aka_tom_w

still looking for the downloadable verison? Is it available yet? Can you send it in e-mail this is a VERY nice job Thanks for all the Mod work on the skins and cool graphics -tom w

yes indeed ! Beautiful where is it available for download? Now I can only see the version with the tracks on the side turret and I can't see any buildings that Max is refering to. can you post both images in your first post? Thanks VERY nice job very highly detailed. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SirOscar: This may be a dumb question but how did you get rid of interface buttons at the bottom of the screen? Did you edit them out or is there a hot key to turn them off that I don't know about?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats a good question? how did he just capture the "movie" part and not the rest of the interface? -tom w

Maximus Makes a good point.. I too have been playing for over a year, I like to think I can beat the AI most of the time. BUT it is DAMN Good AI and if it gets lucky, it can really kick your butt. Can anyone who reads this forum claim that they can (in a QB with computer selected forces) beat the AI at least nine times out of ten? I can't. I figure I win more than I loose to the AI, but it is still challeging and it can be actually downright sneaky and out smart you at times. And it really like lots of smoke. Just because the AI beats you is NO reason not to buy the game. Good reasons not to buy the game include, the CM Addiction that will suck the rest of your life away and the cost of divorce lawyers if your married. IF you buy this game you are sure to enjoy it so much you will be addicted to it. It will however save you money in that you won't want to spend money on any other games, because none out there right now are as good as CM! Good luck -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triggerhappy: 3. The AVI files that AnimationShop creates are *huge*. Nonetheless it is possible to create short flicks with the method described above. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Welcome to the world of Digital Video Many people don't realize that ALL digital video files are BIG. how big? 5 minutes of 720 x 480 D1 Compressed Digital Video requires 1 Gig of harddrive space Some math at 72dpi a 720x480 still frame is about a one Meg (900 k whatever) how many DV frames do you need for D1 for one sec of action 29 frames ok so far 29 frames for one Second is 29 Megs how many secs do you want? 1 minute? 29 Megs x 60 = 1740 Megs that's uncompressed Fortunately to make this all managable there is compression. for D1 that is about 5 to 1 compression. and yes a hardrive that spins at MORE than 7200 rmmp is required to prevent some frames from dropping out. Most New Macs (in the last two years, G3 and G4's were designed with Digital Video work in mind which is why Apple gives iMovie away for free, and now iDVD and iTunes as well. Yes I'm a Mac fanatic, I make no appologies for that one. that was intro to Digital Video 101 I suspect some other Mac Digital Video Fantanatics (SlapDragon ? ) here will correct my math or the statements above if they are inaccurate. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-19-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: engy wrote: > The Germans ordered their Tiger tanks, IIRC, to "shell each house floor by floor until they completely collapsed". Yup, and that's what broke the British defence. Before that they were hanging on, but contrary to popular belief, even the strongest buildings don't last long in the face of direct HE fire. Another interesting angle – I can't remember whether I heard this here or read it in Cornelius Ryan's book (maybe both) – I think the Germans would fire AP to make a hole in the wall, and then put HE through afterwards. David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I read bout that VERY tactic in Hell Has No Hereos about a DD Sherm and its crew as they advanced thru France After D-Day. They spoke of a routine that included firing AP at brick walls to punch a hole and then load HE and blast it thru the hole and in NO time they could flatten any size building. -tom w

OK!! Major Break Through! That is Cool I just Downloaded and I hope I can play with it this weekend. Makeing movie's from CM and saveing them and showing them from a web site! cool now that's Hi Tech!! Karch, Major kudo's for figuring this one out and posting your movie and this new solution! I'm sure ALL Mac users will want to play with this new toy! Thanks again! -tom w

BUT.... What about hull rotation? Doesn't the new tac AI auto hull rotation add some extra speed to the slow turreted German tanks? Does this not somewhat balance out the other factors? I agree that the HVAP tungsten is now being loaded and fired usually when it is needed most and it seems to penetrate most German frontal armour most of the time. Maybe there are TOO many rounds available in the game. (but I'm not sure about this?). Maybe the suggestion that "the German tanks are now f*cked" is perhaps now actually historically accurate because as more HVAP showed up in the ETO more big german tanks died faster from HVAP fired from Allied TDs. BUT its still a GREAT game I just wish I could find more time to play it! -tom w

Perhaps for the newer members someone could post an explanation of the differences between the MT fuze and the VT fuze. When did this change come into CM? Is this a v1.1 thing? or has it been there all along? This VT availability is news to me. Do the germans have no VT arty? VERY interesting. thanks -tom w

OK I feel fortunate that I'm using a fast and (usually) reliable cable modem. That said I agree with all the rest who have posted here. It makes no difference if the player at the other end is on a slow modem or not. Only one cpu crunches the turn. CM is VERY smart, BECAUSE Charles is very smart and a small quick test is run to race and test the cpu's in question before the battle starts and determine who is the fastest. The Winner CPU hosts the crunch. I have played against players on 28.8 modems with very fast Cpu's (I have a fast 500mHz Mac G4) but still others out there have faster cpu's so they host the crunch phase, even if they are on a slow 56k or 28.8 modem. Then it is just a matter of sharing the result of the crunch. Slower Modems take longer to transfer the identical data that make up the movie the both players see at the same time. Slow TCP/IP connections Make no difference in game play (other than slower uploads), at all. Most others here have posted similiar opinions and I agree with them all. -tom w

You gotta just LOVE the "armour weak spot penetration" That 1-2% chance of lucky "fluke" kills comes up (at least for me) with alarmingly high frequency. (I'm usually the one doing the penetrating!) Mortars and arty are also know to be actually pretty effective against tanks (again if you get lucky!) -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-17-2001).]

There was a"known" problem with commonwealth MG's in Ht's in b16 and b24, but I think Charles believes he fixed in the release v1.1 I have never seen the Carrier MG problem but it may be something about Commonwealth MG's in HT's and carriers in some scenario's (maybe those that were designed and saved in b16 or b24) that are still giving us problems? Hope that helps -tom w

no

"BTS, what do you want from us now? " how about this: Lets all leave them all alone for 12-18 months while CM2 is in its incubation period. the BEST thing we can all do for BTS to spread the TRUTH about this great game far and wide and increase sales by trying to get all our friends to buy a copy and tell their friends about the now nearly PERFECT v1.1 WITH tcp/ip that is already out there. Spread the news! Promote CMBO as the BEST wargame you ahve ever seen. If the Sales keep rollling in for BTS they will be happier and continue to diligently plug away at the sure to be NEW and improved CM2!! Now go forth and promote CM beyond just this forum. -tom w

Thanks for all your thoughtful replies. -tom w

Yahoo!!!!! Score one for the GOOD guys!!! congrats! " Bernard Dy: Contributing Editor 1st Place – Combat Mission This game is an important entry for two reasons. It is innovative within the wargame genre, and it is a champion for the independent way of doing business in an industry that's been overrun by corporate control." WOW!! that's saying something! -tom w

So far I have not seem any unrealistic Tungsten load outs on allied tanks. I have been very confortable so far with the VERY limited quantities of tungsten I have had available in Tanks and TD's. No problem there. I have not seen 7-9 rounds available in allied tanks in QB's. I aggree I would say that was ahistorical and generous, but I have not seen it yet. I would agree that is a problem that woudl be both unrealitic and unbalanced for the Allies, but I have not seen it yet. I was really just soliciting the opinion of folks that prefer to play the Germans, to see how they feel. I think the hull rotation for their slower tanks is in there favour and ALL in ALL I really like the way the game plays now. I though I would just see what other's had to say. -tom w

My question is, has the new use of tungsten made the game one the whole MORE ballanced, or tipped the game in favour of the Allied TD's that carry tungsten. (they are now deadly when they hit first) I really like playing the Allies, and it seems to me, either I'm getting alot better or luckier, or it is getting a little easier to win tank duals with big german tanks since the beta patches. I know the AI has gotten better, and I'm just comparing my win/loss record against the AI before the beta patches and after the beta patches. I think tanks are more accurate now and there are alot more first shot hits. When the Allied tanks fire first I find they rarely miss at less than 500 m (same deal for the germans), my point is that all tanks now seem to only rarely miss their first shot at less than 500 meters and the Allied tanks seem to get the first shot off sooner, than the big slow german tanks. So that favours the Allies. MANY broad gerneralities here I know. But the bottom line is I don't think it is as diffucult to win with the Allies as it used to me and I'm wondering if folks out there that routinely choose the germans find it is not as easy to win now as it used to be? Any comments? Are my observations incorrect? thanks -tom w

Yes I know Tungsten use was fixed in the first two public beta patches and tested and tweaked and it passed all the tests. no Problem. My question is, has the new use of tungsten made the game, on the whole, MORE ballanced, or has it tipped the game in favour of the Allied TD's that carry tungsten. (they are now deadly when they hit first) I really like playing the Allies, and it seems to me, either I'm getting alot better (or luckier), or it is getting a little easier to win tank duals with big german tanks since the beta patches. I know the AI has gotten better, and I'm just comparing my win/loss record against the AI before the beta patches and after the beta patches. I think tanks are more accurate now and there are alot more first shot hits. When the Allied tanks fire first I find they rarely miss at less than 500 m (same deal for the germans), my point is that all tanks now seem to only rarely miss their first shot at less than 500 meters and the Allied tanks seem to get the first shot off sooner, than the big slow german tanks. So that favours the Allies. MANY broad gerneralities here I know. But the bottom line is I don't think it is as diffucult to win with the Allies as it used to me and I'm wondering if folks out there that routinely choose the germans find it is not as easy to win now as it used to be? Any comments? Are my observations incorrect? thanks -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-16-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marco Bergman: Well, if nobody says anything, how do I know there's a problem? Revised versions of most of the Sherman mods will be coming out very soon, so if people would kindly email me with specific problems/errors/requests I'll see what I can do. m_bergman@xtra.co.nz <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Marco I have always been a big fan of your Mods. they are stunning and I know they take ALOT of work. I hope all this extra effort will earn you at the VERY least a free copy of CM2 if not a little freelance work on the side for CM2. Any way I never commented previously because I was not realy sure if the markings were ahistorical or not. Apparently they are realistic and they do look great. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: Sorry but I'd say you are mistaken aka. They might not always have been so clean and shiny most of the time they where there. Glancing a few books with British vehicles in combat show a clear majority having at least all the hull front markings in place. The turret side squares etc. are a little more scarce. Pretty much all of the markings looks partly covered by gear or toned down by mud and dust though (unintentionally by the looks of it). M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok I guess I was wrong My (now mistaken) understanding was that when going to battle ALL units went in without any identifying unit markings so as not to give the OPFOR any addition intel regarding who or what they were fighting. But the markings are very well done and they are very pretty, if they are now known or thought not to be "ahistorical" then I don't have any problem using them at all. thanks -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-16-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: Well, saying the engineers should have gone first doesn't alter the fact that once the mines were spotted the vehicles should have been halted by the a/i. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well if there is to be a v1.1.1 tweak, it perhaps this tac AI issue about NOT advanceing vehicles into know mine fields coud be looked at. I agree with Forever Babra that the Tac "should" know better, and reverse to cover if taking fire. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarb: One of the things I try to remind myself of is the context of the game. We know that we could look at tank and figure out where the hole is and from that deduce where the killing shot came from. However the odds of being able to do that (while under fire) and get useful information back to the commander so that he could act on it in the next few turns (minutes) is rather unlikely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with Yarb on this one. Good Point! this "which side has the hole in it" issue is not really a big deal the grand scheme of things in my opinion. Its just More FOW. thanks -tom w

Um..... I never wanted to say this because all those Mod makers have put so much time and trouble into there very historically accurate and detailed markings. but.... I'm not sure it was historically correct to go into battle with unit markings like that on the vehicles. Surely the Grogs here would agree that before any unit in ANY battle went to war all unit markings were removed? Am I mistaken? -tom w

Is any one else here in E-mail contact with Gary Kump? I have tried his e-mail and got no reply. Thanks -tom w