aka_tom_w

Given a choice I take Panthers! Just might be the best all around tank you can get in CMBO.</font>

Is it the only tank to beakdown in the game? I have never heard the sound the King Tiger makes when it "grinds to a halt" I have heard other players say the KT just sounded like it gears stripped and it came to a stop and it was immobile for the rest of the game. Is that a mechanical failure? Does it happen to any other tanks in CMBO? Will we see more of this kind of thing in CMBB? comments from anyone who has had the KT "breakdown" in a game........ -tom w

Hey! this is COOL and it really works sorry Way OFF topic but this Apple iTools web page was REAL easy to build like it took all of ten minutes to post these shots of Tom's Bulge mod: http://homepage.mac.com/tcw/PhotoAlbum2.html TOTALLY cool! -tom w

I'm a little surprised this thread is not of MORE interest to more folks here? :confused: maybe it is because we are still discussing the same thing as the actual TOPIC of the thread perhaps we have to get WAY of topic before more folks will consider participating Someone once commented "Its NOT Recon Mission you know, its COMBAT Mission" so all the Terrain fog of war stuff has no place.... I wonder who said that? -tom w

that sounds reasonable and very do-able for CMBB good idea -tom w

this is probably worth repeating: SurlyBen Member Member # 3602 posted June 07, 2001 03:56 PM Been meaning to post this here for a while. I've seen several plain english explanations, but for the math inclined, here's a rough guide to CM scoring as I understand it. It doesn't say anything about exited units (whether from an exit scenario or not) and it probably overlooks other stuff too (for example a scenario designer can give one side bonus points), but in QBs I can usually tell what the final score will be to within a few percentage points by the late few turns of the fight. pa = total points of allied casualties (allies captured count double their casualty value) pg = total points of german casualties (germans captured cout double their casualty value) f = total value of flags fa = point value of flags controlled by allies fg = point value of flags controlled by germans a = allied score g = german score code: ( pg + fa ) a = --------------- ( pa + pg + f ) ( pa + fg ) g = --------------- (pa + pg + f ) Flags are worth 300 points for the big ones, and 100 for the small ones. All units are worth their cost in points(that is, if you only kill a regular sherman, pa will be 115 ), with the exception of arty spotters, which are worth 30 points, and possibly infantry casualties, which I haven't tested for exact values. That is, infantry may have a standard per casualty value (probably around 2 or 3 points) or it may vary by unit type. Captured units are worth double points. SurlyBen

conversely you may also want to ask how accurate can a M18 be while firing when traveling 55 mph down a road in CMBO EVEN in the FIRST demo it BLEW me away in LAst Defence or Reisburg when those Three Hellcats come SCREAMING down that hill that at FULL speed they could knock out that TIGER one on the first SHOT. I played the scenario OVER and OVER with those three Hellcats ordered to Speed on FAST down that hill while all targeted and fired on that hapless Tiger and of the Three of them ALMOST every time one of them would KO that poor Tiger. I was dumbfounded. Still am actually. -tom w

good point the scenario designer could determine what would show up in the 2D map in the breifing. In the scenario editor the scenario designer could "filter" (in user configurable settings) what would make it on to the 2D road map of terrain info (or even if one was available) and make these decisions differnent for each side. OK now we are REALLY dreaming oh well its fun to dream -tom w

it used tobe here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019346 where did that thread go? archived somewhere? -tom w

anyone else have anything to add on this topic? -tom w

Now that would be cool a poor quality 2D road map of sorts in the briefly and then you have to do terrain recce with your units to see the ACTUAL lay of the land in 3D. As mentioned in the OLD thread from April 2000 it would be IDEAL (we are not very likely to see anything like this any time soon but it sure would be COOL) to see the Lousy 2D map in places where your own units do not have LOS. SO once your units get LOS to more of the map, MORE real 3D features like Trees and rough tiles and bushes and buildings and 3D elveation features would somehow appear (thats the tricky part) and replace the low quality 2D road map. That would mean EVERY scenario would have a 2D map, (easy enough to do, just extract it without elevation info from the scenario editor) and a FULL 3D complete map. The 2D map could be generated at the same time as the scenario is saved in the map editor into a lousy 2D road map without buidlings or trees by useing a piece of code to only allow it to show only what would be determined to be "allowed" or admissible on the "Lousy 2D" road map. This lousy 2D road map would then be what you see in the briefing (only smaller) and would be what you see spread out before you on the battlefield until your units got LOS to more of it turning those parts of the map that your friendly units have LOS to into the FULL blown 3D map we see now. THAT would radically require new thinking and terrain recce for SURE! and it would be COOL. I suspect we will be VERY lucky to see anything like that even in CM II the next generation game engine. Oh well its fun to dream -tom w [ March 25, 2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

if you think this thread is interesting try reading this one: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003938 its OLD like april 20 2000 (saved in the archives, takes a little longer to load I have found) here is a sample: Topic: should we be able to see so much? mikeadams Member Member # 1150 posted April 20, 2000 08:38 AM When a scenario starts we are able to view the entire terrain in complete detail. I know the tactical maps were pretty good (at least some of the time) but should we be able to know that there is a clump of trees behind that house etc? Is it possible in future upgrades to show a limited view, which upgrades based on LOS knowledge? IP: Logged tom w unregistered posted April 20, 2000 09:27 AM quote: Originally posted by mikeadams: When a scenario starts we are able to view the entire terrain in complete detail. I know the tactical maps were pretty good (at least some of the time) but should we be able to know that there is a clump of trees behind that house etc? Is it possible in future upgrades to show a limited view, which upgrades based on LOS knowledge? I like that idea maybe yes the commander had a topo map? did the commanders have good maps after D-Day? I don't know were the maps out of date? perhaps I like the Line of Sight concept of only seeing what your troops LOS can see, the rest should be greyed out in the Fog of war like in (I hate to draw a similiarity here) the fog of war of say, Warcraft or Myth or Age OF Empires I'm not suggesting you make the game more "computer game like" just that maybe the allied commanders (Not the krouts they have been there for a while, dug in) have out of date map info? maybe the map shows a bridge there and when you can actually "SEE" the bridge the bridge has a chance of "being seen" as destroyed, same with houses, especially the two story variety as they are more tactically significant. Map shows house or bridge, when your troops actually get line of sight to that feature maybe there is a random chance its there or its not there, if there had been heavy fighting in the area earlier? Thank-you BTS this is a Great Game and thanks for the opportunity for all the input and beta testing of the Beta Demo which is STILL fun. I think the suggestion is a good attempt to make the fog of war more realistic and I like the idea that you cannot KNOW ahead of time every last terrain detail, you should only be able to actually know or see features on the map, the terrain features or structures your troops can actually see with their own cyber eyes, (presuming, everyone has a radio, which has been discussed before I think) the rest of the "unseen" map is just a greyed out guess based on your maybe out of date map? thanks again -tOm IP: Logged Mark IV Member Member # 346 posted April 20, 2000 09:42 AM This was one of my most cherished suggestions for future CMs. I would like to see the unspotted portion of the map displayed as a topo map (such as the poor commander got), which fills in with "real" terrain as it is spotted by friendlies. Inducing minor errors on the map would be brilliant (though they'd have to be random- a scenario designer could be fiendishly tempted to display incorrect bridge placement to an opponent). Some portions of the map could conceivably still be displayed as map-only at game's end. Imagine the importance recon would suddenly assume, particularly on the Eastern Front, where maps were notoriously inaccurate.... IP: Logged tom w unregistered posted April 20, 2000 09:50 AM quote: Originally posted by Mark IV: This was one of my most cherished suggestions for future CMs. I would like to see the unspotted portion of the map displayed as a topo map (such as the poor commander got), which fills in with "real" terrain as it is spotted by friendlies. Inducing minor errors on the map would be brilliant (though they'd have to be random- a scenario designer could be fiendishly tempted to display incorrect bridge placement to an opponent). Some portions of the map could conceivably still be displayed as map-only at game's end. Imagine the importance recon would suddenly assume, particularly on the Eastern Front, where maps were notoriously inaccurate.... Exactly... Thank you Mark IV I could not have said it better... THINK OF THE ROLE OF RECON.... That should and could be a significant factor in deciding victory, and tactics Now that concept of Fiendish scenario designing by the unscrupuless... raises its ugly head here for sure. I'm Sure SS-Panzerleader will have plenty to say about it BUT .. against the AI just for fun????? Why not or in an "officially blessed" and sanctioned scenario perhaps approved by BTS (?) or a body of volunteers to sanction ladder "approved" scenario, this could add a dimension of thrill fun and excitement and tactical playability unheard of in ANY other wargame! GO BTS!! Thanks -Tom W IP: Logged Black Sabot Member Member # 1142 posted April 20, 2000 12:44 PM Hmmm, tough one... Although i like the idea, i see a potential problem. If a unit is scouting, gaining info about the terrain as it advanced, would that info be lost if the unit is wiped out? would the map revert back to it's original setting? IP: Logged STEVE Says: " Big Time Software Administrator Member # 42 posted April 21, 2000 07:49 PM As for the suggestion, it is one we thought about in the original design for CM. We dropped it because it was too complicated and was one of those features that likely had a higher degree of problems to benefits. In theory we both like it. In spite of what Moon says (and I TOTALLY agree with that BTW), there is one element that the current system does not simulate at all. That is getting lost. Here is an example. Charles, Scott Udell, and myself hopped in my Weasel right after I got it running.We drove into my "back yard" down a trail and I MISSED the turn off I was looking for. We went down the main path and I got totally confused as to where I had planned on turning. I hopped out, motor running, and jogged back up the trail to see if I had gone too far or not far enough. Turns out I had gone too far. When I got back in all three of us mentioned that this is something lacking in wargames and would be cool if it could in fact be simulated. The result would be that recon would not just be for finding out where enemy units are, but also where the objectives are, the best routes, and so on. We think it is a desirable feature IN THEORY... Reality though, we aren't so sure. It is something we might do for CM II but not for CM 2 (meaning a whole new series whenever we get to it, not a direct sequel). This feature does have the risk of hitting the point of dimenishing returns quite quickly. We also don't think there is any point in doing this until we can have relative spotting (i.e. one unit sees the enemy, the others don't), and that too is a BIG deal to put into the game. So we are talking two huge, fundamental, tough features at the very least. We will most likely tackle neither for quite some time, but will go with relative spotting at some point in all likelyhood. Maybe after that we can have an unknown map feature. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-21-2000).] " [ March 25, 2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Oh, I totally agree with Apple dropping RAVE in favor of a more open and accepted standard. The problem is they told us RAVE would be supported under OS X, just not all fancy and fast like OpenGL. Because Apple had not yet finalized how it was going to deal with OpenGL (another flub up), we decided to go with what worked then and was supposed to work (at least OK) later on. Then Apple quietly dropped support for RAVE and apparently didn't tell anybody about it for a while. Or something like that. If Apple had told us 2 years ago that RAVE was dead *and* had its act together supporting OpenGL, CM would not have been programmed for RAVE. Thereofore, Apple screwed up in a big way. We will see about trying to hack some sort of OS X work around into CMBB. We don't have high hopes for this working, but we'll at least try. Steve</font>

just send each other a few screen grabs if you have them go into each important PBEM file at a turning point or whatever and take a screen shot and e-mail it and then comment on it. if you are good with Photoshop you could make notes or arrows or comments right on the screen grabs then post them on the web If you put all the screen shots in a folder you can have Photoshop automatically make a web site for you like this one: http://142.55.231.199/demo/bulgemod2/FrameSet.htm of all your screen grabs and then show a sequence of events. those were just "pretty" screen shots from Tom's new bulge mod. enjoy -tom w [ March 25, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

the biggest shortcoming of CMBO That was the title on this thread. IT MUST be absolute spotting and there is virtually NOTHING BTS can do about it in the near future. MG's and HMG's and men assualting them in the open by charging strait at them will be addressed in CMBB. TANKs get LOS and shoot right through each other and vehicles (unless they are buring) and Pillboxes, this is a shortcoming and it will NOT be fixed in CMBB. Therefore infantry and other vehicles dervie NO cover or protection of any kind from abbandoned vehicles or live vehicles (but troops and vehicles can "hide" behind burning vehicles, not too close though ) Those are the REAL short comings of this game BUT its still a great game and we can live with it the way it is I think -tom w [ March 25, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This has been refered to as terrain fog of war and there are some folks here who are VERY opposed to it I like the idea myself. it has come up a few times some here hace said that in a war game there should be no "shroud" of the unknown as in say "Warcraft" Since this issue came up long ago I have done more reading and have lately been Reading of the exploits of the US 743rd tank battalion (DD Sherm tanks in B company). The book is entitled "Hell Has no Heroes" by Wayne Robinson (who fought in a DD sherm in WWII). His tank company was ordered to Malamedy without ANY maps at all, driving at night in the fog. Even at the Battalion command level they had no maps and used a newpaper clipping of the area to get a "feel" for where they where going. The author describes the process of acquiring good maps as buying trading for or stealing (liberating) local road maps which where usually a few years old from local citizens that where glad to see them at least in France and Beligum. The American advance after the D-Day breakout from the bocage country, often happened with such great speed that they had no maps and entire tank columns followed only road signs and bad directions from CO's riding around in jeeps to get them where they were needed. This book talks about getting lost in the dark without maps and having road signs changed and the snafu things like that caused. From what I have recently read, GOOD intel from up to date maps was sometimes hard to come by. Many folks here have said both sides in the ETO always had good maps and NO terrain fog of war should be modeled. I'm not so sure. Steve did comment at one time that it would be kind of cool to allow units to somehow get lost in the dark in the woods on strange roads, but he also mentioned they had no way to model this at this point with any kind of realism?? I like terrain fog of war and think it would be VERY ground breaking for this kind of game if the map changed when your friendly units got LOS to certain point on it that were recently damaged and now appear different than on the last map or road map you saw in the last briefing. your comments..... -tom w [ March 24, 2002, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

ok lets see Too much control over troops and too much micro-management. Try this: Play ONLY Green Troops This leads to a puzzle game, where you must find that spot where you can see enemy troops (infantry) , but the enemy (guns and armor) cannot see you. Whoever is better at this 'puzzle' usually wins. I thought thats what strategy and TATICS were all about! Is that not really the way it actually works in military combat? I thought this thread was going to be about things like the fact that Absolute spotting means everybody know everything right away, or the fact that you can fire and get LOS directly through ALL vehicles (except those smoking and on fire) and through things like pillboxes and houses sometimes. Those are some more obvious limitations. -tom w

sorry your memory is incorrect the assault boats are the issue the AI will not play or load a scenario that it is required to use assualt boats sorry -tom w

welll this is interesting is that Donald Sutherland face shot of OddBall in Kelly's Heroes now in the public domain? that looks questionable to me? It sort of all seems "ok" when all these mods were sort of "underground", but now they are selling a mod disk with screen grabs from copyrighted material like "Kelly's Heroes" on the mod disk. oh well I'm sure someone has worked out all the legal technicalities? -tom w [ March 24, 2002, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

yeah where is that wheat mod? -tom w

GREAT that makes more sense than anything else I have read in this thread thanks for the clarification, it now makes sense and that is the way I would think it should be. sorry I misinterpretted your original post. -tom w [ March 22, 2002, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi In the game as it stands now you can sort of "fake" this by giving an "area Fire" order in the direction that you expect the other tank. yes it is wasteful of your ammo (BUT you can say no to "use Main Weapon" then only the co-ax MG in the turret will fire) BUT your tank is only wasting HE and will fire off an AP round the minute another tank is spotted. in the game now the area fire command is the only "work around" to deal with this situation. It DOES work. A tank can drive forward and fire off to the side in the direction of your "area fire" command and as soon as a tank is spotted in the general vacinity of that area targeted it will acquire that tank and pop off an AP round. AS for the new cover arc I know we have not seen or tested CMBB yet but it is possible some folks here, will be suggesting that the cover arc should NOT be relative to the tank but locked to the actual points on the MAP that were orinigally selected as defining the degrees of the cover arc so that as a tank turned it would still focus on that AREA of the MAP instead of the cover arc moving with the tank? AS it stands now the cover arc will turn with the tank and the turret will not rotate or stay fixed as the tank turns as the cover arc is "relative to the tank" Is this the way it "should be" realistically? I think I would prefer to specify an area of the map to cover, not an arc relative to the position of the tank. In the current plan for cover arc for CMBB even with a cover arc established the turret will NOT rotate independant of the tank as the cover arc rotates with the tank when it turns or rotates, ( if I understand Moon correctly) is this a good thing? is it historically realistic? just wondering your comments? -tom w

Cool stuff, thanks for the reply.x One more question: if the tank drives a curve of say 30 degrees, will the cover arc turn by 30 degrees as well or will it keep its original facing (it will keep its facing somehow, but in map terms or in the tank's perspective)?</font>

Hi Steve If BTS applied for developer status, Apple would give you a REALLY good deal on hardware and software and work with you as you are a bonified developer. Perhaps someone here can put you in touch with someone at Apple who would be happy to list you as a game company that develops on the Mac platform. I take issue with your comment "Apple's communications with developers, especially game developers, has been horrible lately" I get all my apple beta software from friends of mine that are Apple developers. Funny thing is they are not Apple Developers (really) they just make web sites on Macs, BUT they filled out all the paper work, dotted all the "i"'s and crossed all "t"'s and low and behold Apple sends them EVERTHING new and beta for free for their own use and sells them Apple equpiment at discounted prices. Its all true. If BTS was a fully accredited Apple Developer (signed NDA's and all, yeah I knw its alot of paper work) Apple computer would be giving you a break on hardware and sending you the latest beta system software for free. I will try to get in touch with someone at Apple who might be able to be more helpful. I only have one or two connections but I will see what I can dig up. cheers -tom w

Appletalk is not more 'taxing' on any network I.T. network guys ALWAYS say "oh that Apppletalk is so "chatty" Nonsense. -tom w