Priest

PanzerMan You should not have edited the post it was funnier the other way! Oh yeah! HI MOM!

Really Styxx? Hmm email me and I can see what is going on. Calstann@hotmail.com is the address if you are still interested. AFAIK there are at the very least reserve spots open (gets more action than you would think BTW) and possibly full time slots.

I would just like to say this is all very informative and thanks to everyone for the knowledge I am soaking in.

On the defense I do three things to help my AT teams along. 1.) A CO with a.) Morale b.) Command (allows greater movement) c.) Stealth (allows a better sneak) 2.) Concentrated firepower: I use them together to take out targets and I use them in conjunction with AT guns. The TacAI is very good in the respect that if a Sherman pulls over a rise and an AT Gun and three shrecks open up the Sherm (or any other armor for that matter) usually dies or runs. Displace your shrecks (at least) and do it again. 3.) Reverse Slope: Not only do shots miss but your AT team seems to notice this and is harder to suppress meaning more shots for you! As far as placement goes I try to put them along my MLR and move them to sweet spots if possible along my MLR.

I have seen some. The only one I can remember is called A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT. But there are others.

The Press CORP may be "pressed" back into service (it has been talked about) but I do know for a fact that the CMMC webpage will hopefully be updated soon. As for the game.... Man oh man!

Well we can argue about design all day but if I were to question anything about British Armor it would be the doctrine in which they operated under. Actually more precisely the "mood" changes that the British High Command fell sway to. While the Brits did conform to their Cruiser/Infantry ideas those exact ideas changed, sometimes very rapidly. Heavy tanks were always a sore issue with the Brits as the need was recognized (to a point) but the exact specifications were not. SP guns were another shortcoming that the Brits seemed to confuse themselves about, a Bishop being an example. It was not until the M7 Priest (great name) that the Brits saw the "light" and developed the Sexton, which could hardly be called an "in-house" design. In general the Brits needed more time to formulate solutions to needs. They needed the 17lbs guns on tanks and until the Comet could not build a suitable chassis to mount it (the Sherman was of course US design). When the Germans were presented with the same problem with the 88mm, the Tiger shortly followed (although there were some failed less reknowned designs) the time to production for the Tiger and the Comet were quite different (actually the Comet did not even use the traditional 17lbs gun). Basically the British tank designs were very sound if they were fighting a war that they were designed for, the Matilda I was a much different tank than the Churchill MVIII even though in the beginning they were somewhat similiar. The Valentine was a "tweener" tank that bridged the gap between Matilda II design path and the Sherman design path. Those are my thoughts.

You can uninstall CM? Hmm did not know that but then what runs your computer?

I would love to chime in on this! Let me just pull out my British Armor resources.... Okay... I think I will be reading from Chamberlain today. The Valentine was ordered off the drawing boards in July 1939. Valentine Production ceased in early 1944. The original design carried a 2 pdr gun and a turret crew of two. This was later redesigned in the MKIII and the turret crew was increased to three. With the inclusion of the 6pdr gun the third crewmember was deleted in the interest of higher firepower. In March 1943 the Valentine was used to test the US 75mm gun and the final variant was the MK XI with the 75mm gun. The Valentine was much like the US Sherman in the respect that the British knew it was inferior technically to the German tanks but at the time needed something competent to put on the line and lots of them with minimal downtime for maintenance. That was the Valentine. Chamberlain states that the Valentine was an important vehicle for the British (at one point it made up a quarter of Britian's available armor force) but that does not mean it was a great design. The Sherman was important for the US (and the allies in general) but it was not a "great" design either. As far as the British Cruiser/Infantry mentality (and for that case the Tank/TD philosophy) we must understand that the use of armored vehicles and combined combat in general was a new "art". Just as many errors can be pointed out now about air power and it's uses also. It too was a new "art". I think that many or most armor designs failed in one respect or another during WWII (hey even the first Panther models had issues!) and that due to the many advances in technology tanks that were considered "great" in 1942 were outdated in 1943 (for example). Just my thoughts.

Nope sorry, and the go look at the software store statement was just what my friend told me to do, it was not meant as a challenging statement. Sorry if it came off that way. Actually Tanks A Lot here on the forum might know a site with such information that is updated regulary.

I am an IT professional and helped develop some software at Cisco as a consultant until the Nasdaq hit the floor (DOH!). Anyways when working with the folks in their programming department I met a lot of diverse people from different programming backgrounds (including game backgrounds). Anyways I am totally off subject now. Back to what I was supposed to answer, we as a team were mandated a level in which our software must conform to on the server and workstation level. This was the "business baseline" used by Cisco, Nortel, Novell, Microsoft, and many others I would assume. I asked about the "Home" use baseline and was told that from a very well connected and experienced product manager. If you want some verification (this is what he told me) go to your local software store and check out all the software (not just games) and you will see it is true. And when I did he proved correct. 85% of all the software I looked at was either at or below this baseline. Anyways I hope that answers your question but I got it from the industry itself. Personally the highest requirement i have seen on a game recently is for MAX PAYNE which I believe was something like 600 or 700 mhz but I could be wrong. later [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

BrewMiester If you can figure out how to stuff 128mb Ram and a Voodoo 3 video card in your system you could run just about anything in CMBO. My backup system is a 350mhz 128mb RAM Voodoo 3 (16mb) system that runs CMBO at 800x600 with all options on and with every mod I can stuff in it (all hires if possible). That upgrade would cost less than $200 if it were possible on your system!

Just a FYI. The computer industry (all facets not just game companies) see the following as a current base line for the PCs currently being used at home (business is a different matter) and use this as a baseline when deterimining design of software. 500mhz Processor 64-128 mb RAM 16mb Vid Card 15 Gig HDD 40x CD-ROM 56k Internet connection And you will notice if you pick up a sales paper for computers that most PC retailers are selling computers currently with little more than upgraded CPUs. The IBM home PC currently being marketed has 1.2 Ghz processor but only 64mb of RAM. E Machine a bargain seller of PCs is still selling (successfully I might add) 400mhz Celerons for free!!! Of course there is a three year ISP agreement involved but you get the picture. Now this does not directly translate into the gaming community but then again the wargame faction is different than your standard "gamer". While most of us tend to be older and have careers, we also have families and kids and other concerns that do not always allow us to have a super PC. And I agree that wargames in general do not "push" the PC envelope like many other genres. I like what BTS is doing and has done in the past and i hope they continue.

IIRC they can move a 6 pdr gun or an FO to a position you are being counter attacked or attacked on and need reinforcement. That is what I use them for, and before you discount that wait until you really need something to sway the tide. This kind of see-saw fighting usually only comes when you face a human opponent so you might not have experienced it yet.

Panzer to be serious I think the only thing that "suffered" in CMBO due to accomodating lower end machines was the graphics. Any other permutations and such that can be handled by PC's seems to have been done. Many of the non-graphical issues brought up to BTS involved situations were the solution would have required processor power that none of us have access to. Hence my MODS comment because that is all you are missing in CMBO and CMBB. As far as the CMII engine is concerned, I believe it is way too early to be concerned with PC requirements when the BTS gang does not have a clear picture of what they are going to try to implement. Will the CMII engined games require more from a PC? Probably. Will it require a better graphics card? Again probably. But as we do not know about the engine yet (the soon to be creators do not know about it yet!!!) then we can pretty much end this discussion. Anyways there is a good chance that by the time the CMII engined games come out your PC will be one of those that you are now labeling as obsolete. BTS has many strengths, but the ability to balance between two extremes is probably their key ability in the design of their games.

Panzer it is called MODS! Get some!

As I said before does anyone want to have a serious dicussion here please continue.

Just to answer your question the PC in question is a Pentium 350mhz with 128mb of RAM and I was running hi-res mods throughout the game at 800x600 with no problems what so ever. I do not remember the graphics glitches but I was using an AGP card (friend was using a PCI with very similiar setup) and it has been a long time since I used that PC for CMBO. (my mainline PC can run CMBO at 1200x1600 with no slowdown running all hi res)

Also I would say try to concentrate of the terrain mods first. A nice lo-res grass and some terrain settings should have minimal impact (rough and such) while maximizing the visuals the most. Plus while the vehicle mods are out-friggen-standing the "stock" graphics are acceptable in comparison to the terrain (IMO).

You just do not get it do you? I did stop you moron (I warned you I would be less civil!). But you obviously could not stand not to comment about my ideas so I (unlike you) have no problem responding. I have more than enough self esteem to allow someone to question my thoughts and opinions, it seems you do not. Lewis if you do not want me to respond then shutup after everytime I post. You truly are thick. When you respond to one of my posts then expect a response every single time. Sorry but that is the way it goes. If you do not want a reply then do not post on anything concerning my post. Example: Priest: I like the way the LOS system is. Lewis: NO NO CHANGE IS GOOD. PEOPLE WHO LIKE THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE ARE GOING TO LEAD US INTO THE DARK AGE. I AM NOT IMPRESSED BY THEM. (wah wah wah!) Priest: Okay then but I do not believe change is always good. Lewis: SEE I TOLD YOU THEY ARE GOING TO LEAD US INTO THE DARK AGES. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE A FLAMEY QUAKER. Priest: Okay but what about all these other things that contribute to "terrain scouting" and such? Lewis: UHM LISTEN QUAKER YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ! OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE GAMEY PLAYER! Priest: Uhm okay! Lewis: NO YOU STOP BOTHERING ME YOU ARE SICK AND IT IS SCARING ME. STOP IT. Priest: Whatever! Lewis: OH YEAH AND YOU ARE A FLAMEY QUAKER! Priest: Lewis I explained before my opinions but here they are again.... Lewis: STOP TALKING TO ME I SAID (ugguhghh) That about sum it up for you? Go on re-read the thread if you think I am kidding. You are ridiculous. And seeing as you obviously do not want to face me in CMBO (I doubt you would be a challenge at all at this point) seems to make your statements concerning my "Quaker" nature have less (as if they had any) validity. Now does anyone want to have a real discussion on LOS?

I do not blow myself up! (okay bad joke) Anyways I have had a Stug kill itself trying to fire near the corner of a building. Fired - hit corner of building - dead.

If hull down was hard to acheive then use a tool would be needed. And if they give us a tool then fine as long as it is executed properly. Lewis I was going to not mention you name again but seeing as you will not let this rest (yet you blamed me for the same thing) change is not always good. That does not mean that stagnation is always good either. Of course people who only tend to see the world in extremes might have a problem understanding that. The thread is about suggestions for a new LOS tool (just restating because you might have sped read right past it) and my opinion is that the game does not need one. Now obviously your opinion differs, but how does that invalidate mine? Any change to the game can be hurtful to the game if it is not executed properly. Also stagnation can hurt the game if things that need changing are not changed. Your opinion states that LOS needs to be changed while I believe it does not. Could there be a better way to do it? Possibly but the current system works so why chance it? Is that broken down enough for you? Do you get it now? Lastly Combat Mission is so very much a game that tests the skills of the players. What an innane comment to make saying that unit skills are what the game is about. Really are you saying that the player's skill has no impact on the games outcome. Are you really making that statement? And for your information Lewis 99.9% of the time in CM, I am at level 3 while playing. In fact I cannot remember the last time I was at level 1 (level 2 being my next most frequented level) although i remeber going to level 7 the other day to look at a map I was designing. Lewis within this thread your arguements in my opinion have been weak and ill thought out. You blame others within the thread (mainly me) for your arguements shortcomings. You once again brought about this discourse and you once again are trying to prove points that are easily refuted mainly because they are not presented well. For every game that has been changed in the quest for a better experience and has worked I can show you three others that have failed. I trust BTS and if they say that something is going to work and enhance my experience then I will trust them. Lewis this is the last time I try and be civil with you. Anyone who reads this thread (and many other you have posted in) will see that this is your standard way. You become defensive when someone challenges you, and if it continues you back away blaming others for it. Then you still comment and continue to do the same thing even though you stated you would not, and then again blame others when they respond. Quite sad Also please send me a setup for a battle. Remember I am a "flamey Quaker" that needs to use "gamey" tatics like looking at level one and scouting terrain (funny since even in large battles my turns rarely take more then a couple of minutes to complete) while you are a great tactician and obviously through your unit's great skills and abilities can destroy any such player. Really I would love to see this. If you want to research before you buy I can give you a list of my normal opponents and they can give you a heads up. I doubt you will like what you hear though.

Oh yeah and one other thing that concerns me about changing the LOS tool (as I mentioned above) is that limiting Level 1 viewing is no real help if your aim is to stop people from leaping around like a toad and terrain scouting. Once again because I know it is hard for some people to read through the entire thread (maybe they just speed read through it) both grass mods and experience can allow a player to absorb just as much information as toading around would. The panning camera and multiple levels would have to be limited to achieve this which would create a clumsy and awkward interface. Also the mod community would have to be locked out from doing grass textures as contour can be easily defined by the graphics if the right mod is used. And ICM I agree with you. The folks who attack a simple idea and then turn it personal and then back down and then try (emphasize try) to be coy and get some more stabs in really frustrate me. Here Tripps and a few others and I were having a nice discussion and then someone has to take some jabs while trying to mask his/her intent. I just wish that if you have an idea and flaws have been found that the person would be capable of dicussion instead of becoming outright defensive. Just my thoughts [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

Tero by no means is recon limited to finding only enemy strength and composition. Unluckily Vanir stole my thunder about information. As far as greying out the map is concerned yes I think that could be interesting if executed properly (as is with anything). Personally I (as I have stated before) like the LOS tool as it is now. I would assume that BTS will make the decision for the CMII engine LOS tool by trying to find balance between what they deem as realistic and what is playable. Finally I Tero I think your assesment of the "GAMEY TACTICS" having to do with inherent abilities of the units involved as somewhat suspect. We will use the Jeep as an example. A Jeep when on roads is one of the faster vehicles in CMBO as it was in WWII. No harm no foul. But the driver of the Jeep was a human being with free will and a sense of survival in real life, but in CMBO he is a pixelated entity that is not alive and thus no sense of survival. If i the player want a realistic experience then ordering men to suicide missions probably is not the best way to go. But if I am a gamey player and know that one of the comprimises made in the development of CMBO was a "borg" like intelligence with concerns to spotting and the Jeep being a "low-point" tool in which to use this to my advantage, then yes I am being gamey but the unit itself has many non-gamey functions that many players use and not abuse.

Just to clarify something about recon in CM. There is a difference between strategic recon and tactical recon. The recon (as I have understood it) that BTS is referring to (again as I have understood it) it of the strategic type. In the tactical situation it is fine to send a half squad to probe a copse of trees or a M8 to move slightly advance of the armor formation. As far as gamey tactics go I believe it has less to do with the units in the game and more to do with the players playing the game.