kmead
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kmead
-
-
I feel the pain as well. I use OSX at work primarily with some MSW. At home its OSX only.
I am sad to say I haven't played CM since July. I will buy CMAK and will hopefully warm up to it more than I have to CMBB. I know CMBB is very good, but I just have been too busy to really chew into it.
My MDD dual 867 is rock solid with OSX and I look forward to upgrading to 10.3 once I am sure I have my critical apps ready for it, specifically Vectorworks and then after that Adobe everything.
I bought a new Epson multi/printer,scanner, copier (6400) today at CompUSA and am a bit worried that it may not be tolerated by 10.3.
I can't wait for CMXX to be complete so I can play the one set of games I really love at any time on any hardware I own. I won't cave to MS, besides CM there just isn't anything I care for in that 97% of the world.
I am thinking of buying a g3 iBook, they are pretty cheap and can run most anything, including OS9 and CM.
-
I would also prefer a Saturday, getting out of work early enough to see it on a Friday would be hard. As I am @3 hours from Chitown along with barrold713. (Grand Rapids MI)
How far are you from IKEA?
-
I would also prefer a Saturday, getting out of work early enough to see it on a Friday would be hard. As I am @3 hours from Chitown along with barrold713. (Grand Rapids MI)
How far are you from IKEA?
-
Sadly no, all new G4 Laptops will not boot in OS9. You need to go back a few generations to the early Titanium Powerbooks to get decent CMBO video performance and OS9 booting.
You can for a while still buy a 14" iBook with 32mb of video ram and OS9 booting and they are quite cheap. They are alos more than adequate processor wise for running the current crop of CM products. The 12" iBook is also good but the screen is a bit on the small side.
Hope that helps.
-
Having just installed Mac OS 10.2.8 on my MDD G4, I took the plunge to see if CM will play in Classic.
Yes the usual thing happened. Black screen (3D Graphics Loading) with lovely birds twittering in the background with distant explosions.
So until the CM rewrite, or a effing miracle under Panther, no CM without rebooting into OS9.
-
Yes to reiterate, you will need to reboot your eMac in OS9 to run the CM series. It will not run in Classic under OSX.
The only current eMac that cannot run OS9 is the Superdrive equipped model.
-
Luckily for you, you need nearly no help at all and you already have all you need to get started.
First, sadly the CM series does not run on a computer running OSX. It does however run under OS9.
Happily, your iBook is one of the machines that will boot into OS9. Rejoice.
So to have the best possible experience, go to the system preferences in the dock or wherever you keep it. Click on Start Up Disk and choose OS9. Choose restart. Hold the space bar down to invoke the extensions manager and make the Classic Rave extension inactive. Continue the startup process and away you go.
If you have not installed CMBB, my experience for a faster less painful install is to copy the contents of the CD to a folder on your hard drive and run the installer from there. It greatly reduced the time of the install and prevented the errors some have suffered. Then install the patches to bring it up to the correct version.
Play. Have a good time!
-
Monitor envy.
My geforce 4MX runs quite nicely, even with only 32mb of vram. I am sure they are available on ebay or similar.
You could look into a PCI card to live in a separate slot and use a switch to choose which output you are driving your monitor with. I do believe there is a Radeon that would fill your fancy.
This way if there are other things the stock card can do better you have the choice.
Good luck
[ August 30, 2003, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: kmead ]
-
I use a 22 Cinema from the first batch 3 years ago and love it. If you can find one get it.
NEC has introduced a new line of LCDs (as has Sony) that are very good. A 19" runs @ 700USD. I don't know what availability would be in England.
-
This worked for me as I suffered from similar frustration.
As you have plenty of HD space, copy the contents of the CD onto your hard drive. Run the installer from the hard drive. It will reduce the install time to 15 minutes or so.
After you verify that the install took (ie the game runs) install the updates.
In my CMBB folder I have:
CM Barbarossoa to Berlin (the game)
Data (folder)
Openplay modules (folder)
OpenPlayLib (single 36kb file)
PBEM (folder)
Quick Battle Maps (folder)
Saved Games (folder)
Scenarios (folder)
Hope that helps.
-
Have you tried a CD restorer, they sell them at all the electronic stores. It polishes the face of the CD reducing scratches.
If the printed side is scratched then you do need a new CD.
-
Are you in the US? If you would like I could burn you a CD so you don't suffer from 56K frustration. I have broadband so downloading it isn't an issue. Let me know.
-
philk:
Yes your machine should work just fine. It is the later units (G4 Powerbooks) that suffer from issues with CM.
The version number should be listed when you click on the CMBB icon on your hard drive and choose get info under the file menu. Or use Apple key I. You may need a patch, but the patch fixes small issues of game play and has no effect on whether the game will run or not.
Before reinstalling, I would go to the System Folder:Preferences and delete the existing CMBB prefs. Then try restarting CMBB after changing the screen resolution to 800x600. If you get a correctly running game be happy. Or quit CM and go through the process of trashing the preferences again, raising the screen resolution to the next supported size and restarting CMBB until you are either happy or the game doesn't run right.
If you need to reinstall after all that, my sure fire method for installing CMBB is to first copy the entire CD to your hard drive. Do this by double clicking the CD and dragging the all of the contents to a folder on the hard drive. Then run the installer from the harddrive.
This gives a much faster install and is much less likely to suffer from errors. I went from a 40-50 minute install (on a 867 G4) to 15 minutes or less.
I hope that helps, if it doesn't, there may be other issues, but in any case keep track of what you did and what did or did not work so we can try to assist. The more info the easier it is to help. Good luck.
-
With the announced release of the G5, Apple strangely reverted the G4s to the earlier version that will boot into OS9.2.2
This is available in two versions, a single processor version with a 1.25 and a dual 1.25. The pricing ranges from 1300 to 3k with a nice stripped dual processor model running under 1600.
These machines have 4 HD bays, two optical bays and 4 slots for add in cards. Two USB 1.1 and 2 Firewire 400
There are older PCI based video cards available, so it is possible to run the new card for the day to day work and switch to the other video card to run the CMB series. You could either switch your cable around or use a KVM switch to go from one card to the other with ease, or run multiple monitors.
All in all for a Mac these are good machines and will give good service for a long time. I bought this same generation of machine last fall with dual 867 processors and have since added a Superdrive, changed to a faster CDR/RW, added 2 more drives and upped the ram to 2gb. It works very well and plays the CM series very nicely.
The OSX issue has been banging around for a long time, I was among the first to really demand an answer from BTS/BFC. I don't think Matt or Steve have ever forgiven me for it
I am certain that no one is more unhappy that the CM series is being left by the wayside by new Mac users than the BFC developers. And not just for the incremental income our small percentage of the sales market gives them. During the development of CMBB they tried to make it compatible with Classic under X, but unfortunately the limitations of Rave under Classic wouldn't allow it.
So, you can buy a older Mac preferably a G4 with a 16-32mb video card and play. Or buy a new one and put in a PCI or older AGP graphics card to play. Either one will allow you to enjoy CMBO CMBB and CMAK until the new engine comes out which will require you to upgrade to something faster anyway, Especially if you are a mod slut. So the news is not all bad.
-
No I don't think so, the second louie and his sargeants are micromananging the squads. Where we depart from reality in a huge way is the Borg spotting and massive coordination we apply, neither of which will change with this command addition.RichieA follow command sounds great !!!
Surely when we move a platoon of men through the woods and we micromanage the move with many waypoints, making sure the squads don't stray too far from each other, maintaining an even gap between squads of say, 20m, (skipping every fallen log and hiding behind every tree ), just in case, aren't we compromising reallity because we have an overview of the whole battle and we CAN micromanage every event along one squads path?
I will say again my primary view, which is that I don't think the command as you state it would give the desired effect. I agree that if they did choose to add a new command such as you describe and the units kept the initial formation having to adjust some unit waypoints to better match the terrain would certainly be better than having to generate all the waypoints.I guess I'm just asking for a chainsaw instead of an axe. (bad analogy? )You still get the job done, you can still see the chips fly, but it just ain't as much hard work getting there.
It's a question of TOOLS isn't it?
About reducing double handling and increasing playability.
So I ask, not even one group command waypoint?
The scenario that Martin espoused would not be to my taste, although it really does make the most sense and reduces the massive coordination that we are currently capable of.
Fall as I recall.When is CMAK due outIn regards to your other post, no I am not making a judgement about how or what you wish to play. I really don't care, rather more power to you if you have the time and inclination. I do know what I like to play and just stated it, with no reflection on you. I envy you the time you can apply to fight a massive battle or campaign. I wish I had more time, hopefully some day I will (without getting RIFed)
so that I can suffer your current pain.Maybe Charles and company will come upon some wonderful new command that gives some of what you desire.
I wonder how valuable a follow command would be in the desert with the loss of LOS due to the dust clouds from each vehicle.
[ May 26, 2003, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: kmead ]
-
Panzermartin wrote:
I use the group move to get a large group to a general area as well. I then choose individual units to modify where they ended up and to add secondary and tertiary movements that may not be as long as the initial movement.I'm not the kind of player that plays strictly from cameras 6-7-8 pushing all his troops forward with massive group movements etc. Even in large battles I like to spend most of my time on the isometric views and mostly at view 1. But I am forced to spend very little time down with my troops because most of the time I am busy creating multiple paths for moves that could be made with significantly fewer mouse clicks.As I stated in the previous post, I think that we wouldn't be satisfied with the placement of multiple units through multiple waypoints. I find the end points of most group moves for individual units to be entirely unsatisfactory as it sits as they end up in the exact same orientation and grouping at the end as they had at the beginning. A much better logic would be needed by the TacAI to manage the units movements to match the way real troops would behave. Going across an open field is a quick way to die.
A convoy command for vehicles on roads would be greatly appreciated however.
-
Richie wrote:
No, I think the game is up to it, and yes I use waypoints all the time tailored to the individual unit. Agreed that no battle needs to (or should) be gamey."I suspect those of you asking for this feature probably play large battles with hordes of units. I have played some of them but generally find them to be a somewhat tiresome clickfest trying to properly manage the units."As posted by kmead
Hey, no offence but really...
You've never tried to recreate a large battle or are you saying the system isn't up to it?
Battles large or small don't have to be gamey...
"Oright men, I want you to skirt the woods and then head west to that farm house. Thats the rally point. Any Questions?"
Not even one waypoint?
I tend not to play huge battles due to the limited time I have to play (job kids house cars etc). I do however find that big battles are for me a bit less enjoyable as I don't have time to really move the units in the way I would like. You would be right to accuse me of wanting to be a company commander and not a regiment or division commander with this particular system. Now what I described in my original post would be to my liking for commanding a division.
Ultimately, I don't think the game is currently up to the task of properly moving units through multiple waypoints in a fashion that would satisfy anyone. As it is now, you give a group move and they all move exactly the same amount together on that vector. So some units go through the farmhouse or end up in the middle of a glade that is nicely covered by an opposing machine gun team.
So the "Oright men, I want you to skirt the woods and then head west to that farm house. Thats the rally point. Any Questions?" ends up being nothing like what you described. The units won't skirt the woods, they go through the house and they end up in a sad lump at the proposed rally point ill arranged for the the attack you had in mind. For me the real power of this game is in the relatively small actions that require conservation of men and material.
Oh, a final note, I hate meeting engagements and no longer play them. Attacking a prepared position, defending a prepared position, probing, or just try to get to the other side while the other bloke tries to get to mine are all very enjoyable. Racing to the middle to then slog through a stale mate is not of interest to me.
-
I would agree that a follow comand for vehicles would be most excellent on roads, off road I don't want my vehicles in a line.
As for the group move through many waypoints, its not a good idea. Sure it would be convenient but it really would not give you what you really desire. I believe this for the folowing reason: take a group of units in the formation that you placed them on the map. Give them a group move to some other point. Now click on each unit to see where the path they are going to follow is and where they end up. If you were an infantry leader would you move a platoon or section directly across a clearing? or just beyond the stone wall as your end point?
Successfully getting your men to the attack point or transiting to a different location requires careful planning of the route to take the best possible advantage of the terrain. In addition don't you do bounding overwatch with small units? None of this nuance is there using multi-way point group moves.
Although it would be convenient for certain battle types such as meeting engagements where you know you won't meet the enemy until the middle. For any battle where you don't know where the enemy is, and when you will meet him, this sort of move is of no value. Real battles on the scale of this game were not fought using group moves, they were all individual actions.
A group move such as you describe would be good for a game that has an even higher level of abstraction, such as counters that represent the entire platoon or company. In a game of that scale, group moves make sense as you are not actually trying to manage the units actual paths. In the scale of CM, your platoons and even squads can be the difference between success or failure. You have to manage them all effectively or you will lose them or the surprise you were attempting.
I suspect those of you asking for this feature probably play large battles with hordes of units. I have played some of them but generally find them to be a somewhat tiresome clickfest trying to properly manage the units. This game is not the battalion commander talking to the armored company commander, it is the battalion commander (you) making the comand decision and then carrying it out with each vehicle and squad. Playing TacOps is more the scale that some of you are calling for in terms of the capability.
This does of course give rise to an interesting combination game: what if you were a battalion or even division commander and moved the appropriate counters on a (2D topo) map giving approximate paths to the objectives, fire support etc. You hit go and the the map changes to the actual ground that we see in CM with all the units now broken down to the level of the current CM series. Your orders have been turned into the comands that will move your platoons, squads, weapons teams and vehicles to the points you have chosen and you watch the action unfold. Now the computer has control of all the actual waypoints, moves, fire and so on. You watch the movie as many times as you want to understand the action and to see the threats. This action phase allows you to see what would be reported back up the chain of command (in a bit more detail than a real commander would ever get). You then move back to the Command Map mode which shows the actual updates of where each unit is now and its general condition and make your next turn using the counters etc. based on what you have seen. Having read a few posts here over the years, I think there are a number of us that would enjoy a game like I have described.
Clearly something such as what I have described would not be possible with the current or future engine, but it is certainly something that could be done eventually. Just a thought.
-
I wouldn't take to heart the negative posters, most of those forums have some of the most cynical, elitist and unpleasant people I have ever exchanged posts with (this is true of many computer related boards not just Mac). The ones who will help are more likely to just help than post. In addition the posters tend not to know all that much, spouting generalities and pushing acquired buzzword lingo.
I don't hold much hope for any assistance from Apple. I suppose we might try getting the forum members here to sign a petition asking Apple to assist. I don't know how many we really are, and our hosts are not too likely to provide us with any absolute numbers relative to Mac users. Understandably. But for a thousand users (or so assuming @10% of registered forum members are Mac users, yeah right ) Apple is not likely to want to do much.
Thank you for your efforts.
-
I am happy to a degree that BFC will be offering CMBO retail as there are people who will not buy anything over the net, especially from a company they don't know. It will also be nice to see some new posts on the CMBO forum
!I do have a few concerns, the first is that I have absolutely no interest in buying anything from CDV with their copy protection schemes and delayed iterations of updates. If this means that CDV or some other company will be the only way for me to get new CM products, I will likely not be buying anymore of them (unless of course you can convince Aspyr to do a OSX compatible port of CMBO/CMBB/CMAK).
Contrary to our now departed friend (not) I think CMBO is still a great game, different from CMBB, but a great game all the same. I think that anyone interested in the genre will enjoy it and maybe it will even convince someone that is nort particularly interested to join the fray.
I took a chance a long time ago on a company I found on the web that offered a Mac compatible western front wargame. It was expensive and the initial information and graphics were a bit sketchy, but I was convinced and bought it. CMBO is the best investment I have ever made in an entertainment product (alright second best, my '69 850 Sport Coupe was better but not by much). I believe in the products and the business practices I have seen displayed countless times here by all of the BFC team.
BFC is a personal company (in my lucid moments I can even name all of the people who work there), and provide personal service that may be a bit flawed but is clearly prefereable to what I have observed at many of the other software providers. Although I have not had the pleasure to deal with CDV, my impression is CDV quite the opposite and I don't like it. It is not how I would want BFC to be represented in the US market.
I truly hope this works out well and that my hand wringing is for naught. Although I have paid more for my CM software than I ever would choose to pay for something I found on the shelf, I hope I continue to have the opportunity to buy Mac compatible wargames from a personal company that I respect and value, directly and without insufferable copyright schemes.
[ April 25, 2003, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: kmead ]
-
I would strongly recomend the bundle. Both games have their strong suits, and depending on what you are up for either game can satisfy.
As you are apparently quite young (no offence meant), and these games are relatively expensive, if you are the type to get bored with a game in a few weeks you will likely never see the full value or learn the nuances of either one.
In any case, we would all like to have you as a member here and hope that whichever you choose you really enjoy the game.
-
I am sure that the entire forum will be with you on this one.
By the way, northern Italy does suffer a healthy winter and given that it is supposed to cover all the way to 1945 there are a few winters there, more than were enjoyed in France and Germany from June 1944 to April 1945.
-
My apologies for not replying sooner, this week we were without power for 4 days and I am still catching up from the cleanup. I really don't have much to add, several of you have covered the many issues and points so well. I sent a letter in the past to Apple on this subject (the content of which follows) and received no response.
I wish that BFC would weigh in on this, as getting Steve and Charles to specify what is actually missing or failing in the Classic Rave API would be a great help in getting Apple to fix those elements. I am sure they have some small inkling of what is broken.
The really frustrating thing (above and beyond it not running under Classic) is that Apple featured CMBO on its web site before X was the "only" Mac OS in town.
I do understand Apple's position on no longer developing hardware for OS9. In real terms most of the software needed to do anything is available on OSX now and they want to ensure that anything left moves over soon. Quark is a perfect example of this, they are finally getting off the dime to update their cantankerous dinosaur of an application before they lose all of their marketshare (we have moved over to InDesign, seeya!). Everything else is either capable of running under Classic or is OSX native (even Acrobat is making the change finally). I am responsible for hardware and software for our industrial design group and we have transitioned over to X in the last 2 months. We don't use any OS9 software anymore and have the best network capability and general stability we have ever had with many fewer headaches. Even the IT clowns are tolerant of us since we are basically Unix based.
Sadly, I find that I am rarely playing CM anymore due to never actually booting my computer, under X I leave it on for weeks on end in sleep mode rather than shutting down. I do have a G3 Powerbook that runs CMBO nicely and have yet to try CMBB on it as it has only 8mb of Vram.
In regards to the current iBooks, the 16 and 32Mb Vram versions should be very capable of running CMBB, the CM series doesn't make use of much of the greater capability of a G4. The 500-800mhz G3s are quite capable of running this stuff just fine. I believe DrAlimantado Member # 7859 a resident of Sweden bought one last fall and has been successful in using it for CMBB. you might contact him. I am considering getting one myself before they are replaced with OSX only versions.
I truly hope that this has some effect on Apple, I would truly love to play CM more often than I have of late. I know
In any case here is my note to Apple:
Good luck and thank you for making this contact with Apple.posted February 14, 2003 03:57 PM------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a note I sent to Apple regarding BFC and CM and OSX compatibility. I apologize to Steve and Charles for volunteering their time and willingness to resolve this issue.
I am among a large group of users of software from Battlefront Software. They make several different war games that will not run under Classic under OSX.x. When their products were under development, the Rave API was the standard that Apple used for 3D calls. The two games in question are Combat Mission Beyond Overlord and Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin.
Unfortunately the Classic Rave API is not capable of executing all the calls in the OS9 Rave API that Battlefront uses, so as a result the software will not display the game under Classic. These are very graphics intensive pieces of software that really ask alot of the system but will run on all Macs running OS9 and have at least 8mb of video ram.
What is particularly galling is that these games were developed on a Mac and ported to Windows, aside from running in a different operating system they are identical in look and operation. Except that they cannot run under Classic under OSX but can run on all versions of MSW since W95. They are extremely popular in the wargaming community and in the sim community. Both the Mac and the MSW version have garnered rave reviews in the gaming community: PC Gamer 94%, IGN.com 9.0, Gamespy 94%, Wargamer.com Award of Excellence, Military Gamer 9.5, Strategy Gaming Online 9.7, Gameplanet 4.5 of 5, UGO an A+, PC Gaming 9 of 10, Gamzone online 8.6, SimHQ.com highly recommended, CombatSim.com Top Pick, Inside Mac Games an 8.0.
I am one of over 11000 active members of their forums and I am one of the Mac guru's for trouble shooting there, its embarrassing to have such a great piece of software not run under X. I know for a fact that many members of the comunity are now delaying future purchases of Apple hardware as they will not be able to use this excellent software on a new Mac. We all understand and support Apple's migration strategy to have X be the standard with legacy products running in Classic, sadly due to changes in the API this software won't.
I am sure that the principals of Battlefront, Steve Grammont or Charles Moylan would be extremely pleased to work with Apple to assure that yet another great piece of software will run under Classic and the Classic Rave API. Charles is the programmer of this software and would be able to delineate what is the issue and what calls need to be implemented/improved under Classic Rave to return the functionality of non Classic Rave.
By the way, my recently purchased MDD 867 is an excellent computer that meets most all my needs. Great job!
Thank you;
Karl Mead
[ April 13, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: kmead ]
-
Panzerman, sad to say the only new Macs you can buy that boot into 9 are eMac,the last 15" Powerbooks and the current iBooks. the latter pair will be replaced in the near future. I have not heard of anyone hacking OS9 booting into the new iMac, G4 Al Powerbooks or the G4 towers. There are a few OS9 compatible units available to educational customers, the original iMac and a single tower that is exhorbitantly expensive (ok even more so than most Macs).
So you can buy an eMac (whose life expectancy is short), or an iBook as the Ti Powerbooks have a video card that is not compatible.
Edited as I am keyboard dislexic.
[ April 04, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: kmead ]
George Forty Research on PzKpfw IIIH Front Hull Resistance
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
As I recall, the III had spaced armor added only to the upper hull front on the plate that runs across the driver and radio operators faces. It was a riveted/bolted on construction and was added to most IIIs in the field.