aka_tom_w

OK Thanks I would suggest that very fact is why there has been no complaining about it. The correct round is ALWAYS loaded in the breach in any given situation. This sounds like the way the game works for sure: " you could think of them as running around with the breeches empty, and the loader poised to load the correct nature while the gunner is laying" thanks -tom w

OK Thanks I would suggest that very fact is why there has been no complaining about it. The correct round is ALWAYS loaded in the breach in any given situation. This sounds like the way the game works for sure: " you could think of them as running around with the breeches empty, and the loader poised to load the correct nature while the gunner is laying" thanks -tom w

As a "guess" :confused: I would think a tank should always (as an SOP) have a round of some form of AP loaded, I cannot really think of any time when a tank crew would need a HE round as quickly or spontaneously as they might need an AP round. I am guessing (but I could be wrong) the the CMxx games have already modeled an AP round in the breach and that has not really ever led to any complaints or widespread bitching or moaning.... (BUT... I could be wrong ) -tom w

As a "guess" :confused: I would think a tank should always (as an SOP) have a round of some form of AP loaded, I cannot really think of any time when a tank crew would need a HE round as quickly or spontaneously as they might need an AP round. I am guessing (but I could be wrong) the the CMxx games have already modeled an AP round in the breach and that has not really ever led to any complaints or widespread bitching or moaning.... (BUT... I could be wrong ) -tom w

Did you see the photo's of the shot up Grant in this thread ?? -tom w

tom's instant web research response hmm... interesting :cool: more here web page "Partner Quote "We've been using the NovodeX Physics SDK with the Unreal Engine 3 for the past year and it has added some awesome effects. It's going to be exciting to see what NovodeX can do once the PhysX chip hits the market." Tim Sweeney, Founder and lead programmer, Epic Games" and "AGEIA Takes the Wraps off of its PhysX Chip Posted by Tracy Erickson on Mar 8th (2005?) Email this Article Author: Tracy Erickson Managing Editor and sleepless gamer. Today, AGEIA took the wraps off of its new semiconductor, the PhysX physics processing unit (PPU). The AGEIA PhysX chip, will be the first dedicated physics semiconductor chip to be used in next-generation game platforms. By performing advanced physics simulations in real time, the PPU can respond to gamer actions as well as environments contributing to pervasive interactive reality. Physics will offer a host of advanced features including universal collision detection, rigid-body dynamics, soft-body dynamics, fluid dynamics, smart particle systems, clothing simulation, soft-body deformation with tearing, and brittle fracturing for destruction of objects in gaming environments. “What is increasingly defining successful games is how well they emulate reality,” said Rob Enderle, principal analyst of the Enderle Group. “PhysX has the potential to create environments that are vastly more real and compelling to both existing gamers and those that have not yet discovered the amazing worlds created by leading developers.” Both Epic Games and Ubisoft have signed on with AGEIA for next-generation game development that will include use of the PPU. " I sure would like to see what they do or what they are selling Its hard to know what its all about if you can't really see anything. interesting none the less.... -tom w [ July 29, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

tom's instant web research response hmm... interesting :cool: more here web page "Partner Quote "We've been using the NovodeX Physics SDK with the Unreal Engine 3 for the past year and it has added some awesome effects. It's going to be exciting to see what NovodeX can do once the PhysX chip hits the market." Tim Sweeney, Founder and lead programmer, Epic Games" and "AGEIA Takes the Wraps off of its PhysX Chip Posted by Tracy Erickson on Mar 8th (2005?) Email this Article Author: Tracy Erickson Managing Editor and sleepless gamer. Today, AGEIA took the wraps off of its new semiconductor, the PhysX physics processing unit (PPU). The AGEIA PhysX chip, will be the first dedicated physics semiconductor chip to be used in next-generation game platforms. By performing advanced physics simulations in real time, the PPU can respond to gamer actions as well as environments contributing to pervasive interactive reality. Physics will offer a host of advanced features including universal collision detection, rigid-body dynamics, soft-body dynamics, fluid dynamics, smart particle systems, clothing simulation, soft-body deformation with tearing, and brittle fracturing for destruction of objects in gaming environments. “What is increasingly defining successful games is how well they emulate reality,” said Rob Enderle, principal analyst of the Enderle Group. “PhysX has the potential to create environments that are vastly more real and compelling to both existing gamers and those that have not yet discovered the amazing worlds created by leading developers.” Both Epic Games and Ubisoft have signed on with AGEIA for next-generation game development that will include use of the PPU. " I sure would like to see what they do or what they are selling Its hard to know what its all about if you can't really see anything. interesting none the less.... -tom w [ July 29, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

It sure is hard to agree with Dorosh but I would have to say he as got this part right: AND having had personal experience with this aspect of military transportation his opinion with regard to realism "should" ( this time ) carry some wieght. (or something) The game is fine the way it is and it should be more challenging (NOT easier) to co-ordinate in CMx2 IMO -tom w [ July 28, 2005, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

It sure is hard to agree with Dorosh but I would have to say he as got this part right: AND having had personal experience with this aspect of military transportation his opinion with regard to realism "should" ( this time ) carry some wieght. (or something) The game is fine the way it is and it should be more challenging (NOT easier) to co-ordinate in CMx2 IMO -tom w [ July 28, 2005, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK.... I have only been following this thread a little bit. I have read Steve's posts and what he says all makes sense. Steve says: "The 1-2 minutes it takes to load a vehicle in CMx1 pales in comparison to hours it would likely take in the real world. So complain all you want about how unrealistically long it is to taks to load/unload, because in the real world it is unrealistically short by a huge amount. The most realistic thing we could do is not allow any vehicle to embark any unit during regular gameplay. So if realism is what you want, we can do that." In my experience trying to make this loading of vehicles with passengers it ALWAYS works if you give it enough time. ( 1 -2 minutes) Once the passenger and the vehicle meet up it always takes at least one full minute (one turn) to mount up. This seems unrealistically short in my opinion. I would say it "should" take longer. I am not exactly sure what folks are complaining about here. If the expectation is that troops and vehicles should meet up in the same minute AND the troops should get on AND the vehicle should proceed on its way ALL in one minute then that is simply unrealistic. I find it unrealistic that a transort can be loaded and on its way in a one minute turn. I think it should take more than one minute to get 8-12 men on board ANY vehicle and on its way. The game works fine the way it is with regard to this issue IMO. -tom w

OK.... I have only been following this thread a little bit. I have read Steve's posts and what he says all makes sense. Steve says: "The 1-2 minutes it takes to load a vehicle in CMx1 pales in comparison to hours it would likely take in the real world. So complain all you want about how unrealistically long it is to taks to load/unload, because in the real world it is unrealistically short by a huge amount. The most realistic thing we could do is not allow any vehicle to embark any unit during regular gameplay. So if realism is what you want, we can do that." In my experience trying to make this loading of vehicles with passengers it ALWAYS works if you give it enough time. ( 1 -2 minutes) Once the passenger and the vehicle meet up it always takes at least one full minute (one turn) to mount up. This seems unrealistically short in my opinion. I would say it "should" take longer. I am not exactly sure what folks are complaining about here. If the expectation is that troops and vehicles should meet up in the same minute AND the troops should get on AND the vehicle should proceed on its way ALL in one minute then that is simply unrealistic. I find it unrealistic that a transort can be loaded and on its way in a one minute turn. I think it should take more than one minute to get 8-12 men on board ANY vehicle and on its way. The game works fine the way it is with regard to this issue IMO. -tom w

"Follow command" to be looked at for CMx2 ... Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted July 27, 2005 02:06 AM There is an inherent difference between "user friendliness" and "realism" and "playability". Here they are... Realism is what governs CM's overall character. We look to see what is realistic, and what is not, and simulate things accordingly. This is our Prime Directive Next comes playability. How well does that feature work in the context of all other features in the game. Does one run into problems with another and reduce overall realism, or does it allow for a gamey cheat, etc. etc. etc. If so, then we try to fix it so that it is compliant with the Prime Directive. Last comes useability. Is the feature, which is realistic and playable, present unreasonable user interface issues for the player. If so, we redesign the user interface so that playability and realism are not harmed. Other games do things the other way around... the make the game simplistic to use, simplistic to play, and realism.... well, not even the remotest of concerns for most games. The ones that do care about realism to some degree usually stop short at graphics and names of weapons and so forth. The issue being argued about here SHOULD be argued at the useability level. But that isn't the case. Instead it is being argued about at the realism level. People might THINK they are asking abtou useability or playability, but in fact they are asking for compromises to realism. Because the interface is dead simple to use (sorry folks, it really is) and not that hard to master (most people don't have a problem) WITHIN the confines of realistic behavior, I see absolutely no reason to change anything. It's working just fine. Now, something like Follow... there we have a real issue. Units should be realistically able to coordinate their movement based on the unit directly in front of them. If the unit in front stops, so should the one behind it and the one behind that, etc, etc. That is not possible in CMx1, mostly because of the difficulty in programming such a thing from an AI standpoint (given the nature of the engine's existing code). The ramifications of no Follow command are unrealistic and do limit certain types of tactics and tactical scenarios from behaving the way they should. So the argument for the Follow command is primarily about realism, but it is also about playability (vehicles do crazy stuff that increases their chances of getting knocked out), and useability (there is no easy interface for a work around, not to mention to get the behavior directly). That means the Fix O Meter tilts strongly in favor of us doing something about this issue for CMx2. Hopefully by illustrating these two side by side you can see there is a HUGE difference between the two and our reaction to them. Steve Here are a few notes/bones on LODs (level of detail in graphics zoom outs and zoom ins) KwazyDog Administrator Member # 302 posted July 26, 2005 06:51 PM Sirocco dont worry, we *should* be able to have detailed running gear with suspenision, etc. Something to keep in mind is that its amazing just how quickly you can remove details from a model as it moves away from screen yet have the human eye not be able too tell the differnce in game. Dan Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted July 27, 2005 01:49 AM I don't know what the LODs will be like in terms of reductions. But the furthest out LOD will likely be something like 4 or 6 polygons like in CMx1. When something takes up, literally, 2 pixels on screen any more than a few polygons is a complete and utter waste. I'm going to guess that detailed suspensions will go away on the third LOD out from the highest. Just a guess that is when we can get away with wiping it off the model without the eye detecting it. The most close and next to most clolse will likely both have working suspensions. Steve [ July 27, 2005, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"Follow command" to be looked at for CMx2 ... Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted July 27, 2005 02:06 AM There is an inherent difference between "user friendliness" and "realism" and "playability". Here they are... Realism is what governs CM's overall character. We look to see what is realistic, and what is not, and simulate things accordingly. This is our Prime Directive Next comes playability. How well does that feature work in the context of all other features in the game. Does one run into problems with another and reduce overall realism, or does it allow for a gamey cheat, etc. etc. etc. If so, then we try to fix it so that it is compliant with the Prime Directive. Last comes useability. Is the feature, which is realistic and playable, present unreasonable user interface issues for the player. If so, we redesign the user interface so that playability and realism are not harmed. Other games do things the other way around... the make the game simplistic to use, simplistic to play, and realism.... well, not even the remotest of concerns for most games. The ones that do care about realism to some degree usually stop short at graphics and names of weapons and so forth. The issue being argued about here SHOULD be argued at the useability level. But that isn't the case. Instead it is being argued about at the realism level. People might THINK they are asking abtou useability or playability, but in fact they are asking for compromises to realism. Because the interface is dead simple to use (sorry folks, it really is) and not that hard to master (most people don't have a problem) WITHIN the confines of realistic behavior, I see absolutely no reason to change anything. It's working just fine. Now, something like Follow... there we have a real issue. Units should be realistically able to coordinate their movement based on the unit directly in front of them. If the unit in front stops, so should the one behind it and the one behind that, etc, etc. That is not possible in CMx1, mostly because of the difficulty in programming such a thing from an AI standpoint (given the nature of the engine's existing code). The ramifications of no Follow command are unrealistic and do limit certain types of tactics and tactical scenarios from behaving the way they should. So the argument for the Follow command is primarily about realism, but it is also about playability (vehicles do crazy stuff that increases their chances of getting knocked out), and useability (there is no easy interface for a work around, not to mention to get the behavior directly). That means the Fix O Meter tilts strongly in favor of us doing something about this issue for CMx2. Hopefully by illustrating these two side by side you can see there is a HUGE difference between the two and our reaction to them. Steve Here are a few notes/bones on LODs (level of detail in graphics zoom outs and zoom ins) KwazyDog Administrator Member # 302 posted July 26, 2005 06:51 PM Sirocco dont worry, we *should* be able to have detailed running gear with suspenision, etc. Something to keep in mind is that its amazing just how quickly you can remove details from a model as it moves away from screen yet have the human eye not be able too tell the differnce in game. Dan Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted July 27, 2005 01:49 AM I don't know what the LODs will be like in terms of reductions. But the furthest out LOD will likely be something like 4 or 6 polygons like in CMx1. When something takes up, literally, 2 pixels on screen any more than a few polygons is a complete and utter waste. I'm going to guess that detailed suspensions will go away on the third LOD out from the highest. Just a guess that is when we can get away with wiping it off the model without the eye detecting it. The most close and next to most clolse will likely both have working suspensions. Steve [ July 27, 2005, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

and if you lose????? go ahead tell us.... -tom w

I remember losing to him in a tournement and I think he called my playing style and tactics "gamey" when he was losing but then he beat me anyways.... -tom w

I might have to find a way to add that to my all too busy and over bloated sig line.. maybe its time for a change... (in my sig line you ninny!) "but I think it would be almost... blasphemous for the first module not to be WWII ETO. " -tom w

If you are interested in read more about your Id'ing suggest below this thread spotting and ID'ing thread has been recently bumped and includes many lengthy posts and a discussion about FOW settings and options for CMx2.... -tomw What about an FOW setting where the spotted unit nationality icons go away after 1 or 2 minutes or the icons move slightly (random direction) for every minute the unit is unspotted. "Hmmm, now where did I spot that squad 5 minutes ago. Weren't they in those trees or was it those trees?" </font>

I hope BFC never releases an open standards game like Grapeshot is talking about. I like knowing cheating is near impossble and I like playing the game with historically accurate parameters and specs for ALL the things in the CMx1 games that make it a GREAT combat simulator AND not just another video game: "People could take the CMBO/BB/AK and make Sci-fi (Warhammer 40k, Hammer Slammers, Battletech), Horse and Musket era, WW1 ect. Mods add longevity to your game life as well as draw and keep fans" That "moddable" suggestion with open access to the game engine would kill the CMx1 community and hopelessly fracture it IMHO. The market and community for GOOD (great) wargames is small enough without trying to fracture it and alienate the historical accuracy fanatics (grogs) with homespun data and stats open to user manipulation and editing. no thanks "The only reasons I can think of to keep these games non moddable is cheating could become more of a problem and to protect you game engine?" YES to both! Those two points should be priorities and make the two best reasons NOT to allow the game engine to be editable. -tom w

if you read this thread cmx2 recent bones you will be mostly up to date -tom w

still interesting

old thread bump

bump

ok ok.... How about Chance Encounter at dawn or dusk then? (with some engineers and demo charges maybe). Then again maybe it won't be a WWII setting? Who knows?? :confused: -tom w

Well it is NOT official but I for one would like to see asymetrical FOW settings. A battle that starts at dawn and last 60 minutes until it gets light out while you play. An attack scenario designed to be played against an ideally scripted AI opponent that would include a surprise counter attack or some such well programed and scripted action on the part of the AI that will blow me away with its clever planning (on the part of the scenario designer) and well timed and shrewdly executed moves and actions based on cues and hints in from the scenario designer for the AI to follow! Some fun units to play with The hardest possible EFOW setting to play againt the AI. Explosions and demolitions that change the terrain. I am sure the rest of you can think of many more potential CMx2 features you are looking forward to see in the demo. When I think about demo scenarios I think about how GREAT Chance Encounter was in CMBO and the other one with the Hellcats and the Tiger. Now those should have been awarded some special prize for GREAT scenario design for FREE demo scenarios! Those two scenarios alone must have accounted for more than their fair share of CMBO sales, more than any other amount advertising other than word of mouth and posts about how great CMBO is in the forums here, I would say. (yeah yeah, yeah... I know the demo is still 6-8-9 months away but I was JUST dreaming a little early ok? ) -tom w

I agree completely with Kip NOTHING else plays or "feels" like simulated tactical combat like the CMx1 series. (especially with regard to suppresion of incoming small arms for one thing!) I have been playing a little CMAK with the CMETO mods and scenario's and so far it is the only video game I play. (the only other game I "dabble" in is Sim City because it is a little like juggling and I find balancing all the resources and demands and budgets and things sort of fun sometimes but that does not have anything to do with wargaming) The ONLY good wargame on a computer as far as I am concerned is CMBO CMBB and CMAK. Right now CMAK with the CMETO conversion and scenarios is my favourite game. So far I would say of all the games allegedly on the gaming horizon, none look to come close to the thrill I expect to have when I play CMx2 for the first time. IMHO -tom w