aka_tom_w

Kosovo? Balkins? just guessing -tom w

Thanks Gpig sorry I missed that one.... if anyone else here finds any new juicy bones buried elsewhere and wants to add them to ths thread PLEASE feel free to go right ahead just like Gpig did. -tom w </font>

Thanks Gpig sorry I missed that one.... if anyone else here finds any new juicy bones buried elsewhere and wants to add them to ths thread PLEASE feel free to go right ahead just like Gpig did. -tom w </font>

I don't think it is such a big risk and I do think Jobs knows what he is doing: web page "Apple Risks It with Intel RELATED LINKS Apple-Intel Chip Deal Outcry Keeps Growing Porting Mac OS X to Intel Will Be a Snap Intel Gets Big on Mini PCs Up Next: Intel Everywhere? I believe Apple is switching because Steve Jobs has his eye on the big prize—a substantial share of the personal computer marketplace. In fact, I believe Steve Jobs has been working toward this goal since he returned to Apple in 1997. Remember, it was Jobs nemesis John Sculley who presided over the switch from Motorola's 68000 processors to the PowerPC architecture, missing the opportunity to gain PC compatibility. It seemed like a good idea at the time. IBM's Power architecture was part of a wave of RISC (reduced instruction-set computing) technology that promised to sweep x86 away. Intel couldn't make the switch, but Apple could; Sculley believed RISC's inherent advantages would give Apple a compelling advantage over x86 PCs. What RISC proponents didn't predict was that Intel (and AMD) could create new x86 processors built around RISC-like cores. Their higher production volumes more than compensated for the slight inefficiencies of this approach. The new PowerPC platform also turned out to be less compelling than Sculley expected. By forcing its customers and software developers to choose between two fundamentally incompatible platforms—the well established PC platform and Apple's proprietary designs—Apple forced itself into a small market niche from which it could not escape. Even with this year's remarkable growth in Mac sales—40 percent year over year—Apple still has less than 4 percent of the U.S. personal-computer market. The transition to x86 will cut into Power Mac sales in the short term, but the new strategy gives Apple an opportunity for growth rates that would be otherwise unimaginable. Click here to read more about the outcry over the Apple-Intel deal. How might this strategy play out? I think the keys to Apple's success now lie in the "platformization" strategy of Intel's new CEO, Paul Otellini. Otellini is behind Intel's new emphasis on technology beyond simple microprocessor design—the Centrino platform, Intel's Virtualization Technology and the security features code-named LaGrande Technology. Apple, arguably the most platform-oriented computer vendor, will now contribute its considerable skills in hardware/software integration to Intel's chipset developers. Apple will show Intel how to make software-friendly hardware, and Intel will put its unmatched manufacturing muscle into Apple's service. The ideal future x86 Mac will run Mac OS X and Windows, but I think it's unlikely that Apple will release a version of Mac OS that runs on non-Apple PCs. Apple relies heavily on hardware sales to subsidize Mac OS development. A shrink-wrapped Mac OS that runs on Dell machines, for example, would cut into Mac system sales. Jobs did not address this question in his speech Monday, but we should learn the answer later this year. If Apple had adopted the Intel architecture instead of PowerPC, this would have been a difficult problem to solve. Apple would have been forced to make its systems fundamentally incompatible with the standard PC platform to prevent hackers from making their own Mac clones. Today, Intel has the answer. LaGrande technology provides an unbreakable cryptographic lock that can keep Mac OS from booting on systems not made by Apple. The LaGrande solution allows full PC compatibility, so Macs could be able to boot Windows, but dual-boot systems have never been particularly successful. Users don't want to be forced to choose between multiple operating systems when they start their computers. The ideal solution would offer access to all the software and all the data on the machine at the same time. Next Page: Virtualization technology." "Enter another one of Intel's platform pieces, VT (Virtualization Technology). VT makes it possible for one machine to run several different operating systems at once. Intel has partnered with software virtualization pioneer VMware to implement its own software layer for VT; Microsoft will have another. VT demos have been fairly primitive so far, forcing users to switch from one virtual desktop to another to run software in different partitions. Microsoft has the technology to create a more natural windowed environment, but so does Apple—and Apple has proved more agile in developing user-interface technology over the last few years. Again, Jobs said nothing about this prospect, but I know Apple could make this work, and I doubt they'll overlook the opportunity. Properly implemented, an x86 Mac wouldn't need to boot Windows to run Windows software. Mac OS would be the primary operating system, but if the customer wants Windows, Windows could get its own partition. With Windows running on the same machine, Apple can make Windows applications part of the Mac OS X environment. Apple could end up with the best of all worlds—simultaneous Mac OS and Windows operation on a wide range of commodity platforms. Today, it isn't practical for Apple to develop its own tablet computers or eight-way servers because of hardware engineering costs. With suitable hardware available off the shelf in the PC industry, Apple can create such systems just by doing the necessary software development. Most of this work, in fact, has already been done. Reaching this promised land will still take a lot of hard work by Apple and its independent software developers. Apple is targeting the 64-bit mode of Intel's x86 processors (the mode originally developed by AMD and dubbed AMD64). Apple already has 64-bit support in Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger), but almost none of the Tiger code runs in 64-bit mode. Apple will have to make the transition to x86 and 64-bit operation at the same time. It's unclear how much of this work has been done. Jobs announced that for the last five years, it has pursued a cross-platform development strategy; Apple's operating systems and applications have all been built and tested for x86 and PowerPC compatibility. But Apple hasn't had access to 64-bit x86 platforms for all this time. I think it's likely that the 64-bit transition is still under way in Cupertino. It's ironic that up in Seattle, Microsoft is moving the other way. We usually think of Microsoft as a software company, but it sells many more Xbox consoles than Apple sells Macs. With similar needs for multimedia processing and price/performance, and a large installed base of x86 software, Microsoft selected PowerPC for its next-generation Xbox 360. For similar reasons, Sony is moving from MIPS processors to PowerPC in PlayStation 3, and Nintendo is sticking with PowerPC for its forthcoming Revolution system. IBM designed all three of these new PowerPC processors; together, the three consoles will ship almost as many processors as Intel. Apple's future includes less RISC, but more risks. Faced with a straight-up choice between Windows Longhorn and Mac OS X "Leopard" on the same hardware, some Microsoft customers will switch—but will there be more switchers than Apple would have attracted to the PowerPC platform? And what about Apple's short-term prospects? Pending the arrival of better Intel microprocessors, the first generation of x86-based PCs won't be dramatically better than the new Power Macs Jobs promised us. Power Macs will also have better software support for years to come, but will Apple's existing customers be comfortable buying a platform that is scheduled for cancellation? Apple is looking at a year or two of combining nervous uncertainty with the hope of fantastic success. Realizing this dream will require a lot of engineering effort from Apple and Intel, and a lot of faith from Apple's faithful. Peter N. Glaskowsky is an analyst with the Envisioneering Group in Seaford, N.Y., a former editor of the Microprocessor Report newsletter and an architect with MemoryLogix, a microprocessor design firm." web page

web page This is interesting: real tech details for a change: " Apple is expected to start by using Intel's Pentium M chip, and to use EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) versus a standard BIOS for waking up its processor and other hardware bits. But it has yet to detail whether it will use off-the-shelf Intel processors and chip sets or take another route. Right now, the company uses standard IBM PowerPC 970FX chips and designs its own chip sets for them, analysts say. Having details on Intel's hardware plans in hand, along with details on the software drivers for the systems, will be vital to getting Windows to run natively on Mactel hardware. Read more here about why Apple is expected to use Intel's Pentium M chip in its new computers. Running Windows as "a primary OS on [Mac/Intel] hardware is going to require OS support at the driver level. There may or may not be BIOS issues and that sort of thing," said Dean McCarron, analyst with Mercury Research. "Going off the assumption that the [intel] Mac hardware is not a PC—that it's their own layout hardware-wise—in order to make Windows run on that, it's going to have to have the appropriate drivers." This means that supporting Windows on Mactel would require Microsoft Corp. or others to gain in-depth knowledge of the Apple hardware, McCarron said. Apple would have to weigh the potential benefits of making its machines somewhat more attractive versus risking helping people who seek to use Mac OS X on other hardware." and also from the web page listed at the top of the post: " Even if full hardware support isn't offered, there's a fallback position for more enterprising Mactel owners. Virtualization technology built into Intel chips—desktop Pentium 4 chips will sport built-in virtualization this year and the Pentium Ms will gain it next—will allow the machines to be partitioned to run numerous different types of software at the same time. Thus, there is no reason the machines couldn't run Windows or Linux and all of the associated applications on top of Mac OS X. Click here to read Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols' commentary arguing that Apple's Intel move threatens Linux and Longhorn desktops. "In theory, you could run Windows on top of Mac OS, which is how it works on Mac today with Virtual PC," McCarron said. "The difference is, with hardware virtualization, you'd be running at almost full speed. By and large you'd end up with a full-speed virtual system." More here "Apple may choose Intel's Pentium M to become the first Intel chip inside a new generation of portables and small desktop computers. The computer maker, which on Monday announced plans to move to Intel processors starting in 2006, is expected to make the Pentium M its first stop, analysts say." -tom w [ July 10, 2005, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

The ONE sure thing Steve has avoided any commnent on is asymetrical FOW settings or asyemtrical realism settings to allow a player to give some form or "handicap" or simulated advantage to another weaker human player or the enemy AI. There should be a way in CMX2 to allow the human player to play the game on the most realistic FOW setting (the REAL real hard one like Extra Hard Enhanced Extreme Fog of War with all the hardest inter-unit communication protocols compromising and preventing intel between distant and isolated units, by this I mean the hard form of Relative Spotting setting) and then allow the computer AI to use something like Partial Fog of War or some limited "simulated intutition" or "hinted enhanced" computer or simulated "situational awarness" (like I have ANY idea what that means Doh! ) Artificial inteligence to play the game against, thus providing the player with a NON-cheating but decidedly "articifically enhanced" enemy AI to provide perhaps a slightly more challenging gaming experience. Combine the possibility of asymetrical FOW settings with the possibility that scenario designers will be able to "program the AI" or somehow script AI or configure SOP settings for the AI player in a specialized scenario's designed to be played by human players against a specific set-up of enemy AL controled units (ESPECIALLY on defense) and you will see many new players to CMx2 complain that some scenario's are un-winable or too hard to "beat". (please !!!) I for one, hope the CMx2 game disk is released with at least one or two CMx2 scenarios that are so tightly organized or well scripted by the scneario designer as to be nearly impossible (in a historically accurate way and setting of course) for the human player to have any chance of a victorious result no matter how well they play or how lucky they get. (Not all scenario's on the disk, just a couple of real good juicy challenging ones that are near impossible to win for the human player against a well scripted AI opponent and by that I am NOT looking for replayability I am just suggesting that with FULL FOW on, AND playing the scenario BLIND for the FIRST time, the human player, no matter how skilled or how lucky will get smoked by the well scripted AI opponent, a scenario like that as a DEMO scenario for the release of the CMx2 engine would be greatly appreciated as well HINT HINT! ) But now I guess I am just being an optimist.... -tom w [ July 13, 2005, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

The ONE sure thing Steve has avoided any commnent on is asymetrical FOW settings or asyemtrical realism settings to allow a player to give some form or "handicap" or simulated advantage to another weaker human player or the enemy AI. There should be a way in CMX2 to allow the human player to play the game on the most realistic FOW setting (the REAL real hard one like Extra Hard Enhanced Extreme Fog of War with all the hardest inter-unit communication protocols compromising and preventing intel between distant and isolated units, by this I mean the hard form of Relative Spotting setting) and then allow the computer AI to use something like Partial Fog of War or some limited "simulated intutition" or "hinted enhanced" computer or simulated "situational awarness" (like I have ANY idea what that means Doh! ) Artificial inteligence to play the game against, thus providing the player with a NON-cheating but decidedly "articifically enhanced" enemy AI to provide perhaps a slightly more challenging gaming experience. Combine the possibility of asymetrical FOW settings with the possibility that scenario designers will be able to "program the AI" or somehow script AI or configure SOP settings for the AI player in a specialized scenario's designed to be played by human players against a specific set-up of enemy AL controled units (ESPECIALLY on defense) and you will see many new players to CMx2 complain that some scenario's are un-winable or too hard to "beat". (please !!!) I for one, hope the CMx2 game disk is released with at least one or two CMx2 scenarios that are so tightly organized or well scripted by the scneario designer as to be nearly impossible (in a historically accurate way and setting of course) for the human player to have any chance of a victorious result no matter how well they play or how lucky they get. (Not all scenario's on the disk, just a couple of real good juicy challenging ones that are near impossible to win for the human player against a well scripted AI opponent and by that I am NOT looking for replayability I am just suggesting that with FULL FOW on, AND playing the scenario BLIND for the FIRST time, the human player, no matter how skilled or how lucky will get smoked by the well scripted AI opponent, a scenario like that as a DEMO scenario for the release of the CMx2 engine would be greatly appreciated as well HINT HINT! ) But now I guess I am just being an optimist.... -tom w [ July 13, 2005, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I think it is the Heat they run too hot in the laptops with the G5 and its just not safe too hot IMHO sure it uses more battery power but IBM cannot make a safe and cool (ish) G5 laptop and they are out the intel centrino is much much cooler IIRC -tom w [ July 02, 2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is NOT a recent bone but it should be re-posted here as well The ONE sure thing Steve has avoided any commnent on is asymetrical FOW settings or asyemtrical realism settings to allow a player to give some form or "handicap" or simulated advantage to another weaker human player or the enemy AI. There should be a way in CMX2 to allow the human player to play the game on the most realistic FOW setting (the REAL real hard one like Extra Hard Enhanced Extreme Fog of War with all the hardest inter-unit communication protocols compromising and preventing intel between distant and isolated units, by this I mean the hard from or Relative Spotting setting) and then allow the computer AI to use something like Partial Fog of War or some limited "simulated intutition" or "hinted enhanced" computer Articial inteligence to play the game against, thus providing the player with a NON-cheating but decidedly "articifically enhanced" enemy AI to provide perhaps a slightly more challenging gaming experience. Combine the possibility of asymetrical FOW settings with the possibility that scenario designers will be able to "program the AI" or somehow script AI or configure SOP settings for the AI player in a specialized scenario's designed to be played by human players against a specific set-up of enemy AL controled units (ESPECIALLY on defense) and you will see many new players to CMx2 complain that some scenario's are unwinable or too hard to "beat". I for one hope the CMx2 game disk is released with at least one or two CMx2 scenarios that are so tightly organized or well scripted by the designer as to be nearly impossible (in a historically accurate way and setting of course) for the human player to have any chance of a victorious result no matter how well they play or how lucky they get. (not all scenario's on the disk just a couple of real good juicy challenging ones that are near impossible to win for the human player against a well scripted AI opponent and by that I am NOT looking for replayability I am just suggesting that with FULL FOW and playing the scenario BLIND for the FIRST time, the human player, no matter how skilled or how lucky will get smoked by the well scripted AI opponent, a scenario like that as a DEMO scenario for the release of the CMx2 engine would be greatly appreciated as well HINT HINT! ) But now I guess I am just being an optimist.... -tom w [ July 01, 2005, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is NOT a recent bone but it should be re-posted here as well The ONE sure thing Steve has avoided any commnent on is asymetrical FOW settings or asyemtrical realism settings to allow a player to give some form or "handicap" or simulated advantage to another weaker human player or the enemy AI. There should be a way in CMX2 to allow the human player to play the game on the most realistic FOW setting (the REAL real hard one like Extra Hard Enhanced Extreme Fog of War with all the hardest inter-unit communication protocols compromising and preventing intel between distant and isolated units, by this I mean the hard from or Relative Spotting setting) and then allow the computer AI to use something like Partial Fog of War or some limited "simulated intutition" or "hinted enhanced" computer Articial inteligence to play the game against, thus providing the player with a NON-cheating but decidedly "articifically enhanced" enemy AI to provide perhaps a slightly more challenging gaming experience. Combine the possibility of asymetrical FOW settings with the possibility that scenario designers will be able to "program the AI" or somehow script AI or configure SOP settings for the AI player in a specialized scenario's designed to be played by human players against a specific set-up of enemy AL controled units (ESPECIALLY on defense) and you will see many new players to CMx2 complain that some scenario's are unwinable or too hard to "beat". I for one hope the CMx2 game disk is released with at least one or two CMx2 scenarios that are so tightly organized or well scripted by the designer as to be nearly impossible (in a historically accurate way and setting of course) for the human player to have any chance of a victorious result no matter how well they play or how lucky they get. (not all scenario's on the disk just a couple of real good juicy challenging ones that are near impossible to win for the human player against a well scripted AI opponent and by that I am NOT looking for replayability I am just suggesting that with FULL FOW and playing the scenario BLIND for the FIRST time, the human player, no matter how skilled or how lucky will get smoked by the well scripted AI opponent, a scenario like that as a DEMO scenario for the release of the CMx2 engine would be greatly appreciated as well HINT HINT! ) But now I guess I am just being an optimist.... -tom w [ July 01, 2005, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

old thread I think this worth repeating... "So far Steve as not commented at all about the possibility of assymetrical realism or FOW settings for the AI and the human player or two human players. THAT one feature alone would be a break through of magnificient proportions!" -tom w [ July 01, 2005, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yes Jobs has promised the mac faithful a G5 laptop, or at least "improved" or "competitive" laptop (Powerbook) speed and performance and he just HATES not being able to deliver on that technologically, because IBM could not make the Power PC 970 (by IBM renamed the "new" G5 by Apple, it was a originally a RISC based 64 bit chip used in servers where heat is not a consideration) perform cool enough to run in a laptop. from here IBM web page "Apple, of course, is the obvious customer for the 970, and as I'll discuss in a moment IBM's newly announced chip would fit well with their general needs and direction. In this respect, then, the 970 could fill another gap in the computing landscape: the enormous desktop PPC performance gap left by Motorola as their G4 line continues to stagnate and the fate of their rumored G5 remains uncertain. " Soooo...... Apple and IBM have tried for two years now to shoehorn this mighty RISC based 64 bit server chip into a Powerbook but it has presented the "mother of all technological challenges" because they can't find a way to cool it effectively enough in a laptop enclosure to prevent it from way over heating. So Mac users are stuck with now 2-3 year old Motorola G4 chip technology in all Apple Powerbooks. Soooo.... Yes the mobile laptop market is the most important thing for Apple. -tom w [ June 29, 2005, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I don't know enough about AMD but I am pretty sure Apple really wanted the low heat and High speed mobile (laptop) processors like the Centrino technology that Intel offers. the G5 is a great chip and it is almost fast enough but it runs really hot (the high end Mac G5 destop machine is liquid cooled, it runs THAT hot!) so IBM could not make the Laptop version of the G5 run cool enough to put in a Powerbook, hence there are NO G5 Powerbooks and there never will be and this is a big problem for Apple to stay competitive. I don't know what AMD could offer in the way of FAST (and cool) mobile/laptop processors ?? I am guessing Intel is ahead of AMD in that field. (but I could be wrong because I am Mac guy and I don't know anything about AMD) -tom w

I have not played CMAK as much as I would like to so I am not sure of this Did the King Tiger make it into CMAK? How about the Elephant? I can't recall where they drew the line of ETO dream armour and North African historical accuracy??? The Tiger I is in CMAK for Sure (I brewed on up real GOOD last night he he in the ETO mod pack in the scenarios that came with it thanks to David L I think! thanks!) -tom w

If you like CMBO and want more of the ETO on the better CMBB game engine then you really NEED to get CMAK Other wise if you just want a change of pace and to play on the Eastern front CMBB will be fine. There might be a package deal from BFC where you can get them both together but I am not sure what is being offered in the way of marketing these days. Good luck you will be happy with either one of those games so don't worry! -tom w

doh

I guess that says alot right there -tom w [ June 27, 2005, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

those images from Company of Heroes do look stunning! That Sherm and those soldiers look spectacular. But is the GAME any good? who knows? -tom w

and did anyone visit this site: (some how linked to that other site:) (freaky!) web page some whacky life size female dolls that sort of look like they have been made from real photographs or something? Adult only real doll site here (or something crazy!) you have to see it to believe it. -tom w [ June 26, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

How does the PIAT and the shreck and the 'zook compare to today's "standard" RPG that you see in Black Hawk down and all over Afghanistan and Iraq? what are there similarities and differences? thanks -tom w

This might help Steve said this a little while ago: Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 23, 2005 12:37 AM Don't worry... we're not going to do Combat Medic Mission However, dropping wounded in the spots where they were wounded is not realistic. You, the player, should not be able to spot a guy who should not be there. In other words, a lightly wounded or evacuated seriously wounded soldier would be moved SOMEWHERE other than out in an empty street, hanging out a window, in a wrecked vehicle, etc. So why should the player see such a soldier where he realistically wouldn't be? Repetition of visuals is not a concern for us. It isn't like we are planning on having a 12 man squad stick to a static formation. Look at Gpig's drawings as they are pretty much spot on how things will look in CMx2. Even the very old (by computer standards) Close Combat had guys individually positioned, so it can obviously be done. . . Steve [ June 24, 2005, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 21, 2005 12:15 AM 1:1 representation sure does open up a big can of worms. It's one of the reasons why we did not attempt it for CMx1 (though hardware wouldn't have allowed it anyway). However, as has already been pointed out one should not confuse 1:1 graphical represenation with 1:1 modeling or 1:1 control. Three different concepts. From a GAME standpoint, 1:1 graphical representation is the most important. If I were to make a Top Ten list of complaints from general gamers about CMx1, this would probably be the #2 complaint (#1 is the lack of ridiculously detailed and textured models) constant throughout all three games. From a REALISM standpoint the most important thing is the 1:1 modeling. Though it is very difficult to do this without the 1:1 graphical represenation, it is certainly possible to do. We could have had individuals run away from generic 3 man squads or more detailed soldier stats. But without 1:1 representation this all seemed kinda hollow so we kept the level of modeling in line with the degree of visual representation. Now that we are increasing the latter, we will also be increasing the modeling to stay in balance. There will still be abstractions, just not nearly as many as there are now. The interesting thing is that most "gamers" and "grognards" is that they probably pretty much agree that 1:1 control is undesirable. There is already enough to pay attention to without having to get Pvt. Pyle to move 0.5 meters to the left of the tree he is behind so he can get a shot off. It also turns the focus to individual soldiers instead of units and the formations they belong to. Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. The results should make the game more fun to play and also far more realistic. There will be issues we need to work through to make sure it all works happily together, but that's the sort of thing you guys pay us for when you buy the game Steve Disclaimer: Art Work presented by Gpig (who does this sort of thing for a living but he does not work for BFC) . [ June 24, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK that sounds good. I agree with that completely! I would like to see two catagories or "states" for men NOT in squads. 1) Critically wounded (must be left behind lies or sits down and drops out of the squad) and 2) KIA (body lies down or slumps over) In both cases the man is no longer part of the fighting unit or squad and must be left behind or somehow left where the injury occured. I can see why Steve says "we are not all that interested" in this aspect of the simulation because it looks very messy and there sure is NO easy way to do it right or do it in a way they won't be constantly critized or harassed by likes of some us here who like to complain about lack of realism. This whole WIA thing/issue is obviously a very hard apsect of the game/simulation to model realistically! But I do wish them the very best of luck on this one! -tom w

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 24, 2005 01:01 AM Never confuse an implementation of something with what is possible or not. Meaning, just because you play Game X with Feature Y does not mean that Game Z will play exactly the same. If you want a dose of reality in that sense, pick up the other 3D tactical WWII game out there and see how closely it compares to CMBO What I mean by this is that nobody should judge what we can do, or not do, based on what some other group of guys did 10 years ago in a 2D enviroment that worked on a 486 (or a Mac IIci in my case ). Now, as it so happens you guys that were painfully hoping to rearranging your CC men probably were wasting your time. While CC was certainly 1:1 Graphically, it was not 1:1 Modeled. Unless my memory is playing big tricks on me, much to the contrary of sycophant ramblings a CC unit was no different than a CMx1 unit in that all LOS, LOF, and location calcs were based on a single spot. That means 3 guys of a CC squad on the wrong side of the wall were likely in no danger if the system though of the center of the unit as being on the correct side of the wall. If the system thought the unit was on the incorrect side of the way, the 3 guys on the "protected" side were vulnerable even though they looked protected. I don't remember exactly how the CC system worked, but like I said... unless my memory is getting bad it worked pretty much like this and not like you guys think it did. Having said that, it isn't as hard to control individual guys within a single unit as it is to control multiple units. The reason is that telling something like a rifle team (to use CC scale) to move to location X effectively defines where the 3, 4, or 6 guys should go to. Now, think of telling a platoon to "take x objective". The AI now has to move several pieces, which are inherently separate from each other, in a way that makes sense. In real life this could mean leaving one Squad (of two teams) behind, moving one Squad (of two teams) down a road 30m to the left, and telling the other Squad (of two teams) to do a zig-zag assault over an open field, but only after the second team arrives on target. See the difference? If not, read this The less variation there is in general location, type, and expected behavior, the easier it is for an AI to get it right. The more varried the locations, types, and behaviors the more complicated. Telling the AI to move 6 or 12 guys to "go to this wall and lay down suppressive fire" is a lot easier for the AI than "move these 34 guys in any one of a million ways to take that farmhouse". Git it now? Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 16, 2005 11:40 PM Tom, I was pointing back to earlier comments I made to reassure people that we wouldn't be yanking away control of units for the simple sake of reduing Borg issues. Here is an example of how reducing the Borg reduces certainty and introduces natural delays: Let's say you are on the defensive and suddenly find a section of your line attacked by a bunch of enemy infantry. In CMx1 you could assign all sorts of assets to attack this enemy infantry without significant delays. If you felt the enemy was sufficently tied up you could then rush reserves into the spot to reinforce your defenses. All of this could be done within a turn or two because. If all we did was simply make each unit capable of targeting only what it spotted on its own, the situation as described would likely play out very differently. Think about all the assumptions and reassurances one has with the current system. Step through the situation in your mind and picture all the things decisions you would make and note how many of them involve KNOWING something that shouldn't be known. Now think about the same situation assuming a more realistic knowledge and reaction system, then see how that might affect your decisions. I expect you will find that you'd have to hesitate before making plans and then take longer to get plans moving. And if you don't, then think about the possible ramifications if your "rushed" plans fail. Can you afford to take that sort of risk? Sometimes yes, most of the times no. Put another way... think of how many tried and true "gamey" tactics didn't work in CMBO. Then remember how many from CMBO didn't work with CMBB (oh boy do I remember those discussions ). It is very safe to assume that a good amount of what worked in CMx1 will not work in CMx2 for the same reason (i.e. that we are making the game more realistic). Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 17, 2005 02:51 AM Remember that 1:1 representation for a battalion level 3D wargame was simply impossible to do. Still is if you're talking about the average computer wargamers have in front of them. We're counting on the average wargamer having to finally bite the bullet and upgrade by the time CMx2's first game comes out. I know I'm long overdue for an upgrade! Cripes, Apple's new $500 buck book sized computer is nearly four times faster than my desktop At the risk of causing people to ask for a lobotomy sooner rather than later, I've started up a new thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=30&t=003451 I am going to stay away from talking specifics about CMx2's design, but I thought it was time to refocus people on looking at the core problems with simulating command levels before thinking up ways to deal with this age old problem. Steve NOT a bone but worth repeating IMHO [ June 24, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 24, 2005 01:01 AM Never confuse an implementation of something with what is possible or not. Meaning, just because you play Game X with Feature Y does not mean that Game Z will play exactly the same. If you want a dose of reality in that sense, pick up the other 3D tactical WWII game out there and see how closely it compares to CMBO What I mean by this is that nobody should judge what we can do, or not do, based on what some other group of guys did 10 years ago in a 2D enviroment that worked on a 486 (or a Mac IIci in my case ). Now, as it so happens you guys that were painfully hoping to rearranging your CC men probably were wasting your time. While CC was certainly 1:1 Graphically, it was not 1:1 Modeled. Unless my memory is playing big tricks on me, much to the contrary of sycophant ramblings a CC unit was no different than a CMx1 unit in that all LOS, LOF, and location calcs were based on a single spot. That means 3 guys of a CC squad on the wrong side of the wall were likely in no danger if the system though of the center of the unit as being on the correct side of the wall. If the system thought the unit was on the incorrect side of the way, the 3 guys on the "protected" side were vulnerable even though they looked protected. I don't remember exactly how the CC system worked, but like I said... unless my memory is getting bad it worked pretty much like this and not like you guys think it did. Having said that, it isn't as hard to control individual guys within a single unit as it is to control multiple units. The reason is that telling something like a rifle team (to use CC scale) to move to location X effectively defines where the 3, 4, or 6 guys should go to. Now, think of telling a platoon to "take x objective". The AI now has to move several pieces, which are inherently separate from each other, in a way that makes sense. In real life this could mean leaving one Squad (of two teams) behind, moving one Squad (of two teams) down a road 30m to the left, and telling the other Squad (of two teams) to do a zig-zag assault over an open field, but only after the second team arrives on target. See the difference? If not, read this The less variation there is in general location, type, and expected behavior, the easier it is for an AI to get it right. The more varried the locations, types, and behaviors the more complicated. Telling the AI to move 6 or 12 guys to "go to this wall and lay down suppressive fire" is a lot easier for the AI than "move these 34 guys in any one of a million ways to take that farmhouse". Git it now? Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 16, 2005 11:40 PM Tom, I was pointing back to earlier comments I made to reassure people that we wouldn't be yanking away control of units for the simple sake of reduing Borg issues. Here is an example of how reducing the Borg reduces certainty and introduces natural delays: Let's say you are on the defensive and suddenly find a section of your line attacked by a bunch of enemy infantry. In CMx1 you could assign all sorts of assets to attack this enemy infantry without significant delays. If you felt the enemy was sufficently tied up you could then rush reserves into the spot to reinforce your defenses. All of this could be done within a turn or two because. If all we did was simply make each unit capable of targeting only what it spotted on its own, the situation as described would likely play out very differently. Think about all the assumptions and reassurances one has with the current system. Step through the situation in your mind and picture all the things decisions you would make and note how many of them involve KNOWING something that shouldn't be known. Now think about the same situation assuming a more realistic knowledge and reaction system, then see how that might affect your decisions. I expect you will find that you'd have to hesitate before making plans and then take longer to get plans moving. And if you don't, then think about the possible ramifications if your "rushed" plans fail. Can you afford to take that sort of risk? Sometimes yes, most of the times no. Put another way... think of how many tried and true "gamey" tactics didn't work in CMBO. Then remember how many from CMBO didn't work with CMBB (oh boy do I remember those discussions ). It is very safe to assume that a good amount of what worked in CMx1 will not work in CMx2 for the same reason (i.e. that we are making the game more realistic). Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 17, 2005 02:51 AM Remember that 1:1 representation for a battalion level 3D wargame was simply impossible to do. Still is if you're talking about the average computer wargamers have in front of them. We're counting on the average wargamer having to finally bite the bullet and upgrade by the time CMx2's first game comes out. I know I'm long overdue for an upgrade! Cripes, Apple's new $500 buck book sized computer is nearly four times faster than my desktop At the risk of causing people to ask for a lobotomy sooner rather than later, I've started up a new thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=30&t=003451 I am going to stay away from talking specifics about CMx2's design, but I thought it was time to refocus people on looking at the core problems with simulating command levels before thinking up ways to deal with this age old problem. Steve NOT a bone but worth repeating IMHO [ June 24, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]