aka_tom_w

Home Sweet Home Michael: How do you feel about 2 of 3 min turns? I am not opposed to 30 sec turns to keep others happy if it is an optional feature. I agree with Michael that the 30 sec turn is unrealistic for the reasons he stated BUT if it makes other players happy and they would like to play tcp/ip 30 sec at a time that sounds fine with me. (I guess) -tom w Yes. And frankly, I find that call unrealistic. It took a while for even a commander on the spot to take in a situation, decide what he wanted to do, issue orders, and have those orders understood. Part of that is accounted for in the various delays of execution, but the one minute turn length also imposes a minimal delay on all units. That does not strike me as unreasonable. Michael </font>

so we are OVER 300 posts now when does this thread melt down and go Ka BOOM! I have no idea because I have never posted to a thread over 300 posts before (expcept my last post) -tom w

But you do not think that the guys who wanna 30 seconds per turn, do not call for the same ,but inverse problem? .Under or over one-minute turn. Is not the same question ?: precision? </font>

EXCELLENT A brilliant interpretation of the proposed implementation of the new MIA state! Michael Emrys and I see this MIA state exactly the same way! Thanks Michael -tom w How about this: You send that solo unit out, and it remains on the map and you can give orders to it as normally. But until it returns to C&C, you don't get any spotting reports from it. If it gets fired on, it goes to ground (assuming it survives the fire) and is replaced by an MIA marker. The player doesn't get to see where the fire came from unless he has other units within C&C who can spot that (enemy) location. While it is in the MIA state, the player has no control over it, AI takes over and its priority is self-preservation. The unit will seek cover and usually try to head back to friendly lines. [NB: Exceptions to this rule can be made for special do-or-die Commando type units.] If the unit survives the fire intact, and if the fire ceases so that it is no longer pinned, the unit reappears on the map and the owning player may once again give movement orders to it. He still doesn't receive any spotting reports from it until it has returned to C&C. Once it returns to C&C, the player receives a spotting report on any enemy units observed or encountered. These can be limited intel depending on what level of FOW has been set by the player. In any event, the spotting reports should represent only what the unit has seen. That is, it gives the location of enemy units where last seen or heard. They may have moved between the time they are observed and the time the report is given. Now in proposing this, I am trying to think of a system that will yield interestingly sophisticated behavior by the game without being impractically hard to program. The only possible kink I can think of that might scuttle it is that it requires the program to remember data from one turn to another (i.e., remember what a unit has spotted until it can report it). AIR, that kind of turn-to-turn memory was a problem in CMx1. Whether it will continue to be problematical in CMx2 remains to be seen. Michael </font>

I am not sure I have the same expectations. I would be happy to see only %10 - %20 of them firing there weapon or doing anything but cowaring when they are under fire. AND I would be surprised if that would even be modeled? MY biggest question would be how will casualties be handled? I am guessing that we won't see a body for every KIA but I could be wrong? I don't expect the kind of detailed modeling David is refering to. -tom w

This is an old thread its title is "What is Relative Spotting" NOTICE the date: What is Relative Spotting Circa Dec 2000! Big Time Software unregistered posted December 27, 2000 03:21 PM Uhm... Jasper... what planet are you on right now? CM never will be a FPS, RTS, or RPG. Never, ever, ever. It is a wargame and will always be such. The more we can do to make CM realistic, the better the game will be. Having each UNIT only capable of "knowing" where things are based on its own experience is not only a good thing for a wargame, but a vastly more realistic approach. Just think of CM like it is right now, except that some units won't be able to automatically target any unit in LOS, but instead only target those things that it actually spotted on its own (as opposed to another unit spotting and magically passing on the info to every unit in the game). It has nothing to do with the PLAYER only seeing what the individual UNIT sees. Relative spotting has been discussed before, in depth, in several different threads. Those that are really interested should do a Search. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-27-2000).] IP: Logged Big Time Software unregistered posted December 27, 2000 03:25 PM quote: It "sounds" good. I had no idea that when a unit is spotted by one unit, it is "spotted" by all units. Yup, and every other wargame that has ever been made so far as I know. quote: This in fact explains a lot about how the computer opponent acts too. Both the computer AI and the Human benefit from Absolute Spotting. The Human much more so because the extra knowledge is likely to be put to better use. quote: I would expect that unit quality comes into play (both for spotter and spotted), intervening terrain, weather, distance to HQ units that have spotted enemy, etc. Yes. Spotting right now is like this, but once a unit is "flagged" as "spotted" based on this stuff, all units are able to shoot at it provided they have LOS. The difference is that Relative spotting would force each unit to go through this process for each enemy unit before being able to shoot at it. Steve IP: Logged Jasper Member Member # 4314 posted December 27, 2000 05:00 PM "The more we can do to make CM realistic, the better the game will be." I think it's great the BTS is still actively supporting it's product. With many traditional software companies by the time a product reaches market the developers are busy on the next title. It's a welcome change. "The difference is that Relative spotting would force each unit to go through this process for each enemy unit before being able to shoot at it." I acknowledge to all that I'm only a causal student of military history, but surly it's not going to be that simple minded is it? I mean the beef now is the middle management tier is 100% effective in zero time. Sounds like you're going to strip away the middle management tier entirely? I know you guys know this stuff, but just in case other readers are confused. Given an infantry squad is pinned down by an MG on a hill. They could communicate via radio or runner to their platoon commander "Pinned down by MG on hill.", if he didn't see this fact himself. It would then passed up the infantry command chain until it crosses over somewhere (I'm only a causal student remember?) to armor support. Which then communicates back down "Anyone able to take out that MG on the hill?" Currently that scheme takes zero time and is 100% effective. It sounds like you're going to remove that layer entirely so it's zero percent effective and takes 100% time. That's troubling. Posts: 193 | Registered: Dec 2000 | IP: Logged Big Time Software unregistered posted December 27, 2000 05:34 PM Trooper: quote: Command Decision has a 'handoff period' whereby stands in the same unit can fire at a recently spotted target in the next phase, but stands in a different unit must wait for the handoff in the next turn. We have a bit of this in CM. Buttoned up tanks have built in target aquisition delays. They aren't huge because if they were the vehicle would be unfairly penalized for things it really did spot right away. quote: Then again, CD is modelled with one turn = 15 minutes... Yeah, much easier to abstract this sort of stuff with longer turn times. Since a "turn" in CM is actually a partial second (i.e. every partial second some action happens) it is really tough to hack in realistic behavior into an Absolute system. Jeff wrote: quote: What is the best way to let the player know what a given unit has spotted or not? This is the single biggest problem. And unless we come up with a workable solution, Relative spotting will kill the fun of playing. So needless to say we will pay a great amount of attention to this aspect of the system Our rough concept is to utilize 3D video card graphics features. Say... you click on a unit and all non-spotted units get darker or transparent. Something like that. Steve' END quote So why did I post this? FOUR whole years ago they knew they wanted and would someday build relative spotting into the game. I am guessing they have been thinking about how it will work. NOW the only real big question is what EXACTLY will it look like when we play CMx2??? -tom w

Back to the begining.. Steve said "And so there we have it. The level and scope of CM's combat environment requires many commanders in order to be more realistic than it is right now. But players by and large don't want this. Therefore, players are going to have to accept that they are getting what they asked for, limitations and all. The only thing we, the designers and developers, can do is attempt to minimize the negatives of having a single player in command." I my focus at this time is "When is the Player NOT in control?" OR "When should the game legitimately take control and info away from the God-Like Player?" We can all agree the player has been losing a little control from CMBO to CMBB... We find that if a unit is out of C&C it takes longer to make it do anything useful. We find that our units out of C&C tend to route and panic and break more often and stay in that state longer. Units that break, route or panic are out of the player's control of a period of time. Units captured by our opponent are out of the player's control. So the question is under what other circumstances will the player lose control or information from a unit? The game design decsesions as to when to take this information and control away will of course be made be Steve and Charles. I am hoping they will consider a set of circumstances in CMx2 when it should be obvious to the Player that a unit has become Missing in Action MIA. (New Thought:) Different topic (sort of).... I am often wondering what it is that we are REALISTICALLY trying to simulate when the world realism is used in this discussion so often. Hoolaman said: "What if I want to send out a one squad patrol, or even sneak up a jeep for some recon? Why should I have to turn such a risky mission over to a dumbass AI just when a deft human touch is most needed? That's where I'm coming from anyway. I think the system must allow for such situations, letting the player play the role of the gamey jeep, but making it hard for him to respond to what the jeep sees when he jumps into the role of the company HQ. After all, the jeep is only gamey because the player can instantly respond to the info it recieves." Where is the reality of the simulation when we suggest: " After all, the jeep is only gamey because the player can instantly respond to the info it recieves" AND in CMBO the info the gamey jeep relays is transmitted instantly to ALL other friendly units. EVEN with the new Relative Spotting paradigm the player will KNOW instantly what the gamey jeep reports. EVEN if the jeep is out of LOS of other units and even if the JEEP has no radio, that for me presents a problem in realism. I am in favour of command zones in the form of a rolling radius around HQ units. The idea has merit and I hope somehow Steve and Charles will try to find a way to make it work in the game. I would be very interested to hear what other players with actual military backgrounds feel about attempting to simulate rolling command zones within the game? (Dorosh: I already know what you have to say ) My mind is open to rolling command zones with a radius extending from HQ zones. WE should all recall that there has always been an invisible form of a rolling command zone around HQ units BUT in the past the only way you could see the limits or the edges of that zone was to watch when the red command lines turn black. That was a VERY subtle way of modeling a command zone but it was only to determine if a units was within C&C or out of C&C of its HQ. I would be interested to see this idea expanded in someway within CMx2. BUT I am still not sure how it would exactly work or how it would change the game for the better? I think I need to re-read Hoolman's posts a few more times..... thanks -tom w [ January 19, 2005, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

It takes some control away. Actually not a whole lot. That's why I like it. Like Hoolaman and Dandelion, I would not want to see CM reduced to a commander's RPG. But just going with Tom's idea seems to me to retain the essential character of the game while reducing the Borg impact on gameplay. The player would still retain godlike control over his units that are still within C&C, which would be a mighty motivation to keep them in C&C range, something that historic armies were similarly motivated to do and for the same reason. Michael </font>

Did the cesspool open up new Franchise in this thread I was unaware of? Strange BUT it was FUNNY and I am still laughing! he he -tom w Shut up, Dorosh, just SHUT UP! CLOSE YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! CEASE YOUR ENDLESS VERBAL DIARRHEA! SWALLOW YOUR OWN TONGUE AND DIE, YOU PONCING GREAT PILE OF MOOSE DROPPINGS! Whew. Does you good to simply do that now and again. I don't even know what this thread is about. Sorry, sorry, carry on. I find if I go more than a few months without telling Dorosh to shut up and die, I get cramps. That was apropos of nothing, you lot. Go back to your discussion. </font>

Good Point BigDuke6! I was thinking a 2-3 min turn would take some control away from the player (1-2 mins worth) and it sure would add some uncertianty. If I could leave my units with some SOP's and I could trust the tacAI just a little bit more, I too would be interested in the OPTION of the 2-3 min turn. I think a 3 Minute turn would let you play a VERY different type of game than either a 2 min turn or the standard 1 minute turn. Maybe 30 sec. 1 min, 2 min AND 3min, turns could be OPTIONS! (and 30 sec turns are for control freaks if you ask me! ) these THREE new options would let player "tweak" a WHOLE new level of uncertainty in the game so they can play the "uncertainty/out of control" game JUST the way they like. 30 sec (a little more control and certainty) up to 3 mins (a lot less control and WAY more uncertainty!) (AND a Much and a Faster PBEM game 3 TIMES less e-mails!) GOOD thinking! -tom w [ January 19, 2005, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Dandelion Don't worry about it, your english it is better than most. Your courtesy is equally appreciated. BUT Hoolaman beat me to the punch. Pretty much everything he said was what I was thinking reading over your post. Steve has posted many times that the Player is always God like in an all seeing and ALL commanding role. But some of us would like to set some limits on what info should be revealed by the game to the player. From the point of view of the bailed tank crew they could meet with hostile fire (NOT report it to the player) and just show up dead on the map or BETTER yet go MIA, units in the game (especially bailed crews out of LOS and out of C&C ) should go MIA , they could be captured, they could be dead, they could be hiding BUT all the player will ever see is a marker indicating their last known position and that marker could just show the nationality marker (the way the game does now for unknown units) and the letters "MIA" over it! Now the game has not revealed any unrealistic info to the player. (even the Player is still "God Like" in their command and in what they might think they know about the battlefield.) That is the kind of uncertianty many of us here are lobbying for. I hope that the possibility that units can instantly turn into MIA markers in the middle of the game will be included in the design process, and for sanity sake all MIA's would be resolved at the end of the battle when all the information of the battlefield is revealed to the player and he can see what happened to all his MIA units. Just an idea -tom w [ January 18, 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

If I may..... May I suggest this list of resources: Book list of AI resources and sources I am still hoping to locate the ulimate "How to" guide free on the web..... don't laugh I am betting its out there somewhere... So says this guy: "Useful Publications on AI I don't have many books on game AI, actually. Most of what I know is self taught through hard experience and experimentation. The web is, frankly, the single best source of information on this topic--no group of dead trees is ever going to be able to match it for sheer volume of information. I have picked up a few tomes that I've found useful, however, and they're listed below. I've found each of these books to be of interest and use. I recommend them all. I've also come across some other book lists that may be useful; they're listed below. " Book list of AI resources and sources online AI resources Open source freeware for AI Quote: (this one AI Geek with his own web page says this:) "CMU Artificial Intelligence Repository -- If you don't already know and use the CMU Artificial Intelligence Repository, you should. This university-sponsored site is chock-full of information on every facet of AI research, and has an entry form for submitting other sites of interest. Highly recommended." Open source repository of freeware for AI or this: (?) Discussion forum for AI in game development... now where is that online "how to make a video game AI guide" Posted in the Very Best of humour in the spirit of helpful co-operation... -tom w [ January 18, 2005, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

RATS!!! Good thing there is plenty of POSITIVE commuication out here in the public forum then!!!! Many Many thanks to Steve for all the insight into CMx2 development progress. As you can tell some of us are WILDLY excited about the possibility to have some imput into the design and development, even if all you are actually doing is reading our words and idea's and laughing out loud. Thanks for telling all the things the game cannot and will not do. (As well as the features you hope it will include). It certianly helps frame our expectations. And for that we all thank you! -tom w

I am once again Thrilled to read that the Borg effect is being considered ALMOST every time one of these suggestions rears its ugly head. From the "I want to win,because I want more fidelity over the control and co-ordination of my units" standpoint, the suggestion to display time delays per way point is a sound idea, BUT Steve correctly points out it adds too much certainty to the game and it allows the game to me more cleverly mastered by the "mechanics" (players who work every aspect of the game mechanics for an edge, in board games they may also be known as "rules lawyers" ) I relieved that Steve has posted and mentioned that the suggestion offers "Too much information for the player. It allows greater coordination and that means increasing the Borg effect." I think that means increased certianty and added control for the player. I am very glad to hear the game looks like it will evolve in somewhat the opposite direction, with regard to increased uncertianty and perhaps a little less direct player control at just the right time to MAKE YOU TEAR YOUR HAIR OUT! (Then I will know they have it JUST RIGHT!) he he Thanks! -tom w [ January 18, 2005, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Welcome Bigduke6! (GREAT alias!) Perhaps you should post in the other thread as well. How much longer do you think the turns might be? 2 mins? 5 mins? What about optional turn length times? 1 Min 2 Mins? 5 Mins? interesting -tom w [ January 18, 2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Some things must be stimulating their creative juices... The Skunkworks (secret) forum now has 289 post (maybe about CMx2 who knows?) and the last post was last evening: January 17, 2005 10:31 PM They are FOR sure having internal discussions and just some of them may be reading what we are posting here in this public forum. he he Keep a close eye on that Skunkworks forum and you can see the last post and how many posts have been made. (but the damn door is still locked! grr) -tom w [ January 18, 2005, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

It is a good question and Ace Pilot makes a good Point, should the folks at BFC not take another look at what are the neagative consquences for the player if the Battalion HQ is lost. I think he brings up a good point, if the Battalion HQ is knocked out in a big game the PLAYER is still the Primary HQ in the game and the loss of the Battalion HQ in the game has no meaningful impact on the game. (or does it?) I have never played a game where I have lost a Battalion HQ but I have lost Company HQ's before and I have all ways figured it was NO BIG deal, the game moves on JUST fine with out them thanks -tom w

Fascinating post!! (where's the smiley for EXCITED) Command delays are a BIG issue, I suspect the guys at BFC have been struggling to get them just right... John, your post is very interesting but I am not sure that Steve is all that interested in a detailed model of ALL possible radio communication within a scenario or within the game. (I hope I am wrong about this) BUT in the past I think he has said that simply modeling ALL radio commuication (the com net) is NOT the be all and end all of solving all problems with realism or command delays in the game. Command delays seem to be REAL dodgy grey area that they can make as "fuzzy" as they want (given there are likely very little historical data on what is the EXACT command delay for one player commanding a Battalion in a war game sim ). This is not a bad thing as it is a variable they can tweak ANYWAY they want and no one can really call them on it on the grounds being ahistorical or just plain NOT right. BUT what I am still hoping is that if they are still using command delays in the new engine there can also be some form of spotting delays so info going up AND down the chain of command is somehow slowed down or made uncertian or degraded BOTH ways. (I am not real sure how this might actually WORK in the game and what good or positive impact it might have on game play BUT I hope they will try it out ) What about units getting the WRONG orders (frustrating for the player ? you bet!) the added uncertianty would be interesting, but how to do it JUST right would be the tricky part. Perhaps 1 order in 1000 was just plain WRONG. In the past orders issued to units have NEVER been misinterpretted or just plain wrong, NOW how do you really model that in a game?? :confused: I have NO idea. BUT way back in the Early CMBO days Steve mentioned (after a ride/goose chase (of sorts) in the infamous Weasle), that it would be fun and/or interesting to model units getting LOST in the game. I have often wondered how my units NEVER ever got lost in the woods at night when I asked them to sneak or attack through deep woods either in the thick fog or in darkness. Now, ot be fair they did try to model friendly fire at night, and if I may say so the response was (at least on my part) never to play night time battles.... (BUT it was a GOOD idea on their part.) That was a VERY informative post John! Thanks -tom w [ January 18, 2005, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"Sort of a scripted, optionnal, modular AI." Scripted or "hinted" AI for scenario design Especially on defence could provide some REAL challenges for the human player. I think we are asking for some better ways to "hint", script, or program the AI, specifically in scenario design. The idea of invisible flags has come up, but perhaps there might also be (also invisible) things like primary or secondary objectives or objectives along the way (path of attack) that "should" be held and taken at certian time intervals (+/- 3-5 minutes) within the scenario. Perhaps with some of these new tools (programable scenario design aids), a scenario could be designed that would give the AI (especially on defense, or on the attack in very specific conditions) a fighting chance or even provide a real challenge for some newer, greener players. -tom w [ January 18, 2005, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

the OPTION of playing along side the AI sounds like fun to me. By that I mean it could be used as sort of "handicap" system. Suppose I would like to play someone REAL good who I know beats me ALL the time (Elvis ) but for a change I might like to win one. So I propose we play a balanced scenario BUT I suggest the better player (Elvis) give up say %25 to %33 of his force pool, one whole company of 3 companies or one platoon of 3 platoons (preferably at random) to FRIENDLY AI control. I would suspect that would somewhat (although not necesarily) handicap that player (just for the FUN of it of course ). Thats that kind of Co-op play I dream about. ..........and still no "official" comment about SOP's -tom w

And by that you mean: " An advantage to this approach would be you could maybe allow armies that traditionally have more freedom of action at lower levels of command to actually have this. ..." Quicker response time at the lower level to a local threat WELL within the command radius so that the player can issue that order with mininal delay... Is that what you mean? This concept is VERY interesting because the command radius of platoon leaders has ALWAYS been modeled (yet largely unseen) in CMxx. Good players here know that you never want to see that "thin red line" turn black (unit OUTSIDE the command zone =BAD things begin to happen) BUT you as the player could never see an exact visual representation of that command radius (other than the black command line) but ever since CMBO that command radius has been present in the game design. Maybe it could just be used or exploited now a little more creatively (when combined with command level appropriate SOPs with different levels of orders available with different levels of command delay from different levels of commanders! ). I think this is a Brilliant idea, at least in its basic concept as suggested by Hoolaman and Caesar anyway, as always I will assume the Devil is in the details! -tom w

I think these are GREAT ideas! Caesar's SOP concept combined with Hoolaman's WHERE limitations sound wonderful and I would really like to think these SOP and WHERE (command zone limitation) suggestions could be somehow part of the solution to CnC problems that exist in the current game. Good thinking! The really interesting thing is that NO matter how much we talk about SOP's Steve has never commented on them or mentioned any possibility of any such thing in CMx2. I think therefore it is safe to conclude that is the official policy : "It is the stated policy of the Dept. (of State) to neither confirm or deny any rumours or allegations of anything of that (SOP) nature." So lets keep coming up with new and innovative SOP idea's and suggestions combine with the WHERE concept and the idea of layer and those sort of "zones of control/command" you folks are talking about. SO keep talking I am pretty sure these words are NOT falling on deaf ears Thanks! -tom w

In the most positive and collegial way possible I would like to wholeheartedly disagree!. It IS a LARGE part of the problem for many of us here for sure! With every fiber of my being I bristle at the gamey jeep recon and the bailed out tank crew WAY way out of LOS or C&C (say 500m) that can report back to all other units via some Borg like collective consciousness, ANY and ALL possible spotting information about any and all enemy threats! This can and should be neutralized or at the very least degraded in some meaningful way! Absolute spotting means when one unit sees something ALL other units become instantly aware of it. I am NOT sure if we are talking about the same "Absolute Spotting/Borg collective conscious problem?" If you suggesting that the absolute spotting paradigm as implemented in CMxx is acceptable then perhaps we are NOT playing the same game, and just as surely we do not share the same expectations of the CMx2. I have every expectation that in CMx2 somehow each unit will make its own individual spotting checks (independently of all other units) and some how the player will be aware of which if his own units can see which enemy units they have INDIVIDUALLY spotted, if this is NOT the kind of grand improvement you are looking for in CMx2 then you will save your self some money and you can be happy playing CMxx games ( there are three great ones choose from) and you won't need to look forward to buying the CMx2 titles. For the rest of us there is now an expectation that we have seen the LAST of absolute spotting and we are (a year from now) and the verge of a ground breaking step forward in video game design and hopefully a quantum leap forward in FUN! (sorry for post of complete disagreement with your position as stated (if I understand what you mean by: "the Borg problem (in the sense of supernatural awareness, rather than spotting rules) should perhaps not be solved. Because it may not be a problem. ") -tom w [ January 18, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Here's another crazy Idea What if..... A player thought it might be FUN to play with PART of his force, say one of three entire/depleted companies OR one of three platoons) completely under AI command. Thus playing with another unknown or uncertain element in the game? That would mean there would have to some way to communicate to the AI the goal or objective of the scenario. Just an idea... thanks -tom w

OK! I am hoping there are some REALLY BIG great wonderful surprises they have in store for us in CMx2 and so far we have NOT heard one word about SOP's :confused: "If the AI can co-ordinate the whole of the enemies forces (and not a bad job of it already does) surely it can control your company. Especially if you have given that company a robust set of orders/SOPs, maybe in just the simple form of waypoints and a final target." That sounds good to me... the Whole issue around SOP's and how we might program/order or assign an SOP to a unit could be a WHOLE new thread, but I would be happier if Steve and Charles et. al. at BFC just ignore talking about and make it work in CMx2 and surprise us with it. (in my dreams) If each unit has a memory for what happened in the game (not like CMxx now) AND each unit MUST do its OWN spotting check to see or verify a threat (NOT like CMxx now) AND if each unit could have an SOP order issued to it, AND if Fog of War and the general level of uncertianty was increased in the game, (plus the new terrain and the dynamic lighting and the 1:1 representation, did I miss anything??? ) we would all find we would be PLAYING A WHOLE NEW game, hopefully an order of magnitude GREATER and more fun and spectacular then CMBO was when it first came out. Now what can we all do to help and speed up the process??? -tom w [ January 17, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]