Infantry Don't Bennfit From Low Walls

[Childress]

I have. The bugs illustrated by our valuable testers are conclusive: CMBN isn't quite ready for prime time. But not disappointed, this was to be expected. It's a complex game, the dev team is small and it's early.

[Steiner14]

Steiner14,

Do I take it from that last post that you have stopped playing CMBN?

Blackcat,

yes.

[Guest]

This is being looked into.

Everyone doing testing - I understand your desire to split sets of units into lanes, but have you considered the fact that the lanes themselves might be conferring protection? If there *is* an abstract protection provided by walls at a distance, then units in the "open" between two walls might NOT be in the "open". Now they might be prone units additionally protected by walls. I'm not saying this is the case just yet, but it might be worth trying to eliminate the walls, or widening the lanes, while testing.

I would like to thank everybody for their excellent work, but I'd also like to caution against drawing definitive conclusions and ask everyone to try and keep an open mind and keep trying different things to explore this issue. More information will help, narrowing expectations won't. Nothing is proven, because we don't have the information to "prove" anything. Even from the viewpoint of the code this is very, very complex. So please try different factors (and try to eliminate complicating factors like lane walls) and keep exploring the problem.

[Battlefront.com]

But if someone says, that the results he saw in CMBN were extremely unrealistical to a degree, that makes it unplayable for him, he is rudely attacked...

Not on this Forum. I've seen you rudely attack the testers, though.

So if i, with my very low experience, could recognize that immediately, what are the testers looking for, if they haven't recognized that?

Testers have found thousands of problems you have never seen because they were fixed before you ever picked up the game. We try to get fresh testers in periodically for the reason that "fresh eyes" often find things which have not yet been spotted.

I think testers should recognize, if the results, that are presented, are logical or not - and not search for explanations, why the results could nevertheless be plausible because of the depths of the model.

They do what they should do... not run in panic every single time someone cries wolf. The number of "bugs" and "problems" that customers have raised that turn out to be perception problems is too numerous to count. It costs nothing for a player to complain about something, it costs us time to deal with them. The testers are correctly "kicking the tires" before they declare there is a problem. It is the only appropriate way to deal with things.

It's enlightening to read this thread to see, how the CM-community has turned into a fanboys dominated one. I don't have the impression it was that way in CMx1 days.

It is all in your imagination. The behavior now is about the same as it always has been. And so too are people like yourself who simply make stuff up. Like this:

Now a storm of criticism, often enough subletely covered, unleashes against critics and they are not taken serious.

Where is this "storm of criticism" you speak of? And how about my comments that we are testing this internally? How about the fact that one of our two programmers is participating in this discussion?

Therefore my big thanks to all the wall-testers, that were able to prove, that something is wrong in CMBN right now.

That makes hope, that they will find the problem and solve it. I'd be happy to finally start playing CMBN and see the potential of the engine unfold!

I also thank customers for pointing out problems that are worth looking into. Tests are a great way to do this. Anecdotal, vague, and often inaccurate recounting of individual results rarely prove useful even when there is an actual problem to solve.

I have. The bugs illustrated by our valuable testers are conclusive: CMBN isn't quite ready for prime time. But not disappointed, this was to be expected. It's a complex game, the dev team is small and it's early.

No game is EVER ready for release. If we held back a game until it was "perfect" it would never be done because there is no such thing as a perfect, bug/error free piece of software. People are still complaining about bugs in CMBO, and it's 11 years after release

The issues with CM:BN are extremely minor in total. Annoying and potentially problematic here and there, for sure, but even with these issues CM:BN is still 100 times more wargame than anything else out there.

Steve

[Blackcat]

Blackcat,

yes.

I am planning on joining you. I shall stop playing this game the moment it stops providing me with a fun and intellectually stimulating hobby. Once those damn "bugs" start impacting on my enjoyment the game will be off my hard drive faster than you can say, "best wargame around".

[Battlefront.com]

I am planning on joining you. I shall stop playing this game the moment it stops providing me with a fun and intellectually stimulating hobby.

Everybody has their own definition of when the glass is half empty, so no argument with this. However...

Once those damn "bugs" start impacting on my enjoyment the game will be off my hard drive faster than you can say, "best wargame around".

You are aware of our tireless efforts to address bugs and generally improve the games we make, right? You are paying attention to the threads where either I, or a tester, has said "this is fixed for v1.01", right? How about a little bit of acknowledgment of that amongst the doom and gloom mongering?

Fortunately we don't take overreactions and glass half empty thinking very seriously. If we did we would have stopped making serious wargames years ago. Or gone out of business like so many have before us. Just like pretty much every other game company that tried to make wargames.

Wargamers have always been, and will always be, their own worst enemies

Steve

[Wego McPbem]

Wargamers have always been, and will always be, their own worst enemies

Steve

Maybe, but at least we can recognise sarcasm

[dieseltaylor]

Wargamers have always been, and will always be, their own worst enemies

Wow, And all along it was us wargamers. Man I feel baad.

[sburke]

It's enlightening to read this thread to see, how the CM-community has turned into a fanboys dominated one. I don't have the impression it was that way in CMx1 days. Now a storm of criticism, often enough subletely covered, unleashes against critics and they are not taken serious.

Therefore my big thanks to all the wall-testers, that were able to prove, that something is wrong in CMBN right now.

That makes hope, that they will find the problem and solve it. I'd be happy to finally start playing CMBN and see the potential of the engine unfold!

Thank you for thanking us, but just to note. I AM a fanboy of the game, I don't actually know we have PROVEN anything wrong, and the game is nowhere near "broken". It is simply facing more scrutiny from more people trying to understand what works where and is being refined. Your over the top melodrama and your apparent feeling of vindication not with standing, I LOVE this game and have not received any flack for the testing I have done, if anything I have gotten some very nice advice from BFC as to how to set up tests to try to make sure the data is useful. So if you aren't playing it and are not contributing to the discussion with anything helpful, why don't you just go do something else with your time that you might actually enjoy and leave us with our broken game which we somehow still find a way to enjoy.

[Battlefront.com]

One of the first things my boss at Impressions said, eons ago, was something like "we don't make games for hardcore wargamers because they complain about everything even when they like it". Anytime I made a suggestion I had to make damned sure it didn't sound like a wargamer wanted it. Because the notion was that if a wargamer wanted it then nobody else would, including wargamers

Seriously, wargamers are not well regarded in the game making community. Which is why there's so few even trying to make wargames these days.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Maybe, but at least we can recognise sarcasm

If Blackcat was being sarcastic, he should do a better job of not writing nearly word for word what our most grumbly customers would

I still agree with his first part, sarcastic or not. People should play games for enjoyment first and foremost. If a game is not fun for someone, no matter what the reason, they should put it down. Period. If the reasons for putting it away seem to be temporary then pick it up again later on after things have been fixed. It's not like a customer's game license expires if it isn't used.

Steve

[Childress]

I have. The bugs illustrated by our valuable testers are conclusive: CMBN isn't quite ready for prime time. But not disappointed, this was to be expected. It's a complex game, the dev team is small and it's early.

No game is EVER ready for release. If we held back a game until it was "perfect" it would never be done because there is no such thing as a perfect, bug/error free piece of software. People are still complaining about bugs in CMBO, and it's 11 years after release

The issues with CM:BN are extremely minor in total. Annoying and potentially problematic here and there, for sure, but even with these issues CM:BN is still 100 times more wargame than anything else out there.

Steve

Er, Steve, I'm on your side. Agree with your comments. (Ducks)

[Wego McPbem]

If Blackcat was being sarcastic, he should do a better job of not writing nearly word for word what our most grumbly customers would

I still agree with his first part, sarcastic or not. People should play games for enjoyment first and foremost. If a game is not fun for someone, no matter what the reason, they should put it down. Period. If the reasons for putting it away seem to be temporary then pick it up again later on after things have been fixed. It's not like a customer's game license expires if it isn't used.

Steve

Haha, fair enough. I think the key to his post was "best wargame around" Basically saying that Steiner isn't seeing the forest for all the trees. Trees which are being addressed and fixed tirelessly for v1.01 of course

Anyway I'll stop putting words in other peoples mouths now. How about them low walls huh?

[Childress]

Seriously, wargamers are not well regarded in the game making community. Which is why there's so few even trying to make wargames these days.

I dabbled in simracing a few years ago and I can assure that those forums make this one look like a Victorian tea party. You hear the same about the flight sim community. (Maybe something about 'sims',?)

My theory is that the developers are usually wiser than the fans. If everyone of us who complained or lobbied for a new feature, or a restored feature, got their wish we'd probably end up hating the game by turning it into an overloaded, unplayable kludge. CMBN and its progeny will be great.

[sburke]

This is being looked into.

Everyone doing testing - I understand your desire to split sets of units into lanes, but have you considered the fact that the lanes themselves might be conferring protection? If there *is* an abstract protection provided by walls at a distance, then units in the "open" between two walls might NOT be in the "open". Now they might be prone units additionally protected by walls. I'm not saying this is the case just yet, but it might be worth trying to eliminate the walls, or widening the lanes, while testing.

I would like to thank everybody for their excellent work, but I'd also like to caution against drawing definitive conclusions and ask everyone to try and keep an open mind and keep trying different things to explore this issue. More information will help, narrowing expectations won't. Nothing is proven, because we don't have the information to "prove" anything. Even from the viewpoint of the code this is very, very complex. So please try different factors (and try to eliminate complicating factors like lane walls) and keep exploring the problem.

Thanks Phil and no I for one hadn't considered that might be going on. Will add in your suggestions here and re test. If there is anything else that you would suggest, throw it out there. Don't mind seeing if we can widen the pool of available data for you and hopefully do so in a manner that the results would be trustworthy.

[Wildman]

I dabbled in simracing a few years ago and I can assure that those forums make this one look like a Victorian tea party. You hear the same about the flight sim community. (Maybe something about 'sims',?)

My theory is that the developers are usually wiser than the fans. If everyone of us who complained or lobbied for a new feature, or a restored feature, got their wish we'd probably end up hating the game by turning it into an overloaded, unplayable kludge. CMBN and its progeny will be great.

Amen to this. I remember the F4.0, Realism, eFalcon, FreeFalcon, etc...man Nobody could agree on anything. I even worked on F-16s at the time and watched HUD footage in RED FLAG and people STILL didn't believe me...or the Viper driver.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Everyone doing testing - I understand your desire to split sets of units into lanes, but have you considered the fact that the lanes themselves might be conferring protection? If there *is* an abstract protection provided by walls at a distance, then units in the "open" between two walls might NOT be in the "open". Now they might be prone units additionally protected by walls. I'm not saying this is the case just yet, but it might be worth trying to eliminate the walls, or widening the lanes, while testing.

The first test I did, referenced in the first post of this thread, was with no lanes. When I did my last test I separated the lanes with bocage instead of walls for the very reason you mentioned

[ChrisND]

Thanks Phil and no I for one hadn't considered that might be going on. Will add in your suggestions here and re test. If there is anything else that you would suggest, throw it out there..

If I could only suggest one thing, it's a reminder to everyone to run a test many, many times before you post any results. I'm currently running tests on the walls-behind-infantry behavior, and even my control test, with no walls at all, exhibited wacky numbers for the first 10 iterations due to sheer statistical variation. After another 10 iterations it evened out, but if I had stopped at 10 I would have a bad set of data and conclusions to draw from it.

[Guest]

The first test I did, referenced in the first post of this thread, was with no lanes. When I did my last test I separated the lanes with bocage instead of walls for the very reason you mentioned

Yes, I noticed. For now let's assume *any* lane marking terrain could cause similar problems. That's probably not the case, but it's safer to assume this than the opposite. Either go with much wider lanes (100 meters or so) or don't use lanes.

[Guest]

If I could only suggest one thing, it's a reminder to everyone to run a test many, many times before you post any results. I'm currently running tests on the walls-behind-infantry behavior, and even my control test, with no walls at all, exhibited wacky numbers for the first 10 iterations due to sheer statistical variation. After another 10 iterations it evened out, but if I had stopped at 10 I would have a bad set of data and conclusions to draw from it.

Yes. Infantry spotting and shooting at other infantry involves a ton of variables. The general level of testing I've seen here so far (with many runs resulting in thousands of test casualties) is a good minimum for arguable numbers.

[ChrisND]

Yes. Infantry spotting and shooting at other infantry involves a ton of variables. The general level of testing I've seen here so far (with many runs resulting in thousands of test casualties) is a good minimum for arguable numbers.

Yes, many of them are. I have some very interesting results of my own to share soon.

[TheVulture]

One other variable that might be worth removing is to do with spotting (at the expense of making things more time consuming). Give all the units short covered arcs and let them sit there for one minute until everyone is happily spotted. Then remove the covered arcs and let them have at it.

I can imagine various scenarios in which differences in spotting in the open vs behind the wall, and spotting of firing and non-firing units, can lead to weird behaviours. If everyone is already spotting everyone before the shooting starts, at least that variable can be taken out.

[Vanir Ausf B]

when you setup the scenario, you have to specify to the AI (in Mission/Data) which is the friendly map edge, so it knows which way to run. The AI will always run towards the edge you specify as the friendly edge.

Yeah, I figured that out afterward. Thanks!

[PhantomApple]

Bocage might skew the results too. IMHO the safest way to separate lanes is with elevation. It takes a little longer but nor by much.

[sburke]

Bocage might skew the results too. IMHO the safest way to separate lanes is with elevation. It takes a little longer but nor by much.

Thanks good suggestion. I was thinking how to do this and have a border that wouldn't have any potential influence and was looking to have ridiculously wide lanes.