aka_tom_w

This is not a new issue. But all new players should understand it. I completely understand (now ) exactly how and why it works. In my honest opinion I would also prefer "Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU cruncher from Hell." BUT to be honest I have play tested VERY large scenario's on a G4 500 mHz (CM as it is currently programmed with Method 2 ) and these HUGE scenarios still take 3-5 minutes to to determine the AI move and then "crunch" (the blue line going across) the turn. I'm quite sure that the much more desirable "reality" of method 1 "as real as you can get" would take MUCH much longer and the waiting would begin to get insufferable. Really, like maybe hours for a home CPU to crunch the turn (I'm Guessing now) This game works VERY well and it is being constantly revisited and patched and tweaked and some really important problems have already been fixed. I can state catagorically that I have never received BETTER VALUE for my video game dollar than the $80.00 (CDN) that I send to Steve and Charles for this delightful game that now has me totally addicted. And after all that, the fact that Dead NON-burning, non smoking vehicles that don't move any longer (KO'd or abandoned) DON"T and can't block LOS and don't provide any cover IS still my biggest pet peeve in this game because they are no longer a dynamic varibles, but they are still vehicles and like bunkers and pillboxes (which don't and can't move) they don't offer any LOS block or ANY cover. Again, I have suggested that maybe these non-smoking dead, non moving vehicles could (the minute they are dead or abandoned) start to generate nearly transparent smoke and FAKE an LOS block. I'm still thinking there should be some programing "work around" or kludge that that would turn a non-smoking dead, non moving vehicle into something that provides cover and blocks LOS the same way that smoking ones do but without the smoke? Can't you just fake the presence of more smoke somehow? Still asking questions about this one. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-18-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-18-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood: Another "Tobruk" player? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You bet! more than 20 years ago in my early teens we played the hellish game where we rolled the dice to account for every round every AFV fired. For those who don't know the game, it required a dice roll to determine if there round hit the target, another dice roll to determine WHERE it hit the target, another dice roll to determine the extent of the damage of the hit, another dice roll to determine if there were crew casualties, and another dice roll to determine if the remaining crew bailed out. It was like CM in the Desert with tanks from 1942 (2D boring sand coloured desert card board map) and every turn took about an hour if there were more than a few tanks. But thats where I learned tank combat the hard way. One round at a time, one die roll at a time. Nice to see there are others here who remember that game. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-18-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by weasel: I should preface this by saying that I love this game, and (as a code-jockey) deeply respect the fine work that BTA has done. But this excuse of "the underlying game is perfect, and the representational graphics really don't matter" drives me utterly bat****. PS: Mikeydz, sorry to dump this on you: you are by no means the only one with this idea, just the one who posted at the wrong moment. Please don't take it personally! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I suggest to you that Mikeydz does not have the correct interpretation there. It is the Result of the Method 2 way of determining the outcome of the shot. (Not Method 1 which would accout for this kind of event) Read waht Steve has to say about Method 1 vs. Method 2, there is no need to dump on Mikeydz as this issue here is not in my opinion one of the "underlying game engine vs. missed grafic representation issue" it is a decision that Steve and Charles made that means the game runs faster and does not check LOS and LOF for moving vehicles that drive into the LOF between the shooter and the target. Simple and easy and fast for the CPU but not totally realistic. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the way it works: ONLY smoking and burning KO'd vehicles block LOS they don't really block line of fire, but they block Line of Sight so they provide some cover. ALL other vehicles that are not smoking and burning, Live or dead DO NOT provide any LOS or LOF Block. For that matter Pillboxes and Bunkers are treated as vehicles and also do not provide any LOS or LOF block. This is not news. Mike says: " Remember, the graphics are and abstraction of what the true battle (fought with deadly 1's and 0's deep in the heart of your CPU) looks like. That's why the shell looks like it traveled thru the tank. Now if you had missed, then maybe it's possible that the game engine would have decided the shell hit the Sherman. I know I've seen it where I'm shooting at a target near a building, and the miss hits the building, destroying it. The important thing is once it's determined a hit, it's a hit." This is also not correct. Read Steve's answer here: The official answer from Steve: "Big Time Software Moderator posted 04-29-2000 02:17 PM I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )... There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a gun, its eventual path, and where it lands: 1. Use a whole bunch of variables (like weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine a trajectory to the target. The trajectory would then be "traced" and wherever the shell hit damage would be done. If the hit whacked a vehicle then CM would go through all the armor pentration stuff to figure out what the impact did. 2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it can't. A whole bunch of constant and situationally unique variables (like LOS quality, weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine the chance of the target being hit. If it is a hit then various equations determine where and HOW (angles) the shell strikes its target. Then damage is calculated based on the physics for the particular situation (HE blast near infantry, AP shot hitting sloped armor, etc). If the round is a miss there are equations to determine how badly the shooter missed based on several variables (i.e. a bad unit will miss by a LOT greater margin than a good one). Then the shell trajectory is calculated to the predetermined location (either the hit or miss one). Colateral damage is calculated based on the detonation of the round where it hits. Terrain is checked along a "miss" vector to see if it strikes something along the way. Hits don't need to check because they have already been calculated to be hits based on a clear line of fire. WOOOOO!! That took a little longer to explain than I thought OK, now what are the real world difference between the two... Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU cruncher from Hell. If we had one or two vehicles shooting in more sterile conditions it wouldn't be a problem. But when you have letterally dozens of shots being made on a somewhat average turn, this becomes a HUGE problem. Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method 1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few and far inbetween. So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well, the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play and Method 2 works just fine. (tom w opines: I interpret this to mean that Steve is saying that CM was designed to use Method 2 to save time to process or "crunch" the result of the round being fired, hence it does not, and cannot account for live or dead vehicles which are not smoking and burning in between the shooter and the target. It should also be noted that Pillboxes and bunkers are treated as vehicles and do not offer any form of cover and do not block LOS or LOF). When you get CM take a dozen vehicles for each side, plop them on opposite sides of a level battlefield and see how slow the turns calculate. Now do that until one side is wiped out and you will notice how much faster each turn becomes with the elimination of each vehicle. Then remember that this is using Method 2 in sterile conditions with no blocking terrain or vehicles (especially not ones in motion!!) to bog down the LOS calculations. Steve P.S. Grazing fire for MGs is in fact simulated. Charles found that the math to simulate just this one feature wasn't too horrible for the CPU to deal with. [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-29-2000).] This means that the result of firing the round is determined/calculated using a straight line when there was LOS to the target, any vehicles that interceded this LOS have NO effect. SO you can shoot right through your own tanks and right through your enemies tanks. In a Column of live tanks NONE block LOS so you can target (from the front or the rear ) ANY one of them, and shoot right through the rest as though they did not exist. This is not a case of " Remember, the graphics are and abstraction of what the true battle (fought with deadly 1's and 0's deep in the heart of your CPU) looks like. That's why the shell looks like it traveled thru the tank." Its a case of the result of the shot being determined by Method 2 (see above) with a direct LOF being assumed by Method 2 at the time the shot was fired. These threads will help clear up any other confusion you have.... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008989.html All new players to this game should read them: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004083.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004048.html Any questions? -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-17-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-18-2000).]

Allies.... I love fast tanks with fast turrets and I like to run and GUN to get that juicy flank shot on that big shiny new Panther or King Tiger. There is NOTHING more satisifying than taking down one of these Really big (supposedly industructable) German tanks by running a Sherman or Hellcat around beside it or behind it and pumping a heat seeking, armour pierceing, enema inducing, 76mm round right up its ass! Ka BOOM! K-Kill! I play the Allies because I like the challenge of blowing up BIG German tanks! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-18-2000).]

ok so this is the now famous thread that now warrents the introduction of a new "Code of Civil Conduct" ?? Oh please! This is just another normal thread where new people here find out how things really work. What's the big deal? -tom w

Things are just fine here the way they are. As mentioned everyone who registered agreed to a policy and code of conduct when they registered. And when things go down hill here the "Forest usually echo's back" and the board has a history of sort of stabilizing its self, it has in my experience been a VERY self regulated community and it runs very smoothly most of the time. There may be a few VERY opinionated people here, but other than the discussion of actual historical FACTS (IF there are infact historical facts?) most of what is posted here is personal opinion and it can and does get posted here in a myriad of tones, volumes, attitudes and styles and voices. This diversity keeps this place interesting and in no way should it be censored or regulated by MORE rules than are already in effect as a result of your registration agreement. Now, lets get back to Playing CM! -tom w

"Big Time Software Moderator posted 08-16-2000 06:45 PM Archers and other rear-facing vehicle-mounted weapons are unsuitable for "hunting" maneuvers. In WW2, Archers were used as defensive weapons: almost exactly like antitank guns (except with no need for a separate vehicle to tow the gun) and not in the least like tanks. I think the best solution is to disallow the hunt move altogether for these vehicles. I will put this into v1.04. Charles" In response to a thread about Archers Charles responded with the post above. This is the first official reference that I have seen regarding the possibility of a v1.04 patch on the horizion. He's working on it and it will include the above mentioned tweak. Has anyone read any other posts that hint (by Steve or Charles) of other tweaks and fixes we might see in the now upcoming v1.04 patch? thanks -tom w (P.S. I know there are several other threads with lots of requests and speculation for the v1.04 patch, but I'm wondering if I have missed any other posts or referneces by Steve or Charles to the v1.04 patch.)

What is our deadline on trying to finish this thing up? Has the web pae been posted? Just looking for a status update. Thanks -tom w

You know you played too much CM when.... You'd would rather play one more turn than eat for the first time in 18 hours (ok, eating is only allowed during PBEM turns, but games vs. the AI afford no such luxury!) You'd would rather play one more turn than sleep for the first time in two nights You'd would rather play one more turn than shower for the first time in 3 days You can't wait for the next RAINY long weekend to spend 3 uninterupted days of GLORY with CM.. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-18-2000).]

Here's a thought..... I have found they work well against units in buildings. If you can use cover and the woods to get them close enough they really can light a building on fire, the units will them abandon the building and you can mow them down as they exit or try to light the woods or their cover on fire. I figure the flame thrower is not really that good at inflicting mega death or casualities but it should set smoething on fire and make them run out in the open. Its not a machine gun or a tank or anything, but those 2 man flamthrower squads can really light up the battlfield if you are interested in torching things like buildings or abandoned tanks or woods or brush, then you can target the exiting units, with bullets that actually seem to be much more effective If you don't expect any "miracles" out of these guys they can be VERY handy in defensive ambush positions as well. just my thoughts -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: Commissar, it's happening right now as we read/type. Just watch the news, it is covered everywhere. Latest news here was that reportedly the russian navy staff has agreed to use british help and that a british rescue sub has been airlifted into the theatre. Let's hope that the crew can be saved - their situation must be horrible indeed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I heard about it this morning. We should be open to the possibility that some members in this formum will hear about this news here first as many of us have not turned on the tv or the radio since the CM arrived at our doorsteps. I would be very grateful to keep up with the latest news here in this forum if anyone else would care to post the latest developments. thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Tom, I don't think that can be done. There was a reference somewhere by Steve I think that it would be nice and may be added later. But my memory may be playing tricks on me. So if you design a scenario yourself, always keep the briefings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Andreas.... Thats what I figured, short of hacking the scenario with ResEdit on the Mac I don't think you can extract the briefing. I was just interested (and Lazy) and wanted to use one of them that came with the game as a template for how it "should" be done. I have my own template now. -tom w

The collective has spoken! We have most clearly and definitively (and well, collectively), turned our back's on this ill mannered and lowly OUTCAST! Do not triffle with the collective on matters of integrity or, more importantly, military history and specifically WW II! Be gone Mr Skorzeny. -tom w (We must now review our assimilation processes and procedures to prevent any future breaches of etiquete.) [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-16-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuka: Thats right boys, surrender your souls to the CM god. You now have no families got it? We are your family and we are very possesive. You WILL think about LOS while out walking or driving your car, you WILL contemplate Pbem moves while at work, you WILL read the forum religously and abide by its holy words and you WILL turn pasty white and skinny from too many hours crouched in front of your screens.You will also lose your jobs from too much time off and fail all your school assignments from lack of study.... In short, Combat Mission will kill you..... Fun, isn't it ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And,,,, In addtion to all those wonderful things..... If you already use a computer at work, you can look forward to the early onset of RSI, Carpel Tunnel syndrome and (my personal favourite, for you laptop lovers) Tennis Elbow. Because you just can't stop playing this game and/or writting about it! -tom w

You'll notice we have not heard from him since, he probably has a new alias and/or is off spouting the same drivel in some other forum or newsgroup or BBS where he is getting a different or more favourable reaction. I highly doubt he will show up here under the same name again, less being caught in a clear, and now proven, instance of plagarism does not bother this individual. -tom w

sounds like Colin is the co-ordinator I'll help out with the LOS thru Live vehicles question what else has not been covered? -tom w

Order the game now and buy via their web page you won't be sorry you will get bored of those two demo maps very quickly buy the game then you will know what it is like to be fully assimilated.. -tom w

I'm happy to take the..... "Why don't Live vehicles (not KO'd burning ones) and bunkers and Pillboxes block LOS and LOF" ? I'm sure the question can be worded much more simply. But I'll take care of it if no one else has it. (As you all know it is my favourite pet peeve, but I know it is not going to get fixed, as the game works well the way it is) What's our target date for pubilcation or release? We need deadline or I'll never get it done. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Hehe, the old LOS debate. Tom, since you have done all the research on it (and since I know it is one of your favourite/only gripes), would you be interested in distilling it into a FAQ paragraph with the links and all that, and email it to Jason? Would be great if we could get this FAQ thing off the ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure I thought that question was one that was already covered in the FAQ, but if it is not I will pull all this info together above. I'm not really sure how to actually write a synopsis as it is a big issue. But as you say, all the info to answer the question is the notes above. -tom w

I would like to know how to capture a briefing file and export it out to use it as a template and edit it. Anyone know how to do that one? To answer the question, you have to prepare the breifing first in note pad or simple text or some VERY simple word pro software, then leave some where (like on your desk top) where you know where it is, then in the Scenario designer click "Load Briefings" and it will prompt you to select the main over all breifing then the Axis side, then Allies side, but the trick you have to write them all out before hand, them "load: them into the scenario with the scenario designer. ok? -tom w

try this one: http://devel.diplom.org/Online/mapsoftware.html All shapes and sizes and flavours here. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-15-2000).]

This is Iggi's post Steve previously refered to: The Answer to Can vehicles Block LOS is here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002266.html Its old but it is still relevant. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-15-2000).]

The official answer from Steve: "Big Time Software Moderator posted 04-29-2000 02:17 PM I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )... There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a gun, its eventual path, and where it lands: 1. Use a whole bunch of variables (like weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine a trajectory to the target. The trajectory would then be "traced" and wherever the shell hit damage would be done. If the hit whacked a vehicle then CM would go through all the armor pentration stuff to figure out what the impact did. 2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it can't. A whole bunch of constant and situationally unique variables (like LOS quality, weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine the chance of the target being hit. If it is a hit then various equations determine where and HOW (angles) the shell strikes its target. Then damage is calculated based on the physics for the particular situation (HE blast near infantry, AP shot hitting sloped armor, etc). If the round is a miss there are equations to determine how badly the shooter missed based on several variables (i.e. a bad unit will miss by a LOT greater margin than a good one). Then the shell trajectory is calculated to the predetermined location (either the hit or miss one). Colateral damage is calculated based on the detonation of the round where it hits. Terrain is checked along a "miss" vector to see if it strikes something along the way. Hits don't need to check because they have already been calculated to be hits based on a clear line of fire. WOOOOO!! That took a little longer to explain than I thought OK, now what are the real world difference between the two... Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU cruncher from Hell. If we had one or two vehicles shooting in more sterile conditions it wouldn't be a problem. But when you have letterally dozens of shots being made on a somewhat average turn, this becomes a HUGE problem. Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method 1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few and far inbetween. So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well, the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play and Method 2 works just fine. (tom w opines: I interpret this to mean that Steve is saying that CM was designed to use Method 2 to save time to process or "crunch" the result of the round being fired, hence it does not, and cannot account for live or dead vehicles which are not smoking and burning in between the shooter and the target. It should also be noted that Pillboxes and bunkers are treated as vehicles and do not offer any form of cover and do not block LOS or LOF). When you get CM take a dozen vehicles for each side, plop them on opposite sides of a level battlefield and see how slow the turns calculate. Now do that until one side is wiped out and you will notice how much faster each turn becomes with the elimination of each vehicle. Then remember that this is using Method 2 in sterile conditions with no blocking terrain or vehicles (especially not ones in motion!!) to bog down the LOS calculations. Steve P.S. Grazing fire for MGs is in fact simulated. Charles found that the math to simulate just this one feature wasn't too horrible for the CPU to deal with. [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-29-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-15-2000).]

Here it is.. The MotherLoad with comments by BTS ..... Read the posts closely about Method 1 vs Method 2. This game was abstracted from ideas and tank battle simulations like in the old Avalon Hill game Tobruk. Due to CPU limitations we are told that live AFV's cannot block LOS, this is not news. Here are the relevant threads: All new players to this game should read them: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004083.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004048.html -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: Thanks for the update guys. For some reason I hadn't seen anything about this in the discussion board. I can't believe that dynamic LOS is too hard to keep track. Heck, they could at least abstract it and have only vehicles check dynamic LOS. It's not so important with troops, but vehicles it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>