Thomm

Another try ! ------------------ ------------------------- Some Stuff at http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/simpson/870/

Just testing my signature ! Sorry for the inconvenience ! Regards, Thomm ------------------ -------------------------------- Some Stuff at http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/simpson/870/

ad (3): I tried to fire my heavy MG 42 lying flat on the living room carpet, but the tripod kept tipping over. I found that it is indeed better to fire it from the hip ! Especially in Winter, as it keeps you warm and shakes the ice off !

Things I would like to see: <ul> [*]Ability to use the LOS tool within a small range around waypoints for better unit positioning in houses and trees. [*]Less regular 3-man-representation: They are too close together and always in a perfect triangle, which looks artificial. It would be nice to add some random noise to the movement of the individual figures. Also, at normal scale, there should be bigger distances between them. [*]Restriction of minimum camera level based on proximity of friendly units [*]Artificial smoke that looks different from combustion smoke [*]Tracers which are vectors, not polygon bodies. Regards, Thomm PS.: The explosion (debris) effects on these dog red POTD look really great !

Only six months for all the things on <font size=+3>The List</font> ?! This can only be The List for Combat Mission I Does The List for the other CM games already exist ? surprised and confused, Thomm

Yes, great game ! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A lot of the discussion is about how to improve CM, how much we wish we had it now, and so on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I think this always happens when there is not sufficient input to a forum. The minds start to wander.Everything gets self-related. We should be distracted, e.g. by progress reports ! Regards, Thomm

Dear Rick ! I think you have to distinguish general conceptual discussions from demanding new features. I think everybody has the right to make suggestions and to have a personal taste. But this should not be seen as an attack on Combat Mission as it will be completed. I think everybody has understood that there will not be any major changes at the present stage of the project. But this does not mean that thinking of new features and details should be restricted or commented on negatively. Regards, Thomm P.S.: ... even if that means that I will not (and probably never) get my "Waypoint-LOS-Tool-with-Limited-Range" ! BUHUUU !

Major Tom wrote: "I have played the game "Homeworld", very cool graphics and very large, but, it is RealTime and is very hard in making good tactical maneuvers." You are not doing Homeworld justice here, because you can stop the action any time to give detailed instructions in a turn-based manner. As for the smoke: It would be nice to have different graphics for screening smoke (white ?, stays close to ground) and combustion smoke (black, rising up like it does now). But I sense that the topic has died long ago. By the way, did you read what Atomic employee Eric Young wrote on a CC board: "[...] reinforcements would just pop up like in Combat Mission. That sucks." Interesting what sucks nowadays, isn't it ? Regards, Thomm

Dear Madmatt ! Thanks ! The link works for me ! But obviously I missed a POTD ! I am using Netscape Navigator 4.7 ! Until some days ago I had no problem using the link in your signature. As for html: KISS - Keep it simple and stupid ! But another question regarding linking CM HQ pages: is it allowed to link to a (sub)page directly or should always the main page be adressed ? Thanks for the link and regards, Thomm

Was all this smoking done in reality, too ?

I think that in the future advanced software technologies, which scale the polygon count with the available hardware, will keep the minimum requirements lower than nowadays. References: <ul> [*]Level of Detail (Combat Mission ?) [*]Dynamic Level of Detail [*]Multi Resolution Meshes http://developer.intel.com/ial/3dsoftware/mrm.htm http://developer.intel.com/ial/3dsoftware/gamedev.htm http://www.digimation.com/plugins/multires/bodymain.htm (Battlezone II, Dark Reign 2, Team Fortress 2) [*]Multi Resolution Geometry, http://www.sven-tech.com/ (Duke Nukem Forever, Slave Zero, LithTech 2 Engine) [*]Realtime Deformation and Tesselation (Messiah, http://www.shiny.com/ , ) [*] Regards, Thomm Source: c't magazin f&umml;r computer technik 1/2000

I cannot load the site ! Does anybody else experience problems ? Thomm

Two remarks: 1) Letters are not capitalized in German headlines 2) uber starts with an "Umlaut": über So for German eyes "Combat Mission über alles" looks better. Good luck with your page, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 01-25-2000).]

With regard to Madmatts last post: For those new to the subject: be warned that when your girlfriend/wife has diarrhea, the "pill" is worth a sh.. ! Happened to a friend of mine who is now in a very difficult situation ! So much for off-topic posts ! Regards, Thomm

Moon, help !!! Fionn starts to flame me !!

Dear Moon ! Our discussion has reached a stage where we are both running out of additional arguments and where we would need external input or opinions (BTS ?) to proceed. As it is, I do not share your concern about the violation of realism by my idea. But it is down to our personal opinions now, just as you wrote yourself. So why not make it optional ?! You wrote: "Isn't this already severely restricted by the limitation of "eyeballing" the map?" Is it possible that this is a feature which is in the full version but not in the demo ? In the demo I can move whereever I want at level 1, can't I ? You wrote: "As a company commander you could also order a unit to "go and destroy that King Tiger!" But giving you such a command in CM would take away all the fun. It's the player's responsibility to do this and I wouldn't want the computer to take it away from me. I do not understand this paragraph . What is the difference between "issuing a commando" and "being responsible" ? I want to keep this post short and just re-state my standpoint: I would appreciate the ability to use the LOS tool within a limited range (e.g. 20m) of a way-point as a substitute for a non-existing "Movement to visual contact" command in woods/buildings. In any case, thanks for the discussion ! Regards, Thomm P.S.: As far as "cost" of the implementation is concerned, have you read about the possibility of playing CM on two computers with one CD that BTS wants to add ?! Now that will take a bunch of new code ! My suggestion appears to be pretty minor compared to this programming/degugging task !

Dear Moon ! Thanks for your comments ! I am really disappointed that I cannot convince you with my idea, because I think it is a good one. But please allow me to make some comments: With regard to view level restrictions you wrote: You can still see all the way to the other side of the map. I do not consider this unrealistic, because somebody in my battalion is supposed to have a map of the battlefield. What I want to prevent with the height level restriction is that one checks LOS by moving around at eye-level with the camera. This is something we both oppose ! (Although this SWAT style planning is a quite fascinating aspect of the game as it is now). You wrote: You need to be there to see what you can see. But even when I am there I do not see what I see, because the woods/buildings are abstracted mathematically (homogenized we would call it). I need an extra tool to see what I can see. I ask for nothing more than a slight extension of the capabilities of this tool for visualization purposes ! You wrote: ...hold their fire until the very second that you want them to open up - all during the course of a running battle - is unrealistic. I agree . Yet it is very well possible with the current system to do this with move/hide commands, isn't it ? But this does not touch the LOS problem . In the same sentence you wrote: "sneaking up a platoon (40+ men) to the edge of woods and have them hide ... " I, as a real-life commander, have the possibility to tell my unit: "Move to the edge of the woods and find a good spotting/firing position !". As a commander in Combat Mission, I only can order: "Move to that exact position in the wood and then we will see". Do you think this is more realistic compared to the first order ? If I was a FO and somebody ordered me to move to the center of a forest and then wait for somebody to tell me where I could see the enemy from, I would have severe doubts in his sanity ! You wrote: "I can achieve what you describe in your example with the current system already. But I can use your system to gain additional unrealistic advantages." This is self-contradictory, in my opinion. Thanks in advance for your comments Regards, Thomm

I think I found a solution ! Why not allow the use of the LOS tool from waypoints, but <font size=+2>with a restricted range</font> ?!? Let me explain: You want to move a forward observer to the edge of a "heavy wood", such that he can observe a target, but remain in the cover of the wood: You place a waypoint in the wood.You select the waypoint.You press [L] for the LOS tool.You can drag around the line-of-sight, but it is automatically truncated at, say, 30 meters.You see that LOS is broken inside the forest. You can adjust the waypoint.By repeating this procedure you will find the optimum position for your MG or FO team, but you will not gain any LOS information other than in the close vicinity of the waypoint ! No long-range LOS checks would be possible so the same degree of uncertainty as in the current version would be retained, but you could position your teams more efficiently in woods, houses, ... I think this may be an easy and elegant solution with a minimized amount of extra program code . Thanks for reading, Thomm

Dear Moon ! You wrote: "Moving around the 3D battlefield indeed provides too much intel for the player, but how do you want to prevent this?" Well, months ago I have suggested a solution for this: Just make the camera level depend on the closest friendly unit, i.e. in enemy territory just allow view level >= 4 whereas close to a friendly unit allow view levels down to 1. The former would correspond to the "map view" I suppose every commander had. Even back in WW II. You wrote: "You're restricted to best judgement" Yes, but this restriction comes from the abstraction of the terrain and the available commands. A "Movement to visual contact" command would solve my problem. On the other hand if there was ANY graphical representation or information about how the terrain is abstracted it would also give me the knowledge you suggest I should aquire with experience. Actually I could do this myself: place a unit in different kinds of woods and see how far they can see. Could be included in the manual, as well. You wrote: "The LOS tool tells you where the LOS is obstructed" Yes, but before you have to move a unit there. If they arrive in the first seconds of the new turn they will be standing around for almost one minute until I can perform the LOS check and waypoint adjustment you suggest. You wrote: You see also that the LOS line is black for approx. the last 10 meters. In other words, what you need to do is move 10 meters forward towards the edge of the woods and you'll be able to look outside. Okay ! And now I ask you the following: since the unit cannot see the edge of the wood, how should it know how far it has to advance ? Is this not exactly as gamey as the LOS-from-waypoint thing ? It is just a work-around for something that is missing, because the unit does not know of my intention to put it in a place where they can attack without being spotted or fired upon easily. This is such an essential element of moving around on the battlefield. It should not be left to guessing or "experience". Regards, Thomm

Big problem, difficult to solve ! There should be some "movement to visual contact" order. But maybe this is implicitly contained in one of the existing orders as the interest in engaging the enemy. So if you set up the path such that the last movement order will cause the unit to engage the first target it sees, then this could be a work-around. On the other hand, I sometimes just want to set up a well-concealed fire base and not start shooting right away. How could I do this except with LOS experience and a move/hide command combo. I still vote for the possibility to use the LOS tool from waypoints. This was objected because of fog-of-war considerations, but I do not accept this reasoning as long as it is possible to move the camera around freely across the map. LOS tool from waypoints ! Think about the possibilities ! Regards, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>complete with knocked out stuff [...] from the previous battle/s<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhh-Ohh ! Will this not adversely affect the polygon-count and the frame-rate, respectively ? Also, if you plan to leave shell holes on the map, will there be a limit to their number ? I imagine that peppering the landscape with artillery barrages will send the polygon count skywards ! Regards, Thomm

Ouch, sorry ! Sorry, I did not know about this violation of netiquette ! After all it was obvious, which site the picture came from since the whole link was given, and not just some "Click here" anchor ! Well, I will remove the link right away and will not try this again ! Please accept my apology ! Thomm

"... you will be able to take the buildings into paint shop pro or another paint program and give them designer colors if you wish" Who ???? Me ??? I am here to play, not to work !!!

I did not expect it, but some things about the picture of the town of Nijmegen in the river crossing screenshot section at combathq.thegamers.net disturb me: <ul>[*]There are these grey building with next to no windows. They look like bunkers ! What are they supposed to be ? Compared to the beautiful (new) graphics of the houses next to them they look quite poor ! [*]Those new houses, why do they have those red-brown firewalls on the side ? All walls should look the same on a free standing building [*] The grey "town square" tiles look a little bit naked[*]The pavement is completely oversized and the streets are too wide compared to the houses[*]There should be a type of houses (terrace houses ?) which touch each other to form a row (like 2 small houses on one tile with small gardens in front and in the back) I am curious what cities will look like in the final game. Right now, I do not think they can compete with the rest of the fine graphics ! Regards, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 01-18-2000).]

Re: AAA versus ground targets. Can anybody please tell me the original purpose of this M-something infantry carrier with the Vulcan 20mm Gatling gun ? Is this intended to be an anti-aircraft vehicle ? How was it actually employed ? Thanks in advance, Thomm