Juardis

You would get rid of your V5 for a Radeon? No FSAA, no fog? Ouch. I have the 5500 AGP and have all the problems as you. I don't esc to the desktop then get back into the game. I don't worry about the mouse pointer problem since it doesn't appear in the game. I have 4x FSAA on so text whiteout is not a problem. The only problem I have is that for some scenarios (All or Nothing is one of them), my video memory is swamped and the whole screen starts whiting out. Using low res mods instead of high res would help, but I like the eye candy. So, for some scenarios I have to switch to single chip rendering. It's ugly, but it's easy and painless to do. As you said, CM is the only game with problems but the problems certainly aren't insurmountable.

What is operation flashpoint? I haven't been keeping up with any upcoming games since CM came out (except Harpoon IV, which, btw, is still up on SSI's web site perhaps meaning that rumors of its death were premature?).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: This may account for all those ineffective HE shots at infantry in the open, if round is long it doesn't do much, if it is too short it also blows dirt around and little else. The spread for 75mm HE (US) is 15 meters long.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I haven't read the referenced thread, but this goes with something Claymore was saying about reverse slope effectiveness. 1st, what you say above is true from a ballistics standpoint - both in CM and IRL. 2nd, I don't think CM models this correctly, for reverse slope or on flat ground with the DF coming from below you (as if you're at the top of a hill). It is my observation (whether it's correct or not, I don't know), but it's my observation that if CM models DF HE as a long oval pattern, then anything in that long oval pattern is potentially hit. Regardless of whether the physics say that's impossible. Thus, if you're at the top of a hill, laying flat, any shell fired from below that hits in front of you should disperse up and away. If you were standing, you could get hit. If you were laying flat, there is no way you should get hit (but you do in CM). It's a small distinction, but an important one nonetheless IMO.

hug the bottom of the hole, no question. If not in a hole though, get the heck out. Hiding seems to help, but could just be my imagination.

bttt

:cool: :mad: :confused: Boy, am I glad to see this thread. I just got one post closer to a thousand posts

the reverse slope effect is illustrated in "Citizen Soldiers" by Stephen Ambrose wherein he relates something along the following... The area was a hill near St. Lo. The Germans were counter attacking and the US was letting them penetrate deeper and deeper because the US was actually going to encircle them (but didn't). Anyway, there was this hill (don't remember the name) and this FO (don't remember his either). The FO crawled to the top of the hill and was shielded from the 88s below simply because 1) if the 88s were long, then it overshoot. If they were short, then the fragments would disperse up and away from the top. In short, a direct hit from the 88s and SPAs below was all but impossible. Arty and mortar was a different story, but at the top of the hill he was pretty much immune to direct fire. He spent 3 nights on that hill, called in 130+ arty missions, held the hill, and won a medal for his valor. Now, when I read this I got to thinking that in CM that this would not be possible. Simply because, and I don't know if this is true but I'm speculating it to be so, simply because a blast is assumed to resonate radially and can kill anything in that radius. Regardless that it may be physically improbable, as the real life example above illustrates, CM seems to simplify direct fire in this instance and does not take into account fragment disbursement. One value fits all situations so to speak. Wish it weren't so, but that's my simplistic take on it...

Hehehe, that's a good quote. You know someone that was in the 28th or do you just like the name bloodybucket?

Was at the Dogs of War message board and someone asked what terrain we prefer. I replied that I don't care, but that I want to try deep mud. Why? Because I haven't played in mud yet. Anyways, my question is aimed at you historical grognards. If you insist on historical OOBs, then do you also insist on playing in mud or deep mud? Everything I've read lately indicates that from Sep44 to Mar45 that is pretty much all the terrain was...mud. If it wasn't frozen, it was mud, and in some cases, deep mud. So, what's the story historical nuts? You really historical or not? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Yes! We have here yet another vote for relative spotting. The crusade continues....

So what you're saying is, like vehicles, you cannot successfully close assault a pillbox to destroy it in 1.12 anymore?

Graphically, it looks like the MG team is firing at a point. Are you saying it is spraying over the frontage of one tile (20m)? That has not been my experience. But even if it were, what if there were 2-3 woods tiles in a row. A MG team should be able to suppress 40-60m of woods frontage shouldn't it? But it can't with the current modeling.

Ahhh yes, I'm particularly fond of the pic of the week. CyberWarrior was trying to fast move his track behind the bocage to get to my infantry. My AT gun greeted him warmly. Hehehe. That was one of the bloodier battles in the Valentines Day Massacre tournament. Matter of fact, all 6 of them so far have been bloody. No flags, just killin.... [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 03-30-2001).]

Right, I saw something like that myself. But selfishly speaking, if Charles is the only one doing the programming, then we have to wait until he's finished with one project before working on another. What I am suggesting is that Charles get an assistant that continues what Charles started. That way very little integration would have to occur. Charles does all the original coding, a few patches, then leaves it to the assistant to improve upon it if he can. That way, Charles gets working on the next project much sooner than if he were listening to us whine about penetration values and turret speeds and trying to do something about it. The assistant could worry about any bugs or improvements that remain while Charles charges ahead with the rewrite. Yes, I too heard that CM1 will be back fitted with CMII once the engine is rewritten. But perhaps the assistant could do the back fitting freeing up Charles to work on CM3. That way, the delay between CM2 and CM3 would be minimized. I just want to emphasize, I'm not telling BTS what to do. I'm not implying that they're being inefficient or slow or unresponsive. I have the utmost respect for these guys and I want to see them make even more games and more money. It's just that right now seems to be a good time to bring in a new programmer to learn as much as possible about the coding while bugging Charles as little as possible.

Excuse me? What's the problem with the question? I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm genuinely interested in the answer. But, if you guys feel it's a stupid question, I'll be more than happy to delete it. I'm a reasonable guy.

I know you guys are hot and heavy into CM2 and I also know that Charles is the uberprogrammer. He's doing a wonderful job. But, since I have too much time on my hands right now, I was thinking about the future for you guys (I know, no need to thank me, just willing to help ). Anyway, have you guys considered adding a programmer right now to tinker around with CM1? Maybe add some new vehicles or a new command or two. Nothing major, just enough to get his/her feet wet into the inner workings of CM. That way, he/she can pitch in and help with CM2 support after it has been released to allow Charles to rewrite the engine for CM3. Then, once the engine is rewritten, he/she can then backfit CM1 and CM2 for the new engine while Charles charges ahead on CM3. Just a thought. I'm not a programmer, so I'm not fishing for a job, but just from an efficiency point of view this seems to be a logical evolution for your company. Maybe Kwazydog or MadMatt is that programmer? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

That's why I don't play operations. BTS needs to overhaul the system IMO, but to each his own.

When captured, the info area at the bottom of the screen says that unit is caputured. When freed, it says the unit is unarmed. No where have I ever seen abandoned (except on guns or afvs). And if you're correct, then his screen shot would show 0 ammo, not 5, and the rifle grenade would be gone. Since MadmaN said it was abondoned for only a half second, then I would say that this is not a bug, just wierd.

Just trying to integrate the idea into relative spotting. To me, relative spotting should take higher priority than finding a hull down position because IRL , the commander does not have this fine of control over his troops. In relative spotting, a tank may not have an idea what is on the other side of a hill or just around the bend. So IRL, the tank commander would cautiously nose up the hill or around the bend if he suspected danger. Pre-targeting may not be an option with relative spotting. So giving a movement order to the top of a hill to cover an advance is a perfectly acceptable order. Telling him to go to an exact spot on the battlefield is not a realistic order. Once in the general area, you can then give the order to stop once point x comes into LOS (like wilmontgomery said in his original post) to allow you some small control. The two commands are different. One is saying go to this exact point, the other is saying, go to this area to achieve your orders of covering this real estate. But the effectiveness of the tank at achieving this should be entirely dependent on crew quality. Elite should stop exactly where ordered, Regulars may overshoot or undershoot by x meters, and so on. This is a small exception to the relative spotting philosophy where you are the battlefield commander issuing orders, but one that would be welcome to the micro-management crowd (i.e., the battlefield commanders who wish to be tank commanders at the same time). To make a long story short, I like wilmontgomerey's idea. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I like it. But remember, the target is one squad of multiple men. So in effect, a MG team in CM is practicing a limited amount of area fire. But I too long for a true suppressive capability. Hedgrow fighting or city fighting come to mind. Where you have no idea if the enemy is there, but you want to suppress anything that might be there. Area targetting a building would succeed in keeping the enemy away from the windows perhaps. Area targetting a hedgerow would succeed in suppressing some units along the length of the hedgerow. But once a target does show up, stop the area fire and go to direct fire. Another way to model what you're saying is to allow a MG team to break lock and retarget when direct firing as fast as possible to simulate area fire. The only question then would be, what criteria is used to determine when to break lock and retarget? Is it distance (shoot at closest units only)? Is it making the enemy change course (once they stop their original movement, retarget)? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Badaf, just a suggestion, but perhaps it would be better to put a link to the article instead of cutting and pasting. By cutting and pasting, you successfully kept me from visiting his site since what I wanted to read was right here. But, he does not profit from his work unless I visit his site. As I said, just a suggestion. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Wilhammer, what you say may be true (as in, abandoned is a temporary state on the way to routed or something). But it's definitely not a graphics card issue. I'd like to know as well, is that Rifle 44 squad still abandoned? And what exactly does it mean? It looks like they still have their weapons since they still have an ammo count. Can you give it movement orders? Target orders? What? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Hi Terrence Not sure I know the answer, but I think they simulate the defense having to defend on a broad front. That way, they don't all bunch up around one flag or one area knowing that that is where the attack will ultimately end up. With no knowledge of the objectives, the defense is forced to defend everywhere or give up the objective and plan a counterattack once the real objective is determined. However, since the defender is already severely disadvantaged in an assault or attack, further crippling them by not giving them knowledge of the objective areas seems sadistic . Having said that, I've been wanting to try out dynamic flags on the defense to see how hard it is. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I think that's what they did IRL. It was activated on contact and delayed to explode shortly thereafter. In that regards it is a form of Variable Timed fuses. Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse VT air bursts with delays, but in my mind, they perform the same type of function. I know ordinary shells in CM explode on contact. I also know that VT shells burst in the air at some predefined point above the ground. I wouldn't expect those shells to penetrate a building in real life. I know also that in CM, VT shells burst in the air. However, since CMBO is an abstraction and setting a delay is out of the ordinary, I'm thinking perhaps BTS could have lumped the two different types of shells (delayed fuse and VT) into the same category and called them VT shells. That way, if VT shells hit a building, then CMBO would explode them on the ground floor. Ohterwise, they explode in the air. The point is, to distinguish between shells that explode on contact and shells that explode prior to or after contact, the VT designation could be used. Whether it is or not, I don't know.

Reading in Citizen Soldiers about the fighting in Aachen and one strat employed by the Americans was to fire VT shells into buildings with the timer set to explode after it penetrated a couple of floors thereby killing the krauts on the ground floor. Great idea! Can VT shells in CM do this? Or are they strictly airburst ordnance? It should be the same shell, but I'm not sure how CM models this. I'd like to buy the stuff if it penetrates floors. ------------------ Jeff Abbott