aka_tom_w

I would have to agree with that I would guess that within 18-24 months there will be an announcement that the very latest (then in the future) current Mac will only boot in OSX. For now you can still get Dual Processer 1 gig Quick Silver towers that will run 9.x so ALL is not lost. 2 years from now when you want a used Mac to run CMBO or CMBB one of those dual 1 gig Quick Silvers will be a GREAT deal BUT really its that STINKING Rave API, or (more correctly) the lack of support for it in OSX that is holding us up here. -tom w

good find! This is good looking wheat -tom w

It looked GREAT it had Rows and was VERY well done it may have been more than 4-5 weeks ago So FESS UP!! who was working on it and what ever happened to it? -tom w

You can put pillboxes in buildings now in CMBO in the map editor. When the building is destroyed it reveals the pillbox (I think) play around with the map editor First in preview mode place the pillbox (watch carefully where you put it) go back to the terrain editor and then put a building tile OVER the place where you think the pillbox is. Now you have a pillbox in a building -tom w

who knows where the BMP list is? its here somewhere I think? but where? -tom w

In Canada The Third Reich in Colour is running right now in the History Channel. it is two hours of GREAT archival historic footage shot by all kinds of German photographers with colour film in 16 mm movie cameras. Hilter's private personal pilot shot ALL kinds of footage of Hitler himself. its on right now in Canada. has anyone else seen this stuff before? technically it is VERY well done and the colour footage looks good. -tom w

Well, that would be 20M per rendering. But what I don't understand here is, why does it have to be in VRAM? With AGP 2x (which should be a reasonable minimum), you have 566MB/s. That enough bandwidth to render that 20M worth of buildings 28 times/sec, which seems like it should be plenty fast. Hard drive? Again, why can't this data be loaded into main memory once and then AGPed onto the graphics card when needed?</font>

Good to hear it! "Bash on Regardless!!" -tom w

I'm loath to say this but, this sounds like it has something to do with the way RAVE works. I don't know very much about Open GL but I suspect it may handle this situation somewhat differently. I think that maybe some folks here are wondering why.... "VRAM. For instance, using some rough numbers. 1 undamaged building (256x256) = 200kb 1 damaged texture for above buidling = another 200kb 1 heavy damaged texture = 200kb 1 destroyed texture = 200kb Thus, you are using about 800kb just for one 200kb building! Times that by about 25 buildings and you end up with a LOT of used VRAM " ... each one of those 200kb textures is not just "called" from some NON-VRAM memory location and swapped out when it is needed so that a building doesn't have to carry 600kb of extra digital baggage around with it. This sort of makes sense in light of some of the suggestions about modifing the damage textures and and just adding some transparent pink colour along the edges where you want transparency. my guess is the answer is that has somethig to do with the way RAVE works. Is is possible to point the finger at the limitations of RAVE on this partial damage issue? interesting thread your comments? -tom w [ March 12, 2002, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yes two forms of rubble is a great suggestion wood and stone, masonary, cement etc. would be very welcome Great job, the rubble looks good! -tom w

OK that sounds wonderful I'm sure we will all want to play around with these mask files for damaged buildings once its released. I'm glad it works the way you want it too and its just GREAT to see partial destruction. Some of us may have more fun building towns in the editor and BLOWING them up and reducing them to rubble than actually playing the game I thought is was really fun at first to build a town map in CMBO and buy some 14 inch naval gun arty and just watch the town be reduced to rubble from the pounding Now in CMBB we can do that with partial destruction and fire that spreads as well OK! some of us here are REAL destromaniacs at heart you know! thanks for the preview it looks GREAT! -tom w [ March 10, 2002, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Well on the OSX issue Why boot into OSX if when you have to reboot BACK into 9.x for CMBO? Besides until June we still won't have photoshop native to OSX and it Photoshop 6 does not work in classic while you are booted in OSX so WHY BOTHER. I have to learn and use OSX for work, but CMBO and Photoshop are still the reason I boot into 9.1 most of the time. -tom w

I thought I guessed Something like this when I posted this: in this post: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=023825;p=3 Some one must have surely already figured this out BUT if there are multipleskins/textures on buildings now maybe partial rubble will look something like this: (Only WAY better!) (After Partial destruction texture swap....) Before Partial Destruction: this should be easy to do by using more and more pink transparency in the Wall .bmps that make up the building as it becomes progressively more destroyed. This is possible now in CMBO BUT then all the buildings look destroyed of "pinked -out" if you start you use transparency on their walls not just the ones you want to see as partial rubble. If there is a different texture for the building to show it in a more destroyed state, why not design walls and roof textures with lots of that lovely transparent pink in them to show the partial walls and roofs missing. the above effort was a quickly mocked up photoshop trick using an image from Tom's Bulge mod and some new rubble pasted in from the new CMMB pics to simulate a building in partial decay. OK I know its rough but I just wanted to try to quickly simulate some transparency on partially destroyed building walls. Yes, it looks real ugly but the potential for partially destroyed buildings in CMBB may be on the WAY!! your comments.. {Hi Dan, Hope you don't mind I "re-purposed" your CMBB rubble for this demonstration. (Good looking RUBBLE by the way!)} -tom w [ March 10, 2002, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

The only tournment I ever participated in use the actual number of the victory points as the only criteria. In that case we played 9 games against other players (there were ten participants) and the one with the GREATEST total points from all 9 games won the tourney. That way score keeping was VERY simple. EVERY single victory point counted for something, so in the case above one player would add 59 to his cumulative total and the other player would add 41 to his cumulative total, simple really Other tournaments may be scored differently of course. This VERY issue should be considered when discussing how to determine scoring in tournments and now that this "result" is well sort of "on the record" we can refer to it if future discussions about tournament scoring. I learned in that tourney that Kiwi Joe is a VERY skilled player of the German side and he kicked my butt big time! Anyone want a REAL challenge? See if you can get a game with Kiwi Joe. -tom w</font>

oops sorry [ March 10, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I'm not real sure I shoud do this because it seems rather pointless to get in the middle fo flame war With Jason C and my old War game buddy Brian over stuff on the eastern front that I don't know too much about. Brian does not post here (why I don't know I told him how, he is new to CMBO, but getting good at it quickly,,but he does not know who Jason C isI don't know who Jason C is either but I have read enought of his posts to know better than to debate WWII historical details with him, regrettably my friend has no such respect and cares not, throwing my cautions the wind the man who I know from years of waking up hung over with him only to hear "pass me that weapon so I can put that (cherry, noisy squawking) bird out of my misery" anyway here it is from the wisdom of Brian... Tom, please feel free to forward my long awaited response to Jason C Member # 5490 Mr " C " has made a misguided attempt to dimiss the lufftewaffe as a non - entity in the tactical sphere on the Eastern Front. ( well it certainly wasn't a strategic airforce now was it ! ) The Eastern front was the largest theater of air operations in WWII , and had BY FAR the most sorties flown by the lufftewaffe. Tanks and artillery were destroyed in the thousands by the German airforce. There are a few things wrong in Mr "C"s analysis. First , there was never any attempt to say that the lufftewaffe was solely responsible for the success of the German army on the Eastern Front. The lufftewaffe was able to substantially shift the odds at any place the WISHED ( yes Mr " C" , I know they couldn't be everywhere all the time ... but they could be wherever they WANTED ) during '41 , '42 and for the most part in '43 ( whether permitting of course ). Secondly , the reason Army Group North had so few aircraft after the first few months of '41, was because nothing was going on there. The army was getting ready to siege Leningrad, in essence the North had become a stalemate. The race was for Moscow and the lufftewaffe were there to support and create the breakthroughs. Army Group North was stripped of much of its fighters and Stuka's in order to bolster operation Typhoon. Don't take it so serious , I just want to be able to someday look over the cockpit of a Stuka ( tab # 1 or # 2 mode ) as it drops a few Dusseldorf Daisies on the lid of a T34. Great reference on the Russian airwar is "Black Cross-Red Star Air War Over the Eastern Front" ---------------------- " hey Mr C , I need to borrow a wrench to work on my Folkewolf " .... The Fonz

I'm not requesting a nationality modifier. (Really) I know they have a VERY clear policy about no nationality modifiers. I understand that there are 3 levels of Artificial Intelligence programed into the game. Off hand its something like a strategic layer, an operational layer and a tactical layer. EACH one has an AI sub routine (I think.) Given that the Russian defensive doctrine was well known and actually (for lack of a better word) not all that complicated, it may not be that difficult (But I am not a programmers so I have no idea) to model the rather "static" russian defensive doctrine in the Strategic AI. I was just suggesting that those layers of AI be "tweaked" for each nation to historically reflect their doctrines and practices and policies on offense and defense, for historical authenticity of course. I am REALLY hoping they have already thought of this and will surprise us with it, other wise this suggestion is really the stuff of fantasy and likely will not be seen (if we are lucky) until the CM II engine rewrite. Just food for thought. And again a reminder, give the Tac AI green troops set up on Defense and attack them with Vet units and with superior numbers and tell me that the response of the green tac AI defender's units is NOT like the Russians on the Eastern Front in the early days of the campaign?? :cool: -tom w [ March 07, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK I know its WAY too late for anything this "big" to make its way into CMBB but........ With CMBB expected this summer I am keen to see how they model the AI game on the tactic level with poor tactics and communication and coordination on the part of the Russians. Would it be possible to program a specific AI sub routine or program to handle the Russians on defense (early on) and a different Smarter more aggresive AI sub routine to handle the Germans (when they are the AI) again in the early campaign. One very interesting suggestion made some time ago was the the current AI in CMBO could be VERY Russian like if there were played with green troops involved and you set it in defensive posture and you dumbed it down a bit. I say this because the best way to simulate the Russians at the tactical level in CMBB may to play against the AI. I say that because those military historians amongst us who know all the things the Russians did wrong in the early going will do everything they can, while playing the Russians, to overcome all the limitations that BTS will surely program into the command and control of the Russian units. I will post more on this when I can get a clearer picture of what I am trying to say... your comments? -tom w [ March 07, 2002, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is JUST priceless!! I have never seen that Mod is it publically available for download?? NICE job! -tom w

Great can you provide a link? Where exactly can they be found? -tom w

My friend who I play CMBO with does not post here but I sent him this thread and he comments: "I agree tank to tank they (the German tanks) will get smoked. Russian T-34 and KV1 are far superior to anything the Germans had at the time. The Panzer IIIJ is the best tank the Germans had in '41. The IVD only had a short 75mm. There were still some good assault guns and the less mobile 88's. There will need to be 2 things going for the Germans ... mostly crack crews vs green Russians ( and superior German communication ) and most importantly a very effective Luftwaffe , the Germans had air superiority on any front they wished to exert themselves in 41 and 42. The Stukas were deadly accurate. German battles succeeded with closely coordinated efforts between air , armor and Infantry. unfortunately air is not controllable in Combat Mission" How about CMBB and the CAS? Will the Germans have the advanatage of early air superiority and how will it manifest on the CMBB battlefeild? your comments? -tom w [ March 05, 2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Good QUESTION Attention CMBB Beta testers What is the effect of Communication and Control between Soviet Tanks when they are caught in a heavy smoke screen? Will all those soviet tanks be all "out of Communication" when the smoke means they have no LOS to each other? Then what? you can't give them orders and they just sit there and wait for their own demise? command and control of those Soviet tanks should be VERY interesting! Especially in a smoke screen! -tom w [ March 05, 2002, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is VERY do-able Search the forum for Rexford's posts Search also for the word "penetration" there is a le-maire (sp??) equation around here somewhere that is the so called "root" or basis of all armour penetration calculations in CMBO We would be interested in reading your paper Have you done any other research yet? Keep us up to date. -tom w

no

Well now, this bids fair to be a horrifically interesting thread. Much of what has already been posted is interesting, but I have a couple of handfuls of worms to add to the can. The "realism vs. playability" chestnut is not really one I wish to pursue -- it's not clear to me what "realism" can sensibly mean in the wholly unreal world of a simulation, and almost everyone who discusses the matter confuses "realism" with "detail", which doesn't help. The "Commander's Boots" problem has been mentioned -- does the player represent Major Carstairs, OC of "B" Company the Borsetshire Light Infantry, or is the player a disembodied spirit, one of the household gods of the Company, looking down on all its members wherever they are? The question here is really "Do you want to play a role, or do you want to play a game?". Both are reasonable things to want to do; I would be happy to participate in a MUD set in WW2, but it would render competitive gaming problematic, if not impossible. The ultimate solution to the "Borg spotting problem" will require more effort than merely modelling communications channels and the orders and reports that flow along them. The comms infrastructure (whether using radio, telephone, flags, lights, runners or carrier pigeons) is merely the "plumbing" that permits messages to be transmitted from one place to another. What matters, from the point of view of tactical behaviour, is how the people who receive those orders or reports act on them. This, in turn, depends on how they integrate the new information into the picture of the tactical situation they currently have in their heads (as mentioned in van Creveld's superb "Command in War"). This is what is known as "situational awareness" (a web search on the name Micah Endersley might be a good start for people wanting to know more). Can this sort of thing be modelled in a computer simulation? Yes. The technique is known as "agent-based computing". ... snip Anyone else on the board going to the second AISB agent-based computing symposium at Imperial in April? All the best, John.</font>