Maximus

A 26-parter at around $100 or so, (what's the exchange rate anyway?) is a steal, IMHO. I believe the exchange rate is about $1.25USD/1 UK pound which then my above $100 quote is right on. [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-13-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: click 'im! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> COOKIE!!!!!! ROTFLMAO

Typical sound contact properties. Weird stuff happens all the time with generic gray sound contacts. Remember sounds can echo and they may sound like they're coming from the opposite side where they are actually at. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

Mmmmm...chocolate chip....my favorite... C is for cookie, that's good enough for me. C is for cookie, that's good enough for me. C is for cookie, that's good enough for me! OH cookie, cookie, cookie! Cookie starts with C. Little Sesame Street humor there for ya. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-13-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: name that vehicle and give any info you have on it: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Vehicle is a..... 75mm PaK40/4 auf Raupenschlepper, Ost (Sf) Self-propelled AT-Gun on tracked lorry chassis. 60 of these were converted in 1943. Crew: 4 Weight: 5.2 tons Length: 4.57 meters Width: 1.99 meters Height: 2.6 meters Engine: Steyr V8 3.5 L (85 PS at 3,000rpm) Gearbox: 4 forward, 1 reverse Speed: 17.2 km/h Range: 250 km Armament: One 75mm PaK40/4 L/46 Traverse: 30^ left/30^ right (60 degree arc) Elevation: -5^ to +22^ Armor:.......Front.....Side......Rear......Top Hull:...........5/.........5/0^......open......open Gun shield:.5+5/30^ Key: ^=degrees. Specific Features: Normal RSO with wooden load platform on which the PaK40 turntable was mounted. The cab was replaced by a lightly armored cab, with folding top and open driving position. Combat Service: Troop trials with Army Group South (East Front) early in 1944. Source: Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WW2, Chamberlain & Doyle. p.156 Now give me my damn cookie!!!! ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII "Butt kicking, for goodness!!!"--Minsc, BGII [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-13-2001).]

No, not really. The PBEM .txt files aren't really saved. You need to save a PBEM "order phase" turn as you would normally for a single player game. Then upgrade to v1.1, then when you reopen the saved PBEM game file, it'll ask you to continue as HOT SEAT, PBEM, or TCP/IP. Click PBEM and it will now be updated to v1.1 status.

For one. Save it under the SAVED GAMES folder first. And then save it under the SCENARIOS folder. Also like Rob suggests, don't add an additional .cmb or .cmc extension. The game will provide that automatically. Or if you are making an Operation it won't show up in the BATTLES list or vice versa. [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-13-2001).]

Fellas, I still don't see a major problem with this situation. I see some of you talking about using the ROTATE command to "Micro-manage" the AFVs hull movement. I, in fact, have not used ROTATE in this manner hardly ever. I use it on AT-guns and infantry to rotate a certain way after moving to a new location. I thought the whole idea of CM's Tac-AI was to do whatever it took to keep our little men alive during the movie phase, unlike the other RTS's where you had to do it yourself in real-time. IMO, this "fixed" feature just has added something else that we don't have to *worry* about. Hey the Tac-AI does it for us now, cool! But just one question though. Have you guys played enough games with this feature in? It sounds like you haven't. And Jeff H., in your example, your Panther engaged what *it* could see--not what *you* could see. Big difference. Also, all these examples such as these, seem to be coming from German tanks with slow turrets. Try a few games with fast turreted vehicles and you'll see that they do not rotate their hulls. So in this case, the AI works as it should, to bring slow turrets' guns to bear more quickly onto whatever target they wish to fire at. Another thing is that everyone seems to be worried about it turning to engage crews (I assume you're talking about bailed out crews). In all the games that I have played, since b22(3) and v1.1, the tanks have *never* rotated their hulls do MG down crews. I'm sure the TC can tell if he sees a few men running like scared hampsters screaming, "Let's get the hell outta here!" they aren't gonna perceive that as a threat. I really think that everybody "against" this new fix is really reading to much into it and also putting their units into predicaments that even the best AI would have a problem with. Basically, you all are accusing the AI for mistakes on your behalf. Keep your vehicles out of these situations and then you won't have a problem with it. In fact, I think you'll like it, once you get used to it. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeT: Now the next step. What do you think and do you see serious holes in my planning? I really hope not MikeT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I was just thinking a separate install of CM would work just fine. I was thinking have my normal install. Then install again into another directory for strict use of the Desert Rats. Of course, this would present a problem for the Italians/Germans bit, but I never had a problem with manual mod swapping. Or I (or Marco) could write up some batch files to do it automatically.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oddball_E8: well sort of... i think i have found a bug. ok here is the thing. I am making a new version of VoT and the allies have ALOT of units (Battallion+ size) and they have 3 cannons. they are all set up close to eachother and each time i playtest against the computer it has moved the guns. on turn 1 only one gun is in the correct place. the other 2 have been moved. The thing is that im using the "use scenario default" setup for the computer. and it still moves those bloody guns!!! so whats up with that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Try padlocking *just* the guns!!!! You don't have to padlock *everything*!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dbroe: do these install self?do i have to turn that on ever time i want somethig new,or are they random and work all the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure I understand your question. But whenever you install them, they are there all the time until you replace them with something else. Each unit has their own set of textures. So if you install a new set of textures for the Tiger, they will always be there until you install a new set of Tiger textures. The game can ONLY pull texture files from the BMP folder (PC) or Graphics 13 file (Mac) for display. If they are there it will display them, if not, it won't. The game can not and will not display some other graphic that is not there. Some people seem to think that their computer is displaying older graphics due to VRAM limitations or whatever, it is not. How can it? The truth of the matter is that the computer or video card may be down-sampling the texture size of something. For example, for the winter German helmet (a mod, BTW) is usually white. Well when you pull back from it it turns back to black for some reason. This is the only texture that I see doing this. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyStrike: 'best business practice', 'process or methodology', 'scope of commonality', 'value and quality', 'inclusion process model' Bruno, would you happen to be an IBM consultant by any chance? Just messin with ya.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree...taking nothing away from Bruno's exquisit post there...but what the hell is he talking about?????? Isn't he who's running for Mayor, or is that someone else? If so, then I kinda pity his town for no-one will be able to understand him. LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: 2 things, I think, would really help MEQBs be more realistic, and that is much shallower setup zones, and maps with more depth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You ain't ****tin' me there. Ever tried playing a ME on a large map. You end up having a HUGE wide front with very little depth (no-man's-land) between forces. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

Well definately the more hi-res mods you install, the lower your frame rate will be. Mr. Clark, why a Voodoo 3 3000? That's a pretty low-end video card these days. Now that 3Dfx has been bought-out by Nvidia, I wouldn't take a Voodoo product if given to me. I've had a TNT2 Ultra for over a year now and handles CM pretty well, fully modded with tons of hi-res mods except with the large scenarios. I am using every hi-res mod that comes out except the latest Hummel/Nashorn mod. Just haven't got that one yet. It all really comes down to your VRAM. If you've got a 32MB card or better, then you can run those hi-res mods without a large slow-down.

Thanks Steve. That was what I was trying to say in the first half of your post. I didn't mean to say that BTS was pissed off or anything, what I meant to say was that they, (namely KwazyDog) was a little aggrivated that several of you all were complaining about something without having any in-game experience with it yet. In that response, I say, try playing a game or few. I think you will see that this feature is quite an improvement from the previous patches. For example, I just played a QB with British Challenger tanks with FAST TURRETS, well guess what, they used their TURRETS, they didn't rotate their hulls hardly at all. Of course I never had them within infantry-AT range. IMHO, all this hubbub is going to come into play in only close-quarter battles where there is a target rich environment. BTS, I wouldn't change anything and I'm serious! I think if these guys just started playing the damn game instead of sitting here and complaining about it, I think they'll start to like the feature. The feature really plays in for the slow turret AFVs, it has hardly any effect on fast turreted vehicles. The fast turreted vehicles will use their turrets just as they should. Regarding tanks as the Tiger tank, I believe it has IMPROVED the tanks survivability and deadlyness. It can get its gun to bear more quickly to dispose of threats (while getting its front armor to the front of a threat) instead of its hull just sitting there and rotating that SLOOOWWW turret. But again, ALL of this comes down to FOW and the QUALITY of the crews, and maybe even the individual TC's personality, but I kinda doubt that one. Try turning off FOW and seeing if any of this "erradic" behavior takes place. I bet it don't.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gotcha: I would like to get hold of the original scenarios.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All the original beta scenarios come with the game. Only VoT from the Gold Demo doesn't, but it is transferable from the Gold Demo into the full game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fuerte: So the problem is also with BTS... if they get upset if someone posts a bug report.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. You missed my point. BTS will receive criticism when it's backed by something other than speculism. The majority of the people complaining about this issue have not EVEN TRIED the new patch yet. And my other point was that they released FOUR Beta Patches for people to try out before the final was released and people, for whatever reason (which still escapes me), chose not to use them and now they're complaining about the final product. Ever hear of "taxation without representation"? Well consider the latest patch taxation. BTS gave all of us a chance of "representation" before they taxed us and for those that didn't "represent" themselves are now complaining. It's like bitching about a newly elected polititcian, but you didn't go out and vote yourself. So what right do you have in complaining then? BTS gave us a chance to vote and this is what we got. IMHO, the people that are having trouble of understanding this concept apparently don't understand what democracy is, or fail to participate, of which I don't understand. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadDog0606: I don't have a problem with the tank turning toward the enemy to help speed up the turret rotation. I have a problem with the above statement. It sounds like you no longer want user feedback on this patch from people who did not participate in the public beta testing, which is more then likly a lot of people, and it includes me. I have beta tested for other games before and to do it correctly is like work. You don't play the game to have fun, you exercise the application to find problems. I don't beta test anymore because I play games to relax and have fun. If I want to get frustrated at a computer program I just go to work and do that. I have always felt that BTS has always encouraged CONSTRUCTIVE user feedback and I would hope that they continue to do that. That said, if I find something I don't agree with in CM (which as not happened yet, and more then likly never will) I will moan and groan about it on this forum .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you're misunderstanding my point here. I have no problem with constructive critism regarding an anonomoly within the game code. What I do have a problem with, and BTS for that matter, is that when people complain about something without substancial support for their claims. And in this particular case, where there was an open public beta test going on and the people that are complaining didn't participate in the public test. Personally, everytime a beta patch was released, I was right on it. Mainly because I much prefer the latest changes and enhancements over the last official version. And when the Beta patches did nothing to the game code other than creating a new executable, leaving the v1.05 executable untouched, what harm was there in trying a beta patch. It's not like SFC where everytime they came out with a patch you had to delete and reinstall the whole game before you applied the new patch, SHEEZ! As KwazyDog has told me in private, he wonders why BTS even bothered doing the Beta Patches if no one was going to use them. The way I look at this situatiom is that for those that did use the beta patches, found no problem with this hull rotation thing and now that the final patch is out, we get bitchin' from all around from people who didn't use the Beta patches. Like I keep saying, sounds like a "Johnny come lately" to me. In other words, people had their chance to participate in the "creating" of this final patch and they didn't take part and now they see fit to complain about something they don't like. BTS did this Beta Test in the hope that wide user feedback could help in making THIS the final patch for CMBO. So you see where I'm coming from? Now that the v1.1 patch is released, we still have people bitchin'. Ironically, these are people who didn't take part in the Beta Test. Sorry to keep on rambeling like this, saying the same thing over and over, but trust me, this is the exact same sentiment in the BTS camp. I've been here since last January, during the Beta Demo days and I have seen CMBO go through numerous changes. Most of which have been great and groundbreaking. So I've followed the development from Beta to v1.1 now. I know BTS's attitude toward critism, so this is why I'm coming off like this with the "Johnny come lately" title. BTS didn't have to do the Beta test and we would be stuck with v1.1b16 as the Final v1.1 Then more time would have been lost in doing additonal tweaks therefore delaying work on CM2. Now thank you very much and thank you for your support.

OK, one more note on the whole Beta Test view-point here. Now if Bruno, Xavier and whoever else is on this band wagon about this issue would *have* participated in the Beta Testing, then we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we? We would have had it two weeks ago when this feature was "fixed" just as Matt said instead of now when the FINAL patch was released. So I still stand behind my point in that you all had your chance for user feedback through the Beta Test and some of you who chose not to participate are just now beginning to see what the rest of us have had no problem with and complaining about it. Doesn't make a damn bit of sense really!! Plus the fact you're drawing conclusions from what it *may* mean and not from gameplay experience with the patch. If you have participated in the Beta Test, you could have made mention of this then and not now. So basically you missed out on a PUBLIC Q/A session and now you're bitching because something ain't to your liking in the final product. Again, a "Johnny come lately", IMHO. As for using bailed-out crews to "fool" a tank. Uh ah! Not gonna to happen! Play a few scenarios and you will see that tanks totally ignore bailed-out crews when there are other threats about. They only fire at them when there is nothing else in sight and usually with just MGs. Play the Villers-Boccage scenario, I'm telling ya, Whittman kicks some ass and the only way you'll get him killed is if you get too presumptious and do something stupid. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

Well I just played it again today. Whittman was kicking ass for a while and I got brave and took him into town and while I was turning him right onto the first street in town, a Cromwell smoked me in the side just as soon as a smoke plume dissappeared. My reinforcements didn't do very well. By the time they came in after Whittman was taken out, the Tommies has taken my entrance point and also had time to move up there tanks which put me in a bad situation. I was flanked instantly as soon as I left the insertion point. No amount of hull rotation (or lack there-of) could have saved me from getting flanked there. But I did notice that the turrets still do work, Bruno. Quite well in fact, the tac-AI *does* weigh threats as it should. It left the crews alone and went after the most serious nearby threats using both turret rotation and hull rotation when appropriate.

IIRC, I took the hi-res tiles, shrank them down to low-res specs and applied the modifications including using "sharpen".

Spook, sounds like something I have already done to Old Dog's grass. All I did was to modify the contrast or brightness (can't remember which, but probably contrast, though) on them a little bit to bring out the color a little more.

Hmmm, there was an issue with this concerning TRPs, but apparently as if you say, may also be occuring with defense structures such as thsoe. The TRP thing was supposed to have been fixed however.

Besides, tanks in Hunt (on roads or dry ground) move just as fast as running infantry. Which allows for a manual formation move that many people request.

For those that doubt the Hull-Turning issue that debuted in v1.1b22 and now obvious in v1.1, try the Villers-Boccage scenario and try to tell me that Whittman doesn't survive longer now than he did before this feature was fixed. He can rack up MANY more kills now than he could before and it's mainly do to the fact that he doesn't have to wait for the damn slow-assed turret to rotate around. This hull-rotation has NO DOUBT increased the survivability of tanks. And one reason is that it can kill faster than it could before, not to mention keeping it frontal armor facing the threat as well. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII