David Aitken

weasel wrote: > The disjunction between the on-screen world and the underlying model is an irritant to me. The "point LOS" tool would go a long way toward fixing that. A long way? The ability to trace exact LOS from point A to point B would go a long way towards compensating for the game's graphical inaccuracy? Obviously my definition of a 'long way' differs greatly from yours. You can already get right down into the scenery, to any point you're about to send your troops, to see what they might be able to see when they get there. Why would an LOS tool make such a difference? The most complicated situation that comes to mind, is where you're wondering whether you have LOS through trees, or over trees to something, say a building, beyond. It is safe to assume that you can't see through more than a tile or two of trees, and if you're looking over trees, the game's modelling, though inherently inaccurate, gives you as good an idea as you'd need. The fact is, if you find you've got LOS between point A and point B, and you send your men to point A, they won't end up at precisely the spot from which you traced LOS. If they're just a couple of metres away from point A, they might lose LOS to point B. The only relevant LOS is what your men can see from their current positions. And anyway (Dr Dan), I don't buy the argument for being allowed an LOS tool. In the realism stakes, the way it is makes perfect sense. In reality, a commander would not be able to look and see what is really there on the battlefield, because he wouldn't be there. He would look at his map, order his men to a given location, and hope they could see their objective. If they reported back that they didn't have LOS, he would order them to a new position and try again. The only credible argument is that the AI effectively has an LOS tool. I don't know whether it maneuvres on the basis of LOS or not. But considering the skills of the AI, this wouldn't be an unfair advantage. Even if it does use accurate LOS calculations, it doesn't have the human power of intuition, so it needs all the help it can get. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

This doesn't strike me as unusual. AP won't do you much good against a pillbox. Metal yes, concrete no. HE is for pillboxes. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I thought this was a Humber SC, but it's actually a Daimler Dingo SC (not to be confused with the Daimler AC). Thought you might like to see it anyway. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Tracks move. Wheels don't. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Dr Dan wrote: > Is it really any less realistic than the other compromises made? The compromise I'm talking about, is the fact that the game does not prevent you from placing the camera in a position where you have no troops. This is something that would simply be impractical to remove. What you're talking about is adding a feature which has no rational basis. This is not a compromise. > Besides, isn't the goal to have fun? I agree, but the fun comes from the challenge of a realistic simulation, not from having lots of bells and whistles to play with. =) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

IntelWeenie wrote: > Why not let the TacAI adjust a unit's movement if it "sees" a better position (within a very few meters of a movement waypoint, say 1-5)? I reckon this would cause more problems than it solves. Take two examples: 1) The casual player. This kind of player would most benefit from a bit of assistance from the TacAI when relocating units. However, if they're not concerned about precisely where their units end up, they can afford to make sure they move their units well into cover. The TacAI would never kick in, because units would usually be directed to the middle of a terrain tile. 2) The fanatical player. This kind of player must position their units exactly. They would freak out of the TacAI overrode their movement orders. Instead of just moving units into woods or a building, this kind of player must move them to the very edge of the woods, or the very corner of the building, or just behind a wall. It's these kinds of borderline positions where the TacAI would kick in, but also where it would be least welcome. If there's any doubt about where a unit is, chances are it's meant to be exactly there. I hope this conveys my point. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I think the way the game currently works makes a lot of sense. Sure you pre-scout locations before you move your men, but as you've said, what you see is not necessarily what you get. This is a good representation of having a map of the terrain - knowing rougly what the layout is, but not exactly. In order to get exact feedback, you need to have your men in the appropriate location. There is no logic in allowing you, godlike, to get exact information about any aspect of the map you wish. Sure, in reality, you wouldn't get nearly as good a feel for terrain you haven't visited as you do in CM. But this is a compromise for the sake of gameplay, and a lot of what you see is still a matter of opinion. You should certainly not be able to take a tape measure to the map as though it were a model in front of you. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I assume they wouldn't have used a .50 cal because it wouldn't fit very easily in the bow of an armoured car. The .30 cal would be a credible substitute, but not the .50. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

M Hofbauer wrote: > now, that's what I call camoflage I beg to differ! The principle of camouflage is not to make a vehicle look as close as possible to its background. It is to break up the outline. Camouflage is only a big deal from a distance - if you're close up, it doesn't really matter whether a vehicle is camouflaged or not, you'll see it anyway. At a distance, if you're trying to pick a vehicle out from the scenery, what matters is not minute texture work, it is overall paintwork. Of course, the first principle of camouflage is, stay still. The second principle is, break up your outline. This is most effectively done with a bold two-tone camouflage scheme, making it difficult for the enemy to identify your vehicle as being a vehicle, and then as being a particular kind of vehicle. Intricate camouflage textures look awfully impressive, but they're not actually the most effective kind. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Nnnnyyyeeeewwwwwwwwwmmmmmmmm..... Nnnnnnnyyyyyeeeeeewwwwwmmmmmmmm..... Chachachachachachachachacha KABLAMM!!! Nnnnnyyyyeeeewwwwwwmmmmmm....... Sorry, just playing with my toy aeroplane. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Well, I sold or binned half of my possessions that weren't nailed down, and my life is far less cluttered as a result. Life's too short for hanging on to everything - if you find you really really want something you've got rid of, you can always buy a new one. David (sitting in the middle of a field) Oh, this came to mind: ---------- Madmatt wrote: > posted 08-01-2000 11:51 PM > Um, thats Telly Savalas and the sound IS from Kelly's Heroes as it was part of my MDMP sound pack. > Yeah, thats the one you used to have on the pirate FTP site of yours Osino! Hey whatever happened to that? You had all kinds of stuff there... Combat Mission (warez version) and Adobe products and Microsoft products...Hmmm..Shame its gone dude...I wonder how that may have happened. > Yeah, you SCREWED WITH THE WRONG PEOPLE DUDE! > Madmatt [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-31-2000).]

I think some point is actually coming out of this thread. So far we've established: The game pictured looks good, but is highly inaccurate and the gameplay is the same old run-and-shoot nonsense. Our favourite game looks modest, but is highly accurate and the gameplay is absorbing and long-lasting. Hurrah for CM! Hang on, going by most of the threads here these days, I'm not allowed to post without bitching about something. Let's see... Ummm... Okay, here we go! How come halftracks and scout cars rotate on the spot, instead of doing three-point turns?!! The game is ruined! I want my money back! Oh, and I want it personally delivered by Steve on a golden platter! That should do it. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

It's still on the FTP site, just the webpage has gone. Gamesprockets_1.5.smi.bin David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Maximus wrote: > I don't know, but it sounds like another reason to dump those weird Macs and get PCs with non-integrated video and audio cards. You wouldn't catch me dead with an iMac. They do make real Macs as well, you know. For the rest of you, I think CM automatically chooses low-res textures if you don't have enough RAM (VRAM or otherwise). I suggest you post in the tech forum (after doing a search, of course), and Charles might look into it. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

What exactly is the point in all this, Bates? Your PBEM experience is dependent on the kind of people you play against. There's no point bitching here about your PBEM opponents - if you've got a problem, either take it up with them, or find someone else. Telling us about it serves no purpose whatsoever - it's like complaining to your local grocery store that you don't like the other people you see shopping there. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Master Bates wrote: > I never mentioned BTS. And I said "Just wanted to clear that up". I did not say "So get your facts straight". From your complaints, and especially your title, it wasn't entirely clear who exactly you were complaining to. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Your issues are nothing to do with Big Time Software. All ladders and tournaments are run by third parties, so if they're not perfect, you're not being ripped off - if you find them useful, use them, and if you don't, don't, it's not like you've paid for them. Just wanted to clear that up. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Teamski wrote: > I'd still like to know why the armored car drivers are shown way out in front, though I said. It's just a graphical representation. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

infohawk - When I say 'sensible' I don't mean it as an alternative to 'fanciful'. I mean it as an alternative to stupid, or ignorant, or selfish. Even when someone makes a suggestion which doesn't make sense, or which is clearly impracitcal, they are not immediately flamed. In my experience, they are politely advised of the problems with their suggestion. The flames come (and a 'flame' on this message board rarely goes beyond the level of sarcasm) when someone presses on regardless with something which has already been explained to be impractical. Such people need to understand that Combat Mission is thorougly designed and thought out, and exceptionally detailed and accurate. If you want a change in Combat Mission, you have a higher-than-average chance of seeing it implemented, but you have a lower-than-average chance of making a credible case for the change, because it needs to be very well researched, like the game already is. Therefore, people making impolite criticism, or demanding a given feature just because they think it would be cool, or refusing to accept the explanations offered to them, will not get very far. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

weasel wrote: > 3: They are very poor at taking criticism of underlying design decisions. Any criticism of the design concepts of Combat Mission needs to be made from a position of thorough understanding of the practicalities of computer programming, and of modelling in a game what you see in Combat Mission. Most of the design criticism I see is a knee-jerk reaction to something which someone doesn't like about the game, not understanding the underlying principles. Any sensible criticism of the game is either answered sensibly, by members of the CM community or by BTS, or it has already been answered and the critic is advised of this. The trouble starts when people won't listen to reason and insist that something should be the way they want it. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Capt. Lortie - BTS have clearly explained that there would be no point in spending months trying to improve the AI. It is not something that needs fixed. It works. It could do with some improvement, but BTS have explained that this would take a long time for little gain. infohawk - Sensible and polite requests are treated as such. Repeated demands for features which have already been discussed into the ground, are unwelcome and you cannot expect them to be humoured. BTS provide extremely good customer service. Anyone who doubts this should take a second look at what is being asked, because BTS never give a negative response to a sensible, informed, new request or suggestion. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

KwazyDog wrote: > What are sprockets? Ive presumed they are sort of like DirectX is to PC's Dan - Apple's GameSprockets are not a 3D engine like DirectX. Combat Mission for Mac is based around Apple's Quickdraw 3D RAVE. RAVE has actually been discontinued, and the standard graphics language for Mac is now OpenGL. GameSprockets are packages of code which make it easier for developers to code games for Mac. There's DrawSprocket, SoundSprocket and InputSprocket, which handle different basic elements of a Mac game. They can't be used for everything, and not everyone chooses to use them, but for certain purposes they seem to be handy. They seem to have their problems too, though, as you may gather - there are two available versions of SoundSprocket, 1.0 and 1.7.1, and the latter sucks for CM. God knows what's going on there. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

GameSprockets 1.7.5 have SoundSprocket 1.7.1, which is the same version that came with GS 1.7.4. So for Combat Mission there's no difference whatsoever. David Oh, and you shouldn't be using 1.7.1 for that matter - SoundSprocket 1.0 works much better for Combat Mission. Read my post on the subject here. ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-31-2000).]

I understand that Panzerfausts can be fired independently of the squad's facing. Your squad likely didn't take out the Humber for other reasons, not because it couldn't turn quick enough. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Aah, I've been itching to call someone a punk-ass this evening, and look what turns up! infohawk, Combat Mission has realism at its core. BTS will not cut corners on realism in order to create a more whizz-bang type game. The game could look better, yes. But everything you see is functional. There is nothing which doesn't serve a purpose. There is nothing put in just to try and impress you. The fact that you question BTS's logic on matters such as full squad representation, shows that you have not made any effort to get to grips with the issue. Instead you have dismissed BTS and many of us out of hand. Your argument sounds like it might be credible, but only to those who couldn't be bothered checking up on the facts. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT