elementalwarre

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: Wolfe said: You DO NOT need total coverage of overlapping craters to make a kill zone <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> oh come on, artillery as instant field plows. think about it seriously, is the 100m increment true even for 75mm? just making sure it applies to all artillery support

disabling Classic RAVE lets CM start with mac os 9. i made it to 1st turn orders phase in chance encounter, presumably it works after that mac os x public beta will insist on putting the Classic RAVE file in again. so, short of hacking classic's startup check, CM's not happening under mac os x pb

known problem. reported weeks ago. ati has fixed it. i've verified the fix. as soon as i know i can i'll tell people where to get it sorry for the delay. had to nudge ati hang on, i -will- tell everyone as soon as i can john, aka mac os integration engineer at apple

all i know about mg34 is it's only on german vehicles. well ok, after searching i also know that vs mg42 it's lower ROF, harder to maintain, slower barrel swap...you guys are walking encyclopedias however, all i'm looking for is a firepower chart for -some- idea of range and penetration. since it's only on vehicles the MG34's FP isn't displayed anywhere i looked. i can go line up hamsters and thin-skinned vehicles to see who keels over how quickly at what range but that's cruel, bloody and most importantly boring

great stuff! anyone at BTS reading this? the numbers refer to the summary list below. here goes, questions and comments: - re 7, adjusting FFE: why is 200-300m out from the target not targetable? or did i misinterpret? - IMHO 10, no delay for changing target, is a bug fix, not a suggestion. bullethead, you're almost too polite - re 11, illume rounds - yes! if BTS adds these, i'll happily live with the visual abstraction suggested. it also makes trip flares and flare pistols possible sooner (hey, i can hope ) - these would be changes in a CM patch, thus the limited, abstracted graphics. right? just ensuring that's the only reason for the graphics suggested here's what i understand the suggestions are: bullethead's suggestions: 1. track FO ammo by type and quantity 2. add mechanical time HE, illumination, and white phosphorus rounds 3. linear 200m x 100m impact patterns at any angle 4. linear smokescreen at any angle 5. smokescreen in roughly twice the time of HE fire mission 6. set FFE duration by number of salvos, not by turn 7. adjust FFE by 100m increments to anywhere within 200m of target. 200-300m cylinder around target cannot be targeted. 300+m from target is new target 8. scenario designer can specify number of guns per spotter 9. create TRPs much like ambush markers. possible on any original target but not on adjusted target 10. no delay due to changing FO target more than once 11. add illumination rounds. represent effect as ground marker. units within X radius have LOS as if dawn/dusk and are visible by any unit with clear LOS. some additional delay before shot other people's suggestions: 12. scenario designer specifies artillery firing direction. affects scatter pattern 13. specify number of guns per mission 14. shellburst effect should be more visible in most cases 15. more consistent shot pattern for unobserved targets 16. shot patterns should follow national battery layouts 17. LOS blocked by shellbursts in some terrain/ground conditions

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I hear you saying is that you want a player facility to reprogram the TacAI for your units <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> as little as possible but yes. influence might be closer to my intent <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you talking about paint balling? Taking actual lethal fire in combat might be a bit different; certainly a lot noisier and more confusing<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> i wish. no. paintball is fun, safe, and pain-free, relatively. i'd never compare paintball to even a squad-level firefight rioting between sunnis and shiites in saudi arabia after the shah of iran was overthrown. if that only reminds you of LA riots or the intifadeh - put it this way. the last time saudi cops stopped & searched traffic while i was living there, 9 of 10 vehicles had long arms during the riots, seemed like they were all in use not anything i care to do again. i'm a civilian and happy to be

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Any way I am very keen to learn more about Mac OS X (I have been a MAC OS X server admin here for about a 13 months now) and I can't wait for the non beta real realse of the final OS X client. Is this still on for the around Christmas or perhaps introduced at Mac world in Jan? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> around then is still the plan, yes in the peecee guys' defense, windows has to work with much more heterogeneous systems than mac systems usually do. when you start slapping pci cards/raid systems/etc into macs, they aren't necessarily easy admin either as for windows 2k - it had quite a facelift vs windows nt. that facelift didn't help stability. 'nuf said fwiw, i may work at apple but i do of course also write to linux and windows. to keep up with tech i have to go where it's best implemented [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 09-22-2000).]

warning, off-topic, we're not even close to a CM topic below! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Sorry, I am on the list, and I understood the tester is to see how much work you have to do, not to see if it has been done! I asked because if the thing is way off or close may effect a carbon version. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> say you use carbon tester. a list of changed calls tells you precisely that, no more. it doesn't tell you 'hey, your framework (if any) will have to completely change', or what design may need to change for the event model, or... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If I worked at Apple I would be doing everything in my power to get carbon work going, not talking people out of doing carbon work until next year. Seems like Apple policy is shooting itself in the foot here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> be glad i'm a software guy, not a marketer. has carbon been changing its API? yup will that continue? yup, for a short while anyway is it entirely stable or is it beta sw? well, its development is driven by mac os x. you figure it out depending on when CM supports mac os x, porting to cocoa may make more sense anyway so which is better for apple: - suggesting a developer should use code which is not quite complete and not quite stable. once again, it's BETA - suggesting a developer should wait until that code is de facto stable, ie it's shipped by default on systems

ah, i'm only saying up to a minute because we're talking about a turn. that means 1-60 seconds. if i implied otherwise, i did not intend to and have been fully aware that we're talking about 1-60 seconds when i say unit, i mean squad/team/vehicle, not platoon or higher. i -agree- officer and noncom commands take time. i -agree- the 1 minute command abstraction is reasonable however, reaction is about standing orders, what each soldier does -before- they get specific orders. i mentioned noncoms and officers for their morale effect, -not- for any commands they might give i'm not convinced that any unit, conscript to elite, will take up to a minute to take more than reflexive action - trained reflex, but still - on a contact, sound, visual or incoming fire if that's how units actually react i must be an alien. the only time i've been in anything like a firefight, others said i started to flank and fire aimed bursts within seconds. are we saying i - aka a civilian with -no- military training, then or now - reacted faster than even elite troops in CM? be serious. my ego's not -that- big nonetheless, if that's the case then ok, forget the others, only observe makes sense hmm. you know, being an alien -would- explain other behaviors

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The value of each and every order must be huge in terms of gameplay return before it gets added. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> --- watch direction/watch area. aim at and observe that direction, plus an arc to each side. works much like rotate. click is watch direction, control-click is watch the area control-clicked. the length of the bar from the unit to the pointer tells how much arc to watch or how large an area. shorter bar, more arc/larger area. longer bar, less arc/smaller area this lets scouts, flankers, and columns observe and react as part of a group vs only watching the direction they're moving in units with slower turrets aren't penalized for a limitation in the command set this approximates assigned fields of fire this cuts down on having recon units reveal EVERY enemy unit that's not hiding --- i've been suggesting this since IMHO it may solve several problems, fits reasonably well in CM's command style, has multiple uses, is usable by all units... yet so far there's very little comment. although, thanks michael emrys and bullethead for your comments! i realize the problems have been discussed repeatedly but i haven't seen a suggestion quite like this. what am i doing wrong? shall i flame instead? just kidding, but i am puzzled as for area fire, well...yes, it keeps someone aimed. it also uses ammo, gives away location, and possibly limits your own side's movement. as a workaround, saying i dislike it is an understatement

personally -i- hate to pay for version 1.0 ah, what david said. i'm bemused by the hoopla over mac os x public beta. it's BETA, fer cryin' out loud. i -work- at apple. i like some parts of it a -lot-. even i only use it when i'm working on mac os x as for carbonizing CM - not yet. at the earliest not until mac os x is about to ship by default on new macs. any earlier doesn't make business sense. get on the mac carbon developer mailing list, you'll see what i mean

didn't work. not that i tried terribly hard to make it work. tried demo and 1.05, saw them both launch and promptly quit when i get a minute i'll try harder

guachi's 'sheet doesn't yet have fortifications or support weapons - arty, recoilless, bazooka, etc. hey guachi, whaddya, too busy playing it -does- have vehicles, infantry squads and MG teams. it's quite a chunk of work and the most useful data set i know of here's a threat if he doesn't get around to it Real Soon Now i'll add at least on-map support weapons and throw it to him to post

AARGH! i only have 1.02, 1.04 and 1.05 so i can't see fionn's open terrain AAR movies! CMHQ has the pc executable but not mac. help!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I keep it turned on in the background. My system has two monitors and CM politely clears the way, so I just keep it on unless I have to render a video. Every couple of hours when a PBEM turn comes in I take my break, drink my water and eat some bread, then play the turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you get bread -and- water?! wow. some people get everything only a few turns a day on weekdays. not much more on weekends because i still do lots of experiments vs the AI

this would give some great depth to scenarios. in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009289.html i suggested a similar facility, albeit only for players and i didn't give it a cool acronym thing is, short of integrating it into scenario objectives i do this now in roughly the way slapdragon suggested. so... how about setting up some conventions so we can have this in a file for each scenario? [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 09-20-2000).] [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 09-20-2000).]

well, yeah. i hope trainees are still taught to drop and return fire! however: - CM models units, not individuals. presumably the unit commander is a noncom or officer with a clue. if they retain control, they can get the unit to do something other than take cover. would this always take up to a minute? - reaction is about contact in general, ie sound or visual contact as well. sorry if there's a terminology difference. when i write contact i mean in CM terms. might be sound or visual instead of taking fire - experience matters, of course. it might be useful to see an equivalent of command delay before reaction takes effect. as for bonuses, sure, but again this isn't only about taking fire say i send a platoon out on aggressive recon. "find'em and fix'em, we're coming up behind you." that's a lot different than being on the defensive, worn from the last attack, knowing they're coming back but not where. 'find them, but COME BACK! i need every rifle when they hit' thanks for your patience! closest i've been to war is riots, which is far closer than i ever want to be again so i appreciate your comments!

um. here's a suggestion i made in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010611.html watch direction. aim at and observe that direction, plus of course an arc to each side. works much like rotate. click is watch direction, control-click is watch the area control-clicked. this lets scouts, flankers, and columns observe and react as part of a group vs everyone watching the direction they're moving in. units with slower turrets aren't penalized for a limitation in the command set. this also approximates assigned fields of fire. this also cuts down on having recon units reveal EVERY enemy unit that's not hiding the length of the bar from the unit to the pointer could tell how much arc to watch. shorter bar, more arc. longer bar, less arc. as always, if TacAI can make a reasonable decision about arc, forget this note watch direction is for all units, not tanks only. although given what's been said here, perhaps for turreted vehicles this would not align the turret when they're moving?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I get the feeling that you guys are talking about two seperate and very different things, and if I'm right neither one of you has realized it yet. I think Bullethead is talking about crews that have already abandoned their vehicles/weapons and Elementalware is talking about crews still in their vehicles, which by the way is non-standard usage for this game and on this board and the root of the confusion...if I'm right about all this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (whack self on forehead) DOH! well of course, any unit that's panicked wouldn't observe worth a damn, not just crews thanks michael! maybe a tweak to watch direction: what if the length of the bar from the unit to the pointer tells how much arc to watch? short bar, wide arc. long bar, narrow arc as always, if TacAI can make a reasonable decision about arc, forget this. otherwise, this could help set overlapping fields of fire

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Put yourself in the position of the grunt platoon leader. When you make contact with the enemy, it takes some time to analyze the situation, decide on the appropriate actions to do next, and communicate these orders to your subordinate squads. This time is on the order of 1 minute. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes, amazing platoon leader if he's cracking orders out instantly. absolutely, the current set is fine for commands after initial contact that's not the intent of reaction. reaction is not group reaction but each unit's immediate reaction, ie a squad or vehicle. what does each individual unit do when seeing or hearing an enemy unit or being fired on? ok, so it's 'only' up to 60 seconds, but that could be a lot of lead flying by. i see it as standing orders, what you do until some officer figures out something better <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So what's the difference between this and your proposed Observe order? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> defend means fire at contacts but reverse/withdraw if pressed. ie pull back while still in good order, not after breaking observe means stay concealed. don't fire unless the opponent fires and/or moves at your position. break contact if any. fire in self-defense, but get away from anyone shooting until you can hide again & observe from the nearest cover/concealment <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Because crews aren't supposed to be very useful. Also, their radios just burned up in the wrecked vehicle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ah, joke, right? 'hey, all you cav guys, just ditch your vehicles and break out the beer.' sorry, i must be dense today. if you're serious i don't get your point attack if you're going for better terrain or crushing your opponent's recon hold if you're on defensible terrain or moving out to defend a point you have defend if defensible terrain's behind you or you think the opponent force is stronger that's the idea, anyway - modify how units act on contact until you can give commands

hi bullethead! about your post: oops, i posted too fast. quite right, MG grazing fire isn't really possible -without LOS- attack, hold, defend - i almost convinced myself twice that these aren't useful before i finally wrote them down. this is meant to influence the TacAI during the turn. 60 seconds is an eternity under fire attack - i'm not sure how attack actions are necessarily more than 1 turn? if a vehicle stops in place on contact, it could get killed there instead of being in the cover it's supposed to have reached. thus why this command says continue after contact. also, if you're going all out to take a position, this allows the implied priority on movement hold - mostly a placeholder for what the TacAI does now. i'm just fitting it into the reaction command scheme defend - means shoot back but we don't need this position. this attack is probably too much so don't die or break holding in place, fall back -now-! why not let crews observe? recon vehicles are a big reason i suggested this. there's a chance the contact hasn't seen them. sticking around to fire back often just causes their puny lifespans sorry, i didn't write down 3 possible limits for the targeting change - if watch direction is used, the unit only fires at contacts in that direction - if reaction is used, the unit only fires at sound contacts when set to attack or hold - the unit only fires at sound contacts -you- select, so for the computer player the operational AI would decide to fire at sound contacts or not i agree this still spends ammo like water, but heck, it's grazing fire. see john kettler's thread at http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/006772.html. hey, you posted to it!

there've been multiple threads noting that - TacAI can't know a player's intent - MG grazing fire isn't really possible - smoke completely blocks fire so, how about these 2 commands - reaction and watch direction - and a change in targeting: command 1: reaction. 4 settings for actions on contact - attack. fire and maneuver to kill or break target. after contact, continue any prior movement order - hold. fire at contact. if moving, find, use, and stay in any nearby useful defensive position - defend. fire at contact. retreat if moving or not in defensible position, otherwise stay put - observe. fire only to break contact. avoid and break contact if any. maintain observation if possible these assume the contact is one the unit would currently engage. of course the unit's morale, experience, ammo level, TacAI's target eval, etc matter as always in general, whenever a unit's tactical goals are -not- necessarily killing enemy units, what i'd like the unit to do may not be what the TacAI currently does. TacAI's default contact behavior seems to be the same as hold. this works in a meeting engagement, full attack, or MLR defense however, those units may be on recon, or i may want to conserve some part of my force, or an attack may be a feint, not pressed home, or movement rate doesn't always correspond to contact behavior. a unit may be moving fast to break contact, or because it's going for LOS to that FO, or... -the TacAI cannot know my intent-. thus why i'm interested in this command command 2: watch direction. aim at and observe that direction, plus of course an arc to each side. works much like rotate. click is watch direction, control-click is watch the area control-clicked. this lets scouts, flankers, and columns observe and react as part of a group vs everyone watching the direction they're moving in. units with slower turrets aren't penalized for a limitation in the command set. this also approximates assigned fields of fire change in targeting: let a unit target a sound contact as area fire/unobserved fire. specifically this applies -through- smoke, fog, or night, even if the unit's in command of an HQ unit with clear LOS. if a weapon hasn't moved since the start of battle, the accuracy goes up. this is mostly for automatic weapon grazing fire, although i suppose the TacAI could have a vehicle try to use a bow MG to find a target for its cannon i do -not- know CM's game engine and thus how hard these are. however i'd rather suggest vs assuming everything's too hard as for micromanagement - BTS has said before that they think improving the TacAI would be substantial work for little gain. until that changes, watching flanks, grazing fire, etc are IMHO plausible actions which are difficult without these changes

2 weeks ago i sent an email to the site owner with some suggestions. no reply. hey, anybody there? if you're too busy, maybe you could throw the gathered answers to someone else to collate/edit?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusm: Well the average rating at imdb.com is 6.6, not a timeless classic but hardly a plan 9 either. That's basically how I rated it, a decent action movie not to be taken too seriously. Plus the boot camp instructor is one of the coolest i've seen. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120201 Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> sure, another summer action flick. brain off, feet up, pass the popcorn have you read the book? the book was as much a civics lesson as an action-filled science fiction novel. it articulated its point about a test for citizenship -far- more clearly than the movie's gruesomely simplified 'fight to vote' the frustration i had - and others on this thread, i think - is the movie's producers slashed what could have been a thoughtful fun movie into just another action flick it would be like someone making _moby dick as just another whale chase. er...no. that misses the whole point

legally hasbro can do as it pleases with the name. it will likely create a relatively PC game since it sees a bigger market there. since i happen to agree that's a bigger market too, i can't very well argue that doesn't make it right legally, some "made in usa" clothes are made by people who are slaves in all but name, working in various US-controlled pacific territories legally, genes are being patented - not just their uses, the gene itself - even though the genes in question are discovered, not created legally, unrestricted capital flow has shattered various countries' economies legally, british forces gassed some iraqi villages before ww2 having a legal right doesn't always make it morally right