aka_tom_w

The map edge just GROWS larger as you approach it. So..... logically If I am the defender and the attacker tries to hug the map edge to sneak up on me do I see the map edge growing? Can the map edge grow for one player only? I "suppose" this "might" work if the new dynamic map edge would grow ONLY for one player and the other player would not see the map getting larger on on side. BUT that might lead to OTHER problems. How about this..... If any player approaches a map edge ALL 4 sides of the map grow by %10 AND both players see the map grow? NOW the only FOW info given away is that your opponent is approaching the map edge somewhere on the map. BUT I think Steve was serious when he stated this: "Therefore, we will be making no special map edge rules in CMx2. That's a certain point not subject to change" -tom w [ March 16, 2005, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yeah but.... From a strictly "game playing" point of view this is interesting point because we who have played the Allies in the first three versions of CM have become acustomed to having soldier HMG teams carry (hump) that heavy Ma Duce around the battlefield. SURE they move slow, but that team will carry that thing and set it up where you want and lay down fire in CM. I thought it had a team of 6 and they carried it where ever you wanted. At least in Combat Mission THE GAME anyway. for what its worth... -tom w

Oh YES! "Obviously, BFC's ability to produce a 1:1 game is significantly better than my ability to imagine it." This whole 1:1 thing has been beaten to death (and then some) so we don't want to start all over here (which is what I am NOT trying to do). But just like MikeyD I can't imagine how when I play it it will make me not just completely tear my hair out because while I KNOW I don't want control of every soldier I also KNOW I don't want to see them all running all over the place like a collective bunch of chicken's with their heads cut off. SO what are we left with? WE don't want control of every man and we are not going to get it. SO Steve says (and I paraphrase) "Have a little faith baby, trust us we have not done you wrong in the past and that 1:1 Tac AI (miracle) bridge is going to be there!" SO What other choice do we have AND no this is not another unofficial 1:1 representation "why it won't work" post or thread..... I just like this quote the first time I saw it : "Obviously, BFC's ability to produce a 1:1 game is significantly better than my ability to imagine it." -tom w

Maybe its because I am not a grog (really Where are the heavy HMG's? Where is the .50 cal HMG team? Maybe this "kind" of company did not have Bazooka's or HMG's? Just curious thanks -tom w

Its not a big deal for me. I am OK with it just the way it is now -tom w

or the circle map? the hexagon map is a good idea too what about a map like this ...... _____________ .... ( ................... ) ..( ......................... ) .(................................) ...( .......................... ) ......(______________) only more circlar ___ (___) just allow wide edges on the map BUT as simple as that is both players would STILL find it easy to hug the map edge all the way out there :confused: oh well -tom w

the last time they said anything officially it was like this "when it's done" When will it be done? "sometime around the end of 2005 or the begining of 2006" (depending on how things go....) -tom w

Gulf War I The ulimtate REAL life gamey move..... Was that not JUST one VERY large gamey edge hugging armoured outflanking manouvre into the deep desert to go ALL the way around the Iraqi defensive positions? There ware plenty of real life gamey examples of edge hugging. Straight up the middle is not always best and some times one side or the other will try and out flanking manouvre. All all psrt of tactics and war and combat. Was Swhartzkpoff's out flanking manouvre in Gulf War I gamey?? Who cares? it worked. Edge hugging is just one of many approaches and tactics to play a scenerio, both sides know about it and both sides should be prepared to deal with any edge hugging activity. Its all just part of the game and remember it is JUST a game. -tom w

Sorry Could not help my self INSTANT online review of "By Tank Into Normandy".... A good tanker's tale, February 20, 2004 Reviewer: A reader (rank it with 4 stars out of 5 ****) First off I should say this book probably deserves five stars just for its very existence. Tankers from WW2 do not seem to have written very much and any works are sorely needed. Perhaps the casualty rate for tankers was too high. Anyway, Mr Hills delivers a solid account of his time as a tank and scout platoon leader (Sherman and Stuart tanks) with the British Sherwood Rangers. Mr Hills saw considerable action from D-Day itself through to the end of war in Germany. Overall he does a fine job of describing his experiences. What keeps the book form earning five stars is that, first of all, he skimps on the details of most of his actions as well as his equipment and day-to-day duties. Mr Hills had a real opportunity to inform the reader of what it was really like to be a tanker. Unfortunately he just does not go into enough detail. He doesn't even tell you what versions of the Sherman he was on (and every German gun is an 88mm). A couple of his battle accounts approach a fair level of detail but always end-up just shy of really letting you know what happened and he rarely makes you feel like you are reliving the action with him. My second complaint is that Mr Hills is British and unfortunately, for readers not from the UK, writes like one. What I mean is that he uses lots of references to all things British that are simply lost on the non-British reader. Starting with his childhood school experiences right through to various pop-culture references he simply assumes the reader understands all things British. This is not a huge distraction from the book but does add to the somewhat distant feel too it (along with the semi-formal, British stiff-upper-lip thing). This tendency combined with the lack of overall detail makes for a less than stellar read and is certainly history's loss. Overall Mr Hill does do a good job and the book is interesting and informative. The problem is simply that there are so few tankers' tales that it is a shame he did not take the book the extra mile. Soddball can you also give us your review or thoughts on the book..... -tom w I've been reading Stuart Hills' "By Tank Into Normandy", which is an account of his time with the Sherwood Rangers from D-Day until mid-1945. What struck me is the number of times they baled from a tank that had been struck by a single round. It was almost an automatic reaction - round penetrates and kills crewmember x, remainder of crew leap from hatches and run for their lives. At no time did I read "We scraped the mangled lumps of Willikins from the drivers seat, then Hodgson grabbed the wheel and we were off, fighting like billy-o". Judging from this book alone, my impression of tank combat would be: 1)Tank comes under fire. Round penetrates. 2)Crew bail and cower pathetically hoping nobody shoots them. 3)If, after a few minutes, fighting dies down and tank shows no signs of brewing up or continuing to be a target, crew remounts tank. Hills spent some months with one crewmember missing from his tank after a round penetrated a Sherman he was commanding and killed (IIRC) the loader. Edited to improve the wossname, thing. [/QB]</font>

Equally good is "Hell Has No Heroes" Its a true story of a DD-Amphibious Sherm that came ashore during the first wave of D-Day. They lost their bow gunner (BOG) early and often. To be honest from reading that book I would conclude most Sherm's after D-day were routinely undermaned and without the Bow gunner. The standard crew seamed to always be 4 guys. My understanding from reading the book was that a BOG was a luxury and you were lucky if you could get one. In the book they tell of a french resistance fighter begging to take the BOG seat and fill in so he could provide local intel and navigation aid to the crew. They let ride with then for a while through France, and tried to hide his presence. Hell Has No Heroes is the best book I have ever read about the real life action of a tank crew in WWII. THe names were fictionalized and the book is NOT written like a "war history document" as it reads like a GOOD novel, but you can tell for sure that the guy that wrote the novel lived through the action of WWII in a DD Sherm from start to finish, and he was one lucky fellow. -tom w I've been reading Stuart Hills' "By Tank Into Normandy", which is an account of his time with the Sherwood Rangers from D-Day until mid-1945. What struck me is the number of times they baled from a tank that had been struck by a single round. It was almost an automatic reaction - round penetrates and kills crewmember x, remainder of crew leap from hatches and run for their lives. At no time did I read "We scraped the mangled lumps of Willikins from the drivers seat, then Hodgson grabbed the wheel and we were off, fighting like billy-o". Judging from this book alone, my impression of tank combat would be: 1)Tank comes under fire. Round penetrates. 2)Crew bail and cower pathetically hoping nobody shoots them. 3)If, after a few minutes, fighting dies down and tank shows no signs of brewing up or continuing to be a target, crew remounts tank. Hills spent some months with one crewmember missing from his tank after a round penetrated a Sherman he was commanding and killed (IIRC) the loader. Edited to improve the wossname, thing. </font>

OK thanks Steve that sounds good. How about "Pass through" like the 88mm round can go straight thru the light allied Stuart IN and OUT and then impact another tank and/or building? IIRC this is not modeled in CMx1 Please -tom w

I am OK with the game the way it is now. We don't need more scope creep. AND Steve is right, it is a HUGE can of worms. oh well -tom w

I think theoretically everything you asked is yes... I think Steve said mostly what you are asking is what they are planning to design and develop into the game code. Yes I think is the answer to all of your questions. BUT exactly how it will actually work in the game is any ones guess :confused: . -tom w

But a good idea to bring the discussion up : ) dieseltaylor makes a good point! It is a REALLY big can of worms. Maybe it is easier just to leave it the way it is and not worry too much about flanking along the map edge. If they do anything it should be simple and simple to understand and a snap to build into the game, otherwise nothing will happen? -tom w

KISS yes keep it simple silly Maybe something as simple as unit morale takes a hit and drops if it moves too close to the edge. it should be simple ... but the edges of the dangerzone should somehow be somewhat uncertian.. and the net effect of the morale drop should be something to "think" about BUT not like taking fire from unseen units off the map. Keep it Simple for sure Maybe just have a range near the edges like the Burmuda Triangle where a unit could maybe "lose" or drop a percentage of it ammo (simulating expenditure) or become mysteriously demoralized with a random moral drop. -tom w [ March 10, 2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Oh Yes!! "But as far as FPSs go, it's pretty cool." you can say that again... -tom w

At the top of the page there is a drop down to select the date, its JUST below create new thread. -tom w

STOP Drooling! These are NOT CMx2 graphics! They are from Brothers in Arms by Gear Box . . . This one is new and looks very polished... This link is a QTRV 360 pano with animation of a solidier firing and using cover..... VERY well done!!!!.... Check it out! http://www.brothersinarmsgame.com/us/3dscreens/bia_fire_animation.mov (did that work? no sorry) Game features here. Sorry if it is off topic BUT it is a COOL new FPS game that JUST came out of the PC X-box and PS2 and it does LOOK amazing. :eek: -tom w [ March 09, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

If anyone is interested in a list of military slang I found this page and figured it might be a good start. (I only posted this because not all of us know what a butterbar is, BUT I do now ) -tom w

If anyone is interested in a list of military slang I found this page and figured it might be a good start. (I only posted this because not all of us know what a butterbar is, BUT I do now ) -tom w

If anyone is interested in a list of military slang I found this page and figured it might be a good start. (I only posted this because not all of us know what a butterbar is, BUT I do now ) -tom w

That would suggest that NOW is not the right time I guess -tom w

posted March 08, 2005 12:17 PM That sounds Great !! [ March 08, 2005, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

and That sounds Great

SO what are you telling us? No Orion Slave Girls???... -tom w Pretty darned close. The first point about individual rooms being modeled is not exactly accurate. They will be modeled in a very limited way, the rest abstracted. Building damage will be far more detailed. It is a two part system. One part tracks/shows damage to individual components of a building, the other part tracks structural integrity of parts of the building (including the building itself, of course). For example, you might blow out the 2nd story wall and that is that. But if you blow out the 1st story wall perhaps both it AND the 2nd story wall come tumbling down. Depends entirely on circumstances as one might expect. Somewhere in this or another thread there was a question about the Z aspect of the world's "mesh". Yes, Z aspect is also simulated. Now when you get a crater that is 1m deep and 10m in diameter there will, in effect, be a big visual "chunk" taken out of the map's terrain mesh. This is something that was simply not possible to do with CMx1's terrain since the underlying mesh for a 20x20m section was a single square. Now the underlying mesh (if I got my math right ) 400 squares. That opens up all sorts of possibilities. Steve </font>