Mikeydz

Guys, I'm making an appeal that everyone here just ignore JP from now on until Charles or Steve log in and takes care of this issue with a banning once and for all.

JP, you do realize that you are 100% banned, don't you? Go away

Supposedly, there is a bug where if you are hull-down when attacking a target, the target gets the bonus as if it was hull-down also.

My bet is that he just got himself banned, and he just doesn't know it yet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JOCHEN PEIPER: MMMMMMMMMMM let me think.....maybe its because you guys have a chemical imbalance... as I said before... I put up a harmless PIC of Herr Wittman and say it would be ideal for after the battle scenario...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You put up a pic of Whittman, then another pic, and another. You really should only post pics when it serves a purpose, like when Tiger is showing examples of his textures, or is your posting a diagram that explains a technical situation, ect. It's a waste of bandwith otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swamp: I know I insulted you but you were asking for it, no need to get morbid here, I suggest you get a clue as to whats going on before you post a response to the thread go back and read your first post on this thread <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one should be insulting anyone here. Too much of that garbage is going on here, and it definatle shades a poor light on the parties involved, but more importantly on BTS. As far as my first post, I stand by it. There is no conspiracy, as you suggested in your first message. And as soon as BTS hears about a bug, they investigate it, then fix it. It won't suprise me if the mutual hull down thing is fixed in 1.06. Now off to watch for more JP pic posts... [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 09-03-2000).]

Ahh... I know a picture says a thousand words, but the keyboard might be more effective.

God help us...

JP.... What's the friggin point???

Quote from BTS Forum Rules... something you agreed to when join this forum.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The major rules are as follows: 1. No Flaming and/or Baiting. If you have a strong opinion, that is fine. But express it in such a way that is non-abusive and not emotionally charged. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We like to think our gamers are mature, rational people. Please help us keep this opinion of you! 4. Negativism is a real turn off. Battlefront.com believes in the freedom of speech in a big way, but that does not mean we have to provide a service so someone can irresponsibly attack us or our games. However, this does NOT mean we don't want to be criticized. Far from it! If you have an opinion that is not complementary to us, we encourage you to post so that we can hopefully address the problem, or at least challenge its assertions. What we don't want are unsupported rants. Here are two examples of expressing an opinion: THE WRONG WAY - "YOUR GAMES SUCK, YOU SUCK, EVERYTHING BUT ME SUCKS! YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELLS OF ELDERBERRIES!!!!" The wrong way does nothing but annoy us and make you look like an immature fool. Your post will be quickly ignored, but the low opinion of you will remain for much longer. If you want to make a difference in life, this is not the way to do it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Before you post anymore, reread the rules, look at your posts, then reread the rules again. Then respond.

Troll

Ack... I mis-read it... Darn it, it sure looked like infantry squads the first time I read it..

Yep, you are mistaken... The whole issue was not trying to cover up anything. The point is the feasability and necessity in BTS adding some type of hull down command, or hull down tool to CM. If there is a bug, (I haven't personally tested for it) then rest assured that BTS will quickly squash it.

To quote the relevant parts of the Readme file... *****ver 1.01***** Pillboxes are slightly harder to spot (if in cover), and can 'hide' (which helps save ammo). Also, they are now far more resistant to artillery. then... ******ver 1.03***** v1.01 made pillboxes just a little bit too resistant to artillery. This resistance has been toned down slightly. Well, I ran a test pretty much like Mr *~ did.. I set up 35 88mm Pillboxes in a square patter with little/no space between them. I then lined up 10 elite 240mm FO's against them, hidden in woods. After all was said an done, and the final hell fell, what was the result? Not one of the pillboxes was "knocked out". So my final conclusion is... Pillboxes are NOT immune to artillery fire... Yep, not immune. How can I say this, considering I couldn't "knock out" any of the pillboxes? Well, after the 1st minute of the rounds falling on top of the pillboxes, I had 10 rounds that either hit (no serious damage), or were near misses. Those 10 "effective rounds" as I'll call em, caused 9 of the 35 pillboxes to be abandoned at that point. So they are far from immune. While I don't know the physics behind it, as a layman, I would think that I would get an occasional "knock out", I can't back up this laymans guess. But for sure artillery can force the crews to abandon thier posts.

As far as the immobilized tank goes, you can area fire, without the main gun, into the direction that you want to have the main gun face. The problem is that you'll be using up MG ammo. You could also use the tanks ability to use the ambush command and set up an ambush marker in the are you think the enemy will be coming from. Plus is you won't waste any mmo with this method, but if the enemy comes from another area not near the ambush marker, the tank may be slow in responding to the threat. A specific "Rotate turret" command for tanks would of course be the ideal solution. Maybe it's on the list of a feature to add, but I don't know. Of course, you could always try and kill the enemy before he can immobilize your tanks. That would be the best bet.

Oh yeah... then everyone can justify using thoses "half squads" as scouts. I can just see the hoopla coming out of that change. And he did mean all infanty squads, not just the weapon crews. I don't see how this is any more realistic. I definatly like the way it's modeled now, as far as regular infanrty is concerned with the "low ammo" status. What is broken with that were we need to change it???

Let's get back to being a little civil here. This is the main point. BTS has stated in the past that they are not going to open up thier code to mod makers, to where the core data, such as terrain effects, unit info, and so on, can be modified. So I don't hold out much hope for them changing thier mind for your Vietnam mod idea. Right now, it's impossible for you to make a good Vietnam mod legally, because the only thing you can change is the graphics. The underlying unit ratings would still all be WWII troops and vehicles. Where it becomes illegal is if you were to to this on your own, without BTS permission. So if you get permission, great. But if you don't get permission, but go ahead and crack the code to edit the units anyway, then bad, bad Gunslinger...

So, Mr. History teacher, let's see if I'm following your lesson plan correctly... I don't want to seem stupid, after all... "posted 08-31-2000 12:54 AM" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>America went to war in WWII because the Chinese pushed us into it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "posted 08-31-2000 01:39 AM" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For Japan to not go to war with us would have meant pulling out of China, which was impossible given the social mindset of Imperial Japan in the late 30s. We pushed them into war, the argument is whether it was justified or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm... ahhh well... I must be stupid, because to me it looks like in the span of 45 minutes, it went from China pushing the US into the war, to the US pushing Japan into the war. Care to tell us at what point Japan takes responsibility, in your mind, for continuing down the path that lead to war? [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 08-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Quick, Meeks, edit or dive under a table!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think he meant what he typed. So let's see.... China drove us into WWII... Damn... wish I knew that one... So if Japan had not attacked us, we would have attacked them? China may positioned themselves into a favorable position with the US, but Japan brought us into the war.

Dude, calm down... First, if the coincidence doesn't click with you then I don't know what will... In your "profile" it shows you just registered today (08/30/00). Capt. Stran's email closely matches your forum name. With these two coincidences, your first post on the board defends ol Capt. and goes on to slightly insinuate that BTS harbors some sort of bias or bigotry toward NZers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I wasnt going to post but hearing the BTS comment made me mad as im a NZer too. BTS dont say NZers post differently. That could be viewed as quite insulting!! What are u insenuating?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So those three things added together do make it look like Capt thring to build support for himself using pseudo-forum members. Yes, if I wanted to create multiple forum accounts to post with, I personally wouldn't be dumb enough to use a name that would anyway remotely be connected with one another, but I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen on other forums 2 or more "posters" that had different info, but the email they entered was exactly the same. If it's not the case that you are the Captain in disguise, then welcome to the board, but careful with the language.

As someone said above, the definition of gamey can vary, depending on the eye of the beholder. But for sure exploiting a bug in the AI or game engine is gamey, or more appropriatly, cheating. There are quite a few tactics that can be construed as gamey, but on of the great things about CM is that many off the classic gamey tactics have serious drawbacks.

What you are probably seeing Shatter is the graphics stuttering because of more units/larger maps you are playing than what you saw in the demo version. What we are refering to when we say lock up, is the game crashing because of a bug, or some incompatibility with our hardware setup.

single digits

About 40 to go.... tic, toc, tic, toc

I've had 1 lockup since buying the game, but that was back with version 1.01. Only problem now is I if I hit ESC to get back to the desktop, it will crash, but I'm not counting that since I'm attributing that problem to a system crash that I had a couple of days ago that goofed yo my graphics card settings. It's about time for my semi-annual Win98 reinstall anyway...