Mark L

Oops. Sorry, my mistake. Gonna go dig out my sources again and look into it more... Mark

Wow! I didn't even notice that there were actually TWO different Sherman Models in Riesberg. The "+" model is apparently the one known as the "Jumbo", based on those armor values. I've seen it referred to as "M4A3E2(75)W". Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It all depends on what you mean by "historical" or "historically based". ... If "historically based" is interpreted a bit more broadly to refer to a type of action (eg a typical company level assault on a village) than the problem goes away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I meant that too. The Riesberg scenario feels like a nice "typical" US action to me. Mark [This message has been edited by Mark L (edited 11-11-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As evidence of this, name me *one* boardgame that was wholely translated into a computer game in the last 10 years that pleased the bulk of the boardgame followers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Over the Reich" and "Achtung: Spitfire," perhaps? Much more fun to play on a computer than the board game, IMHO. (Tho maybe they don't qualify as "wholely translated"...?) I'm one of the one's that DIDN'T want to see just ASL on a computer. I've always thought you could do things a LOT differnetly and better on a computer. CM seems to have done just about all of them. I still think ASL is great game (if you're into BIG complicated games! ). But it does have some quirks, IMHO, due to the boardgame format. It's still a blast to play, tho. Mark

C Colapietro: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Unfortunately, I have a really old (but nice) NEC monitor and I dont think that 800x600 is a selectable option, only 832x648(6??) (or something like that) with the adapter I have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the "Monitors and Sound" control panel, have you tried displaying "All" resolutions, instead of only "Recommended"? Maybe some 800x600 selections will show up then - dunno if you're monitor will support it tho. I dunno if Voodoo2 will work at 832x624. You might try that as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work tho. 832x624 seems to be kind of a Mac thing. Mark

Any news on this one? Mark

I think the effectiveness of artillery, including light mortars, is gonna be the thing I have to "unlearn" the most in CM. So far, it seems to be quite devastating. Fortunately, TacOPs also provides this lesson, so I'm not entirely unprepared! I just started playing Last Defense as the Yanks. I read on this board about "plinking" half-tracks with mortars so I thought I 'd give it a try. First try: 800 meters, stationary target, 1 turn, 10 rounds... ded 'track. Second try (different mortar), 750m, stationary target, 5 rounds... 'nuther ded half-track. (both kills indicated top penetration) Yikes! I'm definitely gonna keep my open-top stuff out of LOS of mortars!! Am I just being terribly lucky, or have others had the same experience? In my Riesberg game, I noticed that buildings (at least wooden ones) seemed to collaspe rather readily under a 105mm concentration. In one turn, I flattened three buildings on the German left, including the two-story objective building - as well as the two groups of infantry that were occupying them. I also destroyed an AT gun in a single turn using 105. And one of my Shermans flattened the stone building in the front of town in about 1.5 turns. Buildings do NOT seem to be very safe places to hang out for too long! I'm gonna go look at some more of the old posts to see what's been said about arty so far. One that I did read was very interesting, including some nice descriptions from folks with first hand experience with mortars, and how quickly they could be set up and "zeroed in". Now I do understand that statistically artillery is by far the biggest killer on the battlefield, so I welcome games that give it a fair treatment. But so far, artillery in CM feels just a little TOO destructive - buildings crumble very readily, and I'm surprised it could be _that_ easy to drop a mortar shell in the back of a halftrack (does anyone know what the real-world CEP was for the US 60mm mortar?). That isn't really a complaint, just an observation - I have absolutely no supporting data to indicate what is realistic. But I am interested in what others' experience is (either in CM, or in the real-world). If this topic has already been thoroughly hashed out in a previous thread, no need to go into it all over again - I'll dig it up myself. From what I've read so far, I have every confidence that BTS will model artillery as accurately as they feel it should be. I'll just adjust my tactics to suit! Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ANyways after christmas I'm going to buy a video card, maybe that;ll help a little<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Especially with a 200 MHz CPU, a 3D video card should help a LOT. 3D graphics cards are wonderful technological marvels. What screen resolution are you running at? 640x480 should significantly improve performance over say 1024x768, if your using just "software rendering". Mark L

I may be wrong here, but isn't it also true that most historical battles were generally not at all "balanced" affairs. In order to make a good game from one, you need to either adjust the forces or the victory conditions for one side. I prefer scenarios in which both sides can pummel each other equally, rather than artificial balancing victory conditions (i.e. OK, I'm getting overrun and every one of my units will be toast, but if I destroy 20% of your force or you don't accomplish your objectives in x number of turns, I win) So I guess that means I prefer historically-based scenarios. Doesn't really matter to me if the OOB is exact or not. Mark

I think CM is what ASL might have liked to have been if the technology existed at the time! But it looks like CM is gonna be able to handle armor a lot better than ASL. To be fair, ASL was designed as an infantry game with armor in a supporting role. But tank duels in ASL always played out hokey, mainly due to the time/distance scale and the igo/ugo turns. Vehicles in CM are gonna be a LOT more fun! One thing I thought ASL did well was to inject a lot of chaos into the battle - pretty important in for a tactical wargame, IMHO. CM will probably do a lot of this too, but it may be a little less visible, since the computer does all the "die-rolling". Plus, the wonderfully thick fog of war in CM will no doubt add a new level. But I also hope that all the discussion of retargetting issues doesn't end up making the units respond too perfectly to orders. Units that might respond somewhat imperfectly is another nice additon to "chaos", IMHO. Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I tried it over the weekend on my G3/300 128 Meg ram OS 8.6 beige tower with a microconversions Voodoo 2 12MB board, 3dfx reference drivers, and got terrible framerates, so something must not have been configured properly. The graphics did not look 3dfx enhanced... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> C C, I had the same problem initially trying a Voodoo2 card and reference drivers. First, do you have the "3dfx RAVE" extension enabled? (it comes with the reference drivers) You'll need that. Next, set your monitor resolution to 800x600 or less. "3dfx RAVE" doesn't seem to work at higher resolutions. OTOH, my ATI XClaim VR (8 Meg), runs CM in 1024x768 just great! (7600 with 225 MHz upgrade) Mark

I feel exactly the smae way after struggling with Falcon4 and Fly!. Darn nice to run something stable!

Nice write-up, Fionn. Your remarks about hexagons vs. "pixel=placement" are right on. I have always been mystified why so many computer wargames _still_ seem to use hexes. I've bought very few computer wargames which obviously make use of hexes based on box-art descriptions. It's never made sense to me to be clinging to the old boardgame conventions in a completely different medium. Your comments on the AIs capabilities are also interesting. I haven't really played enough to see it in action like this, but I am definitely looking forward to it. In my first playing, of Riesberg, the German defense hasn't seemed terribly organized. But I have also been advancing in true yankee fashion - slowly and deliberately, with liberal use of fire support from my Shermans (three of which still survive - I've proabbly been lucky in that regard). My overwhelming firepower may have something to with the less than effective AI responsive. OTOH, it has also surprised me a few times too. But I think it's getting desparate. I'm preparing to storm the HQ building, and I have a almost three full platoons deployed/deploying around it and a Sherman parked in the street. All of a sudden, a single German platoon HQ comes dashing out of the building through the remaining arty smoke, runs across the street into some scattered trees, and hence comes under whithering fire. Only one guy left now. Sure looked like an act of desparation to me! Mark L

Yay! Oh, this is a good year for wargames on a Mac!!

I can imagine that "tuning" retargetting is a tricky issue. Not only is it necessary for simultaneous turn execution, but I also prefer that my cyber soldiers don't always do what I tell 'em. One constant in a tactical engagement is chaos, communication difficulties, etc. If the player gets TOO much control, it will detract from the game/simulation, IMHO. But if players percieve the cyber-soldiers as acting "dumb", they won't like it. Plus, I also like the aspect that kip mentioned - it's handy to be able to move several units up into firing positon and have them pick their own targets. Arguably more realistic, too, IMHO. A company CO could order a platoon to take up positions somewhere and provide covering fire, but whose to say if they would actually see and shoot precisely the right targets? Personally, I hope that the tacAI isn't tweaked too much. I prefer a little more of a company commander perspective, so the less micro-managing I have to do, the better. Even so, it can still be quite temptiong for me to designate all targets, but sometimes it's just better to leave well enough alone anyway. I haven't had too much trouble with retargetting so far, but I haven't played nearly as much as some of you others. If someone doesn't seem to want to shoot at what I want them too, I just try sending someone else to do the job - and preferably from a different angle. Usually it's worked out. Mark

How about gyrostabilizers? Mark

Hehe, Webs. Mark L aka zhredder, WB: zhredd (tho I haven't been around the arena in a looong time)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John, angling the tank doesn't make your tanks harder to hit, it makes them harder to kill by increasing the amount of armor that a shot has to punch through for a kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but what I think John was getting at was that the silly Tiger crew actually pivoted the HULL to get a shot, and so removed the angles benefit. And apparantly as a consequence - KaBoom - ded Tiger. Maybe an AI issue? But then again, doesn't the Tiger have kind of a slow turret traverse? If so, maybe the crew figured it was more expedient to pivot the whole vehicle. Or maybe the crew just screwed up... But then again, if you were actually hull-down, it wouldn't really matter anyway. Did you notice if if it was a turret or hull penetration? Mark

Well, I can't take credit for "trench-cam". I picked it off of someone else's post - one of Fionn's maybe? Jabo-cam... hehe. Mark

OK... who do I send them too...? Mark

Cam 4 for most plotting, but I also use Cam 1 to get good looks at the lay of the land (or cam 2 if I want a little less obstructed view). Cam 5 for precise positiong in a house, on the edge of a woods-line, etc. I leave trees on to one degree or another, since it's easier to see the 3D trees than the collored areas. +2 unit scale. Cams 3 and 4 for replays, but often I prefer cam 3 looking at a particular sector of interest, since it's easier to make out the details. This usually means running the replay more than once to check different areas. I also almost always run the turn through once in cam 8, with scale at +3, just to see if I missed any new enemy sightings. And of course, I usually run through a few times with cam 1 or 2 for the cool perspective. <g> Mark

OK, I did a search for this, but couldn't find anything like this, so here goes... I have a saved game file where I've broken down into half-squads what once was a full strength squad (no casualties showing). One of the half-squads mysteriously has casualties now, and I've been watching them fairly closely the past few turns and haven't noticed them getting hit. OK, maybe I did miss something, but I don't think so. The REALLY strange part tho, is if I load this saved game file repeatedly, the number of casualties in the half-squad CHANGES each time I load it! In fact, in one instance, the half-squad was completely GONE (I'm assuming it was given 100% casualties). I've looked over some of my other squads that I know have taken casualties, and their status doesn't seem to change. Something very strange is going on here... a known bug? If needed, I can provide both the saved game file and the autosave from the prior turn. The autosave file also shows the same behavior, but with both half squads. Another anomaly, perhaps related: I save a turn before hitting the "Go" button, with orders for all my units already set-up. If I then load this file and execute the turn, I get DIFFERENT results each time I try it, always starting with the same save file. This also happens if I use the "autosave" file, which seems to be essentially the same thing. When I first noticed this replay variance, it didn't bother me too much. I figured CM was just using a different random number seed each time, or something. Granted, I thought unscrupulous players might use this to keep redoing a turn to get a result they're happier with, but no biggie - that's THEIR problem. (OTOH, could that completely hose an email game?) But now that I've encountered the first anomaly, it makes me wonder if there isn't something odd here too? I'm using the Mac version of the CM beta demo. Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wow, started out with a whopper of a post, didn't you<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe - now that I've got all that out, hopefully they'll be more brief in the future! Thanks a bunch, too, for actually taking the time to read through it all and addressing my questions! I certainly won't use other than the full FoW setting either - the foggier the better, IMHO. But only to a certain point tho - in some cases, ya gotta have some compensation for the limitations of the medium (computer). I also like accurate flight sims, but in almost all cases, with the "full realism" option, it's virtually impossible to visually see the bad guys at realistic ranges. The same would be true for CM, so the ability to enlarge the unit depictions is welcome. Thanks, too for the explanation of smoke. I can accept it, and I think I can get used to it as it is now. I wouldn't be surprised tho if some folks don't understand, when they see the final product. Unfortunate, but that's what the eye-candy crowd has come to expect, and I sometimes succumb to it myself! But CM still has plenty of visual treats anyway. Just today, I was watching a Sherman change targets, and noticed the gun also depress in elevation before firing. Neat! Mark

It is kinda tricky to tell them apart, particualrly "woods" vs. scattered trees. I tend to use the LOS tool a lot to check out the differences, in places where I think it might matter. Kind of a work-around, perhaps, but it does the job. Now to rationalize <g> - the grunts on the ground probably aren't gonna know exactly where all the best cover is, or even remember what they saw sometime on map. SO maybe leaving it a little ambiguous is OK. Mark

I recently heard about CM over at Mac Gamers Ledge, so I came over to check it out. I'm 2/3 of the way through my first game as the Yanks in Riesberg, and now firmly entrenched in house-to-house fighting). My first impressions... WOW!!! This is just TOO COOL! This is really an _amazing_ concept in wargaming. I have a friend who is very much into traditional board wargames, but has never been interested in the computer variety. His reasoning is generally valid: most computer wargames are, admittedly, not much different from their paper brethren - still "two-dimensional", albeit more detailed, with less paper-pushing, rules-lawyering, etc., but generally better FOW. But CM, like all truly ground-breaking computer games, uses the power of the personal computer to do NEW things that just can't be done in a practical manner in a paper format - obviously, I refer the true-3D LOS among other features, and the really cool "you are THERE" trench-cam perspective! CM may very well be a computer game that he would actually be interested in. However, he also prefers the tactile sensations offered by boardgames - i.e. handling the counters, rolling the dice, etc. - as well as the face-to-face social interaction; things that computer games have a hard time replacing. But, IMO, CM is SO revolutionary, it may bridge the gap for him. (He may also still be system-challenged - using a 486 or something - I'll have to check) OK, I've perused this board a bit and found some of the hot-button issues. Nevertheless, I thought I'd weigh in with some of my opinions, preferences, and some anecdotes from my game so far, but I sure hope I don't open up old sore spots. (any other newbies, PLEASE take time to search the board for some of these topics before immediately replying - some of these issues have become rather sensitive, and it may surprise you which ones). (sorry... this got kinda long. It turned out that there was just sooo much I wanted to relate, and I'm kinda long-winded anyway ) Fog-of-war (FOW): VERY nicely done, IMO. Don't change a thing, except perhaps to make it even "foggier"!! I've had several engagements at longer ranges - say >100 meters - where the enemy never appeared as anything beyond "Infantry squad?", with the three-man depiction. Nevertheless, I could hear the dreadful "ripping canvas" of the MG42, but I could also see them duck as I started to pour on whithering fire, and then they seemed to withdraw. I am reminded of various battle accounts I've read in books, as well as scenes in some of the better war movies. In particular, I recall a city-fighting scene from Full Metal Jacket, in which much of an entire floor of a building erupts in muzzle flashes - you just aren't gonna get much more than that as information to act upon, and CM handles it pretty darn well, IMHO. In fact, in my first encounters with anti-infantry fire, the ONLY information I got, was the SOUND of an MG42. Very cool. (and actually, I sorta "cheated", by replaying the turn over and over while roaming the camera around trying to figure out where the sound was coming from! ) In a turn 1 encounter of my Riesburg game, a Sherman came under immediate from an AT gun clear across the other side of the map. Fortunately, two shells bounced of the front armor (I'm guessing it was a 50mm PaK 38 or lesser gun?), the Sheman engaged with it's main gun and MGs. I also watched the action from the enemy's perspective and could see the gun crew go to ground occasionally. Even that much information may be too much to ask in reality, but since I don't really have the experience or knowledge to know how much effectiveness to realistically expect (or perhaps more importantly - what the GAME considers effective), it was welcome feedback - not too much, but not too little, and still available _if you look for it_ (as the tank commander would surely have to do, peering through his binoculars from his hatch, praying the next shell doesn't have his name on it). Deciding that engaging an unknown AT gun in a dual without adequate preparation was probably not a good idea (even if two shells had already "bounced"), I ran the tank to safety and called the 105s. My FOs LOS to the target was obscured by some tall trees or something, but it didn't look too bad from the trench-cam, so I applied an ASL principle and assumed he would at least be able to see the blast height of spotting rounds and still be able to adjust the fire. It seemd to work - in short order, a "destroyed" marker appeared. Those labels can provide some useful information regarding status, but in this case, I'm not sure if I really would be "entitled" to that information? And in a later case, a "destroyed" marker appeared, when ALL I "saw" was an "Infantry?" unit. Not even "Gun?" Especially in this case, I think the "destroyed" marker was too much information. (I still haven't reached the "invisible" gun's location yet to see if I ever find out what it was) So far, I seem to be getting pretty lucky taking out these AT guns! But I've also been trying to apply sound tactics - cautious movement, lots of overwatch, covering an area form multiple angles. It seems to work VERY nicely in CM, and the 3D terrain even makes it mandatory - much more so than any other game - I like it! OK, that's quite enough about FOW. Suffice it to say, it's gooood, IMHO. Targeting: Yeah, I have occasionally had units "ignore" my targetting orders, but in most case it hasn't had to severe an impact. And in at least one case in particular, it was a good thing - a Sherman refused to obey instructions to target what seemed to be a fairly significant concentration of infantry, chosing instead to target a single-man "Infantry?" marker. When I looked at the replay and examined the situation, I noticed that the single-man was depicted with a Panzershreck! The tanker had a durn good reason to change targets, especially since he had just pulled up next to the abandoned hulk of one of his brothers that had been less fortunate with a similar encounter. IMHO, one of the posters put it best when he said if your position is such that it is absolutely necessary for one particular unit to make a less than optimal shot to try to save another unit's arse, you are probably in a poor position. Overwatch from multiple angles is mandatory for an adequate defense, and CM shows this VERY well, IMHO. If your defensive plans require coverage of a specific area, better make use of the well-implemented "ambush" features to help the unit focus on his required duties (and read the docs - there is more than one way to set up an adhoc "ambush" without requiring a leader and an ambush counter). In another example from my game - on my right flank, some German units in and around the objective building on that side of town were inhibiting my move from the gully into town. I ordered my Sherman on the road to target some of them, but he seemed to prefer engaging various other units further down the road on the other side of town. OK, then... I had just relocated my FO to a good spot near the road, and used him to call in some 105 on the offending units. Three buildings flattened - problem solved (or so it seems... ). Never hurts to have backups... Furthermore, one important aspect that a tactical game must attempt to simulate is the pure CHAOS of battle. In terms of realism, it's FAR too much to expect a company commander to be able to specifically designate targets, instantly reroute units, etc. within a one minute time frame! (OTOH I consider the player's perspective is more of a hybrid of company CO and platoon leader; and besides, the game wouldn't be nearly as much fun otherwise! ). But if a unit doesn't obey orders exactly, I just chalk it up to the "chaos factor", or perhaps he just didn't receive your instructions, misinterpreted them, or was unaware that his support of another unit was desparately needed. Graphics: Kinda hard to judge vs. any sort of "state of the art" isn't it - since there aren't ANY other _fully_ 3D wargames out there? (certainly not any that I know of on the Mac side). It does sort of remind me of a VERY souped-up "miniatures" wargame, but from my perspective as a board wargamer as well, that is not necessarily a bad thing! And there are some nice touches - the first time I orchestrated a close assault, I noticed one of the soldiers lobbing a grenade as he charged. Liked it! OTOH, I also used the trench-cam view to check things out from the perspective of one of my most forward squads, located in some woods on the lip of a depression. A rather impressive viewpoint, with tracers wizzing overhead in all directions and the very loud clamor of battle all around! However, considering the large quantities of high-caliber death and destruction screaming by overhead, the soldiers seemed amazingly composed in their erect kneeling posture, calmly firing at barely seen targets! Be they green, regular, or veteran, it seemed to me that a more appropriate depiction would be of someone hugging the best cover they could find, occasionally popping up to squeeze off a few rounds, and then ducking again! And no, I'm not at all saying this is something that needs to be changed - I just thought it was kind of an amusing discontinuity! Another kinda picky detail - I noticed a Sherman firing at a target, and then quickly rotating his turret. The muzzle flash animation tracked around with the turret! Kinda goofy looking. There is one thing that is graphically unappealing to me, tho, that I hope gets some improvement in the final version - and that's the smoke. Yes, I read the smoke threads, and having thought about, I can understand the difficulty (I'm certainly no expert, but I think I have a reasonable understanding of how 3D graphics hardware works conceptually). The billboarding works just fine for the trees - they look VERY nice, even if they do "rotate". Smoke, OTOH, has a rather ugly "blocky" appearance, even from a moderate distance. I suppose this is to save texture memory - dunno if it's also much of a speed issue with 3D hardware, but I can imagine it is with software rendering. I also think giving it a little transparency would help too - is this difficult with 3D hardware? If it is at all possible and can be done without a lot of trouble, I would very much like to see options for higher resolution textures and/or transparency effects for those with graphics hardware that support them. Also, in the overhead views, the "billboard" trees change to a proper depiction as seen from overhead. Could the same thing be done with smoke? Currently, the edge-on billboard smoke looks really odd. Perhaps it was determined that it would obscure too much of what's underneath it. Well, there's always "shift-I" to turn it off. It would also give you a better idea of the extent of coverage. A final idea on smoke: another depiction I've seen used in some games (can't remember which off-hand) is a series of translucent "bubbles" (spheres), that float upward, expanding as they go. Not a bunch of little bubbles, but a single "column" of large bubbles, perhaps overlapping somewhat. It's not really a "photo-realistic" depiction, but I think it would convey the right idea, in perhaps a more visual appealing way, which is all that's really needed, IMHO. It seems to me that, especially with hardware acceleration, this wouldn't add too many additional objects (assuming 3D harware supports "spheres"?), and theoretically wouldn't have too much of an impact on performance? (again, I'm no expert on 3D graphics, so maybe I'm full of it! ) Sorry to go on so long about smoke, but I like to play the Yanks, and so I use LOTS of it! In my first game, I was pleased with the graphics - until I had the 105s drop smoke on the church! It was kinda dismayed - it was sort of an eyesore, IMHO, and arty smoke seems to hang around a LOOONG time! (I also noticed that it seemed to scatter _all_ over the place, although there is also a pretty good concentration around the church. I wasn't sure if smoke rounds specifically were modelled with a LOT of additional scatter, or what, but I understand from other threads that this being looked into). Phew! It feels good to get all this out in text! I apologize for the length, but as I've played CM and come to like it more and more and MORE, I just had ta get it out! I hope at least some of it is interesting reading for somone. Can ya tell I LIKE this game?!?! CM is THE coolest implementation of a tactical wargame I've seen yet. Congrats to Mr. Moylan, BF.C and everyone else who is bringing this vision to reality. And I'm doubly glad it's BTS that's doing it, since that means a Mac version too! OK, enough writing... time to get back to the task of clearing out that town. So far, I've been applying what I know of real-world tactics, and it seems to work out VERY nicely. Maybe next time around I'll try some crazy stuff, and see how badly I get punished! Mark P.S. Very nice site, BF.C. I especially like your mission and Manifesto!! A pre-order is on the way - and this will be the first time I've EVER pre-ordered anything, so that's gotta say something! [This message has been edited by Mark L (edited 11-07-99).] [This message has been edited by Mark L (edited 11-07-99).]