aka_tom_w

Hi Pfalz XII I have never had that much difficulty with the Hunt command. I expect that when I "hunt" an AFV to the crest of a hill it will stop and fire when it acquires LOF and LOS to a target. I have been playing under the assumption that if I tell an AVF to target another AFV that it does not have LOS to, that it will load the appropriate AP round (or HE round for soft targets) and swing its turret in the appropriate direction and open fire with that Loaded AP round the second it stops (hopefully) hull down and acquires LOS to the enemy AFV. I have not had any difficult excuting this tactic and I think it is modeled well with the Hunt command as it is. Perhaps a "creep to contact or LOS" command could be added so that the tank would not look for "other" targets when assigned the Hunt command. I would like to be sure that when I target any enemy AFV AND order my AFV to "Hunt" to the crest of a hill that it will "stick" to its assigned target and not hunt for other targets until its primary target is eliminated. Yes, the hunt command works, but I would like to target an enemy AFV that is out of LOS and issue the "creep to acquire LOF" command and know it would move slowly to a hull down position and fire on its designated Target until it is destroyed. I think in reality the hunt command does excatly this MOST of the time. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pfalz XII: Charles and Steve, Do you plan to do something similar with armored units? I have to admit it is somewhat frustrating to order your AFV to hunt to a hull-down position over the crest of a hill in the direction of an enemy armor or AT unit, only to see it gain LOS and continue past the crest of the hill into the open, resulting in an easy kill for the enemy AFV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-07-2000).]

Hi Doug ok, I understand your position and interpretation BUT... If, in Lorak's example, you as the commander, can see the enemy unit them you can tell unit 01 to target that unit, I guess actually I'm assuming an LOS so the target line turns blue and gives stats related to firepower and exposure, but in this case, if the LOS is broken, I'm pretty sure that you can still tell friendly units to target the enemy unit it can't see and then direct them to move towards the enemy's last known position and I expect through the magic of radio communication that unit 01 that cannot see the enemy has the SAME intel and info on it as unit 02 that has a clear LOS to it and there will open fire at it's "hidden" target when it moves to a position that has LOS to enemy unit. Steve Charles? Can you help out here, I think some others here are under the impression you have fully implemented "relative spotting" (as described by Steve as the concept that some units "see" some things some other units cannot.) I thought the game was coded with the intended "feature" that all units had the same level of intel and communication with each other that PERFECT radio communications would provide, so that once one friendly unit, spots, locates and identifies an enemy unit that info comes up and the screen and is then available to you as the commander (you can see it) and then the same level of info or intel is instantly available to ALL other friendly units, via the Magic radio. As it is my understanding and experience that you can target enemy units that are out of LOS of a friendly unit then have the friendly unit move to a new postion that is likely to allow LOF and LOS to the enemy and expect that it will continue to target that enemy unit even when it is out of LOS until it acquires LOS and LOF as per "radio" instructions regarding the enemy's location as determined by a friendly unit with LOS to the "hidden" enemy unit. That's my understanding of spotting and inter unit "radio" communication anyway. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but Steve has stated that relative spotting, is not in this version at this time. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: tom_w, I'm pretty sure that, in Lorak's example, the O1 unit has no idea that the enemy unit is actually there. The player knows that O2 is in contact with the enemy, and can order O1 to move in for a rear attack, but O1 will be unable to do anything about/to the enemy until they actually see them, at which point they'll have to orient correctly, aim, and fire. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-07-2000).]

hey Lorak how about this this is whole website dedicated to spreading the word about free HTML authoring software: http://datacreek.com/design/editor_soft.html how's that I suspect you can find something GOOD and free to download and start to play with. -tom w

Yes I like eye candy too and I would love to see a secondary explosion where the turret pops or jumps up or the tank explodes again a minute or two after the initial hit, the the associate collateral damage of an HE shell to near by units. Does anyone know how this is Modeled in Panzer Elite? I have a Mac so I have not seen much of the game, but what I saw of it looks like it has plenty of nice graphics and some nice eye candy. Does PE simulate the secondary explosion? If so how and when? For that matter has anyone ever seen any war game model the secondary explosion with the turret popping? I haven't. -tom w

If you are interested in this thread you might also consider reading the "Silly Infantry -- bug? " as similiar comments and suggestions are posted there. As well as a good juicy post by Steve regarding this issue(sort of). -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-07-2000).]

Hi Thanks again Thanks Steve for the prompt and informative reply and Thanks Charles for getting right on top of that bug. I'm sure we all can't wait to see that patch posted. Hopefully sooner rather than later so we can all start playing the FULL Gold version. Thanks AND yes that's COOL! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-07-2000).]

Hi Lorak this is a VERY good example -> movement x=enemy unit O friendly the square is woods. .........:---------------: .........:---------------: ...(O1)->:-----------(X)-: <---(O2) .........:---------------: .........:---------------: nice job but it would be my opinion that you are describing a model of spotting that I thought Steve refered to as relative spotting and I'm sure that relative spotting is not in the game. I have been playing the game (perhaps mistakenly) believing that all my units behaved as though they were in theoretical state of the art (year 2000) radio communication with each other with respect to unit spotting. I'm not talking about command radius, just the model of spotting that says if one unit knows where an enemy unit is hiding or located then ALL my other units have that information as well. Perhaps this issue could be cleared up and addressed by Steve or Charles as well. now I'm confused, maybe I've been playing with the wrong assuumptions. thanks for the ----....>> O X graphics it worked well. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-07-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-07-2000).]

Hi Lorak I was asuming that everyone plays with full fog of war on. That could be an issue here. I was figuring that full fog of war is the only way to play. You have a point about tanks cresting hill, yes they can't see the enemy tank but if you can you can tell your tank to target the tank it can't see and it "should" crest the hill with its turret facing in the right direction and the appropriate armour piercing round in the breach, even if it can't see the enemy tank but you can, this we assume is due to excellent radio communications because the concept of "relative spotting" (spotting relative only to the unit that can see the unit) can't accurately be modeled in the game yet. or am I mistaken? -tom w

Um I'm not sure about that one Lorak... I thought all your units could see EVERYTHING you can see and you can see everything your units can see. That is why there are differnet levels of spotting. If Stuka could identify his target as "a US platoon HQ with 2 of their 4 men already dead (2 casualities)" then they must have been spotted and clearly identified at the highest and most accurate level of info you could have on an enemy unit. That's just my personal interpretation of how spotting works. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak: another question. Was the HQ squad hiding? Just because you can see a unit doesn't mean that your men can. Lorak <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you "sneak" them toward their target AND give them the order to "Target" the enemey unit while sneaking towards it? Where they Green or Conscripts? just asking? -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuka: Was the danger posed by the 2 HQ guys not enough to let the squad override my sneak order? Any thoughts? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-06-2000).]

Tankersley makes a good point here... In the past I have never had any problem when I target and enemy unit and tell my troops or tanks to advance toward it while targeting it. BUT perhaps there is a need for an additional "move to and Close Assault" command. I think the game should simulate reality and not try to simulate 2D turn based Board game play. BUT I still like it the way it is. Let me expand. The decision was made (as I understand it) to make the game turn based with simulanetous execution of the turn, this is like the pinnacle of 2D board game play, it is NOT Real Time Simulation, so every minute you don't know what your opponent has planned for you in the next minute. This is one of the VERY cool features of this game. EVERY turn there is a minutes worth of combat or movement or activity where you have to outwit, out smart and/or out manouvre your opponent, (OK, or just plain GET Lucky!) I like this feature and the way the game handles this, because this element of play is based on some tactical anticipation and indeed, strategy plays a BIG role here. To allow your units to MOVE to and attack an enemy unit based on WHERE it is going sounds to me like it is a great deal more realistic than trying to guess where he might be and moving toward that spot (as per the infantry assaulting the AFV example that started this thread), BUT I think it is more fun to attempt to guess the enemy's behaviour and out wit or out manouver his units when plotting my turn to attack or attempt the "close assualt" of an AFV with infantry units. SO..... I think the the game is MORE fun the way it is but I would suggest it would be more realistic if units could be ordered to Move to where this or that specific enemy unit is going, while targeting that unit to shoot at it, yes this means that this new feature could be used for drawing other units into an ambush BUT whats wrong with that?? That tactic ALSO sounds very realistic to me, and I think that the "draw them into and ambush them" tactic could and should be used QUITE effectively if your units where allowed to be ordered to where other enemy units (that they have a clear LOS to, of course) are going (ie. follow them). BUT I'll bet that the game was never coded with the intention of allowing attacking units to base their movement path and final destination on the movement path or desintation of an enemy unit and I would suggest this might be near impossible to change now as the game (IMHO) was designed from the ground up as a turn based, simutaneous execution, 3D highly historically accurate computerized version of a 2D WW II tactical board game, which is why I would suggest that units cannot "track" or follow other units because in each minute we have to order them to a location on the map without any knowledge of where your opponent is sending his units, and I would say that is what I think is SO much FUN about this game. But I'm not sure that this model is strictly realistic, I would say if the game was RTS and could crunch, all those algorythyms (calcualting the results as it does now, of EVERY round fired) on the FLY (which our consumer level computers, even the fastest can't do), that would be SO realistic any one player would not be able to command and control all those units in real time without overlooking something and then others here would say it would just become one big silly RTS "clickfest". With the winner being decided possibly by youth and mouse clicking skill and dexterity instead of sound tactical and military planning and execution. I think this game and this "can't follow enemy units" issue is a VERY happy compromise, just the way it is. Now.... what does BTS say about this issue?? -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: In CM your men don't always do what you tell them to or react the way you expect. IMO this is a good thing and provides scope for good players to excel. To me, CM is about putting your men in positions where they can win the battle for you, not about telling each solder where to aim his rifle or how low to crouch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-06-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-07-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-07-2000).]

Hi I've had this problem too, but... The problem has been "worked around" The problem appeared around turn 10 in VoT the turn after the American's got their reinforcements as stated two Shermans could not be issued orders to (very bad english I know) But now the file works fine on a Beige G3 at work Both Computers are macs, I think the file was sent from a PC, the file was large over 250k and it did include a movie file that I watched before I could plot my turn Both are G3's the one at work that ran the file successfuly is a Biege G3 running 8.6 and it "saw" the file as an Adobe Acrobat file type when it came down from e-mail the Laptop that did not like the file last night is a G3 333 mHz running OS 9.04 and it did not "see" the file as an acrobat file. but it works now on the G3 running 8.6 where the file icon is interpreted as an Adobe Acrobat file type, even though it has the .txt extension, Macs don't know about extensions any way so it does not matter. Hope that helps someone else, I've had this problem three times playin VoT on a Mac Vs a player in PBEM on a PC the Beige G3 is running Mac OS 8.6 and the problematic laptop is running Mac OS 9.0.4 -tom w Charles posts in the "Bug or Feature?" Thread back on page 3 or 4: "The occasional tank who you "can't give orders to" is a PBEM bug which we've fixed recently. That fix will be part of the v1.01 patch that we'll make available as soon as the game ships. For the time being, a workaround that occasionally works is to quit the scenario and reload the PBEM file. Or sometimes quitting the game and restarting it. The trouble is that the PBEM file isn't updating an internal value, so it's "random" and if it's the "wrong" random value, the tank can't get orders. But like I said it's fixed now. Charles [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-06-2000).]

I would like to voice my opinion to keep this thread open. To MG's credit they have never used abusive language or flamed, or hurled nay personal insults of any kind. I while I disagree with their position, and research, I would suggest that the thread not be closed as a punitive action to "silence" them. I don't think at this point that is fair or necessary, it is clear that most here (if not all) disagree with them, but that is no reason to close the thread. I commend Steve for leaving it open and, as he suggested, the thread remaining open does serve to highlite their "exposed" position with regard to their interpretation of the use of the HMG in WW II German infantry tactics. I have learned a great deal from this thread and would like to thank all the other people who have posted information about this topic from such authoritative sources. Please leave it open as long as there are no personal attacks. If my previous post was a personal attack (which I'm not sure it was) then it may have been inaproriate and I will formally and publically appologize if that is deemed necessary. Thanks for all the great info and the wildly sarcastic and highly entertaining post about the, "Gehensiemachschnellüberflydeathspeedjetpack Mark IIIA" Type HMG, I laughed myself SILLY over that one, and the source was truly inspired. I now read this thread for its great wit and sarcasm and entertainment value. -tom w

Yes BUT.... I have seen this PBEM bug/feature more than a few times and I have never seen the this feature (whatever) do that for 6 turns in a row. Every time it has effected me it has only ever lasted one turn and orders could be given the next turn every time, I've seen it three times. This undocumented PMEM feature, that stops tanks cold seems to be specific to Ami Sherman's in PBEM games between Macs and Pc's. In my experience anyway. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: If it was a PBEM game it could be the bug that BTS said is now fixed and will be on the first patch...otherwise I have no idea... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my own experience the VERY first game of VoT I played I was the Ami and used the arty to target the Panther which was sitting Pretty up on hill 209 and Low and behold to both my and my opponent's amazement one shell landed right on the turret and Knocked out the Main Gun and caused one casuality, it was the third turn after the the Panther showed up, see the "stats" below for odds as calculated by Captain Foobar.... see the thread "can Geram 81 MM arty do anything against tanks. -tom w There is a thread here that shows the results of an Ami Arty Attack on the Panther that was tested by Captain Foobar Posted this: "Coincidentally, I did a test last night of arty effectiveness vs. tanks... Here is he setup: 1 Panther buttoned, sitting in the open, staionary. 1 105mm Forward Observer, with LOS on the Panther, in clear weather, with no harrassment. 120 seconds later, the first shells were 5 seconds from firing, and I calculated this specific turn 20 separate times. Results: 8 times ---------- no effect 5 times ---------- immobilised 3 times ---------- gun damage immobilised 3 times ---------- gun damage 1 times ---------- Brewed Up So that's 8 times nothing, 12 times damage. I was very intrigued, but not surprised, those 105's make a pretty big boom. This could have been an outlier, as I only calced it 20 times, but it has to be AT LEAST somewhat likely to produce these kinds of results.... I dont think I will waste my time if the enemy armor is on the move, but those lame ducks are going to feel my wrath!!! "

Let the forest not echo without me.... WOW All I can say is wow.... This is too much, I must heap the highest Praise on Steve and Charles for their incedible patience with MG. They have shown tolerance beyond what I would consider humanly possible when dealing with individual such as MG. ok now I'm going to RANT! The GAME is GREAT! the new members come here and say things like "This is exactly like the kind of game I've always dreamed of!" and things like that. Yes I too have nit-picked and complained about a few "features" and ommisions here and there, but the game is being shipped and released and as we speak and there will be a PATCH once the game is shipping. I ASK you this, have you ever been able to download the v1.01 Patch for ANY other game before the game was actually in your hands?? NO!!! I thought not. These guys are busting their asses to do what is humanly possible to make this the best damn game ever and then guys like you, MG, voice your opinion and demand references and facts and a bibliography??? ITs a Damn Game for crying out loud not a Doctoral Dissertation on German Infantry tactics in the ETO in WW II!!! AND the Game WORKS!! Does it Crash, NEVER on my Mac, is it Stable YES! does it have a few "undocumented features" that need to be cleared up?? most definatly, but thats what the v1.01 patch is for and it will be downloadable the day the first shipped gold CD arrives at that First Lucky players DOOR! NOW go off and do your own research and write your own Docteral Disseration, and leave this delightful game and Steve and Charles alone to enjoy the fruits of their labours!!!! (And the HUGE sales figures!) rant off -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-05-2000).]

OK The problem has been "worked around" The problem appeared around turn 10 in VoT the turn after the American's got their reinforcements as stated two Shermans could not be issued orders to (bad english I know) But now the file works fine on a Beige G3 at work Both Computers are macs, I think the file was sent from a PC, the file was large over 250k and it did include a movie file that I watched before I could plot my turn Both are G3's the one at work that ran the file successfuly is a Biege G3 running 8.6 and it "saw" the file as an Adobe Acrobat file type when it came down from e-mail the Laptop that did not like the file last night is a G3 333 mHz running OS 9.04 and it did not "see" the file as an acrobat file. but it works now on the G3 running 8.6 where the file icon is interpreted as an Adobe Acrobat file type, even though it has the .txt extension, Macs don't know about extensions any way so it does not matter. Hope that helps someone else -tom w

I must admit I did not look at the file size and that issue never occured to me the game is being played without any additional forces for either side. and the file in question might be the movie file, COG says its not but I'm not sure I plan to take another look at it on a different computer this morning when he sends it to my work computer it has just arrived -tom <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikester: It does sound like it's a potentially larger problem. I still find it hard to believe that just a regular turn plot file (i.e. no movie) could be this large in the VoT scenario. Maybe though, if you had one side at +25% or +50% and you gave orders to all of your units??? I somehow still doubt it, which leads one to think that something must be wrong. Hopefully BTS will get your files and have a look at them. Mikester out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi CoG thanks for re-running the turn, at this point I'll plot the orders for this turn and wait and see if they come back in the next turn, neither one of them is in any danger so it s not big deal. I have seen this exact problem before in the Beta Demo in CE and it happened twice, once it cleared up by quitting CM and reloading CM and the e-mail PBEM turn, the other time I could not get around it and let it go and the very next turn the tank was available for orders. I think others have experienced this problem, at this point it is a minor inconveince (even thougt "its only a GAME") this could be a real issue at a crucial moment in a very competitive game. -tom w

Yup I have two shermans that I can't issue orders to The file size may have jumped because as the american's my reinforcments have just arrived when they first arrived I could issue orders to all four of them, on the next turn after their arrival one of the new Shermans and one of the original shermans were not available to issue orders, neither tank had eitehr been shot at and both are out of enemy LOS and LOF (a little spoiler info or intel there for COG) I suspect the two tanks will be ok in the next turn but for now we are at an empasee as I'm reluctant to move on with two tanks I can move anyway thanks I/we can send the file to BTS if you want to take a look at it -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ColumbusOHGamer: I"m in a VoT PBEM game on turn 9. The files have been 30-90k in size. Now it jumps to over 250k and my oppenent is telling me he has two tanks he cant give orders to. We've tried resending the email and redoing the last phase, but it's still the same result. Has anyone else, including BTS seen this? I'm not sure if it's a bug (seemed odd to jump in size so quick) or this is normal. In any event, the tanks that can't get orders isn't likely to be normal. Thanks. COG<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-02-2000).]

"2 more weeks? Dooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh!" !!!!! ROTFL Very creative Mike! nice job! blessed be the speedy delivery of the holy grail of wargaming! now, bring on the GAME! -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikester: Charles, 2 more weeks? Dooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh! Ok, ok, let me help you out. By the power vested in me by the, uhhmm, er, well, the Beer Gods, yes that's it. I do hearby repeal Murphy's law for you and any other law that may stand in the way of BTS bringing CM to my door and the doors of all the rest of the faithful. I also do hereby authorize you to take whatever action might be necessary to expidite this process including inventing any new laws that might help aid in the most holy cause of getting CM released. Spare no expense, leave no rock unturned, break all the laws you wish, reinvent quantum mechanics if necessary, just get me my game!!!! I want my MTV, er, I mean I WANT MY CM. Thank you. Respectfully Yours, Mike D aka Mikester<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really like games like Myth II (RTS) and Age of Empires (RTS) and Warcraft (RTS) I'm sorry I have no experience with any of the CC series. I should look into them because I REALLY enjoy the rush of the real time action, and yes it has been pointed out (correctly) the AoE can have up to 100 units (I think) that can keep you VERY busy in a real time sense of taking care of your entire army and production effort all at the same time. I Love CM, I really do but I also really enjoy the thrill of the click fest and would humbly agree with Pak40 when he says... "hmm, Age of empires (100+ units) or Close Combat (15 units max.): there's no comparison between the two. Plus the fact that you can slow the action down to a snails pace if needed. I refuse to believe that any of us have lost a Close Combat game due to a "click fest" - that's just obsurd. It's more likely that your attacker just launch a well coordinated quick assault that caught you off gaurd." I guess I'm a click happy dip**** then because I really enjoy the rush of the real time action and I hope to simulate that with CM when we get TCP/IP with the timer that we can set to something SHORT like 1-2 minutes to watch the movie and 3-4 minutes to plot the turn! (or something like 5-7 minutes for both the plot phase and the 'watch the movie' phase) That is MY idea of FUN! Quick and Dirty! -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kraut: Everything is just blood, guts and explosions. This recipe is perfect for the click-happy dip****. MK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi I'm good to play PBEM 23- 30 of June so I'll be up for a double blind match early in your vacation if not before -tom <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikester: Bauhaus/Sniperscope, Yeah, unfortunately I think you guys are right. I'm just trying to be an optimist for a change. Damn, I want to start playing this gem. Oh well, good news for me is that my vacation is now scheduled from June 24th through July 4th. As long as the game gets here by then, I'll be sitting pretty! 11 pure days of gaming enjoyment. No work, no school, just pure bliss. Mikester out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what Geneva convention??? I never knew I had to sign some damn convenetion agreement to be "nice" to POW's to play CM! All Kidding aside the way troops surrender and then try to escape is EXTREMELY well modeled! This is an added bonus. I'm a little sorry the game is not Black and white, with respect to WIN or Lose then killing "escapeing" POW's would not matter, to my mind anything that is not a loss or a tie is a VICTORY not matter how marginal or decisive and if a few POWS got wasted trying to escape? oh well I think it is great the way they are disarmed and it is good that you have to order them to go somewhere (like off the map) and that your own troops have to guard them this is just simply AMAZING for a wargame. thanks again BTS -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Boy, that is an old post Yes, captured enemy soldiers are worth more alive than dead. So those of you who have been breaking the Geneva Convention are simply short changing your victory score. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

is that true? That sort of take the fun out of it... If captured prisoners are worth more than dead bodies KIA I guess we should be more careful with our prisoners. I had no idea they were "worth" more as captured prisoners. But I figure if I'm at the point where I'm capturing prisoners and they are surrendering I have already won the scenario so what difference does it make if I waste them if they try to "escape" ? thanks -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikester: As I recall, live prisoners are worth more to you in the games victory calculations than dead ones (dead ones are treated just like regular KIA's I believe). I would therefore keep them alive and in your control if at all possible vs. killing them since they might help you win the game. Mikester out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>