aka_tom_w

Here's the Read Me http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/THCAL.shtml If you are interested in this please vote here: http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/Vote.shtml (only seems to work in IE) Here are Abbott's proposals: (from the Read Me) Tournamenthouse Combined Arms League Format (for NEW Ladder) 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 league 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 105mm caliber. 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 ©. 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. Whatever rules you choose to play by just be sure your opponent agrees with all of them before starting the battle. Proper communication beforehand is the key to enjoyable League play. Thank you to Fionn Kelly for the original ideas and for most of the above data. SO?? What do you think if you prefer to play in a NEW ladder with historical units, and these new restrictions, please vote for the new ladder. Thanks to Abbott for initiating this proposal and getting this ladder up and running. Now ALL you have do to is VOTE! -tom w

HEY! Lewis are you really trying to get the SECOND Good MG thread locked??! I mean really it would be a shame to see this thread locked because you keep antagonizing Steve. I'm not just sticking up for Steve, I'm very sure he has done and will do a fine job of that for him self. I'm just compelled to comment because this once interesting thread, with insightful and well informed posts from folks here with actual infantry military experience, has now more recently become a showcase for Lewis to sling mud at Steve. And thats a SHAME! If I was a moderator (ha!) which I'm NOT I would politely request that Steve and Lewis no longer reply to each other's posts. This is somewhat problematic here as Lewis, (as of this writting) currently has the last word. I will be very sorry to see this thread locked because Lewis provoked Steve, and Steve continues to reply to Lewis. I think that would be very unfortunate if this thread was locked down at this point. I thought there was a very good contribution my many folks here earlier in the thread that was very interesting and informative for me to read. oh well..... I tried -tom w [ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrcobbler: The scene: 1st turn as Brits, ME, moving to take a small town. Moved a beloved Cromwell up beside a small bldg in first 30 secs, now set up nice and tight waiting for his Pz IV to come down the far road. Sure enough, here he comes, fast as a bat-out-of-H... Cromwell lines up a shot and misses. OK. Pz IV shoots wildly and misses, still coming fast, 300 meters out. Crom misses again, OK, now Pz IV shoots again on the dead run, kills the Crom totally! Is this just my bad luck, or should I have more respect for a full-speed Pz IV from now on? I understand the luck factor, but if this is a common occurrance I'll have to be more careful. Shoeman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Way BAD luck I would say I have been unsually successfull with Allied tanks (especially the M18) shooting on the fly, but have never had any good luck with German tanks while moving fast, I suspect the chance to hit while that Pz IV was moving fast may well been as low as 10% (JUST a guess there), but that still means that one time in ten is will get LUCKY and get a hit. Its chance to hit may have been higher than 10% I don't know, but most of us here would suggest that German tanks don't get good odds while attempting to shoot and hit on the move. I usually play the Allies so my comments are only the result of being on the recieving end of those shots. Any one here who plays the germans more often care to comment on the chance to get a hit from a Pz IV on a fast move? -tom w

Great Post Steve! I am VERY confident that you have a very good understanding of the MG issue (Doh! I guess so you designed the damn game !, poking fun at myself ) and I'm very supportive of your suggestions to attempt to deal with the problem in CM2. Again I am hopeful that CMBO will not be totally abandoned and might also benefit from the same MG fix as is coded into CM2. (not likely I guess, BUT we can hope ) Thanks again for the dialogue and comments in this thread, lets hope it stays positive and constructive with the emphasis on suggestions for IMPROVEMENTS and solutions that might work well in CM2. -tom w [ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chuckle: in a pbem i've just started my opponent drove a truck at high speed along a central road, thru my defenses. my dug-in defenders were all hiding but i had failed to give ambush orders - (doh ), so they systematically popped up and targeted the speeding truck, however only one unit actually fired, so, will my opponent have spotted my now unhidden yet unfiring troops? there aren't any other enemy units in los (i hope!), and my troops all have cover of some sort. sorry if this has been discussed at length, but search is broke. ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> using a truck like this has been defined as VERY gamey (not that, that is a bad thing.. its just gamey) that said, and gamey/no-gamey issues aside... I believe the game was changed before V1.12 to make the spotting ability of any fast moving vehicle next to none. I guess its actually only gamey if it exploits a loophole in the game code. I suspect this recon Truck suicide joy ride will not exploit any loopholes as the truck should die quick and not see much because it is going FAST. Move your guys and hide them just to be safe and blow up that nosey, bloody truck ASAP! You should be ok I suspect the intel he gets will not be that usefull to him (or her, are Cm chicks that Gamey? somehow I doubt it) -tom w [ 04-20-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 04-20-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: I agree with Jeff (oops, did I say that? ). I have often thought that this would make the game more realistic. This is especially applicable to assault type scenarios. I would love to see FOW applied to terrain type too (sorta dynamic terrain hehe), that would really set the cat amongst the pigeons <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I REALLY like the idea of dynamic terrain type. As Simon suggests maybe FOW could be extended to terrain features. I think that would be great. I think that implies that you you don't know EXACTLY what all the features of the map look like until you have one of your units recon the area. I would really like to see something like this incorporated in CM2 but it may be somthing more likely to make it into CM II (Roman number two, the NEXT generation game engine overhaul) -tom w [ 04-20-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I'm actually "The Boss" and I do what ever I want all day at work. (or not?) -tom w

oops [ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck: Another thing I like about the idea is that it will tend to break up lines of advancing infantry. This is something neither the current run command nor the proposed assault will do, generally, unless fire is heavy enough to almost completely break up the attack. With the current system a line of infantry tends to arrive as a line, giving them more coordination than they probably deserve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this completely!!! "With the current system a line of infantry tends to arrive as a line, giving them more coordination than they probably deserve" Good point Rushing infantry do tend to stay in a line, I would like to see at least some of them be forced to go to ground when assualting any MG over an expanse of open terrain. -tom w And of course (while this has not really been discussed I would like to see ALL these great changes some how retro fitted and compatible with CMBO which is still a GREAT game and I for one Prefer the Post D-Day ETO as one of the MOST interesting theatres and periods of the war. (but thats jsut my personal opinion).I'm getting a VERY good feeling that if Steve and Charles successfully execute all their new GREAT ideas that they have hinted about here, in CM2 it will be ONE heck of a GREAT sequel!!!! Thanks for all the hints and insights. So far the tweaks proposed by Steve to the "Rush the MG position over open terrain" problem should really positive and effective at dealing with what is now a well defined and known "issue". -tom w

got it! Great Thanks!! Very nice Mod -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: Anyway I wouldn't frett over CM2 too much as I've heard rumor that CM2 will have around 4 times the graphical detail as CMBO. Just a rumor mind you -Tiger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right ON!!!! "I've heard rumor that CM2 will have around 4 times the graphical detail as CMBO" Only a rumour I know...... but that sounds GREAT!! -tom w [ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: I think the best solution to the problem (and the easiest) is to make "running" more dangerous and allow firing units to switch targets more rapidly and fire more bursts if they are in close contact. I think these changes should apply to all units not just MG teams. That would solve most of what people have complained about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That sounds good to me. Especially this part: "the best solution to the problem (and the easiest) is to make "running" more dangerous and allow firing units to switch targets more rapidly and fire more bursts if they are in close contact. I think these changes should apply to all units not just MG teams" Yes to swithing targets with automatic weapons more rapidly and yes to "go for broke" more bursts if they are in close contact. That should just about do it. IMHO BUT, those delightful cheap VG SMG squads that are assaulting will still benefit as well if they are now in close contact it will be a MUCH bloodier fight as the attacker and can ALSO "go for Broke" and unload the magazine in one turn. Works both ways I guess -tom w

just a follow up is this beauty ready for release yet? If so where is it available for downlowd? Thanks Nice work -tom w

I thought thats EXACTLY what the scenario breifings were for? Are you requesting scenario briefings for QBs? Now that's not a bad idead but a little tricky to get the AI to write a breifing with just the right amount of intel. I would like to seem some briefings with WRONG in intel, just plain outdated or old wrong info about what you are heading into? just my quick thoughts -tom w

last time this came up I think someone guessed or there was a hint of a rumour that the figures were something like 4:1 That is 4 PC sales for every Mac Sale There is only one CD with BOTH pieces of software on it so it is hard o knwo for sure but I think Mac players make aobut about 20-25% of the total players of CMBO. But thats just a guess, it may be an edcauted guess because I thought I rememebered reading the 4:1 figure on this board here somewhere posted by some one who I thought knew what they were talking about. I know that's pretty "loose" but thats all I've got -tom w

I'm sure there will be a balance struck between eye candy and great graphics and game play and historical reality. I have every expectation that BTS will find the right balance here that will make CM2 even more successful than CMBO. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Tom wrote: quote: So I think that if grazing fire is modeled as a firepower combat result impacting infantry units nearby the targeted unit then grazing fire should ALSO be a firepower combat result impacting units in close (10-15 meters?) proximity to the MG that is firing. I am not sure we are understanding each other. Currently, from I don't know what version (1.0?), a MG has a simulated Grazing Fire effect. This basically applies the firepower of the MG to units imediately around (front, side, rear) of the targeted unit. You can see this in the game now, and is in fact what allowed the two MMGs in the above example to pop at least 7 of the 8 rushing units. We also allow MGs to switch targets more easily than other units, which also sorta simulates Grazing Fire. Range is irrelevant to the area effect thing, but I am pretty sure it does increase target switching as range decreases. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve I think I understand the way you have explained grazing fire as having a sort of collateral effect or impact on other infantry units nearby the targeted infantry unit. (is that correct?) My suggestion was to have the same form of grazing fire effect or impact on all non-targeted units in the open advancing on the MG position once they get within ~10-15m of it if the MG was targeting a more distant unit, I think that MG's usually target the closest unit so maybe this is not a big deal. Also your suggestion for the enhanced, "go for Broke" (expend all rounds) MG protocol would probably work better than the suggestion to try to apply the impact of grazing fire on ALL opposing units close (10-15m) to the MG position. I think that those suggestions you posted earlier will generate the desired result which I think we all agree is to make the multi unit "bum Rush" or running assualt against MG positions over open terrain a great deal less effective than it currently is. Thanks!! -tom w [ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Steve writes: "So imagine this situation where the Attacker has a reduced cover rating and ability to keep on going inspite of enemy fire. Hopefully you can see that without ANY changes to MGs the proposed changes to Run will do a whole lot all by itself. Toss in "go for broke" MG fire and possibly an increase in our current simulation of Grazing Fire (spreading out fire to nearby units) and I think we might be all set, but it is too soon to say one way or the other." I would like to suggest that if grazing fire is abstracted in the game as "simulation of Grazing Fire (spreading out fire to nearby units)" (I'm assuming grazing fire is to impact units nearby the "targeted" unit) that we should suggest if grazing fire has NOTHING to do with units that are intersecting the actual LOF then grazing fire should ALSO be applied to non-targeted units in close proximity to the MG, if it could be determined that they were generally "in front" of the MG. This is assuming they are in the open and they are rushing to assault the MG position. So I think that if grazing fire is modeled as a firepower combat result impacting infantry units nearby the targeted unit then grazing fire should ALSO be a firepower combat result impacting units in close (10-15 meters?) proximity to the MG that is firing. In this way the firepower of the MG could impact multiple units which is important in the solution to this problem as it is the multiple unit RUSH in the open, that is the problem here, I think. -tom w [ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Great Post Steve! I'm sure some realistic solution to this issue will evolve with CM2. In my opinion it will have to, otherwise the "hords" of russians will ALWAYS win by using the RUSH against MG's. I think this is an especially sensitive issue for the Russian front, (Side note, My old wargemer buddies ALWAYS stuck me with defending with the Russians in World In Flames, or that "other" BIG WW II boardgame game, as they wanted to prove over and over again that a competent Dicotator could have excuted Barbarossa successfully and won the Eastern Front) as the Russians were known to have lots and lots of manpower and soldiers if NOTHING else, so this issue of dealing with the multiple unit assault rush MUST be dealt with in some realistic way or the Russians with all their "extra" manpower will always RUSH to take out emeny MG positions and it will always work. I'm sure Steve and Charles are on the right track and I'm sure at some point there will be a CM2 Beta release and I bet it will have at least one scenario that will let us test the new "anti MG rush protocol" with the changes Steve has mentioned. Keep up the Good work BTS!!! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agua: Would anyone be willing to try testing out various units under varying conditions so that we could compile a movement/distance table? When we publish the thing, everyone who contributed will be credited. Don't you think this would be a pretty neat tool to have? Nothing elaborate, just take all foot and armour units and determine the distance it can travel in varying terrain under varying conditions. It's really a huge undertaking for just one or two people, but if, perhaps 20 or so folks got together, we could put the thing together. I've got a standard map downloaded from the CM Mapcase site that is fairly small and has about every physical feature in it you could imagine. If anyone is interested in trying to do this, just post here or e-mail me (agua@bellsouth.net), and I'll see about assigning groups of units. Thanks all, Agua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi It might take less time to search this board for that info. I think I have seem some "research" posted some time ago that listed some of the times and distances you are trying to determine. I'm not sure what key word I would use to search. anyone else remember seeing this info posted here a long time ago? -tom w

I play CMBO on a G3 Mac laptop ALL the time with FULL Hi res mods at 1024x768 I think it uses 8 megs of build in VRAM and there is an ATI Rage video card in it. It looks GREAT and runs FAST and smooth with full besutiful smoke graphics and fog. The Laptop is 400 mHz and has 192 megs of ram, and CMBO 1.12 runs with every mod I can get my hands on NO problem. -tom w

A VERY similiar test result was posted here on the board a LONG time ago and there is also one on the board here somewhere that gives the distance you can see through tall pines, scattered trees and woods, ( i.e. how deep into the woods you have to be to NOT be spotted. But I'm not sure where that post is. Thanks for the LOS list that is very informative. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: snip.. Here's a quote from an article on GameSpy: "Anyone willing to plunk down the money for a high-end computer in order to pursue their hobby is obviously going to demand the best from a game's designer -- stunning graphics, engaging sounds, and tight and compelling gameplay" This brings up another issue: many of us who play CM are gamers, not just wargamers, and to enjoy hardcore games you need a powerful system, for hardcore flight sims for instance, or for many other genres. Sure, many CM players have older, weaker systems, but for the many of us who have powerful systems, we'd like to see the CM games take full advantage of them--that's what scalability is for. Graphics are a part of and enhance gameplay. It's not an either/or issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree completely with this statment: "Anyone willing to plunk down the money for a high-end computer in order to pursue their hobby is obviously going to demand the best from a game's designer -- stunning graphics, engaging sounds, and tight and compelling gameplay". OK so we are demanding. Many here have upgraded their systems since getting CMBO. High Quality 3D graphics should be expected and requested in CM2. I would like to say that when I say "eye candy" and great graphics I mean MORE 3D models of MORE buildings. We KNOW that the textures will all be modded after the game is released anyway and MANY of the modified textures will be MUCM nicer than the orinignals that came with the game, that is a GIVEN. But What I am requesting is MORE attention to wider vareity of 3D models that we can mod textures for later. More things like Houses, buildings, industrial complexes, storage depots, factories, airports, sea ports and say 5-7 different kinds of house and another 5-7 different kinds of 4 story buildings, at least two different styles of church perhaps.how about buildings that show 3-4 stages of damage and destruction as they turn to rubble. lets not forget a request for WAY better 3D rubble to be modeled. Different kinds of fences, high ones and low wire ones. I mean things like L shape buildings, and more fine detail on the 3D models. How about things like tanks leaving tracks in the snow? (It happens now in Flashpoint 1985) I would like to praise and congradulate ALL the modders for the fine work in CMBO. I look forward to new mods for CM2, what I think we should be lobbying for is more 3D models to mod up after the game is released, AND maybe even ONE terrain tile that we can code and program and mod into a special terrain tile. If such a "magical" terrain tile was available for CMBO it could have been modded and coded up for a beach tile, (as it is now most folks are using Wheat to similate beach tiles ) I think it we can assume that the community of modders here will make the game look great with new textures AFTER it is release, what we need are more 3D "things" in the game to mod IMHO. -tom w [ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: My main concern in this area is that CM2 will be, by all accounts, evolutionary, not revolutionary. A large amount of the attention CM received in the press was because of its revolutionary design. It's always tough to follow up on a masterpiece with a sequel. (Not to mention the "sophomore jinx.") A related concern is graphics: we hear they'll be improved over CM, but frankly I doubt they'll compare to the best of last fall's games graphically, let alone the ones that will be out this fall. Graphics do matter, particularly in a game that thrives on its 3D battlefield and free camera. And for those who always say it's too hard to represent lots of units on screen at once, check out games like Serious Sam or Sacrifice for proof otherwise. Read up on the polys they'll be able to push with the Unreal II engine. More examples abound. Still, I can't wait for CM2! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this and I DON'T Think it is unfair to suggest that HIGH quality graphics and serious EYE candy of the Caliber of Flashpoint 1985 should be something we would like to see in CM2. We likely WON'T because we will be told that Flashpoint 1985 is a FPS. BUT if Flashpoint 1985 can display that kind of detail and those kinds of framerates on today's "average" consumer computer hardware, they have set a NEW standard in what looks good in a Wargame, and all we have seen so far is the DEMO! but Oh My God does it ever look NICE! I would like to see WAY more High quality graphics and eye candy in CM2 but never at the expense of historical accuracy, no, but indeed, to compliment it. It will be interesting to see what CM2 looks like, I think we can safely assume it WILL be historically accurate and it will play VERY well, given BTS' record of stellar success with CMBO! -tom w [ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by audace: Thanks everybody for the nice comments! M Hofbauer: I know, very probably I'll eliminate the words on the side. Maybe they could be put in the front plate. I don't know about the confederate flag: should I remove it or not? Is it real illegal? Maximus: Yes I think that the hull is the same, so the turret bmps can be adapted to them. Michael Dorosh: Yes I think it's the same book! I have the italian "version" of it and it's called: "Storia dei mezzi Corazzati - I primi anni di guerra 1940-1943" (History of the AFVs - The first years of war, '40/'43) The authors are the same. The book is very good, and has some very interesting pictures of WW2 tanks, and yes the T34 and the T70 are exceptional! Maybe I'll use them in CM2 I really didn't do anything special, I tried to change shadows and little details, the rest is the same. I'll finish the MOD today and will send it to Manx tonight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Please keep the Rebel Cross, it could, realistically, be considered historically accurate. I can't wait to download that Mod and I want a copy of that GREAT book about tanks in WW II Thanks again! -tom w [ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]