aka_tom_w

Well... Just thought I would bump this one since Steve seems to be in a question answering mood this afternoon. Hint hint... any comments Steve? -tom w

This is a GREAT discusion Many thanks to Steve for his comments and responses. Very interesting. I don't have a real strong opinion on this one but I do agree with those here who suggest it would be nice it AT guns were a little harder to spot or a little more difficult to knock out, they seem a little overly "brittle" or "fragile" in the game, but the current system does work better than any other game I have ever played. ! Thanks again Steve! -tom w [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Toronto (in the general outskirts sense) Canada

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joshik: Deadline (& other Mac users): 1) Get SoundApp from www.macdownload.com. 2) Set Convert:File Format to "System Sound" 3) Create a New Play List 4) Drag one of the Scipio folders inside the Play List 5) Click "Convert All". It will ask you to name the destination folder. 6) Use the MacCMModManager to load the converted sounds into CM. When it asks "Select Mod Folder", just select the new folder that was created by SoundApp. 7) Load in sounds as you would any new mod. This works like a charm! -Joshik [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Joshik ] [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Joshik ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perfect! thanks GREAT step by step instructions. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Buildings go down ridiculously fast in CM. You can still fight in the rubble of course, but it does not have any elevation/second story. This makes direct fire HE way too effective against building cover. Urban fighting did produce streets of rubble, but not from light cannon, or even tank guns firing a few scores of shells. They were rubbled by air bombardment in the hundreds of tons of bombs, or artillery fire kept up over days or weeks and running in some cases over a million shells fired. If one imagines some very light shacks for which the rate of destruction in CM seems realistic (e.g. for a one story wood building perhaps), then the question becomes, where are the more serious buildings? You know, the air forces went to the trouble of making bombs of several thousand pounds for a reason - because bombs up to 250 or even 500 lbs just did not level city blocks. Up to half the weight of a large air-dropped bomb can be explosive. The TNT in a tank round is 1-2 lbs, and in light guns rounds (20mm etc) it is measured in grams. Engineers used 5-10 lb bags of TNT to blow holes in brick walls large enough for a man to fit through. The size of explosive charges that bring down the fronts - but not all - of large buildings in terrorist attacks, run into the hundreds and sometimes a few thousand pounds. A few 1-2 lb HE charges are not going to bring down a 2-4 story brick or concrete building, even if you planted them on supports, which tank fire through a wall does not do. CM seems to use a cumulative total HE charge received measure to collapse buildings. A more accurate way would add up something like the square of the blast, to make small rounds largely irrelevant and the largest ones the only ones likely to result in collapse. They should be far more robust against blast ratings under 50 or so, and somewhat more robust (especially larger and heavy building types) against even the big shells. It would probably also be better if it were somewhat probabilistic. The current system encourages systematic elimination of every building in an attacker's path, occupied or not, which is not what they actually did, or could even attempt with just a few tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a VERY good point and it REALLY needs its OWN thread so as not to be over looked by BTS with regard to how building destruction is modeled in CMBB. I hope someone starts a NEW thread about this. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: AFAIK only troops in a 2 story building take significant damage when it collapses - those on the top story are killed, those on the bottom story suffer some casualties, but never enough to destroy the unit that I can remember. I'm playign a game with a 150mm german infantry gun right now. It takes 2-3 hits to demolish a small light building, and I'm not seeing any noticeable effects on the squads inside them (ie the number of figures in the squad isn't changing - I can't tell exactly how many men there are). I sure wish those buildings were doing more damage!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm on the receiving end of that 150 and it hurts, believe me it hurts. Buildings collapseing don't kill men so much as the effect of the HE blast of the round, if they are in a building they (my troops) seem to fair better (even if the building collapses), then if they are in woods or scattered trees, there the blast tends to kill more of them, I know, because that damn 150 is really starting to get to me! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: [qb] 6. Yes im still just playing the demo Try playing a human ASAP in a PBEM or TCP game. That will teach you more than a hundred games against the AI. Welcome to the club! Enjoy... thanks again Detroit Guy[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ][/QB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stormhouse: Here is a gamy tactic, I played against some who will remain nameless and he used his anti tank teams for scouting. It was a attack defend game, i was defending. So when his anti tank teams would get close to my squads, my squads would open fire on one stupid anti tank team and then his arty would come falling down on my head. Since the squads just gave out there positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um I could be wrong, but I thought anti-tank teams make GREAT cheap scouts. They run fast and Can kill armour if you guess right and get lucky. I'm not sure that using AT teams as scouts is really "Gamey" what loophole in the game engine are you exploiting by scouting with AT teams? (I could be REALLY wrong on this one, but I have done this before, not with the intention of drawing fire, but I have sent AT teams to scout, they are not hindered by ANY hard coded spotting penalties that I know of.) -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Pardon me Tom. I too am a pretty level headed guy with a love of conversation and argument. Snip... Oh yeah, I would like to propose and suggest that perhaps anyone who wants to leave out a campaign game is a damn Commie Bastard who thinks humans are little better than stock to be led to the slaughter of the battlefield. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Ok Now that WAS funny: "Oh yeah, I would like to propose and suggest that perhaps anyone who wants to leave out a campaign game is a damn Commie Bastard who thinks humans are little better than stock to be led to the slaughter of the battlefield. " And I guess I will have to admit you (and more than a few others) may choose to remain stunned by my post. re: "However, if it were an honest remark, then I am stunned by your opinion." I never said it was not an opinionated post, that it was, my intention was to state my point of view in an opinionated way, I did that, I figured some folks here might be put off by it or reply in kind, but that did not seem like a good reason not to post my thoughts, as unpopular as they might be Oh well, I don't plan to edit that post (unless I missed some spelling or grammatical errors). It was ONLY an opinion, I didn't use any profantity or abusive language to engage in a personal flame war with any one individual here, Hell NO!, its much more fun to PISS off a WHOLE group of people (camgaign game supporters to be specific) In Fun -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Furthermore, it is a bit rude to proclaim that every one who wants a campaign game really just wants the Axis to win. That is so ridiculous that I will not even counter it. Campaigns DO NOT HAVE TO BE AHISTORICAL, GAMEY, OR CHILDISH.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please excuse me while I indulge in a moment of sophistry: "Furthermore, it is a bit rude to proclaim that every one who wants a campaign game really just wants the Axis to win." I'm feel compelled to address the suggestion that I was "rude to proclaim that every one who wants a campaign game really just wants the Axis to win." Its the word rude here that is the focus of this reply. In my original (admittedly highly opinionated post) I wrote: "Perhaps I'm not in the minority but I would like to propose that the campaign game suggestion does little more than facilitate the dreams and wishes of all those fans of the Third Reich that would like to believe that if Hilter had not royally screwed up, the war would have been won by the Germans and those same folks are only to happy to show how they as the German commander(s) would have won the war. (in the East anyway in the suggested Campaign Game in CMBB )" I used the words "I would like to propose..." This does not seem like a proclamation to me, but more like a suggestion that, many (ok I am sorry I used the Word "ALL" ) of the supporters of the campaign game are (like your self, as you admit) fans of the German units and are the same folks who prefer the German units when playing the game. I'm not angry or mad nor willI ever get all bent out of shape over this issue, I'm just playing with words this morning and enjoying writing and debating (nothing more ) with all of you. Again, it was only my one lone opinion, I can see there is ALOT of support for this campaign idea, it comes up ALL the time. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scooter: Jarmo says it perfectly. Snakes Eyes sums it up well too. No, it isn't Gamey. The map is the map. Use it anyway you can to your best advantage. Now that he has your attention well fixed onto one direction, what does he have coming from the other direction to attack your new rear?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this My verdict: (sorry he attacked the weakest section of your weak flank, learn from your mistake) Not Gamey PS Who here has a sig line that reads somthing like: "a good stratedgy is the art of avoiding a fair fight" (or somthing?) Here's the actual quote in Bill's sig line: "Bill Wood billwood@triad.rr.com Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight." [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

What ever happened to the standard line: "You'll get killed" ??? :confused: Perhaps I'm not in the minority but I would like to propose that the campaign game suggestion does little more than facilitate the dreams and wishes of all those fans of the Third Reich that would like to believe that if Hilter had not royally screwed up, the war would have been won by the Germans and those same folks are only to happy to show how they as the German commander(s) would have won the war. (in the East anyway in the suggested Campaign Game in CMBB ) The ONLY campaign game that Should realistically work would be one where it would be impossible to win as the Germans, (given ALL realistic settings and historical maps and troops, yeah yeah I KNOW, the Real fun is in the "what If" scenario's where the Germans can take over the world ) The entire premise of the campaign game is based on winning, and CONTINUING to win every time you meet the enemy on the battle field. This notion turns the great historical WWII simulator (to be) CMBB, into something akin to a video game that has "boards" or screen sections with the "boss" monster bady (whatever) at the end of it to be over come, so you can move on to the next "board". I strongly believe this notion has NO place in CMBB. I also believe that units SHOULD not gain experience from a single battle and move on to the next. In virtually all Meeting Engagements against a skilled human player that I have ever played there is not enough units (men or machines) left fit and healthy to continue on EITHER side to make any sense of a "campaign". I now realize this viewpoint may be in the minority, but I WHOLLY and completely disagree with the suggestion that it is realistic for either the Germans to win a campaign game or for units to gain experience after only one battle. Again the One Line Refrain: YOU'LL DIE BEFORE YOU GAIN ENOUGH EXPERIENCE (I'm sounding more and More like a GROG every Day Oh MY GOD!!) -tom w [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: LOL!! Kiwi Joe, you're too much. I hope Tom W kicks your ass. The Always Impartial, Treeburst155<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I HOPE so too !!! (I guess thats the real juvenile smiley, thought I would try it out for psychological warfare purposes ! Joe and I will need to set up again oh well -tom w [ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Well Tom, you are right. This was a rule change in the middle of the game. I also agree that doing this sort of thing should be avoided in most circumstances. This is why I did it: 1) It seemed like an excellent way to equalize the SMG problem which is still present in SMALLER battles like our tourney games. The limitation to 3 platoons of the troublesome SMGs isn't much of a limitation when it comes to small battles. This is even stated in the CAL rules at TH, I believe. 2) Since we were (and still are) in the early stages of the tournament I figured the added rule would not be a problem for people. Those most affected in a negative way would be those who had started a bunch of games as the Allies before I made the rule. I doubt anyone had more than three games as Allies started before I made the addition. To those who did have more than a game or two already started as Allies I apologize since you were not able to take advantage of the new rule in those games. Inspite of this negative impact I felt the rule was a very good one and well worth it in the interest of keeping things even. Remember also that MANY players probably have an Allied game or two going that started before they could take advantage of the new rule. Most everybody is probably in the same boat. Another thing to consider is that the CAL rules are actually fairly new. We are the first group, along with the CAL ladder, to use the rules. We are finding the "bugs"and ambiguities in the rules. For examples of this just read this thread and the one for WineCape's Tourney II. I believe the new rule is a definite improvement to the CAL rules when it comes to small battles. I will not make changes or additions to the CAL rules on a whim. I doubt I will change them again during the tournament. Treeburst155 out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK I don't dislike the rule, but I have 4 games started as the Allies, 5 counting the the one Kiwi Joe waiting to approve the map on, so I was a little taken aback, when I first read about it. I hope Kwiw Joe will let me start the game with him over again with the new rule in mind, the four other games with me as the Allies are anywhere between turn 9 and turn 22 so there is no going back now. I'm not really complaining, it is a good rule. I'm just sort of a little disappointed Abbott did not adopt it in the first place for the CAL ladder rules. (edit original post) OK now I am going to complain a little. I read some of the posts by MrSpkr regarding SturmKompanies in Recon Games. All four of my games in progress as the Allies are either Recon Rules or Mech rules and I am meeting plenty of Sturmkompanie squads and taking a real beating for it, SURE I would have liked to have a plattoon of Airbourne or Glider forces, you bet I would but I did ALL my Allied buying so far according to the strict CAL rules of "only one Force type" and I would say in my Recon Rules games I am paying for it. :confused: Oh well I guess its not a big deal really lets move on -tom w [ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Yes, this is a quiet bunch. I really hate to do this but a question came up in tourney II that resulted in me actually adding another rule. I think it's an improvement to the CAL rules and makes them even more fair. This rule is now in effect for this tournament. The Allied player may violate the "one force type" CAL rule SOLEY for the purpose of purchasing Allied Airborne Infantry Units. He may purchase a maximum of ONE company of these units. They can be paratroops or glider platoons. No other purchases in the Allied Airborne force types are allowed unless the player chooses to stick with the "one force type" rule, that force being Airborne of course. This will allow the Allied player to pack some SMG power of his own into the battle while still giving him vehicle and armor support. Note that these Airborne platoons are not cheap however since mortars and MGs must be purchased with them. Judge Treeburst155 out. [ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I really hate to be a whiner or complainer but this sort of seems like changes the rules half way through the game, and it will benefit those allied players most who are just now starting their set -ups I know the rule has been made and it would be worse to go back to the way it was, BUT I don't understand why the rule was changed after the tournement had begun? Again, I don't want to be a whiner or complainer but I don't understand what necesitated that Allied rules change? I'm surprised no one else has commented on it? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: I know a good program that I use on my Mac its called Soundapp PPC. You can convert them to System sound no problem. YOu ll have to do a intrnet search because I got it from a Mac Home CD. Try Download.com.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HI Great, thanks I have heard of it and I will download it, BUT will it do a batch file conversion for me? I'm trying to avoid converting everyone of those stinking mp3 files by hand. Thanks again -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: I'd amend that to say, "Forget the Shermans as anti-tank weapons." They're quite useful against infantry, though. Treat them more like self-propelled guns, and they can be very valuable. If you insist on engaging enemy armor with them, use speed, surprise, deception, and smoke to flank; work them in pairs or larger groups; and never get in head-to-head duels. (Tanks shouldn't be used that way in general, actually. The idea is to get the first shot off and get a KO then and there, not play ping-pong.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point I agree completely. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zphil74: Allow me to apologize in advance as I am sure this has been discussed many times before, but can anyone post links or information on where I can find general rules for CM, such as CAL or Short-75 (two names which I have recently seen on the discussion list)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> no problem try here: http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/CAL/THCAL.shtml These "guidelines" for fair play were adapted from Fionn's Rules. please see the above link for the nicely laid out tables of what is included and what is excluded from each catagory for armour. this what they say (mostly): COMBINED ARMS LEAGUE June 25, Monday, 2001 Tournamenthouse Combined Arms League Rule Set Tournamenthouse Combined Arms League These Rules are not intended to be historically accurate. Their intent is to provide a level playing field for League Play with Combat Mission Beyond Overlord. (Modified from Fionn Kelly’s rules for Tournamenthouse CAL play by Abbott). Game Types There are four game types, one of which that may be agreed upon before the setup of the game. They are: Recon. Rule. Short-75. Panther-76 Heavy Armor. Maps Quick battles Upon entering the game during setup and seeing the map a player has the right to decline the setup and ask for another if he feels the map favors one player or the other. Custom maps agreed on by the players are also an option. A third party may be engaged to purchase and setup forces for both players. Settings The setting of “Combined Arms” (exception, Heavy Armor rules) will be used in conjunction with games played under these rules. Force Type Only one force type for German and Allied sides may be chosen. Example: German “Heer” Allied “British”. Weather Weather settings are up to the player’s decision/agreement. Random Weather is the suggested setting, which if used will add a “unknown” factor into many games. Guns Towed guns will be limited to no more then 3 per side up to 1000 points spent. 1 gun per 1000 points spent thereafter. (Example 2,000-point game up to 4 guns allowed per side, 5,000-point game up to 7 guns per side). This includes all guns from the “support” category of CMBO. The Attacking player and both players in Meeting Engagements will purchase halftracks or trucks capable of towing each gun purchased. (This makes the increased costs of guns something to consider and sometimes will add the missing Halftracks back into the force mix). Jeeps and Kulbewagon type vehicles will not count towards this total. German SMG Troops German SMG platoons and Volksgrenadier armed with SMG will be limited to no more then 3 platoons allowed per game. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the player’s before setup. 3 Platoons of SMG troops or Volksgrenadiers armed with SMG’s can be a tough force to meet in smaller point games at times so excluding SMG troops and Volksgrenadiers armed with SMG’s is also an option that can be agreed upon and does impart some balance. Bunkers & Aircraft Bunkers and Aircraft should be EXCLUDED for games played under 'Recon Rule', 'Short-75 Rule' and Panther-76 Rule' unless both players agree to their inclusion from the outset and can prepare accordingly. Artillery 1. Recon Rule - up to and including 81mm caliber. 2. Short-75 Rule - up to and including 107mm caliber. (British 4.2-inch mortars are included). 3. Panther-76 Rule - up to and including 155mm caliber. 4. Heavy Armor rule- all types from CMBO included. RECON RULE The 'Recon Rule' game allows vehicles, including light tanks, to be included but limited to those with maximum 50mm guns. The Germans can field Pumas. Halftracks, mortar carriers and flame-thrower vehicles are all allowed, but not flame-thrower tanks. 60mm, 75mm and 81mm mortars and FO’s are all allowed, 81mm being the maximum. There is no limit to the size of towed guns permitted. SHORT-75 RULE Anti-Tank guns are not on the excluded list, although deadly to tanks, they are highly vulnerable to shelling and infantry attack. Tanks with larger caliber weapons such as the 95mm, 105mm, and 150mm guns are included as they do not fire AP rounds, and carry a very limited number of hollow core ©. Short-75 Rule Heavy Armor Games, which are agreed upon to include heavy armor (no exclusions from the purchasable armor units included in CMBO) will only include the following rules listed above. Weather, Guns and SMG Troops. All caliber’s of artillery (FO’s) are allowed as are Bunkers and Aircraft. A setting of Unrestricted or Armor may be needed for smaller point battles, which include the heavy armor units. Optional Rules Click Here CAL PLAY The Combined Arms League is setup to offer players a league to play in that encourages tactical play style. We are trying to avoid "Powergamer" play that exploits weakness in CMBO’s game engine or force mix. When you sign on to play in CAL a set of Guidelines is in place to assist with CAL play style. CAL contact at Tournamenthouse abbott@tournamenthouse.com Whatever rules you choose to play by just be sure your opponent agrees with all of them before starting the battle. Proper communication before hand is the key to enjoyable League play. I would like to thank Fionn Kelly for the original ideas and Cyberfox and Tomcat from Rugged Defense for their cooperation and additions.

With the Allies Use the Greyhound, put a 'zook on the back, find the BIG ugly German uber tank, (use 81 mm arty, buy at least two FO's) Lay in MAJOR smoke, and in the smoke screen run that Greyhound FAST around its flank into the rear if you can and then dismount the 'zook into some near by cover.Shoot the thing in the ass with both the Greyhound and the zook, if the tank is unsupported its TOAST! I smoked a KT with this technique by distracting it in the huge smoke screen with the greyhound while the passenger 'zook was dismounted about 40 m to the flank in no cover, but in the heavy smoke and he KO'd the KT with a clean penetrating flank shot on his first attempt! It was only against the AI so I missed out on the opportunity to REALLY piss off a human opponent ! Use a M18 Hellcat or some other armour to keep the ubertank busy frontally as the smoke clears. Use the .50 cal to shoot up German light vehicles at long range like more than 500 m. Forget the shermans, buy Greyhouunds and Hellcats and MOVE fast EVERYWHERE. I prefer the US forces in most situations. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Man we are a quiet bunch... theres only been 2 completed games in all this time??? I think some members better start playing fast, or quit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quiet bunch is right.... Where are all the games and players in this tourney? I'm in the middle of one with Mike (Stalin's organ) that is fairly even right now. I'm getting smoked by Scott (ruhlir@home.com) in a game that could end any turn now. ONe other game is still close, and I'm loosing ground fast in another game. I'm about to start two more games this week. -tom w

bump

OK sorry to ask but I'm on a Mac and I "should" know how to deal with this BUT, how do I make those mp3 sound files into mac system sounds that I can import with the MAC CM mod manager? THere must be a way to batch process all those mp3's so I can import them with the MAC CM mod manager. Are there any other mac users out there that have done this? I have had no problem with other .bmp image mods but the sounds are a little trickier on the Mac Thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Man we are a quiet bunch... theres only been 2 completed games in all this time??? I think some members better start playing fast, or quit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Kiwi Joe... Are we in the middle of a Game? I thought we had one set up and ready to go, in fact we started did we not? I thought I was waiting on you to return the last turn file? Am I wrong? I'm in the middle of 3 games, about to finish one my first match and about to set up two more new ones. Any one else? Progress report? -tom w [ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti: One question I've always wondered is if moving vehicles get second shot bonuses? I know stationary vehicles will get more accurate the more times they shoot at a target. A moving vehicle might be able to get a better feel for range with it's shots, but I would think it would be virtually like first time firing for every shot... Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is a REALLY good point. Good question, does a vehicle with a high ROF (like for example the US Greyhound {surprise!}) get the bonus of target acquisition while moving fast? In the game the way it works now I will bet that it does. Those Greyhounds can get several shots off while traveling fast and I would bet the 2nd and subsquent shots while fast moving are modeled with the target aquisition bonus. If that is the case, in CMBO then this too should be reviewed and re-evaluated for CMBB. GREAT point! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: My goodness, I stand in awe of your superior searchonaut abilities :eek: !!!! Yes, that is precisely what I am referring to - right down to the precise page. Very impressive!! I think it would have taken me several months to dredge that up again (had I been so inclined).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No big deal really Just used your name (your number actually) typed in the word "accuracy" and went away for lunch. No problem at all, came back and there it was in all its glory, that infamous thread and I found your quote and there you have it! -tom w