David Aitken

There isn't much need for a devoted meeting place for online players, because a 'multiplayer' game of CM only involves two people. This thread is simply for the purpose of letting people know you're looking for a game, so they can e-mail you. A thread is just as good as a forum for this purpose. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

It would have simply disappeared, Flipper, if you hadn't knocked it back up to the top. It only needs to be locked if people are fighting, which isn't happening here. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 09-20-2000).]

I agree with you totally on meeting engagements. I hardly think it's realistic that both sides would converge on an objective (eg. a crossroads) at exactly the same moment. One would arrive earlier, and the battle would become an attack/defence. I'm working on a meeting engagement scenario just now, and I've been deliberating over whether or not to use flags. The one thing I would say is, they enable you to ensure that the battle is fought over your preferred part of the map. For example, I have a bridge overlooked by a hill. The Germans could advance across the bridge and up the hill before the British reach it. The British end of the map is covered in trees, so this renders the British mortars (their main asset) useless, and the battle is effectively lost. On the other hand, if I have a flag on the bridge, the German player will be more inclined to hold back and wait (although a really good player will advance regardless). I think this kind of specification is necessary to distinguish one scenario from another. If I didn't use flags, to be fair I'd have to allow the British to win without their mortars. The force becomes larger and more varied, and the concept of the map loses clarity. It may be unrealistic to 'rig' the scenario in this way, but that's what makes it unique – and ultimately, if it's an enjoyable scenario you won't notice. So there you go. If you just want a general skirmish in a random part of the map, don't bother with flags. But in order to create a scenario that is predictable enough to accomodate 'flavour', you have to 'rig' it to some degree, and that involves using flags. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Bates, please don't turn this thread into a flame war. You personally choose not to follow a religion, as do I. But everyone has the right to make their own decision, and you do not have the right to insult others for their choice, any more than they have the right to insult you. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

As Jeff says, your CPU speed affects the calculations the computer does after you press "GO". Your graphics card speed affects the smoothness of the graphics when you're scrolling around the map. There is no framerate counter, but you'd have to have the top-of-the-range computer in order never to see low framerates in a contemporary game. If I turn my resolution down, CM is perfectly smooth, even if the screen is filled with high-quality smoke. But I prefer resolution to smoothness (ever so slightly), so I play at maximum resolution (for my monitor) in exchange for a bit of jumpiness, and the inability to feasibly display HQ smoke. Apparently 30 fps (frames per second) is ideal, and 10 fps is the minimum playable rate. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Surely an argument in favour of human cloning. How else can you find someone who is free whenever you are, and willing to play CM for as long as you want to, and doesn't charge for it? Or how about human memory modules? You play a hotseat game against yourself, but you store all your memories for each side on a removable card. Plotting Allied moves, use card A. Plotting German moves, remove card A, forget about Allied moves. Insert card B, remember what your intentions were for the Germans. On a side note, they say computers will soon be more complex than the human brain, but that doesn't mean you suddenly have a sentient lifeform. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Meeks! Downstairs! Now! And take your bucket of drool with you. ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

I'm not completely sure that terrain 'values' would function much differently from victory flags. In a given scenario, you're going to have an objective – capture a hill, or a bridge, or a town. In short, these aren't vague terrain features – they're objects, which might as well be marked with flags. If it's up to the players to pick the map feature of greatest value, they'll go for the most prominent object – the same place that the scenario designer would put a flag. So why not a flag? In terms of defending, the defender need not have all his/her men in the actual objective – he/she can arrange to allow the attacker to advance, and then outflank him/her. Taking away the flags won't create any illusions about where the attacker is going – it will always be the most obvious terrain feature. Moreover, if different terrain types have different values, players will soon learn which is best. So you can take away the flags, but I don't think it will change the way people play a given scenario one bit. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

I think 'freaking' is a nice alternative, personally... considering 'fricking' isn't actually a word – more of a substitute for a substitute for 'f***ing'. =) David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Walter wrote: > His point was quite clear, it really is depressing that people didn't realise it. I don't see anyone here who has misunderstood him. His foul language was an attempt at satire, granted, but that doesn't make it any less foul. His point was clearly flawed, in my opinion. In any case, his post was offensive and uncalled for. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 09-20-2000).]

I think the fellows at Guru3D got here before you. =) David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Rollstoy wrote: > Maybe somebody could put up a tutorial ! Ahh, trade secrets. Charles's Secret Formula. He'll be keeping that one close to his chest. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Berlichtingen wrote: > Die, daisy, die! Move along, Berli, move along... Seanachai, got any spare bricks? ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Henri, I was making no judgement on Christianity. Maybe if I hadn't suggested I might offend Christians, it wouldn't have seemed as though I was saying something offensive. I was simply using a well-known example of a story which seems to have some basis in fact, but which has been somewhat embellished and should not be taken word-for-word. Unfortunately when the story is about the Second World War, people are inclined to take it as fact. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Stephen Smith wrote: > Goddamn words aren't offensive by themselves, its how they are used! [...] (you or anyone else-anyone who IS offended is just some kind of close-minded religious fanatic) How depressing. Is this some lame excuse to use 'cool' swearwords? Some words are offensive on their own, because they have no purpose except to be offensive. I do agree with you to an extent, that they are only words, and that we've simply learned to regard them as offensive -- but the fact is we do regard them as offensive, and whether or not we are physically shocked to see them, they still have a negative effect on us. If you can use the 'f' or 'c' words as easily as you can say 'table' or 'military', I am dismayed. > But THIS paragraph, where I disagree with you, and think words by themselves can be offensive and inappropriate, should, by your logic, be banned. [...] > So do we ban intention-I intend to disagree with you, or the status quo, therefore I should be banned (after all, its not the WORDS that are offensive, its the motivation behind the words)? Or do we agree on standards of behavior and speech that we should all ****in' go by, dude? Are you trying to say that disagreeing is offensive, whereas swearing is fine? Am I wrong in my belief that it is possible to disagree or argue politely? If I say "in my opinion you are talking nonsense", are you no less offended than if I were to say "you are full of sh** you f***wit"? David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

R-Man wrote: > I still have to avoid panning the camera through thick smoke Try low-quality smoke. I couldn't bear the idea to start with, but neither can I bear having the framerate grind to a halt whenever someone pops smoke. I thought LQ blocked out things you could see with HQ, since HQ is partly transparent, but on double-checking I realised that HQ actually blocks your view even more. LQ doesn't look as good, but you get used to it, and HQ smoke has a disproportionate effect on framerate. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Good idea, Shannahey. You'll also have to make sure that no-one escapes from the Peng thread and starts to rip up the daisies. I think they've been breeding in there... about 50 pages have sprung up since the last time I posted anything interesting. Now then, chaps. All nice, friendly, courteous fellows seeking PBEMs this way. All drooling, embittered, vitriolic wretches proceed downstairs immediately. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

You could take this to different levels, from a simple ability to scribble on the map, to an acutal new control mechanism for the game. The former would be easier to implement, but ultimately of limited use. The latter would involve a lot of (re)programming, and would probably create a whole new set of problems to overcome. A good idea, I have to say, but maybe something (as Uedel says) for CM 5 or thereabouts. =) David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

mensch wrote: > You don't like the game fine, write a nice but informativ letter to BTS, wine and bitching to us don't make a difference aside showing us "oh great another dolt". As is plainly evident on this forum on a daily basis, the vast majority of questions can be quickly answered, the vast majority of complaints can be quickly countered, and the vast majority of suggestions can be constructively discussed (if they have not been already). I think this is the way it should be. If we tell everyone "don't tell us, tell BTS", a problem which could be resolved in minutes becomes a huge issue which requires time to compose a letter, time for BTS to get around to reading it, and BTS's time to read and answer it. Even then, only the originator is enlightened, so ten people could be asking the same question at the same time. This is clearly a bad idea. Your post has obviously been inspired by swamp. This ex-member had a grudge about graphic mods, which culminated in his loss of temper and a troll about a supposed deficiency in Combat Mission's graphical department. This was not a legitimate complaint, just a mindless insult from a mindless person. It is no reason to tell everybody else to keep their constructive criticism to themselves, or tie up BTS's time with it. =) David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

BK6583 wrote: > all I ask is a little tweaking to get rid of some of the really dumb stuff. Remember that a computer can't "look" at a map and intuitively decide where units would best be placed. It has to go by a set of rules, and the results are never going to be the best possible in every situation. Combat Mission, through being three-dimensional and non-linear, creates a whole new bunch of challenges for itself. The AI can't just put its men along a line of buildings or trees, so that you fight them at a predefined point in a predefined way - it has to 'think' about angles of attack, lines of sight, fields of fire, ranges etcetera, which is easy enough for a human, but extremely difficult for a computer. So if anything, it's a miracle that the AI can effect an attack which is in any way comparable to that of a human. BTS have done an excellent job, and they'd love to improve the AI as much as we'd like it to be improved, but that is easier said than done. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

3) I assume you're aware that if you hold down the Shift key, you can slide with the mouse? 5) Generic nationality markers are not an indication of a unit's position, just of where it was last spotted. I think by their nature - being intangible objects - they shouldn't be 'navigable'. 7) Go here and scroll to the bottom. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

I've actually spent a heck of a lot of money upgrading my own machine in the past few months, and Combat Mission is one of the greatest benefactors. However, I'm aware that a lot of people can't afford to upgrade, and I was in the same position not so long ago, and that's why I would refrain from boasting about it. Moreover, the voice of those who can't actually afford a computer in the first place isn't heard very loudly here. By the way, I'm not going for any particular "persona". Neither am I making any judgement on this thread. What I said was an off-hand comment - if I meant any more by it, I would say so. I would use smilies more often, but maybe I'm just a miserable bastard. =) Damnit, one got through there... David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Oh goody, a My Hardware Is Bigger Than Yours thread. ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Henri wrote: > why do you feel it necessary to attack Christians on a wargaming forum? It wasn't an attack, just an observation. There are plenty of Christians who take the Bible with a pinch of salt. I happen to have been brought up as a Christian, and my parents are religious, but I grew sceptical and am not now interested in organised religion. M Hofbauer wrote: > Those are all metaphors etc. based maybe remotely on any actual events. I actually chose the Moses story because some time ago I read (in the newspaper, ironically enough) that scientists had discovered evidence for extremely low water levels in the Red Sea around biblical times. I think it is a fair analogy. > make sure you'll tape and examine the info presented in the TV airing. I will do. Unfortunately I am of a pessimistic lending, and I know that even if we were to expose the nonsense that media types / journalists seem to be perpetuating in this instance, the world will still be awash with misinformation. To put a positive slant on it, though, I don't think the world is going to the dogs - I think it has always been going to the dogs, but that doesn't mean it's getting worse. In other words, none of this really matters. Nevertheless, I'll try to catch the programme and pass on what it's got to say. Thanks for your efforts, and those of your sources. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Nice one... lucky Seanachai chipped in, because my brain doesn't boot up before lunchtime. Challenger... =) David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."