

Eden

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Have you been wasting time making a living?

Sadly, yes. That and I owe turns in CMBO to people who've been waiting weeks for them. I'm gonna try another one of those canned scenarios in CMBB tonight though and see how I fare.

We can't know what's abstracted away... sometimes the enemy may seem like they're in sight, but in "truth" our units really had no "good" shot at them, perhaps.

Yet other times, it seems irrefutable to me that they are just too reluctant. I just played, (or tried to) a City based scenario, which aggravates the problem. I watched with dropped jaw as my squads witnessed an enemy squad traipse out of one building and down the road into another... while they just sat there and watched. Ohmigod.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on here. I never saw it to this degree though in CMBO. The following turn they had clear lines of sight to the enemy and all I had to do was tell them to shoot and they did.

I can understand if they don't see them, but then on the other hand if "I" can tell them to shoot at the enemy on the next turn, why can't they just do it themselves the turn before? Is this supposed to simulate something here--like they don't actually see the enemy at first?

[ November 16, 2002, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

if "I" can tell them to shoot at the enemy on the next turn, why can't they just do it themselves the turn before? Is this supposed to simulate something here--like they don't actually see the enemy at first?

The only hypothesis I've got in my huge brain is that BTS wanted us to have control over our forces, so if we actually want them to spend the ammo, we have to tell them to. They'll still shoot if it's a really good shot, or if they're threatened, but hold off otherwise. ?

Naturally, in the case I mentioned, the enemy comes out of the hole, runs about, and goes back down another hole... by the time the next turn comes, it's already too late to take that golden opportunity. And a bazillion other cases I'm sure, where we'd really like them to shoot but they don't, the worst being when one of my squads is making an advance to cover, and the other guys fail to target some newly appearing enemy who shreds me to pieces. That really smarts- you can't provide cover fire *everywhere*.

One idea I had was what if Cover Arcs actually *did* sort of coerce our units to open fire more readily, and the SMALLER the Arc, the MORE likely he would be to open fire on an enemy inside the Arc. Cool, huh?

Anyhow, probably someone will come by and say it's all our imagination.

Eden

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

The only hypothesis I've got in my huge brain is that BTS wanted us to have control over our forces, so if we actually want them to spend the ammo, we have to tell them to. They'll still shoot if it's a really good shot, or if they're threatened, but hold off otherwise. ?

Hi! Thought I would drop by and annoy you some more!

As usual, I don't have anything really useful to add, but I thought I'd speculate along with you guys until somebody smarter than us shows up.

What I'm wondering about this is if BTS made the troops a little less trigger happy than they were in BO, the rationale being that either they were just reluctant to fire (the S.L.A. Marshal factor), or if hidden didn't want to give their positions away. I might be interesting to see whether having them in command of an HQ with good morale and combat bonuses makes a difference.

One idea I had was what if Cover Arcs actually *did* sort of coerce our units to open fire more readily, and the SMALLER the Arc, the MORE likely he would be to open fire on an enemy inside the Arc. Cool, huh?

Yes, but I don't think it works that way. So far based on what I've seen and heard, it appears that CAs have a solely restrictive influence. I.e. they tell your units where not to look, rather than sharpening their attention within the arc.

Michael

[ November 16, 2002, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Hi! Thought I would drop by and annoy you some more!

*Mr* Emrys! You should know, in all seriousness, that it is not within the depths of your personality to annoy me in the slightest. Just help me stay on my diet- "Should we have Sneak *&* Crawl?" Not allowed. "Do Movement orders span the space of what we need?" Not allowed. "Arc Ambush & Trigger Ambush?" Not allowed. "Media too liberal?" Not allowed.

I thought I'd speculate along with you guys until somebody smarter than us shows up.

How long will we have to wait for THAT?

either they were just reluctant to fire (the S.L.A. Marshal factor)

Ah, yesssss. I agree completely. But what does the Sybionese Liberation Army have to do with it, and who's Marshal?

or if hidden didn't want to give their positions away.

Well this one doesn't work for me, at least not in the sense that it explains all available data. I witness what I perceive as reluctance quite easily *after* the unit has alreay announced itself. That's fine if they want to be reluctant to give away their positions, but once known... I'm mostly concerned with trying to find *some way* to guarantee that my units will at least TRY to suppress someone who pops up to decimate my advancing to cover unit. That hurts more than anything. My units appear to be cruel, heartless b*st*rds who would rather watch their friends die than go to all the trouble to open fire.

Yes, but I don't think it works that way. So far based on what I've seen and heard, it appears that CAs have a solely restrictive influence.

Yes I KNOW, I am the KING spokesman for that fact, and have been pointing it out since the demo. I don't know if you saw the ideas LordFluffer(?) and I came up with in the Cover Fire thread, but if we imagined that an arc *did* engender trigger joy, it raises some very satisfying possibilities.

I.e. they tell your units where not to look, rather than sharpening their attention within the arc.

Well let's not be too hasty with our words- it seems to be true that their only function is limiting fire, as stated in the Tome, but they do at least automagically *orient* the units attention to the "midway" point of the Arc. A tank will adjust itself to orient in that direction when at rest, eg, which looks neat if you give it a side oriented Arc and then have it travel down the road a ways. Put three of them abreast, with complementary arcs, and when they get to their destination they will fan out like a synchronized swimming routine.

But now to say that it's attention is "sharpened" I agree may be going a bit too far, for the reason that if it's attention is sharpened what effect does that have if not to make him open fire?

Eden