Maximus

Maybe we ignore you because your "ideas" and reasoning are flawed. Maybe BTS didn't put that super-duper Wire-Guided AT missile in CM because they simply didn't exist in WWII. Huh? [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 11-27-2000).]

Marco is Da Man! Even if he does leave little pink spots on his stuff sometimes. Now only if the M8 Greyhound, M3 Scout Car, and M7 Priest were to get the same treatment.

Well Doug, if I hadn't lost my "Ol' Blood & Guts" profile, I would have about 1600 posts or so. I had over 700 posts with that one. I'm in the 900s now. nah, nah, nah. nah, nah! [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 11-27-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Yeah but Im sure CM's original bmps for each were quite different. I remember when I first started playing I put them together to see the accuracy. There were real differences in the hull and superstructure design, the foliage pack has seemed to have made both vehicles exactly the same despite one using the PzIII hull and the other using the PzIV hull and chassis. If they both really do share the same BMPs then this should be addressed with a patch. For me this is as wrong as using a Tiger model for the PzIV. [This message has been edited by Lordfluffers (edited 11-24-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, put down the drugs and back away. I'm telling you that even the original stock StuGIII and StuGIV textures and model were the same except the StuGIVs road wheel were different. If you've got my Winter StuG mod from CMHQ, I used the original textures to do those and they are the same. Maybe you are confusing the StuG series to the JgPzIV series. Then in that case, they are very different. Besides, I can tell you that changing the texture art on any bmp is NOT going to change the 3D model that it is layed on. ------------------ --"We want information." --"Information." --"Information." --"Who are you?" --"The new Number 2." --"Who is Number 1?" --"You are Number 6." --"I am not a number, I am a free man!" --"Hahahahahahahaha."

Oh boy....where to begin??? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson: Tanks 1. Tanks are to be considered as part of the ground so block LOS allowing friendly fire, and infantry to shelter behind them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was discussed prior to the Gold Demo. The reason this was not done because it would severely create a big CPU hit in it's LOS calculations. However a smoking vehicle does block LOS. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. An arc of fire comand which tells the tank to scan for targets in a sector (particulary usfull for flanking manovers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is one of those micro-managing contraversies that BTS didn't want to implement. The idea behind this is if you start adding all these micro-management commands, then you'll start making the simulation un-managable. The list of commands was thoroughly thought out before the game went into Alpha Demo. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. Tank infantry co-operation. A comand unit should be able to designate targets to a nearby tank that the tank itself cannot see, therefor the tank can target the enemy crest a hill and fire imidiatly. Similar to the way a comand unit can identify tagets to nearby morters. Comand tanks would also be a good idea doing much the same thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not a bad idea here, but as you may realize that this is indirect fire for mostly direct fire weapons. This would be useful for SPA vehicles such as Priests, Sextons, Wespes, Hummels, etc. Not for tanks as such though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. The tank could do with more cases of damaging, that is vision block hits which reduce but do not totally remove to abilty to fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM's armor damage model is already better than anything else out there. There are all sorts of hit damages, just not the one your descibing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gunnery/armour. 2. As far as I can tell the CM armour model models a tank as two boxes turret and hull.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This isn't correct at all. The hull and turrets are broke down to front/side/rear-upper/lower/top plates. Many different kind of hits are possible with these from penetrating hits, gun hits, track hits, etc. Believe me, the armor penetration model is THE best around. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However certain tanks like the tigers have turrets which a significat perportion of the front of the turret is actually the side of it at a very steep angle. For example the Tigers side armour is at 80 degrees when seen from the front. This needs to be modeled becase this area is invulnerable to conventional rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ever check the unit info box? The slope of ALL armor plates is taken into acount for the penetration algorithms. Invulnerable? Maybe this is another one of those "Superior German Armor" myths. This is what CM does best. It dispels the myth that German armor was invulnerable and superior to all on the battlefield. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. There should be seperate values for HEAT and AP round for each tank. The Tiger for example has 140mm verse AP but over 200 in places against HEAT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HE or HEAT? There's a bit of a difference. HEAT is a more modern round the shoots a jet of heated plasma trough a hole that it punches. If a tanker fires HE at a tank, then it's his own damn fault. The only time a AFV fires HE at a vehicle is if the firing vehicle is more of a artillery vehicle and if the target is a soft target like an open topped vehicle. I just had a StuGIII knocked out by a Priest firing HE. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Equiptment. Crews should be able to leave heavy weapons and re-ocupy them. Within bounds crews of similar weapons should be able to take over firing different weapons. So for example the crew of a 88 could leave it under bombardment and then re-ocupy it afterwards if there was enought of them and the weapon itself was workable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The simple assumption made here is that if a crew abandons a weapon, then that weapon has suffered sufficient damage to where the weapon is no longer opperable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fortifications and buildings. Bunkers should be considered like buildings in that a unit should be able to ocupy them. For example the crew of an MG bunker should be able to leg it if they are under firefrom at tank. A concrete bunker should still be able to function as a bunker even if it recieves a penetration as an infantry squad could still fire their weapons from within.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again not a bad idea, however, an AT-bunker is just that. The crew inside doesn't carry normal weapons other than pistols. A MG bunker is just that also. It is a bunker that has a HMG mounted in its firing slit. Having the bunkers double as buildings as such was discussed prior to Gold Demo release. I can't recall all the reasoning behind having them just a unit rather than a structure, but that's what was decided. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Trenches as well as large buildings would be nice.Also barebed wire should be made ineffective by a tank running over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, not a bad idea again. Trenches are sort of modeled now with foxholes. The only enhancement here would be to better graphically represent them. Larger buildings is a definate. BTS has hinted that they will provide a wider range of building types and sizes. But as far as tanks running over and "disabling" barb wire is somewhat of another issue. I think this was done like it is, because there is no way for a vehicle to damge structures other than shotting at them. In other words, no "Ramming Speed!" However, tanks can run over AT-guns and such, but I have never seen it done, they usually shoot HE at them and knock them out WAAAY before they get close enough to run over them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Soldiers. The causalty issue should changed for example there should some difference between death and injury. An injured soldier could drop from his unit but remain staitionary but still armed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In CM's relatively short battles, the differenciation between the two is blurred. If a guy is injured, there's a snowball's chance in hell that they will become combat capable again. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If his unit retreated they would have to pick him up and tkae him back or moral would drop. To carry him back would remove one weapon while the unit is moving. So you may have soldiers who are Moving unarmed. Armed unmoving unmoving unarmed these injured could be moved into units when there are more than one of them, a moving casualty could forexample move a nonmoving one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One word: WHY??? ------------------ --"We want information." --"Information." --"Information." --"Who are you?" --"The new Number 2." --"Who is Number 1?" --"You are Number 6." --"I am not a number, I am a free man!" --"Hahahahahahahaha." [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 11-27-2000).]

Well, my take on this situation is this: If you are accustomed to using 3Dfx products and then you get a Voodoo 5500 with 4x FSAA, then yeah, you're totally blown away since earlier Voodoo graphics were jagged and pixellated. But if you are accustomed to using Nvidia products, then the FSAA doesn't make a whole lot of difference because Nvidia's graphics were always sharper than 3Dfx's. I see screen shots of 4x FSAA and to be honest wit ya, I don't see a whole lot of difference between them and my TNT2 Ultra. ------------------ --"We want information." --"Information." --"Information." --"Who are you?" --"The new Number 2." --"Who is Number 1?" --"You are Number 6." --"I am not a number, I am a free man!" --"Hahahahahahahaha."

Well, in my way of praise, your foliage set and Panzertruppen's building set will be featured in my planned Total Terrain Mod. Actually, it really won't be a mod at all. It'll just be a "coming together" of the best terrain look so far for CM. With all those scattered terrain mods out there, there needs to be a place to come and get the Best of the Best or the Must-Haves mind you.. ------------------ --"We want information." --"Information." --"Information." --"Who are you?" --"The new Number 2." --"Who is Number 1?" --"You are Number 6." --"I am not a number, I am a free man!" --"Hahahahahahahaha." [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 11-27-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Maybe it's the cynic in me. My reading of the problem is this: "I'm inexperienced with rockets, didn't use them right, and I'd like them to be idiot-proof." Don't feel bad, most people screw them up, me included. Just takes practice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The cynic in me also says that. The whole issue is that rockets are EXTREMLY innaccurate. In the very first battle I played with the release version, I called in rockets. I also had a platoon or so running down through this valley towards some enemy infantry. Well a Rocket round landed practically on top of my running men and it totally decimated them. Must have killed at least a platoon and a half of men. Even today's US MLRS is not very accurate either. The goal is with rocket is to fire a huge volley to saturate an area with LARGE warheads. They are a long range weapon system. They are not meant to be fired in close proximity to allied troops. So in CM's rather close quarter map sizes, it's a wonder BTS even included them. I'll say it again. Rockets aren't close-support weapons.

I never got into the CC series for the whole 2D thing. The game system, to me, was outdated even at the release of the first one. Downloaded the demo of CC1 years ago and was totallly turned off then. ------------------ --"We want information." --"Information." --"Information." --"Who are you?" --"The new Number 2." --"Who is Number 1?" --"You are Number 6." --"I am not a number, I am a free man!" --"Hahahahahahahaha."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1: Well I do that because it bugs you Maximus! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well to repost the ENTIRE damn thing just to say, "Cool", is pretty damned stupid, IMO. ------------------ --"We want information." --"Information." --"Information." --"Who are you?" --"The new Number 2." --"Who is Number 1?" --"You are Number 6." --"I am not a number, I am a free man!" --"Hahahahahahahaha."

Put down BGII and get to fighting the Germans!!!

I heard that your IP address changes everytime you log-in if you're using a Dial-Up connection. Is that true? I heard it today from a dude after I mentioned the TCP/IP patch was coming out.

Well I don't doubt it since 3Dfx has pulled out of the 3D card manufacturing business.

OK, just did a little modding to the roads. Bumped up the contrast on them a bit to darken them up to better go with the subdued velvet grass. The subdued velevet grass looks a lot brighter now with darker roads. Besides by doing this, the detail in the roads come out better. Zipped the roads, including Gary Kump's tracked-snow roads, in at 721K.

Also, I have not changed any mods, but just Panzertruppen's building by just giving them a very slightly sharper look. I ran the smallest Sharpen filter on'em just to clear'em up a bit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: Great idea Max, is their any chance that your pack could be available in its component parts to save long d/ls for those of us who have some but not all of those mods you list?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that is basically the plan. I'll probably have the trees and bases in one pack, the grass in another, buildings in another, and other stuff in another.

I've seen this picture a while back, Marco was kind enough to give me a sneak peak of it for fixing the Firefly camo mix-up. And Rob, do you always have to "reply with quotes" every freakin' time??? And leaving the entire post and not deleting the unneccessay parts? I don't think we needed to see the picture again, if you know what I mean. [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 11-26-2000).]

You can't get'em, silly, they're not done yet!

I'm planning on upgrading from a Celeron to a Duron. Yeah I know, it's a cheap, toned-down Athlon, but it's something to get started with by switching to an AMD compatible motherboard. ------------------ --"We want information." --"Information." --"Information." --"Who are you?" --"The new Number 2." --"Who is Number 1?" --"You are Number 6." --"I am not a number, I am a free man!" --"Hahahahahahahaha."

A 32MB Nvidia TNT2 card is a good card. If you've got an 4x AGP compatible motherboard they'll do for a while for the money.

Well, unfortunately, all 3D models in CM are hard-coded. No 3rd Party 3D models are allowed in CM's engine.

The only thing I wanna know is, is why we have to disembark a FO for him to call in artillery? Why can't he spot artillery from within a vehicle such as a Jeep, Carrier, M3 Scout Car, or something similar??? BTS, could we please have a TARGET command for FOs while they are still embarked? It's a pain to have to disembark them to call for artillery which in turn wastes a turn. [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 11-24-2000).]

Where's the Almighty Doug to clear this one up????

The models for the StuGIII and the StuGIV are the same in CM. They also use the same textures. Except the SuGIV uses a slightly different side texture with different road wheel configuration.

For this newbie, a quick and precise answer is needed here. CM2: Eastern Front 1941-1945 -- Tentative title: "Barbarossa & Beyond" CM3: Mediterranean Theater 1941-1943 (North Africa, Italy, Balkans) -- Tentative title: "Battle for the Med" CM4: Early War 1939-1940 (Poland, France) -- Tentative title: "Blitzkrieg!" BTS also plans to update previous versions with the enhancements and standards of subsequent versions to keep the system up-to-date. ------------------ --"We want information." --"Information." --"Information." --"Who are you?" --"The new Number 2." --"Who is Number 1?" --"You are Number 6." --"I am not a number, I am a free man!" --"Hahahahahahahaha."