aka_tom_w

AAR.... (Play testing new Custom Designed Scenario) Today while testing a new scenario I saw (I still can't believe it) with my own eyes and Elite British paratroop HQ unit, (with one casualty) close assault an immobolized Tiger 1 tank and KNOCK IT out. Many, many german tanks where advancing on bridge held by British Para's and their Piats where unbelievably lethal! ( the Para's have NO armour support) Also another glider squad on the next turn snook up on an immobolized King Tiger (it had crossed the bridge and was wreaking havoc in the backfield) and KO'd it with nothing but grenades I think, as they where all out of anything heavier. The British were severly mauled (lossing the battle to the 15 Germ AFVs the AI attacked with) but for a company of airbourne infantry with nothing bigger than Piats and satchel charges to KO a Tiger and A King Tiger... Well that looked like heroism to Me! The AI had only one avenue of approach and did not use its limited infantry very wisely, I think. Anyway it was one hell of a heated battle and the British Piats knocked out 6 or 7 AFVs on or before they hit the Bridge. They were holding there own and doing great until they ran out of ammo. And then along comes "Mr I'm not scared of these little pea shooters" Tiger tank and he acts like a bull dozer and tries to push two german tank wrecks off the bridge and then BANG, hit to the tracks and he's immobolized just trying to get off the bridge. One British para unit and an HQ unit are sent in to swarm him in a close assualt and the 3 man Elite HQ unit gets there first and actually Brews him up, KO'd and flaming! with no other units having had a shot at him yet. I have witnessed some Elite British Para units act in the most heroic ways and often with the most astonishingly positive results. Never under estimate the strength of an Elite 4 man British HQ unit. They seem fearless! (They are not indestructable, they do get shot up like everyone else, but they are unbelievably brave when they close assault tanks.) -tom w

39

Formal request to lock this thread up now. I think we've all spend enough time on this issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Um, thats Telly Savalas and the sound IS from Kelly's Heroes as it was part of my MDMP sound pack. Yeah, thats the one you used to have on the pirate FTP site of yours Osino! Hey whatever happened to that? You had all kinds of stuff there... Combat Mission (warez version) and Adobe products and Microsoft products...Hmmm..Shame its gone dude...I wonder how that may have happened. Yeah, you SCREWED WITH THE WRONG PEOPLE DUDE! Madmatt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some one help me out here.... Let me see if I can get this straight. Are the Kelly's Hero's sounds in the public domain? No I don't think so, they are (to the best of my knowledge) copywritten material in a Movie the is protected by copywrite law. Was permission by the holder of that copyright given for the use of those sound files in the Mod? It sounds Like MadMatt produced the sound pack mod. If that is correct then where is the logic when MadMatt complains that the sounds he extracted and (perhaps modified) from a movie protected by copy write are included in a piece of software (Mod pack sounds) and are given away for all to down load from his site. But then how is it so morally objectionable that this same mod pack could be available from another's FTP server? I think we are dealing in various shades of grey on this issue. -tom w

Well this is interesting If I understand the above posts correctly it appears that even two lawyers here are disagreeing on this issue as to whether there was IP theft in this instance. Is that the case here? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OsinO: Well im not gonna deny anything. B4 the game got uploaded on my ftp I didnt even know wtf it was. Then I installed it and fell in love, then ordered it. If you dont believe me ill scan the cd And who ever said my ftp is gone? And yes CM is OFF my ftp. I always buy the games that I really fall in love with (eg: SoF, HL..etc.) AND I didnt up the mod pack, dont know where you got that from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If this is true (and I have NO idea where the truth lies on this issue), then a strong case could be made that this uploaded/downloadeable version of CM to this person's FTP site actually helped INCREASE BTS sales, so maybe its not all that bad. I know my position on this issue infuriates some here, but maybe, just maybe this game is so brilliant and admirable that the copy that can be downloaded from those "undesirable" servers is actually acting as a semi-full demo for the skepitcal who are not ready to order until they they seen the full thing and/or have never heard of CM until it showed up in these places. I know there are some strong moral objections to all of this downloading activity but maybe, just maybe, it is actually helping to INCREASE CM sales as they folks try the full version of this game, find out how totally awesome it is then want the manual and the full legal version. Who knows, (conspiracy theorist tom here) maybe (don't freak out on me) BTS seeded the downloadable version of the full game to one person, who spread it around, it was, after all available for download the day it shipped, to ACTUALLY increase CM sales. Maybe this was just another way to get free advertising, in a new and different place (it is after all sort of "subculture" of the internet, ok I know there are lots of bottom feeders and geeks and most young teenage boys that hang out in these places, it it could still be looked at as another "non-mainstream" internet market) Since BTS has SOLD out of TWO printings already, how do we know this morally objectionable activity has not actually INCREASED sales of CM as all these folks now want the manual? Just a few questions nothing more. The fact is the CM is on back order AGAIN and they can't fill the orders as fast as they are receiving them. (YES I agree that is mostly due to some recent reviews in well read mags that rated CM VERY highly and SO they should!) All I'm saying is that those morally objectionable downloadable copies may be serving as another (yes POSITIVE) way of advertising how cool CM is by reaching another segment of the market that would never have been addressed had the product not been posted there. Some of these morally questionable individuals actually seem to be buying the game. (or so it seems from the above post). Again I know others here feel strongly about this and I guess I am now about to be labeled unfaithful or a heretic or some half brained dolt, with whacked out conspiracy theories, but the fact remains the BTS has SOLD out of their printed CD runs, twice now, so I have to ask in all reality how much has this morally objectionable downloading activity actually hurt BTS??? Go ahead, let me have, I'm getting used to it.... For the Record, I pre-ordered the full version, and faithfully waited for its arrival, I found the Day-0 ripped version a week before my copy arrived, a day or two after it was shipping and alerted Steve and Chares as to where it could be downloaded. I did not download it as it looked like a PC version only and I have a Mac. I'm interested in this issue because I wanted to see how long it would be before this game showed up as a downloadable version. It showed up quicker than you might think. -tom w Many edits only to correct poor spelling bad grammar. [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-02-2000).]

Fionn and I disagree very strongly on this issue. I can live with that. My point is that you cannot steal something you have already paid for. Fionn feels strongly it was theft to download a previously (Day-0, I understand) ripped copy of CM. I respect his position, but we could not be in stronger disagreement. oh well.. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-02-2000).]

This seems to be a big stinking, hairy, issue.... The way I see from my point of view is the guy bought (or was owed) a copy of CM from BTS. He did the texture on the M18Hellcat for the Demo. ( This is a fact he has a credit in the Manual) He was in Australia and found another way of getting the software other than waiting two or three weeks for it to arrive. This is a very contentious issue and I really don't see what the big deal is. I personally think the software "should be" or (should have been) available for download with a credit card. It is not and the decision was made clearly and directly that the game would not be available via download and could only be purchased via the internet and shipped via snail mail. (A BTS decision that I understand) Not wanting to wait for Snail mail to Australia he chose to use his knowledge of the internet and "find" a copy. He alerted BTS as to where he got this copy. THEN for the betterment of the game and for the enjoyment of all, he went further with his textures and and posted his latest creations on his web site. For this use of the copy that DID not come in the mail he was labeled by some here a thief and a pirate. Had the software he was owed been available from an officially blessed BTS server for download NONE of this would have happened. I doubt, given the reaction of some here in this forum, that we will hear from ColCoolJ here again. I think it is we here who have shot our selves in the foot. This thread is sure to be locked soon as there are some strongly held opinions here about morals and ethics and intellectual property rights. In my opinion, he was owed the software by BTS (having paid for it one way or another) and so where he got it from makes no real difference. (I expect to be flamed for my opinion but I will post it here any way). If my facts are wrong I'm sure someone will tell me. If you do not like my opinions I guess I will hear about that as well. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-02-2000).]

he's busy but he has not been reading or posting to this forum due to some politics and a complicated earlier misunderstanding over ownership of the intellectual property rights on a late shipped cd that he was owed. but he is busy working on graphics, but not for CM -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-01-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-01-2000).]

YES! Huge Congrats to Steve and Charles what a GREAT game wishing you the VERY best with continued success Cheers! -tom w I guess I should change my signature file now that there is no more Stock a SECOND time! ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-01-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reckall: I played A LOT Combat Mission during the last two weeks (I'm a computer games reviewer so playing CM is my job ehehehe! ) but it just dawned to me that I never saw a tank turret fly due to catastrophical damage/explosions. Since this was not a rare occurrence in real life, am I just "unlucky" or actually CM's graphics do not allow for them? I must point that I do not play with many tanks around, usually, because I like more infantry skirmishes. OTOH, a turret that lands on an enemy HQ and takes it out would be cool...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It has been discussed here and it was determined that a turret popping off was a rather unlikely event and I do not believed it is modeled in the game. but the Catastrophic explosions are nice. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikester: Back to top. Still looking for explanation on this. I did do a search on terms "crew" and "exit" and read through the threads that came up. Unless I missed something none of them addressed this issue. Is / has anyone else seen this happen yet? Thanks, Mike D aka Mikester<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for bringing this post to my attention. I might add here that maybe LIKe pillboxes and bunkers the Crew are defaulted as eligible for exit points even if their vehicles are not, but there is no way (as yet ) in the Scenario designer to toggle the crew elibility so it defualts to eligible as it does for Pillboxes and bunkers but at least you can turn them off. -tom w

just back to the top still curious about this issue? -tom w

I don't, at all, like the use of the term "bug" it just seems so.... well less than technical. Anyway, I would be very surprised if I was the first one to mention that if you are designing a scenario and you select "units eligible for exit points" then you specify the map edge they are to exit, THEN (and this a good thing) ALL the units in the scenario are defaulted to be ELIGIBLE for exit points, you can specify some of them on and some of them off(this is also a very well done) NOW here's the new (?) feature, things that CAN'T move like Bunkers and Pillboxes are Defaulted to "Eligible" and must be manually turned off by the scenario designer otherwise the lack of their exiting (because they can't move) will (if I understand this correctly) score points for the opponent at the end of the game when they have not exited, yet they were defaulted as Eligible and can't move. Now if you are staying why would some things need to be eligible for exit points and at the same time, some things like bunkers not be? Well I'm working on a scenario the requires a strong counter attack with armoured reinforcments (lots of tanks) after an ealier brief (non armoured) infantry defence, where the attacking forces, advance on Bunkers, then the defensive counter attack reinforcements arrive and are expected to exit off the opposite map edge. (after a successful counter attack) I would like to know more about how much exiting units are worth. I read somewhere here (I think) that exiting units that are eligible to exit are worth twice their point value ? And if the don't exit they are worth twice their point value to the opponent? How exactly does that all work? Charles, your comments would be most welcome, if oyu are not too busy? I REALLY enjoy this game. I think I like designing scenario's more than playing the game (well not really, but scenario design really is really fun once you get a handle on the ins and outs of the scenario editor) I'm truly addicted, I do this at work and every free moment I have at home. If you like wargames you can easily get VERY addicted to this one. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, more swearing Were's the Mod Pack with the Profanity I should figure out how to do it myself as the voices and Swearing from South Park might fit right in here? (ok, some of you might not find that funny but there should be a version of the sound mods with real "manly" profanity and plenty of real swearing about everything) -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin: I noticed that my Canadian troops often speak with a British accent.. This was quite possible, but I am hearing more British accents than I would have expected. I am surprised too that the units never swear -- that was by design, I assume! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, there is no sound file for Bag Pipes I can hear them right now out my back door Some old Fart (I suppose) is practicing out back (I live outside Toronto Ont.) Anyway the British units should have some Bag Pipe Entry sound or music or Something I say the sound Track needs Scotish BagPipes and a good Feast of Hagis while we are at it! -tom w (Just to add some "colour" to the Board today for Fun)

I don't know if this is modeled here BUT weren't there stories or rumours of a sinlge stray bullet sometimes (ok Almost NEVER) finding its way down the gun barrel and detonating a HE round in the breach, (Ka-BOOM! no more tank with nothing more than a lucky rifle shot) Wild and weird stuff but I think it did happen. I have also close assaulted a Panther by directing an elite Para squad to move directly to it. It took them all of the minute once they got there, but they KO'd it. It was dark at night in the fog and the Panther was buttoned and they snook up on it from behind and it was DEAD meat! It can be done. -tom w

This is a good thread is there a list somewhere of scenarios that have been tested to be VERY fair and well balanced so that both sides have the same chance of winning. I assume (make an ASS of you and Me) that ALL the scenario's on the CD are very well balanced but there its hard to be sure about the other custom designed ones that are out there to know if they are fair for both sides or not. Any reccmendations for new scenarios that are know to be fair and balanced would be appreciated. Thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS: Send the file. Can't say when I will get finished with it but I will give you an accurate and detailed AAR when complete. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> File sent Thanks for the request to check it out. -tom w

try this Arty spotters will target areas of the map they do not have direct LOS to. Yes its true, and it works, it is not really accurate but if you keep the spotters out of site, (NO LOS to any enemy units) they won't get shot at and they can call in arty (like area fire) on a section of the map they can't see. Try it, at least it won't get them killed. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 07-30-2000).]

Steve and Charles tell us that the AI doesn't cheat. I completely believe them, why would they make it cheat? They don't care the AI wins or losses a battle? BUT it is VERY good AI. Is it possible that you put that spotter in predictable place, for instance if I was programer maybe I would program the AI to LOOK for spotters on the tops of hills and in the Second floor of building over looking the battlefield? Maybe the AI just just programed to find you in the most likely place you were attempting to hide? It is VERY good and challenging AI for sure. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I did make some tweaks to the AI but I hesitated to announce them as a major improvement. Just small improvements. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK! There you have it, it has been improved I have noticed the AI is better in 1.03 it seems (if I can say this), more organic and as was mentioned above, "self aware" I have played 5 scenarios against the AI ALL as the Allies and 3 out of 5 of the scenarios were lost to the AI. If you make any little mistake at all the AI will punish you for it. (Royally!) I think it is, now in v.1.03, exceptionally good AI and all three levels of it work extremely well together and the AI does indeed provide a very challenging game. It is now SO good some here think that it cheats. I'm sure it does not cheat its just extremely WELL programed and works well at doing what it needs to do to sceure its objectives. It fights tank battle using German tanks very very well. Its fun to play and I don't mind loosing to it. I think that's more fun than beating it every time. What do the rest of you think is the AI in v1.03 better and smarter? If you don't think it is better now, just play the Allies in some scenarios where the AI can use big German tanks and see how it will punish you with them. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 07-30-2000).]

If you like HUGE maps and BIG scenarios PLEASE let me send you this one. I have just finsihed it. (see below) I just took a Look at ALL or Nothing and was envious of the way the Railway tracks run over the roads. I have not figured out how to do this yet. Any hints? Kwazy Dog: I'd be honoured if you would check out my HUGE sceanrio and tell me what you think. -tom w Title: Balanced Bridges at Dawn Type: Fictional Allied Advance to Secure Bridges (like its just a fun scenario, not real) Date: Dawn of Octoberfest 15, 1944 (its a joke Location: Wheat Fields surrounding Large European Walled City of Centerville Weather: Clear Ground Conditions: Damp Length: 75 turns (it will be long over before 75 minutes don't worry) Points: Each side has over 5000 points worth of units. Best Played as Allies, (No German AI option) This a big scenario on a Huge Map (3.1 km by 1.6 km). Maybe it should be an operation but I wanted to have 2 little opening battles happening at the same time to begin with. A large Walled City sits in the center of the map flanked by two rivers that run north and south. Two very large wheat fields lie on either side of the rivers and offer very poor cover. British Paratroops have been dropped on the fatherest western bridge and are cut off while German forces hold the eastern bridge and face the oncoming Allied advance. A German force enters from the West in relief, and an American force enters from the East to link up with the cut off British Paratroops holding the western bridge. Both the East and West rivers have important strategic bridges over them. Germans attempt to prevent Allies from taking the two important bridges and prevent them from exiting units off the West edge of the map. The scenario was designed to give both players similiar weapons and terrain advantages and tactical challenges. Both players will have plenty of armor and infantry and even paratroops available to get the job done. I'm looking for further advice as to how to balance this scenario even better so both players have a VERY equal chance to gain a victory. Scenario Designed By Tom Wilcox tcw@mac.com July 28/00 P.S. This scenario has not really been tested and may be simply too large and cpu intensive for all but the biggest and fastest computer systems with top of the line Video graphics cards and plenty of V-Ram and cpu's faster than 300 mHz.

This is my first attempt at scenario design using the scenario designer for CM. (it was about 25-30 hours and it was a labour of love, you won't be dissapointed) This a huge map with Many many units. I would love to play this scenario but I designed it and I know it inside out and it would not be fair to any one. I would like to know if it is as balanced as I think it is. I don't play as the Germans that much and I'm not sure if they have enough of the right kind of units to make the battle fair and interesting. Trust me, it is a BIG multifront battle like the scale of an operation all rolled into one scenario. Just send me e-mail and request the file and I'll send off a .zip attachment to you for your own enjoyment. here's the intro: Title: Balanced Bridges at Dawn Type: Fictional Allied Advance to Secure Bridges (like its just a fun scenario, not real) Date: Dawn of October 15, 1944 Location: Wheat Fields surrounding Large European Walled City of Centerville Weather: Clear Ground Conditions: Damp Length: 75 turns (it will be long over before 75 minutes don't worry) Points: Each side has over 5000 points worth of units. Best Played as Allies This is a big scenario, on a Huge Map (3.1 km by 1.6 km). Maybe it should be an operation but I wanted to have 2 little opening battles happening at the same time to begin with. A large Walled City sits in the center of the map flanked by two rivers that run north and south. Two very large wheat fields lie on either side of the rivers outside Centerville and offer very poor cover. British Paratroops have been dropped on the fatherest western bridge and are cut off while German forces hold the eastern bridge and face the oncoming Allied advance. Centerville lies in between. A German force enters from the West in relief, and an American force enters from the East to link up with the cut off British Paratroops holding the western bridge. Both the East and West rivers have important strategic bridges over them. Germans attempt to prevent Allies from taking the two important bridges and prevent them from exiting units off the West edge of the map. The scenario was designed to give both players similiar weapons and terrain advantages and tactical challenges. Both players will have plenty of armor and infantry and even paratroops available to get the job done. I'm looking for further advice as to how to balance this scenario even better so both players have a VERY equal chance to gain a victory. Scenario Designed By Tom Wilcox tcw@mac.com July 28/00 P.S. This scenario has not really been tested and may be simply too large and cpu intensive for all but the biggest and fastest computer systems with top of the line Video graphics cards and plenty of V-Ram and cpu's faster than 300 mHz. But it looks like a fun one on FAST computer. [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 07-30-2000).]

Hi I agree with Bill If the "feature" could be used in anyway as a way to cheat or give an opponent an advantage in a scenario then it was appropriate to have it disabled. Its no big deal. There are plenty of other maps and set ups you can open as tweak in the Scenario editor. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bil Hardenberger: I for one am glad that feature is no longer available... DYO games are the best, and the only real way to PBEM where you KNOW that your opponent has no information on your force. Doing what you describe could be, and would be by me, thought of as a cheat. Bil<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>