Thomm

A virtual crate of beer for Big Time Software ... delivered through DEEP SNOW: Regards, Thomm

King Tiger ! ASW = anti submarine warfare RUB = ??????

How much better the www would work WITHOUT Java ... *sigh*

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Graphics and Sound are simple BMP and Wav files and can be modified.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, ever since I made my guys wear Ray-Bans (5000.BMP), they act much cooler and are less prone to panic ... or is this just my imagination ?!

Cunningham, you are right (with air-bursts and HE on hard surfaces being the exception). I just wanted to suggest a reasonable improvement of the existing system, which would combine both solid and transparent explosions in a physically meaningful matter. As for realistic explosions: B17 II seems to have the most advanced technology, but I myself have no idea how you could realize a realistic explosion in a "cheap" manner. Maybe with animated textures ...

I think it would be a fairly simple but effective addition if one or two triangles with a litter/burned earth texture were added to the ground around the tank (similar to shellholes). From the orientation of this polygon you could show where the tank was hit without messing with the tank model itself. I am sure it would add some atmosphere, too. Sorry if this was proposed already in the past !

With regard to the explosion graphics: I imagine it would look nice to have them start being solid and bright white, then expand, turn yellow and become transparent and finally fade away becoming completely transparent. I have no idea if this is difficult to do or not, but I, too, liked the fireballs, which is why I suggest this.

... you are constantly estimating LOS reduction factors when hiking in woods.

Harold, in what sense ? Too gory ? As a remark: of course this picture is taken from the AAR. It was used to demonstrate how a headquarter unit was blown away by the explosion and just vanished. This is why there are a lot of pools in the middle of the picture ... the remains of that unit.

This is what pools of blood *might* look like ... Decide for yourself !

But, Fionn, *I* did not tell him to hide on the bottom of the half-track !!

Since this thread came up again: Can somebody please give me the URL of the (former cc3.gamestats.com) discussion forum ! I know there is a new forum for CC4, but I do not have the URL !! Thanks in advance, Thomm

Dear Moon ! Danke schön, but my problem was that I wanted to plot a long movement path across a field and through the wood until I get LOS to the enemy wall line, so I cannot use this method, since my unit has yet to enter the woods. And the fact that you present a work-around just confirms that this IS an issue and should be addressed ! I do not understand why I should rely on "experience" when all the data is in the game. If a mathematical abstraction is used than a proper visualization should be attempted. The same goes for counters and floating numbers, in my opinion ! Since the information is there (and vital) it should be as easy as possible to access it. In the zoomed out views I would trade the polygon figures for counters any time just to avoid having to click on every unit for a head count ! Regards, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 11-04-99).]

Why cannot my forward observer target from an halftrack (where he would be protected). I do not like to disembark him when I feel he would be more safe inside the half-track ... where (unfortunately) he is useless. Thomm

Two thoughts on LOS (only suggestions, do not flame me, please): Restrict possible camera positions in such a way that eye level can be obtained only in the close vicinity of friendly units, whereas high levels >4 can be set all over the map (as the equivalent to a real map): Introduce a more subtle "Movement to Visual Contact" order, which allows forward observers or MG teams to use as much cover as possible yet obtain a LOS to the enemy. This is vital for the abstracted woods, where (at least I) cannot tell clearly from where I will get a LOS. Thanks for your attention, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 11-04-99).]

Very well, John ! I agree !

Dear Mike ! "But just like a looking at a map, you shouldn't be able to trace exact lines of LOS" <font color=#FFFFFF> ... but you are able to do this by floating there. The exception to this are the various kinds of vegetation, where you would have to use the LOS tool to see where the LOS is broken.</font> "How can you say such an order is "valid" when your unit(s) have absolutely NO idea of whether, or when, they've been spotted or not??" <font color=#FFFFFF>... Please remove the last part and consider the command to be "Move along this path until you establish line-of-sight to any/the enemy unit". That is what I meant and what I am missing !</font> "I don't believe restriction of camera movement to friendly sighted areas is necessary" <font color=#FFFFFF>... From your point of view it is necessary ! Compromise: Restrict views to high levels (> 3 ?) over enemy held territory</font> By the way: headcounter example: Does not look too good in my opinion. Maybe I should have made the red "chips" transparent ?! [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 11-02-99).]

Dear Mike ! But it is not realistically either that *I* can float there and "have a look". Now, if the woods would not be abstracted, but individual trees, I could find the exact place where my squad would first see the enemy ! Now why should this not be possible with the abstracted woods ? As long as I cannot give a complex, yet valid order like "Move along this path until you establish line-of-sight to any/the enemy unit, but without being spotted yourself" I think I should have a tool to at least find the waypoint for which this rule would apply. Possible solution: BTS introduces a new command: Movement to (visual) contact ! Should work great for recon, forward observers and MGs. A consequence of your statement would be: Restrict camera movement to areas which are controlled by friendluy forces. Otherwise one could focus on an enemy unit and do "manual" L.O.S. checks from there ... unrealistically ! Do you see the dilemma ? Regards, Thomm

I second especially (6), but I would prefer vertical stacks of counters for inactive/healthy soldiers. A picture tells more than 1000 numbers ! (Please see also my suggestions).

Some comments: I studied a lot of posts now, but I have yet to read an answer from BTS regarding this "jumping waypoint" thing (bug ?), which makes it very hard to drag and place waypoints, since they do not stick to the cursor sometimes. Will this issue be addressed ? Another thing: waypoint cubes can be highlighted. I think it would be very useful to be able to use the L.O.S. function [L] from the waypoint cube, e.g. to see if a forward observer or a MG are able to establish line of sight from the waypoint to the target. Next suggestion: It would be great to have the required movement time displayed when plotting movement paths (like the distance and the terrain type). Even if this would be a rough estimation, I would like to know whether a given movement will take 30 sec. or 2 minutes (C&C delays should of course be included). And something else: It would be nice to get a quick overview head count by a vertical stack of counters (empty counter for combat ineffective, filled counter for healthy). This would be more efficient than having to click on every single unit. And as counters vanish, one can quickly tell which unit is taking casualties. And lastly: Enable an even higher tree density, for high-quality "snap shots" or ... just for the fun of it. Combat Mission is a very interesting game ! I realized fast that it offers a lot of possibilities, but at the same time requires a lot of attention. Undoubtedly CM is a very sophisticated game. What I still have to figure out for myself is: is World War II (gaming) fun ? But this is a different story ... Thank you for your consideration, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 11-02-99).]

A (maybe) trivial yet urgent question: Will one loose the preorder bonus as soon as the BETA demo comes out ? Regards, Thomm

Well, so much for misconception of written language ! Sorry for bringing this thread to the top again, but of course I want to thank Fionn for his reply ... herewith ! Regards, Thomm PS: "... than slam yours k?" This missing "o" inspires an "ironic Okay", namely " k".

Dear Fionn ! You are "[...] just saying that while Martin and I played neither of us looked at the kneeling and said UHOH !! BIG problem ..." Well since I brought up this knee position stuff I feel like apologizing to you: I really did not want to upset you, but - you see - the difference between you and me is (as you correctly stated) that YOU ARE PLAYING THE GAME while I have to look at SCREENSHOTS. So, if you put yourself into my shoes you might realize that - given that I am desperate to contribute something to this great game - the only way to do this is to judge what *I* see and to suggest improvements to that. So maybe it is a little bit unfair to imply that this is pedantic as YOU are in the lucky situation of enjoying the game already, while I have to restrict myself to positive (?!) criticism. Therefore, I think that, especially in your position, it is not necessary to attack other people for their well-meant suggestions. Regards, Thomm PS.: Sorry for this not-CM-related post.

Original version: Proposed version (shadows added for clarity) Regards, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 10-15-99).]

Dear Cunningham ! If you browse their German discussion forum you will find out that the developers themselves do not know how the units will be controlled ("we think of introducing group control"). Hui, that's funny !