aka_tom_w

I agree! I find this sound objectionable as well but I don't know which sound file to edit. I'm on a Mac so I need to use the MAc mod manager but I don't know the number of the wav file to deal with it. IT is very annoying that arty boom crunch exit sound, I would prefer no sound or just some nice female voice saying "good-bye". -tom w

just a bump to stay fresh

I guess I should not comment (and this may return to haunt me) BUT.... I don't know all that much about the war on the eastern front.... BUT I do know that the Soviets were the defenders and should know the lay of the land and the area they are defending, OK only in the early part of the war and the Eastern Front, the Soviets were defending and mostly getting killed alot. I would suggest the being the defender and know the lay of the land and fight at night alot would give the soviet defenders night fighting experience (perhaps modeled in the game as simply as a LESS likely chance of friendly fire incidents) and should be good at hiding ambushing and defending, since they had so much experience at it being attacked all the time. now that might be a VERY simplistic view of the Eastern Front but maybe the soviets won't be so likey to die by friendly fire at night in CM2? It could be modeled as something that simple? (maybe) -tom w

Hi Winterhawk What you are speaking of is the dichotomy between and ultra realistic WW II combat simulation (no over head view, ultra realistic relative spotting) and a playable video game (roving camera view in 3D anywhere, absolute spotting) with GREAT "Game play" (CMBO) that sells games. Some of us here have requested the OPTION of a way of playing for realism that will ONLY allow the view of the battle field to be seen from only view level 1 ONLY from any friendly unit. NOW that could be programed to a way of playing that both partires could aggree to and the camera view of the battle field would then ONLY be from view 1 locked to ANY friendly unit. I suspect most folks playing this game would not like that. Some folks here have the iron self discipline to force them selves to do that for "fun". If you want to play the AI and you trust your selve to maintian "view 1 discipline" just select view 1 and hop between friendly units with and click the tab key and the camera will lock to each unit, this way you will only see what your men see. I suggest you will find it very difficult to actually "enjoy" playing the game. I would like the OPTION to play against an opponent by only viewing the battlefield from view 1 locked to any friendly unit. If I knew that was all I could see and that was the ONLY view my opponent would see then that would be one heck of realism WWII combat simulation for me!! Maybe we can lobby for that option in CM2? Anyone want to join the lobby? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-13-2001).]

OK well it seems that grenades against open top AFV's like the Hellcat and HT's are the focus of the issue that should be looked at here. Have we had this problem in the past (any one noticed until now?) or is it now specicific to v1.12? Grenades should do damage to anything with an open top, which is why at least one German vehicle in the game has the wire mesh over the turret, (presumably to keep those pesky grenades out), but the HeLLcat and the Ht's should be very vulnerable to the grenade attack from a close assault as Jeff points out. (But we should bear in mind the NOT every grenade that gets tossed ends up in the vehicle, maybe some of them miss and cause no real harm, or they are in fact picked up by the crew and tossed back out, OK in a board game, 2 six sided dice should have to roll snake eyes for that feat of good/bad luck!) -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-13-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-13-2001).]

An interesting seriries of tests. What conclusions do you folks draw from these posts of HT kill tests? I think that there "might" be something going on here because the tests seems to suggest an "intermittant" issue as it would appear that sometimes it is easier to kill that HT and sometimes its seems impossible. (or is that "just " a string of really bad luck) still interested in any further official comment from BTS Thanks again for taking a good look at this one. If they don't change anything can we "live with" this situation as it seems like it is not a problem that shows up ALL the time, just sometimes it seems that HT are harder to kill in close assault than at other times? -tom w

Umm.... not really, I don't think so.. Some of us have been playing the HELL out of this game since it was in beta demo (and earlier) and like a fine motor or engine, some here may have a very good "feel" for what should happen and what might be expected to happen haveing played the game so much since it was in its infancy. I for one immediatly noticed a greater accuracy and hit chance in Chance Encounter after the short range accuracy was increased in v1.1. Some of us have played Chance Encouter so many times we know the actual names of every unit on both sides. I admit I have not tried enough close assaults in v1.12 to know if we are just talking about a string of bad luck here or a real bug, BUT I'm glad Steve said they would take a look at it because I would suggest it "sort of does not feel" like it used to when it comes to close assaults.... (especially against open topped HTs) but maybe we have all just been REALLY unlucky, and those crews are actually picking up the live grenades and throwing them back -tom w

Hi and Welcome to the Addiction of CMBO! OK this one is easy.... Well at least I think its easy. Simply use the big over head map at view 8 to see what they spot. Turn your bases ON. (the coloured bases shift now from the over head view when you start you should see no opfor coloured unit bases. BUT the instant any of your "spotters" spots one, an opfor coloured unit base will instantly pop up. Does that make sense? Try against the AI with FULL fog of war on. Sure you should get down on the ground in view 3 and view 4 to check out the terrain, but to start to watch the result of the movie for the first time try the high view 8 with bases on and see what pops up? (its a totally visiual way of spotting, there is not real good way of expecting auditory reports, or written reports for that matter, the method of reporting is simple, when one of your guys sees one of their guys, their coloured base pops up and you can zoom in and see what your guy thinks he sees or hears, sound contacts will pop up the same way) Good luck! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-12-2001).]

WOW great! Thanks for the prompt reply I hope it is nothing (or nothing serious), I'm sure Charles had really hoped and concluded the v1.12 was the final FINAL tweak. BUT the close assault of AFV's does "feel" a little different or seem, "suspect" to some of us here. Either that or we all had a "bad Luck" weekend rolling the CM virtual dice -tom w

You are not the only one... Please read and post your war stories to Jeff's existing thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/016223.html "I hate to say this, but I think I found a bug... A BIG bug... " Its about HT's and other AFV's that are immune to close assault. Thanks -tom w

What did they do to the "close Assualt" capability. program, Tac AI subrountine, algorythm (whatever?).... close assaulting any AFV is now seemingly impossible in v1.12. Maybe this is more accurate and more realistic now? BUT that change is not in the v1.12 read me and it is most certianly a change from the way it was. I just finished attempting to close assault a Tiger with US engineers with demo charges and rifle grenades and they were in command radius of their HQ. Three waves of close assualts on the Tiger failed miserably. MAYBE this is more realistic than it use to be, (maybe not) BUT one thing is for sure, (Ok, IMHO for sure ? ) something has changed in v1.12 when it comes to close assaulting AFV's. Disclaimer: (I do hope we are ALL just really unlucky and there is not really a bug and there is nothing actually wrong with the game, I'm sure they tested it to death before they released it, I know in my case I have only tried once (three times) to close assualt an AFV (a Tiger Of course {Rolly eyes}) in v1.12, Are we all simply victims of the Six Sided Demon? (old board game expression for bad luck rolling dice ) I'm guessing that we are stuck with it now if v1.12 is the FINAL release. The Hull rotation logic works very well however.! Thanks! Any official BTS comment on close assualting AFV's in v1.12???? Just curious. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-12-2001).]

bump

Don't you guys watch war movies you know Real Life™ ones like Kelly's Heroes? This anti hand grenade counter measure now effectively models the crew and troops inside the HT picking up the grenades and throwing them back before they go off. And I guess it seems like they are doing a bloody dandy job of it too ! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-12-2001).]

Speech speech!!! Major kudo's and congrats!!! -tom w

NOW that is a Cool Idea We have all seen pictures of war torn villages and streets and the rubble is ALL over the street. SO yes in CM2 it would be VERY cool to see LARGE buildings spew debris and rubble into ajoining tiles. (complete with 3D models of the spewed rubble to impede vehicle movement and provide rubble cover for infantry) NOW that would be cool eyecandy. sure, great Idea! Yes to more rubble and debris and spread it around all over when it blows up and falls down. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-11-2001).]

Hi I have been using Tiger's water and ford mods, but in some ways I'm "psyching" myself out because the ford mod is so well camoflauged against his nice water mod tiles that it is almost imperceptible (impossible to spot). Is there a GOOD ford tile out there that sort of "sticks" out at you so you can find the fords in the river easily? AND Does anyone have any good suggestions for a GOOD marsh tile? The mod I'm using may be Tiger's but I'not sure. I'm using a really muddy brown marsh mod and I would prefer one that looks more like bull rushes in blue water and not mud. When I design a map and put the muddy marsh tile beside Tiger's lovely water tiles it does not look like my idea of a marsh but it looks like a muddy brown spot beside the water. Any comments or suggestions? thanks -tom w

OH YES!! You must finish them those new normandy buildings are stunning Great work and lovely attention to detail. We are all looking forward to new buildings very well done! -tom w

OK One of the options I was requesting was the opportunity to buy the FINAL latest v1.12 manual (printed in hardcopy). Up to date and current with all the latest corrections and updates. Many of us here pre-ordered the game and have followed it (and hopely helped it grow and evolve and develop) through its many patches tweaks and updates and I for one would like the opportunity buy a v1.12 final manual. IF (BIG if) that manual will not be printed then I was requesting that perhaps some form of digital document, a word file or .pdf manual could be made available to those who are asking for it, by having it send in e-mail. I FULLY understand all the reasons why the downloadable digital manual would make things EASIER for pirates. I KNOW the app or software or game (whatever) is ALWAYS eaiser to download and pirate than the manual, this is true for ALL games and software. BUT here is the problem, I bought the GAME, I preodered it, AND I'm willing to PAY for an up to date final manual of v1.12. I would like to think there are some others here that would also like to buy the final manual. Perhaps the final manual (v1.12) could be offered for sale to registered owners of the the game, at a reduced price, and it could be SOLD to non-registered users (preseumably users of pirated copies of the game) for the FULL price of the game!! We all know that CMBO is available for download at pirate sites (this is not a BIG secret) Why not sell the final manual to non-owners of the game for the full price of the game?? Seriously, WHY not? Since I have already paid the full price of the game I would be willing to pay the cost of the final v1.12 manual plus some additional fee or amount that BTS could profit from and put towards CM2 development. So BTS will you sell me the v1.12 (final?) manual? Thanks -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-10-2001).]

OK I "would be nice" to have an updated printed manual.... (Yes I would be happy to buy a NEW manual with all the latest rule changes up to and including v1.12) since that isn't really likely to happen.... They aren't actually printing new v1.12 manuals are they? How about a downloadable .pdf doc that has ALL the latest rule changes from all the patches together with the update oringal rules in the manual? OR a RULES web site hosted by BTS that is like an online manual? I think there have been a geat many changes (all for the better of course) since the original manual came out. I would like to know for example (in writing from BTS) EXACTLY how the "sneak", move, and run commands work, and exactly how move and hunt and fast move for tanks is intended to work, and exactly what the benefit of hull down status is, and exactly what is the benefit of infantry hiding behind a stone wall? Is it really too much to ask or request a final set of rules to be posted as to how the game actually works and behaves now that it has been finalized? Sure there are notes and read-me's from each and every patch that have been released, but is it not fair to ask for a finalized version of the rules all posted together in on place or document? (I mention this because I think it might also help new players to the game ALOT, espescially regarding issues like Absolute spotting and LOS and LOF through live and dead non-burning vehicles) Your thoughts? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-09-2001).]

Thanks Hofbauer There was a known problem with ammo in commonwealth half tracks that were saved in one of the previous patches. Perhaps I am mistaken but I think it would be prudent if all scenario designers took the time to open and save all their custom designed scenario in v1.12 to insure accuracy and playbility in the final verision. Or am I just plain wrong on this one? I mention this because some "updated" scenario's came with the patch in the download "implying" IMHO that saving all custom designed scenarios in v1.12 format is "suggested". Maximus? What do you think? -tom w

It was hard to believe that they could have missed that one ? I just played Villers Bocage (the scenario) and I think the Hull rotation AI logic is improved and it "felt" VERY good!! Sure I was dumb and I got all my Tiger's KO'd but they did very well in a target rich environment. It was really fun! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-09-2001).]

YES !! Happy Weekend to all! I'm the FIRST to post! OH, yes Of course MANY, many thanks to Steve and Charles and Dan and Matt for all the patchse updates and support. Lets hope it is final now and we canall release our scenario's And espescially THANKS again to Charles for the HUGE solo programing effort! It IS finished isn't it? ok, yes, I have no real life!! (I've just been waiting here, minute by minute EVERY day looking for this final patch!) -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-09-2001).]

I have seen it once. It was a Panther doing the "twitch dance" between, an HD unit and a half track M3A1 I think. the HT was on the road dead ahead and the infantry HQ was in the woods to the left of the panther. I have never seen or heard or read of an incidence reported of the targeting confusion "twitch" against/between any AFV or armoured targets. Its the not so threatening threats the AI seems to have such a hard time with. In the example above, neither units posed a real threat, same as the HT and the HQ neither was a real threat so it was confused. I'll bet its fixed now in the latest and (final?) patch v1.12! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-08-2001).]

I would suggest that the gunner HAS a telescopic sight and has a pretty good idea where the round went and what damage it did after the smoke clears and the dust settles. As mentioned bailed crews leave hatches open and that's obvious (hint for CM2: abandoned tanks should be modeled with open hatches). Yes a burning tank is sure KO. BUT yes, there are plenty of examples of armour penetrations that lead to tanks that are KO'd without burning or any other visual evidence that leave you wondering how the TC and gunner could know that right away that it was dead. It is a valid point. Perhaps addressed in CM2..... -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-08-2001).]

Great IDEA!!! In Tobruk (the OLD AH board game in the Dessert) there was a hit location that was identified as the "Turret Ring" As the turret ring was known by all good tankers to be an area of weakness or vulnerability on MOST tanks, it is not surpising to learn that when and where possible a gunnner would aim for the turret ring. It also makes sense that there would be hits directly on the turret ring as it is generally in the same place as the "Center of Mass" which is ALSO what gunner's aim for. So yes to simulate a tranverse mechanism knocked out would be VERY COOL I like it! There should be a hit location identified as the Turret Ring, hits there could then result in: 1 Turrent Ring hit and penetration: Tank KO'd (obviously like a weak point penetration) or, 2 turret transverse knocked out, (1 crew casuality AND slower ROF!) or, 3 (highly unlikey) penetration without result, or, 4(equally unlikely) riccochet, no result. YES to the inclusion of the TURRET RING and its resulting damage table. Good suggestion I LIKE IT! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-08-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-08-2001).]