aka_tom_w

Good Post Connall I'm ALWAYS impressed with anyone that can use the word "sophistry" correctly in a sentence. This is still sort of releveant to what Rexford is posting about. -tom w

No official BTS comment on this thread yet?? Rexford, GREAT research! I still fascinated by all this new accuracy and penetration data WOW. When can we see all your spread sheets and penetration data publically posted or available? Are you interested in sharing all this info with Charles? Is he interested in looking at it? Maybe some of it will be handy for CM2? It looks like there is a great deal of new info that you ahve there. Thanks again. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-07-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Conall: Just to clarify this the Firefly was equipped with the No. 43 Mk3/1 telescope which had a x3 eyepiece or a x6 eyepiece. These were not interchangeable in combat - nor could the higher magnification be selected in the same way as the dual magnification German telescopes (Tzf9d etc). A Guide to A.F.V. Telescopes Author: A.F.V. Publications Section, A.F.V. School, Bovington Camp Date of publication: March 1945 Publisher: War Office, A.F.V. Publications Section Page number(s): 6 Conall<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> GREAT reference!! Is there any chance Charles and Steve can get a copy of this as it may come in handy when attempting to determine some long range optics advantage to for gunnery accuracy to be modeled in the up coming CM2?? That sounds like a VERY detailed and informative articel there! How can Steve and Charles get a copy of it? Or do they have it already? Keep up the GREAT postings Rexford they are fascinating to read! -tom w

Holly Crap, Did I never miss alot of postings on this issue in the last 3 days. Still trying to catch up. -tom w

Hi sorry All I have been away from the board and the internet for about 2.5 days so I just wanted to bump this on to the top to keep track of it. You Really MISSES a heck of alot if you don't read this board for 72 hours, I don't know how Steve and Charles keep up with it Good to be back -tom w

I don't know?....... I REALLY like the U.S. .50 cal! If you put 3 or 4 HT's with .50 cals on them together and cover them with 'zooks and three infantry squads, AND they will positively SHREAD anything smaller than an actual TANK that comes their way. I have no problem with the way that .50 cal MG works and is modeled it is deadly effective! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Andrew Hedges wrote: Note that we are going to do some changes, possibly for CM2, that will help simulate pre-battle range determination. As I am sure everybody in this thread will agree with, having the time to get a good range BEFORE combat gives that side a critical edge. Steve Says: Right now only AT bunkers get an advantage for 1st shot accuracy based on this principle. Obviously, such fortifications would have all sorts of landmarks logged and recorded well ahead of any enemy activity. This was easy to add because fortifications can't move during the game. Mobile AFVs are a bit more tricky to deal with, so hopefully we can do something with this in CM2. It is our intention to at least. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OH you know I have to jump in on this one. May I suggest that for the final v1.1 we could also see dug in Tanks gain the same "advantage for 1st shot accuracy" based on a known range. And now that we know that an "advantage for 1st shot accuracy" based on a known and established range can and is modeled in the game can we look again at range finders in tanks and range finders associated with the 88mm flak that while not in a bunker "should" give the same "advantage for 1st shot accuracy" based on known range. I would FULLY support ALL efforts to enhance 1st shot accuracy, based on something that attempts to model the likelyhood (it should be a percentage or an odds calucaltion to determine if the correct range was in fact correctly determined, perhaps based somewhat on crew experience level) of predetermined range to target accuracy. Stationary tanks which have been documented to have these range determination devices available to them (especially in CM2 on the Eastern front at long ranges) SHOULD have some form of advantage for 1st shot accuracy, based on the use of their range finder as well. Great thread, Thanks Steve for the updates and comments. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-03-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Advanced Squad Leader by Avalon Hill. They developed Red Barricades where the "mad rush" was sheer maddness, as the units today, would be needed tommorrow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry I should have been more specific, I was refering to video games or computer games only. ASL, the board game, is of course an exception. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: OK folks, let's get rid of the heat in this thread. There is no need for it. Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great Post Steve I liked this part the best "If two gamers want to fight it out to the last soldier capable of using a sharpened stick to poke the other guy's eyes out, I don't have a problem with that " Great Sense of humour, I do think that some people REALLY enjoy this "gladiator" style of fighting to the last man. I think we can see that in the posts in this thread and EVERY other thread about "gamey" or ahistorical tactics. Thanks for the chuckle. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Personally, I think the hardcore wargaming crowd is bitter about the demise of the once great and proud genre of games. What killed off wargaming? ......... (snip) This reinforces market trends, which has a negative effect on anything not being pushed forward by mass marketing. Capitalism ain't about choice and expanding people's horizons you know Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ok.. But depsite ALL this you have found success (major scuccess I would hope) with this delightful release. Its hard to understand how you believe things like "In the opinion of many (and I partially share this theory) RTS and FPS games were responsible. How? By "dumbing down" the whole range of games to little more than hand-eye "twitch" games with very shallow tactics and game depth." Yet you and Charles have taken a risk and it DID pay off and we are ALL (even the RTS video gamers) VERY grateful for your vision of a BETTER wargame. Perhaps if Hasbro's freshly released Squad Leader, really flops and your Combat Mission is witnessed to be such a huge success this trend may be slightly reversed. We can only hope! thanks for the insight -tom w

Are you serious? Have you played the Demo? Have you read these Threads? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014127.html and: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014152.html hope that helps -tom w

bump

bump

I'm not sure if I have anything really new to add here...... BUT, Other Than Combat Mission, I REALLY, really enjoy multi-player Age of Empires. It is ONE great game for 4, 5, or 6 guys to get together and hook up their computers to form and instant termporary lan to test their tactical skills. Sure its resource gathering, sure its RTS, SURE it uses hit points OK? ITs Still really fun to form alliances, and back stab and gang up and hang one (usually deserving) player out to dry. For really fun Multi-player (MORE than two) entertainment (sort like Risk WAS) in an easy/simple sort of tactical way, Age of Empires Gets my vote. But if just one guy is Available I'm more than happy to go one on one with CM. Both are Great Games and given the setting or circumstance I would say they are equally entertaining. AND before all you grogs slam all the RTS, and FPS "gamers" who like this game, please remember while I'm SURE BTS will NOT, (and should not) cater to this market segment, they would be equally foolish to IGNORE that market segement completely, because as an identifiable market segement, they/we (whatever?) BUY ALOT of video games. They/We may easily represent up to 50% of their actual sales. But that said even if the grogs here and desire for MORE realism drive the future design changes in this Game, video gamers and FPS and RTS players will still enjoy the attention to detail and the adrenalin rush and the GREAT fog of war in this strategy game that make it entertaining and fun to play and enjoyable in a different way than all other games that I know of, -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-02-2001).]

IMHO In My humble opinion np no problem LOL Laughing out loud ROTFLMAO Rolling on the Floor laughin my ASS off

Any new rules or changes or modifications of the code that make the game even MORE realistic are always welcomed by me. (and welcomed by most people here I would presume) But after that I still prefer to play without any house rules or side agreements. Let the game stand on its own. Steve has now stated that they are concerned that the rushing of crews to be used as cannon fodder should be dealt with. In the past they have ALWAYS looked at issues like this and provided fair and balanced solutions. I'm sure they will look at and tweak this issue further. In the mean time we should acknowlegde the HUGE effort already on their part to agree that this gamey use of crews is something they intend to discourage and they have shown us they are more than capable of dealing with it by modifing the code to better model crew action after bail outs and their reactions in new and more realistic ways. Here's a good question, Name just ONE other game or game designer that has gone to this length to balance real life realism and deal with "gamey" use of crews? any games come to mind? None that I know of. Their attention to the gamey use of bailed crews is a concern, and has been, since they started to design the game. I think it is pretty darn GOOD right now and I think we can count on it getting better. Thanks again for the GREAT game.... (I think the TCP/IP head to head action is the BEST part to be honest, Lately I've won a few so it feels good! ) -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-02-2001).]

just a friendly bump....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: It's a game people. Enjoy it as a game. It's not real, or is it meant to be "real." Okay, slam away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not disagreeing with you, BUT I think it is fair to say it is the intention of Steve and Charles to make their Combat Mission, as realistic as possible. It is really supposed to be a highly detailed REALISTIC WWII combat simulation. That said it is still a video game or computer game and their are LOTS of video game fans out their that like to play the game as a game to win within the "rules" of the game as it is coded. And that includes the heartless and brutal use of the bailed crews as cannon foder to make the opponent waste ammo so that the main fresh force of infantry can then take out the now depleted ammo OPFOR. But that;s life. I am also a fan of the suicide light tank rush, not realistic but at times (if you get lucky) HIGHLY effective. again there is still a large differece of opinion on this gamey use of gamey tactics to try to win, because for some here it is really NOT just another videogame. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-02-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-02-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Tiger, my objection to crews as scouts is based on a) the fact that it was NOT SOP IN REAL WAR to use crews this way, and because vehicle crews had NO ability to communicate back to a command unit, not radios or even runners. Once they were out of their vehicle they were just 4 or 5 guys with pistols, and nothing more. Sending them out to "see what's over that hill" is basically sending them off to die. I sure hope that anybody who would order vehicle crews to run around and play gravel cruncher on a regular basis never commands in real life. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ok I'll bite..... I will safely bet that 99% of the people who play this game, have never and WILL never command in Real Life™. But we all REALLY enjoy being Armchair Generals, same as we enjoy being armchair quarterbacks. I think the game is fine the way it and as this issue had been around so long the only good way to deal with it is to agree with your opponent about what is gamey and what is not and what is objectionable and what is not before you go to battle. Any one who has ever played me knows I have never and will never complain about the use of any gamey tactic that is clearly NOT cheating (like breaking passwords or changing the game code, or letting me play against you with my fog of war on and your fog of war off, apparently that used to be a problem) So NO, I expect my opponent do whatever and use whatever has has to try to WIN. As the game stands now the Gamey use of crews is now almost TOTALLY minimized. I support that decision and think players should be able to play within what ever "house rules" they both deem "not objectionable" I agree completely with Tiger on this one and think you should do whatever you can with what you've got to try to win. But I ALSO fully support gentleman's aggreements before hand on the appropriate use of bailed crews. Now let get back to playing the game! And a Damn Fine game it is !!! -tom w

I think it is a good suggestion. I little more flexibility here would be appreciated. I think it makes sense to want to have more than just two experience levels in a quick battle. A "No restriction" option would be nice. -tom w

At the risk of sounding infamitory and pissing off the majority of "realism" players here, I would like to suggest that I think I read somewhere on this forum that the Allies had SO many new tanks (sherms) coming in the ETO after D-Day and they were loosing tank crews SO fast that fresh infantry in the ETO were asked to volunteer to be tankers. Those who did received a Crash course in how the Sherm worked and were basically sent into combat for on the job training, hense the need for more new Sherms and new tank crews. SO, at least for the Allied side I would like to attempt to dispell the suggestion that tank crews were HIGHLY trained and valuable because they were "tankers", to the contary, Most were green and were nothing more than infantry men who "volunteered" to sit in a tank. SO I suggest that the way the game is now, is FINE, when they bail, they are largely ineefective, BUT they should be slightly effective, and they are with their pistols, they CAN for instance go out and get revenge and shoot with their pistols that pesky unsuported anti-tank team that shot their vehicle out from under them. No problem their right? Given the way the game is coded right now, using them as canon fodder is still discouraged, BUT it can be an effective way to win, if you are playing to win. This has been a hotly contested issue for some time. I like the game FINE the way it is right now. I post this to remind people here that at least in the case of the Americans, tankers were INFANTRY before they became tankers and the U.S. had more Sherms than crews anyway so they were being crewed by volunteer infantry men anyway, disppeling the idea the tank crews are highly trained specialized units. Just my opinion.. I know most others here disagree, BUT I would say I am posting in favour of LEAVING the game just the way it is now with respect to crews. Lightly armed with pistols and brittle (!) in combat. OH!, and Lets not forget they have ALSO been coded to have only VERY short range spotting ability making them largely useless for that "gamey" recon role as well. Thanks -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-02-2001).]

Rexford, thanks all your comments. We would all be very interested in seeing your stats, data and spread sheets. Have you played Combat Mission? Do you own the full version? Have you been conducting any Gunnery Range Tests in CM to see how it measures up to your stats and data regarding WWII accuracy and penetration? -tom w

thanks Kump We should stay in touch now that we are all back to work ... via e-mail at work of course// -tom w

I think there is some good evidence to suggest that some of those Tigers were actaully CGI computer generated imagery.... I would suggest that anything Speilberg and Hanks did together that was edited by Dreamworks would almost surely have some CGI tanks in it. -tom w

Hi Rexford I hope you don't mind if I ask, I and hope you will excuse my ignorance if I should know this already, but who are "we"? Are you speaking for a group of designers for another WWII tank gunnery Sim game? Are you familiar with how tank gunnery is simulated in Panzer Elite? What is the purpose of your data, research stats and spreadsheets if not for gaming purposes? Would you share your data with Steve and Charles? Is it in the public domain? Do you give it away or sell it? Just curious. Are you affiliated with a 2D board gaming interest? Miniatures perhaps? Your comments and observations and posts seem VERY well informed and I look forward to your further observations. Thanks -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-01-2001).]