aka_tom_w

Yup that probably needs its own thread it is one heckuva good question! "Why not???" Somehow I am guessing the answer is: Wait for it! . , , , , "Because Steve Said so!" -tom w [ September 14, 2005, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Brent is of course correct! here is the male ballerino in action! (yeah yeah, I know, it was the only quick and cheap flashy animated .gif I could find) BUT yeah it is indeed a ballerino! -tom w

Good idea Maybe you should suggest that in the 1:1 casualty thread? (or not?) :confused: interesting suggestion none the less! -tom w

good point " I don't think anyone has mentioned the implications for firing through friendly formations. It seems like LOF/Grazing fire would be worth including from a friendly unit point of view. It's a pretty big realism issue to be able to fire through your own formations at an enemy as in CMx1." -tom w

OK! Now this should spawn a WHOLE new thread Speculation... What possible reason (external infuence?) would cause this "wait" to thrust upon us.... Now I am curious!?? Is it another as yet unannounced game in development that could decide the fate of the first CMx2 release? Is Steve waiting for devine inspiration? Is Charles secretly fasting on a cyber spirit quest up at Walden Pond? (that's near Maine isn't it?) Enquiring Minds Want to Know! -tom w [ September 14, 2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

". . . a soldier lying in a slightly different way than KIA . . ." Get's MY vote. Me too. BUT just remember folks.... "You CAN'T MOVE 'EM!!!!" (oh well) -tom w

Very interesting! (posted September 14, 2005 06:19 PM) Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted September 14, 2005 06:19 PM CMx2 will be more newbie friendly. We are planning on a "training campaign" and will invite new players to play the game using a sort of beginner's mode. This means features that normally are newbie hostile, such as Relative Spotting, will be turned down as much as possible or disabled completely. The game will play quite differently and some people will stick with it even after they get the hang of it. Let's not forget that there are people that play CMx1 with Fog of War turned off (yes, it is true!). Steve

bump

should be bumped

still and interesting thread if we could stay on topic.... -tom w

But we can hope it should be or could be "war gamer" friendly. anyone who has ever Played a board game like Squad Leader (for instance) should still want to TRY to have fun playing CMx2 I think the BIG thing is to make at least one good Demo scenario exceptionally easy to learn and extremely Newbie friendly! (after that we'll have them hooked and AS ALWAYS they WILL be aCMilated! ) -tom w [ September 14, 2005, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

worth repeating?

Other means! I like it If it was not too hard to code it sounds like a good middle ground. BUT I suspect Steve is somewhat hardline about NOT moving the seriously WIA in any way. (But maybe I am wrong about that) -tom w

I am not exactly sure this is the case BUT I would say it is a very interesting observation and as I re-read this thread and these posts I will now be looking at them from the possibility of this perspective or observation. Thanks -tom w

I'm sorry but if you would like to use the word Ptolemaic, (that is what word you want correct? ) at least spell it correctly, please... Ptolemaic: adj 1: of or relating to the astronomer Ptolemy [syn: Ptolemaic] 2: of or relating to the geocentric Ptolemaic system; "in the Ptolemaic system of planetary motion the earth is fixed as the center of the universe with the sun and moon and planets revolving around it" [syn: Ptolemaic]

again the discussion could come back to wait time for the crunch. Steve and Charles have not officially commented BUT if the game does ALL the LOF caluclations for MG's the crunch time will be longer. I completely disagree with any suggestion that LOF calculations for MG fire cannot be done. The game code "could" be written to do LOF fire for ALL MG's BUT the cost in wait time on the crunch would likely be considerable. If LOF calculations where an optional setting like FOW settings that would likely please everyone except Steve and Charles as they might need to take ANOTHER 3 - 6 months at least, (just a guess :confused: ) to release the game. My post above gives an indication of what is needed to for physics and computationally intensive (LOF and LOS checks) game code to run quick or at "acceptable" speed. Their answer is the PPU which is yet ANOTHER piece of NEW hardware the gamer would need to buy. The card is a Physics Processing Unit (PPU), called PhysX. My guess is Steve and Charles would NEVER go for this. WHAT??? :eek: You want to play CMx2?? FIRST you need a ton of VRAM (more than you have now likely) AND and you will need a Physics Processing Unit (PPU), called PhysX for about US $300. OK! Woo HOO! Now you are set, and all your LOS, LOF, FOW wet dreams can come true in a relatively short wait time for the crunch so you can play and have fun, IF you have a FAST computer! (How does that sound??) Like Steve has already said the whole game code development process is a GREAT big balancing act, PBEM has already been quoted as a factor for possible NON-inclusion. LOS and LOF requests for MG fire (While I support that request) are sure to mean some other negative side effect, either longer time to release the game or a longer time to crunch the turn (wait time) or BOTH! I don't think we will see much improvement... -tom w [ September 14, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Bring on "Chance Encounter" for CMx2! -tom w

Just a note on State of the art Collision detection and physics game code.... from: AGEIA hardware for game code physics interview Note: "The PhysX chip utilizes the NovodeX SDK. What the chip can do essentially, is handle mass amounts of physics operations.. much more than a normal CPU can. In fact, according to AGEIA, a current CPU can handle around 1,000 active bodies, while the PhysX chip can handle 32,000 with relative ease. With future software updates, that number could get even higher."

OK Thanks for the update that sounds good -tom w

I could be wrong BUT I think Steve said "We can't open the can of worms of how, or if, or when to move or transport the WIA"! Period End of Story Now I assume he is refering to the severely wounded. They become immobile like KIA and can't move. What then/therefore becomes the issue is what they look like in the game or how they are represented in a 1:1 way with the healthy body that they were before they got severly wounded and immobile (in the game). I may be mistaken but I don't think BFC is prepared to budge on the WIA WILL BE immobile issue. Maybe I am wrong... Lets see where this one goes. -tom w [ September 13, 2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I agree with Ken " Seriously Wounded is the crux of all the issues" This is compounded by the fact that it has been suggested they could go from WIA to KIA. This is also compounded by the fact that is sounds like the Seriously wounded cannot be moved in any way. Given all these parameters the cross icon Steve mentioned is "somewhat" logical but I would say it is not in keeping with the "spirit" of 1:1 representation in the game. IMHO -tom w

I can see Steve's point BUT I too am uncomfortable with the WIA abstraction.. To be sure this is a thorny issue and Steve's points about players wanting to move/save/or kill the WIA soldiers is valid and real. No Doubt about that. BUT there has to be a better way then just a (Red Cross?) icon. I would humbly suggest that if players know that the WIA can go from WIA to KIA unless they "do something" (BUT the WIA cannot be moved) there "should" be an intense desire to protect or cover or "save" the virtual "lives" of the WIA even if we can't move them or transport them. Covering and protecting the WIA may become a mission objective if players think that abandoning the WIA units will mean they will surely become KIA. Lets put on our thinking caps.... -tom w [ September 13, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

So did Steve Just Say the TacAI is going to go automatically from decent to spectacular in CMx2 !!!! Given this statement: "If we went back into CMx1 and changed these two things, (Target Memory AND seperate the Morale and Suppression modifiers or Databases) and nothing else (!) , the TacAI would probably go automatically from decent to spectacular." So bring on the Spectacular Tac AI for CMx2!! That IS what he just said right? -tom w [ September 13, 2005, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Oh NO! Nothing Wrong with That! he he -tom w

GREAT Link I have read the book and seen the movie at least a dozen times and seen 2-3 documentaries about the incident several times.... BUT this article was VERY enlighteing if you think you know what happened to Task Force Ranger you should take few minutes and read this PDF (as always the Arcobat reader is free from Adobe) sorry for the bad format -tom w