Lt Bull

Hey! Thanks for all the feedback and advice! Looks like I might be catching up with some of you while I'm over there (so TargetDrone, Wesreidau, Stoffel, MichaelU....I will be in contact with you shortly!) I will be in London from 14th to 19th June, then again on the 9th July after a 20 day 10 country tour, after which I will be backpacking around Europe. I have a side flight to Frankfurt up my sleeve and eventually have to make my way down to Trieste at some stage. Super Ted and Moriarty: Thanks for the offers even though it may be difficult for you all to hold back from playing every damn scenario once you get the game! You will hear from me soon. Lt. Bull

...when it gets delivered because I will probably be departing for my European backpacking holiday (14th June) probably the day before it is delivered to my door. I will return home in a few months to find the package unopened and probably no one to play blind PBEMs with. Talk about bad timing. It also seems that my role in the CMMC may have to be handed over to someone else (hopefully not entirely) while I am away (I have no return date planned as yet). I am looking at visiting many of the historical WW2 sites while I'm there (Arnhem, D-Day beaches, Ardennes, others) but I am currently unaware of any specific tours that may be available once I get there. Can anyone recommend me any good historical WW2 tours on which they have been on in Europe? BTW...if there is anyone nice enough over there who wouldn't mind showing me CM let me know (I could be in the neighbourhood). It may help me with the withdrawl symptoms. Lt. Bull

Sorry Teach. I had my men wear asbestos suits! Yep. I must say I was darn surprised when I still saw the lone Regular HMG crew (out of CnC) suffer no casualties and no apparent change of state after being repeatedly doused with flames for an entire turn. A detail which may be of significance was that the HMG unit was in a foxhole on a hill and the flamethrower unit was further down the hill and to one side. Regardless, I don't think that HMG shouldve survived at all. Lt. Bull

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hehe... probably the single most referenced link on this BBS Just something about these PFs keeps us coming back to this link time and time again. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe...doh! I couldn't beleive I hadn't ever seen it before as I usually check out all the sites which get referenced and usually bookmark them. But hey, it seems to be one heck of a site and worth ANOTHER mention in case you are one of the few (like me) who haven't seen it. Is the info on that site generally regarded as being accurate (esp the panzerfaust info)? The type of info given looks like it has been taken from some "official" source. Lt. Bull

Just wondering how many of you have seen the footage included on the CC2 CD of the panzerfaust being fired at a what appears to be a brick building and at open ground. Its amazing when you compare the speed of a AT projectile from an AT gun to the speed of a panzerfaust and consider the penetrability of both against tank armour. Gives you an appreciation for the theory behind shaped charges and why they can be so effective. Panzerfaust 30 30m/s, approx 30m range Panzerfaust 60 45m/s, approx 60m range Panzerfaust 100 60m/s, approx 100m range 75mm AT-gun 790m/s, approx 2000m range? The apparent velocity of the gases (which do all the penetrating) is typically 8000m/s resulting in a penetrating pressure somewhere between 118000 MPa and 981000MPa!!! (or 1200 - 10000 metric tons per cm^2). These are absolutely ENORMOUS pressures when you compare it to the higher surface strengths limits of hardened steels (typically 1300 MPa). I'm not sure if this site has been posted up before but it's one of the best I have seen that has got info on the panzerfaust, the theory behind spaced charges and other German WW2 weaponry. http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm#intro Lt. Bull BTW don't go to www.panzerfaust.com expecting to see info on panzerfausts...it will probably be a big disappointment for most of you. [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 05-25-2000).]

I think that is an excellent question. I don't think it can be done though (unless it spots a unit outside its own weapon range, so pistol armed crews can fill that role, though unrealistic as that may be). I think a great command would be the Scout command where a unit moves and immediately stops (possibly going Hidden) upon spotting an enemy unit. Sounds like a realistic enough command. Lt. Bull

A good way to problem solve things like this is to either save the turn, reboot, and load up the saved game if you are playing the AI, or simply quit the game, reboot and reload the PBEM file if playing PBEM. If the problem is still there, its probably a game bug. Lt. Bull [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 05-23-2000).]

I wish BTS took my money way back when I initially ordered and the Australian $ was half decent!!! Now its at a record low! http://www.barchart.com/cme/cmedadm0.htm BTS timing on the release of CM couldn't have been worse for me. The Australian dollar keeps on dropping (I'm gonna pay something like A$97 instead of A$83!) and I'm heading off on my 2-3 month European holiday on the 14th June (I'm betting 6th June as the release/shipping date, +10 days frieght to Australia, the game will probably arrive pretty much the day after I leave!!! aGHHH!!!!!!). Lt. Bull

As Howitzer has already mentioned, an entire book has been written by Belton Cooper about his experience as a young ordnance lieutenant involved in vehicle recovery in the 3rd Arm Div in Europe after D-Day. (Death Traps, The Survival of an American Armored Division in WW2). Excellent reading! His job was to travel with the combat units during the day and assist in coordinating the recovery, repair, and evacuation of the battle-damaged tanks. He is believed to have probably made more ordance inspections and witnessed more battle damaged tanks than anyone else in any war. The book indicates that during his time after D-Day at least, the German army did not have a fully functional/organised vehicle recovery system that was anywhere near as efficient as that in place in the US armored divisions. Numerous reasons for this. 1) The Germans were generally the ones who were LOSING ground and being overrun, so KOed tanks were generally abandoned and got captured without any hope of returning to them and recovering them. Also, safe collection points and maintenenace areas are required to be established. It was difficult to do this when you are losing ground everyday. 2) The Allied air superiority made battlefield vehicle recovery all the more dangerous and impractical for the Germans (let alone for the German armor in general). Even at night, precautions had to be taken to limit the amount of light attracting attention from the air and ground. 3) The logistics of having a well trained/equiped vehicle recovery team within the German army at that time was just not as feasible given the strain on men and resources. It would seem that the German system in place was at best haphazard. It would seem logical that any recovery model of vehicles from the battlefield in CM operations is surely dependant on who owns the turf at the end of the day. Allied recovery/repair should be significantly more EFFICIENT than German recovery I would think (for the reasons mentioned above). Perhaps weather (air visibility) and local air units might affect things as well. Just out of interest, I will relay some details from the book as to how the US armored divisions organised themselves and the recovery/repair of vehicles: Cooper explains that once an armored division deployed to exploit a breakthrough, it moved out with 2 combat commands abreast (1 in reserve), with Div HQ and division train following. Each CC consisted of: HQ Recon Co 2x Tank Bn (2x medium Co, 1x light Co) Armored Inf Bn Armored Field Arty Bn (18 M7s) Armored Combat Engineer Co Ordnance maintenance Co Medical Co Supply Co The division trains consisted of: Div HQ the Ordnance Bn HQ Co the Medical Bn HQ Co the Suppy Bn HQ Co A heavy armored division had attached to it an AA Bn, and a Hvy Arty Bn (155mm). The CCs contained 2 separate task forces, moving parallel. During daylight hours, each task force had available 4 P-47s under the direct control of an air force liason officer who rode in the lead half-track with the task force commander. The task force's mission was to advance rapidly towards it's objective, leaving any resistance to be cleaned up later by the infantry (2hrs to 2 days). At night the combat elements would coil off the road and form a circular perimeter. The tanks and infantry would form the outer perimeter and the maintenance, medical and supply units the inside, where they could do their work. At daybreak, when the combat units moved out, the maintenance unit commander had to make certain critical decisions. All vehicles repaired and ready for action would be returned to their units. All others would be towed to the next stopping point. If there were more vehicles than the wreckers could accomodate, a vehicle collecting point (VCP) was established. The ordnance company commander would detach a maintenance platoon to establish the VCP and repair the vehicles that were left behind. This could take several days. During this period, the maintenance platoon would be completely isolted behind enemy lines and responsible for it's own security. After the vehicles were repaired, they returned to their original units, and the maintenance platoon went forward to rejoin the ordnance company. In some instances, there would be several VCPs along the route of advance. As soon as any platoon finished its repairs, it would leave the others and return to the company. By utilising this system, plus the replacement vehicles brought up each day by the ordnance liason officer, the CC was able to maintain its effectiveness during long, continuous operations. Lt. Bull

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Actually you're not allowed to move into pillboxes, so that's why it said "open ground". Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So just clarifying, neither side gets any defensive/cover benefit from MOVING infantry "on to" a bunker (intact, destoyed or abandodned)? Are infantry just treated as occuppying the same terrain as what the bunker is situated in then (no matter the state of the bunker)? Lt. Bull

Mechanical Engineer specialising in design and 3D CAD (one time secondary school science teacher). It too pains me sending brothers to their deaths in VoT.

Well, it looks like I better keep my $17. Thanks for the posts. It seems AtR was the abortion I thought it had become. RIP. Lt. Bull

I remembering being hyped for this game many years ago. I had read several ng posts about the game and it sounded promising (if not ambitious). I remember getting a friend to do a "massive" download for me (probably on a 14.4k modem taking several hrs)so as I could try it out (it was a beta build or something like it). When I finally got it going, the game was like mollases and I wasnt sure if it was due to bugs or a slow system. It seemed to really push the PC that was running it anyhow (probably a 486?? 16mb RAM). The fact that I didnt have a super pc system to run it and that many ng posts were negative towards the game (most people probably were expecting a game like Panzer Elite/Panzer Commander) and that it ws full of bugs, made me give up on the game. Strangely I never heard much else about it. What was going to be major contribution to pc military games just seemed to fade into irrelevancy. I happened to see it on the shelf in a shop today for A$17 (I have heard it was advertised for sale at A$5 or A$10 once!) and was thinking about getting it. What I want to know is what happened to this game? Was it sooo bad that it just disappeared from HDD and discussion? Did anyone actually PLAY it and get a good chance to evaluate it? Is it as bad as I seem to think it may be? (This may not be too much O/T as the anticipation back then is kinda like what I have right now with CM...but I don't think I will be suffering any disappointment this time!) Lt. Bull [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 05-17-2000).]

The problem I see here is one of "expectation" and reality. Regardless of how disappointed Lewis says he is with the AI, the bottom line is this: current pc gaming technology (software and hardware combined) is probably several decades away from achieving the AI people like Lewis is expecting to see in a game as complex as CM. I could believe BTS' claims that they have one of the best AIs in a computer wargame AND that the Gold AI is better than the Beta AI, but I don't believe comparing the AI with a human player is such a big deal anyway. I am 100% confident of the next statement: The REAL challenge of CM (and probably any other computer game) is NOT against the AI, but against another HUMAN opponent! Think of the AI as a sparring partner rather than your main opponent. Its there when you want a bit of a fight (throw a few punches, try a few different moves, get your confidence up), but you wouldn't care too much if you can KO it if you wanted too. Its not your greatest challenge (unless you are an a**hole and nobody wants to play you!!) I think someone mentioned the Big Blue chess computer as a reference in another thread. Here is what seems to be mankinds best effort at creating a super-computer SOLEY to beat a human at a simple game (but which has lots of depth) and it struggled at that!! (BTW, if you want to play a game where the AI can play the game at a level to what Lewis seems to be expecting in CM, then I would be sure any good computer chess game will be better than most human opponents!!) What must that say about the AI in a game that is trying to simulate something much more complex than a game of chess and that takes 30mb to download? The AI BTS have put into CM is probably as good as it can get for a game like CM (within reason). What CM is trying to simulate with the AI is VERY complex and to expect an AI that plays CM consistently like an above average human player is probably a bit of a pipe dream right now. Bear in mind that I do differentiate between the Tact AI and the Strategic AI in this discussion. I have been mainly refering to the Strat AI, which is what I think Lewis is mainly refering to. Regardless, I can say that the Tact AI itself seems superb and I don't think many people would question that. I would be more concerned with Tact AI flaws, of course, rather than Strat AI flaws as the Tact AI manifests itself in ALL order execution (AI or human). If the AI is still not good enough for some people, so what?? If you ENJOY the game AND want a challenge, simply play a human PBEM (unfortunately they may not be at your immediate service as the AI is for a game!). You have your game AND your challenge. Does it matter that this challenge isn't coming from playing the AI? (ohh yeah...it does for the a**holes out there who can't get anyone to play with them). So in summary, I don't really see what the point is of complaining about how easy it may be to beat the AI in CM. So what? You DO like the game? It's as good a wargame of its type you are going to get right now from any other gaming company? You are looking for a real challenge? One that may actually give you a better idea of how much of a military genius you may REALLY be?????!!!...then play a human and quit your damn whinging! Lt. Bull

Kinda reminds me of my own play when I unitentionally ordered my Panther to REVERSE ® rather than ROTATE (S) towards a US held hill....took me a day or so to finally realise how I made that mistake (instinctively thought that ® was ROTATE of course!) Lt. Bull

Steve, You are correct that I would've bought CM regardless of this Method #1/Method #2 issue. This game is a landmark game and is definitely worth my $! The point of my post was to simply understand more about how the CM game engine is actually modelled and to get a better feel for how it compares to other games which apparently use the "on the fly" real-time computation approach of Method #1. I was originally surprised somewhat to have established that CM is a Method #2 type game because, although I read it over a year or so ago, the CM FAQ does have a section in it that made me initially think it was using a Method #1 type of system. I thought nothing more of it until the issue was raised recently. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As written in the CM FAQ page What kind of Line of Sight model does Combat Mission have? Think of the most accurate, real-life system possible. In CM if a unit can see something, it can shoot it (when within range of course!). If you are moving a tank down a street, and there is an alleyway, beware! CM tracks every contour of the earth, every building wall, every hedge, and every smoke column in the game to determine if it is blocking a unit's ability to shoot. Whether it is a building, tree, or burnt out vehicle CM's LOS model takes it into account. Check this out: <insert picture> Not only are horizontal coordinates used, but the verical is calculated as well. Height, as you will find out, becomes much more important with the addition of vertical tracking. This is just one of the great features which CM's true 3D environment allows you to experience. Every house, every cluster of trees, every ground contour is modeled. No other wargame offers you this level of detail. What other benefits does Combat Mission's 3D environment offer? Lots! Probably the most cool (and unique) feature is CM's accurate high-velocity "rounds tracking". In every wargame we have ever played shots that miss their targets simply vanish. This is so far removed from reality that even the Warren Commission can't explain where the rounds go. In CM you can actually see a round leave the muzzle, follow it in flight, and watch it impact. It looks like a real firefight! As in real life, shots often hit something other than the target, like a building or a tree. Shots can also whiz over a target and smash into something hundreds of meters behind it, or plow into the ground right in front of it. The important thing here is that a missed shot is still a shot, so it is tracked and simulated until impact. Keep this in mind because in CM such misses can often lead to unintended casualties (enemy or otherwise!). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After reading this with the hindsight of the discussions in this thread, I would say you could be excused for concluding CM was either a Method #1 OR a Method #2 game. The fact that CM is apparently a Method #2 game though, should be more of an issue for the programmers than for the player. I have no yardstick by which to measure how much more difficult/complex it would be to have programmed CM as a Method #1 type or to gauge what sort of system would be required to run it, but I would be confident in saying this...to the CM player, most probably wouldn't notice the difference between the two Methods in actual gameplay....but to the programmer, they would probably have to code the entire game again from scratch! I agree that anyone who would reject CM on the basis that it is a Method #2 game and not a Method #1 is really throwing the baby out with the bath water and probably is the sort of person who reads books just to find grammatical errors so they can flame the editor. Just face it. CM rocks! For what it set out to be, nothing out there beats it. Lt. Bull (As an aside, it's funny how we sometimes "invent" our own temporary user defined terminology out of neccesity to replace complex, previously described concepts too tedious to explain again...kinda like gammatical algebra!! Method #1 = blah blah blah blah...hehe) [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 05-01-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )... There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a gun, its eventual path, and where it lands:.....<snip> B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, you understood what I was talking about, and how Method 1 is "as real as you can get", but apparently too much of an ask for a pc CPU and that Method 2 is fundamentally different in its appraoch but is the next best comprimise. Thats the response I was looking for. I understand that the calcs required to determine hit/damage etc in CM would be much more detailed and complex than in most other games. It is still interesting to me to compare the underlying computations required to run say a 8 player multiplayer online game of a true 3D shooter (like Soldier of Fortune) where EVERYTHING happens on the fly in real time with bullets, grenades, rockets and body parts flying everywhere to those done in CM which undertakes computations in blocks of 60 sec of action. The 3D shooter example would be considerd a Method 1 type of approach game where real time calculations are done virtually instantaneously that CAN be run on a typical PC. How is it that a game like that is a Method 1 type of game and can be run on a standard pc but CM has to be a Method 2 game? Is it partly because the physics of the CM world are much more involved and intense, and to calculate all of them "on the fly", virtually instantaneously in "real time", like in the 3D shooter example, is simply too much of an ask on a pc CPU? Lt Bull PS: You mentioned of rare cases where Method 2 has its weaknesses (basically becasue it calculates a hit or miss the INSTANT the gun is fired). I could think of an simple example. Assume an AT gun is targeting a tank that is travelling at 25km/hr at a range of say 1.5 km across the AT's field of view. The tank is just about to move behind a building that would in effect put it out of the LOS (and therefore LOF) of the AT gun. It just happens that the CM engine decides to fire the AT gun just at the instant BEFORE the tank is about to travel out of LOS behind the building. It seem that CM considers any target can be HIT (not just targeted) as long as there is LOS to the target at the INSTANT the gun is fired. Back to my example, we know that in reality, guns do not instantaneously hit their target the moment the gun is fired. The projectile has to accelerate out the barrel and travel to its target. In the above case, if we assume the projectile travels at an average velocity of 3000 ft/sec (900 m/s), it would take 1.1 secs to hit the tank which is 1.5km away. In reality the tank travelling at 25 km/hr (6.9 m/s) would have travelled 7.7 m during the time of flight of the projectile, enough for it to have moved behind the building BEFORE the projectile hit. This would appear in the game as a projectile passing through a building hitting the tank. Is this possibly an expalnation of some peoples observations?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: .....CM calculated a miss and then plotted a trajectory for the round to land. For the sake of allowing CM to run well CPU wise, this calculation doesn't pay close attention to where the vehicle is or isn't. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm...this has kinda surprised me...so when CM does it's number crunching for aimed projectile fire, it first determines, using some algorithm, the result BEFORE actually sending the projectile from the gun barrel...in this sense, the trajectory you see in the game is not that of a true virtual 3D object that will hit whatever is in its path (cf. to a say a true 3D shooter where it all happens in "real time" and it is possible to dodge bullets say AFTER they are fired) I was under the impression that the projectile trajectory was predetermined/calculated FIRST without knowledge of whether a hit will be achieved (based on aiming conditions, gunner skill, shell used, muzzle velocity, any relative motion factors such as if the tank is moving etc), sent on its merry way towards the intended target out of the barrel without knowing WHAT (if anything) it will hit UNTIL it actually completes it trajectory....in this sense it is a true projectile flying through a 3D environment that will hit whatever happens to be in its path...the intended target, dirt, colateral target, building...whatever...if the virtual 3D object is in space (like the polygon that makes up a tank, house), then it will impact and cause damage. How then is it determined whether the projectile will hit anything else (and cause "colateral" damage?...is this also predetermined?...strange because if it is, then what does the algorithm consider potential colateral damage targets?...I would assume an "if-then" type of algorithm would be used where the game first computes whether a hit will be made...if it calcs that a it will be a miss, then some other algorithm must be used to determine if any colateral damage is going to be caused...it must then determine what potential colateral targets are about...this sounds awfully complex...any info available how this aspect of projectile fire is accounted for? Lt. Bull

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spider: anyone see the footage of the guy sucked into the side vent of the prowler? he survived with a broken arm, went all the way into the plane and got caught in the blade, pretty amazing footage...... there was a chicken there too....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Spider, I have seen that footage. Amazing stuff and you say he actually survived! with only a broken arm??!! Where did you hear that? Lt_Bull

Hell yeah Spook! SMG really created great atmosphere. I really liked how, if you knew what you were doing, very deliberate micro-management of regiments (to the level of a brigade commander or even regimental commander) in the heat of battle could really turn an otherwise impending defeat into victory. It was up to the player to determine how "nitty gritty" they wanted to be. In the same way poor strategy (Corp/Divisional level) could be made up by excellent tactical deployment (Brigade/Regimental level) and vice versa. The basic SMG/SMA game engine/game concept is excellent. Pity about you losing your smg CD. I could've challenged you to a battle! It really is an excellent game. I managed to get SMA as well. If you haven't seen it, its pretty much the same but with a few more enhancing features (eg. specific regimental uniforms, brigade level orders, artillery types etc). To really take that game to the next level, it was hoped that some sort of strategic layer was going to be added (like in CCIV or CWG, and in some ways CMMC) but they didn't go down that path. Lt. Bull

....ah yeah Jeff...I forgot to mention that important feature! It really extended the life of the game. In fact, virtually all h2h games played online were typically created using the random battle generator. SMG's strength was in it's h2h play capability. I understand that CM is going to have some sort of "random battle generator"...any clarifications? Lt. Bull

Agree with many of the posts as what were notable wargames (eg CC series, V4V series etc) but I think I should mention Sid Meier's Gettysburg (and more recently Antietam). SMG/SMA has an excellent balance between strategy and tactics combined with decent graphics and sounds. My best online gaming experiences was playing SMG 2x2 (or 3x3 when the connection was good enough). Morale, LOS, 3D terrain, FOW, formation, deployment, cavalry, leadership all had to be considered. It was great to see how well the styles of each player could really manifest itself on the battlefield. It was great seeing how the results of a tough battle at one section of a line could result in the dissolution of the entire battle line as the enemy flank was exploited. The need for good strategic planning AND good tactical conduct/technique were distinct features of the game. Thouroughly recommend it to anyone. Lt. Bull

Hunt52/Offwhite....thanks for the explanation...I will now not freak out when I unexpectedly see it again somewhere Ok...back to our regular CM programming Lt. Bull

I know that threads on this forum take unusual turns at the best of times. Now here is one that I would never have considered asking if I hadn't viewed that POTD with the landmarks. Ok...now bear with me, but it's just one of those things that I have seen SO often but have NEVER had it explained (mainly on TV when watching sporting events, from NFL to th winter Olympics!). I need to know!! John 3:16 What in God's name does that mean (excuse the pun, I gather it is a religious reference) and why do people try to get it viewed by as many people as they can? eg. Typically taking and waving arround a big yellow banner with the words "John 3:16" painted in black to locations where they know a television camera will happen to inadvertantly get it in picture (like behind the goals at a football game) so that many people get to see it. ...or more recently...when creating demonstration screenshots for a pc game! It's funny how some things that go unexplained early on can be sheleved away in your conciousness but bug us intensely (in proportion to the length of time it has gone unexplained) when it pops up again! Lt. Bull

ahh...that was one mighty long beer Anyways, yeah, it's good to see this topic still alive. I've discussed and have been dwelling on the mechanics/limitations of mechanized track motion since. Blincide, can you please post up the link to the page with the Hetzer steering details? Looks like what I It seems that pure "sit and spin" motion in WW2 tracked vehicles was more rare than it was common, because of the more complex requirements of the power train. So far have we only identified the Tiger I (II as well?) chassis and the Panther chassis as being capable of this "sit and spin" manuveur (ie. having opposable drives on each track) Desert Fox..