ianc

Hi Steve, thanks for chipping in on this one. I'm not sure I agree with all of your points though... Here are some more thoughts after reading your post: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We would also have to penalize these big tanks for rotation in anything but wide open space<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is theoretically true, but this detailed a treatment seems inconsistent with the current modelling of CM. The CM of today has a graphic representation that doesn't quite match what's actually going on, leading to 'fuzzy' bldg. corners affecting percieved LOS, hull-down issues, etc. Surely barrel length is not yet a realistic concern in this type of environment? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We would also have to simulate the fact that at certain angles of the hull the turret could not rotate at all because it was too heavy for the motors to move.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suppose this is true as well, but wouldn't this again apply in only very extreme angles of inclination of the hull? Wouldn't other vehicles in the game be affected by this as well to some extent? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We would also have to increase the spotting by sound chance everytime such a vehicle went to use its max traverse speed, since a big engine revved up to 3000rpm is going to make a LOT of noise<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but again this seems like making complications where there needn't be. Is there currently a difference in the spotting-by-sound chance based on the target vehicle's speed (max speed vs. idle)? If so, is it variable according to different speeds a target vehicle may travel within a given turn? If not, why make the distinction here? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But as often happens, what is being asked for here is a benefit without the negatives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, the crux of the matter. I agree that this is the case, but IMHO the benefit is being requested because of a perceived inaccuracy in the original modelling of the unit, not simply so we can have uber-Panthers. The documentation given here seems to point to the fact that on average, in combat situations, the traverse speed of these two AFV's was considerably greater than we see modelled in the game. Saying that these vehicles shouldn't be modelled accurately in this regard simply because it's not currently feasible to simulate other factors which might mitigate this to some degree (thus significantly lowering their combat effectiveness and creating an ahistorical situation) doesn't seem like a workable solution to me. Even if one were able to painstakingly model each one of these mitigating factors you allude to, the Panther and Tiger II would still be considerably more powerful than now, and that doesn't seem right.. Thanks for listening, ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Focusing on turret traverse speeds because it is quantifiable while ignoring other issues of the whole target aquisition complex is likely to unbalance things - perhaps the reason why it was decided to do an average on the Tiger/Panther turrets rather than a max.?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From what I can see, the process is not modelled in this way. It is a relation involving a number of quantifiable factors (of which TRS is one). This relation must be applied to every vehicle in the same way to be meaningful and useful within the context of the game. Given the documentation that's been presented here, it appears that the excessively slow turret rotation speed (TRS) of the Panther and Tiger II is causing them to be less combat-effective than they perhaps should be in relation to other units in the game. I don't think the matter of points values is a complex one. Points are only for making matched battles with. If the combat effectiveness of these units increases as a result of this modification, then their point values ought to be adjusted accordingly. Thankfully, working this out isn't my job. ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Exactly what is the criteria for locking threads?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Overly long sigs? Pathological hatred of Germany? Just kidding ianc

I agree that the turret speeds should be adjusted. I recall from an earlier thread that BTS stated they used an average rotation time from values obtained from max RPM and idle speed. It makes alot of sense that crews would obviously use more RPM's in a life-threatening combat situation to traverse as fast as possible... Does anyone have any reference material to support this assumption? ianc

Some interesting points made, and I'll chip in on a couple: 1) There seems to be some loss of sight of the purpose of the points system; ie. making Shermans cheaper because the Americans had a lot of them, or basing them on a rarity factor, etc. Points are for setting up a matched battle, not for creating a realistic OOB. If you make Shermans cheaper, you'll unbalance QB's. Not what you want. 1) I don't favor a revamp of the points system; it seems to work well as it is. I favor a possible modification of the game to compensate for this. My vote for the solution is to just cause unarmed or soft vehicles to panic when they start taking fire. Let's face it, if you're in a jeep and someone starts popping off at you with an MG42, you're outta there instanter! There's no decision about this at all. I don't consider this a big issue though, and at the risk of being an ass, I'd much rather see the hull down problems resolved. ianc

Dammit! I will only be in Amsterdam until the 6th. Looks like I'll miss you guys. Sniff... ianc

I use 'em as scouts too I'm afraid. The game doesn't really have a good cheap 1 or 2 man recon team (you could split a squad I suppose). I haven't read most of the game recon thread, but I think some people over there might be mad at me... ianc

One word: HELLCATS! ianc

While I can't comment on the historical veracity since I haven't studied adequate volumes of material to encounter differing occurrences (and probably wouldn't remember if I did ), I was left a bit upset with the editing at Schiffer. Simpson's ability to write English is deeply flawed. This almost proved insurmountable to me at first, but after a while of hacking at it I seem to have developed a kind of 'Simpson Filter' that was able to translate his mishmosh into some kind of stream of events. There were some stirring (although probably quite fictitious) accounts of tank combat if one was able to disregard the crapulous manner in which they were delivered. Other strategical references were much drier and only barely skimmable. I don't think I'd read it again, but if you can hack it, it's probably worth plowing through once... ianc

Tanaka, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or it means that there is a 15% more chance of hiting a weak armor spot ? If the correct is the last one , what is the chance of an hit on a weak armor spot of an armor with 100% quality?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think there is some chance (call it X) that represents the chance of a hit on a weak spot. X is possibly dependant on other factors as well as armor quality (such as vehicle facing), so it may not be possible to assign a base X for even a particular tank. One would think this might be a property of the plate, but I guess only Steve and Charles know for sure... Interesting nonetheless. ianc

Yes, their books are fabulous but very pricey! I used to work at a game company, and arranged to trade some of our games for their books. Those times are over I'm afraid, but I did get some good ones, including Agte's accurate work on the Tigers of the Leibstandarte. Panzer Aces 1 and 2 are excellent, as well as Infantry Aces. ianc

Yes, you're all quite right. I am indeed a person of low moral character with a lot of growing up to do. My heartfelt apologies for using those two foul words in a moment of zeal and thereby breaching the terms of this board. I have humbly retracted them to spare future readers the trauma of reading them. Maybe I should be banned... yawn... ianc

Those of us who are not scum? Who's left after you make that distinction? Now quit blathering around and take that turn I just mailed you! ianc

OK, why not some more, now that I'm on a roll? I've started keeping little notes while playing, about things that bugged me while I played. These are not glaring issues, but just suggestions for improvement whenever. 1) Use the standard Win (or Mac or whatever) save dialog to save your games. I should think common practice would be to keep your PBEM's separated by opponent name. Allow a save in this dir to keep from cluttering up CMBO\PBEM and constant sorting. 2) A view bigger than '4'. I'm not sure how many users need this right now, but I run at 1600x1200, and '4' doesn't really give me a big-enough view over a 3-4 km map. I can't take enough in at once with '4'... 3) Allow programming of user-preferred keystrokes. I would find the in-game navigation a helluva lot easier if I could set my own keys. The arrow keys (when your R hand is already on the mouse for example) for sliding is bad; I need it on the left side somewhere. 4) Have the game wait for the CD to be inserted instead of exiting out upon startup. Ooops! 5) Treat 'generic nationality' and waypoint movement markers as 'navigable' game units. By this I mean allow clicking on them and having the TAB and view keys functional from that spot. Scanning these locations is often critical for positioning, so not having the ability to 'go there' quickly is time-consuming, but necessary. I consider it a user interface issue. 6) I'm often confused by wheatfields. Sometimes they offer almost no restriction to LOS, others lots. This seems to be dependant on the season. Duh. Possibly in the seasons where wheatfields were in full growth, the hedge (or maybe bocage, if late in the season!) geographical game shapes could be used (covered with wheatfield textures of course) to more accurately portray the LOS degradation from these features. A problem is, if units are in it, how do you portray this? I say, just depict the very top of the unit (same as if a unit is in hedge or bocage now), or even just its base, but leave it clickable. 7) Allow arty area fire at the side of a bldg. I've been in situations where a spotter of mine could see the bldg's in a town or village perfectly, but could not plot rounds there because he didn't have clear LOS to the ground in the middle of town. He should be able to register missions on the bldg's themselves, as these are clearly visible from the periphery of the built-up area. Just little thoughts I've been collecting for a while. Take care, ianc

Gentlemen, let me preface this by saying that it is usually my nature to only offer constructive critism (and this is one of them) Whenever I think long about CM, my musings usually converge on one fact: That the graphics in CM don't portray a corresponding space-time reality on the battlefield. This issues was raised early on. Here's a quote from Steve from God-knows when talking about this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, not really You missed, and that is all that really matters. The graphical representation has absolutely nothing to do with anything when you get right down to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, but this is what I dream of! I know portraying an accurate reality is very CPU-intensive (among other things). But it not being so is the cause of all sorts of problems insofar as certain disontinuities are experienced between what the player actually sees in his examination of the field, and what is actually being crunched in the CPU. This loss of continuity is in some ways critical; affecting hull-down calculations, LOS issues affecting bldg's, and myriad other info that would be plainly apparent on the field. I just wonder what sort of system advances would be required to implement this sort of correlation. I have no idea of what would be involved, but I can dream about popping into a certain unit's viewpoint and being able to see everything they can see, having a clear view into trees, houses, etc... I often think to myself, "Gosh dawg, I can't believe the good luck that somebody actually made this wonderful game"! And yet I still dream... Damn, I'm really anxious to see what CM2 has in store... ianc [This message has been edited by ianc (edited 09-20-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the next version of the CM engine (i.e. CM II and not CM 2) we do plan on having relative spotting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve, This makes me curious; what is the distinction between CM II and CM 2? Will the engine be redone for the Russian Front version (CM II, or CM 2)? Thanks for any insight, ianc

Why then one simply backs up quickly to avoid the inconvenient and audacious rocketry experiments of course! ianc

Hey, I've seen the Steverino prowling the board a bit today, so I just thought I'd ask (humbly of course) whether there was any word on hull down issues? Someone posted a message not too long ago about there being a possible bug introduced in 1.05 that would always award the target hull down status if the firer had it too. I have seen this myself in situations where it shouldn't be, but then again, I suck at getting into hull-down positions anyway. Any comment on what are plans for this Steve (nudge nudge wink wink)? Gratuitous thanks, ianc

OK, this is brief anecdote on the 'target stickiness' that was improved in 1.05. It seems like things are better in this regard, as I have seen tanks leave their turret pointing toward targets that they've lost, but... Last nite I was playing a scenario on 1.05 and I had this crack Mk IV commander. I gave him 'hunt' orders through a wheatfield, so he started tooling along his merry way. About halfway along, he spotted the Sherman that I sent him on his way to terminate. Red target line appears almost instantly, and he starts to traverse toward the Sherman, but he doesn't stop moving, just keeps on motoring. A second later, he loses LOS on the Sherman and swivels the turret back to front again. After this ill-advised move is completed (he's still rolling), the Sherman suddenly spots and targets HIM. He's oblivious, and has forgotten that Mr. Sherman was even there. Suddenly he remembers, sees the Sherman again and begins to traverse. Ooops. BAM! Nice explosion graphics from Madmatt's site BTW... My point is, this fellow is CRACK! He has tea with Wittman! Why did he see the Sherman, start to target him, not stop when he had the drop on the bugger, then just forget all about him, perhaps wondering what was for lunch at that point (char-broiled Mk IV commander obviously)? Ick. Glad it wasn't in a PBEM. Maybe a little more 'stickiness'? ianc

I've seen it too. It always seemed to settle down quickly though with no lasting ill-effects... ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Come home from work Friday evening with a case of beer. Play until overcome by sleep or double vision. Wake up hung over on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. and play till 10:00 p.m., no beer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why no beer? What's up with that? Beer is good food! ianc

On a totally unrelated note: Shouldn't your sig read "Deutsches Panzer sind besser" instead of "Deutsches Panzer lind besser"? Just curious and my German blows, ianc

As a related question, I'm wondering how the hi-res mods are made? Given that you start out with a particular set of textures at a certain res. How do you increase the resolution from that? It seems like you're adding detail where there wasn't any before... Tiger, anyone? A little explanation as to what process yields a 'hi-res' texture? ianc

I'd like the ability to specify the size in meters of the map in a QB, as well as the ability to generate a generic size. ianc

Wow! What a fabulous site! ianc