Pham911

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord General MB: Sir, Pham9111: There are cases when off board artillery would be ON board. I.e. a behind the lines sneak attack... or a company sent to silience some heavy guns that have been slowing an amroued advance. You see; this would add some background or gameplay. Plus: God mode? No No No No... You'd have a spotter order the guns to fire as normal, and then you would see them turn, arm fire! kinda like BIG mortars.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, I was confused because you had specified a big map, which I took to mean that there would be the battle line, and then artillery way, way back. But, it's still out of the scope anyways to add new artillery(the big guns). There are already scenarios out there that have raids on artillery groups, but the artillery in those is 105mm or so. If you modeled the larger guns they'd be unable to depress enough to directly fire at oncoming troops in the immediate area(much of the map, realy), which would make them useless. So, if you wanted to make a raid on artillery scenarios, you can either use lesser guns, or just have a briefing that states the artillery is located in the big clearing and the player has to overwhelm a security company to win("destroy the imaginary artillery once the defenders are removed"). It doesn't seem worth including the graphics for something that can't easily fire on the same map it's on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord General MB: Sirs, I think vehiles have been done to a max! what we need now is some more arttilery. In thoose REALLY big games don't you think someone would be able to SEE a battery of 105mm guns, or a German rocket vehicle.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Biggest map size is what, 3 miles squared(I'm guessing, but can't check at the moment) I know it's a low ammount even though the maps look big. Since the game is squad level, and the larger fighting forces you see on the map are batallions, it would be way out of scope to See the source of the rockets/shells. But, even if you did it wouldn't mean much to you without giving your troops god mode LOS that calculates exact distances. You report it in to HQ, they report it to someone doing counter-battery fire, but the cbf people need more than just your guess as to where it's coming from(unless you've got really, really flat terrain and the artillery is way too close to the front and you've got a special sense of coordinents. You could try to move men to the artillery laden rear, but that would be like trying to envelope a division with a batallion due to the ammount of men you'd need if you still wanted to concentrate on the victory locations way, way, way up front of the artillery. You'd have to bypass the frontlines right away just to have time to get to the rear given the games timeframe. Off board artillery is just that for a reason. ---- addendum: Ignore that god mode LOS comment, as I just realised that your troops already have it. It's still out of scope anyways. [This message has been edited by Pham911 (edited 09-23-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: If you'll notice when playing the game, troop units can walk right through vehicles. If your Sherman somehow survives it's contact with SS ground troops, though doubtful, it would just move through them as though they existed on someother dimensional plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The troops are abstracted as a 3-man graphic. If it's a 12 man squad they would, if they were real, be walking(running, I guess) around the tank, not all packed together in the space of the 3 men image, bumping shoulders and shuffeling to get out of the tanks way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jpinard: I find that when I have a huge company/battalion of infantry, once the scenario-setup starts, I immidiately begin putting them into tightly packed platoons. Putting each platon leader in the middle, and the other 3 or 4 units real close around him. This way I can much more effectively manage all these squads easier. When I create a scenario I do the same thing for inital placements, so thos eplaying have an easier time seeing and moving platoons. BTS - Is it possible for you to update the code so that infantry platoons are grouped closer together upon startup of a QB? This would make management of companies and battalions so much easier in the long run...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do the same, but not in packed groups. I tend to spread them out about as far as I would when moving them, and put the in a V shape(squads on points of the V, platoon near the bottom to avoid contact). The reason I do this is I hate moving reinforcements before they're needed, and if you don't unpack the platoons and the opponent shells on or near thier position, one good shell can weaken the platoon to below fighting strength. And, I agree that the weird spread out way the units come in a QB is annoying. I always get the squad on the far right having thier HQ on the far left.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jake bullet: Picture the scene your in you brand new sherman tank when a squad of waffen ss troops coming running out of the trees about 15 feet away my god they have run straight infront of your tank what do you do 1.stop your tank and wait untill they cross or 2. hit the throttle grinding those waffen ss men into a pulp i think the answer is 2 so can somebody address this issue i know it would be very rare that you would get close enough to run them down but it would be nice to have the option just think a pesky infantry squad in a foxhole with there heads down instead of having to assault with infantry(at the momment it.s to dangerous with tanks ) you just steamroller them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Couple of points; Those Waffen SS squads you happen upon will most likely have panzerfausts, and god help the tanker who charges a ambushing panzerfaust. And, If you find your tank 15 feet from infantry and are surprised, you've made a bad command decision somewhere. You need to screen your armor with infantry near woods,buildings, or other low visability spots. Did tanks ever roll over people? Sure, but not usually if they're unhurt already, or in a foxhole praying the tank doesn't overrun its position. If the SS squad sees a tank coming from 15 feet away(and tanks don't exactly start like jackrabbits), will the A)stand there like the guard in Austin Powers and scream, or avoid being run over and blow up the tank? It is very, very hard to sneak a tank anywhere, let alone up to someone so you can squish them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Well, after everything but the bus driver, CM seems to run stably. Went through 8 turns of Le Lorey without a hitch, and I must say this Matrox G400 card does look pretty damn good. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't have a bus driver in Le Lorey, either. My troops have to walk to get anywhere, and I sincerely hope BTS fixes this oversight.

Ok, here's a question that I can't answer to any great degree, but may help out. If you don't know a reasonable, historic combination of units for a PBEM QB, is it generally safe to pick from all units from one general force type(like Volkstrum, Waffen SS, British Airborne, etc)? So, if I started my choice with an American Airborn company, I should pick the rest of my units from the American Airborn, and not suddenly decide it would be neat if I threw in some French, British, and Polish tanks? I've got to admit, when trying to pick from forces I'm not very familiar with(French, Canadian...), I get stumped as to what's a good variaty of units. I always stick to the same group though(Canadian infantry gets Canadian tanks, etc). Is this a safe strategy?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: This technique will only work with a maximum of four vehicles. If you hit Pause four times (or some even multiple of four) it defaults to zero. It's kind of a coarse way of achieving the effect anyway. I prefer to set the waypoints for the first vehicle in a column normally, using, say, the Fast command. Then start off the second vehicle with a short stretch at Move speed, then shift it up to Fast. The third vehicle starts off with a slightly longer stretch at Move speed...and so forth. It also helps if your vehicles begin with a decent amount of space between them before they begin movement. You can control any number of vehicles this way, and they don't take up so much road space as they do with a 15 second pause between them. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmm, good point. I've been moving columns in groups of 4 to form up platoons(when the setup is padlocked), otherwise I just form the platoons in setup. The pause does indeed not work for a larger column. I'll give your method a shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Well let me thank you again but I was hoping for BTS to address the issue. Is that OK with you? Lewis PS "At any rate, it's not my fault that you post a question and then get into a pissing match that distracts people from that same question." SC and I were taking care of some old business. It didnt effect you and I am quite disturbed by your alpha dog mentality towards this board. And maybe we can just leave it at that. Or is that insane and you need to comment on that also? [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-22-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, you can have the last word Lewis. I'm ok with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Well pardon me if I interject that the issues that I raised were not discussed. I want to know if using infantry units to mark ambush sites and then gamily using an tank/sp to glom on to them OK? Thanks Pham. And please refrain from calling me insane. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Stop being insane then. And, your issue was answered, just not directly. If a tank plots a point to ambush, and an in-command squad is directed to ambush it, it can be assumed that the directions of where the ambush is to take place would have been relayed by radio(Tank to HQ, then to squad). At any rate, it's not my fault that you post a question and then get into a pissing match that distracts people from that same question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Well As long as you admit to that, I guess I forgive you. Lewis <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um... Feel free to lock this thread now that the original issue has been resolved... In fact, I encourage it. [This message has been edited by Pham911 (edited 09-22-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hi Pham, Matt's comments were obviously (at least to me anyway) designed go keep this thread on topic. Your question is perfectly fine and the discussion that is directly related to it is fine too. The other BS is not welcome. The C&C part of Ambushing is simulating coordination of units to whack anything that comes upon the designated location. The HQ shouldn't need to have LOS to the location in order for this to work. First of all, remember that C&C is itself abstracted. Nearly all communication between squads and platoon HQ was done using runners or other direct communication (hand signals etc.). So think of it this way. The Platoon HQ knows a general area to put down an ambush and communicates that to the squads/teams under his command. Basically, the HQ is issuing the orders for an ambush and does not have to be johnny on the spot to oversee it. Er... hope that makes sense Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that makes sense now. I wasn't even thinking about the HQ's functions being abstracted. But why can't they target when out of C&C if it's abstract and done with runners, etc? (Just curious about this, as the movement orders can be given when out of command. Is it because it's beyond the scope of hand signals and such to tell someone where to ambush, whereas for movement it would be pretty easy to use signs for it?) And, as for the Matt thingy, I was confused about who it was directed at and *almost* posted a nasty message before deciding to re-read his comment and see if there was another way to interperate it(which there was, and I'm glad I re-read it). It would have been much easier with a quote, or at least a "Knock it off Lewis" comment. I'm using Lewis in the above as an example, and it should in no way indicate that I think Lewis would ever be off topic, or deserving of a repremand...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Unless it has to do with the way Ambushes occur IN THE GAME, then please refrain from posting about it here. There have been more than enough threads locked up over this same ground, no need to retread upon it. Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Matt, please quote when chewing people out, as it isn't clear if you're talking to me, Lewis, or Intelweenies post right before yours(I'm assuming it's Lewis as that's the only part that has been off topic in this thread).

Ok, I'm guessing it's something other than CPU speed we're talking about with this. I just tested it. Loaded a saved game and played a turn(and did a 360 camera spin). It's a fairly large operation map(Herrlisheim -Cut Off), btw. I then moved my bmp folder from my cmbo directory and copies the one from the cd into it's place. Other than getting funky orange and black HE explosions because I was missing the new explosion graphics, there was no difference in speed that I could tell. I have a 450Mhz AMDK-6, 128MB Ram, and a 32MB Ati Rage 128 Video card. So, if you want to ues the hi-res graphics, if it will slow down or not seems to depend on either the video card or ram, and I'd lay money on the video card. Oh, and I'm using the Velvet Grass texture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Dude, you're thinking way to hard about this! I think the more I read an play the more I understand that CMBO is more of a "small unit action simulation" then a first person shooter or tank simulation type game. Which makes me love it more and more! This is a game where you make some generalizations in order to make game play faster/easier. You could get really picky about fortifications, if you wanted. Are they sandbags, cinderblock, concrete, steel reinforced dirt, slit trenches, foxholes with and with out overhead cover? But to give you and I a better playing experience some generalizations have been made in graphics and such. When it comes down to it, unless you're going to go into a terribly long and complicated numbers game, cover is cover. Take it or leave it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's actually a pretty good response. Still, I'd like to see an generic improved position available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Yup, you can assume your foxholes are sandbagged – actually modelling the sandbags would be tricky. Roadblocks don't actually seem to provide much cover. I tried to get a couple of squads to defend from a roadblock, and they kept running back to a foxhole from where they couldn't see the enemy. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh. Now I'm even more confused. During the war not all foxholes were sandbagged, so if it's already figured in that the foxholes are fortified, then are normal, quickly dug foxholes used in the game at all? [Additional thought] Also, I wasn't looking for 3D sandbags, or even a graphical representation, just for it to say either "foxhole" or "improved foxhole" with a LOS check and have the protection improved with the sandbagged one. [This message has been edited by Pham911 (edited 09-22-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: Thus disposable jammers. They are too hard to locate (either by sight or DF since you usually use a lot of them) and are deliverable to the enemy's rear area by artillery, aircraft or Special Forces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's really cool. GPS jammers by way of artillery. It's like we're living in the future. Anything else they can deliver by artillery other than nukes, chemical weapons, or explosives?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred: Scott, an ambush is a powerful tool to annihilate a superior force, so there must be some restrictions in using ambushes. To be in Command is just a restriction that simply works! Assuming that all HQs have radios (as all tanks), there is no problem to target an ambush that was set by an infantry HQ. Does it work in the game? Yes. So there is no inherent inconsistency in my opinion. No need to fix something that is not broken... Fred <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Even though this wasn't a response to me directly, I feel the need to clarify something. I'm not asking that ambushes be opened up to out of command units, rather that ambushes be limited to the ambush marker that the units HQ set up so that there can't be targeting of a panzerschreck's marker by a squad who's HQ is out of sight over a hill and similar situations. I think it's too powerful right now, and unrealistic.

Ack! I replied to myself. Ignore this [This message has been edited by Pham911 (edited 09-22-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred: You are way off. If my Lieutenant said, "Target this bush for an ambush", he can simply move away, but this bush is still there and so I target it. Fred <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but why can't you do it if out of proper command? There would be a delay like the movement delay for units out of command, but the message would still get to you just as if a movement order was passed down. The real issue I have isn't ambushing out of command, but rather restricting it one way and not the other(out of command vs. out of sight). I got the impression from the manual that the ambush was a controled situation in CM that needed leadership. If all it needs is for the HQ to tell the unit to target something that it(the HQ) can or can't see, then it seems like it should be allowed for out of command units too, as we're now talking about a standing order and not a continuous presence by the HQ(who will trigger the ambush when the enemy hits the marker). [This message has been edited by Pham911 (edited 09-22-2000).]

No! The withdraw command means that your unit will instantly(no command delay) turn tail and run. It makes them more vunerable to fire, and they will break easier. There is no real withdraw feature that lets you perform a slow, shooting retreat, so it's best to have other units lay down area fire to cover the men you want to pull back. For vehicle retreats, use reverse so as not to turn your weak ass end to the enemy.

On pages 50 and 51 of the manual it says that squads need to be in command to target ambush markers. I tested this, and it's true, they get a red line and can't target the marker if not in command. However, they can, while in command of one HQ, target an ambush marker set by another HQ or by a team(or tank or gun). So, you can have the following situation I discovered: Squad A targets Team B's ambush marker. Squad A's headquarters unit has no LOS to the marker that they just targeted. This doesn't figure, because if they need to be in command to target the marker, wouldn't the HQ need LOS to the target to give them the ambush orders? Otherwise, if they can target it without HQ seeing where they're targeting, why would they need to be in command at all? They're acting independantly of the HQ, just as if they had been out of command. Also, units can target a marker while in command, then have the HQ either get killed or move away, and the ambush still stays in place, even without the HQ's being in command range. Once again, the units are acting independantly during an ambush. Am I way off the mark here, or does this not seem right?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunter: I am not in the US and don't know what is available over there....but is there such a thing as 'Small Business of the Year' or something like that? If there were something along those lines, I wonder if anybody here that could think of an innovative small company that displayed outstanding client service, dedication to quality, value for money, etc, etc? If you could, perhaps you could make a nomination? I dunno, we have awards like that over here in Oz every now and again. Remember, think of CM2, CM3 etc.... Bruce<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are small business achivement awards in the US, but I think that they're almost always local in nature(and don't honor a two man, now four, operation that works on a non-local level. If there is a national one, I can't help but guess that it would go to some minority start up company or something similar and not to a wargame maker. Not that there's anything wrong with minority start up companies... it's just it's more politically expedient to *not* honor wargame makers while you're trying to sucker people into voting for you by making claims that there's too much violence in the entertainment industry. It would be nice, though. And don't worry about CM2 at least. If BTS did well enough with CM to hire two more people, they'll be a CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los: "What about firing out the window? or door?" As Pham says you have a very dangerously narrow firing arc that would preclude short range fire. The higher up the mortar points the shorter the range (also you have to figure in the charges). Also every time ou fire a mortar, the baseplate shifts. I've seen a mortar buried halfway into the ground after 30 mins of firing depending on where it's set in. This shifting makes it especially dangerous to fire through a narrow arc. As to CD's original question the answer is NO. Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, does this mean that if you deployed a mortar on a hard surface like a paved road that the energy that would normally be pounding the mortar into the earth would be forcing it to slide and shift the whole base? So, mortars are less accurate if used on surfaces that have no "give"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy: How hard is it to jam a GPS signal?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd assume you just need to produce a more powerful signal on the same wavelength to baffle the GPS devices. Like radar jamming.