Jump to content

Rake

Members
  • Content Count

    322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rake

  1. Below is a link to a topo from http://www.history.army.mil overlaid on an aerial photo from http://loisirs.ign.fr/accueilPVA.do (many thanks, JonS). The area covered by this map is roughly 1250 x 1600 yards. I can see thirty-four breachings... http://photorake.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v5/p586178032-5.jpg
  2. Jon... This is sweet! I hadn't looked around enough to find this. Many thanks!!! :cool:
  3. A little of both for my new Photoshop/CM:BN rig: Processor: Intel Core i7 2600K 3.40GHz Mobo: ASUS Sabertooth P67 Memory: 8GB DDR3 1600MHz Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1.2GB Hard Drive: 1TB Western Digital Caviar (7200 RPM) OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit Desire: Processor: Intel Core i7 990X 3.46GHz Mobo: ASUS Rampage III Extreme Memory: 12GB DDR3 2000MHz Video Cards: Dual NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 1.5GB Hard Drive 1: OS: Intel 80GB Solid State Hard Drive 2: Media/Data: 1TB Western Digital Caviar Money saved listening to the big head:
  4. I'd actually stumbled across this site about 24 hours before your post, but I do appreciate the link. On second look, these photos appear that they may be the same used by Google Earth; the shadows and other details look identical (at least in the area around La Fiere/Cauquiny). So far, I've found some good topo mapping for the American areas around Omaha and Utah beaches inland to St. Lo. I've also got the aerial photos of the British and Canadian areas from RCAHMS. I'm really surprised that there aren't more historic aerial photos of the Cotentin peninsula available on the web. Anyhow, with the links I've found, and Google Earth of course, I can probably build some reasonably accurate maps... at least as accurate as possible without this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Waybackmachine3.png and a trip to France. I still wish elevation changes could be set to half-meter. Wish in one hand....... Thanks for the help everyone!
  5. I can see where that might be a problem. I guess you could zoom in, but it's already hard enough for me to figure out where I am when the map (in the editor) is larger than my screen will display I think I saw this site some time ago. What the heck, I've spent $25 on far less useful sites
  6. Maybe it's just the way it looked on the elevation screen in mapmaker, but after drawing contours, mapmaker interpolates the intermediate elevations and these elevations are shown in the intermediate squares. I assumed (without looking too closely at the 3D map, obviously) that this would lock in whatever elevation was calc'd by the program Guess I need to look a little closer in 3D. Thanks for the answer
  7. I’ve been silently following the pending release of CM:BN. I’ve been excited enough to start poking around with the mapmaking tools in CM:SF to familiarize myself with the process, but I’ve come up with a couple of questions. Coming from a surveying and CE background, I’ve drawn hundreds of maps, designed many site plans and roads and have a fair knowledge of how roads, streams and other features should fit naturally with the topography First off, I’m curious about the vertical scaling. Why, with a possible elevation change of 999 meters across a map, was the minimum elevation difference between adjacent “squares” (sorry, I can’t recall the correct term) set at 1 meter. IIRC, each square is 8 meters across. This means that the smallest possible grade change between adjacent squares is 12.5%. While this isn’t extremely steep, over the course of any considerable distance a slope of this rate would be extremely tiring. I know that the contours can be spread out to flatten the overall rate between two points, but this results in an unnatural stair-stepping of the terrain. I suspect the minimum elevation difference is hard coded, but wonder why it couldn’t be set to a smaller number. Even a half-meter difference would allow for a more accurate display of natural ground and would enable modeling of roadside ditches, shallow swales, etc. which could provide infantry with some (minimal) coverage in emergencies. I just don’t see the need to model an elevation change of almost 3300 feet across an area of less than 1.5 square miles (on a two by two kilometer map). That’s far steeper than the Appalachians where I grew up and probably a little bit steeper than anything found in Normandy . Secondly, I’m looking for good links to small scale topo maps and aerial photos of France during WW II. Of course, I have Google Earth and that will help a lot, but much has changed with regard to development. I can make some educated guesses about what hasn’t changed, but around the towns and villages, and even in the road system, some photos from the time period would be helpful. Contours don’t change significantly, so some recent mapping links would be nice, too. I have a pretty strong background in CADD and Photoshop (I'm also an amateur photographer), so I'm looking to compile and overlay this information and hopefully build some fairly accurate maps. I have been to www.history.army.mil and found some of the battle maps on that site. Any more that I might find interesting? Thanks in advance, Mike
  8. I'd venture that's roughly as long as many of us have been waiting for CMx2 to return to WWII
  9. I bought CMBO & CMBB just as soon as they came out, CMAK shortly afterwards. I purchased CMSF within a few months of its arrival. I have never played other than single player. I got tired of the cheats when I played CC-A Bridge Too Far online. Also, I rarely have the time to make a commitment to a game... If I tell somebody I'm going to play a game, I aim to complete it within a certain time period, something my work schedule can make difficult.
  10. i can't tell you why, but fighting in the desert has never interested me. I bought CMAK for the system upgrades and Italian campaign. I think I played on scenario situated in North Africa. Modern warfare (or anything post Korea) interests me not a whit... This is the reason I bought CMSF so many months ago. I'll "play" against the computer, not to practice tactics or try to win, but just to make sure I understand all the bells and whistles in CMx2 once it returns to Europe.
  11. Yep... patched through v1.31 before I started boot camp. I've got to be careful, it's not even February, and I've used up my post quota for the year
  12. I purchased CMSF not long after it first came out. I loaded it up, poked around in the game a bit... I think I even tried out the tutorial scenario. I quickly realized that I had absolutely no interest in modern warfare, particularly in a desert setting, and removed the game from my hard drive. The disk and manual have been on my bookshelf ever since, awaiting the day that I'd load it up again to learn the system in advance of a return to WWII. After reading the Elvis vs. JonS DAR/AAR, that day was today. From what little I've seen, I'm pleasantly surprised with the advancement of the game beyond CMx1. Can't wait to take CM:BN for a spin.
  13. I'm not certain, but my guess about the checkerboard pattern was that this is the initial setup area and that it disappears once the game starts...At least I hope it was something like that.
  14. Came to this thread late, and only began playing through these scenarios over the last five days or so. Many thanks to JasonC for the development of the training scenarios, for posting his commentary on the various tactical situations and for sharing his knowledge throughout the board. I’ve been playing the all of the CMx1 games since their inceptions and much of what I’ve learned has come from the forums; Jason, among many, has been a large part of that. Although I’ve been a member of the forums for nearly five years, I’ve rarely posted (I believe this is my tenth post). However, the ongoing controversy over Scenario 110 intrigued me to the point of doing my own research and felt it important to add the outcome to the discussion. I’ve attempted each of the scenarios blind, without having read any of the spoilers pertaining to the individual scenario. My first attempt at 110 was a loss, having taken too much time advancing along what seems to be the path of choice – through the woods and houses along the center right. By the time I reached the fence, there wasn’t enough time to verify the sound contact before the time limit expired. One of the things I learned after going back to the board was the “26-meter rule”. I had previously been unaware of the collateral effect of morale losses on too closely spaced units. I replayed the scenario moving along the same line of advance, using accelerated movement and keeping a close watch on the spacing between my squads. Squads moved 2x2 in a box with the leader generally in the center. I had no problem reaching the fence in good order by Turn 11 and the HMG was spotted immediately upon opening up. It was quickly pinned using covering fire while my squads moved one at a time to the craters west of the fence. The remnants of the HMG crew surrendered on Turn 15 with two casualties to the Russians. What I found interesting in both attempts was that the MG42 never opened up during the early part of the advance even though I knew (on my second attempt) that several legs of the advance were unavoidably visible to the trench. After reading several of SteveP’s post, I decided to have a look-see from the German perspective. Although the MG42 is set up facing east, I presume that it must immediately (during the first turn) rotate to face the Allied-friendly west edge even though the Russians are coming from the east. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to witness this because the only way that it happens is when playing Russians vs. AI with FOW. As Russians vs. AI (no FOW), Germans vs. AI (FOW, no orders given to MG42) or hotseat (again, FOW, no orders given), the MG will fire on the Russians at the opening range. In any event, as Russians vs. AI with FOW, it is possible to march under “Move” orders through wide open terrain in full view of the trench without the MG opening up until one Russian squad reaches a range of approximately 175 meters from the trench. After editing the file to change the Allied-friendly map edge to east and Axis to west, I’ve been unable to approach nearer to the trench than the two buildings straddling the road. The nearest building is roughly 210 meters from the machine gun, still too far to verify its location. After several attempts, the best that I’ve been able to do at the end of 20 turns is having two pinned squads still in command. The other two squads, despite all orders and attempts to the contrary, have routed beyond command range. I haven’t yet gone to SteveP’s extent with regard to scenario length, but it’s my feeling that the only way to approach beyond these buildings, with the MG42 looking in the right direction, is to run the MG low on ammo. I have not looked at the end of each game, but by the time that the limit is reached, the MG has still had in the vicinity of 10-20 shots remaining. So, there’s my $.02, fwiw. I’d be very interested in seeing if anyone is able to come up with a way to get even close enough for a visual on the MG once the game file is changed so that the Russians advance from an Allied-friendly east edge of the map. On another, shorter topic, it seems that after all these years, I’m finally becoming weary of playing solely against the AI. Even when it appears that my strategy is not the best, the AI usually makes some tactically idiotic move to save the day for the good guys. Time to pbem, ya think?
  15. Originally posted by John D Salt: Actually, I believe grads are used commonly in Europe although I can't swear to this since I've never been there. The conversion is pretty simple however; 400 grads in a circle as compared to 360 degrees... a LOT simpler than converting from the 2pi radians in the same circle. Rake
  16. I don't post often, cause BF has generally kept me quite content... Not this time. I'll check out the demo, maybe I'll buy it, probably not. All WWII, All the time
  17. Thanks GJK... Before I send it to the Proving Grounds, I want to make sure that you understand that this is not a playable map; it is simply a Jpeg of the operation map (View Level 8), overlaid with contours created in a CADD program. I have a hell of a time keeping track of where I am when viewing the battlefield at Level 1 (before the battle starts) I thought I'd try making a topo to see if it would help in the planning stages. This took some time, but I have some ideas for shortcuts should I decide to try this again. Thanks, Rake
  18. I've made a topo of the Santa Maria Infante operation map, but don't have any idea of how to post it to the site I thought that I might stick it up here and see if there was any interest for more of this sort of nonsense (before I waste time trying to figure out how to speed up the process ) Rake
  19. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, it seems to me that your shell set a fire among the scrub and grass alongside the road. Maybe it was particularly thick there. Was the ground condition "dry"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Martyr: Yes, the ground conditions are "dry", though this still doesn't explain why the fire is centered in the middle of the road. It is June, so I suppose it could be quite warm and the tar from the macadamized road would be bubbling in the heat. I presume the binder (tar) in the macadam paving of the forties was petroleum based like todays asphalts... that would explain a lot! S-b-S..... I DID consider the possibility of colliding shots. Believe me, I checked all the British vehicles for returned fire at this moment. I concur with the Warren Commision findings in that there is no evidence to support the theory of a second gunman IMHO, the most likely cause would have been as Gustav suggested...... Gasoline leaking from previously destroyed halftracks defied the laws of gravity and plumbing, flowing uphill approximately 250 meters, where it pooled, awaiting the inevitable "short" round from an elite gunner Thanks for all the comments, guess I'll just have to write this one up to the vagaries of war.... can't wait til I get to burn some snow Mike
  20. Hi all....... I'm one of the long time lurkers, never-ever posters, that were spoken of in an over-the-weekend thread about the number of copies of CM that had been sold by BTS. That is neither here, nor there..... the situation which brings me to the board is as follows: I was playing the Villers-Bocage campaign last nite. I had the British convoy all lined up, picking them off tank by tank (whenever the smoke would clear a bit ). Unt Wittmann had just loosed a round at a Cromwell that he had bracketed and I was expecting a certain kill with this shot. Unfortunately, the round was quite a bit short; about 700 meters short. More surprisingly, the road suddenly burst into flames... no intervening vehicles, no trees or brush in the way and I certainly hope that there was no invisible building in the path of the shell. Now, rather than sitting at the rather safe range of 1200 meters, give or take, I'll have to move around the fire in order to reacquire these targets. Meanwhile, I not only lose acquisition, but I completely lose sight of the entire enemy line along the road. Anyhow, my question is "What's up with this? I presume someone has seen this before, but I haven't seen anything about it on the board. I ran a search for "Burning Roads" but it returned nothing of substance. If this is a new type of tank round, I'll have to ask for several rounds in my loadout next time my Shermans go up against Panther's or more..... it beats the heck out of popping smoke rounds that only last a turn or so. Oh, just so noone thinks I'm any crazier than I actually am, I took a series of screenshots to document this. Unfortunately, I have no way of posting them to the site. I do however have them zipped up, if someone here cares to put them up for me. TIA, Mike
  21. Hi all....... I'm one of the long time lurkers, never-ever posters, that were spoken of in an over-the-weekend thread about the number of copies of CM that had been sold by BTS. That is neither here, nor there..... the situation which brings me to the board is as follows: I was playing the Villers-Bocage campaign last nite. I had the British convoy all lined up, picking them off tank by tank (whenever the smoke would clear a bit ). Unt Wittmann had just loosed a round at a Cromwell that he had bracketed and I was expecting a certain kill with this shot. Unfortunately, the round was quite a bit short; about 700 meters short. More surprisingly, the road suddenly burst into flames... no intervening vehicles, no trees or brush in the way and I certainly hope that there was no invisible building in the path of the shell. Now, rather than sitting at the rather safe range of 1200 meters, give or take, I'll have to move around the fire in order to reacquire these targets. Meanwhile, I not only lose acquisition, but I completely lose sight of the entire enemy line along the road. Anyhow, my question is "What's up with this? :confused: I presume someone has seen this before, but I haven't seen anything about it on the board. I ran a search for "Burning Roads" but it returned nothing of substance. If this is a new type of tank round, I'll have to ask for several rounds in my loadout next time my Shermans go up against Panther's or more..... it beats the heck out of popping smoke rounds that only last a turn or so. Oh, just so noone thinks I'm any crazier than I actually am, I took a series of screenshots to document this. Unfortunately, I have no way of posting them to the site. I do however have them zipped up, if someone here cares to put them up for me. TIA, Mike Oops, sorry...... just realized I posted this to the wrong board. Should have been on the General Forum [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Rake ]
×
×
  • Create New...