Wolfe

Be sure to check out the mdmp1 sound mods. - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Soddball: There was a hint in a post I made<hr></blockquote> A hint? You ain't kidding. Would someone care to translate "Hmmmm...." from Madmatt-ese into English? Much obliged. BTW, what Pvt. Ryan said is correct; the only thing that's "wrong" with the ID is the unknown vehicle is shown as a HT rather than a truck or jeep model. The sound and text ID (Truck?) are correct. So it may not take much to fix. And about top hits on vehicles: Hull Down - is it worth it? - Chris

I agree with Gordon; I really don't think the distinction between CMBO and CMBB really needs to be a part of the zip file title. Certainly webmasters, but also us mod sluts, will keep them in separate directories. But the one thing I think is most important is for folks to put their name on their work (in the title). And to have it listed first. That makes it easy to find a mod by a particular author on your computer. And if you can't remember who did a particular PzIV mod, there will likely be a list of mods similar to the one currently on Manx's site where you can look up the filename. BTW, did Slapdragon finish his revamping of the Mods list? I'd like to modify Gordon's naming suggestion a bit. How about: GEM_wM4CamoFF_1of4_2-0_C_lr.zip That's exactly 31 characters, and I believe covers everything that may be included. Author's name, season/description, part of a pack, version, CMMOS, res. This reads better to me. In this example there are only 8 letters for the description (assuming the author's name is only 3 letters), but this is the worst case where everything is needed (pack number, version, CMMOS). These things wouldn't always be needed. A few examples: GEM_sFieldDrabPriest_C_hr.zip Magua_sM3M4AlliedHT_2-0_hr.zip OldDog_sSubduedVelvet_lr.zip GunGoz_sSpeckledGrass_hr.zip Galambos_wPantherA_2-0_lr.zip I tried to use capitalization to make it more readable. You don't always need the version number if it hasn't been modified from its original form. And there aren't any spaces and only one period in the filename, thank you very much. I don't think you need to formally create abbreviations for the mod authors (particularly their names); they'll do that on their own. Of course not everyone is going to follow this 'standard'. Seems we have a bunch of anarchists running around. But the one thing I hope folks will take care to add is their name and the name of the mod. Those two are really indispensable. Thanks. - Chris [ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]</p>

Foo, the Gamespot interview describes it well. - Chris

Why soitenly. Hope this cut-n-paste works. Steve gives an update on CMBB status and succinctly describes the Rarity system: CMBB Project Status Rarity System? Madmatt hints at and teases (tortures?) us about possible CMBB features: CMBB: Passengers and the User Interface Fewer radios in CMBB - what about pre-battle plans? Why don't the Germans get rifle grenades? Bone Thrown ... What I would like to see in CMBB CMBB: Y2K for BTS? Maddog Packs East - Q for Madmatt and Kwazydog and team Soviet Anti-Tank Rifles (PTFs) in CMBB Knowing a Tank is Dead Hey! CMBB Playtesters! Arrrgh! BTS Please consider changing this! Expanding the Definition of Medium troop quality in future CM's Another artillery idea for CMBB Ground Support Aircraft Tanks targeting infantry when hunting ... fixed in CMBB? CMBB Features Random Turn number in CMBB or not? And even SuperTed gets in on the act! Tank Platoons? - Chris

Just to add in a few recent tidbits. Steve gives an update on CMBB status and succinctly describes the Rarity system: CMBB Project Status Rarity System? Madmatt hints and teases (tortures?) us about possible CMBB features: CMBB: Passengers and the User Interface Fewer radios in CMBB - what about pre-battle plans? Why don't the Germans get rifle grenades? Bone Thrown ... What I would like to see in CMBB CMBB: Y2K for BTS? Maddog Packs East - Q for Madmatt and Kwazydog and team Soviet Anti-Tank Rifles (PTFs) in CMBB Knowing a Tank is Dead Hey! CMBB Playtesters! Arrrgh! BTS Please consider changing this! Expanding the Definition of Medium troop quality in future CM's Another artillery idea for CMBB Ground Support Aircraft Tanks targeting infantry when hunting ... fixed in CMBB? CMBB Features Random Turn number in CMBB or not? And even SuperTed gets in on the act! Tank Platoons? - Chris [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]</p>

I don't do mods (no talent), but that's really cool. Probably woulda been very handy for those poor souls who took on doing the various infantry guns with all their undefined bits and pieces. I didn't realize the gun barrel textures were stretched so much. If you make the texture BMP wider (but not taller) will the game force it to fit better (without stretching) or just truncate the BMP? It also raises the question of why BTS chose to use one texture slot (4020 Axis, 4023 Allied) for both tracks and treads on HTs (it couldn't really save that much VRAM, could it?). Hopefully that will change for CMBB. - Chris [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jagdwyrm: AFAIK you cant dig foxholes in rough, if I am remembering correctly. Not sure about bocage. I have a question myself. Usually I put units I want to have cover in open ground just behind a wall, not "in" said wall. Anyone know if this makes a difference?<hr></blockquote> No foxholes for rough or marsh. Foxholes in bocage are ok, but add nothing to your exposure rating. And you definitely want to be behind, not on top of the following terrain features. When behind bocage, it's 22% exposure. On top of: 56%. Wall: 30% behind, 95% on top. Hedge: 60% behind, 75% on top. I don't know that the very handy exposure tables are still over on CMHQ; I can't find it even on the ftp server. Manx may have to add it back in. BTW, never get caught moving through bocage and come under fire. Your units will take a real beating and they can't go anywhere very fast to get away from the incoming fire. Nasty stuff. - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Does anybody know if the mods for the German units in CM will be able to be applied for CMBB? That would save the modders some work.<hr></blockquote> Matt and Dan have said the Panther and StuG models have been re-done (maybe Panzer IV too?), so the current mods won't fit correctly on the new 3D model. I'd imagine most of the terrain should be OK (still a 20mx20m square) although Matt did hint of some changes WRT the wheat fields. The existing buildings and infantry units probably haven't changed shape, though some of the curretly un-moddable parts will be moddable. No word on any changes to the German heavy armor yet, AFAIK. - Chris

Straight from da horses' mouth: Will there be this type of scenario? I really do hope BTS decides to do the engine re-write for CM3, and not after. In an otherwise great engine, relative spotting is *sorely* missing from the game. - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: The Turan looks alot like the Pz 35(t) and 38(t) series. And those were obsolete by the end of '41.<hr></blockquote> Good eye. They were based on the 35t chassis. There's a page on Achtung Panzer that discusses these vehicles and some interesting Romanian ones as well. - Chris

BTS' previous comments on covered arcs: Question: Why does the ambush have a limited range? An MG study: is there a problem here? An open debate on gamey tactics I don't think that the presence of fire lanes per se increases ROF or target switching in CMBB, but many changes of how MGs work look to be in CMBB. I'd imagine that the game would still target individual units and the quickly retarget rather than continuously spray from one end of the arc to the other. After all the "individual" units actually represent a group of men being sprayed. But of course I really don't know. - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by sturmtiger101: Afraid there's no such beast as a Panther mounting an '88'.<hr></blockquote> JagdPanther. Sorry, couldn't resist. - Chris

As Gustav said, the Super Persh made it in because the model was essentially done for it (same as Persh, but with a longer gun), and they only needed to change the stats on the tank. Basically, it was done because it was easy to do. BTS has said that prototypes like the Panther II, Panther F, etc. won't be in CMBB. The Maus was too rare and the IS3 may or may not make it in. But somehow I don't think that CMBB will be suffering from a lack of AFVs. - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Moon: There is way more in woods than just trees that obscure, and not necessarily block the line of sight. A partially obscured target is much more difficult to hit, not the least because it's harder to observe fall of shot. Obviously we can always argue about percentages, but overall I don't see a problem.<hr></blockquote> A good point about fall of shot. And I wouldn't be able to argue about what would be a more "proper" percentage. Though that is what it mostly comes down to. But what I am trying to get at is if a gunner can see a target (even partially) he has a pretty good chance of hitting it. The leaves and undergrowth can certainly hide a target, but then he wouldn't be able to fire at it at all. I see it as more of a binary choice. Either the target is visible or it isn't. He can shoot at it or not. If parts of the forest are able to obscure the target enough to induce that much of an accuracy penalty, he probably wouldn't be able to fire at the target in the first place. Also, because the gunner is the one sitting in the woods he should have a pretty good idea of his surroundings: whether he can sneak his shell between the pine and oak trees, under the branches, and over the shrubs. If there's a tree in the way or a low hanging branch, he wouldn't be able to fire at all. It wouldn't be so much a question of accuracy, but of basic targeting. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Why yikes? If you're standing in the open in the middle of a nice grass field or if you're half a meter into a treeline makes a HUGE difference.<hr></blockquote> For concealment I agree, but for cover I don't. Even with -say- a fallen log in front of the gun, it still has to be fairly exposed to be able to fire out. Infantry just inside a treeline can have both good concealment and cover. That I can see, but a gun (particularly one that isn't dug-in) on the edge of a treeline wouldn't have nearly as good cover, IMO. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Because there is only so much you can minimize exposure, no matter how deep you are. The AT Gun still has LOS to the target, right, so it has to be exposed in a way, and the effect of being 5 meters into the woods or 10 doesn't degrade exposure in a linear fashion.<hr></blockquote> That certainly makes sense, but what I'm getting at is what Richard Cuccia summarized better than I did: the rewards of being deeper into woods for better cover and concealment are not only very small, but are all but nullified by a significant loss in accuracy. The only benefit to being deeper is it takes longer to be spotted. Which is certainly a good thing, but all the extra trees, logs, underbrush, limbs, leaves, etc. between the gun and the enemy tank don't add much to your cover over that of a gun on the edge of the treeline. It doesn't seem to get the benefit of being deep in a forest to me. BTW, I'm not arguing that the gun deep in the woods should be unhittable. IMO the gun on the edge should be more vulnerable (exposed). <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Yes, a wall which obscures a little more than half of the targte. Since walls in CM are supposed to be about 1 meter in height, that makes sense, no?<hr></blockquote> Ok, that I understand. The unit is essentially "hull down" (though not really) and anything extra below/behind the wall isn't going to help any with cover. No problem. Thanks, Martin. - Chris

A few simple questions. Q1) Why are guns that sit far back in a wooded area so inaccurate? When you're targeting a tank from the woods either you can see the tank and lay the gun on it or you can't because there's something (e.g. a tree) in the way. But in CM putting a gun deep into the woods imparts a particularly harsh accuracy penalty. Here's a pic: http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/ATgun_accuracy.jpg The gun on the left sits *just* on the edge of the woods and is given a 49% chance of hitting its target on the first shot. The middle gun sitting far back in the woods has a 17% chance and the gun on the right sitting outside the woods is given a 52% chance of a hit. I don't understand why there is such a large difference between the two guns sitting in the woods. What is this supposed to represent for the gun deep in the woods? Leaves or low hanging limbs which somehow affect accuracy? :confused: I can understand why a wooded area, with its underbrush, limbs and leaves would greatly affect someone shooting *into* the woods, but I don't see how it would have such a significant impact on accuracy when shooting out of the woods. Q2) Another question is why does a gun sitting *just* inside the tree line get such a large benefit in terms of how much it is exposed to enemy fire. The gun on the left shows a 17% exposure. The middle gun a 13% exposure. And the gun on the right (not in the woods) a 75% exposure. Yikes! That's a pretty significant jump just for being a half a meter out of the wood line. Should a gun really get that much benefit just for sitting on the edge of a treeline? None of the guns are sitting in foxholes, either. And if it is correct, why does the middle gun sitting far back in the woods get so little additional benefit (13% vs. 17%) from being much deeper in the woods? Q3) I thought that terrain features were supposed to be cumulative, but stone walls don't seem to be. Put a wall in front of the left and right guns and the left gun stays at 17% exposure (gets no additional benefit from the wall) while the fully exposed gun goes down to 30% (nice wall ). Also, when the guns are behind a wall and defending (therefore dug-in in foxholes), both the guns sitting in the woods get some extra benefit from the foxhole (down to 14% and 11%, respectively). While the gun on the right gets no additional benefit from the foxhole and stays at 30% because of the wall. Without the wall the gun on the right goes down to 45% exposure with a foxhole. The game seems to give the units the best (lowest) of the available exposure choices, but they aren't necessarily cumulative. Just some things to think about for CMBB. - Chris

Would be neat to see the shell fired directly at the vehicle (like a PIAT) in these circumstances instead of lofted into the air. BTS, please fix or do somefink! - Chris

Congrats, Manx! Glad to hear it. But is this a promotion or demotion? Going from being your own boss and master of your domain -erm- website to one of Madmatt's slaves. Hmmm. Tough call. - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: BTW: the 57mm ZIS-2 was actually 57L63.5 http://history.vif2.ru/guns/atg_4.html <hr></blockquote> According to that website the 57mm ZiS-2 was L/73 (erm L/72.9) for both M1941 and M1943 versions. The L/63.5 version was never introduced. BTW, does anyone know where the Guns vs Armor site went? It disappeared when Wargamer.org vanished, but I was hoping it would turn up someplace else. - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: You've seen too much Band of Brothers <hr></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The .50cal could be shot from the commander's open hatch. And still is today.<hr></blockquote> Glancing through Crismon's US Tracked Vehicles and Chamberlain's Brit and Ami Tanks, the .50cal looks like it's mounted *very* far back on some of the models. The M4A1(76)w (pg. 95 Crismon), M4A3(76)w (pg. 99 Crismon) and M4A3(76)w Easy Eight (pg. 119 Chamberlain) in particular. Sorry, no scanner. Edit: Ahh. Ok, I get it. The pintle itself was mounted on a ring that could be spun so the .50cal was in front of the hatch. Nevermind. - Chris [ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]</p>

But should the flex .50cal on -say- Shermans be routinely available for ground combat in the first place? I thought it could only be used for AA defense unless one of the crew got out to fire it while standing on the back deck? Maybe it should only be available if there is someone riding on the tank (depending on the mounting location on each vehicle)? How much extra ammo for the flex is carried in the tank, BTW? - Chris

Ok then. Fine. Be that way. Maybe a different site will have them available. Templin Tech - Chris

Mo' BETA drivers. Dunno if they help or not. Overclockercafe - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lord General MB: Gunslingers JT is a nice peace of art too<hr></blockquote> Eh? Thought it was a straight adaptation of the KT mod from MDMP2. Unless GS did a KT mod other than his subdued set? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>and It's hand made, not coppied and fitted. <hr></blockquote> If making good mods were that easy *I'd* do it. But unfortunately I have no talent. Edit: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Gordon wrote: Ah, sorry there Mr Bill. IIRC, Gunslinger's JT is just a color-adjusted version of MDMP-2's JT<hr></blockquote> Beaten to the punch. - Chris [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]</p>

Some reviews of the reviewers: Anand Sucks... Tom Sucks... Who Doesn't How Trustworthy is Tom of Tom's Hardware? Lots of links to reviews on products: Review Finder To really get a feel for a piece of hardware, read what an owner who uses the thing everyday has to say. They'll give you the best feel for a product. Read (search) through some usenet groups as well as BBS boards (like Ars' Forums) for end-user suggestions. - Chris