aka_tom_w

oops [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMHPaladin: Thanks a lot for those resources, they are excellent. I'm also looking for anything that shows individual bunker positions along a shorter stretch, like maybe a sector-sized area. Anyone have that? Thanks guys, I really appreciate you taking the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again Try these: http://www2.cons.org:8000/history/maps1/ VERY detailed maps showing guns, bunkers houses and fortifications. download the Hi Res zipped files and open them up and look in the blwon up sections. they are VERY detailed. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck: Am I incorrect in assuming that LOS checks are happening in great multitudes during resolution?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Wreck I believe you are incorrect. I say this because it is my understanding that LOF and fire affects units even when they move out of LOS. During the calculation or the "crunch" combat resolution firepower factors and hit/not hit and AFV penetration results are caculated against targets that may be out of LOS, this why some here complain that some rounds from tanks GO straight through buildings AFTER the AFV has moved into the LOS shadow. I'm not sure about MG and small arms fire, but I suspect there is NO LOS check during the crunch when AFV's fire rounds at a target that did have LOS at the begining of the turn and then moves out of LOS early in the 1 minute turn. (I remember this as Steve has theorized and posted his thoughts about an additional LOS check after the round is fired to see if the target is still in LOS, this after fire LOS check is not curently modeled for rounds fired from AFVs against other AFV that move out of LOS). -tom w [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: why do they call their tank TIRIPS ATNALTA FO ??? :-p<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 'caus they are "Good Ole Boys" from the south and the name is the Spirit of Atlanta. -tom w [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Adam Lloyd: Steve, Can you just program it to affect everyone in the orange "area fire" line, rather than simply at the end of that line? In effect, a very long "corridor" area target order. (Hope I'm being clear here) There would be no need to trace the individual bullets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is EXACTLY what the game engine does not do. ("affect everyone in the orange "area fire" line, rather than simply at the end of that line?"). From everything Steve has said this is VERY CPU intensive and it has been stated by Steve and Chrales this would take far too long for the "average" cpu to crunch or correctly compute the result of combat to correctly determine all units that intersect all LOF's in the game. As it is now there is no intersecting fire in the game. Main Weapons of tanks fire straight thru friendly and enemy AFV's (and Pillboxes and bunkers and Roadblocks and sometimes even Houses ) that are not buring and are not targeted, BECAUSE the action of the shot is ONLY calcuated against the intended target, not what may lie inbetween. The Line of Fire of an HMG is NOT a stream of bullets or a wall of death, not at all, only the area targeted or the unit targeted "feels" the effect of the HMG firepower on it. (in the form of a combat resolution result inflicted on the target). So obviously walking or running throught the LOF of an HMG is not problem at all (i.e. there is no effect) if the HMG is already targeting a more distant unit, becaue there are no real bullets in that Line of Fire. And yes, Steve has said this is an issue and it is a VERY difficult problem to resolve realistically in the game. -tom w

nice touch the Rebel Cross on the turret is your mod from a picture? Great Job! I will use this one for sure! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Martin Cracauer: http://www2.cons.org:8000/history/maps1/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW Great Map site for Omaha Beach, I have been searching all weekend for such a GOOD map on the internet and never came across this page. THANKS! -tom w

This is likely as good a thread as any to find a "good" opponent in. I like to play as well and have had one similiar experience to the one you posted. I'm registered on the T-house ladder but have not played any ladder games yet. I'm not sure why I registered as it sort of seems lke "power gamers" congregate there and the games "sound" like they are so competitive, especially with gamey uber tanks and SMG squad purchases that I'm not sure that is the kind of game I'm looking for I like to play games to win, ofcourse, I think everyone does, but not with "gamey" buys, or gamey, use the "The System" unit combinations. I have however used ahistorical tactics and some times might use what some refer as "gamey" tactics, but I prefer canned scenarios and historical force compositions. I am looking forward to having more time to play shortly. Mannheim Tanker and myself have a game scheduled for next sunday PM EST. I can't wait . I'm sorry to hear of your recent disapointment, I'm sure you will be duely credited with the win, Congrats! -tom w [ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: This thread (and the several other like-themed threads that have popped up recently) all stem from the single abstraction that is the heart of the CM combat system (at least for infantry weapons): It's based on point-to-point Firepower Factors. One MMG (or squad) can only target a single other unit (albeit a vehicle, gun, squad, whatever) and then expends the entirety of it's FP against that single unit. Rather unrealistic, granted, but for simplicity of coding's sake, it had to be done. If we're talking major re-coding --- which is what re-doing the HMG effects would result in --- why not apply it to all infantry weapons. My suggestion would be to make it possible to split available FP factors among whatever targets are within said units firing arc (say 90 deg. arc forward). Your single squad of 150 FP's being rushed by a full platoon? Allocate 50 FP pts to each attacker --- or 150 to one of 'em. Obviously this splitting of FP's would have to be limited by the number of men left (hard for 1 man to split fire three ways), so it would be necessary to code the effects of each individual weapon. Very time consuming (coding-wise), and rather micro-managment intensive (player-wise). Something similar could be done for HMG's: Have an Area Fire command, where you set the arc, and all targets in said arc receive a base percentage of the available FP's from that gun. 3 targets recieve 33% each, or 4 recieve 25%, etc --- with the FP percentage adjusted by cover, movement, distance, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> GREAT POST This is exactly what I was trying to say and I thank von Lucke for his eloquence and insight, in stating the problem. I'm not sure I support the suggested solution, as it is still an abstraction of sorts. I like what Lewis had to say about this one: "I dont understand your delayed exposure suggestion and think its a bad abstraction. You seem to think that realistic grazing fire (calling it uberweaponry) will ruin your playtime? Sorry bud but its realism I want not bad abstractions. MGs hold ground and thats a fact. Having an MG engage targets that are in a narrow covered arc in quick succesion is NOT the same as just raising the FP value. Actually, its something that BTS might consider. I hope they do and dont go into bad abstractions like time warps or slow motion grounding of units. " I'm concerned this situation will get worse if an even more complicated abstraction is layered on the problem of firepower being targeted against only one opposing unit at a time. This is the issue with HMG's right here: "It's based on point-to-point Firepower Factors. One MMG (or squad) can only target a single other unit (albeit a vehicle, gun, squad, whatever) and then expends the entirety of it's FP against that single unit." In reality they do not JUST limit their firepower effect to one unit during a minute of real life combat action. The LOF "should" be an equally effective kill zone when ANY other units beside the one targeted pass through it. Thanks to von Lucke for the insightful description of the problem, at least the way I see it anyway. -tom w

I think the font is PERFECT now (IMHO) like the way it used to be Thanks -tom w

I'm not sure if your suggestions address the issue of "non-targeted" units moving through the LOF without taking casualities? If a MG position is advanced on by multiple units then the MG can only target one incoming unit at at time (I think) This makes the bum rush particularily effective. Again I would like to suggest that we focus on how the reality of MG fire is ABSTRACTED in the game. Don't forget the fact that in the game the MG's don't actually fire any bullets. As I understand it, what happens is the effect of their role or action is calculated on a narow ONE target area OR just one opposing unit. They have a firepower factor (they don't shoot bullets) and that factor is calculated as an effect on the unit the MG is targeting. So what I think we are saying is that the effect calculated is limited in that it happens to only one squad at a time AND some here would say the way the effect of the firepower of an MG is modeled on its ONE target, is NOT leathal enough, especially at close range. Is this issue not identical to that fact that tanks fire right through other tanks both friendly and enemy to have the EFFECT of the result of a fired shot calculated ONLY on the target intended? What (I think?) we want is for MG bullets to spray over an area, or cut down multiple squads with grazing fire at the knees. Many folks here are talking about how REAL MG's work in real combat. So my point is as long as the abstracted effect if MG fire is ONLY calculated against one target or one squad, rushing on MG with multiple squads will ALWAYS be effective as I have never seen an MG in this game attempt to effect abstracted injury from firing "bullets" at mulitple squads in one turn. I have seen the diagrams here with mulitple squads and mulitple parallel MG bullet paths, but as I understand it, there is no effect on other squads in the LOF if they are not actually being targeted by the MG. There are no bullets flying out of those abstracted MG's ONLY project abstracted "firepower" ratings which are calculated against ONE target or one small area, so that any unit "non-targeted unit" in the LOF will not be affected at all. I think we are being told that "grazing fire" is somehow abstracted, but I have never seen the effect on an MG on a squad in the LOF if a more distant squad is actually being targeted. Am I way off base on this one? Or have other folks seen mulitple squads in the LOF of a MG receive fire and injuries from one one MG in a turn? -tom w

I would prefer a larger font size like it was before. One size up from this one would be great I think. Thanks The colours Look GREAT Good Work Matt! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: You could try Patrick Ware's two minicampaigns. One is called No Rest for the Weary and the other is called Any Port in A Storm. Each of these are a series of scenarios designed to be played in that sequence... No Rest is 8 battles and Any Port is 6 or 7, I think. They are designed to be played in sequence, are hypothetical but follow the "exploits of the U.S. 79th Division and its attempts to break free of the Cotentin Peninsula during early July 1944," to quote Mr. Ware's readme file. Now, this may not be precisely what you are looking for, but when I played them I was struck by the amazing attention to detail of the forces and maps and the briefings as well. Playing them, I got that feeling of continuity and storyline. If you want them, and can't find them on any of the scenario sites, let me know at the email in my profile, and Ill send them your way. I have the zip files on my computer. Albest, Terence PS. The ONLY downside to playing these (and I have to say, they rank up there with the best scenarios Ive ever played) is that when they are done you want more, there aren't any others, and they take a long time to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where can I find these? They sound VERY interesting Thanks Any website links someone can post? -tom w

Again I would like to suggest that we focus on how the reality of MG fire is ABSTRACTED in the game. Don't forget the fact that in the game the MG's don't actually fire any bullets. As I understand it, what happens is the effect of their role or action is calculated on a narow ONE target area OR just one opposing unit. They have a firepower factor (they don't shoot bullets) and that factor is calculated as an effect on the unit the MG is targeting. So what I think we are saying is that the effect calculated is limited in that it happens to only one squad at a time AND some here would say the way the effect of the firepower of an MG is modeled on its ONE target, is NOT leathal enough, especially at close range. Is this issue not identical to that fact that tanks fire right through other tanks both friendly and enemy to have the EFFECT of the result of a fired shot calculated ONLY on the target intended? What (I think?) we want is for MG bullets to spray over an area, or cut down multiple squads with grazing fire at the knees. Many folks here are talking about how REAL MG's work in real combat. So my point is as long as the abstracted effect if MG fire is ONLY calculated against one target or one squad, rushing on MG with multiple squads will ALWAYS be effective as I have never seen an MG in this game attempt to effect abstracted injury from firing "bullets" at mulitple squads in one turn. I have seen the diagrams here with mulitple squads and mulitple parallel MG bullet paths, but as I understand it, there is no effect on other squads in the LOF if they are not actually being targeted by the MG. There are no bullets flying out of those abstracted MG's ONLY project abstracted "firepower" ratings which are calculated against ONE target or one small area, so that any unit "non-targeted unit" in the LOF will not be affected at all. I think we are being told that "grazing fire" is somehow abstracted, but I have never seen the effect on an MG on a squad in the LOF if a more distant squad is actually being targeted. Am I way off base on this one? Or have other folks seen mulitple squads in the LOF of a MG receive fire and injuries from one one MG in a turn? This is an interesting thread and I have learned a great deal about MGs from keeping up with it. Thanks to all who have posted. -tom w

I have also noticed the search function does not work. There are at least of few of us here that actually use the search function. I think search function did not survive the latest "upgrade". -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Homba: I agree with Colonel. It would even be nice to fire a few HE shells into TWO houses during one turn, than being forced to fire at one house for the entire turn. Ammo conservation must have been taken into consideration sometimes. Why not allow multiple area-fire commands (smoke or HE), and have the unit switch off between them unit the end of the round? I have always found it quite limiting to have to use ~1/5 of my HE load on a single house for recon-by-fire purposes. A pause before area-firing helps... multiple area-targeting would also help. This way you could spread five or six shells down a woodline, instead of being forced to put them all in one place. Homba<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well at the risk of being accused of even furether micromanagement I too would welcome these changes.... "Why not allow multiple area-fire commands (smoke or HE), and have the unit switch off between them unit the end of the round? snip A pause before area-firing helps... multiple area-targeting would also help. This way you could spread five or six shells down a woodline, instead of being forced to put them all in one place." It would be nice to target each round while were at it, and how about... "One smoke round here 2 HE into that house and another smoke round over there..." I'm not being sarcasitic, but it will boil down to a request for players to micromanage where each and every round (of differing types) is fired and when that happens. So if this discussion continues it would not surprise me to have others here agree that it would be wonderful to select what ammo you want, when you want to fire it and be able to fire it with surgical prescision, all within one minute at multiple targets. It would be nice to specify "secondary" armour targets. Meaning, shoot AP at this AFV until it is dead then immediately target THIS AFV over there and shoot at it until it is dead. I think we should be mindful of our micromanagement requests, BUT, sure, like some other folks here I too would welcome and enjoy using MORE micromanagement tools. (this request of course could be complimented with the 'rotate turret independent of hull order' request) Comments? -tom w [ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I would prefer a BIGGER font size as well. font=1 is too small I would note that it looks different on a Mac in Communicator and in Expplorer. I can make the font bigger in Explorer but not in Communicator. Try IE it might let you set the font bigger in the browser, it works but it doesn't work in Communicator. Thanks -tom w

I'm 1515 now BUT I used to be a LOW number less than 1000 until I had to reregister because I corrupted my user profile by attempting to FORCE a post when the server was crashing or crashed or was acting up. So I had to re-register and loose my LOW number, OH well, 1515 is still "sort-of " low -tom w

I agree with MarkIV I hope they have sold ALOT more than 5500 copies. If they have gone out of stock twice and (pure speculation on my part) and IF the first run was 1000 units, then IF the next run was 5000 units then IF the next run was 10,000 units they should be OVER 6000 units in sales and I would guess close to (if not OVER) 10,000 units by now with plenty left over in the warehouse. ALL that is PURE speculation on my part. But I sure hope they have sold alot MORE than 5500 copies. They deserve to be hugely wealthy and successfull! -tom w [ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Looks Great Now -tom w

perhaps I am mistaken but I don't think you can "area target" to a place that you do not have LOS to. It just won't stick? It a good Idea and a GREAT workaround but it you cannot target (with a Tank) for the purpose of firing smoke, to a place you do not have LOS to. Anyone else? I agree that is it micro-management, but so are most other things we do in the game so I don't think it is such a bad request. The BTS answer might have something to do with FOW and how this fine degree of control and cordination you are seeking was not historically availabe on the ETO WWII battlefield. Maybe it was? I'm not a gorg and I don't know. But you are asking for a VERY finely co-ordinated combined arms manouver that may not be historically accurate? comments? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Windopaene: Well tom, I purposefully avoided the MG issue, as there is still some debate about that. I avoided the halftracks vs. inf issue, again, as there is, (was), debate about that. I guess I did forget the HE vs. unarmoured targets bug. The turret rotation command is not a bug but an enhancement, so I skipped that as well. I only put in things that are broken. Wasn't it you who stated that you'd be setting up your tanks to shoot through buildings until it was fixed? Guess I won't be playing you So there are several bugs that exist. Are they serious? Depends on your point of view I guess. Are players exploiting them? Apparently some are. How tough would they be to fix? hard to say without looking at the code, but I'd bet the PBEM change could be put in in one morning's work. The shooting through buildings might take a while to find the source of, but as it only appears in certain conditions, and can be reproduced, I'd bet Steve could find the "sweet spot" condition he described and code that bugger out. As for the smoke issue, well that's a TacAI issue, and might be the toughest of the lot, as I would guess the TacAI is some pretty gnarly code. Ditto for the HE vs. Unarmored vehicles issue. And yes, I'd pay for the PBEM fix alone...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes I do Shoot through buildings when I can. It doesn't always work but I play the game being constantly mindful that a shot straight through a building could be BOTH good for me and BAD for me. So I watch for them and Constantly check LOF for that Sweet spot) I just thought I would mention all the other issues folks here were complaining about. I'm actually getting used to the fact that it WON'T be patched. At least that way you can count on the game being stable and not changing any time soon. There is something to be said for the peace of mind you have knowing v1.12 is the final version. (Even if it is not perfect) It is STILL GREAT and I have the GREATEST respect for the Autosave Feature, no one here is complaining about having a game vanish as the result of a crash. ONe of the best things is that the Autosave ALWAYS saves the last game you were playing and this is ONE of the games BEST features. (TCP/IP is one of the game's other GREAT features!) -tom w

what are we currently complaining about now? LOS Straight Through Buildings? Smoke rounds firing without orders? MG's and HMG's that don't supress and aren't leathal enough. Improvement - Additional PBEM "segment" to allow for the use of "Computer Chooses" QBs without the possibility that the opponent is cheating by checking out your forces before sending it. HE firing at the Sd Kfz 7/2 37 mm with little effect. HE rounds that don't kill non armoured units and don't cause any crew casualities. and the seperate turret rotation order request so the turret can be ordered to rotate independant of the hull? Did I miss anything?. The coding alone to fix all those things should be SOLD by BTS as a disk you have to order because it would take so long to code all those fixes we "should" likely have to pay them for it. I doubt we will see those things ever fixed. Lets see how they deal with those issues in CM2. -tom w [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Apple's Mac OS X not only on time, but it's a true gem April 3, 2001 BY ANDY IHNATKO The world's coming to an end. Apple actually shipped a next-generation operating system, Mac OS X. Put big money on the Cubs to take the World Series, and pray that you collect before God turns off the lights. Apple began with a center of Mach, found at the core of almost all Unixes, including Linux. It's sort of like designing an airplane around a set of Rolls-Royce engines instead of trying to build your own from scratch: sophistication and reliability are built-in. Much of the underlying OS is also open-source, and people who like and understand the power of Unix can easily access Mac OS X's gears and grease. For all of X's (it's pronounced Ten) open-source heritage, though, most users will see its Unix underpinnings only when they notice that their Mac is now nearly crash-proof, and is much more efficient and agile in allocating memory and processor time to its apps. The Mac OS X still has, hands-down, the most sophisticated and elegant user-interface I've seen in an OS. Besides an overhaul of the finder, the most visible symbol of X's elegance and cleanliness is its new dock. In Windows and MacOS 9.1, docks are just places to park apps. This one is a mighty lightsaber. It rolls several different functions together, and they're all accessible through just clicking, clicking-and-holding, dragging something into or just simply looking at the thing. Operations that used to require a messy tangle of Windows and inscrutable little icons are now handled by an animated bar that, like a good butler, only appears when needed. Like everything else in X, it looks like a million bucks. The Aqua user-interface made a skeptical demo in January 2000, but after using Mac OS X intensively for a while, I can appreciate that these transparent and drop-shadowed and pulsating doo-dads are well-reasoned and not simple window-dressing. Enough breathless raving. Mac OS X is clearly a Version 1.0. It could still stand a lot of tweaking, and many new bugs are being discovered. Still, where the public beta (released last year) raised as much doubt as excitement, users are almost universally reacting to 1.0 as something we can all use and support, hoping for nothing more than a little fine-tuning. My only frustrations with X happened when I tried to make it do everything Mac OS 9.1 can. You have to remember that X was built brand-new from the ground up, and that for the most part, anything that wasn't written specifically for X just plain won't work. It's not so much of a problem where old apps are concerned (X bamboozles them into thinking it's 9.1, with great, if less-than-100-percent, success), but if you're relying on something that needs a device driver, you might be out of luck until the manufacturer produces an X-compatible version. Which will almost certainly happen. Some manufacturers never really supported the Mac in the first place and will use X as an excuse to cease further development. But they're the distinct minority. There's real excitement about Mac OS X, and every software and hardware manufacturer of any note has pledged its support. We should see the fruits of those promises by the end of the year. :confused: In the meantime, users will surely take advantage of Mac OS X's ability to optionally boot up as a straight version of 9.1. X can't be thought of as anything less than a success for Apple, but until the rest of the industry catches up with it, it's for early adopters only. I love it and use it regularly for real work. But I also love my USB printer and my Palm and watching movies on DVD, which is why I still spend most of my time in 9.1. Mac OS X isn't a home run, but it'll have the crowd on its feet. Think of me as the third-base coach holding you at the bag when you're tempted to dive for home. Andy Ihnatko writes about computer applications and issues, and can be contacted at andyi@world.std.com

I've been reading alot about cries of micromanagement lately. I have in the past suggested using the area target command with the co-ax MG in the turret to "get around" the problem of no turret rotate command, this is admititly a bodge or a kludge or a PITA depending on your nationality. I would also like to see a seperate turret rotate command. Then again I would ALSO like to see a target location on a tank that is the turret ring so that a hit could result in NO further turret rotation because it is JAMMED. I think there should be a hit result in CM2 that says "Turret ring: Turret Rotation disabled" There are some here who say that we can micro-manage EVERYTHING else except the turret rotation. I think a seperate rotate command for the turret in CM2 would be welcomed by MOST players here. It is NOT just "finer" micromanagement, it is in keeping with the rest of the degrees of mircomanagement already in the game.Examples of this are the 15 pause, the ability to rotate ANY unit it any direction you want, and setting up ambushes. Every order you give in this game is a form of micromanagement and the desire to give the order to rotate the turret in a seperate direction from the hull is no different. -tom w