aka_tom_w

I suspect it had to do with video memory limitations and they did not want everyone to have to go out and get a 16 meg video card or upgrade their VRAM to see FULL photo graphic quality colour skies. SURE would be nice for CM2 Though! Hint hint Thanks for posting the FULL colour one above that's how it "should" look I assume in 16 bit colout (thousands). -tom w

Great! thanks Tiger I hope BTS has contacted you do so "somthing" graphics wise for CM2 -tom w

yes there should be a strong lobby here for some additional "Extreme Fog of War" setting Yes it should be optional and in addition to the other three levels of FOW that we have already. I have been promoting this idea since the Beta Demo of CMBO "I believe restrictions in terms of view of terrain (as are being suggested here) can also be considered, especially for the attacking side in enemy territory - a lot of times they had just maps (some not even that accurate) to go on." This suggestion means that there "should" be a much larger role for recon units. I have been told more than a few times that this game is NOT "Recon Mission" its COMBAT mission and all that recon "stuff" was done ahead of time and you get the results of it in the scenario breifing. HOWEVER I still like the idea of actually having your friendly units get a REAL Line of Sight to certain terrain features to see if they are in fact in tact as you think they are on your "road map" suppose your "road Map" indicates a bridge over a river, until you actually get a friendly unit to "see" that bridge with a clear LOS it may "appear" in tact, but if you can spot it then you can see if it has been destroyed and knocked down since the last intel you had. Same for buildings or others things that could be destoryed like roads, maybe they are now crater riddled, you won't know that until you have one friendly unit have clear LOS to that feature. Keep the lobby up men.... We could still see GREAT things like Extreme FOW and "Iron Man play" where both players agree to fight the battle by allowing only the level one view from any friendly unit, (NOW that would be a challenge) -tom w

COOL The Secret is Bryce 3D That software makes the most amazing scenary and skies and landforms. I hope we might see more Bryce landforms like cliff textures in CM2. This software (Bryce, orinally from Metacreations, {now Corel, who don't have a clue how to upgrade it} is available for both Mac and PC) is like a game all on its own when it comes to making eye candy for scenary. VERY nice work Tiger those skies are JUST what CMBO needs! Very proffesional! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-25-2001).]

Is this a suggestion that could be part of that solution: "Moriarty Member posted 03-23-2001 01:28 PM quote: Originally posted: "Most "technicians" refuse to allow computer chosen forces because they already know exactly which forces give them the greatest advantage when playing any given side, within a certain pt range (usually 1000 - 2000). Said "technicians" will usually dis-allow computer force picks under the aegis of the "whoever generates the game could cheat and pick his own force, while sticking me with the lame computer chosen troopies". One way to avoid this and save time typing is to do a screenshot of the setup window and send the jpg to your opponent. Side note: I, too, have no problem with letting the AI do the unit selections. "

This is still a good idea worth repeating: Posted earlier by: "Moriarty Member posted 03-23-2001 01:28 PM quote: Originally posted: "Most "technicians" refuse to allow computer chosen forces because they already know exactly which forces give them the greatest advantage when playing any given side, within a certain pt range (usually 1000 - 2000). Said "technicians" will usually dis-allow computer force picks under the aegis of the "whoever generates the game could cheat and pick his own force, while sticking me with the lame computer chosen troopies". One way to avoid this and save time typing is to do a screenshot of the setup window and send the jpg to your opponent. Side note: I, too, have no problem with letting the AI do the unit selections."

bump

Hi Holien Thanks for your reply, I thouhgt I woudl post this from the other thread on this issue. Here's one good solution.. Thanks to Moriarty for this one.. -tom w "Moriarty Member posted 03-23-2001 01:28 PM quote: Originally posted: "Most "technicians" refuse to allow computer chosen forces because they already know exactly which forces give them the greatest advantage when playing any given side, within a certain pt range (usually 1000 - 2000). Said "technicians" will usually dis-allow computer force picks under the aegis of the "whoever generates the game could cheat and pick his own force, while sticking me with the lame computer chosen troopies". One way to avoid this and save time typing is to do a screenshot of the setup window and send the jpg to your opponent. Side note: I, too, have no problem with letting the AI do the unit selections. ------------------ "Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change." -- Oddball "Crap." -- Moriarty" [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-23-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-23-2001).]

GREAT Post! Thank you for disclosing the inner secrets of "the system". The details were quite enlightening. My only opinion as the Allies would be to buy LOTs of Arty and use it very effectively if you suspect you are about to become another Allied victim of "the system". OR buy the glider and airbourne troops and the Churhills? The only version of it that I have faced was the VG SMG squads (nov 44) and a KT accompanied by hetzers and Jadg IV/70's. I admit I got destroyed, I had M18 hellcats and a Sherm Jumbo but they did not last long. One thing that should be mentioned about the system is that is it most effective in Nov 44 as the Allies don't have widespread Tungsten use on that month and the germs get cheap SMG sqauds that month for the first time. I am now NOT interested in any one who requestes the germans in Nov 44 and requests to buy their own units, that is an invitation to getting your Butt Kicked as the Allies. So far no one as yelled back and said "Hell NO!" is not easier to win with the Germans. So I still think it is easier to win with the Germans if you cherry pick your own forces. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-23-2001).]

This seems worth repeating here: "Abbott Member posted 03-22-2001 12:52 AM Here you go Col_ an AAR from two highly rated player's at Thouse (posted today). AAR: 7 guns in a 1000 point game. Throw in an uber map and a Panther and it felt like I was playing (name blanked out). Serioulsy GUNS, Guns and more guns followed by a human wave of SMGs is the axis concoction to vic. We might need to start bidding for axis, cause I dont lose with em either. I been playing Allies alot lately against newer players. Some have crested the learning curve and realize that their is no excuse for losing with axis. (name blanked out) knows how to win with em. Winning with Axis has become like holding serve. Yet it is far harder to break em with allies then it is in Tennis. YOBO, hurry up with the new chat so we can start implementing a bid for axis to even this thing out. "

I would like to see some more comments about this suggestion: "At T-House we are toying with the idea of using a very simple Bidding system in our next tourney, which, if implemented, would work as follows: The first player in each pairing has a choice, either to play Germans himself with -10% force strength, OR let his opponent play Germans at no penalty (in either case, the allied player would be at full strength)." So the first player who gets a choice is offered this choice: "Pick the Germans and you get penalized with a "-10% force strength" or pick the Allies and your oppoenent gets the Germans at Full Strength. Wow! I would rather not have to choose in that one. I would prefer my opponent take the germans at -10% and be happy with the Allies, BUT I would not be happy to Pick the Germans at -10% or Pick the Allies and go up against the Germans at full strength. Its an interesting suggestion, but if I was given the choice to pick the force type, I would prefer to defer the choice to my opponent so I could get either the side at Full Strength. (Rules lawyer attitude). IN the above proposed bidding system does the first player who gets to choose units have the option to defer or pass on the first choice of sides to his opponent so he can be sure he will get either side at 100%? If not the player who is forced to choose sides first appears to be at a slight disadvantage IMHO. Sorry, just looking for loopholes as always. -tom w

"Most "technicians" refuse to allow computer chosen forces because they already know exactly which forces give them the greatest advantage when playing any given side, within a certain pt range (usually 1000 - 2000). Said "technicians" will usually dis-allow computer force picks under the aegis of the "whoever generates the game could cheat and pick his own force, while sticking me with the lame computer chosen troopies". I think this single example of paranoid projection pretty much exemplifies what is wrong with the "power gamer" mentality: What they're saying is, "I'd cheat if I could, so I expect you would to". (Uh, no --- I wouldn't). You're also telling me that your grasp of tactics is so feeble that you can only win by playing the same game, with the same units, over and over and over again. Anything unexpected and they crumble." PERFECT! This is no different from the rules lawyers in board games who attempt to cheat because they assume their opponent is trying to do the same. (ok exploit grey areas in the rules, not cheat) This thread has not addressed the issue of the preference for picking the Germans. I'm still not sure if it is easier to win with the Germans? I suspect it is. But this might be another way of saying you have to be a better tactician (leader, arm chair general, commander Whatever?) to win with the Allies. In the other thread here there is a discussion about a bidding system for picking the Germans. This is not really an issue of "gameyness" but one of play balance. I think it is easier for the "technicians" ( I don't really know who they are?) to use a now well known formula of heavy tanks and cheap SMG squads as the germans to to give themselves an edge that is very difficult to deal with as the Allies. I'm not whinning or complaining just trying to define exactly what is the problem? IS the problem here that most players prefer the germans because when you "buy" your own units it is easier to gain the edge because, the way those German units are presented and priced in the game, favours the ability to "cherry pick" the most cost efficient units? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-23-2001).]

The board game Axis and Allies had this EXACT problem for tournaments and a system of "bidding" was implemented. It had the Germans either giving up build points off the start or the Allies being granted extra build points off the start. The bidding went on until a bid was accepted. So the "name that tune" concept is not that far fetched at all it works like this One player says I'll take the germans and take the -10% off the other player counters with I can win with the germs at -20% the first says you can have them, now he is the allies and the other player plays the germans the down 20% Same deal for the Allies player one says I'll take the germans and give +10% for the allies Player two replies, no I'll take the germans and give you +20% as the Allies. Something like that. I'm I the only one here crazy enough to believe that we need some system of bidding like this for tournment or ladder play? -tom w

I know we all play meeting engagements because they are fair. BUT Can someone suggest to me a good historical real WWII ETO based scenario with plenty of armour that would be considered a fair fight? I think one of our biggest problems here is that when you are about to attack (if you are a General or Supreme Commander) in WWII you don't want a "fair" fight. Hell No! you want the odds Stacked in your favour so that you have a decided advantage, why else would you attack? This clear in some other threads about ahistorical 'buying" practices and "cherry picking" units. That is really just modeling real life. You always want to go into battle with every possible advantge you can gain. Is it not true that most battles in WWII were fought when the attacker initiated the battle with superior odds? Just curious.. anyway there are two other threads about gamey picks so I really meant for this thread to focus on suggestions for existing scenarios that are historically accurate AND well balanced. First Clash a Chambois is the only one I can think of, off hand. any others? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-22-2001).]

Danger Will Robinson! This thread is unstable and about to explode! -robot

I use the shift-v trick as well, it really is the best way to pick embarked passengers and debark them. -tom w

Great Post Did you play them all as the Allies? Do they "the technicians" always prefer the Germans? What about this: "We might need to start bidding for axis, cause I dont lose with em either. I been playing Allies alot lately against newer players. Some have crested the learning curve and realize that their is no excuse for losing with axis. (name blanked out) knows how to win with em. Winning with Axis has become like holding serve. Yet it is far harder to break em with allies then it is in Tennis. YOBO, hurry up with the new chat so we can start implementing a bid for axis to even this thing out. " That sounds like most players have figured out it is easier to win with the Germans. Is this true? I have played alot lately against the AI and it seems like it is always easier to win against the AI with the Axis units. How about the bidding system? When a bidding system is proposed it is because there should be some incentive (other than the questionable desire to be the under dog which is also ahistorical) to select the Allies. I think this should somehow be addressed. I'm not sure that changing the point values is really the solution. But it is an interesting problem. Does anyone disagree that it is eaiser to win with the Germans when you "buy' your own units if you know exactly how to select what you need to win? (like the top ranked "technicians?") -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-22-2001).]

Some here might say that it is historically accurate that HVAP tungsten rounds Could And Did do that. ( I think) (Frontal penetration noted, was it a weak spot penetration?) -tom w

This issue seems to be pretty "hot" so I'm really not interested in both sides yelling at me but..... Do the players in the top 10 at T-house ever play "Let the computer pick the units"? In the ladder play over there at T-house would anyone in the top 10 want to play me if I wanted a game and said computer selection only, or if I said I prefer a canned scenario to play ladder game? Would anyone trust me to have never played it before? Would I be a fool to trust them to have not played it before? I think there is a problem when cherry picking is the rule rather than the exception and heavy tanks and cheap SMG squads carry the day most of the time. (is that Actually happening? I have only been assaulted this way only once, a KT and SMG squads in Nov 44, a leathal gamey time frame for the Axis, I got my clock cleaned as the Allies) Now it is very important to state here that I am not suggesting I am, or anyone else should be telling other people how to play, (not at all) but I do support the idea of another ladder for a more historical OOBs. Perhaps free of the "Powergamer" mentality. I like to play "anything goes" sometimes too, so I see that side but there should be a place to find and compete with folks that like caned scenarios and computer selected units and historical OOBs. I think the issue here is the perhaps the ongoinh distastful notion of cherry picking amongst "powergamers". -tom w

Has anyone ever used the tacitc of ramming an opponents AFV's with one of your own? I just had a MAJOR problem as the Allies with a Panther after it KO'd my last Firefly (TCP/IP against Khan_ ) So I rammed the damn thing broad side at fast speed with a M1A5 HT, it had a Piat team in it. The HT got KO'd too but the end result was the Panther was immbolized. It makes sense but I have never seen a collision cause an imbolization. I was happy to trade a dead Ht for an immobile Panther. Anyone ever have any experience with collisions in CM where the result was immobolization? Just curious there was an attempted close assault at the same time as the collision so I'm not sure who to credit. The bailed Piat failed miserably! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-21-2001).]

Thanks Pawbroon ! I thought of that EXACT image when I opened this thread, but did not know where to find it. I admit I did not look all that hard for it. Great image Maybe I should get off my lazy butt and make it into an animated GIF as an example of what it "might" look like in the game (I won't, but I should) -tom w

Just a little comparison here side by side..... Tiger's latest: That "other" one...... keep up the good work -tomw

I have difficulty with this one because there are so many very talented mod artists adding all kinds of new textures to this game. Lets not forget Dan "KwazyDog" Olding, as his work created some of the very early textures. (Very nice work) ColCoolj should not be forgotten either as he worked on the M18 for the original release. There are too many to mention. I still like some of Gunslinger's mods the best. I think I'm still using Gunslinger's grass. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).]

"But player control or 'micromanagement' brings its own loss of realism. The trouble is that there's just one of you. In a real battle there are many different commanders all trying to work together, and that produces fascinating problems in communication and coordination that have a big effect on battle. But there is no way to replicate this communication/coordination problem in a one player game. If the player makes decisions for each individual unit (to save them from AI stupidity), then those units will necessarily be much more coordinated than they would realistically be." This is very well written. It is a great analysis of the AI communications and control situation in CM as it is currently modeled. BUT it will HAVE to addressed to model the wholey unco-ordinated nature of the Russian commande structure in WWII. Some How, Some Way BTS has a Vision of how to use the available technology and soon to be enhanced CMBO code to make the experience of Playing the Russians somewhat akin to wielding a sledge hammer, trying to drive a nail into a tree, while intoxicated. I Can hardly wait to see what they come up with as a solution !!! -tom w

" Which brings me back to my crusade and beating the dead horse. Tanks know too much." this is a very difficult issue. I agree tanks do know too much. For CM2 they should "know" less (I know that buttoned tanks have their spotting ability reduced but still it "feels" like the know too much? IMHO) I would be interested in hearing your opinions on this one. Absolute spotting is the culprit here and it should be addressed as BEST as technically possible for CM2 to realitically model the differences in technology and communication and control that should be (hopefully) modeled for the Russian and German troops. I understand this difference was profound and substantial. Juardis why don't you share your idea's with us here? I for one am curious. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).]