Thomm

For lack of technology knowledge I declare myself unable to comment ... But could you not just outline the terrain polygons ?!?!?!? Regards, Thomm

This is interesting ! So you do not shade the terrain according to it's orientation with respect to the light-source ? (I vote for optional gridlines !)

Dear BTS ! I think it would be really cool to present an helicopter view of the whole fleet of vehicles of either side in a screenshot. You know ... to convert the unbelievers ! Thomm

Doug, take a look at this *hehe*: http://www.dol.ru/users/hotdog/ramming.htm

Ouch ! What a mess ! One question: Will the AT gun graphics be refined ? Looks like a place-holder !

Thanks for your words full of sympathy and comfort, Fionn ! Of course I would NOT have made such a confession if it had happened more often than just once in roughly 15 years to me ... and if it had NOT been alcohol induced ! The problem is: She was *really* cute (sports student, too ... yes, exactly what you might think) ! Anyway, I am glad to be given this possibility to come to terms with my past ! Regards, Thomm PS.: No, BTS, do not ban me ! You started it, anyway !

There is an even more catastrophic scenario: What should go up ... stays down. Do not laugh ! This is dead serious !

Dear Patrick ! Thanks for your comment ! Meanwhile I came to the conclusion that the threat evaluation information (which I was most concerned about) is already available. I remembered the yellow lines I have seen in this context. So I conclude by disagreeing with myself and agree that it would be luxury to have a verbal description of something that is visualized anyway (if I understand correctly). Regards, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 09-02-99).]

Dear Patrick ! I think I understood most of your points. Let me focus on one of your statements: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>People will probably select each unit at least once during the order phase. I know I do. This is easy to do with the interface. All it takes is one keystroke to hop to the next unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now imagine the following: You are in the order phase. You select a unit. Apart from the information you have mentioned (and I have seen in some screenshots) a unit history window pops up with a description of what the unit experienced during the last turn: "Sir, a tank [marker 1] has hit us with HE while we attacked that pillbox [marker 2], we lost our leader. Also, that machine gun (?) [marker 3] tries to get at us. Awaiting instructions !". With this information you could react very specifically to the units situation (even without watching the replay). Somehow similar to the CC Message Window. Regards, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a precaution against American shelling I have ordered the twelve American prisoners into the dip also so that the American commander will hesitate to order an artillery barrage for fear of killing his own men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fionn, do not introduce that style of playing, please ! It is only a game after all ! Regards, Thomm

Moon, with all respect, but if I can obtain information by clicking on an unit, anyway, then this is not "Fog of War" but an user interface issue. For my it boils down to the question: How much (personal) time does it take me to analyze the result of the previous turn (using the replay function). My opinion is: The less, the better ! I am sure I will enjoy watching the movies, but as soon as it comes down to playing, I want it to be as efficient as possible. That is: I do not want to waste my (rare) personal time having to look for information I am supposed to have, even if it is "only" a mouse-click away ! Many units = many mouse-clicks = less time for RealLife. Regards, Thomm

Well, it is too late anyway, but I think if there is another thread like this then we should stick to posting our items for "The (Wish) List" but not starting to discuss details, because it only messes things up ! However, so far OUR List is pretty short ! Is Combat Mission already perfect ?

Dear Fionn ! I am not sure, but I think Sten means that COMBAT MISSION should provide these kind of AAR not you ! By the way, I second that (see my entry in the "The List" thread). Regards, Thomm

# optional gridlines to enhance terrain features (winter landscapes do not show enough contrast). # A (clickable) list of events ("AAR"), which allows to focus on the main events without having to play the movie over and over again to find out everything that happened. Id est: Read [Jumbo destroyed], click on it and watch the Jumbo explode. Then you can figure out what has happened, but the focus has been set there both in time and space, and you will not miss this event. No more "Forgotten Soldiers". [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 09-01-99).]

From the discussion about different building types (by the way: are there fire-walls between adjacent multi-storey blocks ?) I think I can conclude that with every terrain tile comes code which tells the units how to behave in certain situations, that is how to hide in a building or how to cross a bridge ? This would be some nice object orientated concept, because the unit object would actually ask the terrain object how it should behave and move on it. It would be so nice to learn more about this. I am currently developing my first application in Visual C++ and try to get the OOP concept right from the beginning. Maybe you could recommend me a book which couples OOP with game design to make for some pleasant learning (although I would of course prefer: Big Time Software: "The Making of Combat Mission", first edition, 1999) . Regards, Thomm

Yeah, I miss it, too ! Wanted to come back to see if I missed ANY screenshot ... just to make sure ... Guess we will have to wait. I am really curious if that lonely [CONSORED] behind that [CENSORED] will get that dreadful [CENSORED]. Or if the reinforcements for [CENSORED] will arrive in time to crash the resistance of [CENSORED] ! Game looks really, really great !!! By the way, would be cool if both players set the number of trees to maximum before taking screenshots ! Waiting for MORE, Thomm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Horsepower (divided by vehicle weight) is used to calculate a vehicle's acceleration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhh-ohh ... As P = Force x velocity and F = F_resistance + Force_inertial with Force_inertial = Mass x acceleration the "correct" expression would be: a = (P/v - R)/m with a ... acceleration [m/s2] P ... engine power [Nm/s] v ... vehicle velocity [m/s] R ... resistance (air, friction)[N] You can see that there is no solution for v=0 with this concept. You have to choose some other method. I would suggest to use maximum torque rather than maximum engine power to determine maximum acceleration ! Regards, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 08-09-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You want a LOT of trees Thomm, I think youve got it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I completely agree with you ! This is an awesome shot. This is what I have ment with a "rendered scene", I just can't see room for improvement (now that BTS added SHADOWS ). If the dynamic engine delivers this already ... well, speechless. Only one thing about 3D worlds in general: I think the next problem to overcome is the discrepancy between the high-resolution textures of the vehicles and the "low" resolution of the terrain. I still have not seen any sim that overcomes this problem. I indicated it with "high-res" textures, read "ground textures", in my original post. I am curious who will present a solution first. I have to add that I have not seen any recent voxel engine and I do not know how they perform in this respect. But it is telling that even John Carmack (spelling?) declared in an interview that he would appreciate a support of hardware-accelerated voxel rendering by the graphic card producers.

Okay, serious question: Can infantry and tanks be scaled differently ? Thanks and regards, Thomm

Hey, you know what would be great now: A MOVING SHADOW for the GUN BARREL !!!!! (ROFL !!!!!!! Sorry, I could not help it !)

Dear BTS ! Have you ever considered to include a screenshot function in Combat Mission ? I mean a function which renders a very complex, but static scene in the highest quality possible (=a LOT of trees, shadows, high-resolution textures, ...). The gamer could choose the best view-point dynamically and then let the render-engine create a high-quality frame. In this case, speed is not an issue, but you get a photorealistic picture of your favorite battle scene. This would truly be a novelty I think ! Keep up the good work and thanks for the shadows ! Thomm

Christ, you are right ! Excellent recon ! This is just great ! First BTS convinces me that vehicle shadows are not feasible, and then this ! Keep those surprises coming !

Nice screenshot, Steve, but what exactly is the surprise ? Did I miss something ? Regards, Thomm

Dear Steve ! To clarify: I was talking about the latest version of Panzer General 3D called ASSAULT. The original Panzer General 3D did indeed have a static 2D map, just as you wrote ! Marko gave a precise description of the graphics engine. It is a parallel projection like it is commonly used in action or C&C type games (I assume !?). Compare it to Syndicate Wars. The PG3D-Assault Engine is definitely worth a look ! Please note the way they represented woods ! About the size of the objects I just can say that small, but detailed-down-to-the-pixel, is beautiful (at least to my eyes). I do not feel the urge to zoom in on a tank in a tactical simulation (at least not yet) ! Due to its relative simplicity the Assault engine is also very fast, another benefit ! As for the game: Like any other turn- and hex-based strategy game it barely survived 5 minutes on my computer (Yeah, maybe I am just superficial, but thanks, no hexes for the next Millenium !). But nevertheless: The high-res, high-speed 3D graphics are worth a look ! Regards, Thomm

Dear BTS ! With respect to my post about Panzer General 3D Assault: Please consider a camera movement where the camera rotates around an imaginary point on the map while looking at it. In Panzer General this would be the center of the screen, which is quite clear since they do not use a perspective projection. In Combat Mission, however, I sense that there is only the possibility to turn the camera about it's current viewpoint, which means that you have to superpose a translational movement to get a different aspect angle. I think that you miss a lot of spatial perception this way. I think it would be best to have the option to center a certain object or point of the terrain and then orbit about this point/object with the camera ! This gives the best 3D feeling in my opinion ! Please do not miss this opportunity ! Regards, Thomm