Lt Bull

Can someone please come to the CM Yahoo Club within the next hr and assist in sorting out a tech prob...you should be prepeared to try to open a PBEM that my opponent cant. The game with my opponent is in limbo! Cya there Thanks Lt. Bull

Yep, that's it. Funny stuff isn't it! Good to know they have fixed that one Lt. Bull

I had a search for the term "floating" but didn't find any thread directly addressing this issue. To replicate this bug, order a unit positioned on the top floor of any 2 storey building to move directly to the top floor of another 2 storey building (apparently distance doesnt matter) and the unit will remain suspended at the hieght of the 2 storey building for the duration of the time it takes to get to the other 2 storey building. I have't actually fooled around with this in a battle but it would make for some hilarious comments from your opponent in a pbem after he sees an entire platoon "flying" around the map! I would think that this bug is related to the building collapses, unit still suspened bug but still worth asking if it has been addressed. Cheers Lt. Bull

Ok, It seems that what I was seeing was the AI being scatterbrained and changing its mind at the end of every turn (mainly in LD with AI as Germans, very erratic movement...forward, bump, reverse, rotate, pause etc). I will look more carefully for examples of "smooth" trans-turn orders. Lt. Bull

Hello, A question for the BTS team: From playing the AI, I have noticed that ALL AI units pause at the begining of EVERY turn. eg. A HT might commence the turn stationary on a road. It might start moving down a straight stretch of road. By the time the turn is over, it is still in motion moving along the road. At the begining of the NEXT turn, the HT is suddenly STATIONARY. After a few seconds, it starts moving down the road again. Is this always the case in the demo? In the current build? If so then... Conlusion: the AI is severely handicapped in the way it can not seamlessly continue movement (or any order) from one turn to the next(say down a stretch of road). Treat every AI unit at the BEGINING of the turn as a STATIONARY target that will always PAUSE before it carries out its next order. Lt. Bull

Ok seems like there is no problem with crew/infantry on a tank when it fires (or for modern tanks it seems). I guess that the muzzle brake would direct the ejected gases more laterally than backwards obviously, so crew and passengers would be safe. I would still think that there would be locations infront of and to the sides of the barrel where infantry would be warned not to occupy or to stay clear of. Kind of obvious but not so when the barrel is fitted with a muzzle brake. Mike, you said you were within 50m of a tank when it fired and your ears suffered. Thats quite some distance. Where were you positioned relative to the tank? I take it you were in the army. If you were ever a infantry soldier, would you be conscious of how you deployed yourself around a tank in the event that it fired its main gun? Is there also a difference between muzzle brakes and muzzle flash suppressors? Isnt one to account for recoil the other for reducing the gun flash out the barrel (to aid in concealment)? Lt. Bull

I've just fionished reading "Death Traps, The Survival of an American Armored Division in WW2". It is writtren by B.Y. Cooper who was an ordanance lieutenant in the 3rd Arm Div. He probably made more ordance inspections and witnessed more battle damaged tanks than probably anyone else in any war. A MUST read by anyone interested in WW2 armor IMO. In it, he described the time when the first 20 Pershings were issued to the the 2nd and 3rd Arm Divs (10 each, 5 per regiment). AS part of the preliminary firing tests, they lined up a Pershing to fire at some German targets. They set up, as a safety precaution, tapes at about 45deg from the front of the tank extending back about 100ft on either side. "The 90mm gun had a muzzle brake similar to the one on the Sherman 76mm gun. The brake was a heavy steel casting on the front end of the gun barrel with a clearance hole through the centre to allow the projectile to pass. On either side were dual blast deflectors, which deflected the blast to the rear and sides. The reversal of the gun blast offset the recoiling forces to the rear. Because the space inside the turret is limited, the recoil distance from the rear on the gun must be confined to nine to twelve inches. The muzzle brake makes this possible." No prob, but here is the interesting part. "Anyone standing inside the tapes could not only have his eardrums ruptured, he might be killed by the shock of the blast. This same situation occured with the Sherman 76mm gun, but the effect was magnified considerably by the power of the 90mm gun. Although our armored infantry knew about this, we had to make sure that anyone attached from other divisions was also warned." Interesting from the point of view of how infantry positioned themselves around a tank in actual combat. I don't think the crew of the tank would really be weary (or even care) of the location of nearby friendly infantry when engaging their main gun. I guess it just would've been "too bad" if infantry were in the wrong location and were caught in the blast. I wonder how weary infantry were of the gun blast when positioned around a tank. Were all infantry trained to consider where the "danger spots" around a tank were with respect to the muzzle blast? This also raises the question of the safety of exposed tank commanders and tank riding infantry on tanks when the main gun was fired. Not all guns had muzzle brakes but for the ones that did it presents an interesting situation. BTW, can tanks with carrying infantry fire their main gun in CM? Cheers Lt. Bull [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 03-03-2000).]

CCJ, You keep on improving each time you go back to work on them! Your latest effort (http://www.geocities.com/coolcolj/CCJ_River4.jpg) is excellent. You have "dirtied up" the colour and done an excellent job of blending the tile edges with each other (no more wave look). It is a VAST improvement on the original CM demo tile! It will be difficult for you (I imagine) to improve on what you have already done. You are definitely on the right track with the colour. I would agree with your suggestion of trying darkening the river more. It wouldn't hurt to experiment. BTW...your "CM wallpaper" is a work of art! The detail and look of those buildings is superb. I noticed how you have softened the sharp look of the buildings by extending grass/moss/greenstuff up around the bases of the building tiles...another one of those simple/minor tweaks that impact heavily on the "look" of the game. Genius! Lt. Bull [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 02-29-2000).]

The new river texture probably looks better (both are good)...I notice that in both, where it seems the textures meet, you get a "peak" or wavelike join...any reason for that? Just wondering if you have experimented with changing the colour of the water. I know rivers in games are obviously coloured blue but would "dirtying up" the colour some what make it look more "real". Im not familiar with seeing European rivers but the clean blue colour of the rivers are a blue that makes me think Carribean beach. You have also done an awesome job on the buildings BTW! Keep up the quality work! Lt. Bull

I've been trying to make sense of all this discussion and on seeing that last image posted by R Cunningham (i can't read German BTW) it made me think that we may be confusing several issues together. Was that image (with the merry-go-round)supposed to be showing turning circles based on what "speed" (or gear) the tank is in? Is it basically showing the principles of centrifugal force (ie. F=mv/r^2)? ie. A slow moving tank can make sharper turns than a fast moving tank? Theoretically correct doesn't expalin much unless you look at the mechanics of how the turn is made. What would assist greatly in this discussion would be the use of the term "axis of rotation". I guess it is best to look at the case of a stationary tank turn and a tank turning whilst moving separately. 1) If a tank is STATIONARY, it may be possible for it to ROTATE about an axis passing vertically through the centre of the hull (or near enough) IF it can engage one track forward and the other in reverse. Im sure not all tracked vehicles of WW2 were capable of this. I guess this count turn is what has been refered to as a "0m turning circle" and...I think this is basically how CM models stationary change of facing for ALL vehicles (BTS?). 2) If a tank is STATIONARY but does not have a transmission that allows it to engage one track forward and the other in reverse, the best it could do to "try" and turn about its own axis would be to either: a) disengage one track (put it in neutral) and engage the other or "lock" one track and engage the other In both these cases, rotation about the centre axis (a 0m turning circle) would be impossible. The theoretical best turn would be a turn about a vertical axis passing through the "disengaged" or "locked" track...ie. approx half the width of the tank. This leads to an important consideration when determining the "turning circle" of tanks, and that is the width the track are apart. Further, it is interesting to consider that when a tank pivots about one track in the manner above, the non-driven track is "sliding" or "skidding" and not neccesarily rotating in any manner. FRICTION is an important aspect to consider here (in fact, in most of these situations). Depending on the geometry/mass/conditions, it may be impossible for a tank to perform this manuveur all together. Typically, consider a case of a stationary heavy tank with its tracks spaced close together. The power transmitted by the driving track may not be enough to overcome the static friction between the neutral/locked track and the ground. A similar tank that has its tracks spaced wider apart, on the other hand, would be more likely to generate enough torque about an axis passing through the neutral/locked track to over come the friction and effect a turn about that axis. Generally, the track opposite the driven track would not necessarily have to rotate (ie, the boogies spin) for this manuever to be carried out. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be required for the tank to lock or put the track in nuetral to carry out this turn. Again, based on the friction situation. Now consider a MOVING tank travelling in a straight line wanting to turn (of smallest turning circle). It is a mass with momentum that needs a force to make it turn. Depending on the transmission, it could do this a number of ways. I wouldn't think that tanks had separate "brake pedals" as such for L and R tracks but more like an "accelerator" stick or "gear stick" for each. In any case, to turn whilst moving, the tank must be able to reduce (or increase) the power to one of its tracks so that it the extra power could pivot the tank about some turning axis invariably greater than half the width of the tank. So here we have a tank with both tracks rotating in the same gear and transmitting power to the ground travelling in a straight line and it needs to reduce power in some way to one track to turn. Ideally, the sharpest turn at any speed would be achieved IF the tank could "slam the brakes" on one of the tracks and cause it to pivot about an axis passing directly through the locked track. I dont think this is possible. Depending on speed, mass, track width, location of the centre of mass of the tank, it could actually tip over and roll (just like some trucks and cars do anyway!). The next best thing is to reduce the power being transmitted to one track by "gearing down" similar to taking your foot off the accelerator of a manual car and dropping the gears from say 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 to decelearte the car without using the brakes. In this case the drive to one track is completely disenaged from the power carrying shaft but left "in gear". The track would still be "rolling" or "rotating" as it still has momentum but would slow down subject to the internal friction of the bearings/gears (just like in the car example). Theoretically, the lower gears would "brake" the most. Again, depending on the track width, momentum of the tank (speed x mass), the magnitude of "frictional resistance to rotation due to internal bearing/gear friction" and the friction the track has with the ground, the tank would turn about some axis of rotation located some distance to the left or right of the tank. Of course the more momentum the tank has, the harder it will be to turn. It needs a greater "braking" effect to make it turn.... .....looks like I run out of time. I have more to say but its time to go out and sink some beers I guess I will let you dwell on this and rejoin this discussion tommorow. Cheers Lt. Bull

It's amazing how much a bit of spit and polish on the "final" product will go to enhancing the visual realism of a game like CM...that smoke looks like the way smoke should look for a game made in 2000....its spot on for a game like this. Spit and polish on visual features like this have an immediate impact on peoples perceptions of the game and definitely add to the gaming experience: cerebral, visual, audible and viceral (if you include force feedback controller...hehe!). Sometimes "minor" enhncements like this have the greatest impact on the way a game is percieved and its all just a matter of spending just that extra bit of time improving it. As a wargamer, I want the best of both worlds! Give me cutting edge AI/realism/accuracy, graphics, sounds...the whole damn lot! All my senses work so I want quality input for each one. Lt. Bull

Thank you Moon for bringing the thread back on track and Fionn for giving us a feel for what to expect in CM hedgerow battles (how bout some screenshoots of the action?! ). Moon you wrote: "Hedgerows are too high for any AFV to see over it. However, the way hedgerows are modelled in the game, you can see through them when your units are within 6 meters of it." I can understand this without knowing the EXACT height. Just making sure, when you say they have LOS through bocage at 6m they (inf and AFV) will also be able to fire through the hedgerow without penalty? Second, what of defensive benefits? 1) Will there be any hull down benefits for AFVs behind the hedgerow firing through it? 2)As far as protection from direct fire goes, how does hedgerow compare to stone walls and hedges? Lt Bull

Simon, you should be able to catch the end of the "game" when you get home....well wouldn't call it that...Australia is 5/296 with 3 overs to go!!!!....more like a walk over (again!). Lt Bull

Now now Simon! Just calm down Lt Bull

Goanna, Looks like we might have to tell them Yanks about the kangaroos hopping down our local street and "shrimps on the barbie"! Lt Bull

Howdy, I have searched for info on this topic and found much discussion of it. Amongst all the discussion, I seemed to have lost what the current treatment of hedgerow/bocage terrain in CM will be. For what it is worth, I would consider it to be a difficult terrain feature to model capturing the key elements of how it affected battlefield tactics on both sides and the ways they exploited it and physically overcame it. From what I have read, I believe that all US Shermans and Stuarts after July 1944 will be considered to have been fitted with the Culins hedgecutter device (though not actually physically modelled) allowing them slow passage through hedgerow (with "underbelly" attacks not modelled in any way). It will be impassable to all other vehicles. BTW: For those who have CC1, it comes with some great archival WW2 footage of the hedgerow/bocage terrain of Normandy . One is of a Stuart fitted with the cutters ploughing relatively easily through a hedgerow (probably a "minor" one and not typical). Also, I understand that there will be only one "type" of bocage modelled. My questions are these: 1) How high is the hedgerow modelled in CM? Is it high enough so that some AFVs will get hulldown, all AFVs get hulldown or will the hedgerow be too high for any AFV to fire/see through/over? 2)Will infantry and AT guns be able to fire/see "through" hedgerow getting concealment and defensive terrain benefits for being "behind" it? 3) Will "breaching" a herdgerow (generally for AFV passage) by use of explosives by engineer units be modelled, allowing AFV passage and LOS? This was the main method prior Culin's innovation. 4) If a Culin's fitted tank passes through a hedgerow, will it alter that section of hedgerow for LOS/movement purposes from that time on? Historically, such breaches were of tactical significance where it allowed passage for other units to follow (I realise this would be difficult to model!) I would expect 3) AND 4) to be modelled or not at all. 5) Will the Culin's device ONLY be modelled on a few Shermans and Stuarts? I know they weren't exclusively used on just those tanks (eg M10, Cromwell). From the discussions, it doesnt sound like particular vehicles can be "tagged" as having the device fitted. 6) I would guess that infantry can pass through/over hedgegrow at a reduced movement rate. Will they be subject to any defense penalties for doing so if fired upon? Lt Bull (thanks for the stuffing around Steve, must be working if you can read this )