David Aitken

I found plenty of duds in my current game against Panzer Leader. He has a fortress with at least four 75mm pillboxes and several unarmoured guns. I lined up ten various Shermans, a Jumbo, a Pershing and a Jackson at close range and blasted away. I knocked out one pillbox, good. Then I proceeded to put numerous shells through the firing slits of the others, but the occupants didn't even notice and continued to plink away most of my tanks. How they can simply ignore high-explosive shells detonating a few metres behind them in a confined space is beyond me, so the shells must have been duds. The tally so far: two surviving Shermans and the Jackson, two pillboxes and two guns knocked out, at least two pillboxes and two guns remaining. Screw it, I'm calling in the 6in guns.

In the words of Michael Stipe, Run a carbon black test on my jaw And you will find It's all been said before The issue of localised lighting at night is an important one, especially in the case of muzzle flashes, which would in reality attract a lot of suppression fire. The way CM is currently modelled, night fighting is quite similar to fog fighting, in that you simply can't see beyond a certain range, rather than being able to see anything that is illuminated. This will hopefully be addressed through the use of dynamic lighting (assuming this is a practical and not just an aesthetic improvement) when the engine is rewritten after CM2. As for putting tanks and guns inside buildings – as we always say, what if it has a basement?

Oh dear, now look what I've done. It wasn't even a Monty Python reference. The Knights of the Round Table did actually exist, you know, although I doubt they were quite as amusing as their more recent incarnations.

It's not a sufficiently contentious subject. I'm sure there have been discussions about it, but none terribly heated or extensive. I make sure to bookmark the big debates because those are the ones I can't bear to be repeatedly restaged. It's easy enough to say "jeep points no for guns, for wheels too!".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michael Dorosh wrote: I suspect the point value is based on more than just the armament<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed. Grunto's request regarding the prices of the M3A1 and the 251/1 pertain only to their ability to kill each other, not their all-round battlefield usefulness. An unarmed jeep may not be worth much for killing the enemy, but it is worth a lot for zipping infantry back and forth across the battlefield, and for this reason is it not cheaper. A 3in mortar at the start line is worthless, but halfway across the map where your troops are fighting, it can turn the tide of battle. A jeep makes that difference. Halftracks are primarily armoured trucks, but it so happens that the Germans put a machinegun on theirs and the Americans put a more powerful machinegun on theirs, which leads to them being used as gun platforms in CM instead of the transport they are. [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

If you're going to have dragons, I want the Knights of the Round Table as well. I hope BTS have the information to accurately model the penetration power of a historically accurate sword or halbard.

Listen carefully, as I shall say zis only vonce. Heck, I didn't even know I knew that. What a load of rubbish there must be inside my head.

Of course, BTS has pointed out that CM cannot possibly produce the results it does through accounting for every possible battlefield variable. Everything that you see has to be specifically programmed to happen the way it does, so CMBO functions in a way which is only really suited to Second World War, post-Normandy Landings, Western Front warfare. The example was quoted in a thread about the current modelling of machineguns, as these are being altered to deal more effectively with the human wave tactics employed by the Russians early in the war. So ultimately, you can make CM look like a different war, but it will always function as the specific theatre it was designed for.

The issue of competition was doubtlessly a serious factor in Apple's reckoning. They are still offering the ATI Radeon as a built-to-order option. They are still using the RAGE 128 (outdated though it may be) in low end systems, and the RAGE Mobility in portables. Nvidia cards are the default for G4 systems, but ATI is certainly still there. Previously they had a complete monopoly on Apple systems, so this was a timely kick up the backside. And, of course, there are rumours that Steve Jobs simply got pissed off at ATI, especially when they pre-empted his announcement that Apple would have a new line of machines with the Radeon. He never made the announcement, whether or not he was going to, and ATI was promptly sidelined in favour of Nvidia.

Good idea, the actual settings of the card would be something to look at. The driver situation is nothing to do with Apple. It is the reason Apple ditched ATI – because they were so poor at keeping their drivers up to date. We should expect regular driver updates from Nvidia, or through Apple, but certainly not older updates from Nvidia, as was the case with ATI.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Babra wrote: Sorry, I was referring to vehicular equipment. Chaffees, Greyhounds, M3 Halftracks et al.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That only just occurred to me when I read MikeyD's post.

Good heavens, I've stumbled into Grog Porn Weekly. Where is Ethan when you need him?

I suspect that the Sturmtiger will not fire without specific orders.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Cromwell had a 'block' of hits on the first or second shot at first then settled down to missing all the time so I think it got 'lucky' on some of those.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a flawed interpretation of your data. Just because the tank got a few hits at the beginning and less for the rest of the time, doesn't mean the hits it got were somehow 'wrong' or 'lucky'. (Luck is considered to be a good thing, so 'chance' would be a better term.) By your logic, it could equally have been 'luck' when the tank missed. Maybe it should have hit all the time. Were the results not 'random' enough for you to believe them? Does 'random' have to be 'regular' in order to be credible? Think about it.

It is up to the card manufacturers to provide compatibility with the protocol employed by your software. Combat Mission uses Quickdraw 3D RAVE, which was the Mac OS standard until a year or two ago when they suddenly switched to OpenGL and killed off RAVE (their own technology). 3Dfx's Glide was the 'other' technology alongside RAVE, but of course 3Dfx has bought it as well, leaving OpenGL. OpenGL is good, because it's Open, unlike for example the PC standard DirectX, which belongs to Microsoft. There are other technologies out there but none come to mind, and certainly none really matter on the Mac. So anyway, Mac games should now all use OpenGL. Either a card supports OpenGL or it doesn't, that's nothing to do with the software you're using. Indeed you can have such trouble due to dodgy software, but a proper company is unlikely to release software exhibiting the problems you describe, so it is usually down to your graphics card. By the same token, there is not usually anything fundamentally wrong with graphics cards, so it comes down to the drivers. As Nvidia is new to the Mac, their drivers obviously need a bit of work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Babra wrote: The French conversion would be easiest since their equipment would be almost universally WW2 vintage US.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you quite sure about that? Maybe you know more than I do about lend-lease, but the French had their own weapons before the Second World War, which they used in the first couple of years, and continued to use afterwards. Indeed the Germans would have commandeered most of their armaments, but unless these were destroyed in the interim, the French would presumably have taken them back. The MAS 49 was the standard French rifle from 1949. To quote from Jane's Gun Recognition Guide, "This was adopted somewhat hurriedly in 1949 when the French Army was anxious to equip with a modern rifle instead of the collection of oddments which had survived the war". This suggests that they were indeed not using exclusively American small-arms, but a combination of their own, possibly German, and probably American and British as well. The MAT 49 submachinegun was adopted around the same time and, like the MAS 49, remained standard armament until the introduction of the FA MAS in 1980. The Chatellerault M1924/29 light machinegun was manufactured in the decade prior to the war, and remained in service until the 1950's. I have pictures of it, as well as the MAS 49 and MAT 49, in use in Indo-China. The current French GPMG, the AAT-F1, has been in production since 1952 (when it presumably replaced the M1924/29).

boy_Rectum seems to have had a sense of humour bypass. One would think he works in local government or something.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ferdinand wrote: David, wouldn't the same effect be achieved simply by reducing the rate of fire ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As a single alteration to the current model, yes, this would be an improvement. Moderately accurate but irregular fire. However, under certain circumstances a gunner may choose to fire anyway, so a fixed, lower rate of fire would not always be desirable.

As Apple has only recently adopted Nvidia cards as the Mac standard, I suspect that the drivers are not quite up to scratch, and I have heard speculation to this effect. You may find more information on these websites: http://www.macfixit.com/ http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/

I have no idea how CM is coded, but I can envisage there being a problem with assigning a linear percentage hit chance to fast-moving vehicles. When your vehicle is rumbling along on rough terrain (or even a road), there are periods of a second or two when you're going smoothly, then you go over a bumpy patch, and so on. It's not as though fast-moving simply reduces the accuracy of your main gun – the gun remains accurate, but most of the time its platform is too jerky to get off a straight shot (even with a gyrostabiliser). However, there will be brief moments when it is possible to shoot accurately. Therefore, assigning a linear hit chance may result in an unrealistically low chance of hitting targets while on the move. It means that you're very inaccurate all the time, instead of being mostly inaccurate and sometimes accurate. The result will probably be passably similar, but there is a fundamental difference. This would be more important if, for example, the gunner could choose to hold fire until the tank momentarily stabilises, and then shoot, whereupon he would be decently accurate but only when he chooses to fire, which would be irregularly. [ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bruno Weiss wrote: I could think of a good many things more important to the overall project than the sex appeal of the big boom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're as bad as Steve Jobs. The Titanium Powerbook is nice, but I wouldn't call it sexy. A large explosion is similarly distant from my definition of sexy. This afternoon I drew a picture of what I'd call sexy, but I'm keeping it (and in case Mace drops by, no, it doesn't have a fleece).

Today I am content to be alive. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzer Leader wrote: Whiiiiiiiiiiiine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.

You forgot a few questions: Will CM2 include the PzKpfw 969 "Große Hans"? Will CM2 include the PzKpfw 969/1 "Große Wolfgang"? Will CM2 include the PzKpfw 969/2 "Große Dietrich"? Will CM2 include the PzKpfw 969/3 "Große Jörg"? Will CM2 include the PzKpfw 969/3a "Dicke Hermann"? Will CM2 include the PzKpfw 969/3b ausf D "Dumm Ernst"? Will CM2 include the PzKpfw 969/9z ausf X "Lange Fritz"? Will CM2 include the PzKpfw 970/1 ausf A "Kurze Erich"? Can I blow stuff up?

Damn, I'm still alive. And more to the point, so is Panty Liner. If anyone has any spare grenades, please send them to: 70 Baronshill Avenue Linlithgow West Lothian EH49 7JG UK

How dare you speak that way to my fine self, defender of the free world against Maximus and his evil fascist modding cronies? I could just up and leave you, and then where would you be, hmm? The whole world would grind to a halt through pixel density, and quite possibly plummet straight into the Sun. So just think twice before you brush someone off, as they may hold your very destiny in their hands.