Lt Bull

Thanks for the responses but I am confused by these two seemingly contradicting posts. and I understand AstroCat's comment, which implies the actual game window size on the screen stays 4:3 when viewed on a 16:10 monitor, resizing proportionally so that the game window fits vertuically, but resulting in the empty black bands to the left and right of the gaming window. However, by Redwolf saying CMx1 does do widescreen/non- 4:3 resolutions implies that the CMx1 game window can fill an entire 16:10 monitor, without distortion. Can I please have some clarification?

OK....so ultimately, the 4:3 aspect ratio of the CMAK/CMBB game screen remains the same on 16:10 monitors and the game view is not streched, giving you just the bars on the left/right side of the game screen?

Hi all Was wondering if anyone can tell me how CMBB/CMAK runs on widescreens? Does it keep the standard 4:3 ration so you have black screen on eitherside? Or can it properly accomodate the widescreen format? Also I recall issues with CM fog and ATI graphics cards. Is still relevant for all ATI cards or just a select few of them? Cheers Bull

GJK, that alternate link you posted doesn't seem to work. The ISP help desk guy (not sure how practically clued up he is on all this) basically told me that all I had to do was dump that php script file in to my webspace folder (where the file is) and (once you set it up) will track the hits/downloads to that file directly, without the need for there to be webpage in which it is embdedd or through which users would need to access. You say that I would instead need to add it to the webpage that was offering the link. Was he mistaken? So can I achieve what I want to do without first directing users to a webpage html interface that has the link to the files and a counter embedded? Or is it that I basically MUST first direct users to a webpage if I want to count the downlaods?

Thanks for the tips. GJK, this is not for a business need, but to just check the traffic to some files I have on my webspace. I have contacted my ISP and it seems my webspace is just one of those freebie ones where I don't have the server side control. The help desk guy however did send me a link to this site http://www.totallyphp.co.uk/scripts/text_file_hit_counter.htm saying that if I place this php script file in my webspace I could get it to count access to a file on my webspace. I tried clicking on the download link for the script however and all it did was load up another page so i don't know if that will work or not. Is this kind of what you were suggesting as far as using a client-side script? Alternatively, I know that instead of just dumping my files in my webspace without any webpage (html) and providing users with the direct link to download the files, I could instead direct them to a html file on my webspace which has links to the files and a hit counter embedded to in thw html to could the clicks on the links. However, I am still curious to know the way to track the number of direct hits the file that bypass any hit to the html page.

I see. Is there something specific about naming it index.html as opposed to anything else? Is the the name index a reserved name that give it specical properties as far as HTML coding goes? Does an index.html file in a webspace directory "own"/manage/monitor all network traffic to and from that directory and all it's subdiredtories? Would it still be able to count the downloads if no one ever accessed that index.html page (except myself to view the counter) but just clicked on URLs posted elsewhere to download the file? What I havent understood yet is how a html file (with a counter script) that just happens to reside in the same directory as a hosted file is supposed to know whether a hosted file in that same directory gets accessed via an exteral URL. Apologies for my retarded knowledge in these matters.

This sounds promising! But unfortunately I don't know the answer to that question either. Short of asking my ISP directly, is there a way I can tell by looking at the contents of my webspace? Though I did basically ask them if what I am asking here and they replied "Unfortunately, we do not have access as such to alter your web space to add a counter for hits/downloads. However, this web space is yours, so if you can write or find a script for a download counter, you are more than welcome to upload this to your web space."

I don't know the answer to that question but I do not "own" the webpage from where the URL is located. I have no "front end" webpage that users need to access to click on the URL, just a URL that gets posted soemwhere. eg. if I decided to place a URL link in this post to a file at my own personal webspace, is there a way I can track how many times people accessed the file? Another question that will broaden my understanding for what can/can't be done: Lets say that I had a JPG file and I used the Insert Image function in the post editor to point to a JPG file on my webspace. In theory everytime someone viewed this post they would effectively download the file from my webspace. Could the number of times that image file was accessed like that be tracked?

Hello I want to know if it is possible to track how many times a file hosted on the webspace my ISP has provide me with, gets downloaded/accessed by users. There is no/I have no webpage at all. It is really just a URL link to a file located on my own webspace. Also curious about the "normal" way in which hits on a URL on a webpage are tracked. Lets assume that someone has a webpage with a link on it to a file. I can imagine that if you go to that page and click on the link to the file from that webpage then I can see how a counter on that webpage might track the hit. However, if I open up a browser and simply type in thw URL to that file, does this hit bypass that counter that is meant to track the number of downloads? Cheers Bull

Just the complete stark contrast between the forthright dismissive attitude BFC showed towards any inkling/suggestion at all that perhaps piracy was even a minor issue when explaining the demise of the CMx1 series within the thread I referenced: eg. ...when compared to the diametrically opposed reality as seen by two other, much bigger game developers in similar situations when explaining the reason why they had to abandon what was othersise a successful PC game, state that it was primarily due to piracy. Did I really have to point that out? Maybe we just can't trust what any developers tell us. :confused: Speedy...I kind of agree about sports games on PC vs console to a degree. I am like you. I have long known that the PC version of Madden kinda seemed neglected especially when the NextGen graphics of the latest consoles started being showcased. The only reason I bought the old Sega Megadrive and the original Playstation was for the Madden game. When it went to PC and was able to be played multiplayer online, I switched to PC. I am now forced in to being tempted in to getting a PS3 just to sample out NextGen Madden 09, but that won't come till I get a HD TV.

It comes as a complete shock to me to have just discovered that EA will not be makling a PC version of Madden 09. Appaerently this bit of news had passed me by when it was first officiallly announced back in April this year. Having basically owned every Madden release on PC and looking forward to 09, I am very dissapointed. A link about it here: http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/870/870722p1.html Disappointment aside, what is most interesting to note are the reasons given by EA as to why the PC platform has been dropped while all other platforms are supported. EA Sports boss Peter Moore explains: Further, the concerns of Peter Moore followed up the concerns of another game developer, Cevat Yerli, president of Crytek Studios (who made the game Crysis), who has said that piracy is the biggest threat to PC gaming. Link here -> http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/870/870416p1.html Hmm, very interstesting words when you compare it to the thoughts of BFC expressed on this very issue when I raised it with regards to piracy and the demise of the CMx1 franchise in this thread about a year ago-> http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=76290 BFCs bluntly addressed my views on the influence of piracy as follows: The irony of it all was that I actaually referred to and used the Madden franchise in my post as an example . Haha...well, what do you know? It seems even the HUGELY popular, successful and mighty Madden PC franchise/concept wasn't as "safe" from piracy after all (let alone becoming a boring rehashed consumer product that peopel had gotten bored of and had to be abandoned by it's developer ), despite it having some form of anti-piracy copy protection and unique keys for online multiplayer gameplay. It's funny how differently developers of sucessful gaming concepts/franchises consider PC game piracy to be relevant/irrelevant to their commercial/business sustainability. Chalk and cheese really. Lt Bull

Haha! What a nice simple sleek well presented game. There is alot about the layout/design/sounds of this very simple game that makes it appealing and "professional" looking. Much better than some fancier games that cost $ that we know of . However, I seemed to have found the key to success in this game and the road to defeat in my very first game, which I ended up winning LOL!. After being reduced to a corner with just 2 areas, I just sat back and passed each turn, building up my forces, and watched the others killed themselves in what appeared to be unchecked rapid blitzkrieg style expansion. When I maxed out my two areas (8 die each), I just attacked one area at a time and consolidated every area back to 8 die before I attacked the next. I ended up winning! The AI seems not to know too much about the perils of aggressive over expansion and spreading yourself out too thinly.

DEMAND: Please do not waste any more of your/our time (and YOUR money) trying to code a CPU opponent for this game. You guys are NOT CPU opponent/AI coding specialists/designers and we don't expect you to be or even try to be. Concentrate on what we hope you ARE good at...designing a camapign layer that interfaces as best it can with CMx1 that actual humans can play, understand and appreciate. Just release a game that provides an interface for at least two human players to conduct a simulated campaign battle gainst each other. CMC should be nothing more/nothing less than one big number crunching interface that does all the tracking/recording/randomising needed to present and simulate a campaign battle between two human opponents who make all the decisions relating to the battle. To all the dreamers out there fantasizing about being able to play CMC against a CPU opponent...forget it! Let these guys walk before they can run. It is tough enough for these guys to design this game just to interface with CMx1 and the human player. To expect them to then literally be able to "train a computer how to play the game as an competent opponent" is a challenge that will just waste further time and money.

Hmmm...it lives! Most interesting and a to be announced call for beta testers ("once the time comes")! Can I put my hand up already?

What an extraordinary post with extraordinary claims. Simply facinating. Can you reveal anything more at all about your invention, or should I say concept? (well I guess it is no more an invention as a cure for cancer is at the moment, it just doesn't exist (yet))

What took you so long? You are not alone in your disappointment. CMSF simply made me appreciate CMBB/CMAK even more, and the same goes for all my long standing trusty CMBB/CMAK PBEM opponents. And don't worry about expressing your disappointment here on these forums. BFC have made it clear that the voice of the people who actually post on these forums mean little/nothing to them as they consider us as such a small "outlier" fringe section of the market they are after, a "peanut gallery" in their own words, that the potential for us to influence the sales of CMSF in the larger market with such negatively is insignficant. Lucky for them. I understand what you are saying and feel that way at times as well, but PBEM has been my core way to play CMBB/CMAK. Find some trusty PBEM opponents and you will turnover at least one PBEM file a day. It's almost like CMAK/CMBB is SO good to play that it leaves you begging for more once you start. That is maybe why I have never burnt out on CMx1/CMBB/CMAK and find myself having played it constantly since 2000. Sometimes I too just want to play a QB from start to finish but I know I am not likely going to find an opponent whenever I want. I generally find it too tedious to try and preorganise a time instead. If I do try I might log on to the Proving Grounds Chat but I am not sure if it still works or if and when it gets busy.

OK. You can download the PDF here: Lt Bull's CM Operation Rules v1.0.pdf Let me know how you go. Any kind of feedback is welcome. As I have already said, playing an operation with these rules, as well as DESIGNING an operation specifically for these rules, could potentially open up more interesting possibilities for regular opertation gameplay and outcome. Lt Bull [ November 12, 2007, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

Thanks patboy and a general all-round thanks to all the other great CMx1 scen/op designers past and present for supporting this great gaming platform and keeping it alive (as it should be)with new and interesting researched historical scenarios and operations that I continue to find to be so rewarding to play. I have really started taking to playing HUGE historical operations with special "Play-where they-lay" rules (all H2H of course) which I have developed in conjunction with several of my trusty opponents. It makes operatiosn play out to be more realistic and continuos (esp. when it comes to deployment/arrival or reinforcements). If you are interested in seeing these rules, I will happily make them available for download. They are not long or tedious...perhaps a page or two of basic rules mainly relating to setups. Both players must self regulate and abide by the rules. One thing to consider with these rules though...an operation played out using the intrinsic CMx1 "free-for all" inter-battle setup woudl probably play out MUCH more differently than the rules we have come up with. Lt Bull

I stand by my original supposition that they are having trouble coding at least a credible and competent CPU opponent worthy of commercial release for this game and that is why it is taking so long and has not been released. I would say, judging from the screenshots, that by now they would have most of the other aspects of the game fleshed out but are struggling to get the CPU opponent to play this game intelligently. Potenially this game could even be at a point where it works just fine as a multiplayer game. And as I have said it is a pity, because I for one do not consider a CPU opponent as not being intrinsic to my evaluation and enjoyment of a game. If HTS are in fact still desperately trying to get the CPU opponent to understand and play the game intelligently and would rather terminate and shelve the whole project than just release it without a CPU opponent if it came to that, it would be a real shame. I am sure they have probably done a great job on the game design, features and mechanics itself.

So I would be right in saying that the answer to my question is: "No, it makes no difference if your Leader decides to target the enemy Leader or enemy Wingman in that situation. His Bursts at Neutral will be 0, a successful Manuver card vs either the Leader or the Wingman will increase it to 1, and two successful manuver cards vs either the Leader or the Wingman will raise it to 3."

OK. Let me reask the question. All things being equal (all vanilla skills (ie. no skills), no +1/-1 aircraft bonuses etc), in a 1v1 matchup at a Neutral standing at Medium altitude, does a Leader need to play more Manuever cards if he targets the enemy Wingamn than if he decides to target the enemy Leader? (assume the enemey Wingman and Leader have no cards to counter the Manuever cards). In other words, is there something more difficult in that situation for a Leader trying to get in position to get a few bursts in on a Wingamn than on the Leader? [ October 14, 2007, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

A 1v1 fight. All at neutral positons. My Leader's turn, his hand includes 2 manuever cards and a 1:2 IMS. I target the enemy Wingman. I play 1 manuever card....no response, still no shot at the Wingman. I play the second manuever card...again no response, but I still can't play my 1:2 IMS card. Whaddup? My opponent next attacks my Leader, downs him with a 2: Destyroyed and kills the pilot (one of my best). Not happy! :mad: This has happened MANY times before where i have played manuever cards against a Wingamn so I think I have got the my understanding of the rules mucked up somehow. I thought that you need to play manuever cards on Wingmen with your Leader to be able to increase your burts so you can play IMS or OOTS What do I have to do to get a shot in on an enemy Wingman with my Leader? [ October 12, 2007, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

AdamL Good to hear this is going ahead. From what I see I like your work and style. I certainly would be keen to also help out if I can. Hoping to get some word from you soon regarding this intersting campaign you are concocting.

Steiner14, My thoughts exactly, however although we can not of course be 100% sure of the true nature of troubles with the development, as I have explained why here and elsewhere, I do strongly believe that AI coding has been a real killer for them. The problem is the actual "concept" of making a multiplayer "only" (or at least "centric") game is too radical an idea/notion for many game designers/devlopeers who are 1) too transfixed on delivering a single-player gaming experience and 2) just simply refuse to acknowledge that delivering a game targetted at the multiplayer market segment (small it might be now, but will only get bigger with time) might be a more profitable option as the lower cost of development and getting the game to the market might still make selling a lower volume of games (to the currently smaller MP market) economically viable. Unfortunately, based on comments form BFC, they seem all too oblivious and dismissive of such concepts and I unfortunately doubt they would ever entertain such a thing with CMC. They are sticking to what I think is a terribly self limiting (potentially project ending) and short sighted philosophy of "If it hasn't got a CPU opponent it isn't a game/doesn't desrve to see the light of day!" Go tell that to ASL players or any other boardgamers, or anyone who enjoys CM via PBEM, or all those people who have run/played in a CM meta campaign or anyone who has played any of the MP only FPS like or any of the MMOG (have you seen how pouplar (and great) some of those FREE web based/browser based MMOG are getting!!) The winds of change are steadily becoming more than a breeze. Soon, the true benefits and creative potential of developing MP centric computer games will be realised.

Count me in! US preferable.