elementalwarre

<sorry to repeat this all the time, but not everyone runs 9.0.4 and i think ATI's being -very- slow about updating the universal installer> ...and if you're not running 9.0.4, ask me or any mac developer for tomeviewer so you can extract the ATI software. you can get tomeviewer from the mac installer sdk online but that's another 15M

seems like a bug. at least, i hope it's a bug tried this in CM 1.04 - tell some FO to target something - when time to first shot (TTFS) is a minute or less, select the FO, then fast forward during action phase TTFS will decrease slower than elapsed time. how much slower depends on how much you use fast forward instead of play - if you fast forward through the entire turn, i've seen TTFS only shrink 4 seconds. once TTFS is wrong, doesn't matter if you rewind, select another unit, and watch the action phase using fast forward or not - TTFS remains wrong right, that's it, i can't believe such a glaringly obvious bug made it this far, how could you guys miss this when i first saw this it was hilarious. fast forwarding must make the FO recalculate, thus delaying the first salvo. yeah. uh huh. sure, that's it

i wish... try this: - pick Chance Encounter - select computer experience + 3, fog of war off, 1 player - look at the experience of a few computer units - abort and pick Chance Encounter again, only leave computer experience at default if you see different experience, your CM is different than my 1.02 demo, 1.03, or 1.04. so hand over your beta 1.05 already for me, any green units still are, ditto regular, veteran, etc seriously, what does computer experience do? or does it raise values but not tell you for some WYSINWYG silly reason? or does computer experience not change if FOW's off?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: One thing to consider about empty bunkers. To create an MG Pillbox with 3 HMG's, you'd need to stuff about 15 men into it. (3 squads). A ready-made bunker-unit gets away with less, as they don't need to carry ammo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> perhaps when a player puts units into a pillbox in setup phase, the player can choose whether they're the pillbox crew or just some teams using the bunker? if that's done then for the sake of the scenario designer's sanity a team would have the same point value whether placed in a bunker (fewer guys, more ammo) or not during setup phase. i like that better than having a bunch of pillbox crews to position, but all of this may be getting too picky

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I still can't quite seem to grasp what you are after, unless it's a degree of micromanagement that has already been ruled out for conceptual reasons. Maybe I'm just thick today. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ok, it feels like micromanagement. i'm used to having to do every !#%@# thing because other games' unit AIs were oxymorons, but so far CM's unit AI is amazingly good. forget actions on

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: I like the concept of unmanned bunkers, but after some thought, I think it might be hard to fit into the CM1 game engine. Did some thinking on how they could be implemented and shot all my thoughts full of holes: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> um. this gets into CM's design, which i won't even pretend to know anything about. perhaps it's easy to shoehorn these in, perhaps another unit class is the most elegant way - i've no idea and it seems a bit early to ponder. for all we know BTS is laughing their heads off at such a silly idea, or so far ahead they already have a working implementation as far as how it looks to the player, i just see these as fortification units, same as pillboxes or mines. if a scenario designer doesn't want a player to move them, exclude them from setup zones

yes, many of those suggestions - civilians, flares, etc - are nontrivial code and/or potential graphics hogs. i listed them purely as a user, ie i carefully ignored my experience screaming at me about the work they require <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: My, my. Quite a list. Well, I'll throw in my 2¢ worth too... <snip> "- unmanned fortifications. this lets dismounts and some support units use them so a player has more flexibility about who uses and when to use" Still not clear what you are after here. I would be in favor of a greater variety of field works though, including AT ditches. <snip> "- 'actions on' conditionals, ie planned reactions to probable events. a unit might have these for actions on: 'sprint for those woods if you take fire from here on, sneak to the house if you see a vehicle from here on...' perhaps it could be implemented as potential action(s) per move segment. this isn't officer commands so much as a noncom thinking about possibilities for each move. platoon and higher commands would still be direct and no more than once per turn. the idea is to have a chance of units reacting to unforeseen events with some player control vs unit AI alone" Some kind of user-defined SOP might be nice. Not sure if the implementation overhead would be justified though. Can't say I like your version of it. It sounds unwieldy somehow; or maybe you just haven't clearly defined what you have in mind. <snip> Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> re unmanned fortifications - perhaps it would be clearer if i describe them as empty stationary APC's if a scenario has an empty concrete bunker, the player(s) can choose who's in it. might be 2 MG's, or a panzerschreck and a sniper, or nothing yet but put a reserve squad nearby. this seems more flexible since the player can choose who's in and when they move from/to the bunker. it's easier for BTS than doing a 'different' bunker for each weapon set that a bunker might contain. at least sometimes only the weapons are different, not the bunker re 'actions on' - this isn't really unit SOP, IMHO TacAI does that already. hmm. for a recent example of 'actions on' see _Bravo Two Zero_ by Andy McNab. the idea is deciding in advance what to do when possible events happen, thus actions on enemy contact, actions on loss of commo, etc. an event might be a vehicle comes over that crest and sees the squad, indirect fire starts while the squad's running across this field, etc. i don't much like my suggested implementation either but i don't see an elegant way to do it. perhaps conditional orders just for the next turn, not for each move segment? [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 08-23-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy: If you do not like wargames, would you buy CM in the first place?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes. i played no board or computer wargames before CM because i couldn't stand the rule complexity or turn/hex artificiality. color me a convert! yes that means i didn't like wargame implementation, not wargames per se

fyi, a 5.16.2000 mac ati sw update is at http://asu.info.apple.com/swupdates.nsf/artnum/n11680 as always, the update is only for mac os 9.0.4 so for pre-904 systems, ask me or any mac developer for tomeviewer. you can get the installer sdk yourself but it's over 15M

<whew> as always, more than i knew i just meant neutral the same way the US was 'neutral' in 1940-1941. by the time lend-lease started it was pretty clear what side the US was sliding towards

warning, off topic! this is all just mac os trivia <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MajorH: I did a bit of Internet surfing today and it looks to me like your problem is related to the installation on your system of a thing called Apple Data Detectors. Apparently if this extension/control panel is installed then the use of Control Key + mouse click in an application gets intercepted by the Apple Data Detector and a MacOS popup contextual menu appears instead of whatever the application wanted to do. From the dates on the various documents that I found about this it appears that this option first appeared in 1998. How does this extension get installed? I have installed every MacOS since the dawn of time and have never had this extension appear on any of my Macs. I admit that I don't know the history of this extension but it seems incredibly stupid for Apple to try to reserve to itself the use of the Control + click combination at this late date. Most of the biggest selling commercial applications have used that combination for program features for many years. Also over the years Control + click has come to be almost a defacto standard in cross platform coding for replicating the functions of the right mouse button when doing a PC to Mac conversion. Can anyone tell me more about this extension and its history? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ADD were a mac os 8.5 CD extra, ie a user had to find them on the CD as they weren't part of the system install. note that they never made it into the system install, IMHO a pity since they're a cool idea - let the user copy whatever patterns the detector looks for from any data they select #define kRant 1 IMHO there's quite a bit of current mac os ui that was thrown in because it existed on copland. contextual menus are one such. apple could have taken cmd-click - shift-click and option-click were already used - and stayed consistent about using the command key for, well, key commands. <growl> sorry, i worked on mac system software at that time - still do - so apple's IMHO increasing UI inconsistency is a big sore point for me #define kRant 0

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Some of what you've suggested, I'd expect to see in game-games, rather than simulation-games. CM is - surprisingly enough - about combat. Civilians, guerillas, neutral forces, horses etcetera have no place on a battlefield. Unmanned fortifications you could turn against your opponent, and remote-detonated mines are the stuff of movies. Besides all else - you wouldn't see any of this stuff before CM2 - and CM2 will have plenty of new features specific to the theatre of war. These aren't the kind of things - as I've said - that would 'add a lot to the game'. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ah, wait a minute. are you truly suggesting that - all battlefields, or even most battlefields, are carefully cleared of civilians first? civilians in ww2 paris, arnhem, etc would disagree rather strongly. sure a battle's tidier without civilians. too bad, reality says different - both sides are always ready to fight and thus no horses/trucks/other supply units would dare be around? then what's an ambush? how -do- you supply? isn't a big point of armored or motorized troops punching past front lines to cause havoc in rear areas? - claymores and their relatives and ancestors didn't exist? certainly unmanned fortifications can be used against you if they're facing the right way. the point of unmanned fortifications is a possibly easier way to create a variety of fortifications than having a unit for every single variation - this one has 2 mg's, that one has 2 mg's and an 88, another has a squad and flamethrower... it also means you can move the troops if the fortification's untenable or you need them elsewhere if i see none of this before CM2 - or CM17, or ever - oh well. i'm making suggestions that i hope BTS will at least consider for -some- game. i'm having a lot of fun - maybe too much fun - with the game as is, but i'd still like to try scenarios with any of what i suggested

any chance of seeing the manual as a pdf? i generally prefer a pdf's bookmarks/search/etc to remembering where is/finding/flipping through a manual OTOH my combat mission manual has been at most a meter away from my system for the last few weeks

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: elementalwarre wrote: > i think even abstracted or partial versions of each of the following would be fun. if the answer's 'no time (yet)!' - cool, we've all been there, but otherwise IMHO they could add a lot to the game IMHO they would add very little to the game. Just offering a contrasting opinion. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ok...why? i agree -none- of this is necessary, but i'm not convinced they're all pointless

MGs can jam, cool! awful timing when it first happened to me, though what other weapon malfs have you guys seen in CM? are they affected by unit experience?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phoenix: The "dig in" command is already in the game. I've used it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes, but that only lets vehicles go hull down. most of what i mean by digging in is for dismounts again, the variety i see as useful is only for setup phase, slit trench being the possible exception

i'd post to battlefront but that doesn't seem to have very many readers i haven't read Robert Leonhard's _The Principles of War for the Information Age_ but it seems interesting. could anyone here comment on it? from an association of the US army review: 'Leonhard states that the nine principles of war (mass, objective, unity of command, simplicity, offensive, maneuver, surprise, economy of force, and security) have been misused and that this misuse has warped them. He takes each apart in turn and comments on them, accepting some, rejecting some, and modifying others. He then presents a list of seven principles that he has developed (knowledge and ignorance, dislocation and confrontation, distribution and concentration, opportunity and reaction, activity and security, option acceleration and objective, and command and anarchy)'

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: This is already in the game. You can change all that parameters when makes a scenario. Ariel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> certainly i can change those parameters. i'm saying that a unit's point value currently only changes with experience, -not- loadout, morale, etc. to me that may not reflect a unit's value well enough

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k: - For a game of CM's length (average of 30 to 40 minutes) a "dig in" command was deemed impractical. It can take about that long to dig a good foxhole (depending on ground conditions), so there wouldn't be much of a point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> i'm thinking of these as setup phase options, not during play!

kudos to Big Time Software, it's been fantastic fun so far! i've raved about it to all my friends who play anything like wargames it would be great if Big Time Software could publish The List - only features already discussed on the forums, of course - so all those voracious users stop whining for the same ones. well ok, so at least this voracious user will stop whining for them i think even abstracted or partial versions of each of the following would be fun. if the answer's 'no time (yet)!' - cool, we've all been there, but otherwise IMHO they could add a lot to the game i read the manual, searched the discussions, and experimented. nonetheless, advance apologies for whenever my ignorance shows. i'm just a gamer, not even wargamer let alone historian or (ex)military 1. more unit types - no, not more vehicles - civilians. they could really limit fire and movement, especially if they affect victory conditions. they could also - obscure dismount movement - by accident but they still could, and not necessarily in the allies' favor for scenarios in germany, austria, or alsace-lorraine! - help observe in battles, or build and supply in operations - take commands - er, i mean suggestions, these -are- civilians after all it could make spotting units more interesting since you might know about opponent units that yours don't see/hear directly yes, on 99.3.20 the BTS moderator said no to civilians. however, imho doing urban or guerrilla combat without civilians leaves out a possibly decisive factor. in at least paris and arnhem, civilian crowds hampered the allies - guerrillas. could make life really interesting if civilians are implemented. how do you tell who's ducking for cover...after noting your force has only light armor? - neutral forces. only spanish, swiss, and swedish forces come to mind for western europe, but they'd be interesting constraints. also good for hypothetical scenarios - horses. in CM, infantry support weapons and towed artillery could be horse-drawn. german forces were not fully motorized and everybody's equipment can break down - unmanned fortifications. this lets dismounts and some support units use them so a player has more flexibility about who uses and when to use - command-detonated mines, AP and AT. perhaps these could be done like ambush markers - when target gets -here-, go off - if ambush markers can be removed 2. scenario play suggestions - digging in. this means more position prep choices - slit trench, foxhole, trench, tunnel, vehicle firing position, tank trap, fortified house - as well as choosing to dig in or not. i distinguish slit trench from foxhole because a foxhole with elbow rests, ammo/grenade shelves, sump hole and perhaps even shrapnel cover is a lot more than hasty defilade. this would be an option for anyone, not just defenders. not all of an attacker's units may be attacking, especially for meeting engagements. i see these as 'units' the same way that unmanned fortifications could be - flares. this was discussed in september '99 on the forum, but postponed as too complex. well, in case it never made it on The List i'll mention it again to me, using starshells (from on-map and off-map units), flare pistols, and trip flares to blind, distract and target seems too useful for night fighting and often too precise an effect to abstract as twilight - wind. just abstracted, not fully modeled! perhaps just high wind or not, which general direction, and whether the vector's steady or not. it could displace/scatter smoke, smear/minimize sound, and displace floating flares. i'd rather have this factor abstracted and present than not at all - smoke shells to mark targets, ie increase accuracy for whoever sees it. to me it might realistically extend what can be accurately targeted - or not if the wind's up! - lock on any unit's move point - ie including transported units - or at least the next move endpoint as well as current position. i see this as a compromise forced by turns. it's not realistic, but how else can a player accurately tell if a unit is in cover or LOS from a given vantage point before it's shot for being a meter or two off? - have the TacAI be more selective about which vehicle mg fires. most vehicle .50-cal flex have rather little ammo which the TacAI will cheerfully use on targets that a .30-cal can rip up on its own - 'actions on' conditionals, ie planned reactions to probable events. a unit might have these for actions on: 'sprint for those woods if you take fire from here on, sneak to the house if you see a vehicle from here on...' perhaps it could be implemented as potential action(s) per move segment. this isn't officer commands so much as a noncom thinking about possibilities for each move. platoon and higher commands would still be direct and no more than once per turn. the idea is to have a chance of units reacting to unforeseen events with some player control vs unit AI alone 3. game features - when creating a scenario, vary unit value with loadout, morale, fatigue, and skill bonuses, not just experience. to me, a regular squad with max loadout is significantly different. ditto a captain with combat, morale, and command bonuses. vs no point variation even a very crude variation would better reflect the unit's value, ie just scale down the same for weary or exhausted and ignore the others as transient - let a player mark - at least a paintbrush but symbols would be great - and make collapsible notes on the map. to me, notes and marks directly on the map are much clearer than separate notes. for all us novices, especially with larger maps and more units we can lose track of why who's doing what to whom. jeez, maybe even worse than soap operas - might Big Time Software ever sim modern warfare? as much as i like CM, i also grabbed TacOps at the same time because i'm interested in current and near-future sims. i realize electronic warfare, passive/active sensors, RPVs, nonlethal weapons, etc make such a sim much more complex but hey, i can hope - multiple sides. mostly for imaginary scenarios, but however you rationalize it multiple opponents would make interesting gameplay. germans with and against yugoslav partisans, vichy vs free french vs british, germans suppressing mutiny... i'm still learning from the AI and exploring how terrain, weather, etc affect units so that's all for now. well ok - like anyone else i'd love to be a beta tester!

here's some issues i see with the following setup Combat Mission 1.0.3, 64M allocated clean recommended install Mac OS 9.0.4 PowerBook G3/400 192M bronze keyboard or blue/white G4/450 256M PowerMac desktop display set to 8-bit 1024 x 768 - waking the system is Not Good if CM was running before sleeping the mac. it wakes up with a messed up display - only the blue component of colors show, dialogs have partial content, etc. life seems fine if i relaunch CM, aka game will play with normal display. a 7300/180 wakes up fine, however, so it may only be macs requiring Mac OS ROM files and/or doing full power management - a nitpick, but - if i turn off the starting movie, the movie's music still plays, replacing the drum flourishes. i'd rather the music didn't play if i turn off the movie, since with the movie off it doesn't stop until CM starts loading scenario graphics - the manual says everything but infantry and off-map support can set ambush markers. well, either the dox or the game may have a bug. machine gun teams cannot set ambush markers. is this intentional? seems odd, they're nasty triggers for an ambush

i've been playing 1.03 (just dl'd 1.04, gimme a minute!) just fine on a bronze powerbook. what system sw are you using? if you have macsbug can you do a stdlog?

re universal ati installer 4.2 - use mac os 9.0.4's ati software, it's more recent. pre-mac os 9 users can extract the ati sw using apple's tomeviewer or instacompone. contact me or any mac developer to get those tools re contextual menus - control-click moves me around the map or locks view to a unit just fine with mac os 8.6 on a 7300/180. do you get the 'standard' (finder?) contextual menu when you use a clean recommended 8.6 install?