aka_tom_w

YES! Very nice.... And still some stock holders wanted BIGGER dividends from their very limited investment in BFC stock in CMxx. -tom w [ February 15, 2005, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

sorry ? Taggert who? (Beverly Hills Cop reference?) dunno -tom w

Yeah But... um I don't think there will be any tiles at all if the new map is a vector based wire frame editor design... I dream that terrain map will be Like building something in Bryce or the Terra Forming Tool in Sim City... . . this concept would suggest to me there would be no more tiles at all. but I have no idea how they will actually do it. I have REALLY enjoyed making maps and landforms in the Sim City terrain editor and I would be thrilled if some such map editor would be available in CMx2 -tom w

Does that then perhaps suggest you are one of those "unreasonable" people Steve describes here (as opposed to the reasonable person who would be happy with the %98 offered in the first place) : "we have no intention of spending our limited resources in a vain and useless attempt to make such people happy since it is so painfully obvious that they never will be." I think programers have a saying, it goes something like this: "The last bug will be found only once the last user is dead" OR "You will ship with bugs: I've always said that the last bug will be found when the last customer dies. Accept that you have to set the right quality bar, but that realistically you won't reach an absolute zero on bugs. Your priority should be that your features work as advertised - first fix the bugs that users will hit. And make sure you have a great post-sales support process in place to love the customers if they run into a serious problem." -tom w

Don't worry I think Steve summed it up BEST in my Signature Line. What do you think? -tom w

OK BUT This sure sounds like a GREAT idea and should satisfy Dorosh et.al. when this idea is combined with the Cover Arc command/limitation for LOS checks. This could also mean that if a unit has not been assigned a cover arc the game code would limit their LOS check to some random narrow area, maybe not every unit is attentive and maybe some guys are otherwise distracted cleaning or loading their weapon or whatever. Maybe if no cover arc is assigned then 1 in 10 men would NOT do ANY LOS checks, and maybe most of the other guys might look around in random area's and be not very effective, (green, POOR training) and out of 10 guys maybe one guy has the real EAGLE eye and is granted by the game code a Full Blown wide and effective LOS check. (BUT then that whole idea could be ABSTRACTED in about the exact same way it takes place in CMx1 now I guess ) This idea should REALLY be incorporated into the game, combined with Relative Spotting, Unit Memory AND cover arcs, the simulation "should" be JUST about perfect with regard to spotting!!!! I think that is NOT a 1:1 LOS "bug" and it SHOULD be turned into a cool NEW game feature if dealt with cleverly." This means that some things will not be seen because NOT everybody is looking EVERYWHERE at the same time! That sounds like a good simulation of battlefield reality to me. I think it is a Brilliant idea, but it might be a NIGHTMARE to code. Fortunatly we all know Charles is up to the challenge! What a GREAT idea! -tom w [ February 15, 2005, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Terrain Fog Of War has been on my personal wish list since CMBO! Sure you as the player should have a look at a 2D map or a Road Map or an image or graphic of a 2D topo map of the area, BUT thats it!. If you do not have friendly units with LOS to a specific area of the REAL 3D battlefield that area should be unavailable to be viewed by the player. " All terrain out of LoS is represented by wireframe, greyed out terrain, whatever." FOR SURE! This should be do-able in CMx2 I like the idea of the sterile wireframe with NO rendered details, (for map area's out of LOS) technically this would be like asking the game code to render and skin the under lying 3D wire frame AS IT COMES INTO VIEW OR LOS OF FRIENDLY UNITS. (is that doable? or even desireable?) GOOD POINT thanks -tom w

Terrain Fog Of War has been on my personal wish list since CMBO! Sure you as the player should have a look at a 2D map or a Road Map or an image or graphic of a 2D topo map of the area, BUT thats it!. If you do not have friendly units with LOS to a specific area of the REAL 3D battlefield that area should be unavailable to be viewed by the player. " All terrain out of LoS is represented by wireframe, greyed out terrain, whatever." FOR SURE! This should be do-able in CMx2 I like the idea of the sterile wireframe with NO rendered details, (for map area's out of LOS) technically this would be like asking the game code to render and skin the under lying 3D wire frame AS IT COMES INTO VIEW OR LOS OF FRIENDLY UNITS. (is that doable? or even desireable?) GOOD POINT thanks -tom w

"So there you have it... CMx1 was made great by a combination of a design philosophy and the ability to execute it. It should be comforting to know that this combo is also the heart and soul of CMx2. Even better, our abilities to design are better than they were 7 years ago as well as our ability to execute it. We've got a lot more experience, resources, and dedicated people working on CMx2, which all translates to better capabilities to turn designs into successful games." Moore's Law suggests to us the CPU speeds DOUBLE every 18 months. That should tells us that average computer speeds have DOUBLED about four times in the past 6 years! Sorry for the technological distraction, but IN addition to everything Steve said, Computers are WAY faster and Far more capable than they were 6-7 years ago, taking advantage of the raw speed and performance potential of today's average computer SHOULD ALSO be leveraged into what Steve is talking about here! AND... and This looks to be the BEST news yet! that sounds to me like Mulitple various NEW Fog of War levels! "11. The "God" problem, which is related to #10 but is not the same, is also something we are trying hard to knock down. The player will be able to choose how much he wants to be like a real Human commander and how much he wants to be a God." Woo HOO! -tom w [ February 14, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Water under the bridge... Lets look forward shall we? -tom w So where were you during the CMAK patch threads? We didn't see hide nor hair of you, and I thought those threads were incredibly productive. That was, naturally, from a grog point of view. I got the impression you felt differently. Perhaps it is one of those artistic vs. nuts and bolts type debates, which I will admit unabashedly that I fall firmly on the nuts-and-bolts side of the fence. You play your games, we play ours... </font>

back on page 3 Topic: Balancing out commanders and the commanded that one? -tom w

I thought so too Thanks -tom w

Just keep smiling Steve I hope your are getting richer by the minute. -tom w

OK That sounds Great Steve Just Please don't stop posting news and engaging those commited to progress! This worries some of us: "or I can post and be forced to remind the "Grogs" that they should probaby refrain from posting until we have a demo out. I've been doing the latter, but obviously not posting at all is much easier," Remind the folks (niche group) you are trying to address in your sig line on EVERY POST! How about adding something suitable to your signature line: "Remember what your mother told you" "If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all" OR If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem! OR "If it looks to me like you are the one making the most noise in the most unproductive way with the most disrepectifull tone, DON'T be surprised if I completely ignore your posts and focus on something more productive because we are moving forward with you or without you!" (I had wanted to put something in there about "dragging them kicking and screaming" but it did not seem productive, and could slow down the progress ) I like that last one... I am Sure that anyone as creative and talented as the writer of the car designer parable that began this thread can come up with a suitable disclaimer or WARNING (!) for the sig line. Good Luck Please just don't stop engaging those interested in the progress and the design and developement of the new game! thanks -tom w [ February 14, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK I have been thinking about Fog of War options and the possibility of various new levels of CMx2..... how about: 1 No Fog of War (just a BASIC option to learn the game) 2 Partial FOW 3 CMBO Standard FOW 4 CMBB EFOW 5 CMx2 EFOW (with Relative Spotting AND the new command structure for C&C modeling battlefield communications) 6 MIA CMx2 EFOW ( units OUT of friendly LOS and WAY out of C&C are deemed MIA and replaced with a generic nationality maker or some such indication they are missing (From the player) in action) 7 MIA Iron Man CMx2 IMFOW ... Where you can ONLY see enemy units from the level 1 or level 2 (church tower) perspective of your OWN friendly units WITHIN C&C range as per Frankco's True Combat Rules. (I would guess the CMx2 AI should be able to easily beat any average player using those FOW settings for the first time!) It would be my guess that most folks would play with CMx2 FOW #5 and be happy with that as the NEW gold standard in FOW. However.... AS OPTIONS FOW #6 and #7 might not be the setting that most users would use most of the time BUT to add some spice to the game or VARIABILITY to the user experience they could be included as REAL Fog of War options! I guess Numbers 3 and 4 are not really necessary and/or advisable: (#3 CMBO Standard FOW and #4 CMBB EFOW... NOT needed) AND yes for the record I AM trying to think out of the box... -tom w [ February 14, 2005, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK I have been thinking about Fog of War options and the possibility of various new levels of CMx2..... how about: 1 No Fog of War (just a BASIC option to learn the game) 2 Partial FOW 3 CMBO Standard FOW 4 CMBB EFOW 5 CMx2 EFOW (with Relative Spotting AND the new command structure for C&C modeling battlefield communications) 6 MIA CMx2 EFOW ( units OUT of friendly LOS and WAY out of C&C are deemed MIA and replaced with a generic nationality maker or some such indication they are missing (From the player) in action) 7 MIA Iron Man CMx2 IMFOW ... Where you can ONLY see enemy units from the level 1 or level 2 (church tower) perspective of your OWN friendly units WITHIN C&C range as per Frankco's True Combat Rules. (I would guess the CMx2 AI should be able to easily beat any average player using those FOW settings for the first time!) It would be my guess that most folks would play with CMx2 FOW #5 and be happy with that as the NEW gold standard in FOW. However.... AS OPTIONS FOW #6 and #7 might not be the setting that most users would use most of the time BUT to add some spice to the game or VARIABILITY to the user experience they could be included as REAL Fog of War options! I guess Numbers 3 and 4 are not really necessary and/or advisable: (#3 CMBO Standard FOW and #4 CMBB EFOW... NOT needed) AND yes for the record I AM trying to think out of the box... -tom w [ February 14, 2005, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hoolaman that was Brilliant!! Very nicely put. Some how the car manufacturer should have been French (Citroen) just to give it a little more humour around this issue: "The designer ended up saying, "here in France we are making a car you cannot even conceive with your puny minds, and no I do not have a picture, because the car has not been built yet". The group, being up to date on the latest technology, was slightly insulted, but indeed could not think of a car that was 10 years ahead of all the other cars out there, but knowing they could not influence things AFTER the car was built, kept yelling out suggestions. The designer got angry with the Citroen Club (think niché market) and pointed out to them that they were not that important anyway, because they were trying to sell Citroens to people who don't already own one." he he NICE job!! -tom w

YES Like a radio chatter audio track as if you were listening in on the events in the battle like Carroll O'Connor over hearing the "action" in Kelly's Heroes. All I can think of when I hear is idea is: "This is Big Duke6 Assume Attack Formation!" he he -tom w

YES Like a radio chatter audio track as if you were listening in on the events in the battle like Carroll O'Connor over hearing the "action" in Kelly's Heroes. All I can think of when I hear is idea is: "This is Big Duke6 Assume Attack Formation!" he he -tom w

Ok I fantasize about TRUE LOS and LOF being actually blocked by AFV's and vehicles in motion. (So that units can take cover behind vehicles!) I fantasize that the BORG is dead and each unit spots ALL on its own. (Relative spotting evolves as the dominant aspect of the game and becomes an significant foundation on which most other game design concepts and principles are based!) I fantasize that each unit has some form of memory for what has happened previously in the game (Most of this, above, has already been hinted to be in the game so there is no real thinking out of the box there.) I fantasize that the new AI is VERY challenging, cunning, unpredictable and shrewd, due mostly to the fact that in each scenario the designer will have some new and more robust tools to "program" the units SOPs or hint the game AI (all 4-5 levels) with better tools than JUST CM1 like victory flags and this wonderfully entertaining new scenario-designer hinted "uber" AI opponent beats me routinely in a fair fight without cheating or any artificial computer aided advantage. (PLEASE note for the new comers here, unlike most other computer games the AI from BFC in Combat Mission NEVER cheats or uses ANY form of unfair "computer" advantage (its NOT RTS so it does not for instance think faster or click faster than you!) so we SURE do want to keep that feature in the new game!! ) (OK that last one was fantasy as far as I can tell ) -tom w [ February 13, 2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Ok I fantasize about TRUE LOS and LOF being actually blocked by AFV's and vehicles in motion. (So that units can take cover behind vehicles!) I fantasize that the BORG is dead and each unit spots ALL on its own. (Relative spotting evolves as the dominant aspect of the game and becomes an significant foundation on which most other game design concepts and principles are based!) I fantasize that each unit has some form of memory for what has happened previously in the game (Most of this, above, has already been hinted to be in the game so there is no real thinking out of the box there.) I fantasize that the new AI is VERY challenging, cunning, unpredictable and shrewd, due mostly to the fact that in each scenario the designer will have some new and more robust tools to "program" the units SOPs or hint the game AI (all 4-5 levels) with better tools than JUST CM1 like victory flags and this wonderfully entertaining new scenario-designer hinted "uber" AI opponent beats me routinely in a fair fight without cheating or any artificial computer aided advantage. (PLEASE note for the new comers here, unlike most other computer games the AI from BFC in Combat Mission NEVER cheats or uses ANY form of unfair "computer" advantage (its NOT RTS so it does not for instance think faster or click faster than you!) so we SURE do want to keep that feature in the new game!! ) (OK that last one was fantasy as far as I can tell ) -tom w [ February 13, 2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Oh there's a good juicy conspiracy theory in sheeps clothing! Um... I am not so sure that is the subtext here but I will follow it with keen interest. -tom w

Hi Harry Just got it late for Christmas and I am enjoing reading it now! THANKS! -tom w

Since it is hard to try to directly picture the world of CMx2 in our minds, perhaps using analogy can help us. In 1884, Edwin Abbot wrote a book called "Flatland". (Think CMx1) The book writes about A. Square and his world, Flatland. You may have already guessed, but Flatland is a 2 dimensional, flat plane and A. Square is a square shaped guy who lives there. He has two dimensions of free movement. He can go left/right and back/forth, however because he is restricted to his 2 dimensional Flatland plane, he cannot go up/down off the plane. By analogy, we humans are restricted to our "plane" of existence... and it would be impossible for us to freely move in the fourth dimension.(some might say the forth dimension is time but we are not concerned about that here ) Let's go back to A. Square again. Note that A. Square can only see what lies in his plane of existence, (CMx1) which means if a 3 dimensional sphere (Like a vision of CMx2) were to pass through Flatland, A. Square would not see the sphere, but just 2 dimensional "slices". Taking this further, imagine if a sphere passed halfway through Flatland but stopped in the middle. the sphere would interesect Flatland as just one circle and A. Square could see it! Furthermore, imagine if as the sphere approaches Flatland, A. Square watches as the sphere slowly moves through his plane. What would A. Square see? Recall that A. Square can only see 2 dimensional slices of the sphere (or circles or BIG curved lines up and down) so what A. Square would percieve is a circle suddenly appearing, then growing... then reaching a maximum size as the sphere was halfway through and as it exited, the circle would grow smaller until it disappeared. This means that 3d objects could be explained to a 2d being as a bunch of "slices stacked" on top of each other. Try to imagine taking a bunch of circles and stacking them. They would begin to form a skeleton framework of the actual 3d image. Similarly if a 5d thing (or CMx2) would intersect our plane of existence, we would see a 3d sphere appear out of no where. It would grow until the hypersphere was halfway through, then it would shrink back to nothing. Theoretically, we could stack these spheres to form a a new thing, but we can't stack them in the usual sense, but rather it would have to extend into the fifth dimension which takes us back to the original dilemma of trying to visualize it. plagarized and incomplete sorry needs some work to make sense I'll be back later -tom w [ February 13, 2005, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

There is a great of deal truth here: I especially like this part! (below) "I want to stop playing tank driver and battalion commander at the same time. I am tired of brutally stupid unit AIs that must only want to die with all their ammo intact, and of tediously plotted infantry orders that get thrown out on the next turn. I do not consider these frustrations to be details," Thanks! -tom w