aka_tom_w

Just slow them Down...... I think this point here is VERY well Made: "I think the best way to model this difference in current CM, would be to allow a "hug the earth" pin effect which would simply rewrite move orders, from Run to Walk, then to Crawl, when it happens during a turn resolution. This effect should almost never happen in buildings, sometimes in woods, frequently in open. The player could then, once per minute, revise the next waypoint from Crawl to Run, and hope for the best. The effect would be bursts of running with lesser rates of movement, which is what we want." Squads running full speed into MG fire is one of the issues here for sure. But don't forget the fact that in the game the MG's don't actually fire any bullets. NO, 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. -tom w [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

First off, I have never Fired a MG and I don't know anything about MG's or HMG's, (no military experience) so why would I comment here? I just wanted to mention that it seems to me that units like MG and HMG's specifically target one other unit at a time. OR if you give them and area target they stick to this area target and don't "hose" the entire length of a tree line for instance. I agree that there is something not entirely realistic happening here, but I think it is because the MG units target either a small area or ONE other opposing unit. I'm not sure but I have never seen a MG jump from target to target if being rushed by multiple units in a sinlge one minute turn. The "bum rush" or Mulitple infantry unit assault is VERY effective this way. I have used it effectively against the AI. If a large number of infantry units all rush a small area the opposining weapons cannot effectively target all the incoming rushing infantry units. (perhaps this is somewhat realistic) The point here as I understand it is that the HMG's in this game should be able to "hose" or Mow down multiple incoming rushing infantry units with MUCH great leathality than is currently modeled, because MG's don't "hose" the area with fire . Grazing fire is simulated, we are told but it does not seem all that effective. The issue here is that the bum rush is very effective against MG's because they seem to only be able to target one unit at a time. Is this the same issue as everyone else is talking about here or am I off topic? Thanks -tom w ITs STILL a GREAT game and I'm still very addicted, I enjoy TCP/IP games that BEST but I have not had much of a Chance to play lately.

yes,some nicer (dimmer ) colours would be appreciated. But it does seem to be quite quick, and zippy these work great !! _tom w [ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Couldn't agree more, hence this attempt to bring the matter to BTS's attention again. Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> from Steve: "Big Time Software Administrator Member # 42 posted 04-05-2001 04:52 PM A quick response... The main, overwhelming problem is not the vehicle itself but the whole issue of "Rarity". The fact is that they were quite deadly, but they were also hardly ever seen in a frontline battle type situation. At least not a pitched battle type environment like CM simulates. So putting even one of these flak weapons into a battle will produce results that will appear to be quite unrealistic when thinking about combat in an average sort of way. This is as true for flak vehicles as it is for any other rare, but potent, type of weapon. Putting large numbers of these weapons into place is just silly. It tells one nothing about how good or bad the modeling is. Put in 20 Jumbos and tell me how good PzIVs are, or 20 Jagdtigers and see how good Cromwells are, etc., etc. One can not make a totally unrealistic scenario and expect to learn anything about realism through its conclusions. Faulty logic from the get go. As for patches to CM1... there are none planned. Certainly none for the short term. We are full bore CM2 and that is not going to change. Constant tweaking and fixing of CM1 has already delayed us far more than we would have liked. No game can ever be perfect, so therefore there will always be "unfinished business" remaining. At some point a game has to be considered "done", and 1.12 is it. Might we issue a 1.13 sometime in the future? I don't know. It hasn't been rulled out, but we also have no plans for one. Even if we do release a 1.13 at some point, we most likely will not do any major coding changes. Addressing the basic issue of soft skinned vehicles as targets for HE will definitely require such work, so it will almost certainly not be found in any potential future patch. Again, no game is ever perfect so by definition that means there will be imperfections to be found. There is no way around this bit of reality. Steve " testing :eek: -tom w

Still somthing is not correctly configured here. I was attempting to post to Kmeads thread about how he says "I take it all back" he was speaking about how great TCP/IP is and there was one more post in the thread and then I tried to post to it and the thread is gone now? its not a big deal, just perhaps a symptom of an issue you might want to look into since the forum has been down for so long. Kmead where did your thread go? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 04-06-2001).]

WOW ITs back up Friday afternoon SURE is borring at work when the BTS CM BBS is down. What are those flashing folders? Just curious? -tom w

OK, thanks for the informative response Steve. That sounds like the end of that. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 04-05-2001).]

This is interesting, in an umlimited 1000 pt QB if you did buy 20 of these things I think you could defeat ANY gamey or no gamey force composition, because these things are GREAT against infantry and with 20 of them they could cover each other and you WOULD get one or two of them out to the flank to nail any heavy allied tanks with flank shots. If not KO the heavy Allied tanks, track hits and gun hits are a certainty rendering them easy pickings for shots from other death wagons. I would bet a skilled gamey player could buy 20 of these things and defeat ANY allied combination of forces. -tom w

This issue is Still a MAJOR problem IMHO. -tom w

I agree Should they be easier to kill? YES but how to actaully code that into the game seems to be the topic of some debate here. Should they be more expensive? I think so but How much more expensive? I hope we are not just flogging a dead horse on this issue. BUT BTS did say that there would be NO more patches for CMBO because it was considered patched, repatched, patched again and finalized, so maybe we just have to live with this one. (But IMHO this is a BIG one.) -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 04-05-2001).]

Sorry to bring this up again THESE THINGS ARE DEADLY They are without a doubt the "gameyest" pick in any player selected buy for a QB. They are cheap and efficient armour killers, they KO M18's with ease and last night I had a Firefly KO'd fronatally by one of these death machines. If you spend the points (not many, really) and buy 3-4 of these SdKfz 7/2 37mm AA HT's and if you keep them very close together the amount of firepower they can deliver to any one given target in a short one minute turn is STAGGERING! (and, that is Armour Piercing firepower, and plenty of IT!) These little death wagons are Way too CHEAP and WAY WAY to hard to kill!!! This and the smoke usage issue are the two latest bugs that won't be fixed any time soon if ever. I hope progress is going well for CM2! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 04-05-2001).]

This is Not a NEW Topic Nor is this solution all that new or mindboggling either You can point the turret where you want it with an "area target" command. When it comes up and asks "Main Weapon" yes or no?, select no and the turret mg will spray that area, you can make the tank move forward and fire side ways the ONLY cost is that you will expend some co-ax MG rounds doing so. Many experienced gamers here do this. you CAN make your tanks (with turrets) Move forward and fire to the flank or rear with a area target order. OK? -tom w

its UP now Has the bandwidth problem been solved? This is Kump's GREAT old site for the BEST Mods!! http://www.afv-uk.net/cmoutpost/ -tom w

There are many players here are now that are new to the game and still have not payed all the scenarios and might like to play that one Double blind. It seems to me like a simple enough courtesy to post a spoiler alert, (especially for an interesting canned scenario like that one) and I for one do appreciate the FF has bumped his image down one page. Thanks FF -tom w

Um.... We "used" to have things called spoiler alerts. Remember those????? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 04-03-2001).]

I agree with this: "Could the data that's hard coded into the game have the SdKfz 7 be such a small target that it's nearly impossible to hit?" I just played one out with a Pershing and 3 Hellcats and 2 grey hounds and a company of infantry (about 2000 pts) against 2 puma and 10 Sd 7/2 37 mm and a company of mot Panzer Greandiers. (both sides had 3 reg HT's each) I played as the Allies against the Axis AI. I and the only thing that lasted more than 4-5 turns was the Pershing. I got creamed, by all those 7 remaining Sd 7/2 37 mm's!! They are leathal, and VERY hard to kill, they KO'd ALL the hellcats before even one of them was hit. The Pershing nailed about 3 of them but there were too many of them to take out. the AI advanced with infantry and they were backed up by the Puma's and the 37 mm AA flak HT's and that combo was VERY difficult to stop. Those Sd 7/2 37 mm are indeed VERY difficult to take out with AP and seem quite resistant to HE fire, even from the Pershing. If I was a German player I would buy LOTS of these things because they are indeed very GOOD bang for the BUCK!!! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 04-02-2001).]

That's VERY interesting. They can't be killed by AP rounds? Looks like more testing is required. If the game is now final and there are no more revisions, or updates then this little (cheap) unit may soon appear in EVERY ladder game we play. It sounds like if you are the Germans and you select this unit you may be accused of being gamey? That accusation really doesn't bother some folks and I guess there are other players who honestly don't know the difference. Anyway this unit seems to have some peculiarities about the way it is coded. I wonder if Charles could have another look at why no AP rounds can kill it? (I should test this myself perhaps before I rant about it) I am now mostly just curious about this. I "think" I have killed them before with .50 cal HMG fire, but I am not certian. -tom w

FYI from this web page: http://www.macgamersledge.com/news/item.php?id=2120 Westlake Interactive on OS X (posted @ 4:04 pm EST): We got a press release from Westlake Interactive today on the subject of Apple's latest and most powerful operating system, OS X. As Westlake is responsible for many (or most) of the current and popular Macintosh game ports, the compatability of their titles with OS X is an issue for die-hard Mac gamers. Here's the press release, for your consideration: Westlake Interactive has been receiving many queries from gamers and the press over the past few months about our OS X plans, and we're pleased to announce that we are now officially supporting OS X in our development work. We have spent several weeks working with the final OS X seeds and release version, testing game and OS technologies to get a better picture of the transition from 8/9 to X, and believe OS X has a strong foundation to build games on. While there are a few rough edges in the game related OS functions in OS X 1.0, we are working closely with Apple to make sure they are smoothed out. Even though some game API's need to be fleshed out in OS X, Westlake is pleased to be able to start developing OS X native versions of current projects, and is fully committed to native support OS X in future games. Games that have just shipped or are close to shipping (Escape from Monkey Island and Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2), will be carbonized to run natively under OS X over the next month or so and free updates will be released via the web. Other projects that are in final beta test (Tomb Raider Chronicles and Centipede), may have time to get OS X native applications on the shipping CD's, or if scheduling is too tight will have free web updates. Projects that have been signed but that aren't shipping for more than a month (Alice, unannounced projects) will support OS X natively right out of the box when the ship. Carbonizing games Westlake has shipped over the past four years, including The Sims, Unreal Tournament, Scrabble, Deus Ex, etc, will be handled on a case by case basis. We are working with our publishers to pick those titles that can be reasonably ported to OS X, and hope to be able to announce some of that work in the near future. Obviously it will not be possible for us to port our entire library of games (31 games shipped as of March 7,2001), but we realize many of the popular games like Unreal Tournament are still selling and have many fans. We are looking forward to working with our publishers to help us Carbonize some of the most popular games, and have already been testing our older products for Classic compatibility in case they can't be made native. While the transition to OS X will be a bumpy ride for both gamers and developers, we at Westlake are very excited about the future of Mac games and OS X as a gaming platform, and are looking forward to bringing the best games to the Mac for many years to come. Many thanks to Westlake Interactive for clarifying their position on OS X, their high-quality work, and the future of Macintosh gaming. --C. Tamas Related Links: - Westlake Interactive - OS X - Speak up in our forums

found this recently in another thread. "Homba Member posted 04-02-2001 02:17 PM I lost a 37mm single-gun flak truck to infantry fire at 200m+. I was firing HE at the infantry in a woodline. Was surprised by this kill- all 8 of the crew survived the destruction of the gun. H "

This is a VERY intereseting thread. I have been playing this game since the Beta Demo and I Playing the full version since it arrived when it was realeased last summer. I usually play the Allies and have not found that Sd Kfz 7/2 37 mm to be that difficult to deal with. I routinely deal with all "nuisance" vehicles like that with the .50 cal HMG. I have not used one as the Germans and never been stummped by one as the Allies?. Maybe I'm just lucky? I have been STUMPED by Panthers that refuse to die, but that cheap little Sd Kfz 7/2 37 mm HT you are all so fond of has never been a unit that I could not deal with. Its not heavily aromoured? Its easy to spot and identify. Maybe I have not faced enough of them? I have never had to deal with more than one or two of them in a battle so that might be a factor. oh well, its interesting to read how this unit is ALSO used in a "gamey" way because it is cheap and deadly. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 04-02-2001).]

my turn ttt

I think PBEM is the most common, but I prefer the immdiacy fo TCP/IP try to chat here to find players: http://www.combatmission.com:8000/ or here you can post a message: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=CM+-+Opponent+Finder&number=11&DaysPrune=10&LastLogin= ok? -tom w

QB quick Battle its one of the ways to make up a quick random scenario you can play human vs human via TCP/ip and ME is a Meeting Engagement That is an even scenario Probes Attacks and Assaults are not even battle with one side having more units in the attack and the other side having fewer units on the defense. ok? -tom w

Hi Freak, If you go check my last LONG post I was happy to credit you with the discovery of that GREAT article. Thanks to Freak or finding this jewel: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-29-2001).]

This is an interesting observation. Allied tanks with gyro stabilizers have a fire and the move targeting bonus, if that bonus is greater than the negative modifier for the fact that the tank is moving would mean the the gyrostabilizer is generating a most likely and more positive chance to hit than if the tank was not moveing. I Doubt that this is the case but I have found that aLLied tanks with gyrostabilllized guns are very accurate while shooting on the move. Interesting observation and comment. -tom w