Juardis

Reading the interview at Gamespot got me drooling. But enough of my personal problems, one statement caught me off guard. Charles said no English phrases, or translations to English. Fine by me, I like the authenticity. But I want to know the translations for these 2 key phrases 1. Tank 2. I'm hit (or ow, my leg) Especially the second one to let you know if the enemy has just been reduced by one.

thanks Johnno

Lewis, FWIW, I agree with you that CM2 will "play" like CMBO in some respects. I also agree that relative spotting, or lack thereof, is THE major drawback to a very fine system. But let's not forget that, even in it's current incarnation, the CM engine is VERY VERY good. Having said that, I do believe we can improve on the spotting thing with the current engine. The problem I have is once a unit is spotted by one, it is spotted by all. I don't care if it comes up Tiger? or PZ-IVH, an AFV is an AFV for the most part. So IDing a unit is not *that* big of a problem IMO. NOTE 1: the following is one suggestion for a band-aid fix using the current engine. I believe there are 2 elements to the problem. One is the TAC AI in that the TAC AI delays spotting of certain units by certain units depending on LOS. This is acceptably implemented in the current engine IMO. The other element is when the 60 second movie ends and now the human player can retarget. My suggestion is, if a movement order is given, it is carried out as is now. Reasoning is that if you give a order to move, you move. But if a target order is given, then a delay is implemented per the TAC AI rules governing spotting. If, prior to acquiring the human designated target, another threatening target is seen by the TAC AI, the TAC AI overrides the human command depending on the threat level. Reasoning behind this is, if I give a target order, I'll do my damndest to carry out the order, but I have to find the target first. So if I see another threat before I find the original target, I'm going to take the initiative and shoot at the known threat instead of looking for an unknown threat. Now obviously, if I was told to target a Tiger at 600m away and during the process of finding that Tiger I spot a shreck team at 100m away, I'm going to fire at the schreck team. Why? Because it's a known target that I have found as opposed to a possibly unknown target that I still have yet to acquire. NOTE 2: What I have suggested goes against one of the complaints issued shortly after release of CMBO. That complaint was that you knew there was a Tiger coming down the road and was going to be w/in LOS in 30 sec but the tanks continued targetting units that were already within LOS. To some people, the human should be allowed to sit and wait for the Tiger to come around the corner. I disagree. My point is, if it's a threat and it's seen, shoot it. Until the C&C rules are changed, unless the Tiger coming around the corner was spotted by another AFV that had a radio link to your tank, you wouldn't know there was a tank coming and hence the human couldn't even give the target command. Just my 2 cents on how the spotting routines could possibly be improved with the current engine.

Yeah Joe, I read that over on the BoB. Contrary to what they're saying though, your vid card has nothing to do with what you're seeing. The CD thing sounds more likely. I mean, the game is looking for a bitmap file and you should only have one bmp file for each type on your system. Perhaps you have multiple copies of the building bmp files in the CMBO directory? Also, are you seeing the stock buildings that shipped with the CD or the buildings that your opponent is using?

Thanks Steve. Still plenty of questions left unanswered (as you can see), but you'll never answer them all until the game actually comes out I fear. So I'll hold my laundry list for a later date . Again, thanks for taking the time to answer them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -Havermeyer-: Maybe let the designer buy a "wired" bridge, or something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow, you actually had a good idea for once

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: A buttoned up Jagdpanzer should NOT be spotting infantry 600m away on its flanks though. Not unless some other unit spotted it first, which is unavoidable with Absolute Spotting. The core problem that Relative Spotting fixes is exactly this situation. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I know, and hence my frustration. Thanks for your prompt reply. Looking forward to CM2 (and CMII)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: 2. That CM2 will include Relative Spotting. This is incorrect. The total ground up game engine rewrite will include this feature. Unfortunately, due to the coding, interface, and gameplay complexities associated with this there is aboslutely no way to implement this ground breaking feature without scrapping what we have and starting from a fresh slate. Sorry for the confusion folks! Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the heads up Steve. I haven't read the article yet, but I sorry to hear about the above. As you may know, I've been a strong proponent of relative spotting and am disappointed it won't be in CM2, but I understand the reason and accept it for what it is. Do you plan on at least "dumbing down" the spotting rules? For example, making it so a buttoned up Jadgpanzer cannot spot a infantry unit 600m away in it's flanks? Very frustrating when something aphyisical happens in the game. Keep up the good work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef: Good call. Another way is to have unit markers fade with time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That should be easier to code I'd think. Say 4 turns and the markers disappear?

It's not a big thing, but in a way, it is. A pet peeve is that I have spotted an infantry? or a tiger? or a SPA? or what ever and then it hides or goes out of los only to be replaced by the cross marker, star marker, bullseye marker, etc. All well and good except when that same unit reappears elsewhere, the star, cross, or bullseye disappears. That immediately tells me that the unit that was seen over there is now over here. How in the world would anyone know that? As far as you know, it could be an entirely different unit. My suggestion would be to leave the markers on the map and the ONLY way that they would be removed is if one of your units had a los to that particular piece of terrain or was close enough to spot it. As it is now, trying to confuse the enemy is very difficult if the hidden markers keep reappearing as your units move across the map.

I got an idea dima, and mind you, it's just an idea. If you're serious about what you said about BTS, perhaps you shouldn't use their forum since they obviously don't care about you, me, or anyone else. If you're not serious, smileys work wonders. For example,

Don't know about operations, but I had a 81mm mortar team that I parked between some buildings during the setup. I did not issue it movement orders. A few turns later I tried to area target a trp. It did not work. WTF? I asked myself. So I went back and watched the movies. It turns out that my mortar team was setup too close to a building so, on its own accord, it moved ever so slightly. That was all it took to wipe out my trp area fire. Needless to say, I was not a happy camper. Moral of the story is be careful where you initially place your mortars if you want to area target a trp in the future.

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish me mum happy mums day. Thank you

Ok, here are some likely problems you'll run into. In the 2d part of the game (briefings, map editting, etc), you'll see drop outs where your cursor appears. Don't know why, just happens. Not a problem as it disappears when you actually play the 3d game. Single chip looks ugly, but this appears to be the most compatable mode as I have not experienced any problems whatsoever. Dual chip/no FSAA seems to make the text white and unreadable. Don't do it. Dual chip/4x FSAA looks absolutely gorgeous. The only problems are 1) When you esc back to the desktop then get back into the game, the 2d text is scrambled, garbled, unreadable, and you're forced to restart. This is most troublesome when playing TCP/IP. 2) For large scenarios with rain, hi resolution mods, smoke, etc, (All or Nothing comes to mind immediately) the vid card memory seems to get swamped and the 3d portion will completely white out. It'll start out with maybe the trees or the houses whiting out first, but eventually the whole screen will. The only fix, other than to not play that scenario, is to go to single chip. HTH

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: You Americans think you invented the whole internet all by yourselves, I'll let you know, Charles Babbage (Babbage, not cabbage) is the father of the computer! And he was a Briton, mind you! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course we did mate. Err, no, actually, Al Gore did. Honest. Ask him yourself. (a smilie tried to force itself on this post but my alter-ego squelched it and stepped on it before it could be fully realized)

wow, great stuff guys. Thanks a bunch. One more question though. Wouldn't machining the ordnance change the flight characteristics such that they would be less accurate? I guess if the explosion is big enough, who cares, but in the case of AP rounds, accuracy is everything.

Reading Gavins book "On To Berlin" and he's talking about the drop into Sicily and says the Germans were using Russian 120mm mortars. What's up with that? Did the Germans capture the mortars for use themselves? Capture the plant that made the mortars? Steal the design and make them themselves? What? [ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Juardis ]

Create a custom map (autogenerate works well), add some interesting features, put the flags where ever you want, find an opponent willing to play, then have a 3rd party purchase your force alignment and his force alignment, then play as if it's a scenario. Works very well.

Well, I'd just like to know what is on "The List" and then the priority assigned to each, but just having the list would be a good place to start IMO.

According to Ambrose in the book Citizens Soldiers, 155mm direct fire could not/did not destroy a concrete pill box. What it did was concuss (word?) anyone inside it. There was a detailed account of this infantry plt (or co., don't remember which) in the woods during the January attacks and they were pinned by 6 pillboxes. This 155mm inf gun rolls up behind and asks the plt leader if he could use some help. After hugging the crew, he pointed to a pillbox. The gun was loaded, aimed by looking down the barrel, and fired. Direct hit. Cheers. After the smoke cleared, the pillbox was still there. Bummer. Not to worry says the gun leader, the pillbox may still be there, but whoever is inside won't be able to fight. So they line up another pillbox and the gun leader asks the plt leader if he wants to pull the lanyard. Sure he says...then he does it. Same results. They did this to all 6 pillboxes before deciding to leave before the counter battery fire came. The infantry then captured all 6 pillboxes without firing a shot. The Germans inside that were still alive were too dazed to do anything. As I was reading this I was thinking that that would be cool to try in CM, then I remembered that the allies don't have a 155mm gun . Oh well, it's still a cool story.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: I don't think medals or experience gains would be realistic to model except in one case. That case would be green troops in operations. Since green troops are supposed to represent fully trained but as yet unblooded troops, it would make sense that they could progress from green to regular over the course of several battles. But aside from that I don't think there should be any other advancement, as it would be completely unrealisitc. Most definitely, one should not be able to make 'elite' troops, which was the usual case with my Steel Panthers campaigns. WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I would say that conscripts could become green and regulars could become vets. I hear what you're saying, but it seems a squad could go from green to regular in 3 battles, then regular to vet in 5 more battles. Numbers are arbitrary of course, but the point is it takes longer for a squad to develop the working relationship it takes to progress from green to elite. Clearly the elite squads are those that have trained hard together for a long period of time (airborne troops or SS troops come to mind). If you don't have that initial training, then you have on the job training and the chances of a squad making it through enough battles intact to get to elite is mind numblingly low. We must all keep in mind here that we're talking squads and crews, not individuals. Losing a squad member or crew member reduces the overall experience of that squad. And if you follow the US doctrine of "replacements", then you seriously reduce the experience of that squad. As for medals, again, remember, we're talking squads here, not individuals. Units get citations, not medals (AFAIK). Experience level increases seem to be the only viable addition and never an increase to crack or elite (unless we have a grand campaign).

just helping out Kevin bttt

Multiple nationalities, mmmmmm, nummy Last I heard it was just the finns, russkies and jerries. Great to hear about the other nationalities. Even more important, it's great to hear that they will behave distinctly different depending on the time of the year. Wow, that could be like 3 branches of AI per nationality, times 6 nationlities (just pulling a number out of the air), for a total of 18 branches of AI just for unit behavior alone. That to me is very impressive. Even more impressive than the eye candy. *sniff*, I love you man

Don't mind Aitken, he gets a little cranky 'bout this time every month To answer your question, the demand is drowned out by the, how shall I say this nicely?...by the historical crowd. So the demand has been low. BTS also seems adamant about not including promotions and quality increases. Myself? I think it should be available for any operation lasting more than 3 days. The reason is that 50% of the US green troops became casualties in the first 3 days. If they made it that far, then they were considered seasoned. I mean, it only takes a couple arty barrages to realize you either hide in your hole or hug a tree, depending on where you are. So, in operations of 3 or more days I think it a good idea. In single battles, it's pointless. The problem of course is that operations don't last for the entire war like some of the games you mentioned. They were still only isolated battles over longer periods of time. So yes, it adds incentive and interest in keeping your dudes alive, but it also seems like a low priority given that other portions of operations need a much higher priority (like dynamic front lines, existence of pockets, etc).

I believe I'm in the Historian stage of evolution at the moment. So glad to know that my end is near. Hope the perfect game comes in the tournament championship I'll soon be in...