aka_tom_w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: APCR or Tungsten ammo is a ‘shot’ and therefore contains no explosive charge making it less likely to cause a catastrophic explosion than a AP shell which contains a small HE charge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK I admit that one of the most fun aspects of this game is the catastrophic k-kill explosion when a tank brews up, SURE I'ld like to see the turret blow up and pop off as well, but, I guess I do have to appreciate that you are of course correct to suggest the APCR round does not have any HE in it and it is in fact "just" a metallic projectile, BUT when you KO a hull down King Tiger with your first Shot at 200 meters from an immobile TD , my gut says "It should BLOW up and go BOOOM damn it!" Oh well it was fun anyway -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Glad tungsten is making Allied players happy (and German ones sad ), but to be clear we have not made any changes to targeting code. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the very prompt reply. I did not really think the the accuracy or targeting code or chance to hit percentages actually changed, I was just reporting that in the games I've played lately it seemed as though there were not an unusually high number of misses? Maybe I'm just getting used to the frequency of misses in CM, or both sides were unsually lucky and got plenty of first shot hits? Who knows. But the v1.1b seems to feel like most things work very well and everything is well balanced and most previous issues have been effectivelly dealt with. It sure is FUN! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: If BTS correctly modelled the superior German optics, no German tanks would ever get that close to an unspotted flamethrower team. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're Laughing at Me aren't you JEFF? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ciks: BTW, it's cool to watch Flamethrowers destroing tanks. Try it if you hadn't seen it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've seen a flame thrower torch a tank, its not pretty, if you are silly enough to let your tanks get close enough to flame thrower teams that are hiding and if they get a shot off in 20 - 30 meters ANY tank no matter how good, open topped or not, will not withstand more than one squirt of flaming fire starter all over it. Yup instant Tank BBQ! I saw a Sherm Toasted once, first flame thrower squirt went ALL over it but it did not go up in flames, IT also did not get the heck out of there fast enough either! and then the second shot toasted it and it went, whooosh, up in flames. -tom w

sort of related... Can you play a QB with Dynamic flags? I have never Played with dynamic flags Also? Can you play a two player (human vs. human ) scenario with NO flags (vl's)? This way the side the that destroyed the most of the other side's units at the end of the time limit would win. Just curious? Can anyone comment on playing with dynamic victory flags? It must be alot harder. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoop: Yes as a German commander I have unfortunately found out that the American tanks will use their Tungsten now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I think that EVENS things up a bit now, doesn't it? Even if the Allied TD's come with only one or two Tungsten Rounds They will fire them off and it does MAKE huge difference because if they get a hit they DO penetrate much better than the reg AP for sure. -tom w

One of my favourite Allied tanks is the M18 Hellcat, Fast light Quick and packs a good punch if it gets its tungsten off.... Well I have been playing and testing a scenario with M10's and M18's against King Tigers and Panthers and Hetzers. And YES the code works VERY well, the Allied tanks that have even very limited available rounds of tungsten, will not hestitate to fire them at Kt's and Panthers. I had a M10 get clobbered in a bad flank exposed postion by a KT which was hull down at 200m (my 3 o'clock) that was able to get a hit on the first shot but it was only a track hit (Great !) Flank exposed, Kt, hull down at 200 m,is lining up the K-KILL shot, all the while the M10 (exposed, not hull down, sitting duck in the open) is frantically swinging its turret around about 90 degrees to its right flank to try to get a shot off, before the KT can pump off the next round, so the M10 (what a nice little Tank ) FIRES its first shot, SCORES a First Shot HIT at 200 meters (Cool) BUT Wait! It Fires Tungsten and Nails the KT in the Front Turret and Pentrates and K-Kills the Damn thing in one shot! (And YES, I guess that was a VERY lucky shot to be honest) The only part that disapointed me was the KT did not erupt in a catastrophic explosion, some how the JOY of a first Shot K-Kill should be rewarded in the code with a catastrophic explosion any way... you all know I like to rant about superior German gunnery optics but in actual fact I prefer to play the Allies and I really just want to make the Germans tanks with the 88mm more challenging to play because in the past I thought they missed too much. I'm not sure if anything has changed but the Germans in the Scenario I just played registered quite a few first shot hits, so in this case last night it "felt" like they were nailing their targets, even at long range. I have only played about 4 full games now since the update but the new v1.1b "feels" really GOOD! Its stable and now the Allies TD's will fire off their tungsten when they think they might need it. (YES!) To Charles and everyone at BTS, Steve and Matt and Dan : GREAT Work on the select Tungsten for firing choice CODE and on the tanks firing through light buildings, that sure keeps things interesting. And all the OTHER tweaks are GREAT, and of course TCP/IP is now priceless with that timer. This game just more entertaining and enjoyable with very new patch and update. Thanks again -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-06-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-06-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Maybe the Pershing pokes the long gun through the house... Looks like a bug though. If it's a designer scenario it can also be the result of the designer changing terrail elevation after placing the house there. Cheers Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not to worry about that I designed that scenario My self and that Pershing does not start out there, I moved it with a hunt order right into the building as you see it. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-06-2000).]

Thanks for the prompt reply is it new to v1.1b? or has it been there all along and I just did not know about it? -tom w

and.... http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/house/thruhouse2.html Does this look right?, the Pershing is half way into the house and shoots right thru it and 3 other enemy tanks can spot it and return fire. This is not an odd corner of a house it is shooting and aiming and get shot at straight thru the house as though it was actually IN the house? is this new to v1.1b? http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/house/thruhouse1.html thanks, just curious, is this intentional? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-08-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jackal: Assuming that you had nothing to do with the targeting of the HQ unit. . .I have noticed that on the hunt my tank will stop when it has a valid target in its sights and will most likely move the turret around to engage, especially main gun at that range. Was the Sherman moving or stationary? Your Tank Commander, was he unbuttoned? if so He may have had eyes on the sherman but the gun may not have been able to engage because of terrain elevation (assumption). The sherman, because of elevation may have been at a "down" angle more than your tank's gun could angle upward (a guess on this one). I have seen this on active duty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think... And I could be wrong that there is ONLY one LOS from the tank.. I'm sure what Jackal is reporting is the ACTUAL truth but in CM in the game the way LOS is modeled an unbuttoned TC does NOT see more than the gunner can aim at due to his elevated position. LOS only comes from the central "sort of" average middle elevation of the tank. anyone else? comments -tom w

I think that discussion regarding the rarity factor was specific to CM2 on the Eastern Front in the NEXT rebuild of the game engine. There was never any talk of a rarity factor for CMBO IIRC. Comments? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Crank_GS: I know this has been mentioned before, but I saw no conclusion to it, and now I can't find it again. Why can't we tell our TCs where to point their turrets? On a hunt movr, my Panthers target a platoon HQ unit 300m away, while rotating the turret, and get whacked by a side turret hit. I have infantry working with them to act as flank security, and take care of the odd infantry contacts. I want my tanks to be searching for targets ahead of them! I understand if they percieve a threat on their flank, but surely a HQ unit 300m away is no real threat. There was even a yellow line to the Sherman, so they knew he was there. Anything I can do about this? Should we not be able to control turret facing?, At least order it? Thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is one known work around If you target the area facing where you want the turret to point, it will ask you if you want to use the main weapon? if you say NO then only MG fire will shoot in that direction, effectively keeping the the turret facing your perceived threat try it "sort of" works -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Tiger fired and got *another* track hit. Sherman fired and got a ricochet hit. Tiger fired again, getting a penetration hit (don't remember where) but not a KO. ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To be fair to the game the Tiger fired its forth shot and Hit AND penetrated and was then cursed with the extreme poor luck (I guess that was akin to rolling snake eyes twice) of the "penetration without result" I know these very are rare but that's probably where the really bad luck part came in. that penetration without result is rare, hopefully 1 or 2% rare like the weak spot frontal armour penetration, STILL a little BAD luck goes a LONG way in this game. But it SURE is FUN!!! TCP/IP is A Blast !!!! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: About 150 meters or less. Can't recall the crew experience, I wanna say Veteran, or maybe Regular. [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 12-04-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A Sherm at 150 m for an 88 in a Tiger, that should be like "Shooting Fish in a barrel" First shot miss! Phoooey !! I think you might well gripe about that AND then TWO M-Kill Track hits?? I know it won't do any good but if it was a Veteran crew and if it couldn't k-kill an Immobile sherm at 150 meters by the fourth shot then it was indeed VERY VERY bad luck. My problem here is that this kind of thing whenever it comes up is always just put down to "bad Luck" Oh well it it wasn't my battle but I've been equally ticked over similiar events of missed opportunnity on the battle field. That Tiger crew should hang their collective heads in shame! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-04-2000).]

no I'm not going to say that was bad luck? BUT two easy questions: What was range? and what was the experience level of the Tiger crew? Then I'll say "Where's the DAMN German Zeiss optics targeting accuracy bonus for the 88mm " !!!! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fangorn: So it is true... a friend of mine was playing a pbem and his opponent was moving his panther in reverse to avoid being bogged by snow... and a Stuart destroyed it Now, perhaps I'll buy some archers.. Hope that get fixed soon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK laugh while you CAN! I'm the idiot commander that "adavanced" a panther in reverse. I did not know the Stuart at that range (about 700 meters IIRC) could A) hit the Panther, penetrate the rear area. Yes I advanced a Panther in reverse and Yes a Stuart Immbolized it on the first shot and k-killed it on the second shot. But it was my last good tank and I did not want to risk it being bogged in the snow. It was on a road and I have since been told the Panthers are VERY unlikely to bog in snow on roads. It was the first time I had ever fought in Snow and I thought everything would bog down. oh well it was a FUN TCP/IP game vs. Epee and he LAUGHED at me when I lost my Panther, had it taken out his Stuart, which it "should" have, I would most surely have won the scenario, BUT, I lost. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-04-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-04-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Yes, we know about the smoke issue and running out of buildings prematurely and testing is underway to fix both. Remember, we said this was a beta and these things require time to address properly. Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, great thanks for the update. Is it really a problem with them running out of buildings prematurely? It must be VERY very difficult to tell the Tac AI what Prematurely is? (ie. "and running out of buildings prematurely") I thought when it came to vacating damaged buildings the v1.05 code had it just about perfect? The infantry would hang in there right till the end if you asked them to, I was happy with that I could be wrong on this one, but now the infantry will make a quick move to get out of buildings that are just 1 * damage astrick Is that correct? Maybe it should be that way? ITs VERY hard to say.? Well Tomorrow's Monday and the rest of us will go back to real work and you guys can play test v1.1b some more. Have FUN! -tom w P.S. now about the ` key for chatting......

Still Happy to suggest EVERYONE has Num 0 and the 0 (zero ) is not used for anything else.... Just a Friendly suggestion -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-03-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USGrant: I saw the same behavior playing "Singling Shootout." I targeted infantry in buildings with tanks and got smoke everywhere. Next turn the tanks were showing white target lines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oooops Has anyone else seen this or tested this? Does it happen with tanks from all countries? I have not seen it, but I have not played v1.1 as extensively as I would really like to. -tom w

Pansertruppen et al. are correct the latest version of Stuffit will work where Zippit it won't. In some cases Zippit is Just plain flakey but its also FREE so you only get what you pay for... I think the latest stuffit expander is also free but it actually works. -tom w

Hi Matt I was posting in good humour I think the problem is specific to macs and specific to Zippit It seems to be some what random in my opinion. I ususally work around it be using an old .bmp file or opening the disco coloured corrupt file and working on it in Photoshop with the rubber stamp tool if there is enough good image left in the file to clone it back together somewhat. -tom w

yup.... Still looking for a better solution for the chat key ... Still not liking the ` key and its very close location to the esc key Thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jdmorse: Recently DL'd (2x) the new panzertruppen mods. Both times after unzipping (on my iMac) I got bmps that were corrupted. If anyone could send me a clean copy (can be either zipit, Stuffit, or in clear) I would appreciate it. Good job Panzertruppen, they make CM so enjoyable with the detail you have provided. JD [This message has been edited by jdmorse (edited 12-02-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi I use Zippit on a Mac as well, and almomst ALWAYS find at least one corrupt file that has green and purple disco like "snow" in it I think the Mac program Zippit somwhow leaves somthing to be desired as a Zipped file unzipper. I have had this problem on a Mac with at least one .bmp file in almost every mod pac I have downloaded. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-02-2000).]

Wow check this out these guys are for real: from this web page: http://www.strategypage.com/prowg/ Why Professional and Commercial Wargames are so Different Professional wargames are quite different than commercial cousins, and not for the reasons you might think. Professional wargames are more complex and difficult to use. The data in professional wargames is more frequently defective and professional games cost far more to create. This sad state of affairs is not the result of some nefarious conspiracy, but simply what happens when large military organizations build wargames. Consider some of the details; -Most professional wargames have to satisfy a lot of users or, rather, user organizations. There are a lot of people the game developers cannot say no to. This is because the expense of professional wargames, you cannot built one for each specialty. Rather than just build a wargame that helps the infantry do their work, you also have to cover what the signal, logistics, electronic warfare, transportation and, well, you get the idea, need. Building in what everyone needs makes the games more complex and often causes compromises which, well, compromise the integrity of the game. -The databases used for most games contain a lot of classified, and incorrect, information. Warriors need ammunition to do their job, wargamers need data. The military recognizes this and much time, money and effort is lavished on building wargame databases. But most of this work is classified secret, which typically means it's not easy to get a lot of people to double check the data. Few people with good knowledge of the data have the necessary security clearance. So errors that get into the database, tend to stay there. Moreover, the programmers and other people who put the database together initially, soon depart for other projects. After than, no one is eager to open up the database to change anything, lest they screw things up. There's also a tendency to accord a database more respect than is deserved. The feeling is that if something is in the database, it must be right. Don't you ever believe this. I've put together a lot of wargame databases and, believe me, people can, and will, put all sorts of odd stuff in a database. Bad data, or stuff that isn't updated regularly, eventually kills a game. In many cases, the users don't even notice what the bad data is doing to their results. The larger and more complex games are a mystery to the users because documentation of how the software works internally is often lacking, as is anyone sufficiently familiar with the source code to go looking for suspected problems. -Black Box Syndrome. With a few exceptions, most wargames today, and in the past, are run on computers. The users have no easy way to check how the software is running the war. If the wargame comes up with reasonable (although possibly still erroneous) results, no one makes a stink. The exception to this attitude is in vehicle simulation simulators, especially flight simulators. In the case of these systems, vehicle operators, especially pilots, will conduct a spirited protest if they feel the flight simulator is misrepresenting reality. Operational and strategic level simulators have too wide a range of possible outcomes for a user to be certain that the wargame is in error. Lacking definitive proof, users will eventually come to mistrust the wargame without being able to prove what's wrong and fix it. This is the fate of most professional wargames. Some, like Janus, overcome the problem by being easily configurable (by professional wargame standards). There are many variants of Jamus in use, each configured to a different users requirements. There is even a commercial version of Janus, Brigade Combat Team. -User Interface: What the user saw, and ease of use, were never high priorities for professional wargames. This is odd, as much military equipment is designed for ease of use. However, the far superior interfaces of commercial wargames have had an impact. Unfortunately, the developers of professional wargames cannot easily hire experienced interface designers, especially those with commercial wargame experience. In fact, current procurement regulations make it very difficult to bring in people from the commercial side, and commercial wargame developers are reluctant to work for the government. All those audits and the abundant red tape scare them off. And the few who have tried it tell tales of woe that do not encourage others to follow. -Validation. Software engineers have long understood the need for validating their products. Without this double checking, new software might not do what was intended. Professional wargames are different. Many are predictive, or attempting to simulate unpredictable combat situations. However, in peacetime, there is no real war to keep the wargames honest, but there are numerous politicians, generals and policy makers who want a specific outcome from wargames. Put bluntly, the results are often decided on before the wargames come into play. Many professional wargames are quite accurate, as occasionally the users will do some validation work to demonstrate this (using a recent battle). But, in general, validation is not a high priority and is avoided as much as possible. Within the professional wargames community, there have been quiet debates over this issue for decades. So far, validation has not caught on. So be careful if you bring it up. -Methodology. Professional and current commercial wargames shared the same techniques until the end of World War II. At that point, most professional wargames began to use a more technical approach, attempting to quantify everything and deal with the resulting avalanche of algorithms and calculations by using computers. It took several decades before computers were powerful enough to provide reasonable coverage of the enormous number of things taking place on the battlefield. At that point, the 1970s, several high ranking officials in the Pentagon wondered if these simulations of modern combat could, say, replicate well documented battles from World War II. The dismal results of these tests had two effects. One was to remind everyone how dangerous validation could be. But it was also realized that somewhere along the line history had been purged from professional wargames and maybe it would be a good idea to refer to the past when trying to predict the future. Commercial wargames were doing this with embarrassing regularity. The operations research/quantify everything approach still holds sway, but there is more readiness to learn from historical models as well. But you will find that there is still a sharp divide between the quantify and historical schools. This has the effect of further slowing down the design of current professional wargames to accommodate these debates. -Lack of professionals. Despite all the work done on professional wargames in the past fifty years, there were few professional wargame designers. The reason was manifold. There were few wargames produced for the military, so those putting them together didn't get a lot of practice. Moreover, many of the games were classified, so only a small number of users became familiar with the inner workings of the games. Before World War II, wargames were all manual. Anyone using them could not avoid becoming familiar with the inner workings of the games. More people in the know about the game mechanics provided a large pool of knowledgeable critics. This disappeared once the games were computerized. Each wargame development project had military people in charge, or at least somewhere in the large teams that brought these games to life. But there was no military specialty for wargames and the officers involved spent a few years at it and then moved on to something else that had nothing with wargames. At the end of the century, the US Army created a job category for wargames, but found that there was no existing professional training courses for wargamers. Some were invented, and other related courses (computer and operations research) were tweaked and renamed. There is still a shortage of military people in professional wargame development projects, and that situation will remain for the foreseeable future. History of Operations Research This is a new project, where we will lay out where Operations Research came from and what it has done (and is likely to do) for wargaming. The initial material comes from a speech I gave in November, 2000.