Seahawk-vfa201

Just to say that indeed it would be nice to have it. In terms of features the ones I read already posted provide enough for versoin 1.0 Thanks for taking up the issue for Mac users to benefit. Indeed a tool that manages MODs for CM2 would be great to have.

Hi there, it looks we bumped into a bug: we are playing a co-op PBEM. Two teams 4 players each. We use the save features to have the 4 players issue orders to their assigned units only in order to gradually build a complete file. The last player (Team leader) finally issues the GO and generate the PBEM file. Same happens in other team. Problem: it looks like at times we skip movies. Last example: turn 18. Allied issue orders, generate and send PBEM. Axis open file: still turn 18. Axis issue orders. Generate PBEM file. Allied receives it: no movie, order phase for turn 19. Here Allied may issue again orders and - low and behold - hitting GO causes finally the blue bar to appear. How comes Allied could end up giving orders twice in a row. Why the turn went from 18 to 19 without a movie file in between?

I am having troubles with getting online. Situation might normalize in second week of April. Apologies for all inconveniences

Martin, ANY application that is carbonized will run on OS X. Developers say carbonizing an application is almost a no-brainer. Developing instead a cocoa application will take more time. Companies like Adobe, Aladdin, Iomega, NewTek (producing LightWave btwt) are all going native OS X but it takes more time although there is no one serious software developers having dared to say they are not going OS X and comments from developers are really enthusiastic. BTS could produce in short time a carbonized version of CM but I would hate to have it delay CM2 even by a week Anyway, the classic environment (9.1) runs concurrently and there is no need to boot into it: both OS may have applications running at same time but I would easily give CM a try: many applications run flawlessly on OS X as well.

Serious post now here. I have a friend working in Seattle for MS. Know what are they doing now? studying OS X. His comments are: we are rushing like mad trying to catch up with Apple again. And he mentions something about Darwin. Same old MS story. It is amazing Windows is still around. Kinda THAT makes you wonder.

Actually OS X being based on Unix Kernel the numebr of programs runnign on it are practically infinite. Take your favorite Unix program and compile it on a OS X Mac. What is that ... uhmm 100 times more programs or 1000 more than what is available for Wintel clones? Sorry, but bashing on Mac OS X now makes you look ignorant and misinformed. Period. End of story. Oh yes, the question was "what is a Mac?!". Sorry, you'll never understand it

Doug add 9) Sturmtruppen's hi-res buildings

Magua, will Sturmtruppen's hi-res building fit in with your new terrain mode? It looks like they will since they have all a subdued color and I like to be able to read if the building I am facing is a school or the city hall Get a hi-res buildings too in the future: some of us are lucky enough to have all hi-res available around installed and still having a smooth playing.

CO-OP about to start tonight. Map is gorgeous and we have created a historical fictional scenario. One spot possibly available. Drop email ASAP if interested

Ok, so the focus is on adding *real* snipers to CM in addition to sharpshooters. Gotcha. Psychological effect is there i guess: Kill a TC with a *sharpshooter* and the tank crew is shocked most of times. How many true *snipers* would then be allowed on a CM battle. I do not see problems with having 3~5 more sharpshooters but true *snipers*? Only one? sometimes not even available? Or is that suggested to be as the Air support: i.e., not under the player control. It is not that a true *sniper* walks with the company and is directed to go here, there, or shoot at at he TC as the HQ desires...

Off topic Stalingrad, on topic snipers. CM battels span oevr ~30 to ~60 minutes in total. usually - when using snipers - I have accounts for a numebr of killings in between 5 to 10. Woudl you think snipers - on a setting as CM scenarios - would be accountable for more than that on WWII battles? I doubt it but I have no infor to support it. Is the way snipers are right now contributing ALREADY a sizeable factor - comparatively speaking - in CM?

I had an ATI 128 on a Mac G3 256MB (Now with Voodoo 5 5500). Fog - as well all transparencies like roof or smoke - have never been a problem. Actually beautifully rendered. All hi-res mods available and it looks like a Normandy picture.

Thanks Lorak for the explanations which I also had sent via email to interested people. Let me add here (as I did in the email) having every team player sending the saved game (alt-S, splat-S for Macs) to the whole team allows each team member verify that previous moves have not been changed (use the show all moves/order option). So the whistle can be blown and backup files are always available. So if the 3rd in team screws up and save and sends the file to own team, previous platoon commander may check that their units have not been messed up. If such is the case 3rd player will have to replot without screwing on the eprvious 'team turn history' saved game (and receive a warning).

I happen to be playing a scenario that really shows what the problem is: I am Axis, 2 VF are way back to the Axis end of the map, a hill and a bridge. I have forces spread and controlling route access, forces on the hill, forces on a crest guarding the bridge. forces north of the bridge and of the hill, forces in town way in front of both flags. My opponent is trying to break through this defense apparatus (he described it as onion defense as I have multiple layers of forces between him and the targets) and he practically is still fighting in his own SETUP ZONE. One flag I see it as mine (forces are close enough for CM) one flag not (forces are guarding but far away fort CM so it has it a grey flag. Far away means no more than 40 meters in this case. He has NO WAY to sneak to the grey flag (bridge) which is on a corner of the map and all around (well in front) are my units and terrain does not offer cover (no woods, no crests, just approach via the road and in the open. I happened to have troops movements in the rear and each time some were passing close or crossing the bridge in one sense or the other the flag was changing from grey to my side and my score jumped up and down. Simplistic at least. I know that even if the enemy can't make any closer to the flag I have to physically RUSH in the last turn those 30~40 meters where my defense layers are in front of the bridge and from the access road or down from the nearby hill to let CM attribute those flag points to my side?! Realistic? No way. Do I have control of the bridge: totally: the closest units is a wreck of an M8 at some 300 meters away from the bridge. Do I HAVE to retreat on the last turn toward the bridge to assume control? Ridiculous. It actually would diminish the control of the area for example if I end up withdrawing the units protecting the only road access to the bridge. VF has a fixed limit to assign control, like 20 meters or so and it counts heads, not fighting power. If my units are all around at 21 meters and the enemy is at 3 miles CM assumes the area is neutral. And this with a flag DEEP into my defense setup and territory? Again, think of time constraints of a CM battle: the attacker goal is to reach and contest that strategic point in 30 minutes for his HQ only knows the reasons. If not the attacker has failed his mission and the defender has succeded his mission. CM flag algorithm - right now - denies this simple realistic fact, the defender has succeded to defend the position. Again, this is not meeting engagement, this is attack scenario. The flag control now in CM is not wrong, it is too simplistic to cover a more realistic situation and it is appropriate ONLY for a meeting engagement most probably.

Forgot to add: My aim is to historical settings, maybe even a scenario - how complex it could be - where teams would receive their goal primarily from the briefings and team would then try to accomplish those goals setting up a plan accordingly. If not we could use a Fionn rule (just a suggestion)

Actually I start to think that a sticky-flag would certainly be a better and the same arguments apply to the attacker if successful. he should not be required to stay put in part to maintain control: he has kicked the defender out and should be able to pursue him. THEN, if the defender is able to sneak some units back and regain control all the better and all the better from a realistic point of view as well. But if he does not than he cannot hope for an automatic greying out of the VF just because he is running away and pursued. (in reference to the withdraw tactics aiming exaclty at this: grey out flags because of luring the enemy into pursuit and escaping from the map aiming to a draw. It is instead a debacle not a draw!

If we all are commitetd to it we might even have two turns per week. We had that at the beginning, sometimes one team sending the turn back to th other team in less than 48 hours. Then things slowed down in part due to unexperienced players not really THAT addicted to CM. So, I hope everyone to participate BE addicted to CM.

OK, we are two. I;d say a minimum of 4 players (2 players each team and we are set). I'd like to keep vehicles/armor as a single group as this way one could concentrate more on either infantry issues or armor issues. Let me add to your and other CMers benefit that it requires some team action and deciding a common plan. Situations also could evolve and having one Captain/Hauptmann asking for help. Usually in 1 to 1 CM PBEM this is easy: if you see an area under trouble you might decide to go and help. In this case your request for help might be unanswered as your peers might judge they can't dievrt troops to help you out. So it all adds to the S*it Happens in war and the reply is " Do what you can: you're on your own. My habds are full now" I think it really adds to CM experience. I once asked if BTS could add this feature (players registering different passwords and CM allowing every player to only plot orders to own units, as well as visibility/knowledge of the terrain/enemy only available from your own units (if not in radio range with the other groups) But the effort I guess was too high although it would make CM astonishing. Well, more astonishing than it is right now

aka, can't you see what you have done? You have showed all of us that tanks and buildings are even more realistically reproduced than ever thought it possible. You tank has just entered the far wall of the building and set its gun to fire through a breach, a window, a hole of the ruined building and hide itself from easy spotting. It was happening all the time during war and we thought instead that in CM buildings were unrealistically made of extraterrestrial unpenetrable matter!!!! It is even more realistic this way!!! A bit of a kidding but not so far from truth if you stop and think of it for a sec

Time ago me and Lorak set up an experimental cooperative CM, We set up was 3 infantry groups and 1 vehicle/armor group. Each group was assigned to a team member. Each player was giving orders on the CM file and "save" the game instead of hitting GO. The file was then sent to the second team player in line who was then ploting his orders, save and send the file to the 3rd.. and so on. The last player of the Team (always the same one, in our case the one controlling the armor, was then plotting his vehicles moves and this time hit GO. This was finally producing the PBEM to send the other team. The other team was then acting in the same manner. We had great fun from it but after a while some members of the other team pulled out and that was it. I'd like to re-create the team PBEM experience but we need a group of people (4 - 6- 8) depending os team size who are COMMITTED to play and play rapidly, that is same day they receive the turn preferably and give precedence to the Team-CO over other PBEM he/she might have. Anyone interested? Hauptmann Lorak?

Sounds fun. I have experience of team PBEM games. We did an experiment like that where a player was controlling a group of units: what we set up was 3 infantry groups and 1 vehicle/armor group. Each player was giving orders on the CM file and "save" the game instead of hitting GO. The file was then sent to the second team player in line who was then ploting his orders, save and send the file to the 3rd.. and so on. The last player of the Team (always the same one, in our case the one controlling the armor was then plotting his vehicles moves and this time hit GO. This was finally producing the PBEM to send the other team. We had great fun of it but the otehr team was made of some new to CM players. They got beaten up a bit and pulled out. Your idea of One single tank seems nice though although I'd like to re-create the team PBEM experience. Anyway, GIVE ME MY TANK!!!!

I could if I knew what the Team Rumble is.

Maximus: Exactly. Battles do not end after 20 minutes. But that does NOT play in favor of your argument. Personally I'd play without flags and would just have textual directives. Capture the bridge or seize the town. But it would arise other technical problems as the flags allow for situation where holding an objective at a specified time (end of the battle) is the goal. For attack/defend I do not see much of a trouble in Homba's view. Objective of the defender is to keep the attacker from getting close to the target for the duration of the battle: he succeeds if he does that, not if he does that AND puts units on the area. The objective of the attacker is NOT to kill the defender. The objective is to seize control of the target. If he kills all defender's men and still he is not at the objective in time HE FAILS. The HQ plans for the defender is to KEEP the attacker OFF at all costs, even to the lives of all your men. The objective for the defender is to make so as not having enemy presence in the area. That happened many times in real situations and brave men all gave their lives to reach that goal and treated afterward as Heroes not Losers. CM is treating the same simulated situation as if they were instead all Losers. Who cares if you kept the objective clear of enemy for the time required: you should have been there too. Again, to defend or maintaining an objective clear you do not have to be physically there. Pre-assignment of flags would make that situation possible and CM would then treat the situation the right way.

Homba, for attack/defend battles with VF within defender area it looks like they should be counted from the very beginning as defender's flags. That is, if the attacker is not capable to contest those flags they should remain assigned to the defender as he succeded in not letting the attacker getting close to those areas. Fact is CM does not have multiple ways of flag assignements so it treats them as meeting engagements: if nobody is there nobody controls the area which - I agree - is quite a limiting. I think arguing against that is purely an intellectual ***turbation. The objective of the attacker is to conquer the flag. He fails, flags REMAIN assigned (notice the *remain*) to defender side which should not be forced by the flag assignement algorithm to back off and send units in retreat. If the attacker has been able instead to sneak through flanks and establish a presence there with the defender not noticing the maneuver THEN the flag is assigned to the attacker and the defender should blaim himself for being overconfident. I would say the problem would be easily solved if flags in defend/attack battles were by default assigned to the defender and switched off to neutral or to the other side ONLY and ONLY IF the attacker has been able to push forward enough toward those objectives. Otherwise it is - AS IT IS NOW - just a meeting engagement wich happens to have initial position biased in favor of the defender. The defender is now forced to back off in retreat if he wants CM to assign control of he flag area to his forces: nonsense. Flags in this case should all ab initio be assigned to the defender side! And I do not believe that a pre-assignment should cause ANY reaction saying: hey that is not fair! Your assignment as attacker is clear: break through and get to the flags. If not you HAVE FAILED PAL and CM should give the defender a Major Victory and KEEP the flag assigned to the defender.