aka_tom_w

never mind [ March 08, 2005, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Well... Around here.... ..... sometimes that seems like a heck of a lot to ask. Within any "community" of 16000 folks you are sure to find a least few immature noise makers, miscreants, delinquents, reprobates and/or complainers I guess. BUT within a community this large, of wargame/military simulation aficionados there just somehow seems to be a higher and louder rate of whining! -tom w

And naked slave girls. Don't forget the naked slave girls. Michael </font>

Great! that sounds like a Sim City back end terrain (wire frame) game engine to me. ! " However, there is an underlying mesh which is made up of 1m x 1m pieces " I am guessing this might also be known as a wireframe "mesh" That all sounds wonderfull Now how about nice Waterfalls and ceremonial Fountains and Hanging Gardens? Ochards? Vinyards? Olive Groves? AND Those Cows we were talking about? Do we get Cows this time around??? Apparently ANY Simulation of the ETO in WWII is just not complete without the stench of cow dung and dead cows everywhere. ( I am REALLY JUST joking about all that extra ornemental eye candy there, so the rest of you can relax). -tom w

However I might add something less then "Gee Whiz EVERYTHING is great!" for a change... I would like to mention structural damage for buildings, not the old discussion about rubble. But about some issues around problems with the mechanism by which the game turns buildings into rubble. I am not a structural enigneer BUT other folks here have pointed out that the "damage model" of how buildings fall down, or are damaged or destroyed could use a little help. Maybe model some structural component of buildings and let them fall down more like how they fall apart or are damaged in real life? This has come up before has it not? (sorry this has NOTHING to do with GOD BORG and Relative Spotting) -tom w

" If we had to simulate individual soldiers kicking in doors, hiding behind overturned office furniture, etc... shoot... we wouldn't be done with the game for another whole year. " That is sort of in the realm of the First Person Shooter, and I would suggest most folks here feel CM is different. The level of abstraction for houses and rooms in CMx2 sounds like it should provide more than enough entertainment. -tom w

ok -tom w [ March 07, 2005, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Listening to a loud, rowdy and VERY vocal minority does not a good decision make. Now many here KNOW in their hearts the dissent and activism are (or can be) GOOD things. BUT when a minority of irrate folks believe they are actual stake holders, in a game that is little more than vaporware at this point, become loud, rude, immature and discourteous, it is GOOD and correct that someone call them out on their ill mannered behaviour! I for one am glad Steve did so. (Like the umpire says, "I just calls 'em as I sees 'em!") carry on.... -tom w [ March 07, 2005, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

what do you mean? "Stuff like houses, boulders, bunkers, etc. will bea lot less flexible for what should be obvious reasons (i.e. we have to make 3D models)." what do you mean by the "less flexible" part less flexible than what? curious? thanks -tom w [ March 06, 2005, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"Will the map editor have access to the full resolution or will we use bigger chunks that are resolved at 1m? i.e. will I be drawing a "streambed" by drawing a winding Rough depression 1m deep myself, or will I be selecting a 10m x 10m "tile" piece that has a stream modeled at 1m deep on it?" Maybe look at SimCity or Bryce there are NO tiles forget tiles The thing could be a vector based wire frame map. No tiles but I am only guessing -tom w

I have no doubt that every conceivable work around will be explored by those who really want to make this whole PBEM thing work, if they leave the "hidden" PBEM back door open for those amongst us who are BOTH clever and determined! -tom w

You can't beat that! You won't get the STRAIGHT goods that clearly from ANY other game company, or JUST about ANY other company of ANY kind for that matter! Remember this: "This is why % of (PBEM required) customer base is the WEAKEST argument in favor of supporting PBEM come Hell or high water. Much better to simply argue that it is a good feature and will be missed if it isn't included. At the very least the latter is a line of argument that I fully agree with. How much more straight-up could the guy be!!!?? :eek: -tom w My guess would be around 1-2% who use PBEM as the near sole method of play, another 5% fequently, and another couple of % points on top for infrequently. Of this only perhaps a percent or two would NOT buy CMx2 if it lacked PBEM functionality. Where do I come up with these numbers? I know how many units we've sold (direct+retail) and how to estimate what this Forum represents in relation to those total sales. This is why % of customer base is the WEAKEST argument in favor of supporting PBEM come Hell or high water. Much better to simply argue that it is a good feature and will be missed if it isn't included. At the very least the latter is a line of argument that I fully agree with. Steve </font>

Well I have not seen any TCP/IP flames yet.... But that is likely because I don't think Steve has come right out and said .... "Well TCP/IP might not work either " He has not actually said that right? :confused: -tom w

GOOD! Its the logical choice... "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few." (especially the "many" new players that are not here yet .) Damn the torpedos FULL steam ahead! -tom w

Somewhere Somehow Some player optional compromises may HAVE to be made to make either PBEM or TCP/IP practical... re: "One of the most unbelievable things is that NOT having movie play from every single unit (bazooka team/LMG/etc) makes the PBEM aspect easier." Does the player REALLY need to be able to see the movie from the Relative Spotting perspective of EACH friendly unit? This may only be practical or doable for hotseat and solo play vs the AI. Beyond that I can't see how it could be workable for TCP/IP or PBEM (I am JUST refering to one FOW option for Movie playback where the player has chosen the option to be able to view the playback movie from the Relative Spotting perspective of EACH friendly unit). But I don't know I have HIGH hopes the WHOLE thing (CMx2) will come together in the end and that there WILL be TCP/IP and PBEM for some limited set of FOW options that are the "least costly" in terms of band width or file size. My guess is that there will be some FOW options and some Playback FOW options that MAY ONLY work in solo play vs the AI and hotseat play. AND to be honest that suits me fine, I plan ot buy the game I am hope to enjoy it primarily against the AI or my personal friends in Hotseat or local LAN (computer direct connect to computer) play. BUT that's just me -tom w

No offfense It was JUST a post to start a thread for what I thought was a NEW bone, since some folks here may have become so inured by the noise and complaints in the other LONG PBEM threads that they don't read each post anymore or follow the whole thread anymore. So I just figured the first post of this thread was form of Community Service Announcement (CSA). Thats all. -tom w [ March 06, 2005, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

yes.. Good thinking this is pretty much what Steve has suggested above. So TCP/IP appears somewhat "safe" at the moment. Phew.... Thats a Relief -tom w The technical trick is client/server computing. One player hosts the game and his machine is the server that adjudicates everything. Data is constantly being sent between the machines, but it doesn't add up to the big file of PBEM because only one machine needs to do the calculations. The server can send only what the client needs to be able to see what is happening. So a more complex simulation underlying CMX2 may not be suitable for PBEM, but TCP/IP would still be feasible. </font>

"If you can guarantee both players can calculate the movie EXACTLY the same." Well I am not a programmer BUT They tried that before and like you said rounding errors in cpu's that don't do MATH EXACTLY the same way were suggested to be the cause of that problem. Sorry, but I am not sure what is different this time around? :confused: -tom w

Can someone please tell me why TCP/IP is not threatened the same way PBEM is? There has not been ONE word of discussion about how or if TCP/IP play will or might be impacted, BUT somehow the game files might be too big for PBEM but "no problem" for TCP/IP?? I say this because Steve has lumped TCP/IP in the same "no problem" category as solo play or LAN play or hotseat head to head play. Does this not at least make some other folks here besides me curious? (confused) :confused: -tom w [ March 05, 2005, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

My guess is they will try their VERY best to do this. Provide a "hidden" backdoor for REALLY big files sizes for those that care to attempt massively huge file transfer. I am just politely suggesting that they should not be claiming they are "unofficially supporting" PBEM I am JUST being (wordsmith) picky about saying "unofficially supporting" because at least to me that is a little bit like saying "I am from the government and I am here to help you!" or "Military Inteligence" I am hopeing they will decide to unofficially "provide", "enable" "include" or othewise allow PBEM file transfer (importing and exporting) for PBEM files NO MATTER how big those files are. NOW the real question is why are they NOT also saying TCP/IP may be equally compromised because I cannot for the life of me figure out how TCP/IP may still be "no problem" but the file size of the PBEM file may prove to be too big to allow e-mail file transfer? :eek: What's the difference?... PBEM files are suggested to be too big for e-mail file transfer but somehow there is NO discussion that TCP/IP may also prove a REAL challenge as well?? I don't get it? :confused: Any comments? thanks -tom w [ March 05, 2005, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK, that one is a keeper! -tom w

NOW that is Passion folks! -tom w

it was suggested it might be a "hidden" feature i.e. not advertised and just for those who read about it here and seak it out. it that is possible they will do everything they can to make it work i have faith and I am not worried about this issue. -tom w

Is the game compromised (in any way - coding, marketing, customer expectations, etc.) if PBEM is included, regardless of file size? </font>