thewood

Wow, that did it. Thanks, I was on the verge of panic.

I have an XP systyem with Intel 1.3GHz, 512Meg of RAM, GE2 MX400, and SoundMax from ADI. Drivers are: Video: 42.86 Audio: 5.12.0001.3529 CMBB is incredibly slow. No matter what I off, it is a slide show. I have an old IBM laptop with Win98 that runs it flawlessly on 8Meg of VRAM. What am I doing wrong with the new system.

Not again...I thought this horse had been beaten a few times already.

Has anyone noticed if the AI has the same problem, I would assume so, but was just curios.

MikeyD, It's interesting you said that. Back in one of the threads from the day, Steve was railing on someone that their problem with the movement systme was that thyey were micromanaging movement. I decided to use his approach of setting general orders and let the AI fix the details. While not always perfect, I have found this a most useful philosophy, as well as much less stressful. Now before someone blows a gasket, there are areas where you need to get involved, but overall, especially before contact, the AI does a lot of the work for you. Now back to the thread.

I saw the comment about few wargames being written by artillery men or having accurate representations. Armored Task Force (ATF) is written by an active Army Artillery Officer (Captain Procter) and has been declared by several active duty people as the most accurate depiction of artillery in scope of combined arms in a wargame. But I will say this...It may actually take the accuracy too far. I was a beta tester and it was very tedious to control. He also did a bang up job on engineers, but again the same issue. I spent most of my time doing engineering working and planning arty. That is probably a true representation of modern combat at a staff level, but the battle was almost over before the infantry and armor got there. Also note that the infantry and armor models in ATF are much more simplistic than the CM games. So you can see what happens when the priorities are switched.

I don't care about the dynamic lighting thing. It could be accomplished by just changing the LOS for and area where the round has an effect. It doesn't have to be a fancy visual display of a flickering flare. I do understand BFC's decision-making process of saying the impact on game-play versus effort to code.

As far as bogging, whether it's open terrain or not, soil characteristics play a big role also. Things like density, granularity, voids, etc. also have a big effect. I used to drive a CAT dozer and you always walked the ground you were working on and engineers generally checked the soil and compression characteristics regardless of weather. There is no way for CMBB to model this detail other than aggrgating into a form of randomness. If randomness is not your cup of tea, develop some new rules for chess and play that instead.

You can put this in the "Thanks for the effort, now here is your kick in the arse" column.

Seanachai, If I hate you, will you be my friend? With all my sincerest Hate, TheWood

Was it an analogy or a metaphor? I just had to say something to satisfy my addiction and bump this. I hope they never expand the number of posts allowed. I would never leave this thread. [ December 03, 2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

I am addicted to this thread just like the sneaking thread. This one is a great sequel. I am wiating to see what "bug" Redwolf finds next. It's been like drinkin' bad whiskey; it makes me feel great and terrible at the same time. Seriously, anyone attempting to pass judgement on Steve's responses here should look at the sneaking thread, which seems to have finally died. It's also interesting to note that some of the people from these two threads are using similar tactics in other threads. The sneaking thread is interesting because of the paralles to this thread in types of comments and participants. Redwolf started out making generalizations and Steve's reaction was to ask someone to give some hard evidence that justified touching the code. The responses to Steve were generally not caustic, but, IMO, completely superficisl, repetitive, and disrespectful. I think Steve used this thread to try to put in place some individuals who have a tendency to declare the sky is falling when something happens against their expectations. We saw similar, but usually less antagonistic, threads regarding MG effectiveness and armor penetrations in the CMBO forums. In CMBO, guys like JasonC brought numbers ad nauseum to bolster their view. IIRC, BFC made some adjustments in patches and incorporated more in CMBB because of the discussions. If anyone wants to see how to get BFC to "tweak" CM, go back to those threads and learn. No one should forget that Steve is THE resident expert on CMBB. Making "tweaks" should never be done lightly. Without hard and repeatable evidence, I hope that BFC would not make changes. It is all well and good to have an opinion, but once Steve lays out his reasoning and what tests need to run to counter that reasoning, it is the complainer's responsibility to bring the evidence to the table. Repeating the complaint or throwing smoke in front of it will only get BFC in an uproar, as evidenced here. Also, think about the approach you take to presenting the issue. If you are at a party with your baby and a friend walks up and says your baby's ears make him look really ugly, you may say that some people like ears like that. Now that friend follows you around your house for the next four hours telling you and everyone else how ugly the ears make your baby. This is what Steve has had to listen to for the last 500 posts between this and the sneaking thread. I don't prestend to be a BFC spokesman, but I felt it was time to step up and try to show certain people that they can have an opinion, express it, and get a satisfactory answer. The difference is how you present your information and then what you do with the response. [ December 03, 2002, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

Are there any results for how far Tigers got into the trees before bogging? It may look like it bogs 100% of the time, but if the stretch of trees is long enough, any thing will bog eventually. I assume the Tigers don't bog as soon as they hit the trees, but after being in them for a while.

What impresses me the most about this thread is the member numbers. I find it interesting that people have been following CM for so long and are still discussing these types of details. In my mind it is a testament to BFC's fan base and the fan's commitment to CM. Other than Falcon 4.0 and Harpoon, I have seen no ther place with this much passionate, and yet intelligent, discussion happening. I think these types of dicussions for F4, Harpoon, and CM show the great expections placed upon these systems. Discussions always center around real-world tactics. In other forums, like GIC and SPWAW, it centers around game limitations, not tactics.

Take a meander over to the GIC forum where Jeff has been posting comments to rebut some serious slamming GIC fans were giving a few of the more reputable reviewers over bad GIC reviews. Wait until they see this review of CMBB. The place will explode. He also posted a link to an article that talks about how to write good and bad reviews. He mentions CM as an example of people writing reviews who don't understand the goal of a game.

Mike, I am putting things in Steve's mouth, but before blows are thrown, accept some constructive criticism from someone who has been following this thread, as well as a couple of other dead horse threads (does sneaking/exhaustian or IS-2 ring a bell?). If you had read every post in this thread, Steve did a good job of explaining the development history, at a high level, of why the delay system is what it is. In summation, Steve has pretty clearly stated that this is how the system is implemented and how it is going to stay. I have followed CM since it was still associated with Avalon Hill and I have seen Steve and Charles alter direction based upon user feedback numerous times. The CM engine is at the end of its useful lifecycle and I can't imagine that anyone is going to convince BFC to make major investments in areas that only effect very limited situations when getting models completed and fixing things that are actually broken and can't be compensated for by tactics or player intervention. I think it is great that CM fans have this much passion about making CM better. I personnaly encounter things evey time I play CM that make me say "I don't think that would happen in real life", but for each one of those, I see ten things that make me say "Wow, that TacAI reacts very realistically". I try not to dwell on the one thing, unless I can't rationalize it or compensate for it. But, at some point, we need to do the honorable thing and go look for a battle we can win. btw, has anyone noticed the sneaking/exhaustion thread seems to have died down. (knock on wood quietly)

While I have never dragged a machine gun through an open field, I have had to drag deer through woods and broken gound. With that said, I ask any one in reasonable shape to fill a sack with 100 lbs and crawl or sneak 300 feet across a rough field. I know that it would not take long to exhaust me. And I think 10 or 15 minutes to recover is not unreasonable. Now someone firing a .30-06 over my head will either incent me or de-incent me, depending on my mood or severity of a hang over. Now what would incent me to keep the 100 lb. bag with me; knowing that my conrades depend on me getting that thing in position to save their lives. Keep in mind that one of Steve's original comments about not moving the darned thing to begin with. That is why light machine guns were developed. Luckily, few of us can attest to the actual feelings and reactions to being under fire in a similar situation, but just thinking of the physical exertion needed to perform some the tasks simulated in CM helps to understand the reasoning behind BFC's choices. Also, this isn't a flightsim. One can go out and try to recreate, with out the firing, a lot of what goes on. And you get good exercise at the same time.

I just checked a reference and it states that the 222 is about half a ton more in wieght than the 223, but with the same engine, initially. Most of that weight is probably in the turret's 20mm cannon and ammo. It appears that the 222 may have gotten a larger engine later on and this may be the discrepency you see. Not definitive, but it may help rationalize it in our minds.

I think its the new fuel economy laws in the States. Seriously, I never noticed that before. Is the engine and hp the same? It may have been mods to the powertrain for changes in weight due to armor or communications equipment. It may have also been changes in suspension for better off-road performance. I'll look it up when I get home.

Can you guys hold on a minute? I have to take a piss and get more beer. Give me about 30 minutes, I don't want to miss anything.

Most people don't realize that Bangor, Maine used to be the main(e) stopping point for transatlantic flights due the B-52 capable runway that exists there. Many planes continuing further west used it as a refueling point. Not only that, but proximity to the UofM means a lot of drunk, toothless, and loose women. Enough to make any Maineiac drool. PS It's always better than Bangor, WA... [ November 01, 2002, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

What I find most interesting is just the passion in the thread itself. I have played many wargames from ASL up to the GIC demo and I have never seen as passionate and intelligent discussion, as well as unbiased, as what I see SOMETIMES on this board. While this board, like any, ranges from immature to PENG, I am continually amazed at threads like these where people are here to learn and teach without a bad attitude. I continue to beleive that BFC has created one of the few true communities for gaming, although Falcon4 has done it despite its developers stupidity. Anyone who doubts me, take a look at the "I know you are, but what am I?" threads over at GIC. I have followed CMBO since its original vision as Computer ASL. I continue to see the evolution of the community. To foster the community, I hope someday that Steve and Charles have a "user conference" in Bangor, Maine. Its a great central location between the west coast and Europe. Its cheap to fly in and its near the original birth place of CM. I would love to meet some of these guys in person and share a Sam Adams.

Shoot it to me, when you have a chance. I'll try it this weekend and give you some feedback.

I think we should hold out for Steve to take every single person for a joy ride in an M29 Weasel. Did you try turning off any anti virus software you may have running. worked for me and a couple other people. You can safely turn antivirus back on after the install.</font>

My experience with WinRAR is that even if you only choose one file, it chaecks every file in the exe file. This takes just as long as re-installing.