aka_tom_w

where blah blah = http://www.3d-modelmother.com/images/Art_2.jpg so if you put "http://www.3d-modelmother.com/images/Art_2.jpg" inside it will look like this: USE ONLY the URL for the image with the .jpg or .gif at the end of the string NOT the reference to the .html web page the image is on got it? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-10-2001).]

bump

AND if you "buy" it in Nov 44 you can get at a time before that Allies get better supplies of tungsten after Jan 45. so yes having been on the recieving end of VG SMG squads I can atest to the fact that they do Rock! -tom w

Because Every new Random QB gives the player a new set of challenges. Becuase the Scenario editor gives the power to design new never before scene double blind games for TCP/IP And What About TCP/IP it WORKS! And the game never Crashes! those are all good reasons! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-09-2001).]

I agree with this completely! The hunt command when used effectively up the side of a hill will almost always stop the tank in a good hull down position. Good point Croda! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-09-2001).]

I think most folks who play here feel strongly that a VERY good hull down position can be quite advantagous against an oncoming opfor AFV that is NOT hull down. I try VERY hard to locate and get into a good hull down position with my tanks when and where ever I can. I think being in a very tactically significant location in a hull down posture is very important to the success of winning AFV duals in this game. -tom w

Sorry? are you serious or sarcastic here? (honest I'm not sure ? ) "And surely a real WWII tank commander had a really detailed map that allowed him to choose the hull down position from several hundred meters away and drive there unerringly at the first try." I'm guessing you are very sarcastic as it would seem that they did not usually have very good maps at all and that I think you are suggesting it took a great deal of trial and error to get a good hull down location. correct? -tom w

Lets not forget Cut and Paste between area's of the map. The entire interface design should really be reworked. The thing I find MOST objectionable is having ONLY one way to move the map, Up or down Left or Right YOU must use those compass arrows. Now that's a pain This may seem a little "out there" but Sim City lets you built terrain maps REALLY nicely. I would like to suggest BTS play Sim City and Design some terrain forms in there terrain editor and then compare that experience with the CM editor. So I would ike to see the ability to pull and push land forms up and down like hills and valleys. Meaning that if I click on on terrain tile and then raise it up, the rest of the tiles would raise up around it with it forming a hill, same for pushing down valleys. The hardest thing in the current terrain editor is evelation being set mannually for EVERY stinking terrain tile. you should still be able to do that but there should be a mountain making tool to build up hills without editing every single tile affected. I think the sceario editor for terrain design needs to be a little more user friendly. I t works as it is but it is a pain to deal with evelations being set individually for every tile. -tom w Of course I'm the one that thinks things like: -gardens -statues -fountians -constuction cranes -industrial warehouses -oil refineries -oil storage tanks -water towers -Rail stations -Rail yards -airport hangers -airport air traffic control tower (WW II style) and how about this -special and specific Water Fall tile? and surrounding Cliff tiles, (you know, bare, exposed dirt in Stratafied layers, vertical) and sand and beach tiles as well, ...should be in the game for CM2. Crazy eh? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-09-2001).]

Try these two chats: http://www.tournamenthouse.com/CMChat.htm and http://www.combatmission.com:8000/ If you log on to those two chats within 15 minutes I bet you will find someone who is interested in playing. ok? -tom w And don't fall for the "I want the German in Nov 44" trick either unless you like facing KT's and cheap VG SMG squads

OK I don't disagree, but as a WWII simulation, I would prefer to consider this radical different from the IGO UGO turn based nature of Chess. I like Chess and can play chess reasonably well, so of course I agree that you can most certianly gain the upper hand when you are making your opponenet respond to your intiatives. No problem there, BUT I guess I think that the real value of actually exectuting the "get inside the other guy's decision-curve." tactic comes when you can play in an RTS game that is fluid and dynamic, like a real world battlefield and pull off a Real Time tactical attack with the clear intention of doing things and moving units so quickly that the enemy is overwhlemed and confused. I like the CMBO system because the 1 minute "turns" give the computer time to pause and crunch all the realistic penetration results, but unless you play with a very short timer, the "get inside the other guy's decision-curve" tactic in this case, seems to be limited to just "oridinary " good battle tactics like "use smoke" and "split Squads" and fake flanking attacks to confuse the enemy, which I figure are all good everyday basic combat tactics to begin with. The Real Value of the "get inside the other guy's decision-curve." comes when things can be made to happen FASTER in a RTS environment (Like Real Life Arial Fighter combat for instance) where your forces can do so much so fast as to overwhelm your opponents ability to react and of course hopefully confuse him. I think, that like in chess, taking the initiative and making your opponent react (preferably in a predictable way) is just a common sense military tactic. But the "get inside the other guy's decision-curve" trick is a COOL new phrase now for the same tactic kids and teens use in the RTS video game click fest IMHO! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

"get inside the other guy's decision-curve." By that he meant doing things that make the enemy uncertain, and to do them in succession, faster than he can react to them. When he is confused, you win. " OK I can see this in an RTS (Real Time Sim) Like Myth or Age of Empires. but because we can take our time planning moves, (unless you set the TIMER real LOW like a minute or two) it would be impossible to do things that make the enemy uncertain, by doing things faster than he can react to them." in CMBO without the timer on. I think it is a great idea, it is such a great idea that young kids and teens do this extremely well in "click fests" to win RTS games and it seems to me like old slow Grogs find this tactic infuriatingly "gamey" ! BUT, now this it has a name ("get inside the other guy's decision-curve.") and it is a REAL life military tactic I will be happy to point it out to those that HATE the RTS "click fest" Any other comments? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

I'm not real sure I will ever get a real straight answer on this one, but aside from any targeting considerations, (chance to hit odds don't count) what random events in CMBO happen at the frequency of 1% chance of happening or less. I'm curious about the aforementioned armour "penetration without result" I have not seen one of those for quite some time. What about the "penetration at weak spot" I have seen more than a few of those, lately. (BUT I think they could be as high as 2-3% odds if I'm not mistaken depending on the tank type) What about that "gear stripping" crunching sound that some German tanks make when they break down and grind to a halt. I have NEVER heard that one, maybe it is an aftermarker sound mod I don't have? I'm curious to know what random events in CMBO are programed to have a 1% or less chance of happening, either to you or to your opponent. Its not a big deal I'm just mildly curious? Anybody got any ideas? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

Well the only real story I could comment on this the suggestion that the Stuart was so lightly armoured that an 88mm AP round could go straight through the front and back of the turret without causing any collateral damage. There is a story on this board of someone who quotes his uncle being in that Stuart and realizing after the action ahs concluded, that the round had gone right through his turret with no further damage than two new holes. IS on here some where Search for Turret and Stuart and Uncle I think? -tom w

Can WWII Tank Gunners Actually target a specific area of a tank? Well there seems to be some evidence presented here that indicates they could. BUT from my OLD days playing Tobruk I recal rolling the dice FIRST to see if there was a Hit then Roll the Dice again if you did hit to see where it hit Then roll the dice again for the damage result. So now if we can infact target a specific area of the target clearly the chance to hit algorythms have to be rewritten. Then the question becomes written to what new standard based on what actual evidence? Does anyone here play Panzer Elite? Can you target and expect to hit a specific area of the opposing tank in PE by aiming at it? I seems VERY reasonable to me the a random number generator (like rolling the dice) should determine where the shot hit if it did hit. I say this because sometimes these damn tank gunners can't hit the broad side of a Barn (read Tiger 1 Broadside) So I'm not real sure how we can expect them to aim a specific weak point on a (probably larger and more heavily armoured) opposing tank and actually hit that weak spot. There seems to be evidence that they Tried to do this, and Were TAUGHT how and when to do this, BUT how often was this technique actually successfully executed? I to would like to see "called shots" Its COOL Idead but there should be a substantial penalty or the chance of hitting that weak spot should only go up only marginally and the chance to hit should drop substantially. But its a great idea..... -tomw

I think this is the needle in the Hay stack quote we have been looking for. I remember reading this one some time ago. From BTS Posted by Steve "Big Time Software Moderator posted 09-01-2000 10:02 PM OK, I guess I should pipe in here... As one can expect from previous discussions... we are not going to put in an "anywhere LOS tool". Trying to argue that we should add an unrealistic feature because there is something else realistic in the game is flawed thinking. I mean, why not have space aliens as well Just a bit of joke to stress the point. And that point is certain things MUST be included for there to be a game worth playing. As David has put it so well, the "God's Eye view" is a manditory part of the game. Realistic or not, the lack of such a feature would make the game totally unplayable for the vast majority of people. Not having such a view point also causes realism problems (yup!). For game reasons you need to plot your guy's movement for 60 seconds. Now... in real life a tank or squad would adjust its movement as it went along in order to reach its opjective. Right? Well, try locking yourself into a unit in dense terrain, or behind a hill, and plot a realistic 60 second's worth of movement. Can't do it. Why? Because if you can't see the terrain you can't click down a movement point. So once a unit gets behind a hill, it would NEVER be able to get over it. So the notion that the God's Eye thing is inherently unnecessary is, for a least this reason alone, incorrect. The LOS from any point feature is, as David has also correctly described, an added feature. It has no other purpose than to give you extra information that you realistically should not be able to obtain. Ooops... you ordered your men are in the wrong spot? Realistic. Go out into the woods (a mountain side is best) and see how easy it is to choose where you can get a good line of site for something. Or stand in a hilly field and try to get to a good position to "fire" at something far away in another direction. It isn't easy to do, and that is a big part of the experience of CM. Now the argument about the AI knowing the best mathematical spots is true to some extent. But as someone else pointed out, the AI utterly lacks human intuition and anything else that humans possess to dynamically take advantage/adjust to new and complex situations. So while the AI can put x unit in the PERFECT spot to see y location, the chances of it figuring out that x should go in y is FAR lower than the chance a human would do so. In other words, the AI is already so handicapped that this does not give it a general advantage. If the numbers happen to come up with a "brilliant" choice for the AI... well... even the AI can get lucky sometimes I'll leave this discussion open for now, but it needs to be stressed again that a anywhere LOS tool will not be introduced for ingame use. PERHAPS for setting up and in the Editor, but NOT for use during the game. So all discussion that follows here is just shooting the breaze Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-01-2000).] " I think that sums up their official position and is specific and relevant to the original inquiry. -tom w

I would like to respond and suggest that I find that part of the beauty of this great game is that there is some exploration and recon involved. I like working with each unit with the LOS tool to find ot what it can and cannot see. I support the decision by BTS that they made not to tell us exactly how many meters of woods or scattered trees blocks LOS. I think you should have to figure out LOS by your self. LOS through light buildings is a good example. You have to pul your tank right up almost into the building and then check to see of you have LOS through it. I think the LOS map you are requesting a the click of a mouse for every unit as you click on it would be techincally difficult (ok maybe not difficult but surely TIME comsuming). I figure the units themselves are always checking all the area of the map they have LOS to and there are constant "spotting" checks (math equation with odds and specific results) to see if anything was actually spotted. The system the way it is penalizes the defender a little more than is realisticaly necesary perhaps, but the current system of LOS is equal and fair for both sides. It is a valid question to ask however. Thanks David for those additional threads -tom w

my instant web search found this illustration: I was hoping for an actualy photo but I got lazy and quit when this came up. -tom w

I know this is not specific or particularily relevant to this thread BUT... "It doesn't make much sense to tell a unit to move somewhere and then they just get there and sit because they can't see anything. There should be some way to move until you can see something." That is a good point. for infantry is there a command that says "move until you see somthing and stop?" I would like a specific "recon" command, for any gound unit it would do this: "Sneak until you spot or hear somthing (sound contacts could make them halt and hide as well) and then at that momment HIDE!" that would be nice to see. I know I will be told we are NOT playing the fictious game "Recon Mission" but instead of "move to contact", (sneak sort of does that now) could we have a recon order that says sneak until opfor unit is spotted? (then hide) Great suggestion. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

here are some relevant threads: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000692.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004801.html "Big Time Software Moderator posted 05-26-2000 02:16 AM Topo lines would be cool, but oh so very hard to implement. I won't go into the whys exactly (since I would have to ask Charles to refresh my memory since this was discussed about 2 years ago between us ), but it certainly isn't something that can be tossed in. Just to add my two bits here, I never use the overhead views (#5-8) when playing. I use #3 or #4 for the most part and #1 and #2 for critical LOS checks. Simon, I can pretty much promise you that there will be no topo lines in the Editor. The numbers aren't that hard to get used to when you actually get in there and use the thing first hand. Steve " Andreas you have a VERY good memory this one here may be the very thread you were refering to, I have reviewed it and yes I was VERY active and outspoken at that time about this issue. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003938.html or this one http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003974.html The two threads above have some very interesting discussions sort of on the fringe of this topic. I think that just about covers it for OLD threads about this one that Steve has commented on. I know there has been a quote from Steve and/or Charles specifically about the "LOS map" specific to each unit and they said they were not interested in doing that, but I can't find the exact quote. hope that helps -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

This is not meant to be a flame, BUT I do disagree and would like to counter with that fact that when your units get to the point you want them to they "know" what they can see. Thye actively try to "spot" anything they can, (including listening for sound contacts) from where ever they irrespective of whether or not you as the commander know what their "Los Map" looks like. "I expect that there are die-hards who enjoy figuring out (really guessing about) LOS on their own, but I find it a nuisance because it only emphasizes the stupidity of my troops." I find this comment difficult to understand, because all the units I command seem to me to be VERY active in there attempts to locate and identify opfor units. True, they (EDIT here), do not, move all by them selves to the optimal LOS position, BUT if you as the commander get down on the ground in level 1 with them (this practice is STRONGLY encouraged by BTS in the design thinking), you has the commander should have the ulitimate responsibility to make sure you place your units in the optimal location for your LOS purposes. I will try to find my old posts about LOS and the Shroud and contour lines. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

Hi Thanks Andreas, I did participate in these discussions some time ago. At that time I was thinking a FOW Shroud like Warcraft was a good idead but Fionn loaded BOTH barrels and blew me out of the water. He Said NO WAY this is not some Fancy pants RTS game, it a real combat simulator, (OK, tom bows out). I did also comment on, and request contour lines on a topo map. I like the game JUST fine the way it is now, if you want LOS you have to WORK for it. ALSO, I'm not sure if anyone has commented on this but you can place your viewing camera at level 1 at ANY place on the map so you can ACTUALLY see what a unit from that perspective (level 1) at the exact spot "could" see if it was there. Thats good enough for me. ANd I think that is too much info, but it sort of replaces the same "feel" you coudl get from contour lines on a topo map. This game is NOT Steel Panthers and I for one am GLAD of it. Its different and it works differently. Sure I would like to see contour lines like on a REAL Topo map, I imagine moslty folks with Military experience are familiar with topo maps and know how to read them and of course I think the game would be more realistic if there was a topo map with Contour lines that you could toggle on and off. I would also like to see ALOT more Fog Of War. BUT the CM I play NOW (v1.12) is as close to my IDEAL dream of what a Perfect war game should be, that I really can't complain at all! -tom w

ahhhhh....... I hear the Lock Master coming this WAY! Hurry Hide..... If they find you, LIE! ahhhhhhhh.... -tom w

It is a FPS for PlayStation 2 not scheduled for release unilt Fed 2002 I think. Yup supposedly this is a REAL screen shot from the game: Its from EA, Electronic Arts and they are HUGE!. They recruit at the school I work at for Artists, Animators and Designers for their COOL games! -tom w P.S. sure I like Eye Candy and Stunning graphics, everyone knows that by now I'm sure! [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-07-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-07-2001).]

Does this work here? (Animated gif?) from the page: http://games.macnn.com/features/0103/tropico_3.phtml THe above site does NOT have Anything to do with wargames, but this Rebel chick with an automatic weapon looks like she could make this game "interesting". "The Rebel (female) - Life on Tropico isn't always rosy. Any Tropican native can become dissatisfied enough to become a rebel—even the females. But don't let the gender fool you, she can shoot as well as any man and she's on a mission: to rid the island of your tyranny. She tends to attack soldiers on sight before disappearing back into the depths of the rainforest. If things get bad, only a strong military is going to stop a rebellion." just a curiosity post please don't flame me -tom w PS it has 3D animated COWS TOO!!! AND Hubba hubba!! AND Guess what? it Runs on a MAC! Yea, chalk one up for the good guys [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-07-2001).]

No no.. its all in the TCP/IP Welcome aboard, really! TRUE gaming paradise is that LAST step.... the 3 min TCP/IP match and the adrenaline rush of watching every heartpounding second as your thin skinned M18 Hellcat tries to out run the turret rotation speed of a Panther as it races for the perfect flanking shot in a TCP/IP battle. Its all right there, the Thrill of Victory and the agony of defeat, and it is instantaneous and then you can taunt your opponent in the CHAT!! he hehe Now THATS gaming paradise! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-07-2001).]