the cube

How about allowing scenario designers to choose how long a given objective must be held before being slotted into the occupying player's column? When and how much of this information is available might be tied to fog of war. [ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: the cube ] [ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: the cube ]

I apologize for the off topic nature of this question but I've been very curious about this Talonsoft title and would really like to know what you guys think about it. Thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Good idea. I'd get rid of the blue line and the hotkey and just have the single column of commands. No reason for a hotkey -- if your pulling up the menu chances are you know the hotkey or you don't want to use it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately, you can't get rid of the hotkeys. Also, in the original version there were no blue lines but it was suggested to me that these lines were needed to reduce the chances that the wrong menu choice was clicked on.

I just want to know what kind of interest there would be in having menus which don't block one's view of the battlefield. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: jeff.c1123 ]

[ 05-28-2001: Message edited by: jeff.c1123 ]

I'm having a problem with a menus mod (designed to be less intrusive than the original and shown in the left and middle panels of the jpeg as the modded menus should appear, except of course for the compression-induced blurriness), made on a mac G4 running macos 9.1 and using macromedia's fireworks 4. The problem, as illustrated in the right panel of the jpeg, is that the masking of the color pink doesn't seem to carry over properly to pc's. Further, as illustrated for the 'pause' command in the right panel of the jpeg, when a bmp made using GraphicsConvertor is substitued for the version made using fireworks, pc's seem to ignore it and instead access the originals directly from the CM disk. Interestingly, my mac behaved in much the same way after I installed a modded version of 32000.bmp (from DeanCo's gunmetal interface mod) meant to change text color and font. My point is that if there are practical work-arounds they may involve more than just coordinating masking colors between mac and pc. The mask was defined by me to be, and therefore displays on my mac as, the standard shade (255,255,0) of pink. The files were then converted from the png format in which I built them to the standard bmp format required for public consumption with the masking color remaining unchanged at (255,255,0). After running these bmps through my macmod convertor app as usual they appear without problems on my mac (as illustrated in the left and middle panels of the jpeg). The problem is that despite the way that the masking shade (255,255,0) of pink shows up apparently unchanged on pc's, the masking effect is nevertheless destroyed. In anticipation of the oft made claim that pc's can "see all the colors that a mac can and more" let me just say that it is not clear to me how this would bear on any of this. So why doesn't the mask carry over to pcs properly? I suppose it is possible that the problem may be the result of some relatively benign and thus easily correctible incompatibility between color tables as they are arranged in macs vs pc's and their applications. But based on the foregoing, I'm skeptical of this. Also, it is not clear to me how such a solution would explain in any obvious way the anomalous "ignoring" behaviour described above, though this may be unrelated to the problem at hand. Maybe this has something to do with the fact (DeanCo, who has also been spending time on this told me this) that the windows version of CM is a port of the macintosh code in which CM was originally written. In any event, any insights offered would be appreciated. jeff.c1123 ] [ 05-28-2001: Message edited by: jeff.c1123 ]

I should have been clearer on this. My point was that if there are practical work-arounds they may involve more than just coordinating masking colors between mac and pc. The mask was defined by me to be, and therefore displays on my mac as, the standard shade (255,255,0) of pink. I then converted the files from the png format in which I built them to the standard bmp format required for public consumption in which in particular the masking color remains unchanged at (255,255,0). After running these bmps through my macmod convertor app as usual they appear without problems on my mac as illustrated in the left and middle panels of the jpeg appearing in my initial post. The problem is that despite the fact that the masking shade (255,255,0) of pink shows up apparently unchanged on pc's, the masking effect is nevertheless destroyed. It is therefore not clear to me how the claim that pc's can "see all the colors that a mac can and more" would bear on this problem. So why doesn't the mask carry over to pcs properly? I suppose it is possible that the problem may be the result of some relatively benign and thus easily correctible incompatibility between color tables as they are arranged in macs vs pc's and their applications. But based on the foregoing, I'm skeptical of this. Also, it is not clear to me how such a solution would explain in any obvious way the anomalous "ignoring" behaviour described at the end of my initial post, though this may be unrelated to the problem at hand. A point made by DeanCo (who has also been spending time thinking about this) more or less consistent with this point of view is that the windows version of CM is a port of the macintosh code in which CM was originally written.

I'm having a problem with a menu mod (shown in the left and middle panels of the jpeg as they are meant to appear, except of course for the blurriness which is a result of compression), I made on my mac G4 running macos 9.1 and using macromedia's fireworks 4. The problem, as illustrated in the right panel of the jpeg, is that the masking of the color pink doesn't seem to carry over properly to PCs. Further, as illustrated for the 'pause' command in the right panel of the jpeg, when a bmp made using GraphicsConvertor is substitued for the version made using fireworks, PCs seem to ignore it and instead access the originals directly from the CM disk. Interestingly, my mac behaved in much the same way after I installed a modded version of 32000.bmp (from DeanCo's gunmetal interface mod) meant to change text color and font. Any offerings of insight into this would be appreciated. Thanks

Sorry about this, Using fireworks on my mac I made a mod which replaces the various menus with transparent versions by setting the background to CM's masking color. The problem is that though it works on my mac, for some reason all DeanCo gets on his PC is an eyeful of pink. Also, he emailed me that he once tried this with photoshop but without success. [ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: jeff.c1123 ]

On a PC running photoshop what is the hex number of the pink masking color for CM?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by the cube: With regard to the purely material and geometric aspects of a game, combat simulations can be more complex then chess. However this does not neccessarily mean that wargames are more difficult. In fact it's relative simplicity is part of what makes chess such a challenge in that there is little room for error. This combined with the time pressure under which chess player's must make their calculations results in a contest with a deeply psychological aspect of a sort that one does not in general see in combat simulations. It is worth mentioning that when asked if he played chess Einstein replied that he did not because "it is too violent a game"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With regard to the purely material and geometric aspects of a game, combat simulations can be more complex then chess. However this does not neccessarily mean that wargames are more difficult. In fact it's relative simplicity is part of what makes chess such a challenge in that there is little room for error. This combined with the time pressure under which chess players must make their calculations results in a contest with a deeply psychological aspect of a sort that one does not in general experience in combat simulations. It is worth mentioning that when asked if he played chess Einstein replied that he did not because "it is too violent a game" [This message has been edited by the cube (edited 11-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by the cube (edited 11-02-2000).]

Three SPI titles; war in the pacific, war in europe, third world war.

The lengths of command radii do appear to be variable. I found that the command radius between a rifle plattoon and it's HQ was shortened from 82m to 72m when the platoon's status was downgraded from pinned to panic.

What would the difference be between a change in a unit's status from 'rested' or 'ready' to 'alerted' and the C&C line beginning to flash?

Your idea is to introduce a new dependence of the C&C radius on the details of a unit's immediate situation. This is equivalent to weakening the control that HQ has over the unit when the unit is under attack. However, in CM a unit's responsiveness to orders depends on it's current status (alerted, panic, etc) which is itself already a function of the way that the unit is currently engaged with the enemy. As the unit's status deteriorates the control that HQ has over the unit, even if the unit is inside the C&C radius, becomes progressively weaker.and there would be no way for a player to distinguish between CM as it is and CM as it would be if one introduced such additional dependencies. Though we may think in terms of the same concepts that we would in the real thing, and that CM allows us to do this profitably is a measure of just how good a simulation it is, it is still just a simulation. If you prefer "interpreting" the behaviour of the game using one set of concepts over another fine but in the end with respect to the CM game engine the battlefield is a just concept independent abstraction. [This message has been edited by the cube (edited 10-19-2000).]

I have the 400MHz G4 that came with the 7200rpm 10GB HD. Is anyone playing on a G4 (please specify which one as I did above) equipped with the new ATI radeon 32DDR graphics card (please specify if it is the retail or OEM version and whether it sits in a PCI or the AGP slot)?

Also, by virtue of their small size, these symbols could be placed so as to avoid "touching" units to which they do not correspond.

I setup a meeting engagement on a small featureless battlefield involving only two sharpshooters, one facing the other, and was unable to get either to open fire inside a range of about 50m. Instead the AI would run it's sharpshooter right past my guy towards the flag. When there was a good 100m or so between them my guy would turn towards the enemy and kill him with with one shot. I then tried placing my guy under the C&C of an HQ (whose plattoon was effectively isolated so as not to effect the experiment) which I positioned as far away (about 100m) from the enemy sharpshooter as I could and had it hide. The only difference was that before he made for the flag the enemy sharpshooter would fire once at HQ and miss.

Also, since dots are small they could be made to "touch" only those units to which they correspond.

After using soundapp to convert wave to system sound files, using resedit to copy the latter for pasting into the corresponding sound effect files fails with an out of memory error message. Beyond the fact that it’s memory partition cannot be changed, there does not seem to be any problem with resedit and no file extensions are involved. I am using a G4 running 9.0.4.

Does the AI behave reasonably in a meeting engagement on grass involving only one allied and one axis sharpshooter placed in close proximity?

Would anyone mind shedding some light on how one goes about creating something like the very useful looking grid feature? Thanks

A nice way to find avenues of appoach which hide troop movement is to trace paths with a “run” order line (it’s light green hue making it easy to spot) issued from whatever unit just happens to be the most conveniently placed for this purpose (remember to cancel the order when you’re done!) and then from the likely vantage points of your opponent check where the line is visible.