Sudden spotter HQ change for morters, annoying!

[Panzer76]

So, I tried the vehicle mouted morters. Sat them up behind a hill, HQ in front with a good LOS, and let the fun begin. I was watching the impacts of the rounds when suddenly it stopped firing, what had happend!?!!

After the turn I saw that another HQ I had ordered into the area had in mid turn been closer than the other HQ, and then the morters used that HQ as spotter, and lost LOS to everything.

This was, to say the least, annoying. I either had to withdraw the new HQ (and sqds) or move it forwards to a good LOS pos, and lose cover fire for that turn anyway.

I have a couple of suggestions that can eliminate this problem.

1. A mortar will not switch spotter HQ when already firing.

2. There should be a command that would fix which HQ spotted for which mortar. Click on mortar, select *Spotter* and click on a HQ. Something along those lines.

So, what do u guys say?

[Treeburst155]

This has always been a quirk in CM. One has to be very careful anytime one wants to keep a specific HQ in command of specific support weapons. Keep all other HQs well away from these units. It WOULD be nice if we could assign HQs; but I'm used to working around the quirk now, and rarely get bit by it.

Treeburst155 out.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

This has always been a quirk in CM. One has to be very careful anytime one wants to keep a specific HQ in command of specific support weapons. Keep all other HQs well away from these units. It WOULD be nice if we could assign HQs; but I'm used to working around the quirk now, and rarely get bit by it.

Treeburst155 out.

It would be nice? IMO this is a gameplay bug and must be corrected.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

2. There should be a command that would fix which HQ spotted for which mortar. Click on mortar, select *Spotter* and click on a HQ. Something along those lines.

So, what do u guys say?

I'd go along with that.

Michael

[Sergei]

I think that all is very gamey that you are planning of!

In many real battles thoughtless movements of HQ teams ended up in the officers arguing over command of support teams.

Officer Hey you mortar guys over there! Stop listening to orders of that officer on the ridge, you are now under MY command!

Mortar Team But sir, you are standing in the middle of trees behind a hill, so you can't spot the enemy like Lieutenant Morris is doing now...

Officer (in anger) No excuses! I'm nearer to you than he is, so I own you!

[Treeburst155]

It is interesting that in CMBB a few of you are calling this a bug. The issue has been with us for over two years! I suppose the new ability to spot for mortar carriers has aggravated things a bit. HQ's are getting more spotting work now, so the issue pops up more often.

I'd worry more about the LOS problems through brush and summer grain; and also the fact that movement through trees is just as fast, and NO MORE TIRING, than movement through open terrain. These are NEW issues with CMBB.

Treeburst155 out.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

It is interesting that in CMBB a few of you are calling this a bug. The issue has been with us for over two years! I suppose the new ability to spot for mortar carriers has aggravated things a bit. HQ's are getting more spotting work now, so the issue pops up more often.

Yep, I didnt use this feature much in CMBO. The mortars couldnt keep up with the soldiers, but now with the mortar vehicle...

[Stacheldraht]

It is interesting that in CMBB a few of you are calling this a bug. The issue has been with us for over two years! I suppose the new ability to spot for mortar carriers has aggravated things a bit. HQ's are getting more spotting work now, so the issue pops up more often.

I've used HQ units to spot for mortars in CMBO as a regular practice for as long as I can remember, and that multiple-HQ issue has always been an annoying problem, even if you don't technically classify it as a bug. Hopefully a patch will finally put that problem to rest in CMBB.

[Bruno Weiss]

I've also used HQ units to spot for mortars and FO's, as a standard practice for two years now. However, I don't agree that the multiple HQ command radius is a problem. First, if your knowledgable about the situation then you just avoid disrupting your spotting HQ by following the old doctor's advice. Then don't do that! Secondly, you can use the multiple HQ command radius to your advantage where you have more than one HQ near a mortar or FO, and alternatively use one then the other by positioning them very near to each others radius of control. Then, all one needs to do is slightly move one or the other to assume alternate control and spot in different directions.

[ October 06, 2002, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[aka_tom_w]

I have used HQ's to spot for mortar teams ALL the time in CMBO and yes you have to be careful about it.

I think CMBB has been Playtested to DEATH by some of the best and most knowledgable grogs and wargamers around here. I'm sure they did not over look this issue and so I don't think this one is a "bug".

IF it is a bug can someone suggest a real reliable, workable programing solution for it???

Seriously, if it needs to be fixed (I don't believe it does BUT I don't have CMBB yet ) how would you fix it and what would be the consequences or side effects of that "fix"?

I'm not sure that assigning HQ to vehicles mortars "fixes" it because if the HQ assigned gets knocked out then you can't use another nearby HQ for spotting purposes? :confused:

IMHO this can simply be put down to "user error" the problem exists between the chair and the keyboard, not in the game. It requires being VERY mindful of the battle field and exactly who is where and what are they doing. My fellow Cyber Arm Chair Generals the simulated lives of your men are at STAKE here, this is not something to casually over look, you must be in complete command of all your units all the time and know who they have C&C with and who and what is commanding what, and where it is happening. Otherwise you are going to have to write ALOT of letters home to the simulated spouses and parents of your cyber soldiers.

Pay Close Attention to your C&C and all your HQ units!

That is ALL!

-tom w

[ October 06, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

IF it is a bug can someone suggest a real reliable, workable programing solution for it???

But someone just *did* give you a solution- if mortar is firing with a certain HQ, it will not suddenly change to another HQ just because the second HQ happens to stop by.

That recommendation is not merely a bug fix but a perfectly reasonable expectation of how it would work in reality.

Better still is his second wish- to specifically select an HQ who will spot. Wouldn't that seem to match reality best? One specific HQ has the duty to spot; the other is merely dropping by to catch his breath and have a scone, unless you as supreme commander decide otherwise.

If the observing HQ dies or is routed we presume that mortar will look around for someone else. Once again, if reality is the guide it seems fairly simple.

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Officer Hey you mortar guys over there! Stop listening to orders of that officer on the ridge, you are now under MY command!

Mortar Team But sir, you are standing in the middle of trees behind a hill, so you can't spot the enemy like Lieutenant Morris is doing now...

Officer (in anger) No excuses! I'm nearer to you than he is, so I own you!

Maybe this "bug" should be a "rare" occurrence with EFOW on...? If so, that would be fine, as long as we also have the "Field Court Martial" command.

Eden

[Bruno Weiss]

Edan Smallwood wrote:

But someone just *did* give you a solution- if mortar is firing with a certain HQ, it will not suddenly change to another HQ just because the second HQ happens to stop by.

How do you figure. For example, to fix what you say is broken even though it has been a part of CM for two years, would by necessity require a complete overhaul of the way CM incorporates HQ command radius. The if mortar is firing with a certain HQ, it will not suddenly change to another HQ, suggestion, would mean that within the hard code of the game, a change would have to be made to tell the AI to recognize mortars (and FO's?), differently than all other units. And then fix upon the controlling HQ, what permanently? Well, then that brings up the problem of what happens when/if that HQ is eliminated? What then, you now have a mortar (FO), that cannot fire indirect. Oh, wait, no we could program it to recognize it's release from a HQ command radius and tell it to allow a reattachment to the next HQ unit that comes along. Hmm, but isn't that what we have? How would the mortar know the difference between a departing HQ, and a dead one?

The second wish that you listed, to select a specific HQ unit to spot. How would that be done. It is one thing to wave the magic wand of the mind and imagine all sorts of things with CM, it is altogether another to program it into a reality. Ok, so how would a specific HQ unit be selected? Double click on the HQ unit or the mortar. Double click on a HQ unit at present and it means something. So, it would be best done by double clicking on the mortar. So then double clicking on the mortar would permanently attach it to a HQ unit, or should the entire interface be reprogramed to allow for a visual selection of an order within the panel where this action could be selected? That might only set back the next patch six months or so, give or take a couple of months. So, we go with the former then.

Now that we've doubled clicked on the mortar to permanently attach it to a HQ unit, what happens when that HQ unit gets nailed? Does the mortar now free itself up? So now we have to program the mortar to know that the HQ is no longer active and we're right back to where we were as I explained above.

I think that aka_Tom meant in terms of reliable and workable, was something that was relatively simple to incorporate into the game and would not result in a complete overhaul of the game, or set back by months other more important things that need to be tweaked in the patch rather than something that has been around for two years now and as pointed out can very well work to your tactical advantage if used correctly, and for which there does not seem to be a major outcry to do something about. The balance between what a few folks think might be neat, even if all were in full agreement, which we are not, and the cost to BTS and it's customers in terms of both manhours to produce at BTS, and in terms of waiting time on the next patch has to be taken into account by BTS. And, in this case at least, I would argue that it is both unnecessary and too costly in terms of delaying future patches, since this is not a bug, but rather a thought out part of the game which as far as I'm concerned is not only not a bug, but a beneficial interface option that allows for multiple spotting capabilities.

[ October 06, 2002, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Edan Smallwood wrote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But someone just *did* give you a solution- if mortar is firing with a certain HQ, it will not suddenly change to another HQ just because the second HQ happens to stop by.

I think that aka_Tom meant in terms of reliable and workable, was something that was relatively simple to incorporate into the game and would not result in a complete overhaul of the game, or set back by months other more important things that need to be tweaked in the patch rather than something that has been around for two years now and as pointed out can very well work to your tactical advantage if used correctly, and for which there does not seem to be a major outcry to do something about. The balance between what a few folks think might be neat, even if all were in full agreement, which we are not, and the cost to BTS and it's customers in terms of both manhours to produce at BTS, and in terms of waiting time on the next patch has to be taken into account by BTS. And, in this case at least. I would argue that it is both unnecessary and too costly, since this is not a bug, but rather a thought out part of the game which as far as I'm concerned is not only NOT a bug, but a beneficial interface that allows for multiple spotting capabilities.

</font>

[Panzer76]

My oh my! Take a deep breath and relax, you defenders of the crown!

Who said anything about PERMANTLY attaching them to a specific HQ?

I cant see why you get so worked up about this.

This is not a bug as such , but a gameplay *flaw*. The suggestions about this being just dandy is, excuse my french, crap. Its just cos you have *learned* to live with it, its *not* a very good, nor logical implemenation of spotting HQs.

And when its come to how easy/hard to it is to fix this, lets leave that to the guys that know about it, ok? Though, I have a sneaking feeling it cant be done as of yet, or else they would have fixed it a long time ago!

Sometimes, u gotta move a HQ a certain path, or sometimes, another HQ moves by its TacAI, and ends up with the spotting resposibilities, but no LOS.

How some of you can defend the current implementation, is beyond me :confused:

Its just plain stupid, annyoing, illogical, and has nothing, what so ever foothold in the "real world", which is afterall CMBB is trying to simulate, is it not?

[Treeburst155]

Panzer 76,

It's just that this has been a gameplay quirk for as long as CM has been in existence. Not only that, I don't recall ever reading a thread about the issue. Yes, it would be nice to add the "feature" you suggest, but there are REAL bugs that need addressing (see "Light Terrain and LOS" thread). For this issue all you need do is assign an HQ to the mortars/support teams that has a command bonus, and keep other HQs away from the immediate area of the troops, especially those with command bonuses. Is it a hassle at times? Yes, just like convoy movement is a hassle; but there are more important issues I would like to see addressed first.

Treeburst155 out.

[ October 06, 2002, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Bruno Weiss]

Well then let's put it another way Panzer. It is a ridiculas idea that just because you don't happen to like something in CM, that everyone should agree with you and your assertions, including BTS, and change the game to suit you. It is also rather naive to think that just because you believe something to be so, that that alone makes it so even in the face of contridicting evidence.

Your assertion that it is a game play flaw, or a bug, despite the perfectly explained manner in which everyone else has used the feature. And inspite of the fact that it was explained to you that far more than living with what you term a problem, it can be used to one's advantage if ofcourse one has the tactical ability to grasp the working principles, is only another indicator that you somehow feel justified in resorting to desperate name calling of those who disagree with your idea. Basically because they see things you don't apparently understand, (can we see some tooth nashing and chest thumping, I really like that).

Then panzer76 wrote:

And when its come to how easy/hard to it is to fix this, lets leave that to the guys that know about it, ok?

Then, if you feel that strongly about it and really want BTS to undertake to fix it, write them an email, write to Matt, or Steve. Sure, let em have it with both barrels about this terrible bug, and play flaw that you above all else have discovered. I'm sure they'd appreciate hearing from you.

No, no you didn't do that. You posted it up here for the public calling it a bug, making assertions about CMBB in public that there was something wrong with it. Then, when your assertion is quite appropriately challenged, and does not quite stand up to inspection, and I supposed your surprised that others do not agree with you, you then change your mind and now call it a gameplay *flaw*, further decrying that something is wrong with CMBB, only under a different name. Going right on calling it something wrong, when in point of fact it has been a part of CM since the beginning.

The final demonstration of the me right, me always right attitude, is then asserting that because others do not agree with you, that they somehow are blindly loyal to a figment of someone's imagination, yours I supposed, that somehow BTS has some imaginary hold on all of us and we what(?), receive secret orders from Matt advising us on how to disagree with you.

All of the aforementioned issues aside, no BTS should not do anything at all about the HQ unit command radius. It is fine like it is, it is as it always has been, it works just fine for those who fully understand how to use it, and it works as a beneficial component of the spotting mechanism.

Why would I be all worked up as you call it??? I'm not, you ain't seen me all worked up. I'm being rather kind actually. I just get annoyed when someone stomps onto the BBS with something they think to be a grand idea, and fail to listen to anyone, resort to name calling of those who disagree, and have the gaul to think their opinion is the only one that counts. That's all.

[ October 06, 2002, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[WWB]

IIRC, I have seen a BFC comment that they would like to fix it, but the issue is so deeply embedded into the game that it is not feasable to address the matter. Command is a tricky thing to code, and given it works right 96% of the time, why risk horribly breaking the thing for one minor case?

WWB

[billcarey]

Just another possible solution:

It appears now that priority in command is given in the following order:

1. Inherent Commander (Platoon HQ for his squade)

2. Nearest Commander

3. Next Nearest Commander

4. and so on.

The logic might be change to:

1. Inherent Commander

2. Current Commander

3. Nearest Commander

4. and so on.

The effect this would have is that an independant team would not switch commanders until it left the command radius of its current commander. I think this would alleviate problems of commanders stealing mortars.

Probably for the engine re-write though.

- B.

[CMplayer]

As much as I love the game and respect the developers it's <big><big><big>friggin' pathetic</big></big> that they haven't fixed this silly bug by now!

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I think that all is very gamey that you are planning of!

In many real battles thoughtless movements of HQ teams ended up in the officers arguing over command of support teams.

Officer Hey you mortar guys over there! Stop listening to orders of that officer on the ridge, you are now under MY command!

Mortar Team But sir, you are standing in the middle of trees behind a hill, so you can't spot the enemy like Lieutenant Morris is doing now...

Officer (in anger) No excuses! I'm nearer to you than he is, so I own you!

You should consider a career as author .

However, I'm often surprised about the constructios that people use to explain away that BTS has made an error. CM is a good game, otherwise I wouldn't play it since years, but CMBO is a game full of errors and flaws, CMBB is a bit better, but if I consider that they had two years of time!?!

Let's look at the artillery system, the part with the most changes (BTS' words). What was changed? Delays are longer, a small random factor was added, and fireplans, what only mean that a order is locked and executed with fixed delay. Can I select different ammo now? Where are explosive or shrapnell shells? How about star shells? Why is a smoke screen not influenced by the wind? Why need my spotter an extra delay if he just orders +100m into a wood without LOS? Why can my off-map rockets and mortars exceed there maximum range? etcetcetcetc

The graphic engine is still the same as in CMBO, even if they now use Hi-res textures, and it was already outdated in CMBO. And two years in graphic development is a VERY long time.

How long will BTS work on the engine rewrite? three years, or maybe four? They had better spared the two yours of development for CMBB and invested it into the big rewrite.

[ October 06, 2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

However, I'm often surprised about the constructios that people use to explain away that BTS has made an error. CM is a good game, otherwise I wouldn't play it since years, but CMBO is a game full of errors and flaws, CMBB is a bit better, but if I consider that they had two years of time!?!

1) they're not EA/Microsoft whatever, things take time and that time was invested in making a good-looking, kick-ass game encompassing 300 units, a sheer depth and layeredness that is hard to find in other games and it's generally less buggy than most games.

Let's look at the artillery system, the part with the most changes (BTS' words). What was changed? Delays are longer, a small random factor was added, and fireplans, what only mean that a order is locked and executed with fixed delay. Can I select different ammo now? Where are explosive or shrapnell shells? How about star shells? Why is a smoke screen not influenced by the wind? Why need my spotter an extra delay if he just orders +100m into a wood without LOS? Why can my off-map rockets and mortars exceed there maximum range? etcetcetcetc

Maybe you have different ideas about the place and scope of artillery in their game, but that don't make it the gospel truth.

The graphic engine is still the same as in CMBO, even if they now use Hi-res textures, and it was already outdated in CMBO. And two years in graphic development is a VERY long time.

1) The graphic engine is great, and mod-friendly. What more can you ask for? 2) "And two years in graphic development is a VERY long time" so? It's a wargame not a 1st-person shooter, and I still think CMBO looks great with the after-market mods.

How long will BTS work on the engine rewrite? three years, or maybe four? They had better spared the two yours of development for CMBB and invested it into the big rewrite.

Who knows, they're a small company. Would you have prefered not to have CM:BB? Even if that is the case it probably wouldn't have worked as they have to make money of game too..

[WWB]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

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

I think that all is very gamey that you are planning of!

In many real battles thoughtless movements of HQ teams ended up in the officers arguing over command of support teams.

Officer Hey you mortar guys over there! Stop listening to orders of that officer on the ridge, you are now under MY command!

Mortar Team But sir, you are standing in the middle of trees behind a hill, so you can't spot the enemy like Lieutenant Morris is doing now...

Officer (in anger) No excuses! I'm nearer to you than he is, so I own you!

You should consider a career as author .

However, I'm often surprised about the constructios that people use to explain away that BTS has made an error. CM is a good game, otherwise I wouldn't play it since years, but CMBO is a game full of errors and flaws, CMBB is a bit better, but if I consider that they had two years of time!?!

Let's look at the artillery system, the part with the most changes (BTS' words). What was changed? Delays are longer, a small random factor was added, and fireplans, what only mean that a order is locked and executed with fixed delay. Can I select different ammo now? Where are explosive or shrapnell shells? How about star shells? Why is a smoke screen not influenced by the wind? Why need my spotter an extra delay if he just orders +100m into a wood without LOS? Why can my off-map rockets and mortars exceed there maximum range? etcetcetcetc

The graphic engine is still the same as in CMBO, even if they now use Hi-res textures, and it was already outdated in CMBO. And two years in graphic development is a VERY long time.

How long will BTS work on the engine rewrite? three years, or maybe four? They had better spared the two yours of development for CMBB and invested it into the big rewrite.</font>

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

1) The graphic engine is great, and mod-friendly. What more can you ask for? 2) "And two years in graphic development is a VERY long time" so? It's a wargame not a 1st-person shooter, and I still think CMBO looks great with the after-market mods.

The graphic engine is BS, it is clumsy and doesn't seem to make any use of modern hardware and software techniques to increase the quality and permformance of the graphics, not even of techniques that were modern two years ago. I can play the newest games with all bells and wistles in high resultion on my PC without any problems, while it is a pain to play a larger battle like 'to the volga'. BTW, you should not mix up the graphic engine and the texture quality.

WWB_99, many of the units are only minor variations of the same model. It's fine that they are all in, but you shouldn't wave the 900+ flag to high. BTW, the graphic I love most is the display of aircrafts. From the 70 pages of changes substract all the CMBO bugs and errors. As for example the disperse of artillery that is fired without LOS.

[Treeburst155]

The graphics engine is not BS. It is meant to work with low end machines. This is because the average CM enthusiast does not upgrade as often as the average FPS fan.

Treeburst155 out.