Kwazydog

I use a couple of these to work on...they are great monitor for a great price. Id like to suggest to anyone buying a monitor for gaming, particually above 22", to make sure they research the 'input lag' of the monitor. This is different to response time and can make a significant impact on game play in action or FPS style games. Dan

I would also like to add that I too am very, very sorry to hear this Gordon. Your help has been invaluable over the years, and I do hope that you are can continue to enjoy CM series from time to time and visit us here in the forums. Dan

Hehe good memory ASL! Just to clarify at that time I was mainly referring to the fact that most of the units are already in game to represent a NK conflict as NKs military equipment is somewhat of a sub-set of Syrians gear. At the tactical level Id suggest that NK would provide a softer opponent than Syria as they lack some of the modern warheads and vehicles. They do make up for it in sheer numbers though. That being said the scenario you suggest involving Russia and China would certainly make for an interesting selection of equipment though, thats for sure. Dan

From the best of my knowledge I would say that both are very similar in capabilities. According to the article below a bunch of different tanks were considered for the replacement, including the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, but the deal being offered by the US included support, training and recovery vehicles and was good good to pass up. Im sure there was a bunch of political crap involved with the descision too http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/m1a1ph_1.htm Dan

Keep in mind that Australian military was fielding Leopard 1s, not the Leopard 2. Whilst still a very capabale tank, its certainly not in the class of the M1A1 AIM. Dan

Oh proper applique armor on the M4s will definately be modelled as a seperate vehicle variant. This armor was factory or field installed over vital areas and was around 2" in thickness, so it should certainly make a different in game Dan

Hehe. Silverstars if all goes well there will certainly be a lot of random stuff on tanks including stuff like sand bags and maybe even foliage, providing we can get something that looks okay. These are low priority, but hopefully time will allow us to add this as well as stuff like banged up skirt armour, mud guards, etc. With regards to this stuff effecting armour penetration, that is a little more complicated. As I recall there was a pretty huge discussion about this back in the CMBO days and the result of that was that this sort of improvised armour provided next to no addition armour protection, and may have even aided in penetration under certain circumstances. I don’t recall the details of this though, but a search through the old forums should hopefully provide you with further information! Dan

Possible fk! I origionally understood that to be the argument, but I had the impression that that had changed somewhere along the line for the sake of simplicity as Paul was quoting the fact that it would only take a couple of lines of code to add the feature he required. To me that sounded like an all or nothing toggle, but maybe not. Dan

I hadnt actually gotten that impression from this thread but even if so we already have that option if we set the map to dry terrain, reducing immobilisations to all but the rarest of rare occasions. Even if one considers that not the case, where do we draw the line....I once had a Panther taken out by a direct hit from a pre-planned mortar barrage but have never considered it necessary to have the ability to turn such an event off. Then again I cant remember bogging ever being a problem either. Dan

Isnt it going to be just as ridiculous though if the other player can drive any vehicle, from a kubelwagon to a King Tiger, across any terrain in any conditions without fear of consequence? Isnt this in turn going to change the part of the fundamental tactical challenge of the game, essentially allowing the game to play out in a completely different manner than it otherwise might? I know that due to this very reason I used to babysit my important assets throughout the entire game, only taking them off road if absolutely necessary and even then only at slow speeds. If I know they can plough through muddy fields or forested hills with their foot to the floor and without consequence, I will certainly be using them in a different manner. Dan

C3k Interesting point, it actually reminded me of a chapter on SS Panzer Abteilung 102's march to Normandy. According to it the Tigers were to halt every 10-15km to inspect engines and perform any needed maintenance. Generally the tracks were about to travel 45km with attention, but the hard roads were proving a problem for them. Even with these halts several of the Tigers engines started to hit the 100c with fire shooting out of the exhaust and the rear deck plates smoking. Eventually one caught fire and had to have its cooling fans replaced. 3km further on the engine had stalled again, and even though it restarted the tank caught fire 10km further down the road as they had installed the fan backwards in their rush It was saved though. Anyways just thought Id pass it on...interesting story of how even a road march with scheduled maintenance can be problematic. Dan

Whilst making the Tiger for CM Normandy I was interested to note that if you stand on the deck of a tiger you can actually see the fuel tanks (and radiatiors) through the rear deck engine covers. As such I personally dont find it hard to believe some sort of shrapnel from a burst of 8 .50 cal MGs has a chance to find its way in there and puncture either. Most WW2 tanks seem to be quite vulnerable in this respect. Dan

Mechanical failure isnt a problem caused by your own actions either, its a random happening that every military commander had to deal with. Youve mentioned this a few times but to be honest I think that most here 'get it', the problem appears to be that you havnt explained you case in such a way so as to convince them that this is a particually pressing issue. Dan

Maybe, maybe not, to be honest Id say many commenting here have also played Cmx1 to some extent. Either way though those that are taking the time to post here are obviously more interested in the topic than those that arent, and as such in this particular case their opinions hold more value. If others have valid input though I hope they will provide it. Dan

Your point is that you want a button to turn it off becuase personally it ruins your gaming experience, correct? If so then yes......we get that, the concept is not that complicated. Actually there are a lot of options Id probably like too in a perfect world. The problem is that although your solution sounds simple there are many reasons why it isnt, several of which have been noted in this thread (not including the fact that your estimate of 4 lines of code is innacurate). If you combine these problems with the fact that most people dont consider this an issue at all, hopefully you can understand why currently such an option isnt a high priority. Dan

Yup, true Redworlf, I am sure that some could eventually work through it much like people did with the Falcon 4 code some years back. Dumping the code out there as is wouldnt be what Id personally consider your average open source project though as they are usually provided with some level of documentation. As such Im guessing it would be useless to most, though as in your case there may certainly be exceptions. You may very well be the only one with the level of interest and experience to work through it though, which is mainly what I was getting at (as initially I doubted there would be any) . Dan

I suspect that what Steve is suggesting is that we could all be making a bunch more cash if we were making less detailed games for a wider market, lets say WW2 'RTS' style games. These would likely be quicker to produce, turn over more sales and would require a lot less after sales 'support' as all of the detailed modelling that people concern themselves with in the CM games would be rounded off to the point where they wouldn't be noticed either way With regards to releasing the source code...although Ive never seen the CMx1 source code as a coder I can almost guarantee that release it would require a bunch of work from Charles to prepare and document the code for distribution (for it to be any use to anyone). Knowing how busy Charles is with CMx2 Id say that that would rule out the possibility right there! Dan

Is it based on real world data redwolf? If so this stuff is always very interesting. Dan

Thats probably because many of them, like myself, cant remember a single incidence of bogging ruining an entire battle out of thousands of games played. Personally I see bogging as an important part of the simulation....I like the fact that I have to think twice before sending a Tiger across soft grasslands in the rain. That being said as its obviously a concern to you why not to set your battles to dry conditions as at the least that should limit bogging to very rare circumstances. Keep in mind that in CMx1 immobilisations also represented mechanical failure. Dan

There is a huge difference between someone being critical and someone being just plain rude, and I think you are confusing the two. If you take the time to search through the forum you will see that Steve has spent many many hours discussing different aspects of the game to which people may be be critical. The result is that we have a much better idea of the direction people would like to see the game take and forum members have a much better idea of the details of game development. What we have never accepted on our forums is people putting across their opinions in a rude or trolling manner. Personally I think that Steve should be credited for at least addressing these peoples posts as it would be FAR simple for us to simply hit the ban button, as most developers would. Dan

If you are referring too variety of equipment KR then I would suggest that CMx2:Normandy will have a greater variety available to the player than they had in CMBO once modules are taken into consideration. Even in the initial release it is likely that there will be variants of vehicles that weren’t seen in CMBO as we are able to focus on the selected period in more detail. Time will tell though. With regards to the initial post phew, what a rant eh, hehe. Personally I find it a little sad that after two years there are still some out there whom are *so* bitter that they find it worth while spending hours writing, editing and revising such a post. Hopefully they can find a way to move on and find other aspects of their life to fulfil them. Dan

If you do a quick search for some of the comments from turn based fans in the past youll see why a real time only engine wouldnt be a popular option The problem with working with 3rd party tools is that you have to design the game to fit the engine instead of the other way around. Every engine has its limitations, and if you start to move outside of those limitations you will often hit a brick wall. For instance this (or any other engine) likely wouldn't have the ability to support turn based and PBEM play. Another example is that it is unlikely to have the code and data necessary for the detailed armour penetration and hit calculations we use, etc. Pre-made engines are great if they closely fit the product you are designing, but on the other hand they will always introduce more limitations than writing your own. Dan

As I recall M16s have a greater effective range than the M4 in game due to their longer barrel... Dan

Such things are automatically looked after by the 3D nature of the engine, in the same way the shield on a humvee's .50cal offers the gunner protection. Dan

Steiner my problem with it is that there are cases where you will be punishing units with a delay when there shouldnt be. For instance lets say a tank spots infantry movement 50m away, marked as a'?', that he suspects is an AT team. Should he not be instantly able to fire on its location? How frustrated will players be when they lose that tank to the delay? The result is that you somewhat fix one problem whilst introducing another, leaving you back where you started... Dan