aka_tom_w

Sorry Just ANOTHER inquiry IS it posted somewhere ANYWHERE yet? And What about those GREAT Normandy Buildings from Magua?? All questions NO answers -tom w

There is a copy of Chaos Bridge around somewhere. Find it and play the Allies it is a fun and challenging scenario as I would say it is VERY well designed. Stoumount Station is VERY hard to win as the Germans, BUT fun! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti: BTS I have a new idea regarding the WheatField Previous thread on the subject with BTS's response. Ben [ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Ben Galanti ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And for those too lazy to read it here it is: "Big Time Software Administrator Member # 42 posted 02-13-2000 12:25 AM Sorry, but no way Once a unit goes prone (hide, crawl, pinned) you would lose sight of it. That is a HUGE game problem, even if the wheatfields would look nicer. Cut away the area where the figures are? OK... picture a platoon in a single wheat field, crawling. That is 10 figures, or if you like 4 (one per unit). To dynamical build and rebuild the surface area of the wheat field to show the guys, so people don't kill us for horrible game problems , is not possible for us to do along with everything else. It would turn a 2 polygon (or so) wheatfield into something like 9 or so for ONE figure/unit. With each additional figure/unit in there it gets wickedly complicated, meaning dynamically disconnecting and reconnecting points, seamlessly, in realtime. Then toss in different elevations for the field's tile, units moving in opposing directions, etc. and you have a MAJOR programming nightmare. Yup, Charles and I have discussed the flatness of fields about a dozen times before, and we always come back to "not possible". We rulled out the "hole" concept a long, long time ago In short, they will remain flat for CM1 and CM2, perhaps even CM3 and on. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 02-13-2000).] "

Ka-BOOM! This sounds like a heck of alot of FUN! HEY! They know we all loving blowing stuff up, why not sort of try to facilitate the wishes of the latent destromaniacs among us here and provide us with some form of BIG preset explosion or the one BIG boom TRP, whatever. This is a GREAT idea I hope is it not too late to see it in CM2. I can think of ALL kinds of fun things to booby trap and blow up, NOT just bridges. It should be a BIG explosion and they should be somewhat expensive and you have to buy them at the begining and of course they would only be a available to the defender, and perhaps only if the defender buys AT least a platoon of engineers if we are trying to model setting up explosive charges. GREAT Idea! -tom w [ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I started this Thead on this very issue: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019528 " I know we have talked about this one before... BUT I just lost a VERY brave crew who refused to abandon their mount in the face an overwhelming infantry rush. It was only an M8 Greyhound but they were heroes DAMN IT! Their vehicle became immobilized after taking out a hezter and two half tracks and a Wespe. I tell you they were heroes! No crew casualites suffered, but I could not save them because they were too far forward and immobilized beside a large light building that was CRAWLING with infantry. They KO'd all the AFV's in range, (mostly one shot hits) and when they got immobilized they had time to bail out, but they hung in there until they got taken out by a 'shreck and then they bailed out and then they were uncerimoniously mowed down, I felt for them I REALLY did. Please please, Let us order our crews to bail out before the AI if we need to save them. IT was a GREAT battle kicked the AI's butt and only had 7 KIA at the end, 4 of them were that brave crew, mowed down as they abandoned. OR even this in that situation they could have surrenedered perhaps Do AFV crew ever abandon AND surrender to save their own hides? I don't think so. (I'm not sure about this one) They always abandon then usually get all shot up. In CM2 can we see AFV crews surrender when their immobilized AFV is surrounded? Sorry I just had to rant.... -tom w" There are other responses in the rest of the thread. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: That's strange... I've done exactly that to unbog tanks when playing Drive to Mortain. <spoiler> . . . . . . . . . <break/> . . . . Okay, far enough. Since the road in Drive to Mortain is potential deathtrap (playing the Germans, I wiped out the entire -- I mean, _entire_ Allied force at the first bocage boundary), I go offroad as soon as feasible. When my Shermans bogged, I had my commander's M5 push them out of the way, and they magically unbogged themselves. Didn't work for immobilized units, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have read other accounts of this "push the bogged unit with another good unit" technique has actually worked in the game. I have never done it myself, but it seems to work OR the accounts that were posted were just coincidence in that the bogged unit may have unbogged anyway without the push. BUT there are at least a few accounts of successfully pushing bogged vehilces with non-bogged vehilces in the game. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: AFAIK that was tried before by an opponent of mine, and even after setting the potential POWs to Panic/Exhausted(can't set them to Routed/Broken) with no ammo and surrounded by the enemy, they would try to flee then get cut down without surrendering. The chances of a unit surrendering is tied to the Global morale so unless the Global morale can be reduced significantly at the start of a scenario it probably won't work out as planned. Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok That makes sense Thanks for the Update Ron -tom w

I would suggest that it is possible to put the POW units in in the scenario surrounded by full strength captor units. To do this so the captive units don't shoot back, I would make them routed or broken AND exhausted. For each captive unit you place on the map you would have to go in and set those optional settings to broken and exhausted, or just shaken and exhausted, this should make their will to fight, just about nill (AND BTW at this point you could set their Ammo load to 0, so they can't shoot back) and then in the game as you test it (hint hint) MAYBE if they are surrounded they will just naturally surrender? This will take some tweeking as there is no actual "POW" state that the captive units can actually start with, but they can begin the game surrounded by healthy units and they can be set to be exhausted and broken, which should make them surrender. Has anyone ever tried this before? -tom w [ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I vote for Reut Canal What a GREAT battle! -tom w

This is a GREAT idea! BUT I'm glad I not designing the game. Does anyone have any REAL actually useful good idea's as to how to execute this idea. I mean technically how do you make 3D wheat fields actually work? there is nothing else in the game (well "maybe" houses) that is like a 3D field of grass that infantry sticks hlaf out of. Its a WAY cool idea, especially since there MUST be lots of scenarios on Russian soil that are nothing BUT huge wheat fields (I'm guessing here) so accurate treatment of cover and concealment in wheat fields should be a priority I hope I guess we'll just wait and see. -tom w

I know we have talked about this one before... BUT I just lost a VERY brave crew who refused to abandon their mount in the face an overwhelming infantry rush. It was only an M8 Greyhound but they were heroes DAMN IT! Their vehicle became immobilized after taking out a hezter and two half tracks and a Wespe. I tell you they were heroes! No crew casualites suffered, but I could not save them because they were too far forward and immobilized beside a large light building that was CRAWLING with infantry. They KO'd all the AFV's in range, (mostly one shot hits) and when they got immobilized they had time to bail out, but they hung in there until they got taken out by a 'shreck and then they bailed out and then they were uncerimoniously mowed down, I felt for them I REALLY did. Please please, Let us order our crews to bail out before the AI if we need to save them. IT was a GREAT battle kicked the AI's butt and only had 7 KIA at the end, 4 of them were that brave crew, mowed down as they abandoned. OR even this in that situation they could have surrenedered perhaps Do AFV crew ever abandon AND surrender to save their own hides? I don't think so. (I'm not sure about this one) They always abandon then usually get all shot up. In CM2 can we see AFV crews surrender when their immobilized AFV is surrounded? Sorry I just had to rant.... -tom w [ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I have followed this forum fairly regularly (like daily ) since the CMBO Beta Demo, so I would like to make a small suggestion that I don't think I have seen or read about here yet. It may not even be a good suggestion, BUT here goes: I would like to suggest the that when unit bases are turned on as they can be now, (If we can still do that in CM2) that those little squares be coded to be different shapes and SIZES to represent different classes of units.(OR even better, can you code the bases for different classes of units to be user modifiable so we can make our OWN colour coded bases.) Here's the thing, we know that there are several different sizes of coloured squares that represent units, BUT the smallest square could be a Platoon Leader, and Company HQ, A Mortar or a HMG or a Flame Thrower. I would like to suggest the perhaps different shapes be coded to represent different units that the same size square now represents. Now before anyone jumps all over me for this one YES, this issue is ONLY a problem when looking at the battle field from view 7 or 8 (way high up). BUT I find the Best way to determine where the enemy units are and what is happening at the moment of first contact is to watch the movie for the first time from view 8 and then zoom in later and replay the movie. As it is now there are different sizes of the sqaures bases, a Platoon HQ and a infantry squad and a tank, all have different SIZES of bases that are easily distingusihable from view 8. Would it be possible to code, say circles and ovals and rectangles and triangle bases, (all roughly the same size, just with a different SHAPES) to represent little fiddly units like jeeps and kubel wagons and Platoon HQ's and Mortors and Flame throwers and HMG units ? Has anyone seen or heard this suggestion before? I suppose the first thing some might say s DON'T look from view 8 and/or this is NOT really an aspect of the interface the needs attention because if you look at the battlefield from view 3,4, or even over head 5 you can easily see what's what and who is where, BUT from view 8 I would like to see different SHAPES to represent different classes of units. I'm happy with all tanks being on uniform sized bigger square, but maybe SP arty could be a big rectangle or oval or something else. Just my one small suggestion for CM2 .... (I don't think this one has been mentioned before, but it has I have never seen it discussed or any feedback from BTS on it) Thanks -tom w (yes this is a re-post in its own Thread now because this suggestion got burried quickly in the IS-3 debate in the CM2 bunch of answers thread.) [ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

yeah BUT..... When can we see all this stuff on the Web? Is there a web page with these graphics? I have seen the images and pics at CMHQ, but is that ALL there is on the web now? Many of us would really like to see those screen shots of the new interface you are refering to. Are they available anywhere on the web? Thanks -tom w

WOW Those are VERY nicely detailed! GREAT work! -tom w

I have followed this forum fairly regualarily (like daily ) since the CMBO Beta Demo, so I would like to make a small suggestion that I don't think I have seen or read about here yet. It may not even be a good suggestion, BUT here goes: I would like to suggest the that when unit bases are turned on as they can be now, that those little squares be coded to be different shapes and SIZES to represent different classes of units. Here's the thing, we know that there are several different sizes of coloured squares that represent units, BUT the smallest square could be a Platoon Leader, and Company HQ, A Mortor or a HMG or a Flame Thrower. I would like to suggest the perhaps different shapes be coded to represent different units that the same size square now represents. Now before anyone jumps all over me for this one YES, this issue is ONLY a problem when looking at the battle field from view 7 or 8 (way high up). BUT I find the Best way to determine where the enemy units are and what is happening at the moment of first contact is to watch the movie for the first time from view 8 and then zoom in later and replay the movie. As it is now there are different sizes of the sqaures bases, a Platoon HQ and a infantry squad and a tank, all have different SIZES of bases that are easily distingusihable from view 8. Would it be possible to code, say circles and ovals and rectangles and triangle bases, (all roughly the same size, just with a different SHAPES) to represent little fiddly units like jeeps and kubel wagons and Platoon HQ's and Mortors and Flame throwers and HMG's ? Has anyone seen or heard this suggestion before? I suppose the first thing some might say s DON'T look from view 8 and/or this is NOT really an aspect of the interface the needs attention because if you look at the battlefield from view 3,4, or even over head 5 you can easily see what's what and who is where, BUT from view 8 I would like to see different SHAPES to represent different classes of units. I'm happy with all tanks being on uniform sized bigger square, but maybe SP arty could be a big rectangle or oval or something else. Just my one small suggestion for CM2 .... (I don't think this one has been mentioned before, but it has I have never seen it discussed or any feedback from BTS on it) Thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Tom, threads from the old forum are present in the new forum. Simply copy the URL for a current thread, and replace the number with that of the original thread. As such: should we be able to see so much?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great! Thanks David A! I bumped it for fun -tom w

bump just for fun since we are now disccusing Relative spotting and it implementation in CM2. -tom w

Here is an old post from Steve that is sort of relevant: "Big Time Software Moderator posted 04-21-2000 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).]

this is also a GREAT thread! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003938-2.html (but we can post to it to bump it anymore ) -tom w [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

what a GREAT thread! time for a Bump! -tom w

tomorrow is the anniversary of D-Day June 6 I think he was hinting that he, (or some body) wanted to release some mods (maybe it was those Normandy Building mods) on the D-Day anniversary. Anyone else remember those hints? -tom w [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: I was under the impression that relative spotting would be impossible to do within the confines of the CM1 engine, but now it turns out that in a recent magazine article (Computer Games - July) BTS has said it WILL be included. I would be very interested in knowing a few more details about this. The only way I could see it being accomplished is that a unit has a knowledge only of units it, or perhaps its HQ, has personally seen. This would mean that on the battlefield, even though you click on "Anti-tank?" unit, your nearby tank would not be able to target it, for it is buttoned and has not (yet!) been introduced. I can't wait to find out just how its done, but that is the only method I can tell. One other way would be (oh this is good) when you select a unit, only enemy units IT has confirmed will show up, but when you have no selected unit, then you would see ALL spotted enemy units. Edit#1 I meant to have a question mark at the end of the topic so it didn't sound like "Yeah, well so what." Edit#2 You're the greatest, Deanco! [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IS this TRUE!??? Can someone confirm this? Relative Spotting for CM2 ???? now that would be HUGE! But I agree with Deanco, I'm sure most of us are puzzled here since the player (supreme God Like Commander) will somehow eventually have to know and see everything his/her units can see and identify and as Deanco says, simply direct the appropriate units to respond in the appropriate way to the new discovered threat. BUT if they did relative spotting with an Iron Man or Extreme FOW setting then that could be VERY interesting, that WOULD change everything, so I wonder what new surprises they have in store for us. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Whereas in CM, Stuarts and M-8s routinely hit targets 500 meters away while the shooters are moving, which is not in the least believable. The difference, of course, is the gun is pointing every which way as a vehicle bounces over uneven ground, so it is not just a question of distance moved, but direction pointed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree completely. I have used the M8 Greyhound and the Stuart and they hit on the run (FAST) VERY well. Problably unrealistically well while traveling fast over uneven terrain in the heat of battle while being shot at. I would encourage Steve and Charles to look at this issue for CM2 I don't know much at all about Russian or German versions or weapon's systems analogous to the Allied Gyrostabilizer but if either nation has such a secret weapon I hope it is not modeled like the Allied Gyrostabilizer in the Stuart and Sherman, that gizmo ALMOST seems to ADD chance to hit percentages while the tank is moving making it seemingly easier to get a hit while on the move than standing still. This is issue was brought up and debated long ago and Steve and Charles have told us they had some source of actual historically accurate test fire data on which they used to model the behaviour and chance to hit percentages of the Allied Gyrostabilizer. So this issue has been debated a great deal some time ago. I am still of the opinion that Allied units with gyrostabilizers have an unrealistically high chance to hit percentage while moving modeled in the game based on the questionable advantage the gryostabilizer is alledged to have afforded the Allied tank crews (if they did not disable the device as some here have suggested was the routine practice of most tank crews) (to be fair it has also been suggested here that some BIG General Liek Patton or somebody gave a universal order that ALL tanks in his command were to have fully functioning gyrostabiliers before entering combat, and that all disabled units were to be fixed and functional before combat) Anyway lets see how this is dealt with in CM2, but generally there should be a MUCH larger penalty in the chance to hit percentage modeled for tanks on the move. -tom w

Thats GREAT news! I plan to order the book. But I'm sorry I have to Ask: what is "76mm APCBC" that is not the tungsten (t) we use in CMBO is it? I thought 76 mm tungsten was HVAP High Velocity Armour Piercing but "76mm APCBC"? Armour Piercing commonweath ballistic core? Armour Piercing cannon ball crackers? Armour Piercing cupola busting cannisters? just curious you know thanks -tom w

This is Largely an issue for the Meeting Engagement that mostly everyone favours because it is considered most fair for both sides. But the other result of this might be the then BOTH sides would RUSH the flag right off the opening turn and the 'last man standing' would get the lion's share of the victory points by sitting on the flag until the end. I think is it an issue to be looked at, but in terms of game balance and how this might or might not effect attack and defend scenarios it may not be an ideal solution and may be too simplistic, or too difficult to implement fairly. As has already been suggested here I think a better way to deal with this issue is the variable ending turn like in the CAL Wine tourney for example 25 turns +/- 4 turns so the game could end on turn 21 or turn 29. -tom w [ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]