TeAcH

Though I'm all about this topic (hehehe) I don't like the idea posed by Michael Emry as much as I do my own, at the risk of sounding pompous (and I really don't mean to sound that way). First off, I think neither the percentages of occurrence nor the amount of the turn modifier is high enough to have an impact (although + - 3 or above is getting there). Furthermore, if it is an option that the players and scenario designers have at their disposal, it allows everyone or no one to use it. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-14-2001).]

Thanks BTS. I certainly understand there comes a time when you move on to the sequel and don't put anymore time into the first game. I see that now. I haven't been visiting the forum too much lately so I wasn't aware that that had been announced, but it makes sense. Therefore, I thought this would be a "quick" fix to prolong the playability of CM1 while we all wait for CM2. I would like to say however, that CM1's theater of operations (the hedgerows, the US, the Brits, etc.) appeals to alot of people on its own so much so that they will likely play and mod it after CM2 (Eastern front) is released. Therefore, if you are ever stranded in a winter cabin somewhere with your laptop loaded with CM1 with you and all your CM2 data is elsewhere, maybe then you could find the time to pass the hours by coding a turn count modifier. Thanks for a wonderful game, TeAcH

I have the TBird 900, Win 2k, DX8, Geforce GTS 2, 512MB, and use FSAA 1.2. My game is smooth. Id say make sure you have the latest drivers from NVidia (I use 6.34) and try turning down or off the FSAA (Full Screen Anti-Aliasing). TeAcH

That's true. Thanks Rex. I'll edit that part out. TeAcH

Thanks citizen! The only thing Id like to add again is that I would like to see it as an option like the TCPIP timer. Those that want it, use it and have control over it's impact. Those that don't, ignore it. TeAcH

I was playing an operation called Task Force Rose tonight in a TCPIP match. At the end of the first battle of three total, I had pushed my opponent's German forces back beyond the middle of the map. At the conclusion, all he had in my territory was a Puma that was cornered and surrounded deep in my territory. I had troops not only around it, but all over his half of the field. When the next battle started, my redeployment zone was pushed way way back to the first 1/4 of my side. Now, if that wasn't bad enough, unknown to me at the time, my opponent was granted a small redeployment box deep in my territory where his lone Puma had been at the end of that battle. To make matters worse, the game allows him to put his reinforcements there as if they had been dropped in by helicopter. When the next battle starts, I know face two Panther VGs in my face on my side. How is this possible? Shouldn't you be able to not only keep more ground during a break in the game, but shouldn't the game also allow only the trapped unit (i.e.the Puma in this case) to be jockeyed around within that box while it can't be removed nor any additional units added to that area? The end result was a rude awakening when Panthers began to chew up my column. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-14-2001).]

I like it, but with it as an option, those that dont like it dont have to use it, like the timer in TCPIP games. TeAcH

Thanks Joe. I like the idea too (hehe). If it were enabled, you could pick 1-2 turns and I could pick 10 if I wanted too. Who knows, I might use 5 as me and my opponent see fit. Also, if we all took the stance that nothing will change, then what's the point? We arent here to talk about our battlefield exploits Who knows, maybe this never gets implemented in CM1...maybe it does. Perhaps you are right. I still like the discussion on the idea though and I hope it continues. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-13-2001).]

Well, I agree it isnt always gamey, it just gets predictable. Even if that werent the case, it just seems more realistic to me to have a random ending. Also, for those that dont want to use "10" as a max, consider this: just tell your opponent "lets not use "10", let's use "2", OR, you select 45 turns +/- 10 so you get at least a 35 turn game. A modifier of 10 turns might only be desired if you are playing a VERY long game or maybe you want to try something new in a short scenario; a mission that is basically "____ could happen at any moment". Therefore you pick a 25 turn game and use a 10 turn modifier. Also, when in an operation it might have an effect on when those reinforcements arrive instead of the old "They will be here on turn 35.". For those that wanted a 1-2 turn modifier, pick it. For those that wanted a 10 turn variable, they have that option. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-14-2001).]

Thanks gang. Well, Im not saying that it would HAVE to be 10 turns, I was saying you could select any number of "modifying/random" turns from 1-10. 10 was just the max as I thought any number higher than that was too much. Again, this would be an option on for those who want it. It's exactly like the timed TCPIP turn limits is arranged in v1.1. Also, I feel the effect has to be + and -. The location of the exact last turn needs to be "random" not at 35 (for example) and beyond. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-13-2001).]

I have been around this forum and a fan of CMBO since the beta demo as probably most of you are too and as such have played CM many, many times. One thing that seems to becoming somewhat common is a tactic that I feel is somewhat gamey, that is a tactic which is unrealistic in its design and one that I feel detracts from this game. How many times have you or your opponent waited until the last few turns of a match then charged the flag positions with everything you have? Your hope is that when the game ends, and you know precisely when it will end, that you will have either sent enough troops to cause the flag's point to be undecided or wrest it from your opponent at the very last possible second. Now, my opinion is that this isn't at all realistic and I propose this seemingly simple fix. During the turn limit selection phase when setting up a scenario or quick battle, there could be another option under the setting for game turns that allows the game to end at the specified turn OR it to end plus or minus another set of turns (perhaps a max modifier of fifteen turns). Therefore when, lets say you are playing a 35 turn game with a turn modifier of +/-10, then it COULD end on turn 25 or 45. This way no more rushes of troops that can't sustain and would surely be decimated if another turn or so existed. In war, I would imagine that some orders indicated: "We need that bridge captured at noon by the time X happens" as opposed to "We need that bridge captured at precisely 12:01 and 35 seconds." This makes the ending more randon and less expected and abused. With this being programmed as an option, those that didn't want to use wouldn't have to while those that did would have some flexibility. TeAcH

Dittohead?

So the Ostwind began to move on its own during the turn? Or, did you give it orders to move out of the arty barraged area and it changed direction? Thanks TeAcH

Has anyone ever witnessed one of your own vehicles take evasive action when shells (81mm and above) rain down on its position? I was playing last night when my opponent began to shell one of my King Tigers with 105mm, then in another game, my Greyhound with 81mm. In both cases, neither vehicle moved away from the area under attack. In fact, they did not move at all. Seems to me that common logic would suggest that soldiers in a tank, or more so in an open-topped AFV would (pardon the expression) put the pedal to the metal and reverse out of that location when shells rained down on them. Thanks TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-08-2001).]

I vote FOR a Move To Contact option or some other like implementation. DAVID A, leave us alone. You dont have to code it, now do you? Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and open your eyes to the truth. Simply put, YOU ARE WRONG. You were wrong before when you and I had a disagreement over the continuous firing at rubble after a house collapsed bug and you lost. BTS decided it needed a tweak. Nite TeAcH

I agree with TeAch. Teamsound has better sound than RW and I haven't had any problems since we started using it. Give it a try its free.

I use win2k and get the transparent white text only when FSAA is off. Even when FSAA is forced on at 1x2, I get no graphical problems. I use the ELSA Gladiac and the 6.34 drivers. TeAcH

Using Teamsound here during Combat Mission and DX8. No probs.

Hmm, just a guess here but was it Computer Ambush from SSI? I used to play that one alot back in the day (Apple 2+). I dont know if they made a C64 version though. TeAcH

bump to Madmatt

I notice what you mean. I have a TBird 900, an Elsa Gladiac GForce 2 GTS, and Win 2k with over 400 MB RAM. When Forced FSAA is turned on, I noticed the CM gets sporadically jerky at times. It'll be real smooth then stutter for a moment. I also have DX8 and 6.31 drivers. Another thing is that I noticed the flashing transparent text found by Win2k users disappears when FSAA is forced but reappears when FSAA is set to off. When I turn FSAA off, the game runs without any momentary stuttering. BTW, I run in 1024x768 TeAcH

Bravo!

I have the Elsa Gladiac GeForce 2 card and use DX7a, Win2k, and the latest Nvidia ref drivers (6.34?) No problems here. TeAcH

Here's my example of someone (Simon Fox) being rude for no reason whatsoever. I use this example to plead an end to the flaming. Its a short discussion: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010941.html Thanks

Ive got the XD Panther sitting atop my monitor right now. Sweet. Gotta get the Sherman next. TeAcH ------------------ "Ah-ah, I know what you're thinking. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5"