aka_tom_w

has there been any "official" comment on this issue/thread? :confused: :confused: curious I would REALLY like to play CMBO battles in the ETO in CMAK!! who else here feels that way??? -tom w

elevation contour lines you can toggle on and off with the flick of a switch. Panzer Elite is OLD but it had NICE maps GRAT maps with contour lines in the mission briefing. My I request that the BTS design team for CMX2 (the Next big thing) play the latest version of Panzer Elite for a few hours and check out the maps they use. PE is a VERY different game because it a tank sim you can ONLY see the battlefield from view level on in CMBB lingo butyou can toggle to a NICE topo map with contours so you can see your progress. ALL I am saying is that I like the contour lines and topo maps in PE thanks -tom w

This aspect of the game works WAY better now than it ever did in CMBO (because there was no death clock there and the gunners acted like robots all the time as they would immediatly KNOW when to move on to the next target even if the last one they hit was not buring, and we all complained about that automaton (sp?) robot like target aqusition behaviour ) AND then Matt and Charles INVENTED the concept of the death clock and now it works GREAT! The death clock is a JOY to behold and has been pointed out by others here, in this thread it is ALSO my opinion it works flawlessly in CMBB and the (alleged) waste of AP ammo is just "the cost of doing business" in the fog of war in EFOW in CMBB Cheers -tom w [ April 21, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

are you suggesting he is/will be testing the OS 9.x possibility of booting the latest 17 inch iMac? (supposedly it is OSX bootable only?) if so please keep us up to date thanks -tom w

That is a GREAT idea.... now lets see... why not have a Spanish mod artist paint the textures for the next African and Med version of Combat Mission! um, OK! That WORKS for Me! Thanks and Major congrats Wise move BTS!! -tom w [ April 20, 2003, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

that sound GOOD! thanks for the update -tom w

if it only happens infrequently that might a realistic "panic" response I have not tested it anyone else care to comment on the "'retreat' from danger by speeding foward with a sharp turn to the left, exposing a flank shot.." issue? :confused: curious -tom w

thanks hope you folks have a nice long weekend -tom w

THANKS I find that info VERY interesting. -tom w

ok then that sounds positive -tom w

I REALLY don't understand all the NO comments and NO thanks because that would make it "unrealistic" . whaddya mean..... Look at the AMAZING job that modders did with CMBO to make it look like the desert in the North African theatre of operations. AND that was without ANY help from BTS at ALL! If I understand the orignal request/suggestion correctly ALL that was asked was to leave in some terrain tiles left over from CMBO so that modders could make CMBO like maps to recreate CMBO battles. IN THE SAME WAY AS THE MODDERS MADE SCENARIOS AND MAPS FOR NORTH AFRICA FROM CMBO Thats ALL how can you say NO to that? what is so unrealistic about leaving in a few terrain tiles and some (already predetermined) terrain cover and concealment stats/values associated with those terrain tiles so that some CMBO battles, using the units of the SAME time frame and ERA of CMAK , could be recreated in CMAK to play CMBO like battles on a modded ETO map from CMAK. I REALLY do not understand all the no votes, all we are asking for is the option or opportunity for some keen modders to have access to some tiles and terrain features that were common in CMBO, (simple really just leave them in the map editor) -tom w [ April 14, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

don't worry the OTHER king tigers if you have any left can push the dead ones out of the way. just give another tank an order to "move" straight thru the tanks that block the way and they will sort of "slide" them off to the side as they pass. Good luck -tom w

from that OLD thread Steve had this to say everyone who is interested in how Borg spotting might be modeled in the next game really "should" take a minute and read these posts: Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:13 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh my God but this is a really big thread Folks, the crux of the issue is this... Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such: 1. Command Style - you are in ONE definite position of command. You can only influence the battlefield as that one command position would allow in the real world. More importantly, all subordinate units under your command would behave 100% autonomously from your will unless you were able to realistically give them "orders". I am not just talking about radio or messanger contact, but chain of command. A Major does NOT go and order some buck private to move his MG to a better spot. He orders a Captain to set up a certain type of position in a certain location ("set up a defensive line along the north side of Hill 345"), the Captain then issues more specific commands to his LTs. ("1st Platoon go to that stand of trees, 2nd Platoon down thee road a click, 3rd Platoon deploy to 2nd's right), then each LT gives orders to his SGTs to deploy a little bit more specifically ("1st Squad, take that wall over there, 2nd Squad see if that house has a good field of fire on that gully over there, 3rd Squad go over there and see what you can do about covering that road junction"), and then each SGT in turn yells at various peeons to get moving to a VERY specific location ("behind that tree, numbnuts! Smitty!! Damn your soul... get that MG set up pronto behind that boulder facing that way or I'll tapdance on your butt for the rest of the day"). Now, in such a system the Major (that would be you!) does not know or even care about these details. That is called deligation of responsibility and initiative, which is what every modern armed force is trained around doing. The Major's responsibilities are to keep in touch with his neighboring formations and higher HQ, requisitioning stuff (units, supplies, guns, etc.) to get his mission accomplished, and making sure everything is running smoothly before, during, and after contact with the enemy. In non combat situations there are a LOT more responsibilities than that, but we are only focusing on the combat aspect. What each unit under his command can or can not see, shoot at, or deal with is NOT the Major's direct concern. It is the direct concern of the unit in question and its HQ. The Major is, of course, trying to get as much information as possible so he can best lead the battle, but he doesn't care a hoot if there is an enemy squad 203.4 meters and closing on 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, E Company. At least specifically he doesn't care. So there you have it. This is how REAL combat works in terms of C&C. There is absolutely no way to simulate the reality of the battlefield without taking the player's mits 99% off direct control of units. 2. Micromanagement Style - You read all of the above, correct? Well, forget about it A Mircormanagement style game doesn't give a hoot about command and control aspects of warfare. You get some units, you use units as you see fit. When you click on one of the units you can order it to do whatever the heck you want without any thoughts about command and control. I would even include games with very primative attempts at C&C being lumped into this group. 3. Multi-Level Style - The player is neither a single commander nor an über micromanager. Orders can be given to any unit, but those orders and behaviors are influenced, to some degree or another, by Command and Control rules. In other words, you CAN order that individual MG to move 2.5 meters to the left, but you can not do this for "free". Some set of rules are set up to make such an order be more or less effective depending on the circumstances (in/out C&C, good/poor morale, good/poor experience, etc). The player is therefore still has far more flexability than a single commander would ever have, but not total and utter control in any and all circumstances. Examples of each game... Command Style - I know of no commercial wargame in existance that does this type of simulation. A game like the upcoming Airborne Assault comes VERY close, but even that one doesn't limit you to one command position with only the ability to see and affect the action as that one position would allow. Micromanagement Style - best example I can give you guys is something like Panzer General or Close Combat. In both of these games you could order your units to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted without the slightest interference in terms of command decisions. Multi-Level Style - Combat Mission and Steel Panthers come to mind. The original system in Steel Panthers was quite simplistic compared to Combat Mission's, but both sought to penalize units which lacked C&C with their higher HQs. Combat Mission took many previous game concepts a few steps further, as well as adding a few new ones of its own. Some games, like Combat Mission, lean more towards Command Style while others, like Airborne Assault go even further. Other games, like Steel Panthers, lean more towards Micromanagement Style. In terms of realism, Command Style is the highest ideal, Micromanagement the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of playability, Micromanagement is the highest ideal, Command Style the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of proven trackrecord of being fun, the pie is split between Micromanagement and Multi-Level. No wargame has ever fit the definition of Command Style, so it has no reecord. We are not going to try and be the first because we would rather watch paint dry than play such a game. And we are very sure that 99% of our customers would agree. And that 1% would most likely not really wind up liking the game anyway. Sometimes people need to be careful about what they ask for because they just might get it Command Style games do not exist for a reason. They are nearly impossible to make (the AI necessary boggles the mind!) and the gameplay value near non existant. So why bother trying? Instead we will make Combat Mission more realistic through our system of Relative Spotting. Reading through some of the posts here, I don't think people necessarily totally understand what a profound impact it will have on the game. Will it make CM 100% realistic? No, and I pitty any fool developer who attempts such a silly venture. But will CM be more realistic than any Squad level wargame yet? Well... of course we already think it is , but we know we can do better. So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through. Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:27 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ U8lead asked: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game? And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID? If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No, no, and no Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink" This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic. For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out... Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see? The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with. Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers Steve Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:51 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom, quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I agree, but I must also point out that this discussion is not that different than a 1/2 dozen other ones held in the past. That is not to take away anything from anyone who participated here and not in the others, but rather to point out that the CM's borg problems are pretty well established by now. They are also not inherently different than those of other games, although we would argue CM deals with them better. The ideas people are kicking around in this thread are also ones that have been kicked around in other threads. Specifics might not be exactly the same, but the core motivation behind certain lines of thinking are surprisingly similar. Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else ). Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem. Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over . Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes ). But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes. I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close. Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional Steve Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 09:53 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom, quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve? --------------------- Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT Area fire is useless against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat. --------------------------------------------------------------- In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that? If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders. Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations. You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm? Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels. When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is Steve [ April 14, 2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Why wouldn't they want this? It would/"should" :eek: help sell more copies of SMAK if it were that broad and flexible so that most CMBO battles could be re-made. -tom w

that is a VERY VERY legitmate request The ability to play/replay or re-make some of the those GREAT scenario's from CMBO in CMAK with all the NEW features like cover arcs and the GREAT NEW CMBB armour penetration stats and calculations would be the mostly welcomed addition to this new game by all CMBO fans!! This should thread should be a permant fixture on the top of this forum Thanks GREAT suggestion! -tom w [ April 13, 2003, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

sooner than that from Macwhispers " April 10, 2003 Update: 970 PowerBook Production: Accelerated 970 Production Further discussions with Apple OEM assembly partners have given us up to date information on motherboard production for both PowerBooks and PowerMacs, both using the IBM PPC 970 processor. First, we have been told, and we have second-sourced the claim that 15.4-inch PowerBook motherboards are now in production and are shipping regularly to Apple's contract PowerBook assembler. Next, we have been told, and we have also second-sourced a claim that bid requests for a fully-designed 970-based board for the 17-inch PowerBook were received by two assembly plants this past Friday, with a submission deadline for replies of April 30th. Finally, a reliable source in engineering management at the ODM supplier providing the upcoming PowerMac motherboards has informed us that those boards went into volume production this past Friday, and that first shipments to Apple's final assembly partner for the new PowerMacs is to take place "about April 15th." We will add that our sources seem consistently taken aback by what they all characterize as the unexpected and very unusual hurry involved in all work on these new desktop and portable Apple products. Every step in each process is being scheduled far tighter than is normal for a new production run." from http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000057.php the 970 (64 bit archtecture) IS the next big thing for sure AND it might one day run windoze software I think it is conceivable if the rumours to purchase Universal Music (by Apple) are true that APPLE "could" be changing their business plan and tactics so that the loss of sales of hardware won't hurth them when they start to sell OSX that runs on faster cheaper pc boxes. there is VERY little margin and profit in hardware sales, maybe Apple can make MORE money in software sales along with an online music service?? I am growing more convinced the day will come when Apple will sell a version of OSX that you can run on the latest ibm PC 970 chips that come in NON Apple computers that were sold with some flavour of windows on them What would happen when wintel PC's (NEW 970's!!) could be purchased with NO preselected OS and the user could choose to buy the FAST Cheap PC and install EITHER OSX or some new fancy flavour of Windows?? What then? How about it Bill Gates?? Maybe someone else will market a competitive/competing OS that will be Cheaper and better and run on the latest FAST ibm 970 chips I see this coming because the 970 is an ibm chip and we will see towers SHIPPING with the 970 chip in them by the end of this August and then Panther (the next OSX flavour AFTER the current Jaguar) will ship in September and it is heavily rumoured to be written to take full advantage of the 64 bit architecture in the ibm 970 ITS coming and we will see BIG things this summer and and next fall. I think about 1 year from now (sometime NEXT summer 2004) there will be some chip somewhere that will DUAL boot some flavour of OSX AND the latest version of windows. the maker of that hardware (likely IBM!) will sell **** LOADS of those chips and that hardware and some folks "might" even buy BOTH mac and windoze OS's to run on it. I KNOW I would just so I could play the latest windoze games on my ibm 970 MAC! !! But that is ALL speculation on conjecture on my part. -tom w [ April 13, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

there are rumours we will see the new 970 64 bit chip be able to run MORE than OSX its a long story of a rumour but what if the next generation of chips could boot into either OSX or some new form of windows? WHAT if OSX could run on PC hardware... think about it suypposedly there may be some NEW draconian Microslut windows licenseing policy that you have to log into Microsofts world wide licence server to "authenticate" your os and pay a yearly fee or something ONE rumour/theory is that OSX in the future, maybe Panther or maybe on revision after panther will run on some intel chip that will also run windows. WHAT if you could by OSX to run on CHEAPER FASTER intel/PC (WinTel) hardware!!!!? What then?? this may only be a year - 18 months down the road?? any comments? -tom w

is anyone else still activily testing the latest v1.03b verison of the public beta patch release? just curious? :confused: -tom w

Oh I like that Idea: !! "Variable movie times. Range from 1 minute to 10 minutes so as to simulate hour long battles in a reasonable amount of time (and for that hands off frustrating feel of commanding troops without God-like intervention)." IF (BIG IF) there were some SOPS or additional orders you could give maybe the player/user could like the game play out with the existing orders for up to 10 minutes!!! I like it. maybe a setting that allows the length of the movie to be any value in ONE minute incriments between 1 minute and 10 minutes. I would think a 5 minute movie would be ideal. Does anyone else here agree that might "sort" of be more realistic and combined with the elimination of the "borg" spotting problem that would offer ONE helluva a THRILL ride if you could leave your units alone (after your carefully chosen ORDERS!) to fend for themselves for FIVE (5) (or up to TEN 10) action packed minutes of white knuckle/nail biting combat action???? :eek: Does anyone else here see the FUN or value of that??? -tom w [ April 10, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

in case anyone is interested I thought I would post this link to an old thread in the CMBO forum about the Borg Spotting problem and the potential of a "Relative Spotting" solution in the next new game they are working on: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461#000001 it is one of those BIG 8 page threads but you will find some GREAT comments and insights from Steve, (aside from all my babbling ) cheers -tom w

Regards JonS * 'have seen' is an important distinction from 'can see.' To be in the 'can see' category, one unit must simply have a valid LOS to another. to be in the 'have seen' category, the 'can see' rule must apply, and the unit must have noticed the target. </font>

This thread just would not be complete without this feature request list The NEW CMII engine possible new features like: * NO more Borg Spotting (Relative Spotting somehow in some GOOD/REAL way implimented ) * Toggle on/off Contour/Elevation lines on the Map *Terrain Fog of War, (if you don't have friendlies looking at it (terrain feature that is) you don't know if it is there) *Make the Map Editor WAY more user friendly, incorporate things like the new Mapping Mission app (only on the PC so far) into the new game engine. Why not try to make the Map Editor in CMII more like the GREAT interface in Sim City. Maybe hire one person JUST to do the Map Editor as it needs a complete overhaul and rewrite from the ground up IMHO * LOS & LOF blocked by LIVE AFV's (i.e. infantry have "some" cover behind live and dead vehicles that are not burning) * Same as above, vehicles and other units CANNOT shoot through other live or dead vehicles that are not burning. (Dynamic LOS) * Full movie replay * Roster (for those would think they need it) * Multi-turreted vehicles like the Allied Grant and Lee * Amphibious units * Realistic modelling of visibility at night * Dynamic lighting effects (two fold: i. As visual effect and more important ii. Integration into fire- and detection algorithms *Change PBEM format to only require two e-mails per turn * Collision detection for all projectiles, even those that would hit *Smaller terrain tiles ( 10 x 10 m or better ) *Risk of bogging calculated and determined by greater fidelity in Mean Maximum Pressure theory (Model?) (Note: One example he gives is the Elephant having only 12% heavier nomimal ground pressure (NGP, weight per track area) than a King Tiger, but having a mean maximum ground pressure (MMP) approx double, at 370 compared to 184. They more or less have the same weight and track area, but the suspension designs are quite different.) From: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=003157;p=1 * Programable SOP's for all units: (e.g. "Wouldn't it be great if an order could be given to the commander of company "A" to "take that hill" or "move to that position and set up a defense" and watch as the orders are dissiminated down throught he ranks and the varios platoons begin to try and carry out your orders. Yes, much as it happens with "Airborn Assult".) "with a little help from my friends" -tom w AND from: TSword Member Member # 7457 posted October 25, 2002 08:00 AM 1. It is absolutely necessary to give the Scenario-Designer more control over AI behaviour and setup. Example: AI in Operations usually does a very poor setup (If there is wood AI will cramp everything in it), true one can work around, but with open maps this becomes a problem of first order. Solution: The designer can suggest zones of terrain suitable for setup. Also some guidelines for attacking/defending AI would be great, like areas of approach, objective zones, type of general AI behaviour like stubborn defense, counterattack, timings and the like. This is a wide field but in general leave AI as is (No hope of much improvement in this field) but enable more options during scenario design All this together would enable much more challenging AI-battles and more possibilities to generate more historic acurate battles (I mostly play the AI, since PBEMs go forever and need a lot of discipline especially for the loosing side...). Covered arcs set by scenario designer would be great. 2. Atleast direct firing Artillery pieces should be able to fire delayed fuzed shells (when firing a flat trajectory shell bounces off the ground, at first impact fuze is activated). This was done very often on the german side with tanks HE, 88 AT, and all Artillery pieces. If used correctly this results in devastating fire. 3. It is principally wrong not to enable on-board artillery to fire indirect. In the case of german heavy howitzers (150 mm) the guns were very seldom placed farer away from the front then 4 km and often relocated only below 1 km. This of course fits into the dimension of CM. Again this would allow for additional realism and more possibilities in scenarios (Gamey inbalances can be corrected by purchase prizes easily). 4. More terrain types with variyng degree of concealment together with further refined LOScalculations. More possibilities for open terrain battles. More terrain which give Inf concealment when being prone while only partly restricting LOS for AVFs. 5. Active visible camouflage of all sorts of weapons for same reason as point 4. 6. Ability for mounted troops to shoot from vehicles, and proper loads for trucks (much more then 1 Squad infact). 7. Dynamic lighting visible and taken into LOS calculations 8. Turret down for tanks or generally fighting vehicles for observation purposes. 9. "Debug"-Mode to check AI-behaviour for scenario designers. Simply an additional battle parameter where the player can see all the AI units all the time while AI behaves according to set FOW settings. 10. Vehicle crews can remount an abandoned vehicle 11. Horses, bicycles, bikes 12. A small API-set: - To read unit database (all values currently visible during unitselection) - To write to the map generator or map selection (All the values currently editable by the user) - To write to the unit selection Thus allowing 3rd party extensions for campaigns and the like 13. Correct representation of relative plate sizes on AFVs for hit determination. (eg. Large T-34/85 turret, small T-34/76 turret). 14. Option to allow same "casualty"-rules as in night battles also for daylight battles. They are obviously much much more realistic then the daylight rules. 15. More finetune options for Operations in determing new setup zones for next battle. (For instance in the "Assault" mode the possibility to determine the weight of flank and middle and treshold for cutoff units), now it's easely possible to have the whole force being cutoff although not a single enemy unit was behind their line when previous battle ended). 16. New operation type "mixed" where scenario designer can determine the sequence of attacker (thus operations where attacker can actually change from battle to battle) either unknown or known to the player. To simulate counterattacks something completely missing now. Actually the same should also be possible in battles where a certain formation (for instance reinforcments) event triggered would counterattack. 17. Moving vehicles produce dust dependend of region and groundconditions. Heavy weapons like tanks, artillery shells and the like produce a lot of smoke which could change a battlefield dramatically LOS wise..., nice to see in open terrain battles... Greets Daniel [ April 09, 2003, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Still a thread worthy of bumping! -tom w

good point Tom -tom w

Kmead is also a mac tech geek and may know alot more about the technical issue involved here than myself. AS far I Know it is this simple CMxx needs RAVE MAC OSX DOES NOT support Rave New Macs don't Dual Boot CMxx only loads in OS9x OSX running OS9x "classic" DOES NOT support Rave API calls so the game will NOT run in Classic under OSX. So you need a MAC that you can boot into OS 9x to play and you can't buy those Macs anymore so you are forced to go to the used market :confused: The whole situation is so STUPID it makes me want to buy a FASTER CHEAPER PC! Tell that to the DOLTS at Apple! -tom w [ April 09, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]