ianc

Beer.

Well, here's one I started on, but it's by no means complete or authoritative. Might help a little anyway. Remember that a '1' in front of the filename denotes a winter texture: 3030 - King Tiger 3100 - Mk.IV H 3110 - Jagdpanther 3200 - Pz. R35 (f) 3210 - Hetzer 3220 - Sherman 76 3230 - Panther G (late) 3240 - Puma 3250 - Sdkfz 251/1 3260 - Cromwell 3270 - Stug. III (skirts) 3280 - US truck 3290 - Sherman 75 3300 - Jeep 3310 - Priest? 3320 - PzSpw 222? 3330 - Another Sherman 75 3340 - Jagdtiger 3350 - M8 Armored car 3360 - M10 or M36 3370 - Hummel 3380 - Stug. IV 3390 - Tiger I (late) 3400 - Allied Generic halftrack 3410 - Hellcat 3430 - US Halftrack 3450 - Churchill 3460 - Crocodile? 3470 - Nashorn pieces for Hummel? 3480 - Chaffee? 3500 - Luchs 3520 - SdKfg 250 3540 - Kangaroo? 3560 - M5A1 Stuart 3580 - Pershing 3600 - M3 Stuart 3620 - US Halftrack 3680 - Bren Carrier 3700 - Humber? 3720 - Wespe 3790 - Kubel 3800 - PAK 40? 3840 - M36 3870 - Flak vehicle? 3890 - Firefly? 3900 - SdkFg - 251/something 4100 - Archer 4110 - Wirbelwind? 4310 - Another Cromwell 4340 - Panther A 4350 - Panther G 4460 - Another Cromwell 4550 - Aother Sherman ianc

Ack! Now it would appear I've got to choose between Kwazydog's and Tiger's Tigers! What to do, what to do? ianc

Hi Madmatt, I know you included all the mods, but actually I was thinking more on the lines of something like this: 13390-13398.bmp - Winter Tiger I 13430-13437.bmp - Winter M3 HT 14330-14334.bmp - More winter M3 14480.bmp - More winter M3? 15015-15019.bmp - Winter Uniform 15021-15061.bmp - More uniforms? 3100-3109.bmp - Ambush Mk. IV 3270-3279.bmp - Stug. III G\H 3340-3346.bmp - Jagdtiger 3390-3398.bmp - Tiger I (Kwazydog Hi-Res) 4570-4573.bmp - Maybe more Mk IV? 4600-4601.bmp - More Stug III? 536.bmp - Tree 800-819.bmp - Winter grass, ungridded 850-855.bmp - Partial winter grass? Thanks again for pulling this together! ianc

Madmatt, Thanks for posting MDMP-2 and for taking the time to enrich the CM community! I have one small suggestion, if I may: With so many glorious user mods now available, a very helpful feature to include in such a large offering as this might be a list of files and the actual vehicles\features they represent. eg. I just downloaded Tiger's great hi-res Tiger I yesterday and haven't even seen it yet, but now I run the risk of overwriting it with Kwazydog's fabulous version! Just a suggestion if you have time in future. Thanks again for taking the time out of your day to make this a better game for all! Take care, ianc

Can't remember back that far. Of course that may have something to do with my incipient senility rather than my saltiness... ianc

Why the hell not? ianc@buzzsaw.com

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>hmmmmm... we've got random face textures, why not random vehicle textures?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a very interesting question. I think a great addition would be a kind of randomizer that would select different texture sets for the same vehicle. This would require a different naming convention than CM1 has however. I'm sure Steve would pull his hair out at the prospect of creating more than one texture set for a particular vehicle, but if this hook were built into the code, it would allow for great graphic variability with user-made mods. Maybe something to think about for CM2? Like they haven't got enough already... ianc

I like Oberst Anghase's suggestion. Large 12 man squads would look better with 4 guys, and the HMG teams look a little odd with only one guy. Given that this would cause a graphics hit, it should toggleable of course... ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What is it about alcohol that makes one have to post he's drunk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The same thing that makes you call old girlfriends and get all maudlin at 2:00 AM when you're drunk! ianc

Tiger Tiger Tiger, Your latest efforts at this are really looking fantastic, and you keep posting 'em. The one question you never answer is: how the hell do we get them? Or are you just tantalizing everyone here for the fun of it? C'mon man, give over! Do we need to bombard you with email or what? Share the wealth! ianc

Ha! I wondered where you'd gotten to, Capt. Just so busy blowing stuff up you haven't had time to chime in lately? Nice to know you're still around! ianc

GIVE OVER ALREADY! You've gotta be nearly done with that thing by now! Must have... ianc

I agree as well. While I admit that Fionn is a knowledgeable fellow with some good historical insights, I have been finding his contributions to the board increasingly haughty, arrogant and intolerant lately. I've seen many posts where Fionn could have responded in a kindly guiding manner, and indeed, as a senior member it was his responsibility to do so. Instead he allowed the discussion to degenerate from the theoretical to the personal, and I was sorely tempted to rebuke him for this myself on occasion. Fionn has been involved in the development and test of CM in a quasi-official capacity for some time. His recent posts have been such that if I were Steve or Charles, I would not want this fact advertised however. Here's to keeping it calmer and more enjoyable for all, ianc

Aha! I'm on a one-man crusade here! I love it! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No. I mean, not absolutely. There are pictures of german tank crews sporting Panzervernichtungsabzeichen. That fact alone should answer your question, and question your answer/POV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I'm quite sure this was the case, and also well within the bounds of realistic possibility. Is it possible in the abstracted realm of the game? No, no, and no. I would like to see those scans for my own entertainment though! ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are brittle ( ! ) and they are nearly blind, I think they can only see 25 -50 meters so what use are they in "gamey " play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is quite true Tom, but I think this discussion hinges not on the intrinsic combat capabilities of crews, but rather their effet on other units in the game, chiefly tanks. Hey Henri, how about a little backup here? ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But Ian, what you're proposing *is* altering behavior<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not alteration, but elimination. Of a specific 'feature' that is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why are surviving crew members not valid targets?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well Dale me lad, in fact they ARE valid targets, in the same way that a tin can on a fence post is a valid target when there's a gorilla charging at you. Once (if) you've killed the gorilla, there just doesn't seem to be much point in plinking that tin can anymore... If you'll allow me a rather ill-conceived analogy; say Steve and Charles decided to simulate lint in the soldier's pockets. Hurrah for realism, because in fact there actually was plenty of lint in pockets. The question is, what does this actually buy us in terms of gameplay? ianc

OK, some fair enough points have been made, but in the spirit of supporting Intelweenie's original proposal, I'll comment on them: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Keep the crews but give them ZERO ammo and ZERO weapons. You bail out from a smoking wreck and you don't have time to grab anything<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite so. But in that case, I ask again, what are they there for except to cause headaches? They serve no useful purpose, and cause some major (and unrealistic) disadvantages. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only viable solution is to remove the crews, tanks, HTs, guns, arty, sharpshooters, schreks, houses<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ummm... yeah... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Historically, crews DID exist after they left their tanks. They should be left in the game, but, they should not be a high target priority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, but since they serve no useful purpose, they are a needless abstraction which in their present form only complicate matters in a sometimes very undesirable way. In designing the game Steve and Charles must have asked themselves this question repeatedly about every bell and whistle. "Should we include Cullen hedgerow cutters? How about Tungsten ammunition?" In those cases they were very correct (IMHO) to include them, since those features do have a very noticeable impact on the game, and the manner in which they are coded is very well implemented and adds to the realism in a demonstrable way. Do crews have these same facets? Presently, I'd have to say no. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Likewise, the enym crews are targets. Legitimate and authenntic targets. It's not as if in reality they would run around with a sign that reads "hey I am a crewmember I am sacrosanct". Try to eliminate or capture the enemy crews.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is also a modicum of absolute truth in this. However, in my experience there are usually two phases to a game. The first phase consists of you trying to muster every fig and whisker of your available firepower to neutralize the enemy's combat capabilities. You will be concentrating your resources on enemy AFV's, crew-served weapons, and infantry. You will not be concentrating your firepower on killing crews, since they don't (or shouldn't) have an appreciable combat value. The second phase of the game is when it's pretty much all over but the shouting for either you or your opponent, in which case killing crews will be like shooting fish in a barrel. Again, what's the point? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You got FOW on. Your tank takes out a halftrack or another tank. The crew bales and heads for cover. Your tank then loses track of that crew. (Tell me, would you concentrate on three guys comming out of a knocked out tank or halftrack and running for the woods while there's other things bigger and badder trying to remove YOU from play?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, but unfortunately that's often the way things work out in the present implementation, which is what's sparked this discussion to begin with. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The next time your tank spots that crew, your tank doesn't know it's an ex-crew from a burned out wreak but maybe a three man zook team or a machine gun team.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, but realistically, your tank should never spot that crew again. Traumatized, deafened, possibly severely wounded or assisting their wounded comrades, and without any means to effectively carry on the fight since they are unable to reman their weapon, they should be beating feet as fast and as far as possible away from live enemy AFV's and infantry. No? Again, unfortunately, crews don't currently display this behaviour because of difficulties in the algorithms which control their retreat. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just because I'm in the minority doesn't mean I'm wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct. But it does mean that more often than not, the way crews are currently implemented is not found satisfactory, hence the purpose of this discussion is to propose means of ameliorating this difficulty in a workable fashion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point is not whether or not crews should be a threat, but rather whether a major recode is the solution when some folks are (in my not-so-humble opinion) maybe missing the 'spirit' of the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But that's just the point of this proposal. I'll admit up front that I know very little of how difficult any of these suggested solutions would be to implement. However, from my uninformed viewpoint, it seems it would be far easier to simply eliminate a particular item from the game rather than attempt to alter, modify or enhance its behaviour in ways that are satisfactory to the majority of players in a majority of situations. As for the 'spirit of the game', to me this means representing those factors which can have a real and valuable effect on deciding the outcome of a particular combat in a believable manner. Granted, in real life, crews could possibly have this effect, but since they're not allowed to reman their weapons, and have no appreciable firepower, why represent them? Their removal can have no adverse effect on the ability to simulate realistic combat and tactics within the game. I don't have any real expectations that crews will be removed from the game because it is, admittedly, a rather radical change, and would probably engender a storm of criticism from disgruntled players who want them, despite their apparent uselessness in the game. I wonder though, if a toggle were introduced in the game to either use them in their present revision, or not use them at all, how many players would actually leave them in? Have a good day gentlemen, ianc

You're on to something there in my book Iggi. Add it to 'the list'... I also want the ability to tab onto one of those generic nationality markers to check LOS there. You're gonna do it anyway, why not make it easy? ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>why screw with a working game engine to address one relatively tiny issue? Honestly, I can't see the problem here<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Dalem, Respectfully, this doesn't mean there isn't one though. In fact, the preponderance of posts dealing with this very issue leads one to believe that you may be in the minority. I too will cast my vote for simply eliminating crews from the game. At first I thought this might be a bad idea due to a lack of realism, but then I asked myself (as did a previous poster) "what do they add to the game except headaches"? The answer is: nothing. In SP, you wanted to save them since if the weapon they were associated with wasn't destroyed, there was the possibility of recrewing it. Here, that possibility doesn't exist, so what's the point? The recrewing after ops is not really an issue to me, since there aren't really any role-playing aspects to speak of in the game. The crucial question is 'what do they add to the game'? ianc [This message has been edited by ianc (edited 08-23-2000).]

Ha! It's turret rotation speed seems to be just what I'd like... ianc

Did Hellcats have the gyro gear as well? I've seen some unbelievable accuracy from these guys as they race hell for leather across country... Seriously, if you've got a platoon of four Hellcats racing down a flank, they are just about unstoppable... ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Particularly, the fact that automating such a maneuver rewards less competent players<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here's where I'm lost. I've read many times in this and other threads that making this an automatic function will remove an element of player skill which is required to do this manually. I've read more than once that a 'skilled' or 'experienced' player can more easily spot and attain a hull down position. Can someone explain to me what skill is required here? It's not difficult (to me) to spot the position at all; in fact it's cake. The difficulty is maneuvering into it effectively. Since the graphics don't correspond exactly to the reality of the situation, I'd like to submit that taking up a hulldown position is nothing more than a hit or miss proposition; there is NO player-acquired skill or experience level that will make this easier to accomplish. The ONLY place where skill\experience might enter into it is in spotting the position to beging with. You either guess the right place to hunt to, or you don't; it's that simple. Automating it would remove this guesswork and allow the player to effectively employ the position that he's spotted. Or am I missing something? ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Flamewars are borne out of people coming in and announcing "This is wrong!!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> David, Seems to me that's pretty much what you're doing here. Back off and stop telling people what to post. The board is for discussion purposes only and doesn't need to be policed in this fashion. I for one am interested in reading people's opinions on various facets of the game. Thanks for your consideration on this in future, ianc [This message has been edited by ianc (edited 08-10-2000).]

I'm inclined to agree. I'm not sure on the skill thing of finding a hull down position. They (to me) don't seem to be all that difficult to spot from the 1 or 2 view, and you should always be looking for them. Perhaps spotting them is the reward you get for even using the 1 or 2 view... The trouble is that once you have found a likely spot for one, it's hell getting your vehicle maneuvered into exactly the right position to be able to take advantage of it. If you hunt just up to the crest, due to the fact that (as croaker points out) the graphical representation in CM is not an actual representation of the terrain, you'll often find that you're not far enough up on the crest to get the shot you desire. Boom, wasted turn; try again next time and probably missed ambush... If you hunt over the top of the crest and the target hasn't appeared yet (ambush), well, you're over the crest. If the target is there and you destroy it then, again, you're continuing over the crest. Not suggesting any solutions here, just noting that things perhaps don't work as well as they might in the current implementation. Take care, ianc