David Aitken

HQ units are already distinguished. They carry pistols. This is more obvious than any texture would be.

MantaRay wrote: > Why all this jealousy against anyone who does anything for the US here? I see no jealousy. What I see is a reaction to the kind of sentiment that you express so well here: > The US did much more in the defeat of Nazi Germany than did Britan, Canada, France, or any other Ally accept for the Soviet Union, and that is open to any of your flames. > And if you don't like my comment, well until America entered the war with troops, Britan was getting their ass kicked by not only Germany, but also by Japan in the Pacific. > Now tell me Canada and France was even a factor? Very small factor if any. How crass and simplistic. The nature of the part played in the war by each of the nations involved varies dramatically. Granted, the US provided considerable human and industrial muscle, as it does so well. But if you think muscle is the only relevant factor in a war then you have a poor understanding of the business. > Next time Rommel, make one that shows thses guys what it would have been like if we hadn't entered the war...ie Swastikas and lots of blood. > And yes, I am a patriotic person for my country. > AND THE US IS THE BEST COUNTRY ON EARTH....where do you think CM was developed at gomers? Patriotism at its blindest and most xenophobic. Thankyou for the example, MantaRay.

Rommel22 wrote: > Nothing wrong with sticking up for you country, thats all! I doubt your country needs people to stick up for it, but I'm sure that attitude will make your government happy.

Deja News was simply an archive of Usenet posts. Clicking on each post of a Usenet thread is no problem, because they take a fraction of the time to load that Web pages do. Web forums function differently, and each medium has its advantages and disadvantages. Deja News was not a Web forum.

Officers are not likely to go into battle "festooned with Iron Crosses". The less distinguishable they are from their men, the less likely they are to be shot by a sniper.

Rommel22 wrote: > I look at being patriotic as a good thing! Nothing wrong with it! There is a thin line between patriotism and xenophobia. I'm not making accusations, just offering food for thought.

Monty wrote: > Yeah..where are the European Forces ? Well heck, they were the enemy, weren't they! These are Allied images. Geez, what do they teach kids these days?

If I'd thought too much about what professional photographers say, I would never have bought a digital camera. You can still get low-resolution cameras, but mine does 2048x1536, which is acceptable for professional purposes, and as far as I'm concerned it's brilliant. And of course, being a Nikon, the pictures are very sharp and look great. Aside from resizing, and brightening one or two where I'd messed up the exposure, the pictures are unchanged (if I'd posted them full-size you'd be downloading for a week and scrolling for another one). In terms of composition, I wasn't trying to take nice photos, I was only concerned with capturing the subjects which were relevant to my study. It's actually a good way to take photographs, because you just see something and take a snap, instead of spending ages looking for a nice composition and then either deciding against it or being disappointed with the results. I think cameras are best used for a purpose like this – artistic shots are nice, but what can you use them for? I've been thinking about taking a few shots of churches. I've hesitated a bit, as I've been unsure whether British churches bear any resemblance to continental churches – but aside from the suggestion of Norman churches being similar to those in CM (square rather than cross-shaped), and thus different from the type I'm used to, I think they're relatively interchangeable. European churches are certainly very different from the type Americans are used to. We have an ancient church here in Linlithgow next to the Palace (which the English made a good effort to burn down a few hundred years ago), and both are fascinating and very impressive. Of course, I don't want to get into too much detail, as I doubt BTS are going to spend much time modelling super-accurate buildings for us to blow up. =) David

Surely you could explain that someone has got to use the grenade, and if they don't give you it, they'll find themselves doing the close-assaulting? =)

Sig wrote: > farms are often not isolated in the middle of the countryside, but integrated close to each other in a village. Good point. In America farmsteads have always been out in the middle of nowhere, and I think that's the norm here nowadays, but in Britain at least farming used to take place in the fields surrounding small villages. By the old system (before it was overhauled, I think, in the 19th Century), rather than having large areas to themselves, farmers were allocated strips of land spread out over the good and bad areas. This was fair, but it was also inefficient. The point is that a group of farmers worked and lived in close proximity, rather than having their own discrete farms. While this of course predated the Second World War, the villages and farms in question would continue to be used. David

MrPeng wrote: > I would just like to point out that this is one thread where a newbie can post a question about a topic that has had the flesh flayed from its bones and the marrow sucked out and everything that's left piled in a pyramidal heap of bleaching calcium and NOT be immediately met with "DO A SEARCH!" (OK I LIED, Aitken will pounce with one, but what passes for a tongue in his particular species will be firmly planted in what passes for his cheek). Peng, you festering blob of congealed vitriol. This has already been discussed. I suggest you refer to the bottom of this page.

I think things were going pretty quickly over the holiday weekend, so I'll knock this back to the top for the benefit of those who read the forum from work. =)

This exact issue is discussed in this thread: Anti tank team problems

Remember that 'open ground' in CM is not a pool table. A road is flat, but 'open ground' is uneven terrain with ruts and bumps that could make the life of a gun crew very difficult.

Cos wrote: > but when that Jagdtiger takes a shot and the round hits the railing and sends the round flying who knows where (if it doesn't just blow up on contact). I suspect an explosive round would usually detonate, although if it were far enough off centre it might just bounce slightly off course. Small-arms fire is where you'd get all the ricochets. It would be interesting to hear from a veteran on whether railings present a severe health hazard under fire. David

Germanboy wrote: > And also thanks for the great cartoon of our trip to Hastings. Glad you like it, Peter had to sell most of his sheep to pay me. =)

crepitis wrote: > You've somehow managed to make the east coast look attractive,some lovely pics of Scotlands "other" city! I might actually be moving west depending on how my career works out. I haven't seen enough of Glasgow, and there's plenty of it to see! ropey wrote: > Wouldn't it be nice to pick a Bocage 'pen' and draw the line of bocage exactly where we wanted it? The way I see it, Charles has effectively created ready-made tiles with a building or a wall already placed onto them. Presumably the modelling of these features cannot be done on-the-fly within the game engine – it has to be hard-coded, and as such Charles is forced to provide a limited number of ready-made examples. I've no idea what it would take to allow object placement to be done on-the-fly, but this is what I am suggesting, if it were ever likely to be possible. =) David

Michael emrys wrote: > This is a classic example of why I hate having people refer me to other threads. Sorry, you've posted in both the threads I linked to so I assumed you'd remember them. Your quote from iggi was in the first thread, which I believed was relevant to your comment about military crests. iggi was a main contributor to the second thread, which was all about whether a unit's background affects its visibility. Skylining obviously fits into this category, doesn't it? In other words, his question was answered, but not in the first thread. Would you prefer just being told to "do a search"? =) David

CATguy wrote: > My hard drive/disk drive is getting bored with CM1 Then buy a new one. =)

Black Five wrote: > I'm from the East Coast and aside from great sunsets the desert is rather blah. You've got a company of tanks, don't you? You can do us an illustrated dissertation on armour tactics and the way the command structure in CM can be improved. =D

Michael emrys wrote: > On the subject of terrain, I am still in the dark as to whether the CM engine accounts for military crests and whether units moving on a skyline are particularly vulnerable to spotting and fire. I believe the conclusion was 'no' in both cases. You've seen the threads I have in mind, but I reckoned they were pretty conclusive. BTS PLEASE COMMENT ON TOPIC "ARE HILL CREASTS COVER" Simon's site (scroll to bottom for LOS issues) Does your background 'hide' you? David

It took me a long time faking– I mean, umm, composing this photo for Lorak's site (link provided by Berli), so I'll post it here too. This is me in a Dutch Loyd carrier back in September '44. David [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 02-18-2001).]

Chup, you just listen to obscure indie bands to confuse people. I do keep reading about Mogwai in The Scotsman, though... The soundtrack to A Bridge Too Far is essential. It was recently released on CD (and subsequently, the film itself on DVD). David

CONCLUSION The nature of urban terrain is extremely complex and unpredictable, and would be very difficult even to approximate in a computer game, especially where the terrain is only supposed to provide a backdrop for the action. Moreover, the impact of the surroundings only really hits you when you are in amongst them, rather than hovering above the rooftops. As I have mentioned previously, maybe accurately simulating ancient cities in CM would not actually have a significant effect on the gameplay. If it were a first-person or a squad-orientated game, this would be far more important than in the platoon- or company-orientated game that CM is. But in a situation where people on this forum are inclined to very closely analyse the actions of their digital infantry, it is important to consider the circumstances their soldiers might, in reality, be facing; and each enhancement BTS programs will bring greater understanding of what is actually happening on the ground, more imaginative tactics to account for this, and a more realistic and absorbing experience. I have no intention of telling BTS how to code their games, but I have a few ideas about how CM's modelling of the features I have discussed might be enhanced. • Earlier in the thread, we came to the conclusion that making the tiles smaller would be the best thing to do. On further thought, I see the main problem being that everything is tied to tiles. Roads, buildings, even walls must occupy a single tile each, and all are restricted to four axes. I think the biggest single enhancement would be to divorce objects from tiles, and allow them to be placed independently. Buildings could be arranged in a more irregular and realistic pattern. Roads and walls could be plotted as lines rather than objects; this way they need not occupy an entire tile, and could trace a curving path to follow the terrain. • Steps or ramps could be treated as something between roads and walls – a narrow band which would allow infantry to traverse even the steepest cliffs. • You could specify the elevation of a building, allowing it to be set into the ground so that the terrain need not be level all around. The accessible sides could also be specified, and infantry would enter on the floor closest to their access point. • The elevation of a road could also be specified at intervals; for example, you could place a 'pier' which would hold the road a specific distance above the ground (the road would be straight in between piers). This would replace bridges, as the current system is very limited. • In the editor, locations could be specified where infantry are able to leave bridges to access adjacent buildings. The buildings would be right next to the road anyway, but the engine obviously could not be expected to recognise this, so I imagine a line would be drawn from the edge of the bridge into the building to indicate that there is an entrance. This would allow for buildings fronting onto different streets at different levels. • Terracing is probably one of the most fundamental improvements which could be made to the engine, but I have left it until last because I can't immediately think of a way to implement it. In the context of the CM editor, it would be a matter of a line where the ground was level at either end, but on one side it rises while on the other it falls, creating a vertical drop in the middle. The least difficult solution would maybe be reducing the tile size, allowing for sharper elevation changes; this would not create true terracing, but I don't know whether that is feasible. Thanks for reading – let me know what you think, or of any other ideas you might have. =) Next up: European Weather Patterns To Make Game Programmers Weep! David (12 of 12)

Lastly, some more examples of a feature which I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. 4. RAILINGS This is actually a combination of railings and terracing, but I neglected to emphasise the latter. You can see the street below – the wall drops vertically down to the lower level. The railings here are important – from a civilian perspective, at least – and again, as such, are probably originals. From a tactical perspective the terrace would present more of an obstacle than the railings. I'm not sure how often infantry would be inclined to climb or abseil a terrace rather than going around it; the railings would provide a useful anchor for these purposes. Here is an example of railings having been removed. In this case they were obviously unnecessary, and have not even been replaced in the post-war period. There are many examples of replacements around town, which are obvious as they do not align with the original stubs. (Tactical note: In some cases the stone base would be high enough to provide cover for infantry.) This is a poor example of a very interesting issue. There are many buildings around town, especially in the New Town, which are set some way back from the street. The ground in between is terraced so that the base of the building is actually a floor below street level, and the front door is accessed via a bridge. I could, and should, have provided some much better examples of this, but you get the idea. From a tactical perspective, this creates something of a modern-day moat, preventing infantry from entering the building directly via the windows. 5. 'Over-the-Shoulder' Effect This is not a section in its own right, but rather a culmination of various of the issues discussed above. A combination of tall buildings and sharp elevation changes gives occupants of the top levels of some buildings LOS over the rooves of other buildings. This illustrates how urban battlefields must always be thought of in three dimensions, and how two-dimensional games such as Close Combat cannot hope to realistically simulate the nature of urban combat. On a two-dimensional map, you would never guess that I have LOS from this sloped close, over the rooves of four-storey buildings to the top floors of those beyond. (11 of 12)