aka_tom_w

Hi Andreas I don't think there is a problem with asking for both. 5 hours of coding or 5 days of coding It just means waiting longer I would rather wait longer, they don't have to do the fancy mods for the explosions, there are lots of mod artists that enjoy that, just give us the underliying 3D model and animation to mod and we'll be set. I sincerly think the Motto of CM2 should be: "some assembly required" Do all the vehicles have to be painted and modded for release of CM2? (why bother when they are sure to be modded and painted by free volunteer efforts later anyway?) Seriously! Although Gunslinger is no longer interested in CM his first and only major effort to mod and tone down virutally EVERY single mod-able graphics file in the game is a testment to the level of enthusiasm and volunteer participation this game inspires, (the list of truly inspired active Artist is long and distinguished and I'm afriad to start to list them for fear of leaving out any one MAJOR contributor, so I mentioned Gunslinger because it did the first MAJOR mod overall of the entire game , for free and then moved on to other things) I would happily wait 10 extra coding days for both. I say yes to BOTH the fluff and the content -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).]

I have placed a bunker in a house in the set-up phase while desiging a scenario. It is possible. In the map editor place the unit in an open tile in the middle of the tile where a house "would" go then change the tile to a small building Viola! Unit it now in building, works for almost any unit in any buidling Anti tank guns on the third or forth floor? (upper section of the large building?) OK thats a new challege, I have not tried that one yet (mission accomplished in the map editor/ scenario builder) -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).]

Doh! Double post! carry on [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).]

OK I know we have been over this before, so please forgive me. BUT, in my never ending quest for MORE eye candy, I must admit I play this game to see stuff blow up! What is the most fun? Flame throwing tanks are fun Big Arty is fun Blowing up houses is fun And the MOST fun is the catastrophic tank explosion. SO... In CM2 I would suggest that perhaps in a very small percentage of tank explosions (.05 % - 1.0 %) that explosion could brew up the tank and we could see the turret pop off? OK that may sound silly and juvenile, but it would look GOOD! I would suggest a quick little AMMO check could be run to determine the turret pop off. If the tank was full of ammo (ammo load equal to or greater than 80% of max load) then there might be a small chance of a catastrophic explosion that would blow the turret off. This topic could be linked to other suggestions that proposed that a hit deadon the turret ring should be modeled. In CMBO now there is no hit location on a tank that identifies the turret ring as the point of impact of the round. So can we see the turret ring as a hit location? It has been mentioned the the weak sopt penetration could be interpretted as the turret ring I suppose. BUT a hit on the turret ring might increase the chance of a turret pop off explosion if we can get that level gratuitous eye candy into CM2 . Mostly this is just eye candy, but I thouhgt I would ask again anyway. We all went over this once with CM1,but what the heck I thought I would ask again. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).]

"Allow for AT guns and tanks to occupy houses for cover." Check this out: see this thread for Pic of how to do this: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/017277-2.html "Reduce the spotting for buttoned tanks. Buttoned tanks generally seem to spot infantry/leg AT units quite well," Spotting from buttoned tanks is already VERY poor, and limited. BUT your observation is result of the way "absolute spotting" is modeled, which means if you have ANY other units anywhere near the tank (some infantry for example) they "tell" the tank right way about ANYTHING they can see. All units instantly share spotting intel with all other friendly units almost instantly. What you are actually asking for is "relative spotting". We are not likely to see this improvement anytime soon and certianly not in CM2. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).]

WOW! very Nice Job Is this mod available for download? has it been publically released yet, or is it still in developement? Thanks! -tom w

Hi We Prayed for Snow Days so we could play all day and all Night! A snow day on Friday meant 3 full days arguing over rules and rolling dice on the HUGE game laid out on the ping pong table in the basement. And this is the TRUEST thing anyone ever posted on this board!........ "If you had pets (especially cats) you were doomed." GREAT post Chrisl ! YES CM has a come a long way and it IS the game we all dreamed about so, there would be NO arguing over rules (although we still try to do that here ) and no rolling the dice and no disasters from unwanted cat paws! Any body you who ever played Squad Leader has dreamed about a game like this for YEARS! If you want the "twitch" feel, set the TCP/IP timer for 1 minute for every 500 points worth of troops you are commanding. For a 1000 point game try 2 minute turns (prefrebably on a FAST computer via a DSL or Cable modem connection) and you WILL feel the "twitch" and a adrenaline RUSH you seek. Good luck -tom w

Thats nice. Very pretty actually. Where is it from and is it historically accurate? I looks like an image of a Tamiya scale model box top. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Is this coloure scheme realistic? Some here say they didn't paint them that way (at least not from the factory). However there may have been few that received that colour scheme in the field. Is that correct? That colour scheme above would look VERY nice in the game, so I hope some one Mods up a Tiger 1 like that for us This is a GREAT link BTW! (very pretty paint jobs here, all illustrations) check this out: http://www.panzer-vi.fsnet.co.uk/markingswest.html -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-19-2001).]

Thanks again for all the informative replies! This is all very new and interesting to me... -tom w

No appologies necessary I was just trying to explain that I like finding gamey exploitable loopholes. Its sort like a challenge for me Thanks -tom w

Thanks for the very informative and thoughtful replies. I would like to comment on one sort of "philosphical thing"..... Andreas says: "if you are into realistic play (I know you care less about it than I do Tom, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that) you should not use these SP guns. " I have always been a proponent of designing this game as historically accurate and realistic as possible. So I asked this question to see if SP arty might have indirect fire capaibility in CM2. Its seems very clear that this would not be historically accurate. I admit I do play and test the game to look for loopholes and to try to find out where all the gamey eploitation weak spots are before someone uses them on me, but that should not be confused with my keen desire to see the game model the historical accuracy for WWII combat in the ETO in CMBO and in the Eastern Front in CM2 to the highest possible degree. I mentioned this because I could not sufficiently explain to one of my ASL board game wargaming buddies (NOT a CM convert) why the sp arty in CMBO had no indirect fire capability, he believed him self of higher "grog" status compared to me, and I could not really convince him that this was not some major limitation in the way sp arty was modeled in CMBO. BUT now, thanks to Bullethead and yourself I will blast him with this new informed opinion. Thanks so much. I think CM2 and CMBO should always attempt to model historical accuracy and realism to the very highest degree of detail, (to prevent gamey play for one thing) conceiveable given our comsumer computing hardware limitations. I was just curious about this indirect fire issue with SP arty and I'm thrilled with the detail with which Bullethead explained it. Thanks! And yes I do like to play a historical scenarios so long as it is evenly balanced so either side as a roughly similiar chance of winning. I only explore gamey tacitcs and look for loopholes in CMBO so I can have the thrill of being the first to discover them and post about them here , to make the game even BETTER of course . -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-18-2001).]

I really don't like to ask questions that I "should", (by now), know the answer to. BUT.. I would be interested to know if it will be possible to use SP arty units and any other on board arty (?) in an indirect fire role in CM2? As I recall there is no indirect fire from SP arty in CMBO because it was suggested the map was not big enough for the sp arty to be far back enough to be effective. BUT should we not have bigger maps in CM2? Does anyone else here feel it might be appropriate for SP arty to take advantage of indirect fire on the bigger maps of CM2? Is this unreasonable? I am I crazy? or should we not be requesting SP arty to able to be fire in both direct fire and indirect fire missions? comments? I know VERY little about SP arty, so I may be WAY off base on this one. In CMBO SP arty can only fire directly and is mostly only good against infantry and buildings, whenit can get direct LOS to the target. They are almost useless in tank duals IMHO. -tom w

Dear Mr Historical Combat Simulator Designer , The attention to detail and ongoing vigilence with which you pursue every opporunity to increase and enhance the this game's ability to model and simulate the reality and and historical accuracy of all forms of combat in the ETO in WWII is TRULY awe inspiring to many of us here! Again THANK-YOU! We are of course looking forward to all the new and exciting improvements in CM2 and many of us hope you will not forget your expressed desire (Was that an actual committmant?) to make all of the improvements and new features in CM2 backward compatible for CM1. I am of course hoping that any "secondary LOS/LOF check at the time of impact" can be made retroactive to CMBO and of course it would be wonderful to see a patch to CMBO that would incorporate all your new improvements to building damage determination and modeling. (maybe 3D building rubble in several states of decay???? ) And of course I am hoping you will not let my recent announcement of tanks shooting right thru buildings prevent you from even a minute's time spend on the development of CM2. Sure you are obliged to fix it for CM2 (I guess ?), but for CMBO, I am of the opinion the game is GREAT just the way it is. (even with the hard to kill HT's,(from Close assualt only of course) makes them now actually rather useful now ) Full Steam ahead on CM2! Keep up the good work, and if you really feel I have discovered something unseen before, perhaps you will feel free to let me help in the Beta Test process for CM2 as I now have a proven ability to seek out every last gamey "cheater", exploitable loophole! (seriously) Thanks for your informative reply. Hope you are enjoying every minute of your new found success! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-17-2001).]

bump

I just re-read this thread and it was so FREE of flames and so interesting and informative, I though I would send it back to the top this Saturday morning so all the new folks here can see where we have been on this one. This thread covers in a BIG way the Hull down issue and some LOS issues. its a truly Classic thread! -tom w

I hope Mr. BOomtune takes you up on this and you show him a thing or three! -tom w

Thats probably the best advice in this thread yet. you can LEARN a GREAT deal about how the game works by building a scenario or two in the map editor, its easy to learn and it can teach you alot, especially about mine field dimensions. -tom w

Hi Did Steve Just call me a cheater? "to make this a viable "cheating" tactic"?? All I was trying to do was win the "Gamey Bastard of the year award" and prove you could shoot straight through buildings (because you can) and look at the thanks here??? "to make this a viable "cheating" tactic" Oh Please! Viable cheating tactic my A$$! I am demostrating a sound military principle, just trying to get the first shot off and camoflauge my AFVs so I can see the enemy before he sees me! And look now they want to fix this, I waited until I was SURE v1.12 was final Like REALLY FINAL before I went public with this little jewel and now what?! Whatdya mean fix it?! I thought v1.12 was FINAL? (All the above posted in the VERY Best of Humour, I'm quite sure Steve knows me well enough by now to know that I'm ALWAYS looking for loopholes to gain the edge! ) Anyway Steve is correct: "I found that you can only look STRAIGHT through the building, and of course only if you drive right up to it" Thats the only way it works. And sure you are vulnerable to the flanks and there is no LOS through the corners of the building if the tank is parked half way into the side of the building in the middle ONLY straight ahead. But you can shoot throuhg the corners somethime if your tank is at the corner facing across it. I liked this comment best though: "Seahawk-vfa201 aka, can't you see what you have done? You have showed all of us that tanks and buildings are even more realistically reproduced than ever thought it possible. Your tank has just entered the far wall of the building and set its gun to fire through a breach, a window, a hole of the ruined building and hide itself from easy spotting. It was happening all the time during war and we thought instead that in CM buildings were unrealistically made of extraterrestrial unpenetrable matter!!!! It is even more realistic this way!!! A bit of a kidding but not so far from truth if you stop and think of it for a sec " Thanks Seahawk, thats EXACTLY the way I feel about it! I did not accidently discover this thing, I have been hunting tanks as far into buildings as I can get them to go, every since I received the full game, I always just figured there was some advantage to be had by shooting through a house and using it as a screen for both LOS and incoming rounds. I'm saddened to realize it is not as advantageous a position as I thought it was. Oh well Again MANY thanks to Steve for his prompt and imformative reply, Good luck with the LOS/LOF check at the instant of impact I'm thrilled that you folks have already discussed and considered it! Keep up the good work! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).]

Thanks JoePrivate "in the interests of truth" I would never question that truth is the most important principle. It could be I have just been lucky, or actaully not paying attention to the details of these encounters, as I have "believed" all along there was an advantage to hunting into buildings. I would say your test is alot more like real evidence or proof as opposed to my anecdotal "feelings" that it "works" to my advantage. Perhaps I have just been lucky in the past when I have tried this. If you are correct and the target tank gets LOS as fast or faster to the tank in the building then this is REALLY fair to both sides as you suggest and I would not dispute that, as that is the way it should be for fairness. BUT I would really rather believe the tank in the building gets some camoflauge first shot LOS bonus for hunting into the building, but I am not surprised that there is no advantage or bonus. Of Course I think there should be one to reward this tactic as "maximum use of available resources" and just plain good thinking, but I will agree it is much more likely that it is fair and the chance to spot and get los is the SAME for both the tank in the building and tank in the open. Thanks for running the tests. Very interesting result, had you not run that test I you would never have convinced me before hand as I was sure that the tank half way into the building had a first shot advantage, and spotting advantage. but no ..... Doh! -tom w

I should not keep chirping on about this, BUT in my experience with hunting AFV's halfway into 2 story buildings (the small ones) both light and heavy, I believe they acquire LOS and fire first before they are spotted by the enemy AFV they are targeting. Try it against the AI. The trick is to get into the LOS shadow of the building, then hunt forward into the building while targeting your intended prey. My experience is you will get the first shot off and maybe the second before the target returns fire, in most cases these two shots maybe the difference between life and death. If the target does not look "juicy" enough just position your AVF a few meters back in the LOS shadow of the building, this "LOS thru the building trick" only works when you are VERY close, if not half way into, the building. -tom w (THERE! now everyone knows the secret of shooting thru buildings!)

The really big buildings you have to hunt up to the corners to make it work, see my previous pics. Never tried a church though. -tom w

I agree with Philistine The underlyeing engine does not extract anything from the graphical representation we see. No, the graphical representation of what we see is an extrapolation of the 3D universe of Math coding hell that lies beneath the surface that Charles invented for our pleasure. If he can code a chance to hit percentage and LOS check for his 3D math CM universe for the instant of when the shot is made, then we are suggesting he can also make the code confirm that result at the end of the inflight travel time for the round when it impacts the target or misses if the target has moved. I agree as well with all of Friendly Fires suggestions. AND he brings up a VERY good point. If the target is moving could it be lead by the gunner. Well yes of course it could. So in the time it takes for a round to travel from the shooter to the target could a target duck behind a protective building in time to be "missed"? I think we can say the WWII tanks gunners were farily good at hitting moving targets. The real question here is can a target the size a a tank move fast enough to be far enough from its original position at the time the shot was fired to gain any real benifit from this suggestion? I agree, the concept here is that at the time of impact on the sceondary LOF check,after the inflight travel time of the round, if there is no LOF (e.g. tank is now behind building) then we are proposing that the shot be scored a miss? BUT what if the gunner lead the tank well, and nailed its rear aspect just as it started to disappear behind a buidling. Or nailed the turret of a tank just backing down from a hull down position? Since there is only the center mass of the tank to consider when LOS and LOF and targeting are determined we may be trying to implement a level of reality and sofistication that is too discreet and too precise for the rest of the mechanics of the game. BUT we should still keep lobbying anyway! I think this is a BIG BIG HUGE can of worms! But I like fishing so lets keep opening more cans ! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).]

Agreed, Both your suggestions are what I meant.. But we MUST credit Philistine, it was his original idea to begin with I was just helping it along the way. GREAT Idea Philistine! Thanks! -tom w "Philistine Member posted 03-16-2001 06:46 AM Rather than checking the shell in flight for intervening objects, would it be possible (easier) to have a 2nd LOS check on the target after an amount of time equal to the shell flight-time has passed? If there is no longer a LOS (target is behind cover) it is treated as a miss. Otherwise the normal hit procedure is followed. It doesn't seem like a huge deal, given that it will really only happen for some combination of long range,slow shell and quickly moving target. Just a thought. --Philistine " [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).]

I could be wrong BUT. If a flag shows up indicated as yours, it "could" be a neutral flag, neutralized by unseen enemy forces hiding near by, which are unspotted by your local units. I would suggest that the flag ownership determination "rules" are just fine the way they are. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).]

I have never got LOS through the middle of a church. Never tried actually, to do so just hunt your tank up to the last available meter of open ground before the church and let the tac AI do the rest. The secret is to hunt the tank into the church so it is half in and half out. But I have never got LOS straight thru the middle of a really big structure like that. And yes good point about the position of the shooter if it is moving, except, doesn't the location of the shooter only matter at the instant the round is fired? To check the los of the shooter at the end of the inflight travel time of the round would only be of interest if you were dead serious about FOW results and wanted to know if you could "spot" for the result of the hit or miss if you lost LOS you might not be able to see the damage you did but it should have no actual impact on the hit or miss determination. -tom w