Thomm

Well, this is exactly what will happen as soon as a formation in group move mode comes under fire. As soon as some units decide to break out of formation and run for cover you can say "Good Bye!" to the group move ... no contradiction to what you describe. Regards, Thomm

I am wondering ... if there was more than one waypoint, would the preset formation have to turn at each waypoint involving a lot of intermediate movement with some units even reversing?! Or would it just be a succession of translations where the overall orientation of the formation never changes? The former appears to be more difficult to code, while the latter seems to be less intuitive.

If, indeed, following the road is the most advantageous form of travelling then the pathfinding algorithm will put the waypoints on the road automatically. If you find that this is not the case then maybe the cross-country speeds have to be reduced?! Also, the pathfinding may take into account exposure to known threats, thereby reducing the likelihood of road-travelling. Regards, Thomm

I can also envisage something like "information pathfinding" for command and control networks. Packets of information are sent via the shortest possible way through an information network, which is based, primarily, on the OOB (that is, the radio network), and to a lesser extent, line-of-sight and spatial proximity. Much like traffic on a road network, the information network follows the same basic rules of "highways" and "side-streets". If radio nodes are removed, then the information has to go down alternative, much slower routes. Shouting would offer "short-cuts". Units also have to have some kind of memory of restricted size. A unified representation of movement orders and spotting reports would be beneficial. Thus, a unit under high stress could simply "forget" orders due to information overflow. Some random thoughts ... Thomm

Removing the target order would suffice in most cases to reduce the benefits of borg spotting, because the amount of short-term damage that can be done with target orders is much higher then, for example, the one done by borg motivated movement orders ... Also, I would assume that non-borg units would be much more reluctant to area fire in fear of causing friendly casualties ... that would fit with the suggestion above. Regards, Thomm

I guess it just mistakes the contested flag bitmap for one of the tree bitmaps ...

In one of the "Band of Brothers" episodes there is a impressive bayonett fight were the skilled paratrooper overwhelms the apparently unskilled German regular! Appears to be very realistic!

Isn't a binary hull-down/not-hull-down decision on the one hand and a remaining risk of exposure on the other hand an unnecessary complication of matters inviting just the kind of complaints that fill this thread?? Trying to answer myself: No, because only considering perfect hull-down situations would probably be a too rigid restriction on awarding the hull-down status, that is, statistically, hull-down (meaning perfect hull-down) would appear much less?! On the other hand, one would expect that the same degree of random reduction of the cover of the hull could be applied to add to the cover of the turret/superstructure. Is this the case? Regards, Thomm

WOW, that's nice! Contrast forever!

Yeah, just ask the T80s that ran in to my mine-fiels/tank ambush combo in Flashpoint: Resistance last night, hehe ...

<ul>[*]Ask Battlefront.com to provide a model preview program with refresh key[*]Ask Battlefront.com to provide a tool that renders the projection of the 3D polygons on the texture bitmap

You are absolutely right. Close Combat WAS more fun (mind the past tense), and I have played it to death over the years! CMBB is all fresh and new, and, therefore, it IS more fun (mind the present tense). Unfortunately there is no successor for Close Combat, so the dinosaur simply became extinct. Close Combat is pure art, by the way, and art has to be judged differently than ordinary wargames ... Regards, Thomm

The future lies in smoke! That and lots of dust!

Hi Tracer! You created a very nice 3D snow effect there, but in my humble opinion the strong contrast on the snow does not fit the underlying, rather flat looking camo texture! I also think that you should put snow on the top surfaces of the vehicle! I repeat, that the snow areas look great, yet the base textures have to be adjusted to make the picture a harmonic one. Regards, Thomm PS: I think it would be better to post a screen shot with the vehicle filling the entire screen!

** DO NOT BE SPOILED ** Second "major defeat" as Germans, default setup, here! Started a massive attack on the Russian left flank (kind of SOP for this scenario, I guess). Moved all my troops to jump-off positions without any shots being fired. Spotted the AT gun with a platoon leader and destroyed it with mortar fire. Killed the MG bunker with simultaneous fire from the cars and the halftrack. So far, everything went well. Selected squads were sneaked in forward positions in the houses. HMGs and IG softened up the trenchline (or so I thought.) Things started to go wrong as soon as the IG ran out of HE and I decided to assault the forward trenchline through a (perfect) smoke screen provided by the IG. A little later one half of my assauting platoon was pinned, the other half were casualties. Fire from the foxhole row on the Russian flank had taken its toll, as well as the MGs in the forward trench that could not be silenced! The Russians also threw accurate mortar fire on my assault. My vehicles rushed to the rescue and poured fire in the trench, four at a time at the high-point of the attack. Soon, the remote AT gun openend up (Remark: through the corner of a house) and dispatched two of my vehicles. Another one was scared off the map by mortar fire. The last recon car ran out of ammo and had to retreat. Things started going very wrong! At this point I got a total of six men in the forward trench. The shattered remains of my other platoons occupied the forward buildings right and left of the road and the alley of scattered trees along the road, unable to conduct further offensive operations. The flamethrowers never even came close to the enemy. The game ended shortly after that. Lessons learned: 1) The employed HE capabilities were unable to hurt the troops in the trench in any meaningful way. Most of the casualties were produced in close combat! 2) The LOS clipping around buildings is still not WYSIWYG. 3) I seriously question that this scenario can be won by the Germans (default setup) Regards, Thomm

I wonder if the three men style squad display does not place high restrictions on the graphical quality of the game. At a point where the rest of the graphics have reached "photorealistic" quality, displaying 3 highly detailed soldiers might appear inappropriate? Or not? In any case, do not forget to display MASSIVE amounts of smoke and dust in the new engine! That is what all (and by all I mean totally all) games are lacking nowadays!! Regards, Thomm

Of course CM:BB is the strategy game of the year! But what puzzles me is that I indeed had to nominate it for Game of the Year, since none of the competitors came close to it/impressed me (I have heard good things about No One Lives Forever, though). Kind of a bad sign for the innovative state of the industry if you can label the second installment of a hardcore wargame "Game of the Year" without second thought. Regards, Thomm

How important is it to actually button up the tank in this situation? I guess that the flamer could hide from the tank commander even if the tank was unbuttoned?!

In CMBB the KV-1 is stopped by: GUN DAMAGE

Bump?

Does that last paragraph mean that there will be a CM3 before CM II (the rewrite?) [ December 04, 2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Rollstoy ]

I think a Reverse to Contact command would come in handy for Gun/Trailer combos (thought of this when I discovered the hard way that unlimbered 88s cannot be moved without transport, which worked excellent for small Paks). Regards, Thomm

I think a Reverse to Contact command would come in handy for Gun/Trailer combos (thought of this when I discovered the hard way that unlimbered 88s cannot be moved without transport, which worked excellent for small Paks). Regards, Thomm

Hi Ben! Good to see you in action!!! Guess I have to take back some of my hesitant comments in my last e-mail. Played "Iron Roadblock" last night and boy was it cool! Stupid mistake I did was to accidentaly (stupidly?) unlimber the 88s in the middle of the woods! So I had to resort to directing an symphony of destructions with 4 Paks and about 10 tanks opening up on the "roadblock" within 10 seconds. After some turns the return fire ceased and I concluded that gun damage had occured. My advancing platoon of halftracks was stopped cold by the HMG, which, in turns, was jumped by the remaining tanks. I possessed the flag in the end, but did not kill the "roadblock". Guess that cost me the victory (was a draw). Anyway, great atmosphere and sooo many tactical options (embark, unlimber ... ) Greetings from Vienna, Thomm

Please consider the following: Remove the "hard" switch from turning to panning when moving the mouse down the edge of the screen. Add a transition zone, where panning and turning are happening at the same time, at a rate relative to the vertical cursor position!! Regards, Thomm