aka_tom_w

Ok Ok I stand corrected Steve is correct to say BFC CAN'T wait for Apple and the Mac guys only represent somewhat less then %10 fo the market. Ok ok... sorry for the "emtional outburst!" I was just sort of shocked to read here for the first time that there might be a chance that there would NOT be a simultaneous release. AND if they have to wait on Apple then that puts everything (AND my gaming experience DAMN IT! :mad: ) at the whim of Steve Jobs.... (Perfect ! I love it when a plan comes together) :mad: crap so now the more I think about it .... IT might actually be just about the right time for another emotional outburst... crap ccrap crappp Bah! grrr... :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :eek: (if you get my point) -tom w P.S. sorry, I could not help myself perhaps I should not post when mad, dissappointed and frustrated all at the same time. [ August 26, 2005, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

no problem

I was not exactly sure what the original poster (sgtgoody (esq) ) was requesting or suggesting so I figured I would start a new thread and ask him... -tom w

I guess this WHOLE forum is now Steve's recent CMx2 bones -tom w

I yield the thread to MikeyD ..... Hey, I'll start something. what sort of color pallete would prefer to see in CMx2, muted coloring - shades of brown and moody colors like some film-noir movie, or brilliant eye-popping colors like those gorgious Grognard screenshots? It seems people often used to grouse about CM's emerald green landscapes (though some countrysides in mid-summer can be just that spectacular). Several 3rd party grass mods and a vast expanse of desert sand later, this topic's not come up so much anymore. But we've got the new game engine to think about now. [end my attempt to hijack the thread.] [ August 26, 2005, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is a GREAT idea...... (note tom thinks it deserves its very own thread so it won't get over looked) -tom w **NOTE** the idea being you could play against the AI with FoW off Can't you do that already? OR are you asking for NO FoW and have the AI play against the AI? for testing purposes? Can you please clarify the idea or suggestion... -tom w [ August 26, 2005, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

this is what concerns me " I would expect that at the very worst CMx2's first game will be for PC only initially with a MacOS version to follow up soon after." I had always counted on and assumed a simultaneous Mac release... thats all -tom w

OK Thanks for the clarity this sort of helps... "After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. " thanks it will be interesting to see how it REALLY works in the game... (or the Demo scenario of the game HINT HINT!) -tom w Yes. This simulates prebattle intel that might have nothing to do with LOS. For example, aerial observation, spies, intercepted radio transmissions, etc. After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. The only Intel you can rely upon are fixed fortifications and the fact that if you see it you know he has it. Other than that... you're on your own Steve </font>

"Squads in CMx2 are unique "containers" for Teams. This means a Rifle Squad is made up of between 2 and 3 Teams, depending on nation, timeframe, and type of unit (of course). You order the Squad and the Teams behave according to the Squad Commands. For example, one Move Command instructs the Teams to leap frog each other, with the stationary one offering overwatch protection. Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly." -Steve OK! Thanks That sounds great. -tom w

yes good question I too find my self uncertain of how the FoW setting would impact or influence this feature. The player could be confounded by mulitple levels of conflicting FoW intel AND pre -battle spotting if the concept of what is known, what can be known, what is unknown and what cannot be deduced from what is observed is NOT clearly understood by the player during the set up. OTHERWISE some folks might suggest the AI is cheating or the game is broken or lieing to me (or some such crap because they did not read the manual RTFM ) -tom w

full movie play back without Fog of War sounds fine to me I am not sure I would want it any other way. The idea being that after the battle is ALL over both players would see EVERYTHING in the full movie play back without any fog of war. Both players should see all units with no fog of war in the full movie play back (I think) -tom w

oh The Mac faithful have just lost all hope..... -tom w [ August 25, 2005, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"We can't afford to make this anything more than a "simple" additional feature, so let's not get carried away with 1001 ways to make this more complicated " Oh Come ON! you just KNEW that was going to happen! he he -tom w

Now thats FOG of WAR!! Sounds Great But are there "False Positives?" "After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. The only Intel you can rely upon are fixed fortifications and the fact that if you see it you know he has it. Other than that... you're on your own" -Steve Like you have pre-battle intel of a spotted unit that is NOT present on the battle field anywhere. (counter intel intel he he) ? -tom w

WOW OK I think that is Pretty impressive I think that might change the opening move "dynamics" of most battles! interesting! Would this system or new feature some how help "hint" the AI? a scenario designer could set this up and desigante the Defender as the most appropriate AI opponent and then basically leave the attacker in a compromised position on start up. (meaning many attacking units are pre flagged as SPOTTED!) Sorry I am confused BUT what if the attacking player puts a unit OUT of LOS of the defender?? LIKE on the other side of a hill or something? Does the Defender still see that unit WHERE EVER the attacker places it (EVEN out of the LOS of the defender?) AGAIN WOW!!... That one could be a VERY powerful feature for the AI as an attacker or defender as the human player "might" think the AI is Cheating becaues the AI as the pre battle spotting info from the " already spotted flag" (designation) being set on the human players units??? hmmmm Could lead to calls from the newbies that the AI is cheating! (but I am sure they have figured all these questions into the "Master Plan" he he) very interesting I can't wait to see the first Demo Scenario that features this new pre battle spotting feature, the human player will GET SMOKED by the AI and not even know what hit them! (I don't know if that kind of demo sells more games, but it sure would be a shocker and a surprise to NEW players! AGAIN watch for claims of "THE AI CHEATS!!! :mad: ) -tom w [ August 25, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

oops

Change 1) Please enable asynchronous FOW ( Where one player plays EFOW the other player (AI) plays Partial FOW (Handicap for less skilled player) 2) Follow or Convoy command 3) END to Absolute Spotting! Bring on the REAL Relative Spotting paradigm AND the better C&C communications model/simulatiton 4)MORE Fog of War options including something extra hard like Ironman or Frankco's rules. 5) BETTER AI !! Way better AI with the enhanced ability for Scenario designers to script or program units with SOP's on defence and on attack 6) more terrain fidelity 7) Fix the Map editor with a better GUI make it like terra forming in Sim City or in Bryce 8) Full Movie Replay (speaks for its self) Don't Change ( **Note** Most of the stuff we don't want changed we are all taking for granted such as the "WEGO system" AND the simultaneous MAC and PC release I MUST have this on a Mac or I won't buy it! ) 1) AI does NOT CHEAT (ever) (hints however, are OK and necessary!) 2) balance between FUN and Realism (its was VERY good in CMAK, but WAY too much fun and not enough realism in CMBO 3) User modability (scenario editor, graphics mods) 4) Availability of hard-core realism options (casualties, extreme FOW) 5) Open-ended game scale (i.e. though designed for battalion combat team, ability to simulate larger scale action) (thanks to Andreas and Gpig I support their don't change suggestions) [ August 26, 2005, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

oops [ August 25, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

it was an OLD piece of software called Canoma web page To our valued customers, shareholders, distributors and followers, PLEASE NOTE THAT METASTREAM CORPORATION HAS RECENTLY CHANGED ITS NAME TO VIEWPOINT CORPORATION We appreciate your patience during our transition period. As most of you know, MetaCreations announced its intention to divest its prepackaged graphics software products back in December 1999 to focus solely on the Metastream, now Viewpoint technology. A list of new owners of the products and contact information for technical support is detailed below. Because the best features of the InfiniD and RayDream products were incorporated into Carrara, those two products have been discontinued and will no longer be supported. In addition, Canoma will no longer be supported. http://www.metacreations.com/products/canoma/ Former MetaCreations Products For information on the following products, please contact: COREL - www.corel.com Painter Kai's Power Tools Bryce Vector Effects

oops [ August 24, 2005, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

oops [ August 24, 2005, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

it was an OLD piece of software called Canoma Its appears to be no longer supported or sold. To answer your question "I don't know" -tom w web page To our valued customers, shareholders, distributors and followers, PLEASE NOTE THAT METASTREAM CORPORATION HAS RECENTLY CHANGED ITS NAME TO VIEWPOINT CORPORATION We appreciate your patience during our transition period. As most of you know, MetaCreations announced its intention to divest its prepackaged graphics software products back in December 1999 to focus solely on the Metastream, now Viewpoint technology. A list of new owners of the products and contact information for technical support is detailed below. Because the best features of the InfiniD and RayDream products were incorporated into Carrara, those two products have been discontinued and will no longer be supported. In addition, Canoma will no longer be supported. http://www.metacreations.com/products/canoma/ Former MetaCreations Products For information on the following products, please contact: COREL - www.corel.com Painter Kai's Power Tools Bryce Vector Effects [ August 24, 2005, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

it was an OLD piece of software called Canoma Its appears to be no longer supported or sold. To answer your question "I don't know" -tom w web page To our valued customers, shareholders, distributors and followers, PLEASE NOTE THAT METASTREAM CORPORATION HAS RECENTLY CHANGED ITS NAME TO VIEWPOINT CORPORATION We appreciate your patience during our transition period. As most of you know, MetaCreations announced its intention to divest its prepackaged graphics software products back in December 1999 to focus solely on the Metastream, now Viewpoint technology. A list of new owners of the products and contact information for technical support is detailed below. Because the best features of the InfiniD and RayDream products were incorporated into Carrara, those two products have been discontinued and will no longer be supported. In addition, Canoma will no longer be supported. http://www.metacreations.com/products/canoma/ Former MetaCreations Products For information on the following products, please contact: COREL - www.corel.com Painter Kai's Power Tools Bryce Vector Effects [ August 24, 2005, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted August 23, 2005 11:21 AM Quick definitions of what is displayed about each Soldier: Weapon - the primary personal weapon of that Soldier. Speciality - designation of special position within the unit, if any. For example, someone who is trained on an AT weapon will be identified as such. Squad Leader and Team Leader are obvious designations. Radio Man, Assistant MG Gunner, etc. These things are important to show because it tells you what the unit is inherently capable of. If a mortar round comes and takes out your AT specialist, you'll still be able to have that Squad go after a tank, but it will do so without the optimal choice. So you might want to have another unit do it. Condition - This is simply a state of being. Right now we have 4 states, but that could change. The states are Healthy (including superficial wounds), Minor Wound (still functional, though less so), Major Wound (out of action), and KIA (completely out of action). This status has an effect on combat capabilities within the game, but it also has meaning for scoring and campaign play. Guys who end up with Minor Wounds might come back for the next battle, might not. Guys with Major Wounds will not, and could possibly be tallied up as KIA. KIA is obvious. Onto other things... The 1:1 representation is the way to go. We do not think there is any viable in between for a game of this scale. If the soldiers are moving around and looking like they are portraying individuals, people will be confused and pretty upset if that isn't the case. In CMx1 the soldier figures were obviously abstracted and even then we had tons of criticism for not showing every soldier (which was technically impossible at the time in any case). So there is no use whining and complaining about it... the decision was made 3 years ago, it is the right decision, and it isn't changing. We don't know what the upper size of a CMx2 battle will be so we don't want to overpromise. Over time it can certainly go larger thanks to hardware improvements. But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware. The amount of animations our little guys will have comes down to time. We've got all the basics in there already, but we're not sure what more we'll put in. We could spend months putting in stuff. Unfortunately, we hit the point of diminishing returns on development effort pretty quickly since we don't have multi-million dollar budgets and a huge development team. Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted August 23, 2005 11:21 AM Quick definitions of what is displayed about each Soldier: Weapon - the primary personal weapon of that Soldier. Speciality - designation of special position within the unit, if any. For example, someone who is trained on an AT weapon will be identified as such. Squad Leader and Team Leader are obvious designations. Radio Man, Assistant MG Gunner, etc. These things are important to show because it tells you what the unit is inherently capable of. If a mortar round comes and takes out your AT specialist, you'll still be able to have that Squad go after a tank, but it will do so without the optimal choice. So you might want to have another unit do it. Condition - This is simply a state of being. Right now we have 4 states, but that could change. The states are Healthy (including superficial wounds), Minor Wound (still functional, though less so), Major Wound (out of action), and KIA (completely out of action). This status has an effect on combat capabilities within the game, but it also has meaning for scoring and campaign play. Guys who end up with Minor Wounds might come back for the next battle, might not. Guys with Major Wounds will not, and could possibly be tallied up as KIA. KIA is obvious. Onto other things... The 1:1 representation is the way to go. We do not think there is any viable in between for a game of this scale. If the soldiers are moving around and looking like they are portraying individuals, people will be confused and pretty upset if that isn't the case. In CMx1 the soldier figures were obviously abstracted and even then we had tons of criticism for not showing every soldier (which was technically impossible at the time in any case). So there is no use whining and complaining about it... the decision was made 3 years ago, it is the right decision, and it isn't changing. We don't know what the upper size of a CMx2 battle will be so we don't want to overpromise. Over time it can certainly go larger thanks to hardware improvements. But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware. The amount of animations our little guys will have comes down to time. We've got all the basics in there already, but we're not sure what more we'll put in. We could spend months putting in stuff. Unfortunately, we hit the point of diminishing returns on development effort pretty quickly since we don't have multi-million dollar budgets and a huge development team. Steve