aka_tom_w

bump

The IBM 970 CPU has a 64 bit capability and I think they are makeing a "special " OSX 10.2.7 OS JUST for that chip as an bridge between OSX 10.2.6 and Panther which is OS X 10.3. Panther is intended (as I understand it) to be optimized for the IBM 970 chip with the 64 bit architecture. It would be my opinion that there will be NO WAY Mac OS 9.2.2 will EVER run on a IBM 970 in a G5. (But thats just my guess) I would think BFC would want to be getting a DEVELOPER RELEASE of the Panther Beta (avaialable at the WWDC just recently in SF HINT HINT ) so that work on CMX2 can proceed on the Mac side for the OS of the Future. The Beta Demo of Panther is available now to Mac developers. (S Jobs, in the keynote, mentioned there are now over 300,000 licensed Mac developers, thats sounds like a heck of a lot of OS X developement to me :eek: !) -tom w

interesting good thread interesting points here I hope someone at BFC HQ is listening -tom w

I think Tom has expanded upon my idea greatly. The inherent problem with my proposal is that it won't work in defending actions; the defender will be racking up points sitting on flags each turn until the attacking force can get there to do something about it. Giving scenario designer's the ability to set what turn a flag becomes "active" and the points per turn does complicate things a bit but I think it's a great solution to the last minute flag rush issue. It would though, require scenarios to be playtested quite a bit more I would imagine, because you would have to find that perfect balance of when a flag should become active and for how many points per turn it should be worth for the team holding it. But thats where The Proving Grounds could come in handy. (sorry, gots to pimp the site whenever I can) </font>

I am in favour of that suggestion as long as it is not predictable and both sides know what the earliest possible final turn is. (Obviously :eek: ) As it is now (I think) the variable turn end mechanism in the game only adds extra minutes to the battle and never takes any away. That would be an interesting thing to try -tom w [ June 27, 2003, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I TOTALLY agree with some form of this, it should perhaps be a little more complicated so the scenario designer can commuicate the victory conditions in the brief and then somehow (?) program them into the scenario so as to account for ownership of flags NOT just at the end of the game. (this is the root of the problem IMHO because flags are only worth something after the final minute and EVERYONE knows it). This is could be as complicated as to allow for the value of the flag to each side to be dependant on the turn number. Say the attacker has to old a certain flag by turn 10 and another flag by turn 20, and the game is 30 turns long, then the scenario designer should be able to program the value of the flag based on the approximate turn it "should" be taken and held. Holding the flag over a period of time, NOT just at the end of the game should somehow be part of the victory point scoring system. I think it should be flexible enough to let scenario designers program some really interesting and perhaps radical victory conditions based on flags and turn number and who holds what when and for HOW long!! OF course then the defender would not KNOW the attacker's mission was to hold that flag at turn 10 so there would be nothing gamey about a flag rush in one flag location at turn ten of a 30 turn game. Like wise the defender would not now the attacker needs the other flag at turn 20 to be successful. Thus in a 30 turn battle there would be no incentive to take those two flags in the 28th and 29th minute because they would be worth ALOT LESS to the attacker at that time. Some new scoring system (perhaps more refined and maybe even MORE complicated) is needed in CMX2 IMHO (maybe something new here for CMAK??) -tom w [ June 27, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I agree wholeheartedly. Although I'd still like to see something that has even more flexibility, that would be an outstanding quick fix for the slightly premature endings we tend to see right now. Good thinking Hat Trick! </font>

This is issue is so important (the timing of the flag rush) that I meticulously number every PBEM turn (4a, 4b, 4c-of-25+) on every PBEM turn file so I know exactly where I am on the game clock as I plot every move. So for folks who number their PBEM turn files blanking out the game turn graphic in the game won't really do it. Nice idea though. -tom w

It would be crap. </font>

BINGO! You just described almost every PBEM Club game I've played over the last 6 months. To be clear here, I really don't fault my opponents for what some refer to as "gamey" tactics. It's just a function of the 2.5 dimensional objectives in these games. (The following is not meant as a slam against the game or anyone. Hell, I like this game a lot better than I did my first wife! Please give me a shot at explaining myself before you get ticked at me ) With few exceptions, EVERY military objective exists as: 1) A Place (that might move around a bit if the objective is potentially mobile) 2) A Time (which might be a single fixed point in time, a series of single-event times, or variable period with variable starting and/or ending time) 3) Degree of importance (which can also vary because of a host other factors including changes in Times and Places brought about for any reason whatever) Finally, remember that "No plan ever survives contact with the enemy" and tuck away the fact that all of the above is subject to change, on-the-fly, with (or without) notice, and you have the basic ingredients for a Military Objective. so... We already have control over the Place as long as we are happy with fixed point objectives. I'd love to see individual units be able to be assigned an additional objective point value so you could do a "Kill or Capture Hitler (or the HQ Unit, etc.)" scenario or something along those lines - but I digress a bit from my main point As it exists right now, we can really only control the Time element of an objective in one way. We set the scenario length and decide if it is variable or not. That's it. It's a car with an ignition key, but no brakes or gas pedal - but you do get to decide if you want to measure the gas in the tank or just "eyeball" it. Either way, it's "Just drive 'til she quits, pal. And, by the way, the Highway Patrol knows exactly where you are going, when you have to be there, and they're waiting for you. Have a fun trip!" Without regard to what decisions we make on the game length, the only Time that <U>really</u> ever matters in CM games, is the very last turn. And for us "serious" players that play enough to learn such nuance in a game, it can tend to give us something more akin to "Stepping on a Landmine" than a "Combat Mission". If the mission is to get someone/thing/unit to be somewhere on turn 20 so they can cap Adolph's motorcade as he drives by there and put an early end to the war, you're going to have to make it a twenty turn game without a variable end time because that road junction isn't really worth squat before turn 19 ends or after turn 21 starts. I could certainly be "creative" with scenario design and do that, but the real action in any assasination scenario would be much more apt to happen on turn 21 AFTER the first shot was fired. Alas, we won't get to see that because our game just ended. Degree of Importance is the last element to an objective and that is also a fixed value right now. Much of the time that is probably fine given the time scale of most CM games. That said, in wartime there are certainly lots of situations where the longer you don't hold an objective the worse a situation might become. Since CMBO pretty much defined playable tactical anyway (after they went and over-complicated good ol' Squad Leader with the ASL Library of Congress)I'm guessing that most of us grew up playing more operational and strategic type wargames where we were trained to think of an objective as a big place you go capture and hang on to while you are marching for Moscow, Berlin, Paris or Rome. I know BFC tests the hell out of things to make sure they're great, but I think the collective "we" took our eyes off the tactical ball just a bit and let an a operational way of thinking about victory survive the translation into a tactical game. I hate to say it, because I really don't like much about the 1st-person tactical shooters, but the Clancy stuff that I've seen does a much better job of simulating the intricate timed "Ballet of Combat" than does CMBB, just on a smaller scale. It's a easy mistake to make that a lot of young platoon commanders make in real life because we're programmed almost from birth that you have to hold onto things after you get them. In the tactical world, things are cut with sharp knife and possession of the turf at a given point in time is usually what matters most. IMO, we need more control over our objective's timing and values to really be able to realize the full potential of this game for simulating real-life combat missions. I know serious changes require serious money and the current game is pretty damn close to perfect already (and would be if everyone played it as if their life was really on the line). So I'd really like to find a solution that is workable AND viable. The simplest and most flexible solution I can think of would only require that each objective have a seperate table for each side with turn-by-turn values for that objective. It seems to me like a simple way to facilitate modeling almost any set of circumstances we might want to create and it offers the added benefit that existing scenarios objectives could default to the same single value they are currently assigned on every turn and the added functionality could be added to future scenarios (and I'm sure that the MOD community would do something about the current "stock" scenarios pretty fast once the ability was there). OK, I'll shut up now. </font>

mark me down as waiting for CMAK so I can once again hear with those darn little fellows are swearing about when they miss. I don't speak Russian or German and I REALLY miss this aspect of the game. ONE of the BEST lines for CMBO was the Brit accent with "Stick that in your Pipe and Smoke it FRITZ!!" all the Russian and German profanity and hollering in the middle of the battle is largely lost on the majority of the north america audience unfortunately oh well The Aussies in CMAK should be (BETTER BE) entertaining as I understand the WHOLE Aussie culture is prone to PROFANITY he he -tom w

The original post makes a good point! "Some of your concerns are addressed in the variable ending option. Kind'a hard to rush the flag in the last two turns when you don't know which two turns are the last!" I must admit I play almost all my games in PBEM against one opponent. We always play prebuild scenarios and both mutually agree to play them double blind always. I disagree that the variable turn end is not predictable I think it is VERY predictable and the original poster makes a good point. there is a golden moment near the end of every game when the gamey falg rush seems to be an obligatory tactic. Usually just in time to win and typically NOT too early to allow the defender any concerted counter attack. It usually comes with 1-2-3 minutes remaining on the variable turn clock with the FULL expectation that turning a flag in the dieing minutes will guarrantee valuable extra minutes of play. With about 2 minutes remaining you can turn a flag quickly and because it changed know that you have at least 2 more minutes of battle before the game ends, sometimes it goes longer, but you can always count on at least one or two extra minutes if a flag changes hands in the last 2-3 minutes of a game. I think it is predictable and good players time their attacks knowing there will always be just a few extra minutes to finish off the defenders in "overtime" I think the original poster makes a GREAT point! -tom w [ June 25, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK But is the GF4Ti video card going to work with CMBB/CMAK?? :confused: :confused: is anyone running CMBO or CMBB on a dual 1,25Ghz and GF4Ti right now? can I see some screen shots??? CMBB on a dual 1.25 gHz G4 must be SMOKING fast! compared to the 400 mHz G3 PB I am on now -tom w

VERY nicely done! Great entertainment! -tom w

is this the classic rave problem? do you have a OSX install on that partition? is there a "classic Rave" extension active in your extensions make it not active and fire up CMBB that "should" do it (I may have the symptoms mixed up and that might not actually be the problem) any other idea's -tom w

CMX2 is the engine rewrite (Multi player, relative spotting, full movie playback etc.) CMAK (due this Dec 2003) is the old CMBB engine (on steriods by then I would guess ) in North Africa and the Med. They are two VERY different things -tom w

THanks Matt it is now my assumption that APPLE could not care LESS about this issue ATI doesn't give a flying crap either the game developers and the Mac gameing mailing list all laughed at me when I posted the problem. No one at all really gives a flying F@%! about this issue. sad but true. The 800 mHz 15 inch dual boot TiBook is the best bet as it is known to work AND the first generation 17 inch iMacs with the LCD screen (also 800 mHz G4's I believe) also work. The newer stuff will never work if you can't boot into OS 9 and even some that can boot into OS 9 don't work because the video drivers are not coded correctly for RAVE. -tom w

"Perhaps a sand and azure theme to go along with CMAK or somefink?" OK .... maybe something with these colours? what does that look like? -tom w [ June 18, 2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I am not sure that is an entirely accurate observation of what the game is doing. Moon tells us (and I assume he KNOWS) that only the long rang weapons (rifles) fire at long range targets, and at extreme range when they fire a burst it only counts as a fraction of a point of ammo expenditure. (not a full point he tells us) ALSO in CMBB there is a firing state that is HOT and MAX ROF when in close the AI will "turn it up a notch, to 11 if you are into Spinal Tap, he he)" and produce more firepower out of MG's in the "expend all rounds mode" (as I understand it this is an improvement over MG performance in CMBO) so I would say there seems to be AT least three states of ammo expenditure. SO I would conclude there is not JUST two states, firing and none firing. i)there is long range firing that expends VERY little ammo ii)I assume there is average range average firing that expends average ammo and iii)we know there short range firing at extreme ROF that expends max ammo. I think the game handles this aspect of small arms firing and firepower pretty well myself. What I just described sort of sounds like a slightly varied approach to what you were actually suggesting, which I think the game accomondates fairly well IMHO -tom w [ June 17, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

YES and Absolutely Yes to: "- Fog of War applied to terrain: no more perfect maps. " (Terrain fog of war, units get lost, the map is not what is really there, and the player does not know it until his units see it with their OWN "relative spotting" eyes! I LIKE IT!)

YES I agree with ALL of that And I like this one TOO: "e) Hard coded “Iron Man” rules. I’d like to try it with CMBB but my finger is always magically drawn to that ‘4’ key . That would include, not just blocking level 3 and up views, but actually a new option in the battle parameters like EFOW. The program then blocks certain keys depending on the unit and its position. E.g. a sharpshooter on the ground can only use level 1 (all other keys don’t work), while the same sharpshooter in a church tower can use level 1 to 3, a tank with good optics can use the magnifying keys etc.." Hardcode Iron Man FOW as an optional setting -tom w

oh :eek: cup half full or half empty? :eek: I thought Dec 2003 WAS the expected release date: "We expect CMAK to be available in the 4th quarter 2003. Check out the CMAK section located here: CMAK Website" 4th Quarter 2003 says Dec to me -tom w

this will be a necessity in the new engine, if what we hear about individual spotting comes to fruition. </font>

yes " Control over friendly units in PE is crap too. Can't even give them a facing." agreed I am not interested in a first person shooter, I am suggesting a special form of relative spotting where the player gets to see what the view from the magnified optics of a gun sight, range finder or HQ held pair of binoculars would actually show the unit looking through them. This first person/gun sight perspective was done and done well in Panzer Elite and that was not really a technologically advanced "eartthshattering" game when it came out a while back before CMBB I think. (anyone? Was it earthshattering, ground breaking, or awarding winning at the time of its release? anyone? ) So that first person view/perspective can be done and has been done in a WWII combat game. (PE) I am sure they will never make a First Person Shooter, I am not worried about that at all. -tom w [ June 15, 2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

no problem there is a cover arc command ( two commands actually i) cover arc Armour and ii) cover arc everything else) it WORKS GREAT! you can point the turret anywhere you want to cover any angle irrespective of the hull facing position its NO PROBLEM in CMBB -tom w