aka_tom_w

Any news on this Front? Steve? BTS? Anybody? Comments..... -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: aka_tom_w: "Is it gamey to reverse tanks while off road to avoid bogging?" yeah, you go ahead and charge into the enemy ass first. I wish you a lot of fun with that, and if you charge my positions like that I can assure you that I would not object to it and call it gamey .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, Well obviously it would be a questionable tactic to advance to actually attack a position in an ass first orientation, BUT I would think it would be gamey to move your tanks all over the "non enemy contact" part of your back field by reversing them to get them into position to attack. I still think it's gamey but in the "privacy" of your own rear areas it seems as though it is worth considering to get into position, because bogges tanks are a real nuisance!! -tom w

Dr. Suess Goes To Florida Can we count them with our nose? Can we count them with our toes? Should we count them with a band? Should we count them all by hand? If I do not like the count, I will simply throw them out. I will not let this vote count stand. I do not like them, AL GORE I am. Can we change these numbers here? Can we change them, calm my fears? What do you mean, Dubya has won? This is not fair, this is not fun. Let's count them upside down this time. Let's count until the state is mine. I will not let this VOTE count stand. I do not like it, AL GORE I am. I'm really ticked, I'm in a snit. You have not heard the last of it. I'll count the ballots one by one And hold each one up to the sun. I'll count, recount, and count some more. You'll grow to hate this little chore. But I will not, cannot let this vote count stand. I do not like it, Al Gore I am. I won't leave office, I'm stayin' here. I've glued my desk chair to my rear. Tipper, Hillary, and Bubba, too, all telling me that I should sue. We find the Electoral College vile. RECOUNT the votes until I smile. We do not want this vote to stand. We do not like it, AL GORE I am. How shall we count this ballot box? Let's count it standing in our socks. Shall we count this one in a tree? And who shall count it, you or me? We cannot, cannot count enough. We must not stop, we must be tough. I do not want this vote to stand. I do not like it, AL GORE I am. I've counted till my fingers bleed. And still can't fulfill my counting need. I'll count the tiles on the floor. I'll count, and count, and count some more. And I will not say that I am done Until the counting says I've won. I will not let this vote count stand. I do not like it, AL GORE I am. What's that? What are you trying to say? You think the current count should stay? You do not like my counting schemes? It makes you tense, gives you bad dreams? Foolish people, you're wrong you'll see. Your only care should be for me. I WILL NOT LET THIS VOTE COUNT STAND! I DO NOT LIKE IT. AL GORE I AM!

WOW !!! Now this is whole thing is just getting Dumb and Silly, and totally out of hand. I'm surprised we have not seen the padlock yet. What ever happened to Happy Thanks Giving and Have a Great long Weekend to all our American friends? Is that too much to ask? Just a Little cease fire over the long weekend? Too Much! Just way over the top, and that goes for ALL the ranting and raving in this thread. -tom w

I really don't know what BTS would have to do to get CM on Gameranger. I have no idea? But all I can think of is the FREE advertising for the game. That List I posted above is really a BIG TIME Who's Who of Mac Games. All the really popular mulitplayer games are there. Listing CM on Game Ranger would open the game up to a new kind of (ok mostly Non-grog) video game gamer, and "should" increase sales as the exposure of this game "should" be greatly expanded. I would bet that many, if not most gamers that go to GameRanger have not ever even heard of Combat Mission. Why not get even more FREE exposure there. Now I may be ALL wrong on this? Does any one know if the game companies have to pay anything to get on that list posted above? I doubt it but I could be wrong. BTS should make it a priority to list CM on Gameranger once TCP/IP is out the door and finalized. How hard can that be? -tom w

This is a who's who of the best of Mac games this is the list of Games Game Ranger Supports, just for purpose of the FREE advertising ALONE, Combat Mission SHOULD be on this list: from: http://www.gameranger.com/games/ Your Choice of 48 Games to Play on GameRanger: • A--hole (cards) • Madden NFL 2000 • Age of Empires • Master of Orion II • Alien Crossfire • MechWarrior 2 • Alpha Centauri • Monopoly • Ares • Myth II • Battle for the Universe • NetBoxes • Bolo • Netzee • ChessWorks • Quake 1 • Civilization II Gold • Quake 2 • Close Combat • Quake 3 • Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far • QuakeWorld • Cribbage • Railroad Tycoon 2 • Dark Colony • Railroad Tycoon 2: The Second Century • Dark Vengeance • Rainbow Six • Deadlock • Rainbow Six: Eagle Watch • F/A-18 Korea • Risk II • FutureCop • Scrabble • Heroes of Might and Magic II • Star Trek: Elite Force • Heroes of Might and Magic III • Star Wars Racer • Jazz Jackrabbit 2 • Stratega • Klingon Honor Guard • Terminus • Links LS 2000 • Unreal • Links LS 2000 Demo • Unreal Tournament • Lode Runner 2 • Warcraft II [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-25-2000).]

NEW YORK -- Breathtaking Is Not Usually a Word Associated With Computer Operating Systems. But in looking at Apple's new Mac OS X, it's captures both the aesthetic and technical enhancements both on the surface and underneath the beta release. For this six-year Mac user, test-driving the beta was a lot like sitting behind the wheel of a powerful, stylish new car still parked on the showroom floor. I got to feel the heft of the engine and play with some of the shiny-new features -- but going anywhere with it left lots to the imagination. The Mac OS X (say ten) beta did fine while I watched DVDs, listened to MP3s, tested some new and old applications and surfed the Web. But it is after all a beta, or pre-release version. So it is infested with bugs and prone to application and system crashes. And crash it did, repeatedly, throughout my testing on a slick, new G4 Cube. That's to be expected, of course. A beta's mission is to expose kinks -- and in the case of this particular operating system -- for which Apple is actually charging $29.95 -- to generate a sizable pile of hype. Apple chief executive Steve Jobs, himself a master of hype, wanted the newest Mac OS to handle the demands of Apple's high-end customers, who use the platform for graphics, video and music, and its growing base of new iMac consumers. When the final version is released next year (Apple says neither a price nor a date has been set), the new OS will have been honed thanks to input from developers. Mac operating systems -- the first was introduced in 1984 -- have always been strong on sophisticated graphics support and subsequently integrated networking and Internet access. All the while maintaining Apple's tenured reputation for simplicity. But market share is a problem. The current version, OS 9, is installed on 1.2 percent of the consumer market, which Microsoft's Windows dominates with 88 percent. Imagine Mr. Jobs asking himself (repeatedly) "How do I erode Microsoft's near monopoly?" The structure of Mac OS X answers that question, at least partially. Its core is a variant of Unix, a command-based operating system as stable and reliable as the corporate networks and Web servers it runs. In addition, the source code is open, which means Apple is for the first time giving third-party developers plenty of opportunity to brainstorm add-ons -- as well as write new software. The Unix core software allows for protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking and multiprocessing -- all firsts for a Mac OS. What that means is you will be able to do more, in less time, and, increasingly, all at once. You will also be able to run old programs. Like its Windows competitors and unlike the current Mac operating system, Mac OS X gives and takes memory resources from open applications, making them and the system itself harder to crash. The new OS also better shares the power of Apple's speedy G4 processor. Apple hopes to kiss goodbye the days when one crashed program requires a restart -- and probably a loss of work. Max OS X also supports the dual processors Apple is offering in its new line of G4s, which means the system can spread its processes along with those of other applications simultaneously. As yet, very little software has been written for OS X -- but big-name software firms including Adobe and Macromedia are racing to retool their applications for the new OS: Think graphic artists, movie makers, Web designers. For such demanding users, the Mac OS X must be lightning quick -- and it was -- as fast as any Mac I've ever used and I use a 500 Mhz dual processor G4 Power Mac running OS 9 daily in my work as a graphics artist. The operating system does require a lot of resources, though Apple promises the release version will require only 64 MB of RAM, half of what the beta needs to run. It also takes up 1.5 GB of hard drive space. Apple promises the OS will support hardware, like Apple's Airport wireless Ethernet networking system, which was not incorporated into the beta. Printing support on the beta is also slim, an unacceptable impediment for most regular users. Artists and gamers will like Mac OS X's support for Open GL, the industry's most widely used 3D rendering technology. But the hallmark of the Mac OS is its renowned simple-to-use graphical user interface, which runs on a system layer called Quartz. Based on Adobe's PDF technology, it is hands-down the most visually dynamic system I've ever used. The new liquid-blue interface, Aqua, takes full advantage of the graphic technology that has made Apple a leader in multimedia. Aqua boasts photo-quality icons, slick drop shadows, transparent window panes and color rollover buttons that adorn and aid the navigation, Like its competitors Windows NT and Windows 2000, Mac OS X is built for multiple users so instead of the familiar one-for-all desktop, Aqua loads up with a log-in screen where a profile of preferences is created for each user, giving individuals access to distinct home, system, library, document and desktop folders. Another addition to the desktop is the visually stunning Dock, where open applications and documents will collaspe and reside. Though a bit distracting and obtrusive, the interactivity of the Dock gives the design a bit of personality. The beta comes with pre-release version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, a mail program plus a host of small OS X apps. Long-time users may complain of a learning curve, given how much OS X differs from its predecessors. But the stability, speed and visual stunningness of the new system far outweigh the familiarity of the old. One important note of advice, though: I wouldn't recommend installing OS X unless you're an experienced computer user who doesn't mind weathering a beta's turbulence. from: http://detnews.com/2000/technews/0011/23/technology-152575.htm

I have never played an operation. I say this because I don't understand the need to "stand down" and have a line drawn. I agree with Tris when he says this is inherently gamey. Why not just keep fighting? I understand Charles is totally frustated with this issue and I don't blame him for wanting to abandon the entire concept of operations. Why not just play REALLY large battles? I designed one with a HUGE walled city in the middle of it that lasts for 75 turns and it has been suggested I turn it into an operation, but I don't want lines drawn, and I see no need to stand down the battle after an hour. Anyway, I don't really think this is a big deal if you choose not to play operations because that damn no man;s land line is drawn in a really gamey way. BUT I'm not complaining because (other than the gunnery optics issue ) I'm THRILLED, just totally Delighted, with EVERY other aspect of this GREAT game and the fact that I have no real interest in playing operations means I'm really not to concerned if there are still problems with the line and the no man's land. Its still a GREAT game and it can ONLY get better with V1.1 and TCP/IP I can't Wait! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fatmac: Download the powerlogix g3/g4 cache profiler from www.powerlogix.com. Install it and turn OFF write-thru. My machine (g4/400) was way faster with combat mission. It made a world of difference. Calculation times dropped. It seemed *almost* as fast as my athlon 700 in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Thanks for the info I would be very happy to read more about this software and what it does and why it makes my Mac faster. I'm a Mac Tech Geek and feel sort of not up to date, having never hheard of this before. Anyone else know what this does and how and why it makes the cpu faster? Thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunny Bunny: Are you not thinking of Saturday Night Live and "Mr. Bill" & "Gunny Bunny" ??? Regards, GB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> no no, it was local to Toronto, for sure on SCTV Harold Ramis was in the skit and there was a Gunny Rabbit and a Captian Combat, Dave Thomas was Captain Combat. All time Classic SCTV. Its about 15 - 20 years old I guess by now. -tom w

Gunny bunny Well that reminds me of one of my favourite Second City TV skits. It featured Captian Combat and a puppet called Gunny Rabit. it was very funny it taught kids (late night tv Adults in reality) to say words like "ambush" and "Camoflauge" and "Schmizer" And when a loaded Schmizer Mg went off acidentally and killed others in the room young viewers learned the moral of the story "Never stand in a room with a loaded Schmizer, unless you're holding it" If you have ever seen the skit it is one of the funniest pieces of Second City comedy ever! -tom w

Thanks Steve You should be eating Turkey or at the very least relaxing and sleeping off all that tryptophan. Didn't think we would hear from any of you Americans until Monday. Relax... Enjoy a little, Hope you find time to do other Real Life ™ things besides BTS and CM over your late Nov. four day holiday. (In Canada some of us are a little envious of such nice little LONG weekend at this time of the year.) Happy ThanksGiving -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triggerhappy: It's not just a shooter, it's much more tactical than Quake 3 for example. As I wrote: The infantery battles are really cool. Imagine running through open terrain with about 30 other guys. Suddenly your squad leader shouts "Enemy soldier, three o clock!" (there are always voice messages, just like in a flight sim). The guy in front of you breaks down, hit by an MG burst. The bullets are swarming all over as you swing your M16 around. You notice an Abrams tank, rumbling into battle to your left. You try to keep up with it so you stay behind it in cover. Suddenly an explosion shatters the tank and a Soviet Hind gunship is roaring over your head... I've never played any other game that so much made me feel "Hell, this is war! Get me out of here!". I especially loved taking out AFVs with LAWs. It's really pretty frightening to kneel down only a few meters away from a Bradley trying to get a good aim while its turret quickly swings towards you. Okay, maybe I'm a little bit too enthusiastic but I've got to say I just love this game - the infantery part, that ist. I didn't like too much driving a tank or flying a helicopter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW! All I can say is WOW! The mpeg video of the game play was Stunning exactly as you described. Sadly I'll bet is another one of those games that only runs on a PC? oh well.... It looks GREAT! KILLER 3D graphics engine -tom w

see this thread for a previous discusion: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012171.html for an mpeg streaming vidoe of the game play try this: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/video/clasified.mpeg its looks VERY cool I would say its Eye candy factor and FUN factor are VERY high But Realism? Well I think it is a First Person Shooter, so I'm not sure what role good tactics plays when you are trying to win. Triggerhappy, can you tell us a little more about how the game plays? Is there any use of small unit tactics? or do you just run around shooting whatever is in your way? Please Share -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-23-2000).]

"Big Time Software Moderator posted 11-21-2000 06:47 PM Also, pillboxes will have a better chance of hitting with less shots. These things were ranged in well ahead of time, so they could more easily rule out the largest variable when firing at an enemy target -> range. I would expect to see pillboxes being a little more deadly with 1.1 Steve" Hi Is there still time to code in the same range "knowing" advantage or bonus for dug in tanks into v1.1? A tank which is dug in, is presumed to be a part of a well prepared defensive plan or set-up and should also be granted a similiar accuracy bonus as the anti tank guns in Pillboxes which are now going to have some form of accuracy bonus (not due to better optics ) due to Steve's idea (and it is a VERY good idea) that a pillboxe with an anti tank gun in it will have previously established ranges to the areas in its field of view that it intends to target. Would the same advantge not also be available to a dug in tank on the defense? ( You know the minute v1.1 comes out we are going to run gunnery ragne tests to see just how good the 88 mm anti tank gun is when it is in a pillbox , a dug in Tiger 1 should be just as accruate as a pillbox with an 88 mm in it) Hope there's time to slip that little snippit of code into v1.1 Happy ThanksGiving to all you Americans. We already had ours in Canada so Thurs and Fri are just regular work days for us. -tom w

Thanks for all the bog tests They are VERY informative A realy big thanks from all of us So now the big question? I guess the answer is an unqualified YES! Is it gamey to reverse tanks while off road to avoid bogging? I wonder if there is time to have that one fixed in v1.1? we'll see -tom w

Why don't they buy CM as well? I'm sure it would be more fun. -tom w

easy select the unit hit the enter or return key on my Mac it is the Return key and Voila ! instant unit stats. -tom w

Age of Empires I Still like the Real Time action even if it is not really historically accurate. Its still a FUN game. Myth II is also a GREAT game, again fun RTS. but in nice 3D. -tom w

Did Steve Just say they are considering modeling optics bonues or is this a cruel early April fool's Joke just before the American Thanksgiving...... "All factors will be added up and compared to what the baseline, average sighting system would score. Those systems that score above will get an accuracy and/or aquisition time bonus in relation to how much better they score. " If he is serious about modeling optics bonuses, I'm Giving Thanks for Sure. Thanks! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Conall: I think some of the posts here are missing the point about the difference in quality between German & Allied optics. The main advantage the Germans had was that their optics could achieve similar levels of magnification (x2.5) to those of the Allies with much wider fields of view (typically 25 degrees in comparison to between 9 & 12 degrees for the Allied sights) & with better optical clarity. This had two important repercussions: a) it allowed the German gunners to search for & acquire targets & the wider field of view/clarity made the estimation of range much easier. In order to estimate range you need as many points of reference as possible – it becomes exponentially harder to judge distance as your field of view is diminished. As an example I’ve asked Jeff to post a picture of the view through a British 17pdr sight . Best regards, Conall<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats a Great post Seriously ..... I don't think that point has ever been mentioned before. I think it is significant because it has hard numbers in it. If true, (I'm sure that your numbers are verifiable) the German gunners had twice the field of view as the Allied gunners. I think twice the field of view is a BIG difference. "Germans had was that their optics could achieve similar levels of magnification (x2.5) to those of the Allies with much wider fields of view (typically 25 degrees in comparison to between 9 & 12 degrees for the Allied sights) & with better optical clarity." This makes (IMHO) one of the most compelling points using actual hard numbers for some slight German Accuracy bonus. Great Post thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juju: Hi Nabla, and welcome. I can relate to your problem cos my HQ's seemed trigger happy too. What I used to do was setup some ambush points and let my squads target them. Since I usually don't want my HQ's to expose themselves needlessly I always cancelled their own ambush and just let them hide. Result: The HQ's were often the first ones to open fire. I've changed my tactic a bit now. What I do now is I set up the ambush points for my squads and a separate point for my HQ pointing to the rear of its position, or just very,very close to it. It seems to work. They tend to keep quiet more often. I also use this trick for AT teams, when I want to make sure they don't fire prematurely (i.e when I don't want them to fire at all, usually) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry to ask... BUT, can you explain that in a little more detail? Are you suggesting that the Ambush marker for your HQ is set to a location behind the unit so it is intended to be looking away from the enemy so that it won't prematurely open fire? Can you describe your tactic a little more fully so I can understand how you can get it to work right? Thanks -tom w

This was VERY informative Thanks for the Big Effort I think the most relevant thing is that a fast move through scattered trees is not half as dangerous as I thought. That 5% bog figure and 71% unbogged figure are a really big surprise, I would never have beleived teh 5% bog figure wouldbe so low or the 71% bog figure would be so high, Thanks again -tom w

Just Three words: No Mac Version So Screw 'em! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: FACT -> German gunners more regullarly hit and killed Allied tanks at longer ranges. Significant factors: Stance of the vehicles (i.e. who is on the defensive). Experience of the crew for each Basic capabilities of the guns for each Terrain each vehicle was in A "typical" engagement where range played a factor would most likely have the Germans on the defensive, with at least as good (or better) crews (especially if it is a Tiger/KT), using a superior gun against an inferrior one, and having the armor to deflect a hit while the Allies would take a kill. Now... nowhere in the above statement is it necessary for the German optics to be better to come out ahead. Even if the German optics were slighly INFERIOR, the chances are they would walk away the victors. This is why it is not even close to being clear cut that the optics had some positive effect on the outcome of such an engagement. All else being equal, the Germans have a huge advantage without optical advantages. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve Great post and most certianly an informed and open minded one. But.... (and this is not really new) again I would like to suggest that the German Main weapons, specifically the 88mm and the Tiger 1 and any German AFV with the 88, was designed with the concept of being capable of engaging the enemy (sucessfully) outside of the range of most Allied main guns, and specifically outside of the range of the Allied 75. My point is that I still believe it is unrealistic to say the Allies and that German's should both have similiar long range, (Over 1200 m up to 2000 m) chance to hit percentages. I have said this before so I guess it is now starting to sound more like noise than anything else, BUT with the advantage of crystal clear optics and the flatter more predictatble trajectory of the 88 AP round, the result of a first shot miss was more easily spotted and adjusted for leading me to suggest again the German crews in the Vet Crack and Elite catagories should be have increased chance to hit odds in the chance to hit algorythym so that for an Elite crew at 1200 m there is a close a 90-95% percent chance to hit by the forth shot, having missed three they should not be Elite if they cannot guarantee a hit by the fourth shot. (in day light against a Stationary Sherm, not hull down, OK, its stationary because it has been imbollized, I know it would not just sit there and take three misses and engage a Tiger ) I admit that I do not know what the chance to hit percentages are for subsquent shots after a first shot miss, but some of us here, after running CM shooting range tests still feel the Vet Crack and Elite German gunners manning 88's do not range in and have increased chance to hit percentages reflected in their chance to hit algorythyms after several misses to realistically model the accuracy we have (perhaps mistakenly) been lead to believe the the legendary German 88 enjoyed during tank combat in WW II. I Still strongly believe a second, third and forth shot chance to hit advantage (a slight advantage) should be modeled for the Vet Crack and Elite German crews (slightly more so than for the Allied crews of Similiar weapons) to account for their better optics and ability to see the shot fall and quickly adjust for it with the Aid of crystal clear optics and in-tank Range finders. Oh well.... Those are just my opinions. At least I take some comfort in knowing I am not completely alone and way, way off base on this one.(Meaning at Least I think, there are few other supporters of this position) Its still a great discusion and has been remarkably flame free for quite some time now. Keep up the good work -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-22-2000).]