aka_tom_w

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/editorschoice/0,15105,,00.html heres the link -tom w

OK BUT in CMBO a dead and burning AFV would block LOS, but it was the smoke that blocked the LOS as there was ALWAYS LOF through any vehicle or AFV (non-burning). What I am wondering is if the smoke from burning AFV's still blocks LOS the way it used to in CMBO?. It would seem that smoke from burning AFV's does not block LOS the way it used to. I am wondering if Steve or Matt can confirm this?? :confused: -tom w

Of course with a thread title like that it would be NICE to see a screen grab. Well I have a few and will post them here when I get a chance. See all the screen grabs here: http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOSthruSmoke/FrameSet.htm Just click an image on the left frame to get started. http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOSthruSmoke/pages/Picture%20127.htm In CMBO we were told a smokeing AFV would block LOS but the AFV its self and the smoke would not block LOF. OK I assumed in CMBB a smoking AFV would block LOS, it is my opinion and experience that Smoke from a burning Sherm (they still BURN good BTW) does not block LOS even when the targeting line is traced DIRECTLY through the smoke. Maybe they know this already :confused: I will post a few screen shots later when I get a chance. I have a save game file if anyone is interested in seeing it in the game (CMBB) another one. -tom w [ November 04, 2002, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

bump

try this: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002669#000006 and this one both are VERY good: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002860 -tom w

still a useful thread bump -tom w

YES I agree with everything here! especially "But I sure do wish we could do all this on the western front as well." How about it Steve??? Don't let us (the fans of the ETO and we are many) down in the re-write, (please) -tom w

No, but Madmatt suggested that it might be included in a patch - so perhaps the second one? Snowy ground - without the need for it to be snowing - is a vital option for ground conditions in East Front battles in the winter months.[/QB]</font>

Has anyone modded "light snow" so it looks like Tom's AWESOME CMBO Bulge Mod for CMBB???? just curious -tom w

Good suggestion. I wonder if it's doable in terms of time to code this in? If so, I say do it. The fact is, this game has been changed so much that it borders on not being fun to play anymore. I'm not against this new, more realistic way of playing but what we have here is a complete turn around from what CMBO was. Am I to assume that CMBO was completely coded wrong? That's the statement that BTS is making here. "We f*cked up." Now somebody tell me how 2 guys who spent all this time researching this stuff can come up with 2 completely opposing theories on effectiveness of fire against a soldier.</font>

The exact same question I've had I thought that it meant to replot to the same point. But playing a recent scenario, whenever I did that the rounds fell where they had been falling. So does that mean you have to plot to a new point that adjusts the off-target to be on-target? Furthermore (let's assume you do have to plot to a new point that adjusts for the error), do you need LOS to this new point for the replot to be effective? </font>

Steve Said; "6. Long time no action, then quick decisive action - depends entirely on the game being played and the nature of the battle. But yes, this can obviously happen. But man... I don't know what you guys are smoking if you think this wasn't the case in CMBO I remember playing against Humans where there was a quick flurry of maneuver (especially for ME battles), then a quick flurry of fighting(especially for ME battles), and then a winding down of the battle where I was pretty sure I had won or lost (especially for ME battles)." I have commented on this issue a few times and perhaps I should have been a little clearer that I was just mentioning this factor as an observation (mostly). Steve is correct, this happened in CMBO ME's almost all the time as well. I think my point and observation had more to do with my experience of that decisive moment. I admit I have played Jeagermeister as the Allies FAR too many times and in that one (and a few others), you can count on knowing the outcome of the battle within 2-3 minutes of committing your armour. As the Allies you either gain the upper hand with your armour or your armour gets smoked and then nothing can save your infantry. This is not a complaint, it seems realistic. (I think (?) ) Also the pace in CMBB is alot slower and I don't mind that at all. It is even perhaps more realistic now to experience this defining moment of what I would call "luck" or in the "old days" of boring (no FOW) board games, CRUCIAL dice rolling , now in CMBB the way it is. I admit I need to have more games against humans and start to play the Germans more and leave behind the obsession of trying to whip the Krouts in Jeagermiester, that is ONE helluva scenario and I think I have played it now almost as many times I have played the orignal Chance Encounter scenario in CMBO :eek: CMBB takes some getting used to. But I admit am having fun trying to master the tactics needed to win. CMBB does "feel" very different to CMBO and since I suspect Steve is reading this I will state the obvious again and suggest I would be more than thrilled (HINT credit card at the ready! )with some future treatment of the ETO after D-Day modeled by BTS in a similiar (maybe even BETTER) way to the way The Eastern Front is now modeled in CMBB wink, wink, Nudge, nudge, Say more no, :cool: !! -tom w [ November 02, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Thanks I think you have to admit it is a curious issue :confused: -tom w

"So if a player's idea of fun is to use "gamey" tactics to beat the other guy, I guess we did "remove" some of the "fun" in CMBO. But in doing so we made CMBB more of what CMBO was always, ALWAYS, supposed to be. And the next game will continue that trend of improvement towards the unobtainable goal of perfect simulation of tactical warfare. And in our opinions, perfect means most realistic." I think that point is so significant it just could be my new signature line Lets see... what does that look like..... -tom w

GREAT!! thanks for the VERY prompt reply! Congrats I am/we are VERY happy that your company is so financially successful! I wish you ALL the very best of luck with your CMBB sales and yes Christmas is coming and that should be also benificial . -tom w P.S. Thanks to Matt I got my replacement copy in the mail a few days ago !!

Hi Steve Thats GREAT news!! Congrats, thanks for the prompt and timely reply.. if I may ask for a clarification (Sheepish question). Are you refering to the fact that in the first month of CMBB sales you sold more CMBB copies than ALL sales of CMBO combined over time, OR meaning the first month of CMBB sales was greater than the first month of CMBO sales?? (sorry) just curious -tom w [ November 01, 2002, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I hope the Colonel does not mind if I quote him in this Thread: I would guess the game is selling very well. I would also predict that when the offer the CMII rewrite it will sell VERY well also. I am VERY happy they did not make a game for the "casual gamer or a ladder player who plays to win" I am VERY happy that they made a WWII combat simulation the rewards players for keeping their men and units ALIVE and out of the line of fire (generally ) My guess is the Abbott might reprsent the "wargamer grog" that was in fact (I think) the target market for CMBO, (sadly CMBO missed the the mark of being the Realistic Combat simulator that CMBB is) bUT since CMBO was not perfect it was MORE fun to play and we ended up with an attempt at realistic combat simulator that was still "somewhat" "gamey" and really fun to play. BTS has finally honed the game to the state it is now so they could get it JUST where they want it. (well almost, a few patches to follow). So you can surely appreciate (maybe you can't) that they re-worked the CMBO game engine to make CMBB the HARD realistic combat simulator that it is presumably (if you read their old manifesto) because they wanted to make the KIND of combat simulator they themselves are interested in playing, the kind of realistic simulated experience in "gaming" that no one else is offering !! I truly hope they care less for the tastes of the "majority" of casual gamers or a ladder players who play to win and continue to offer more realistic games for those in the clear minority that appreciate their effort. I am surprised you have chosen to complain about the no return policy. Firstly you played (I presume) the same DULL and BORING demo scenario's that I did and yet you STILL ordered the game, secondly, if you dislike the game that much sell it on ebay apparently it will sell fast and you can still get most/some of your money back . -tom w [ November 01, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I would guess the game is selling very well. I would also predict that when the offer the CMII rewrite it will sell VERY well also. I am VERY happy they did not make a game for the "casual gamer or a ladder player who plays to win" I am VERY happy that they made a WWII combat simulation the rewards players for keeping their men and units ALIVE and out of the line of fire (generally ) My guess is the Abbott might reprsent the "wargamer grog" that was in fact (I think) the target market for CMBO, (sadly CMBO missed the the mark of being the Realistic Combat simulator that CMBB is) bUT since CMBO was not perfect it was MORE fun to play and we ended up with an attempt at realistic combat simulator that was still "somewhat" "gamey" and really fun to play. BTS has finally honed the game to the state it is now so they could get it JUST where they want it. (well almost, a few patches to follow). So you can surely appreciate (maybe you can't) that they re-worked the CMBO game engine to make CMBB the HARD realistic combat simulator that it is presumably (if you read their old manifesto) because they wanted to make the KIND of combat simulator they themselves are interested in playing, the kind of realistic simulated experience in "gaming" that no one else is offering !! I truly hope they care less for the tastes of the "majority" of casual gamers or a ladder players who play to win and continue to offer more realistic games for those in the clear minority that appreciate their effort. I am surprised you have chosen to complain about the no return policy. Firstly you played (I presume) the same DULL and BORING demo scenario's that I did and yet you STILL ordered the game, secondly, if you dislike the game that much sell it on ebay apparently it will sell fast and you can still get most/some of your money back . -tom w [ November 01, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Well I don't know about that I am Still curious enough about CMBB to keep playing it as I know I have not yet plumbed the depths of its detail and mystic. BUT that said it is HARDER to play and win then CMBO for sure. It is clearly rewarding those folks that use REAL world WWII combined arms tactics in battles, (there seems to be general agreement about that). I REALLY like the morale for tanks now, so they can "break" and panic in CMBB and so they should. "As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play" :eek: I think that is a little unfair as they appear to selling this game in numbers higher then their original expectation (no?) :confused: -tom w

I think this bears emphasis "Often after a long slow buildup/setup, I'll find that the sixty seconds of initial death is enough to win or lose the battle. Not a lot of ebb and flow going on (except for one battle - a really good scenario)." I have found in CMBB that things come down to a CRUCIAL 1-2 minutes (usually just AFTER contact) when everything goes right or everything goes terribly WRONG! I have had VERY few close games, it is alot easier to win decisively or lose in a BIG way. I admit I have played almost ALL my games as the Russians against the German AI so far, that might account for alot :confused: . But it seems like there is always this Golden defining moment when the the armour battle goes one way or the other and then the infantry follow suit. Maybe I have should play some human players (I have one game going now) but the AI is has given me some surprisingly GOOD games . I still think dalem is right on with this line: "Often after a long slow buildup/setup, I'll find that the sixty seconds of initial death is enough to win or lose the battle. Not a lot of ebb and flow going on (except for one battle - a really good scenario)." FWIW -tom w [ November 01, 2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

--------------------------------------- That one was very good (much better then this one actually), but I didn't see any reaction nor comment from battlefront. I dared to evaluate some people's work instead of letting them evaluate their work by themselves. And once again to all my adversaries: you are not able to touch me, you accuse me of being rude and offensive and now you are doing exactly the same! Your further opinnion is irrelevant. I admited I was being too harsh but that is no reason to call me a fool unless you know any comparative test or contest to prove who of us really might be called "fool". What you mean? Knowledge? IQ? I will gladly accept any challenge if you are able to create some reasonable measure. regards</font>

This must be the BEST all around, ALL PRO, big time THREAD for the Statistics Grogs amongst us. I know NOTHING about stats but it is fun to read the comments, just spare us the math equations please . Maybe some more testing needs to be done and some more results collected for further Statistical analysis :confused: -tom w [ October 30, 2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

meaning that this allegedly "unsuccessful" thread was the right (?) way to bring up the topic :confused: :eek: ?? (just curious ) -tom w

duty? tax? Thats GREAT news glad you got so close to mine arriving yesterday who else here is still waiting??? :confused: -tom w