David Aitken

jshandorf wrote: > What in the WORLD are you talking about??? If I recalled correctly BTS doesn't simulated hyperventilation or sweaty palms. > What I am asking about is the actual CODE in the game. Not some convoluted hypothetical story set int he world of digital people. > [...] > And please no more "Lets try and compare real life to the game." Steve wrote: > Contrary to what you suggest, we DO simulate "hyperventilation or sweaty palms" through RoF variability based on Experience level. For all we know the guy dropped the round twice before getting it into the tube. I was waiting for that. =) Jeff, this is why comparing CM to real life is valid. Because CM simulates real life. If you can think up a good reason for something to happen in a given situation as Raider has, and it's likely to be a common occurrence, then it's quite possibly modelled in the game. It's not going to be totally replicated – it's not like you can zoom in and see the tension on the guy's face or see him dropping the rocket, but a value can be attributed to the action. David

I'm with Jarmo and Lewis. Flamethrower vehicles are not tank hunters. They cannot go toe-to-toe with anything that fires AP (or HE in the Wasp's case). As such a Hunt command is redundant. If you want your flamethrower to sneak up on another AV, you need to set up an ambush, or advance on a small scale (ie. pop round a corner or emerge from hiding), rather than expecting it to seek and destroy the enemy. Nine times out of ten the Hunt command would result in a dead flamethrower, because his only hope is to kill quickly or keep moving, and the Hunt command would facilitate neither. This of course fails to address the issue of whether flamethrowers were used in the anti-armour role at all. Maybe someone can provide evidence one way or the other, but in my understanding they are infantry support weapons, and would not survive long in another role. David

At risk of upsetting the Padlock Fairy, I must say it seemed that the posts to the FAQ thread occurred with an average of a few hours between them, and were simply a more imaginative way of saying "bump". I thought this was quite clever, as it both kept the FAQ at the top and encouraged people to keep it there by continuing the story. Maybe we could start the next Peng Thread with the FAQ at the top, ie. CM FAQ: For A Few Peng Challenges More ?

I expect if you found yourself inside a plummeting elevator, you wouldn't be able to adopt a particular position on the floor, because you'd be suspended in mid-air or pressed against the ceiling. Then when it hit the bottom, you would smack onto the floor at high velocity and be reduced to a thin film of froth scattered with fragments of bone. Even better, the elevator might rebound on impact, thus meeting you coming down as it bounces back up. Have a nice ride. =) David

Sounds like Chaos Theory. Maybe the armour was brittle and the impact shattered the entire vehicle? =)

Interesting anecdote regarding the Foreign Legion... =0 I'm not sure that what you suggest is a good idea. In principal it seems reasonable, but in practice I don't think it would work. First off, tanks shouldn't threaten their own infantry. There are situations where you have tanks and infantry advancing, and unavoidably they will sometimes cross each other's path. In the small number of occasions when they converge on the same spot at the same time, we assume the result to be abstracted. The tank will wait for the infantry to pass, or vice versa, or the infantry will go around the tank. The tank may even drive straight through a squad, because the latter occupies a wider area than is apparent from its graphic. In many circumstances the same would be true of enemy infantry – they will avoid the tank, or simply not be where the graphics lead you to believe they are. Even if they go right under the tank, they will not necessarily be harmed. For these reasons I would rule out the running over of moving infantry – I don't think it would happen often enough to merit modelling. Static infantry is another matter. If a squad is taking suppression fire, and is simultaneously rolled by a tank, it is quite likely that they would be unable to avoid both at the same time. I think under these circumstances only would it be reasonable for them to be run over – but this would be very difficult to model. Another possibility springs to mind. What if a squad, when rolled by an enemy tank (or maybe even a friendly tank), is forced to move? This would simulate their need to avoid the tank, regardless of incoming fire. Wait a second, isn't this modelled already?

Rubbish! Aberdeen is 2 hours from ME!

Oh look, someone saved me the trouble of doing any more pictures. Which is just as well, because I wasn't going to anyway. Getting a picture out of me these days takes a lot more than mere money or flattery, as PeterNZ will testify. Or would, if he had a computer. Now all of you go and buy The Cure's Wild Mood Swings. Robert Smith is God.

So you want to give commands to your units, press GO when you're finished, and then give them more commands? Has it ever occured to you not to press GO in the first place? Wait for your opponent to press GO first. Send him a message telling him you're waiting. If you don't use time limits, try them – even if you trust your opponent not to take forever, a time limit speeds the game up a bit. David

Mace wrote: > What self-respect? Yeah, I did hesitate before writing that... Chupacabra wrote: > David, I think I love you. > Yep, spot on. I'm touched, but unfortunately I'm already besotted with Robert Smith. Mmmm... big hair and lipstick. I would like to share with you all that last night I had an incredible dream where I was in A Bridge Too Far. It wasn't too similar to the film, as dreams are wont to be, but Anthony Hopkins was there, and I was a British para with a Lee-Enfield and everything. And best of all, the gun was actually full-size, and it worked (not a common occurrence in dreams). I bagged a few Germans, and I think the odd Dutchman and Pole just to even things up. Now selling tickets to Being Private Ryan... David

You bunch of dirty-minded Britney Spears obsessives! Hold your hands above water level! (As you were, bauhaus.) Someone mentions "Catholic" and "schoolgirl" in the same sentence and suddenly you're all reduced – sorry, elevated – to a horde of drooling adolescents/old men (delete as applicable). I may not remember the last time I even laid (sit down, bauhaus!) eyes on another human being, but at least I can consider the existence of a parallel gender without abandoning my composure and self-respect! Chupacabra wrote: > Torra fy ngwallt yn Peng Hmmm... was it the Super Furry Animals who did their last record in Welsh?

Marlow wrote: > It’s the end of the Peng as we know it Uh-oh, now you've done it. You have made an R.E.M. reference. You will never hear the end of this. For starters, you shall now be regailed with every potential title for the next Peng thread I can think of which relates to a song by R.E.M. or any of the other bands I listen to (all five). But first, I shall relate a brief anecdote which is of absolutely no consequence to any of you, just because I want to and I can. It should initially be noted that the only reason I'm posting here now is because I couldn't face going to bed without listening to The Cure for a bit. Even if it is after 3 AM. In other words, in the absence of caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, prozac, ecstasy or heroin, it is music alone which keeps me alive. Now, I've just bought all of The Cure's records. This morning (or it may have been yesterday) the radio alarm was making its usual futile attempt to arouse me (sit down bauhaus!). And what did I hear being sung, but words which were extremely familiar but which I couldn't place. Turns out some wifie has done a cover version of The Cure's Love Song. I wish pop singers would just bugger the hell off unless they can write their own songs. Anyway, I thought that was quite a coincidence. You can all wake up now. Where was I... oh yes. Peng Free Europe Talk About The Peng Seven Chinese Pengs (Don't Go Back To) Pengville Feeling Gravity's Peng Life And How To Peng It Green Grow The Pengs Shiny Happy Pengs Half A Peng Away Try Not To Peng The Sidewinder Pengs Tonite Peng Got A Raw Deal Star Me Peng Peng On The Moon What's The Frequency, Peng? Peng With Eyeliner I Don't Sleep, I Peng Peng 69 Peng And Blame I Took Your Peng How The Peng Was Won And Where It Got Us The Wake-Up Peng At My Most Pengiful Why Not Peng That's probably more than you can take right now, so I'll keep the others for later. I wish you all a restless night. David I've been looking so long at these pictures of you, I almost believe that they're real... Sit down, bauhaus!

Don't forget that AVRE is just a general term – Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers I think. What we're discussing here is the Churchill armed with a Petard mortar. =) David

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote: > In Close Combat 2 that would've been a kill... Nice to see you're maintaining your scholarly principles.

OsinO wrote: > And it is deduction, I have been deducting all the wrong answers. The principle of deduction is that you look at the clues, and narrow down your options by deciding which answers are not possible. Your definition of 'deduction' is just a guessing game.

It would be nice if it were a test of observation or deduction instead of a blind guessing game.

Jeff Heidman wrote: > Don't even get me started on the "dust cloud" that just so happens to also look exactly like an expanding dome thingie, and nothing like a dust cloud or a shockwave. This is exactly what I'm getting at. Modelling a realistic dust cloud is no simple matter. The graphics in computer games are made up of textured polygons and free-standing bitmaps. This is good for substantial objects, or static objects viewed from a particular angle. A dust cloud is a big, insubstantial, swirling mass of particles, which tends to move in a very characteristic way in the instance of collapsing buildings – a way which I'm pretty sure would be a pain to try and emulate. It could probably be done, but I'd prefer for BTS to concentrate on enhancing the game, rather than trying to make the graphics look prettier. You may not like some of what is there, but the fact is it serves a purpose. David [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 12-18-2000).]

jshandorf wrote: > Ack! Do you really think that falling arty is faster than HE fired from a tank? No, but artillery has a higher angle of incidence. Works on the same principle that sloped armour is less penetrable than vertical armour. David

Robert Olesen wrote: > I know that can be done and I use it, but no, that's not simple enough. It's a workable workaround, but it's not quite good enough. Oh, well in that case, just drop Charles a line and I'm sure he'll be delighted to knock up a patch that will make you happy. > First, I would like to have this info available any time. Have you considered that you shouldn't have this info at all? Realistically, how many battles would you go into where your scouts have gone out with measuring tapes and sized up the battlefield beforehand? If you stumble upon a cliff, and it screws up your battle plan, that's war. Unfortunately in CM there's an easy way to avoid this. If anything it should be removed, not standardised, as it is unrealistic. David

Well, unfortunately there are limitations to the atmospheric effects which BTS (or anyone) is able to program. Personally, using low-quality smoke, these 'domes' are all I see and they don't strike me as odd. (They become more transparent with high-quality smoke.) As for them being slow, I think you only get this impression if you sit and look at them too long. They look fast to me. I'm sure we'd all like CM to be more visually realistic. It's easy enough to say "Hey, those explosions look a bit funny", but how would you go about changing them? Realistic effects would doubtlessly be a nightmare to program, and would probably be beyond the capabilities of even the latest video cards. CM was never supposed to generate realistic battle shots for you to take pictures of. If the explosions were 'fixed', I can guarantee that something else would start to look suspect. Until the game is 100% realistic, which it never will be, there will always be something which doesn't seem right. Polar wrote: > [...] so the bubble moves with the compression wave. > Now, why it is black, I don't know. It's not supposed to be, but I've heard about this plenty of times before. It's either a video card or a drivers issue – can't help you any further than that though. =) David [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 12-18-2000).]

Exactly. A round fired from a gun will explode on the surface, whereas a round falling from the sky will penetrate the ground and explode below, throwing up a lot of debris and creating a much larger crater. David

There are ways to avoid wasting ammunition. Keep your men out of sight of the enemy until you're ready to attack (or until your opponent attacks). Don't order squads to fire at long range – use a machinegun. Order your vehicles to button up. Ammunition expenditure is all part of the challenge of a battle. Resupplies do not happen in the timeframe of a CM battle – only between the battles in an Operation. CM currently does not currently model semi-destroyed buildings. This should be enhanced in CM2. Walls cannot be added, as modification is restricted to textures. Do not be fooled, though – rubble may look flat, but it provides good cover. As MikeT says, mine laying is also outside the timeframe of a CM battle. You can 'lay' mines when you start a battle on the defence, as this simulates them having been laid beforehand. David

I would like to report a major problem with the 1.1 beta patch. It has absolutely no respect for those of us who have work to do. Need TCP/IP... neeeed TCP/IP....

phil stanbridge wrote: > David, may I ask, do Demon support ISDN PPP do you know? Couldn't tell you offhand, but www.demon.net should have the info. Lah wrote: > Btw Demon does seem to have a very good reputation, but £40... That's the most expensive package, for totally unmetered access. You get evening-and-weekend packages, or standard dialup if you only use it for e-mail. Other companies offer totally free access, but Demon is fast and reliable (and only disconnects you after about 8 minutes of inactivity). =) David

Oh no! Run for the hills! All you ever wanted to know about the Scout command but were afraid to ask... "The Charles" Has Spoken!