aka_tom_w

this Mapping Mission tool sounds so AWESOME I may have to get a PC to play with it. This is not an easy thing to say because I am a die hard Mac fanatic, BUT this App combined with no OSX support forCMBO or CMBB suggests my Mac obession is getting in the way of playing new games (Hearts of Iron) and checking out GREAT fan developed apps like CMMOS and Mapping Mission. I hear PC's are cheaper than Macs maybe I should start shopping around? -tom w [ January 19, 2003, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

these might be REALLY good idea's for the map editer in the rewrite I would hope the map editer in the Next Big Thing would have all these features and many more with a great interface so that is might actually be a joy to use, maybe somthing like designing terrain and laying out maps in Sim City. I think it would be great if the map editor was something akin to the interface of SimCity for map making. But then again I am a dreamer -tom w

Is it possible that they may be waiting for the finalized v1.02 patch to be fully tested before sending the next run off for duplication? I'm guessing that we might see the release of the v1.02 patch within the next two weeks so maybe the next Windows run of reproduction of the CD might include the latest patch? :confused: Just a guess.... -tom w

Many Thanks !!! That sounds Great! I am Thrilled that you will consider a Mac version. I think this APP is badly needed for CMBB! Thanks for all the hard work, I think BFC should hire you for the NEXT big thing they are working on! There will be more than a few of us looking for the up coming Mac version of your latest release! -tom w

Why just one scenario? Why not take a programmed instruction approach like Squad Leader did and provide a few simple and short scenarios. Number 1 could be a platoon attacking a machine gun position. Number 2 could be 3 Panthers vs. 3 T-34s. Number 3 could be a slightly more complicated combined arms scenario. But in all cases, I'd make them an easy win so as not to discourage the new folks. Nothing draws a player in like watching your opponents tank explode in flames and being able to say, "I did that!" Ace</font>

"When I play I use tactics that were used then..and alot of those are considered "Gamey"..so thats why I wont play anyone PBEM games." You mean to say the Actual Combatants in WWII on the Eastern Front used Gamey tactics to try to win? :eek: :confused: Say its NOT so! (HEAVY saracasm) Who has the signature file that goes something like "If you think the opfor cheats, wait to you meet the REAL Bad Guys in action!" (I am reminded of that signature file now) -tom w

my only question is ? Is there something "gamey" you did that you are not telling us about??? :confused: Can we assume from your first post that your opponent chose to resign the match, leaving you to claim a Total Victory ? :eek: -tom w

I have been waiting and watching for a thread like this since CMBB was introduced. Guess what? :confused: This is the FIRST and only (that I know of) thread if its kind where someone has questioned the "chance to hit" calculations. %99.99 of all threads and comments are not about complaints regarding this aspect of the game. One of the new words I learned when I first started reading the CMBO forum was the word "outlier" (is that correct?). This is a reference to a datum (fact or point on a curve) on the far end of a spectrum of data. What you are reporting is IMHO on outlier. It has been previously explained as poor visibility which also makes sense. It would seem most folks posting here are MORE than happy with CMBB "chance to hit" calculations! (I think) -tom w

More than a couple of reader reviews give it ONLY a 5/10 simply because there is no OSX version. the review says this about it: "Unfortunately, there's room for improvement. The game ships on a single CD but consumes 1.17 GB of hard drive space, a hefty amount by anyone?s standards, even if the end result is worth it. The lack of an OS X version is strange at a time when Apple's officially migrating everything over to the new operating system. Just switch it to run in Classic, right? Sadly, emulation failed to successfully execute the game 9 times out of 10 on both a current iBook and a G4 under Mac OS 10.2.2 and 10.2.3, the only solution being to boot back into Mac OS 9 and run the game from there. Perhaps this is an isolated case with my own computers, but with only a few months left of newly sold Macs being able to boot into OS 9, there?s something to be concerned about if this is a widespread issue. " ©insidemacgames.com 2003 -tom w [ January 14, 2003, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Funny you should mention insidemacgames.com here is there latest review of cmbb: http://www.insidemacgames.com/reviews/view.php?ID=320 tom w

(italics added) Also of interest to many.</font>

We could probably gues then that there are beta testors (not me ) testing it right now ? -tom w

FYI in case you missed it....... " All depends on what you define as "proper" Ask 100 people on this Forum to define a "proper" campaign and you are likely to get 127.5 different answers. We can't distract ourselves with something that, while possibly cool, pales in comparision to the new engine. Our ability to focus is what led us to CMBO and then CMBB. Bluring our vision will not get us CMX2 (the engine rewrite's development name) in a reasonable timeframe and/or in the shape we want it in. Steve " from: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=005153;p=3 -tom w

bump

bump

This thread just would not be complete without this feature request list The NEW CMII engine possible new features like: * NO more Borg Spotting (Relative Spotting) * LOS & LOF blocked by LIVE AFV's (i.e. infantry have "some" cover behind live and dead vehicles that are not burning) * Same as above, vehicles and other units CANNOT shoot through other live or dead vehicles that are not burning. (Dynamic LOS) * Full movie replay * Roster (for those would think they need it) * Multi-turreted vehicles like the Allied Grant and Lee * Amphibious units * Dynamic lighting effects (two fold: i. As visual effect and more important ii. Integration into fire- and detection algorithms *Change PBEM format to only require two e-mails per turn * Realistic modelling of visibility at night * Collision detection for all projectiles, even those that would hit *Smaller terrain tiles ( 10 x 10 m or better ) *Terrain FOW (Terrain EFOW ?) *Risk of bogging calculated and determined by greater fidelity in Mean Maximum Pressure theory (Model?) (Note: One example he gives is the Elephant having only 12% heavier nomimal ground pressure (NGP, weight per track area) than a King Tiger, but having a mean maximum ground pressure (MMP) approx double, at 370 compared to 184. They more or less have the same weight and track area, but the suspension designs are quite different.) From: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=003157;p=1 * Programable SOP's for all units: (e.g. "Wouldn't it be great if an order could be given to the commander of company "A" to "take that hill" or "move to that position and set up a defense" and watch as the orders are dissiminated down throught he ranks and the varios platoons begin to try and carry out your orders. Yes, much as it happens with "Airborn Assult".) "with a little help from my friends" -tom w AND TSword Member Member # 7457 posted October 25, 2002 08:00 AM 1. It is absolutely necessary to give the Scenario-Designer more control over AI behaviour and setup. Example: AI in Operations usually does a very poor setup (If there is wood AI will cramp everything in it), true one can work around, but with open maps this becomes a problem of first order. Solution: The designer can suggest zones of terrain suitable for setup. Also some guidelines for attacking/defending AI would be great, like areas of approach, objective zones, type of general AI behaviour like stubborn defense, counterattack, timings and the like. This is a wide field but in general leave AI as is (No hope of much improvement in this field) but enable more options during scenario design All this together would enable much more challenging AI-battles and more possibilities to generate more historic acurate battles (I mostly play the AI, since PBEMs go forever and need a lot of discipline especially for the loosing side...). Covered arcs set by scenario designer would be great. 2. Atleast direct firing Artillery pieces should be able to fire delayed fuzed shells (when firing a flat trajectory shell bounces off the ground, at first impact fuze is activated). This was done very often on the german side with tanks HE, 88 AT, and all Artillery pieces. If used correctly this results in devastating fire. 3. It is principally wrong not to enable on-board artillery to fire indirect. In the case of german heavy howitzers (150 mm) the guns were very seldom placed farer away from the front then 4 km and often relocated only below 1 km. This of course fits into the dimension of CM. Again this would allow for additional realism and more possibilities in scenarios (Gamey inbalances can be corrected by purchase prizes easily). 4. More terrain types with variyng degree of concealment together with further refined LOScalculations. More possibilities for open terrain battles. More terrain which give Inf concealment when being prone while only partly restricting LOS for AVFs. 5. Active visible camouflage of all sorts of weapons for same reason as point 4. 6. Ability for mounted troops to shoot from vehicles, and proper loads for trucks (much more then 1 Squad infact). 7. Dynamic lighting visible and taken into LOS calculations 8. Turret down for tanks or generally fighting vehicles for observation purposes. 9. "Debug"-Mode to check AI-behaviour for scenario designers. Simply an additional battle parameter where the player can see all the AI units all the time while AI behaves according to set FOW settings. 10. Vehicle crews can remount an abandoned vehicle 11. Horses, bicycles, bikes 12. A small API-set: - To read unit database (all values currently visible during unitselection) - To write to the map generator or map selection (All the values currently editable by the user) - To write to the unit selection Thus allowing 3rd party extensions for campaigns and the like 13. Correct representation of relative plate sizes on AFVs for hit determination. (eg. Large T-34/85 turret, small T-34/76 turret). 14. Option to allow same "casualty"-rules as in night battles also for daylight battles. They are obviously much much more realistic then the daylight rules. 15. More finetune options for Operations in determing new setup zones for next battle. (For instance in the "Assault" mode the possibility to determine the weight of flank and middle and treshold for cutoff units), now it's easely possible to have the whole force being cutoff although not a single enemy unit was behind their line when previous battle ended). 16. New operation type "mixed" where scenario designer can determine the sequence of attacker (thus operations where attacker can actually change from battle to battle) either unknown or known to the player. To simulate counterattacks something completely missing now. Actually the same should also be possible in battles where a certain formation (for instance reinforcments) event triggered would counterattack. 17. Moving vehicles produce dust dependend of region and groundconditions. Heavy weapons like tanks, artillery shells and the like produce a lot of smoke which could change a battlefield dramatically LOS wise..., nice to see in open terrain battles... Greets Daniel [ January 13, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I had always assumed that if a "move" order was issued the chance of bogging was MOST minimal of all the possible orders for movement :confused: . -tom w

Correct. The movement rate affects the chance of bogging. I'd rather move slower and get just as far eventually and not bog than to blitz ahead and get stuck in the process. </font>

OK thanks Accepted I do my best to not take any words or posts here that are directed at me personally, too seriously. At least I try . -tom w

Correct. The movement rate affects the chance of bogging. I'd rather move slower and get just as far eventually and not bog than to blitz ahead and get stuck in the process. As for the whole thing about min/max ground pressure... this is something that is very difficult to do for the number of vehicles we have and the data at our fingertips. With the new engine we hope to do a more exact accounting for Ground Pressure. We also should have the ability to allow vehicles "options" like track widening options such as used on US and some German vehicles. Steve</font>

This might be correct if they are refering to HC (Hollow Point) the penetration of these rounds it not dependant upon velocity or range. It could be wrong too :confused: though -tom w

Both the Death Clock and The way Gunnery Optics are NOW modeled in CMBB are VAST improvements over CMBO! Both work very well and many on this forum would agree they simulate WW II historical AFV combat events really well in a $45 US video game :eek: (IMHO) -tom w

"1) You may play to have all your vehicles on roads, at all times. However, sometimes they drive off the road on their own behalf - when retreating, when untangling a traffic jam, when your path was plotted too near to a nonpassable terrain (and you tried to save waypoints)." you could look at this two ways i) War is hell, and it was an accident pain and simple just more combat SNAFU, the unit slid off the road, bumped into an other vehcile and slid in the ditch, or whatever. ii) it is unrealistic and the player "should" have more control so that tanks that were intended to NEVER leave the road because the player KNOWS they might bog down, don't leave the road. I don't like to complain about the game too much but it really does BUG me when a vehicle BOGS and gets permanently STUCK because it left the road of its own accord when it had "STAY on the road!" orders. BUT from that you learn, you have to space out the vehicles in a column and excersice caution and care when plotting road movement orders. ( This, as some have mentioned, can be QUITE tediuos! ) -tom w [ January 12, 2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

THIS its GREAT Great Work! I hope this info can find its way into the engine re-write for BOGGING purposes! -tom w [ January 13, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

never to late to bump this one page 2/50 Lists the Elephant (PZJC Tiger) as having one Bow Mg (24) Unless there are early and late models of this tank represented in the game I think this is a mistake. I used Elephants ONCE in CMBB and they didn't come with Bow MG's If I am correct in my understanding there were Elephants (early) released without the BOW MG (Big Mistake) and then a later model was released WITH the Bow MG. The only model of Elephant I can find actually IN the game does not have a BOW if I am not mistaken. Comments? -tom w