aka_tom_w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: The exact opposite is true. Turretless vehicles are more effective in CM than in real life because they can all rotate in place, partially negating the penalty of having no turret. Also, the German TDs with highly sloped frontal armor (Hetzer and JPz IV/70, mainly) are underpriced for their effectiveness. To me, this seems to "culminate the undelying tech-spec and TacAI currents" which would seem to point towards pro-German bias [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I concur. especially with: "The exact opposite is true. Turretless vehicles are more effective in CM than in real life because they can all rotate in place, partially negating the penalty of having no turret. Also, the German TDs with highly sloped frontal armor (Hetzer and JPz IV/70, mainly) are underpriced for their effectiveness" and I agree with those that suggest the 88mm is perhaps less than is historically accurate when refering to accuracy at long range. AND of course Superior german sighting optics are not modeled.... BUT the game is still largely well balanced and technically historical accurate (mostly ) -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackcat: A chum of mine against whom I have been playing PBEM for about a year insists that the game is biased against the German side. This is contrary to my experience (having been beaten as the Allied and Axis player in equal measure). However, I cannot convince him that his theory is false. Does anybody have any convincing objective evidence I can use? Cheers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We have all had the same problem with our old board game/wargame buddies who seem to universally feel the german tanks are unpowered, under-armoured, under represented or someway just not up to their usual "unbertank" performance in OTHER wargames. It is VERY difficult to make others believe that ALL the other wargames had it WRONG all along and that ALL the stats and historical data prove that the tanks and units in CMBO are ALL modeled without ANY bias. The First thing my friends asked is : "Where was it made? Who designed it?" Answer: "A couple of guys on the East coast of the USA". Reply: "Well there you have it, all the German units are under modeled and look at that DAMN US. .50 cal HMG it kills tanks and light half tracks!. Clearly it is bias in favour of the yanks as it was designed by yanks!" Now no amount of pseudo-grog sophistry would placate these nay sayers so I just gave up. (I did, I just gave up on them, screw 'em!) Its much more fun to play TCP/IP versus some other CMBO fanatic (and there are now Thousands of them out there!) then to continue to argue with your friend about the greatness and FAIRNESS of this evenly balanced and historical accurate simulation. Give up on your frinds and play other TCP/IP games with other "believers" in the CMBO phenomenon! Happy Gaming -tom w [ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Preacher: Where can I find them? Search isn't working. Thanks, Preacher<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> try this: Complete CAL rules http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/CAL/THCAL.shtml PANTHER-76 RULE The 'Panther-76 Rule’ will allow the use of the German Panther and Tiger 1 tanks. Allied tanks that carry 76mm guns are also included. It still excludes the King Tiger, JagdTiger, JagdPanther and Pershings. There is no limit on the size of towed guns allowed. [ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanks a Lot: Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I made a few changes that you guys mentioned. Which one do you like better? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well actually I prefer the sandbags in the first one but the higher grass in this mod is a nice touch Really I think you had a nice look with the sand bags in the firing slit the first time around. but thats just my opinion. -tom w

Looks GREAT I would release just the way it is the Sand bags are a NICE touch this WHOLE game NEEDS more sand bags IMHO (hint hint BTS for CMBB!) -tom w

bump for interest sake great comment -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: IIRC, this will be fixed in CMBB with the extreme FOW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That sounds good the Extreme fog of war should elevate this GREAT game (the new CMBB I mean) to a NEW level of wargaming Paradise. I'm sure they are making a GREAT new game that they (the four of them) will totally ENJOY playing with the Extreme FOW on so we should ALL enjoy it immensely as well!! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: hehehehehee...Why am I lauging? Oh me, no reason...Lets just say we got this particular matter well in hand in CMBB..Well indeed.. Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds good! even if you are only TEASING us! you know we all just can't wait for your next CMBB release!!!! Bring it ON!!! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karsten: CMBO won't run on my OS X iBook when rebooted into 9.2 - it just crashes. It does run on my wife's G4 tower w/o OS X installed, but she hates it when I tie up her mac (can't blame her!). When I was asking for an OS X compatible version I probably should have been more specific - basically, I love the game so much that I just want to be able to play it on my own mac! The time it takes to reboot into 9.2 isn't an issue. It's not a convenience issue for me - it's a matter of just being able to play! [ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: karsten ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not an expert on this but I think you need tset up the extensions correctly in 9.2 to make it work Someone else here will correct me if I'm mistaken but I think you need to remove the "classic rave" extension from 9.2 to make it work. AFTER Mac OS X is installed the classic 9.x abilitly to run CMBO is compromised because Mac OSX adds the classic rave Extension(I think ??) to the classic operating system and then it won't work, hence this comment: "(FYI, I run one partition with 9.1 for games (CM), and another with 9.2.1 and OSX for OSX. Simple matter to switch between the two)). " from aikidorat good luck -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Suicides-by-Steve: I'm looking for the bitmap file that renders the tracers from weapons fire visible- I've looked through most BMP's, but so far no luck. I need both the tracers and shells... Thanks again, guys!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> sorry but think they hard coded and you are out of luck, someone will surely correct me on this one if I am mistaken. -tom w [ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karsten: Got 10.1 as well. Won't run at all. Total suck. Very unhappy. BTW: What the heck is CMBB? :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Beyond Barbarossa The Next Eastern Front version of CMBO is CMBB CM Beyond Barbarossa and it WILL have the SAME Rave Limitations as CMBO and that will stink! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Toad: Today I tried CM with the general release of 10.1 without success.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi I'm sorry to hear that. I had planned to try it tonight when I get home I just got 10.1 today! There are probably only about 15-20 of us here that care about wheather or not CMBO AND CMBB will run under Mac OS X (10.1) It does not surprise me that it won't and it annoyes me to no end that MadMatt and BTS feel that Apple is to blame for not letting them know ahead of time that Rave support was to be discontinued. If they were licensed Apple Developers (and they SHOULD be, but I doubt they are) they would have been getting ALL the Apple developer updates and software ALL along and would also be eligble for Apple developer discounts on hardware purchases, and they woudl have known Rave was only a short term phenomenon. But from my understanding of the BTS position they feel Apple just went ahead and dropped RAVE support and didn't let any body know it was coming. oh well If you want to run CMBO OR CMBB you can forget running it on Mac OS X! It sucks but thats the way it is. -tom w

That is a VERY pretty shot of CM Nice mods and good angle and NICE sky! Its good to see how GREAT this game looks from ground level! "The secret realism in CM is green Troops AND Camera Level 1 " -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Breaking shells are breaking shells, not duds. It still happens. And 'I would class ... as ...' is a 100% abstraction Anyway, maybe I haven't expressed my thoughts right - yes, there is some calculation for single (gun) shots. But it's still abstraction. Gun xyz has for example a 50% chance to hit a tank on 1500m. It fires 5 shots per turn. In reality, each shot goes usually closer to the target. In CM it does not. A number of shells hit, the others go somewhere else. Maybe shot one 10m away from the target, shot two 100m, shot three hits, shot four 50m away. It's absolutly unrealistic - a gun that has hit once will hit the target with a VERY high chance again. It only make sense if you see it as abstraction. A specific % will be hits, the rest not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree with that too. There is a targeting aquistion bonus modeled in the game. Every shot on a target has a greater chance of hitting the target than the shot before. you may not actually see the shots getting closer to the target, but the chance to hit goes up after every missed shot and I don't think you could really call that an abstraction? Could you? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Have you ever seen a dud? No?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is a VERY good point I have lobbied for duds to be modeled but the official BTS party line is that there is no accurate official or historical record on which to base the accuracy of the Dud rate. I have pointed to the old 2D board game Tobruk and suggested strongly that the dud rate for EVERY weapon in that game was modeled. The BTS reply is that they MUST of"guessed" at their Dud rates and BTS would not do that. I would really like to see the dud rate of all ammo modeled in CMBB, but I don't think it is on "the list". -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: I was recently playing a game as defender when a 20mm Flak gun of mine clearly scored a "Track Hit" on (what turned out to be) a Sherman 105. At the time I thought thank god that unit wont be able to move up to where the real action was but sure enough, two turns later it appears within 150 metres of my hiding infantry. My question is... has anyone else witnessed a track hit not result in a mobility kill before and if so, in what circumstances? Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi I have seen plenty of track hits that are in effective. Same thing at a hit on any other surface or area that does no damage. I have seen gun hits that cause no damage, and track hits that cause no damage. I'm sure they are not half as rare or fluky as dreaded "armour penetration : NO damage"! Its the same thing, its just a hit that does not cause damage. no big deal really -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: In all the discussions about armor penetration, gun accuracy and whatever else the people seem to forget a simple thing. CM isn't what it looks like. What we see is not what happens. Everything is only abstracted. snip this is be the next big challenge for BTS: make CM 'real' - show us what really happens. Death to abstractions!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi My understanding of the game is that the armour penetration model is NOT abstract in any way. Every round of AP and T and C and HE (and S) is accounted for in the tank. Every time a round from a anti tank gun, inf gun, or AVF main weapon fires there is a clear and specific calculation that determines EXACTLY what will become of that round and that shot. So no, I do not agree the the armour penetration model is abstracted at all. Now MG and HMG fire and small arms fire seems to be alot more abstracted so you may have an issue there. BUT not when it comes to tank battles. -tom w

WHAT!!!?? Its nothing more than Smoke and Mirrors?! I want my money BACK!! -tom w

you have to admit it was bad luck -tom w

OK so I sit down for a good game against the AI I pick the Allies and choose a 2000 pt armour battle. Late war April 44 dawn and overcast I take the British and buy one sherm 76 and 3 95 mm churchills and a couple of dailmers with 40 mm AP load. I get all of 1 round of tungsten! What do I meet on the battle field?? GET this! At first I see what I think is one Tiger. (?) next an other tiger ? then another! OK I think that can't be so bad at least they are slow Then the first one turns out to be a Vet JagdTiger with the 128 mm main weapon then the second one turns out to the the same thing! Holy Crap I think I'm in it NOW! Meanwhile the Sherm gets immbolized in a decent hull down position and I loose two churchills to turret pentration because they are both in hull down positions from the 128 mm main weapon Then the third Tiger (?) ALSO turns out to be ANOTHER Vet JagdTiger!! I fought them hard and did my best to flank them I KO'd one with the Sherm and KO'd another with a very lucky PIAT round. the third was used VERY wisely by the AI and proved indestructable. BUT I sat on the two VL's and they both remained undisputed at the end of 30 minutes and a scraped out a 51% minor victory. BUT 3 Jagdtigers??? Talk about BAD luck of the draw I have never seen that one before. Agaist ANY half decent human my Brits would have be royally screwed I think. The AI played well, and it was FUN! Just thought I would post a little note about the fun I had in my last game vs.the AI. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: uhhhh, i couldnt find them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> um try this: http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~mudansha/terrain.html -tom w

Best value in a video game I have ever owned! Seriously, I have been playing this game since the day it was released (late june 2000, I preorderd it based on the demo) and this game has SAVED me money because I have been too busy playing it and far too satisfied, and addicted to it to buy any other games. Just send and cheque in the mail and wait for the standard delivery time, you REALLY, really won't be disappointed. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: If there are no objections, it is time to declare Kiwi Joe the official WINNER of WineCape's Wine Tournament. Congratulations, Kiwi Joe!!! You're definitely an outstanding CM player. You are also the first person ever to win money playing CM. I'm sure WineCape will be in touch with you shortly to arrange shipment of his fine wines. Send me an email with your address. I will be in touch so we can decide the best way to send your $50 cash prize. Again, congratulations to Kiwi Joe, the tournament winner!! Treeburst155 out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm playing sock monkey now I wish I could have done better against Kiwi Joe. But I guess he deserves to win. Congrats Kiwi Joe! (Has anyone here ever beat him or heard of anyone who has beat him?) -tom w

How many of us want to use OSX and play CM? Saddly I think there are only a handful of us and think we are out of luck. I now need to run two Macs one with Mac OSX (to stay current with the state of the art in the Mac OS) and one mac with 9.1 only to run CM. it is a REAL pain (PITA) to try to reboot from OSX into 9.1 and the try to play CM, I have concluded it is not worth the hassle of trying to play CM on a MAC that has OSX installed on it. How many of us are there that are actually inconvenienced by this issue? -tom w

thanks again to everyone watching CNN Thanks Priest for the posts and the updates this thread is still one of the BEST sources of news on the tradgedy -tom w