aka_tom_w

Hey! Gunslinger I'm your BIGGEST fan I have all your original CMBO mods on a server that is listed on Kumps site: http://www.cmoutpost.net/terrain/Gunslinger/gunslinger.htm I look forward to your similiar terrain treatment of CMBB !! thanks for the CMBO mods from the first time around they made CMBO a delite to play for me terrain wise! -tom w

I'm not sure it had less success, it was still 4 pages long and had plenty of posts and interesting info and good debate in it :confused: . Hey Kloss! you should read that thread as well! look here ) -tom w

This is a bump for that Kloss guy in the "other" thread -tom w

Now that makes more sense than anything else I have read so far in this thread. Quote: "Instead, a single attribute "small turret" for a few tanks would do, and the chance is then lower for those by a constant factor, lets say 30% to 25% or 23%. Remember that this fix is not strickly needed for all tanks with undersize turrets. Needed in a gameplay sense it is only for tanks with less turret than hull armor. For example, I wouldn't neccessarily bother to measure the King Tiger turret at it has almost the same armor as the hull anyway, so the "small turret" attribute is purely academic and serves no real purpose. The T-34 and Pz IV are entirely different matters, though - common, weak turret, small turret front." I think that would help... And not sure I can suggest this with any degree of confidence BUT maybe it "could" be done in a patch?? maybe v1.2? -tom w [ October 29, 2002, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Maybe before this weekend. I'm sure your replacement is on the way -tom w

YahOO!! In got mine today!! My Preorder finally arrived, actually I think this is the replacement and it looks like it shipped on Oct 22. Arrived in Burlington Ont. Canada No Duty No Tax Just a Plain brown envelope and a manual and a game disk in the mail box !!!!!! -tom w

if I recall correctly

the last thing I saw, in the forum said the patch would not be available this month. (Oct.) Meaning not ready until sometime after Nov 1 Other than that I have no idea. :confused: -tom w

VERY helpful thanks -tom w

oh.. I thought you meant.. As much as CM appeals because of the way it seemingly brings history to life--the game often seems as much like a joint as crack.I mean Crack troops Ya its those CRACK troops that keep me so addicted to this game like a joint sorry could not help myself. The game is addictive and the more eye candy that comes with it the more it will be LIKE Crack you buy on a CD through the mail Crack Troops, Crack Graphics, Crack Combat Mission I think I am craving some more Combat Mission Crack Gotta go! -tom w P.S. Yeah I am Over 40, just young at heart with a good memory still (well sorta ) [ October 28, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I am also still waiting for a game that was pre-orderd and my credit card has been billed and I have recently PAID that bill. Matt was helpful and said he would ship another copy, and STILL I wait for either one of them to show up. -tom w [ October 28, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Thats not entirely true on the MAC side. MAC OSX is the killer app and after this Jan 1 2003 new Macs won't boot into OS 9 anymore. That means any new Mac sold after Jan 1 2003 won't play CMBO, CMBB or run Quark Xpress and to Designers that is a BIG one. (ok Maybe Qurak running in Classic under OSX but that is emmulation and it sucks, we now know CMBO/CMBB won't run in classic under OSX due to the RAVE API issue!) I would agree with your point on the PC side (I guess) but for the Mac users MAC OSX takes full advantage of Mulitple processers and if yo are running Dual processors as Most new macs now are you REALLY want OSX to take full advantage of the extra speed. The Next big thing from these guys is slated to run on OSX, they say it will, and I think it will take AT LEAST 2.5 years to GET IT RIGHT and I know they won't release it until they do get it right. -tom w [ October 27, 2002, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I completely agree with this point: " whenever I show this to many other gamers, they have a major problem getting past the strange looking characters moving into battle. There are many out there who take one look and turn away because of this. We live in a world where people expect to be hooked instantly and CMBO/BB doesn't quite make the grade where this is concerned for a large proportion of the population." I think it is a very relevant point.... BUT maybe BFC/BTS doesn't care about those folks. They are a HUGE market but they are NOT wargamers, most of us here would agree this is a WWII simulation MADE by wargamers FOR wargamers and REAL wargamers it has been suggested DON'T need graphics like OFP. I consider myself a wargamer, BUT I would still like to see MUCH more polised and professional graphics like IL2 or OPF in the re-write when it comes out 2.5- 3 years from now. I would like to see better graphics mostly so when I show this GREAT game to people they won't say "Yeah but the graphics don't look like OFP or IL2 and they are about 2-3 years behind the times in video gaming! " IMHO -tom w [ October 27, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Not to mention the crew or occupants :eek: !! -tom w

If the AT rifles won't engage that sounds serious to game play to me. Anyone else have anything to report on this issue? -tom w

needs a bump because Steve posted to it with insightful comments a few times. -tom w

quote: Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: Ok, could someone explain me "Borg spotting" in short? Still makes no sense to me? Borg Spotting comes from a comment by Charles a long time ago that said that Like the BORG (from star trek) EVERY friendly unit knows (instantly) when one friendly unit spots an enemy unit. This was refered to as Absolute spotting. What we are looking for is the more realistic Relative spotting which is a concept where every unit MUST spot (on its own) an enemy unit which means that units that might think they know where the enemy is (because the player knows) BUT who have not actually spotted that enemy unit for themselves would NOT have the opportunity to target that unit. In the game it would be something like clicking on a unit and the only enemy units the Player would see on the map would be the units that the specicific unit had indepentantly spotted on it own (and then could target directly). Therefore (in one theory or implementation) selecting differing friendly units would display different enemy units that each friendly unit had independantly spotted on their own. ( this suggested implementation is only one way to do it, I'm sure that no only really knows exactly how Relative Spotting will actually work in the NeXt Big Thing, but its fun to speculate.) -tom w

WOW they are ALL there and they are all free that is a FREE use/abuse of bandwidth for sure that news groups is FULL of zipped mods how long will they last there? -tom

While you wait you can play the CMBO demo TOO so in the CMBO demo there are three scenarios (Chance Encounter is an ALL time favourite of mine) and you can play the 3 scenario's in the CMBB demo. It may take a while for your game to arrive . BUT its always worth the wait! -tom w

oops wrong thread [ October 25, 2002, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I'm in the same boat. Pre-ordered Sept 7 and still waiting 34 days since it was released (Sept 20th correct?) to recieve a copy. -tom w

Borg Spotting comes from a comment by Charles a long time ago that said that Like the BORG (from star trek) EVERY friendly unit knows (instantly) when one friendly unit spots an enemy unit. This was refered to as Absolute spotting. What we are looking for is the more realistic Relative spotting which is a concept where every unit MUST spot (on its own) an enemy unit which means that units that might think they know where the enemy is (because the player knows) BUT who have not actually spotted that enemy unit for themselves would NOT have the opportunity to target that unit. In the game it would be something like clicking on a unit and the only enemy units the Player would see on the map would be the units that the specicific unit had indepentantly spotted on it own (and then could target directly). Therefore (in one theory or implementation) selecting differing friendly units would display different enemy units that each friendly unit had independantly spotted on their own. ( this suggested implementation is only one way to do it, I'm sure that no only really knows exactly how Relative Spotting will actually work in the NeXt Big Thing, but its fun to speculate.) -tom w [ October 23, 2002, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

With a great degree of certainty (from what I have read in the forum here) I can suggest that neither CMBO or CMBB will ever be MacOSX compatible. -tom w

WOW :eek: If a casuality is a Tiger and it was the only one you bought that could really hurt! I did not know that casualties affected armour and vehicles? :confused: ouch I had no idea it worked like that? -tom w :confused: