aka_tom_w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: My Stug gets hit by a bazooka. I can hear it, but I don't see where it came from (despite having infantry forward) Well, the 'detailed' armor hit says 'side penetration'. WHICH SIDE!!!!!????????? I Don't see a hole on the Stug. Can I find this out any way? By replaying the film and seeing which way the Stug jiggles maybe? I mean, I'd really like to get an indicator on where that bazooka might be located, and a hole in the side ought to be pretty noticable, both to the surviving crew members and the infantry around there. Sorry if this has been nitpicked about before, I really do promise to start using search before posting, as I notice people often mention doing. regards, --Rett<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It could be Just good FOW Yes in Real Life™ a noticable hole would be present in the side of the Stug. At this point the fact that detailed armour hits do not say which side got hit is in my opinion just another element of FOW. I think one of the best features of this game is the "Holy Crap Where the Hell did that come from Factor" when you get hit and KO'd and HAVE NO idea where that came from. That's one of the BEST parts of this game. The "Holy Crap Where the Hell did that come from Factor" was coined some time ago by some one here whose name I can't remember. but I will credit them (whoever they are) with the orignal phrase and quote. -tom w

decidedly NOT gamey just good tactics "maximum use of available resources" "observe, adapt, and over come" that kind of thing sound military doctrine in my book -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: Nope I'm afraid not. The rubble bmps are flat 2-d surfaces. It would look better if BTS could have made rubble an object rather than a tile. Maybe for CM2. Tiger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And Maybe for CM2 we could see at least 4 rubble objects. rubble object 3D for a small light house rubble object 3D for a samll heavy house rubble object 3D for a Large light building rubble object 3D for a Large heavy building rubble for bunkers and pillboxes? rubble for road blocks? Did I miss anything? What else can we turn to rubble? Blowing STUFF up and turning it to rubble is one of the FUN parts of this game! I'm still THRILLED every time I see a catastrophic explosion. MORE EYE CANDY!!!!! All in good fun (and don't forget to throw in the sandbags and trenches ) -tom w

ok Check this out http://ps2movies.ign.com/media/tgs2000/video/kessen2_101.mov Somebody want to give me a REAL time Fully rendered polygon count here? THis PS2 Does Render real time graphics and a huge number of polygons VERY Fast!!! The movie is VERY nice for a game. (but sadly it does not have Tanks in it) -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull: I suggested this to Teach in a TCP QB and he thought it may be worth posting... How bout a battle system where an ATTACKER must control the VLs for X amount of turns in order to win (or to "convert" the VL to his control). Or even, victory points accumulating for controlling VLs for every turn in a battle (much like some board wargames use Victory Points allocation for VLs controlled at the end of a turn). I think this could be argued to be the more "realistic" means of determining "control" of an area ie. not for the last few fleeting seconds in the last turn of a scenario, but a few solid turns (minutes) of occupying the VL(s) to gain CONTROL> Lt Bull<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this suggestion is VERY good. The scenario designer should be able to set the suggested turn by which the attacker should control each flag. The number of turns there have that the attacker maintains control should also count towards victory points. in a QB the number of turns the each sides controls a flag for could be counted for victory points. Yes this would mean that a victory points calculation would have to be made by the computer after every turn, and a running tally maintained until the end of the game. I really like the idea that the vicotory points could be tallied for the number of turns (in a cumulative way) that one side maintains control of a Flag. Great Idea. Sounds like something we can lobby for in CM2. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monte99: Before I interject another vapid opinion: Who in the hell do you have there with you that justifies the use of the "we" pronoun? Perhaps this is a subject for another thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To which use of the word "we" are you refering? -tom w

I would like to interject... Charles and Rexford may appear to be disagreeing here, BUT the game is now (at least in my opinion) actually balanced with respect to "chance to hit odds" and accuracy probabilities, more towards figures Rexford is talking about.(I think ?) We still don't know whats in those accuracy algorythms but the latest patch/update read-me had line in it about "short range (point blank ? Whatever that means) accuracy being enchanced so there is a greater chance to hit. In other threads and posts I have suggested that it is my opinion that ALL chance to hit precentages at ranges less than 500 m have increased, now maeing tank comabt more deadly with more first shot kills. Charles may be disagreeing here with Rexford but the game seems to be agreeing at least IMHO with Rexford's suggestions and conclusions. BUT I could be wrong. BUT jsut play the game with a stationary hull down Crack Vet or elite Panther and see how many times it misses at less than 500 m, I will bet you will see MANY many more first shot hits than before, the change was made. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-14-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-14-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeAcH: Though I'm all about this topic (hehehe) I don't like the idea posed by Michael Emry as much as I do my own, at the risk of sounding pompous (and I really don't mean to sound that way). First off, I think neither the percentages of occurrence nor the amount of the turn modifier is high enough to have an impact (although + - 3 or above is getting there). Furthermore, if it is an option that the players and scenario designers have at their disposal, it allows everyone or no one to use it. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-14-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK Maybe I am mistaken but I think the idea here is to some how generate some UNKNOWN +/- value that is kept hiden from both players that determines when the game will conclude. Michael Emry simply formalized the suggestion with real numbers. Maybe those numbers should look like this: edit by tom w 20% of the time it would choose +/- 7 turns 20% of the time it would choose +/- 6 turns. 20% of the time it would choose +/- 5 turns. 15% of the time it would choose +/- 4 turns. 10% of the time it would choose +/- 3 turns. 5% of the time it would choose +/- 2 turns. 5% of the time it would choose +/- 1 turns. 5% of the time it would choose +/- 0 turns. just another set of numbers a suggestion nothing more I Really like Charles' idea about trying to tie in some "lull in the fighting" factor as well that would be very inovative!! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-14-2001).]

Check this BEAUTIFUL Panther model out: http://www.hyperscale.com/gallery/pantherxl_1.htm from: http://www.hyperscale.com/gallery/panthermj_1.htm [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-14-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-14-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I think we may have a fundamental misunderstanding here. My suggestion was that at the time that the number of turns for the QB were being decided by the players, the program would choose how many turns would be randomly added or subtracted, and the players would only discover that number when the program announced that time was up. The other thing is that its choice would be weighted. For instance it might look like this: 20% of the time it would choose +/- 1 turn. 15% of the time it would choose +/- 2 turns. 10% of the time it would choose +/- 3 turns. 5% of the time it would choose +/- 4 turns. 2% of the time it would choose +/- 5 turns. The rest of the time, it would make no change at all. Thus, nearly half the games would play to the limit that the players had chosen, but they couldn't be sure in any particular instance that it was so. Does this seem reasonable? Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I REALLY like this suggestion! very well thought out. The whole idea of varying time when the scenario ends is a good one. -tom w

oh... Bump just for fun -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: (snip) But we will continue to monitor it and see what, if anything, we should be scheduling for a 1.1.1 fix (which will contain only essential, game threatening fixes. No feature enhancements, no tweaks for the sake of tweaking, and certainly no major coding work). Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve Thanks for the response here. Its good to know you are still reading our rantings and debates. As long as the v1.1 tac AI hull rotation is not totally automated and easily predicatable, I think its ok. I have not found it completely predictable, so I don't think there is any thing there to exploit in a gamey way. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: What? Are you actually kidding or what? If there is infantry within 200 meters of my tank I would have no problem with the tank turning its hull to engage because there COULD be an infantry AT weapon there and it CAN threaten the tank. Now if there is some infantry spotted BEYOND 200 meters can you at ALL explain why it would be a good idea to swing the hull? Gawd, I really wish people would think about what they are talking about before they ask such obvious questions. Jeff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I still think it is a FOW issue RANGE FINDERS!!!!!! What Range Finders??? How does Mr Virtual TC know that those two guys eyeing his tank in the woods over there are OUT of range, I say 250 m in this game just to be on the safe side because other that a personal GUESS how does mr. TC know he is out of range, Well he coudl fire a round or two from the main weapon and try to determine the range that way but we don't want him to waste time or rounds of ammo when there is NO threat, How can he really know that possible threat is out of range? Maybe its a Mortor team 200 m is NOT out of range for those pests! But, granted Mr. Virtual TC would find out quick enough if they were lobbing mortor rounds in his direction... -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: All I have to say is that I don't want any tank of mine to rotate it's hull at a NONE AT threat. Period. Wouldn't it be simple to code that? Jeff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Define a NON-Anti tank threat when FOW tells your TC he does not know what AT equipment those two men might be packing over in that tree line? IS that a broken two man remnant of a rifle squad? OR a two man AT team about to toast you? Or a couple of FO's?? The Tac AI (Read: virtual TC), because of FOW, (which is still not as complete or extreme as it could be) cannot know with certainty if a the two men it spots at the treeline are a threat or not and so for now at least they ARE treated as a threat. I understand that the AI has been programed to know about, easily identify, and IGNORE, bailed crews, so we are ahead of the game on that one! your thoughts? -tom w

My previous issue and PROBLEM with this AI hull rotation thing was that it was TOO predictable. I must withdraw that. I'm not one to argue for MORE mirco management. I think they way it is now with AI directed hull rotation (I played Villes Bocage last night) is not as automated as I thought. I like the idea that each tank and each TC under AI command has a MIND of its own, and doesn't do EXACTLY what you tell it all the time. Remember, this is the SAME for both commanders so we are all hobbled by TCs under AI control that are well, disobedient. That part does not realy bother me so much as the fact that if the AI hull rotation was so automated you could ALWAYS could on it, that you could exploit it. I am now of the opinion that is NOT so predictable that you can exploit it. I think EVERY battle field situation is different and AI hull rotation is not exactly predictable, this has a the effect that it cannot be exploited for gamey play, but it may drive someflooks here NUTS now that hull rotation is NOT under their direct micromanagement control. I'm not having a big problem with this one, other that the one time I saw that Panther Twitch/Dance/do the "hokey pokey" whatever... I think that twitching tank syndrome should be looked at because it does take away from the immersion factor and really reminds you are infact playing with a computer that can't make up its mind. but over all I think v1.1 is a HUGE improvement. And lets not EVER forget HOW much work went into TCP/IP! for me that head to head live TCP/IP play is STILL the BIGGEST thrill! Thanks again! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-12-2001).]

I'm gald we agree it is not a gamey thing to do. I have done that or something VERY simliar many times. I would have even tried to send 2 HT's in that situation and I would have put rifle squads and anti tank teams in both of them with an HQ unit. In a game with that many points (only 700) inserting two HT's with .50 cals and two rifle squads and an HQ unit and an anti tank team into the backfield of your opponent near some woods and buildings could be a real death blow if you could also engage the rest of his units frontally at the SAME time. I'm not sure this tactic may have ever actually been used historically, but in a game that size, going after that Nashorn with an anti tank team mobilized in some fast like an HT WITH a .50 cal on it makes alot sense to me. For the next time, just do the same to your opponent and expect that EVERY player you play may try to out Flank you or insert a "nuisance" force in your rear. Is that gamey? (I sure hope not!) -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-12-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Omigod. You call this... justice?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> no justice just a new result I would Never count on justice to be fair? Are you kidding? What country do you live in ?? -tom w

good The forum was getting unpredictable Hi to all the cesspoolers I'm sure they will all be in here SOON -tom w

bump

No offense taken ever really... but in my own humble and limited self defence I would like to remind the viewing audience I was "just reporting" the swivel hull danceing and twitching that I had observed in the first game I played in v1.1 But I think things have calmed down now and we can take a step back and continue to look at this issue. Thanks for the apology, but no need VERY good evalutation of issue BTW Fair and unbiased based on observation from experience. We will all be taking a look at how this hull rotation issue changes the way we look at tactics in CM I think. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slyss: I was wondering if someone would suggest for the PC a paint program to make new mods. Any tips would be appreciated as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't imagine working in anything but Adobe Photoshop. But that's just my biased Mac opinion. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: JediJobu, you have the ability to turn these detailed hit messages off, thereby eliminating the problem. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK but you can't turn Detailed hits OFF for your opponent. I always play with Detailed hits on so I can see whats happening to my own tanks, at a quick glance when viewed from overhead. I would be happy if detailed hits could be "optioned" off for both players but for now it can't be. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: As far as I am concerned, losing the vehicle or not isn't nearly as important as the annoyance at having the immersive of the game blown by watching your armor act ridiculous. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK I have to agree with you "philosophically" on that one. Its sort of "funny" to watch but in the middle of tense fire fight there is NOTHING humourus about it at all! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: It seems there are tow potential issues: 1. Tanks turning hull and turret towards flaning threats, and 2. Tanks turning towards two threats and not being able to pick which one to engage, and hence picking neither (dancing). The 2nd issue is MUCH more important and concerning than the first. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> re issue #2 I have not yet seen it reported where there was an actual REAL anti tank threat and the tank danced or twitched about. In my case it was only an infantry squad and a brit HT with a .30 cal MG in it. I would be very interested to read any accounts where this behaviour led to the loss of the tank that was twitching? -tom w

I think it can in real life be done (if the tank is unsupported) simply with grenades down the engine cooling fins or roll a grenade down the main weapon tube. We are talking here about brave/foolhearty/desperate men crawling ALL over the damn tank stuffing grenades anywhere they can. AND engineers ?! Watch out, they blow up tanks REAL good! its not that hard if you get an HQ unit and a squad in command radius to sneak from the back side get right into the same "game space" as the tank, if they are not hurried and not shot at they will try to take the tank out until it moves away or blows up or they run out of ammo. I think close assaulting tanks and blowing them up is one of the BEST parts of this game, mostly because it is DARN hard to get in the right position or situation to do pull it off. -tom w