Moon
-
Posts
10,042 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Moon
-
-
Thomm: I also have the advantage of actually having seen CM in real life (thanks to Steve and Charles and The Wargamer) AND playing through the big campaign of CC3, and, frankly, I strongly object to comparing these two game engines. As Steve said, the claim of CM is not to have a "100% realistic" LOS engine, just the best possible with current systems. That does include certain abstract compromises to keep such a game playable, i.e. not tracking individual trees and men.
However, I feel that CM's engine is far superior to CC3 for one simple reason: while CC3 pretends to simulate single men, trees and all that, it in fact does not. CC3 (and all the other games in the CC series) are hiding their abstract compromises behind a nice graphical interface, but they are there. Have you ever wondered why guys in a building or in a trench in CC3 die like flies? There are some fundamental flaws in CC's game engine and the fact that as a player you don't know about them makes it all even worse.
CM, otoh, does not even attempt to hide their inavoidable compromises to the simulation, but instead thrives to produce an engine that, as the end result, offers the player the most realistic simulation experience. I don't know about you and the others, but I am perfectly happy with KNOWING that my MG squad is in the woods (by clicking on it) and KNOWING that the game engine will reposnd accordingly - I do not have to actually see every tree and every rock to enjoy the game. In a few years, when computers have advanced to new highs, maybe this will be possible and it will be cool - but this is not more than eye candy. What's underneath the surface is what counts.
-
Ok, let's take some workload off Steve's shoulders...
1) No Omaha-type scenarios, i.e. no beach landings. The reason, if I remember Steve's earlier answers to this topic correctly, is that these didn't occur at CMs scope and, frankly, are not quite fun. Seeing your first wave hitting the beach, getting vaporated, then moving in the second makes for a good movie, but isn't really enjoyable from a gaming point of view. In other words, CM starts at the point when the first Allied forces are moving inland.
2) I am not sure about the file size, but CM will have a PBEM option. The rest of the question will have to be answered by Steve...
3) I'll have to pass on that one.
4) Ben is right - the tile system is visible in the map editor only when placing terrain. On the actual 3D battlefield in the game, you will not see the tiles anymore. Squads and vehicles can move freely across the whole map. Also, trees are not blocking LOS completely... the LOS "degrades" by a certain % number if it hits obstacles and is not automatically free or blocked. Certain massive obstacles, of course, block it automatically, like houses...
5)Trees rotate when you do. You don't really notice it, though, because a tree - unlike a person - looks pretty much the same from any direction...
-
I have a P3 and it is faster, using the same ISP at the same time of day and time of week, I gain about 1K/sec... really...
-
5.5K/sec? I have a 56K and am from Germany and I get 5.5K/sec occasionally...
-
Can you rotate the "tile" in the map editor?
I'm thinking here that even with only three or four different buildings tiles you could get nice variety when able to place them in different "directions", so that when looking at them you don't see straight away that it's basically the same building. This shouldn't require additional coding or texture (I'm wildly guessing here since I know as much about programming as I do about cooking...) but provide some additional eye candy...
PS. In case you wondered about my cooking abilities - let's just say that I almost burned down my kitchen last time I tried to make a soup...
-
Say that a couple of Tigers just appeared on both flanks, my overwatching tanks got knocked out and the way back is only a clear grass field? In an ongoing campaign, my priority would be to get that tank crew out of there as soon as possible and safe them for the next battle. By having them bail out they would not be the main target of the Tigers anymore (hopefully) and therefore might just make it back. So the question - can I order the crew to abandon their vehicle and bail out deliberately?
IF so, could I then order another crew (or the same one) to come back and re-enter the tank? The question is also valid for immobilized vehicles where the crew bailed out previously.
One last thing: in a german book about Wittman the tank ace I have just recently read about an incident where he singlehandedly took out 12 Shermans. In the book it says: "Wittman's tank was too close to the armored column for the Sherman shells to penetrate the Tiger".
WHAT?
Is the guy who wrote the book on drugs... or is it me?
-
Hmm... Fionn, they must be smarter than we think because I actually did get to issue orders... but hey, maybe I was full of drugs at that time and didn't realize what was going on at all. That would explain why we went to this restaurant BEFORE they showed me the game... Now that I think of it... say, Steve, what were those spices called again that had this strange smell?
-
NOW it all falls into place... the security guards in black BMWs with sunglasses all around Charles house... the drive at night through Boston's maze of one-way roads... NOW I see!
Chris, I think you are on the right track... ahm, have you seen "Conspiracy theory" with Mel Gibson? Uh oh...
-
Some time ago I have found a couple of very interesting documents on weapon's effectiveness in WW2. Unfortunately, I really don't remember the site anymore where I found them. So I have uploaded the docs in HTML to my server for you guys. If anyone knows where these are coming from, please post a link to the original source.
www.online.de/home/gamesofwar/WW2eff.htm
-
Brian - guess your joke was too good. I was pretty sure you joked, but then hesitated for a second... let's ask I thought...
As to the "bloody smileys" - it is REALLY easy to misunderstand posts. In the above sentence, without a smiley, you might think that my brain is the size of a walnut. If I add a smiley, it's more clear that I am joking...
Brian - guess your joke was too good. I was pretty sure you joked, but then hesitated for a second...
let's ask I thought...I have seen really bad stuff happen in discussions on the net (Fionn, remember that cdmag "mud fight" between Scott and the JA2 guys? LOL) just because people DIDNT use the smiley. If that's all it takes to make things more clear... I prefer to do it... Without the smileys one could think everyting looks so darn serious...
OK, enough off-topic again. I have also one question for Charles: how, actually, do you make those penetration graphics?
-
Please, no "on which page is this symbol" or code wheel stuff... =) It offers little protection (copy the manual or wheel) and is very annoying to everybody.
I absolutely understand that copying IS robbery and therefore absolutely do not mind when developers protect their games. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there is almost no way of protecting CDs from professinal pirates. I think that requiring the CD to be in the drive is the best solution - it discourages casual pirates and most people are used to it anyway.
-
Note how the guy on the lower picture carries HIS MG...
-
Uhm... Brian was joking, was he?
-
The question should be: ask Moon what Steve can do with a Weasel to a case of used motor oil.
The answer: don't ask... <shudder>
-
OHHMMM....OHHMMMM... Steve, Charles - does it help already?
-
Thomm,
as one of the very few people privileged to have seen the game myself (oohh... I just LOVE to rub this in...
) and NOT associated with BTS, I can assure you that you should not judge the graphics by the QT movies! They REALLY REALLY do not do justice to how the game looks in reality! Hell, I almost missed my plane out of Boston because I just couldn't leave... -
Hmmm... Chris - I believe the effect you're talking about was true when the AT Gun (or anything else) was located in a back slope defense, i.e. on the back side of a small hill. Short shots would then explode on the forward slope (shielding the AT Gun from shrapnel), long shots would fall down and far and add distance from the blast radius.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To give you a VERY rough idea, we figure that one sale through Battlefront.com yields about the same return for the developer as one retail sale through a major publisher.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Typo? Or do I just not get it?
-
Of course the easiest way to simulate the bidding would be to simply allow both players to preview the battlemap. As far as I understand all the units have point values anyway. Both players then could bid over the internet (e.g. ICQ) and agree on a number of points to spend before they start buying units.
-
BDW, Chris:
I am in night vision business and have quite a bit of experience with seeing things at night, with or without night vision units
A house on fire gives very bright illumination, provided that of course it's not just a small fire inside of it (and the only thing coming out is smoke). But since fires in CM mean BIG fires (see the flamethrower discussion), one should assume that in the game the whole house is burning and the flames are well visible outside.
Starshells are indeed quite bright, but not brighter than a house on fire. They have the advantage of being high in the air, therefore multiplying their illumination effect.
A house on fire (or, e.g. a burning tank) on the other side is actually TOO bright - i.e. looking straight at it will cause your pupils to close, making the area around it appear darker. However, anything in front of the flames (imagine a straight line from the fire to you with a tank in between) will be clearly visible as a shadow. Also, when you are with the back to the burning house (i.e. not looking into the flames) you will be able to see quite a large area illuminated.
If you are interested I can pull out some "lumen" numbers from documents I have in the office to compare the effects...
-
Uh oh... simulating night battles is pure hell I can imagine. Just think about the problems all the boardgames have - tons of rules... and CM has to deal with it in 3D...
E.g. when a house is on fire, it will provide illumination for a certain area for a longer time, right? How about a tank in front of the house but outside of the illuminated area? Will the shadow be visible against the burning house anyway?
-
88AT pillboxes... geez, these things are deadly...
As to the different woods elevations: since CM is 3D you just have to change your viewing angle from overhead to basically any other position and the hills are clearly visible, no matter what color they have. As far as I remember the reason you see different shades of green on hills is because of the overhead view.
-
Cool stuff. Thanks Ben. Say, what caused the BIG explosions on the right screenshot? ALso, the burning THING doesn't seem to be a tank? What is it?
-
Don't know if it means anything, but after re-registering the forum still doesn't show me new messages WHEN I ENTER IT DIRECTLY THROUGH THE CM link...
However, when I click on support in the menu above and then on discussion boards, I do get NEW MESSAGES shown...
Crewmember killed
in Combat Mission Archive #1 (1999)
Posted
In the QT movie titled "Battle 1" the M7 Priest seems to take a direct hit and one of the crew members disappears, obviously killed or injured. When you look closely at the top of the picture (if this goes on like that I will have to ask a surgeon to remove my eyeballs from the computerscreen...), it seems that a short message appears for a couple of seconds. It's not possible to read it due to the high compression of the movie, but I'm just too curious... what does it say, "Crewmember killed" or something?
[This message has been edited by Moon (edited 05-20-99).]