aka_tom_w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I have been taking various factors and trying to compare them to victory ability and point cost, and started getting close to saying that the game is ever so slightly balanced toward Germans based on point costs. Still, it is very possible to win,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with that. I REALLY don't like QB's where players "buy" units based on the point system. I think the concept that two players can buy any unit they desire within their "budget" is the beginging of where the term "gamey" starts. There are PLENTY of good well balanced, and largely unplayed scneario's out there to choose from that you can play double blind with your opponent. Its the concept of 'buying' units within a budget based on points that is the problem here not the point allocation its self. I see the point system as it is set up in CM, to be a "rough" guide line to help the scenario designer attempt to balance forces in a scenario he is designing. Then you play test the scenario and try to make it fair to both sides, and as Slapdragon has suggested this may mean giving the Allies some more units hardware or points like arty or a few extra snipers as the Axis side may tend to get better bang for the buck here and there. I think the point system, as currently modeled, is ONLY a problem when becomes the be all and end all of budget-like spending to create gamey force pools for QBs which are played on maps that are lacking rivers and bridges anyway, so IMHO why bother with the QB and the point allocation budget "buying" business in the first place?? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-03-2000).]

Yes Myth and Myth II are games that I play I have not played Myth II for some time but it is a GREAT (non-resource harvesting) RTS in FULL 3D great, great game Steve and Charles and Dan and Matt should get it and play it and go head to head in multiplayer as the game is VERY well designed. Perhaps they could see how ti works and compare it to CM and get some ideas for CM2 I'm completely addicted to CM for now. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: here is no point on searching for an open question such as mine. All i will get is a bunch of opinions posted months ago and won't get the benefit of a back and forth discussion as we are having now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well when folks here start using profanity and calling each other names I'm not really sure anyone is "getting the benefit of a back and forth discussion" Just my own non-flaming way of saying, a positive and constructive debate or discusion in a scholarly manner should be free of profanity and name calling. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: Ok....Thanks for the suggestion. But i never saw what peoples facination about making scenarios for THEMSELVES. I understand making them for others, but when you make one for yourself you don't get the randomness of a QB. And as to using lower level troops, I think its kinda dumb that you'd have to do that when historically German's were outnumbered by Tank crews that were "regulars" Well, im just glad some people agree with me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK I agree with you when you say that as the allies using the QB system it is very difficult to buy enough cheap Allied tanks to out number a KT or Panther say 4 or 5 to 1. Now in reality when the Allies did out number the big german tanks with these numbers, they were almost always victorious so there is no real play balance there to make it fair to both sides. My point is the one BIG factor in the Allies winning the war during the period after D-Day is that they Outnumbered the German's in significant battles. This does not make for fair game play, but for the realistic modeling of the likely result which is the Germans loosing. So.... The goal should not be to model the way the Allied tanks outnumbered the Axis tanks to win all their engangements but it should be to model some system of equality that would give BOTH the Germans and the Allies an EVEN chance to gain victory through good tactics (and when it comes to tanks especially) GOOD luck. I think the current system does that fairly well. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-02-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: Ok thats all fine and good but it still doesn't help out with QBs. If my opponent can buy a KT, then i should be able to buy at least 3 Sherms, probably more<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you are saying then that a Reg KT should be worth 3 reg Sherm 75s ? so if the KT was worth 300 points then the Sherms should be worth 100 points each? If you are REALLY serious about this you should propose and post a your NEW cost and points chart for every vehicle in the game and then other folks here including Steve and Charles can comment on your new point cost proposal.You shuld cost them ALL out with cost per vehicle and per crew experience level. Just a suggestion I'm not sure but I think the current system works fairly well to insure good fair play balance. -tom w

Good points if you are interested in a good juicy tank battle where the Allied tanks of (probably) inferior quality out number the fewer Axis tanks (presumably of Superior quality) then the quick battle with EVEN points for "buying" these things is NOT the way to go. FORGET Quick Battles use a new custom designed sceanario or ask that some one design one up for you and release to you and your PBEM opponent for play. The QB with EVEN points is simply not the right way to play a good tank battle where the Allied tanks out number the Axis tanks. If thats what you want. but to be fair to BOTH sides, how should the game be written to allow purchases of inferior allied tanks to out number (by HOW much) more expensive (fewer) superior Axis tanks? Where is the play balance? In the QB system now for "buying" tanks with points its seems there is actually fariness and pretty good play balance, if you buy many cheap green and conscript allied tanks you can out number your German opponent with inferior tanks. Its a tough call actually I think. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-02-2000).]

sorry I'm late I have not had a chance to get to a scanner but I did read over the designer notes for Tobruk at Lunch. I'm not really sure there is much in them that will halp us here, but they are Very interesting to read. I will post those references and there are plenty of them. -tom w

I had Tobruk but lost it so I can't comment on its refrences anyone here got it lying around?. Regards, John Waters Hi John OK, I've got it. I can scan the relevant sections and post them, now I wonder why I will do this if BTS has already said they do not and will not use facts and references from other games to let us support our positions here? But I will do it anyway. That Tobruk manual is FULL of great Designer notes and FULL refernces with ALL kinds of Math and formula's and algorythyms and equations for determining hits and pentration and the like. Sit tight and I'll scan it and post it today. -tom w Its the ONLY decent WWII reference material I own SO I'm wildly happy to share it!!! [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-02-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: J From out of left field: Have you played the old Avalon Hill board game “Tobruck” (spelling). Somewhat of a precursor to Squad Leader…much more detailed armor model than SL. I no longer have a copy of the game, but would be curious as to the game references. Might help us along in this discussion. Also a great site.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Folks I have the game I played it in the mid to late 70's when it came out the copyright is 1975 When I was a teen we played this game a great deal, I was always the Allies and and my crappy British tanks got SMOKED everyt time by the like os the 88 mm flack and that dreaded Pzkfw IIIJ Anyway I have the manual in my hand RIGHT NOW Which references are you looking for? They look long and hard to type out since I guess I cannot easily cut and paste them from some other source, I'll try to type them out over lunch and post them. I thought the Armour pentration model i Tobruk was VERY well done, extremely well done and I have all the stat sheets and hit charts, the whole game is intact. Now, how shall we use it? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stenmur2: I believe he was wondering why the shots were landing left/right of the tanks. Remember that at 200 meters an angle of 7 degrees off center will give you a 25 meter change. The farther away the target is the smaller the angle needed to miss. stenmur<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would agree with any suggestion that would propose that the gme model misses as largely short or long, perhaps we might see misses modeled this way more often in CM2. I agree that it does not feel right that the the game should show us the result of a missed shot to the left or to the right. I know that this visual respresentation doesn't really matter, because its just a graphics thing, BUT since the shot that misses can actually do damage somewhere else when it misses, the game should model these misses in a much more long (past the target) or short (in front of the target) missing manner. While we are being picky about this we might suggest based on our reading and reaserach in the 88 accuracy thread that the majority of first shot misses be modeled LONG (on target but behind it) as the German WWII tank gunners were instructed to guess longer rather than shorter while bracketing so as not to obscure the target unneccesarily with a shot that kicked up dust when it fell short. just a few thoughts And yes I still believe that there are far too many 3rd and 4th shot misses, (by both sides) especially for veteran crack and elite crews that should be able to bracket fast and have a much higher percentage of hits on target by the 3rd or 4th shot, yes even while being shot at, even in combat. It doesn't feel right when a crack or elite tank crew (either side) misses 4 times in a row at ANY range. They weren't Crack or elite because they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, and when we are told we were just unlucky I think what this really means is that the algorythym that determines chance of a hit after a target is missed with the first and second shot IS not high enough on the third and forth shot to adequatley model the Elite Crack or Veteran crew gunner experince of bracketing and laying the shot on target by the fourth round as the German gunners were trained to do when the attempted to qualify (on a practive range granted, but then they were green or regular, without combat experiecne and they were STILL requuired to get a hit by the fourth shot) to be German Tiger Tanks Gunners. Just ranting again to support the fact that the chance to hit is not high enough for 3rd and 4th shots for Elite Crack and verteran tank gunners. I have posted simliar concerns in the (now ) 14 page 88 accuracy thread, it is worth reading if you are serious about this subject matter. -tom w

OK Someone needs to say it! (RATS, Theron and Maj Bosco beat me to it!) In this Game Friendly units shoot RIGHT Through EACH other as though they were not there. you cannot target friendly unit. Your tanks all in a row or column, will shoot RIGHT through each other without any damage as live and Dead non-smoking vehicles do not block LOS or LOF, ever. Please read the thread Steve mentioned, and only test gun ranges and accuracy on enemy AFV's Simple, the game will NOT let you Target a Friendly unit. Period. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-01-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-01-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: If a number of rounds of ammunition of the same caliber, lot, and charge are fired from the same position with identical settings used for deflection and quadrant elevation, the rounds will not all impact on a single point but will fall in a scattered pattern. The points of impact of the projectiles will be scattered both in deflection and in range. Dispersion is caused by inherent (systemic) errors such as: minor variations in the weight of the projectile, and moisture content and temperature of the propellant grains, differences in the rate of ignition of the propellant, variations in the arrangement of the propellant grains, play (looseness) in the mechanisms of the carriage, nonuniform reactions to firing stress, environmental effects (gusting winds) etc, etc. It should'nt be confused with round-to-round variations caused by either human (non-cool gunner ) or constant errors (constant error like consistent wind velocity, ambient temperature, etc). Human errors can be minimized through training and supervision. Inherent errors are beyond control or are impractical to measure. The distribution of bursts (dispersion pattern) in a given sample of rounds is roughly elliptical in relation to the line of fire and the intended point of impact. For any large number of rounds fired, the average (or mean) location of impact can be determined by drawing a diagram of the pattern of bursts as they appear on the ground. A line drawn perpendicular to the line of fire can be used to divide the sample rounds into two equal groups. Therefore, half of the rounds will be over this line when considered in relation to the weapon. The other half of the rounds will be short of this line in relation to the weapon. This dividing line represents the mean range of the sample and is called the mean range line. By further subdividing this impact zone we can establish tendency of a sample to fall within some distance from the intended impact point. The 50% zone is simply the horizontal distance over which 50% of the rounds fired will impact, or disperse over. So in the case of the Super M48 @ 2000 yrds, we can expect 50% of the rounds we fire to fall within +/- 14 yrds of the impact point (ie the the 50% zone is 28 yrds). A 10% zone would be a much tighter zone around the intended impact point…I don’t know what the 10% zone of an M48 HE round is, but for the sack of clarity in what I’m talking about perhaps the 10% zone would be something like +/- 3 yrds either side of the intended impact point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Jeff! That was a very good decription and now I understand what all those numbers mean. It seems that the allied way of measuring accuracy is somwhat different from the Axis charts and diagrams we have seen for measuring gun accruacy, it sort of makes the comparision of modeling accuracy in CM somewhat more difficult. But it is still fun to look into it and learn about it -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-01-2000).]

I have never seen that latest chart Jeff Posted Sorry I don't understand what the numbers below the ranges mean? I see the type of gun and I see the range, but what do the numbers in the chart relate to or mean? sorry I'm so thick on this one Thanks GREAT thread, and good discussion, Still my favourite toopic. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by the cube: Three SPI titles; war in the pacific, war in europe, third world war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are those the games with the "spiral galaxy " production charts like a BIG wheel where units move out to the edge and on to the map over time and turns? Which Ever game had that whacky looking Spiral production chart on sort of yellowy/brown paper, was One complicated bitch to learn all the rules. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-31-2000).]

Hi Kump Very nice job Thanks for the mention -tom w

I read it Might as well quote him here: "At the beginning of this review I promised I would compare CC5 to its cousins in the series and its competition. Most people, myself included, tend to think that the series started to go downhill after CC2, which seemed to strike the ideal balance between tanks and infantry and was about an inherently tense situation—Operation Market-Garden. Well, CC5 is a return to that spirit of things and I think that if this game is not the best in the series (for it depends on taste, I think), it comes very close. The graphics are good, the game is bug-free, and most veterans of the series have gotten over the battle engine’s flaws by now, or perhaps they never cared about them anyway. On that basis I would recommend this to anyone who is a fan of Close Combat, or who has never tried it. Debriefing But I feel morally obliged to point out that Combat Mission is simply a better game, and if you only have the money for one game you ought to get CM, not CC5. CM does not have a campaign, and the maps are not hand-painted. But it is an order of magnitude more immersive, more realistic, more flexible and infinitely replayable. It’s just more fun. The bottom line is that Close Combat 5 will be coming off of my hard drive in a few weeks; Combat Mission is still there, and I fully expect it to remain for months or even years. "Admiral" Nelson Hernandez's Combat Mission Review"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Samhain: Acknowledging that many non-wargamers (whatever that means ) have bought and are enthused about CM is only wise, given the slim chances of a computerized wargame succeeding commercially in the first place. Why not pay attention to their desires? That certainly doesn't inherently mean BTS would have to sacrifice quality. It's not, I'd hope, a simple dichotomy of nice graphics and intuitive interface vs. careful historical research. As you say, these elements have come together synergistically to create an instant classic. For me, a major criterion of any game's success is its ability to immerse me in its world, and the more the CM series can do that through spectactular sound and graphics, while remaining a rich intellectual challenge, the better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree completely with this. We are talking about comparing this game to other games. Maximus insists we should only compare it to other Wargames, like Steel Panthers or Close Combat or Panser General. Well no, I say lets look at COOL games like Panzer Elite, it is VERY pretty. Everyone here should look at Myth and Myth II (NOT Myst, Myth: The Fallen Lords, by Bungie, see its screen shots here: <A HREF="http://macgamersledge.com/Reviews/myth/myth.html" TARGET=_blank>http://macgamersledge.com/Reviews/myth/myth.html</A> http://myth.bungie.com/pastscreenshots.html This is a GREAT RTS strategy game that has NO resource harvesting in it, and the polygon count is VERY high and the animation is spectacular and it was released in 1997! Yes it is REAL time combat in FULL 3D like combat mission with better animation way back three years ago when computers were SLOW in 1997. Yes it has lots of blood and yes it has healers, and wizards and monsters and the undead, but it also has archers that shoot flaming arrows and little dwarfs that lay mine fields ans throw molotov cocktails to set them off. (and the Explosions are very nice!) I mention it here because it is FUN to play and it is FULL of eye candy and it is a "broad swords and archers" strategy game with NO resource harvesting, huge polygon counts and GREAT character animation (sorry no tanks, bummer) and it is a good example of how BTS can make their games LOOK better. So when Samhain says "For me, a major criterion of any game's success is its ability to immerse me in its world, and the more the CM series can do that through spectactular sound and graphics, while remaining a rich intellectual challenge, the better." I agree with him completely! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).]

Add to that the 1 or 2% chance of a frontal weakspot penetration if you get a hit, and you never know when some dinky little 37 mm Allied peashooter will take down a Panther or a Tiger at close range, before it buys the ranch. Lots of luck involved in this one for sure. -tom w

I have read all your posts and I still would like to see better graphics and more eye candy. I think CM2 should be prettier and more artistically appealing than CMBO. I am confident Steve and Charles will never compromise any of the GREAT game play or fetures or historical accuracy for more eye candy, but they could make CM2 prettier. I personally believe Gunslinger's mods and Tiger's vehicle mods and all the rest of the HIGH quality "eye candy" mods at MadMatt's CMHQ have bought the look and apperance of this game up to a MUCJ higher standard of Video Game eye-candy quality and appeal. I'm not sure much more is needed other than nice 3D rubble and some different 3D models for dead tanks. If BTS would just include MORE 3D models for us to add textures to in CM2 all the REALLY cool eye candy for texture can come from (perhaps yet undiscovered volunteer talent) all the tallented artists and designers that have voluntarily made CMBO MUCH MUCH more artistically appealing and really good looking with the latest and great texture modifications to just about EVERY .bmp in the game. we aren't asking for much, just give us grey textured 3D models we can paint and texture to our hearts content, new buildings, new rubble, new dead tanks, new terrain, new cliffs, new gardens new barns, new construction yards new rail railyards, new bridges, just leave them ALL as just grey textured 3D models and WATCH how fast the mods go up to colour and "paint" them for that beautiful CM look of 3D realism -tom w

If you have not checked out this video yet you should do so: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/video/clasified.mpeg OK I know it is a big 24 meg download, but if you must, leave it alone let downlaod all night, and wake up and watch int, IT is VERY well done and has plenty of animated combat eye candy "footage" I think that CM2 Will be compared to Panzer Elite and Flash Point 1985, and I think it should have VERY high end graphics and plenty of eye candy, BUT never at the expensive of historical accruacy and fun playability. I do trust Steve and Charles to do this right and BTS won't let us down. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Actually, I don't believe this is correct. The Jentz data can be accepted because it points out the differences in the inherent accuracies of each gun/ammunition type when compared to each other. In this area we can use this data to show if the differences in these accuracies are reflected or not. Yes, it has no value in predicting the battlefield accuracy of these weapons, but it has value in predicting that the 75L24 should be just as accurate as the 88 Flak at 1000 meters - something that is not reflected in CM currently. The 50mm PAK should be more accurate than the 88 Flak. Also, APCR rounds should show a rapid decrease in accuracy as the range increases - in CM they display accuracy characteristics that are identical to AP rounds from the same gun. So, while we can't really say that the accuracy model in CM is incorrect in the assumptions that it makes, we can say that the accuracy model doesn't take into account the differences between ammunition and guns per the Jentz data. Now, in CM's defense, CM does model different accuracies between gun types, and even has differences between HE and AP, but these differences do not necessarily correspond to the range and dispersion data that Jentz has presented. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent post ASL Veteran That does make sense and I had not looked at it from that perspective. Very constructive post -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: I Guess I didnt buy into how bad you folks were making this issue out to be. Now that I have been fiddeling about with some of my own tests I am begining to scratch my head a bit on why CM gunnery accuracy is as poor as it is. All I can think of is that any target aquisition\target bracketing is not really much of an advantage in the game. That combined with very low "To Hit" probabilities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Jeff those were good tests. The ranges in question here are just about anything over 1000-1200 meters where the Tiger I should eb able to stand off and spot aquire target, hit and penetrate most allied armour with impunity, and it can't. The Stuart test is a good one. The 37 mm Stuart main weapon should not be able to accruately target anything out to 2000 meters, and a penetration on a Tiger at in a weakspot while it may have only been a 100-1 shot seems should impossible at that range against the frontal armour of the Tiger I. So yes this is the long range gunnery spotting and accuracy issue we have been chatting about. Paul makes a VERY good point when he says this: "OK this debate is going around in a pointless circle. On the one hand Jentz data can't be accepted cause it doesn't predict 'real combat conditions', but since no one has a clue what that is nothing can be made of it. On the other hand a whole batch of people are testing the game engine to explore the 'game accuracy'. But given the first point, this is just as pointless cause you have no 'yard stick to measure' by, in otherwords you can't tell if the results are right or not." I have been suggesting that crew experience, especially for Veteran Crack and Elite crews, should mean that the subsquent shots after a first shot miss should be modeled with a greater chance to hit than they are now to model the skill with which the gunner uses the distance by which he missed the first time to adjust the shot and lay it on the target in the second or third shot. The cumulative odds for a chance to hit should be getting close to 96% on fourth shot (after three misses, 1 in 25 chance of a fourth shot miss) for an Elite crew in Daylight against a largish target like a Sherman, (both stationary) at around 1000 meters. BUT again, Like Paul says "Why" ?, and on what basis is this proposal modeled? What Data, which AAR's whose historical facts? All good questions. Thanks for the gunnery test range ARR Jeff, I think it is curious and helpful -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jdmorse: FYI a mac sound manager is in beta test as we speak. It is an expansion of the CM Mac mod manager....shhhh, can't say any more, hush hush you know....but soon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> any news on that mac sound mod manager can't wait Thanks -tom w

still a cool new game with potential -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Yes, If I remember it, Danius sent me this mod in an email out of the blue with no readme, no subject field and no advance notice. I could immediately tell the texture was awesome looking but when viewed in the game it speckled with little tiny pink spots. I spent the next 4 hours or so painstakingly removing all those little masking errors and eventually posted the mod. Soon after Tiger sent me a moded-mod version where he added some more 3D effects and I think over the next few days we went through about 4 more versions before I posted the one there now. Is that about right Tiger? It's been so long now. Haven't really heard from Danius since. He did send me a cool FOW flag but I never posted it (it needed cleaning up too)..Hmmm, I wonder what happened to him... Madmatt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great, thanks for the history and credits on that one, I'm using that set of mods for my explosions and I think it is the best one out there. very nicely done! -tom w