aka_tom_w

Damn Straight! AND Proud of IT!! Live Long and Prosper! -tom w for more on Borg spotting its origins and possible "fixes" you might be interested in this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461;p=1 James Crowley Member Member # 5698 posted April 18, 2002 02:53 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have recently been giving the matter of relative spotting, a concept apparently consigned to the “re-write”, some thought and believe that the current engine already contains the necessary elements, by and large, to produce the desired results. Before I expand on the above it might be a good idea to reiterate what “relative spotting” is and, more importantly, what impact that it’s implementation could have in more realistically portraying the realities of command and control. This is perhaps better done by example. Picture an infantry platoon, consisting of three squads and an HQ, moving in formation, all in command control range. As it approaches a belt of trees the lead squad comes under fire from an unidentified enemy unit, takes two casualties and is pinned. The platoon HQ immediately orders the second squad to open fire on the enemy position and the third squad to move off to the right and using a gulley for cover, to advance and attack the enemy position from the flank when in a position to do so. The third squad moves off as ordered and, as it has no radio (in common with the vast majority of units at that level in WW2) is soon too far away from its HQ to be in command control. It proceeds along the gulley until it reaches the belt of trees, moves toward the enemy position but then runs into another, as yet unseen, enemy squad, comes under fire, takes casualties and is also pinned. The reality of that situation is that the HQ is unaware of the third squad’s current status, is unaware of the existence of the second enemy unit and cannot issue any further orders to that third squad. Why? Because the third squad and the HQ have no means of communicating with each other; they are out of the C&C radius. The same situation in CMBO is very different. As soon as the third squad spots the second enemy unit and gets fired upon the player knows it’s status, can still give it orders (although they will be delayed) and, more importantly, is instantly aware of the existence and position of an enemy which, in reality, would be unknown and can react to that unrealistic situation accordingly IMO that is essence of relative spotting. There are probably very many ways of over-coming this problem but I am looking at the simplest way, which introduces the least number of changes, at least IMO (without, it must be admitted, any programming knowledge) Using the above example, let us first look at the second, previously unspotted enemy squad. It has always been there but with FoW on, does not show up on the map because it has not been spotted by a friendly unit. It is now spotted by a squad which has no means of conveying this information elsewhere but, in CMBO, its’ presence is still revealed. Suppose that the spotting unit is flagged as “out of CC” and therefore, as a result, the enemy unit is not revealed. This seems reasonable in that you, the player, are not given the “all-seeing eye” over the battlefield. However, what about the spotting squad, which obviously can see the enemy unit? This squad is still providing visual info. But not if you are no longer given access to that squad. Instead, that spotting squad becomes flagged as “out of CC” and is treated like an enemy unit as far as visual displays are concerned i.e. you can only see it as a “last seen at” marker and when that marker is clicked on the display only shows the name and type and its last known status (or maybe just “unknown” status.) Nothing new here in the visuals department, except you now have generic country markers for friendly “out of CC” units as well as for previously spotted enemy units. The primary and probably the most controversial departure from the norm is that there will possibly be more units over which you, as player, do not have control. But this seems entirely realistic to me. After all we accept that squads which are in certain states cannot be controlled; pinned, panicked, broken…. why not out of command? In previous threads on this forum, this type of suggestion has led to protests from those who say they do not want a command level game; they want to control all of their units all of the time. Well, as I have said you cannot control all of your units at all times anyway. Also who gains from the current “all knowing, all seeing” status of CMBO. Those who set-up their forces in non-historical, un-military fashion, scattered as they please, without due regard to staying in command control. Those who set up a few half-squads or MG teams or jeeps to act as unofficial “scouts,” relaying back intelligence of spotted enemy positions whilst they are way out of realistic command range. And so on. The only other change would be that the order delay function, still present for in command units, would be relegated for out of command units altogether as it would no longer be needed. Surely the trade-off in having, perhaps only temporarily, a few more units not in the players direct control is amply repaid by the great reduction of the “god” factor and by the fact that it would encourage players to adopt a more historical and realistic approach to keeping their platoons (and this could be extended to companies and battalions) in command and control range. It would also tend to amplify the role of HQ’s to something like that of their real life counterparts. Just a few thoughts. -------------------- Cheers, Jim.

Hey! Are you the guy that did the EXCELLENT Real Colours™ Mod for CMBO and CMBB??? Because that was the BEST terrian mod for Macs and LCD screens on Mac Laptops will you do a Real Colours™ Mod for ALL of CMAK? Was it you? Welcome Back you are a Graphics MOD God Like Being! -tom w

OK I am still hoping this map (noted below) will be released soon its sounds like a WINNER for sure! thanks -tom w

thanks I will be looking forward to this one for CMAK -tom w

thanks interesting comment BUT I thought it had previously been confirmed that the NEW (last?) patch WOULD NOT have any new units in it like new King Tiger mods for instance? or am I mistaken? thanks -tom w

Hi who is Eric and where does he post? or what web site or mod site or scenario site is he affiliated with? Thanks -tom w

this is the post I was looking for has this map been released?? thanks tom e "McAuliffe Member Member # 2021 posted June 03, 2004 02:34 PM Hi, It happens, that I just designed a huge CMAK operation map - for those that know the area- stretching out from the east (Borgoumont) to the west (Targnon), over 4 km, based on a topographic 1:25.000 scale map. In the south, it includes the village of Cheneux, scene of dramatic close combat fighting during the attack of the 82nd. paratroopers. I am trying now to figure out how you can set up playable game against the AI on such a map. I was studying the order of battle in the various stages of the battle for the pocket of La Gleize-Stoumont and used the local museum brochure as a source. 7 KT's were left behind in La Gleize. None of them were found in Stoumont. From what I have read and saw on pictures, some of them were active during the battle for the Sanatorium of Stoumont giving support from the hamlet of Roua, just north-east of Stoumont. Apparently, they were able to make it back to the center of La Gleize. A couple of the abandonned KT's were found on the acces roads via Borgoumont and on the highway leading up to the village of La Gleize. 2 were defending the farm of Werimont (south of La Gleize) One of these -commanded by Döllinger- was later recovered and placed on the market square. Other KT's were destroyed or abandonned during the attack on Stavelot and on the road between Stavelot and Trois-Ponts. Although many sources, say that 45 KT's started the campaign, I hardly can believe that and tend to stick to the number of 14 as stated above. BTW, Is there anyone anyone that wants to try to test play the operation map? Unfortunately, I had to replace the KT's by the 'ordinary' ones. "

OK there was a GREAT CMBO scenario with the Sanitorium in it I think it was called "The Sanitorium" (or not?) but was the one where the German try to take the area around the infamous sanitorium but I don't recall which town or village it was in or which was close by. Was there not a post some time ago where someone had claimed to have map a VERY detailed CMAK map of the entire AREA of the the Battle of the Bulge and when I read that I had assumed THAT map would have the Sanitorium on it. thanks tom w Not that I know of but there are four designers doing the pack and I haven't seen all the entries yet. Since we don't release them all at once there can be late entries. IF you don't see it let me know. I'm sure if it is a worthwhile battle someone will do it for you. Panther Commander </font>

Hi Are there any scenarios with the Sanitorium in them? thanks -tom w

what is the latest status of this mod? sorry I have not been keeping up thanks -tom w

If I was a betting man I would bet on "Some Aspect of WWII" but my guess is as uneducated as yours (I guess) -tom w

WOW!! those Shots REALLY look GREAT please please keep us all posted on your progress.. thanks -tom w

here is the link I don't know if they are "good" or valid or realistic statics but they are COMPLETE for all nations and it lists civilian dead and KIA and Wounded and POWs here is the link http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500550/World_War_II_Casualties_1939–45.html interesting Russia took the biggest beating that chart only shows them at 7.7 million civilian deaths and about 13 million KIA I had thought their total deaths altogether (civilian and KIA) where close to 26 million (but I may be mistaken) -tom w

Why would anyone pay for a scenario when most of the good one's are free? there is NO market for it I find the whole idea that some feels they could or should or would like to make money from this "hobby" by offering their (questionable) wares (scenarios) for $ale, objectionable and bordering on profoundly offensive! But that is just my personal opinion! carry on and all that other stuff about it NOT in keeping with the spirit of sharing and community and that stuff too! -tom w

Great Find!! if you have not checked out this link and you are at all interested in historical info and documentation (including maps!) about the D-Day invasion you should check out that link ! What a Huge reference VERY interesting thanks -tom w

Hi McAuliffe, is it full fledged operation, or just a REALLY big map? Goog work Thanks -tom w [ June 07, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I know it was some time ago like two or three years but wasn't all this KT research also completed for ALL kinds of CMBO scenarios? I recall finding three different versions of the Sanitorium and several CMBO versions of Stoumont Stavelot and La Gleize scenarios, and I am guessing that at least some of them may have researched this KT info. Maybe check the CMBO archives or try to contact the designers of those CMBO scenarios featuring KG Peiper? Just a thought. I too am keen to look at that BIG operation Map or the area but I am sad to say I doubt I will have time to really get into it and play test it the way it deserves to be tested. Keep up the Good Work! -tom w

What does HSG and CSDT mean/stand for? just curious thanks -tom w

Thanks! I would be VERY interested in the Battle of the Bulge packs and some of the Action around Stoumont or La Gleize or the Santitorium like the "good olde days" in CMBO he he thanks -tom w

Also known as Iron Man Combat Rules -tom w

This is it This is the WHOLE truth I have played and Enjoyed the CM series since the CMBO beta days. I have been a Loyal and patient customer I have purchased the CMBB companion book and ALL three CM releases for my OS 9 Mac BUT guess what????? I don't have a mac that can run OS 9 any more Right now I am on a zippy 15 inch 1.25 Ghz G4 Mac laptop and it won't boot into OS 9 do I have any old computers? SURE!! a Crappy old G3 it only has 8 megs of VRAM so it won't run CMAK! BUT Did I buy CMAK?? .... YES, because I am either Loyal or Stupid!! (pick one) Here is the bottom line, I AM NOT PLAYING any CM series games anymore because I don't have a Mac with 16 Megs of VRAM running OS 9 to run CMAK and I never really liked CMBB which I can still play but don't bother anymore. (I am NOT complaining about the 16 Meg VRAM limit that was the RIGHT thing to do for the design of the CMAK game for SURE, its just that this time 16 megs REALLY MEANT 16 Megs and 8 megs of VRAM on an old Mac Powerbook does not get you where you used to be able to go! My laptop now has 64 megs VRAM from ATI but it won't run ANY CM series games! ) But I am waiting and I am hoping something REALLY REALLY Amazing will be available 18- 24 months from now when they release the NEXT BIG THING!!! and it better be good!! (But I will wait and see what other folks HERE have to say before I order it this time! I doubt I will preorder their next offering and to be honest it would be the first time I won't pre-order) oh well..... that's my story and I am sticking too it grumpy and disenfranchised in toronto :mad: -tom w [ May 31, 2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Oh OK! (happy to be wrong about this one!) Thanks sorry for the question. I have not been around for a while. Thanks so much for taking the time to answer the question and set us all straight. I think this is the important part: "We're working on a second patch indeed, just taking our time to make sure that none more will be needed after that." The CMxx faithful know and love that part about BFC, just do it right! Thanks -tom w

Sorry I have been away... is it official that a second patch is in the works? will they 9at some point) actually release a second patch for CMAK? I thought that some time ago the general feeling was the first patch was the only patch? (none more to come they considered CMAK finished? maybe I am mistaken because I have not read the forum here lately) thanks -tom w

another page with the same example from: http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~esci111/111topomap/reading%20contour%20lines.htm -tom w

Good post right on! thanks some people really get into maps. I am a Map fanatic! here is a WHOLE page about how to read topo maps: http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~dha5446/topoweb/guide.html More About Contours This map may look considerably more difficult to interpret, but don't panic. First, look at index contours (A) and (. You can see that (A) is at 8200 feet and ( is at 8300. Therefore, a walk from (A) to ( would be uphill (you can examine the stream at (G) to confirm this). Now look at the line at ©. The contour interval for this map is 20 feet. This means that © has an elevation of 8220 feet, since it is one line uphill from (A). Line (D), then has an elevation of 8240 feet. The elevation of areas between contour lines is simple enough to approximate. Location (E) is between the 8220 and 8240 contour lines, so its elevation is somewhere between those figures. But what about the contour line surrounding (F)? If you were to walk from (E) to (F), would you go uphill or downhill? To answer that, it helps to know that every regular closed circular-shaped contour line is a high point. The contour circle at (H), for example, shows that the land inside it is higher than the surrounding land. Similiarly, (F) is a high point, and a walk from (E) to (F) would be uphill. The elevation of the contour line around (F) is actually 8240, the same as at (D). If you were to walk between (D) and (F), your elevation would drop somewhat, then increase as you crossed the 8240 contour again. Concentric circles, such as those found around (K), always have a high point at their center. There is one exception to the above rule about closed contours being high points. Note the index contour at (I). There are tiny tick marks pointing to the inside of the shape. This is a depression with no outlet. The contour line is at 8200 feet, and everything inside it is less than 8200 feet. Contour lines (I) and (J) are both at the same elevation. If you were to walk from (J) to (I), you would climb slightly above 8200 feet before dropping into the depression (8199 feet). so sure I would like to see the game have topo maps but the real challenge is how to make the editor render or display a "true topographic map?? tom w