jshandorf

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I think you just have to see this bit as an abstraction - the building is obviously not okay and suddenly collapses, I think we have established that. The damage is gradual, and so you could assume that the damage to your men is gradual too. The problem is that at the moment CM does not model gradual damage, because otherwise if your troops were incurring casualties, they would be affected and might just hightail. What you have instead is the whole process of gradual damage to building and troops compressed into the split second of collapse. This is an abstraction that can be overcome by an adaption in tactics (leaving apart the realism issue for the moment) quite easily. I sincerely doubt we will see a change to this in CM1, but I expect and hope that for CM2 buildings are one of the main areas of improvement. And IIRC it was stated by BTS before that that was the case. So basically you could see this as a challenge to map designers as well, to provide maps in which this feature only plays a very small role, by e.g. providing other cover within small towns (it is not an issue in larger towns or cities, IMO). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But couldn't you abstract the troops getting out of the building by atleast letting a few of the guys survive instead of killing all of them? In that way it could atleast represent a few of them getting lucky, etc. Personally, having units bail when a house reaches 75% is a good idea in theory but I can think of a few cases where this would really be a pain in the butt. I think that having units bail when a house recieves a mass amount of damage that pushes it above 75% or when a building reaches 90% percent damage otherwise is a better solution. This would represent large HE shells slamming into the building and doing catastrophic damage (big jump above 75%) and also a building being picked away from flak guns and even grenades (gradual damage which would result in the troops bailing at 90%). On a side note I was playing a game with MT where we saw a HE grenade destroy a house. Pretty funny actually but if you could imagine the condition of the house so that this is possible... It's a wonder the troops stayed in there. Jeff

I don't like the system where one vehicles cost X but 2 cost X+Y and 3 cost X+Y+Z. That doesn't seem to make sense. Some people have mentioned that historically some vehicles only operated in groups such as the Jadgpanther. Also people have mentioned that Fireflies would some times only be found on groups of 4 or as the Platoon Commander for a bunch of Sherman 75s. Instead of blind purchasing you could offer group discount offerings. So you could buy 5 PzIVs cheaper than if you bought them separately, or any other historically accurate combination. Therefore it would encourage these kind of layouts. Thus if you wanted to go with a more a-historical unit selection it would cost more. Also maybe to encourage using it you could throw ina rare random factor that would allow say the leader of PzIV platoon to be a Panther or the leader for platoon of Tigers could be a King Tiger. You could do the same for the Americans. Also as I mentioned before you can just make certain units available or not available or sometimes only available in groups. Jeff

I was just wondering if you considered just making the availability of a certain vehicle a random factor. Depending on the force size and type (and any other variables) certain vehicles could be available or not available, or maybe you could limit the number to choose from. Making the price adjustment doesn't make sense to me since a certain vehicle only has a certain amount of usefulness and if the point value is increased to high then it becomes pointless to even consider buying since you can probably buy several other cheaper units that can fill the role just as well. Jeff

On the number of casualties thing.... If the number of men in the building is proportional to the number of casualties then a tank shooting it's HE round into a full squad of 12 men should inflict more casualties but in playing I don't see this as the case. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: The houses don't really blow up. It's just a graphical representation of a collapsing house. I must admit it's a little odd looking collapse, but I wouldn't like it removed since it looks so cool. For the casualties, I'd assume each man has a certain chance to get hurt when the house comes down. So more men means more casualties. Makes sense to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, but still ALL houses don't collapse do that degree. The only reason I bring this up is because a friend and I are playing a village battle and we have noticed that each of move more men into the rubble texture AFTER the house blows up since it is safer. It just seems a little gamey to me. Oh well. Jeff

Okay, I will admit I like watching houses blow up too, especially when there are allies in it, but is this real? I understand the fact that something has to happen to the house after you pump like 12 HE rounds into it, but blow up?? Come on... Can't the blowing up thing be random, otherwise the house just turns into rubble? You could just replace the house textures with say... some destroyed house textures and you could call the area "Destroyed building" and give it a defense rating a little better than rubble. I just think the house blowing up in a huge expolosion and your squads taking like 50% casualties all the time is a little unrealistic. On more thing, I have noticed that the more beat up a squad is the less additional casualties it takes when the house blows up. For example.. If you have a healthy 12 man squad it will take like 5-8 casualties when the house blows up, BUT if the squad is already down to like 3 guys it will maybe take 1 if any casualties.\ Maybe this is bug? Also I find it a little gamey on my part when I find myself holding back my men until a certain house blows up since the rubble is just about as good cover and it doesn't explode. Thanks, Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-29-2000).]

Good lord! That took a while to read. I am 28, and dreading 30. I am have never been married. I just can't figure out the concept. No kids, atleast none that I know of, but I do have a dog named, Hogan. Yes, he was named after the TV show. HOGAAAAAN!!! TO THE COOLER! Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: 17 years old, live on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Computer- The Beige Lemon, a Powermac 6500 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wait a second here! Didn't anyone think this as a bit odd? This guy lives on a island FILLED with grizzly bears!?! What the hell is up with that? Do you keep a loaded weapon handy? Maybe a 37mm? Jeff

I was wondering why is it that the Coax MG ALWAYS has to be unusable after a tank has taken Gun Damage. I mean I understand why it could happen sometimes, but why is it made to be that way ALL the time? Thanks, Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Jarmo wrote: I thought someone would say something like this Yes, the 37mm Flak gun was a decent light AT gun. But it was not better than the Pak38 or Pak40, so it was not employed in a dedicated AT role except when it had to be. In Combat Mission 2 we will offer the option to play games using a "rarity" factor. This factor will change unit costs to reflect how common it was to see them on the battlefield. For example, something like the Puma is totally overused by players. There was less than 200 of these vehicles built, but they show up in probably every 3rd battle So the rarity feature in CM2 would make them far less likely to be purchasable. And unlike outright mistakes in the simulation of reality (like the jeep recon thing), this will be an optional feature. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow, that is a great idea! I always think about things like that when I purchase my units. I always pick the more common vehicles first and then see how many points I have to throw at that more rare vehicles if I choose to. Not to get off the topic but I almost always go with PzIVs and Panthers with the occasional Tiger. I have yet to actually play a King Tiger. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: In Summary... Slapdragon: I finally figured that the Americans, on an open map, are nearly unwinnable -- I have only fought one real player, Abbott... BTS: But a full platoon of Sherman Easy 8s is about as expensive as 5 Panthers. And it should be that way too, as the Easy 8s were a match for them... SClinton: I am not fully convinced that Shermans are really overpriced... Tank Man: Another thing, it sounds to me like people use Allied tanks in the way that Axis tanks should be used.... Dalem: Given no options but to use the wrong tool for the wrong job, then best be lucky... etc.. Well I have just started a large battle with Fionn where it looks like it will be my Shermans against his Panthers (Fionn's rule of 75's No.. The map is aprox 1800 x 2400 of small hills and farmland in the daylight and dry. He had 3000pts to spend and I had 4500. I'm not afraid, in fact I expect to do very well. Anybody willing to lay odds? Cheers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL... You are gonna die. I am just wrapping up a battle where Fionn was the allies. I had 8 tanks. 1x Elite Tiger, 4x Crack Panther and 4x Reg MkIVs. I also bought a Whirlwind. I had 15 platoons with numerous support units. I knocked out his only two armor pieces relatively early in the game, but that didn't matter much. At this moment I am in full withdrawl and I can only hope I can prevent him from pushing me off the board. Hahaha.. Good luck. You WILL need it. Oh yeah.. I will bet 50 dollars you will lose and BADLY. He only managed about 2 to 1 exchange which I must note is pretty good for a game against Fionn since he usually racks up 3 to 1 or better. It probably will get worse since he is bound to capture a bunch of my troops during my withdrawl... Sigh... Jeff

Hmm.. Seems like we have a couple of topics discussing this. Here is all I would like to see. I REALLY like the current sneak command but I would like to see the unit continue on with it's sneak if they are NOT taking fire anymore. i.e. THe enemy runs away or is killed. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: kipanderson wrote: > The problem is that we want to tweak it in different directions. I think this is a good reason to leave it the way it is. Having a command for every different possible kind of movement is just going to make the game unnecessarily confusing. Five different movement orders (Move, Run, Sneak, Crawl, Withdraw) is quite enough. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> David, I am not suggesting a new movement order. I am just saying that it would be nice for the sneaking unit to continue with it's sneak order when it is NOT being fired upon. I think that makes sense. Jeff

Bullethead, I agree moving across an open field is dangerous without overwatch but the same problem can be illustrated with moving through cover. For example: (this one actually happened to me) I had a couple of platoons moving through a very large scattered trees. There was a smoke screen to thier left covering thier movement from an enemy MG squad in the distance. Upon the "sneak" advance the entire force encountered a single mortar squad. About 3 squads stopped and quickly killed the mortar team. The remainder of the force kept just moving on. They never actually stopped sneaking. The units that did engage the mortar stayed in the position they took up when they killed the mortar team. Meanwhile the rest of the 2 platoons moved on with out them and into the heavier forest cover about 30 meters off. Meanwhile by the end of the turn the smoke screen drops enough so that the enemy MG sqquad can now fire on those 3 squads that stayed in position. Next turn I had to re-order them to move out to catch up with the rest of the platoons. BUT they now took MG fire. Therefore it would have been nice for the squads to CONTINUE along with thier sneak orders AFTER the enemy mortar team was destroyed. It is the same as the hunt command. A tank will hunt. When it engages a target anfd kills it it moves on with its hunt order. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-15-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Speaking of taunting mercilessly, and because you never enter the Cesspool, Jeff, I must point out that I am now doing to your right what I had previously done to your center. By the by, did I get your Panther? Did I? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know... I haven't had a chance to look at the movie yet. The GF was around so the computer was off limits. Hmmm.. I am curious about my right flank... I actually am approaching that differently so you can't do EXACTLY what you did in the center. BTW not nice pointing out such stuff when I am trapped here at work! Now I want leave! Damn you! Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy: A related problems are shellholes from fighter-bomber, by the way! When they attack troop concentrations out of sight of friendly troops, the explosions and the remaining shellholes will give the enemy's advance away. The only solution would be to check LOS for explosions and shellholes (similar to foxholes). Maybe just as impossible as LOS checks for thread marks ... Regards, Thomm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know... When a plane drops a 500 pound bomb you are gonna have a good idea of where it fell. You will see the plane the bomb dropping and roughly where it hits. Also lets not forget the huge plume of smoke and dirt you would see. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: The problem with speeding up the PBEM process is that it greatly reduces the scope for inter-player taunting. Especially if, as in your proposal, the players aren't talking directly but are sending their turns to some server <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The server could forward the e-mails to the opponents without the attachment. Then you would be still be able to taunt them mercilessly. Jeff

Hmm... I would prefer that tanks NOT fire smoke if they are low on HE cause then your opponent would know that your tank is low on HE. That is bad. Trust me on this. Jeff

I geuss I have had the same "problem" of sorts. Currently you can "press on" to an object and yet have your troops fight using cover and what not. If you tell them to "Move" they just move on to the waypoint. If they encounter resistance they return fire but continue to move without seeking cover. Sneak on the other hand implies the troops are moving at a slow quiet pace looking for contact. If they take fire they stop, seek cover and return fire. It would be nice to have a command that if they take fire they take cover and return fire but, if they stop taking fire they continue to "sneak" towards the waypoint. So basically what happens is that say for instance you have a line of infantry sneaking up on a forest line. Lets say that there is a MG squad in the tree line. That MG squad opens up on one of your squads. That squad then stops, seeks cover, and returns fire. Meanwhile all your other squads continue to sneak towards the target ALSO firing on the MG squad. Lets say the MG squad switches targets to some other squad. That new squad then stops, seeks cover, and continues to return fire. MEANWHILE the previous squad that was taking fire gets up and continues to move on the objective and also fire on the MG squad. The reason this would be useful is that you can move your troops to an waypoint and if they encounter resistance and destroy it in the same turn they will then get up and continue on to their waypoint. Currently the units that engaged, the now destroyed target, just sit there until you can give them orders again to sneak forward again. Does this makes sense? Jeff

If you can do your orders, create the movie AND watch it if you didn't like what happened you could just do your orders all over again and generate another movie until it goes the way you want. That would be cheating. Okay? Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MantaRay: Welcome aboard. I have been playing Diablo 2 like a crack addict for 2 months, but CM will be played again very soon. Maybe you and Fionn can get a game going. He is VERY tough to my understanding though. Ray<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tough doesn't BEGIN to describe how hard it is too attack a Fionn defense. I would say it is more like suicide? Impossible? Insane? Hey, if you are a machocist drop him an e-mail. Jeff

I geuss one thing to consider is that the higher the price the better the chance for the "Well, I don't know.... Seems kinda high..." drone before purchase, which may inevitably prevent them from purchasing it. The only way to overcome this is to generate more hype about how great this game is and to get more exposure. People will then be more accepting of a higher price since they "know" they are getting a great game. Just look at Diablo II. It was SOOOO hyped they could have charged the $60 AND a quart of blood and kids would have STILL lined up. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: IMPORTANT NOTE: The increased visual spotting around bocage has been increased since the v1.05 patch. ie. LOS thru Bocage has been extended. Why? I'm not totally sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I recall correctly you do not LOS through a bocage unless you are very close to it. This wasn't available in earlier version, but it makes sense. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: Yes I suppose a battalion’s appreciation report listing the weakness inherent in mounting a sight in the mantle is irrelevant to the discussion. And so is the truncated history of German sighting development and mountings and the attempts by the Germans to minimize the problem. All of these drawn from primary sources, non factual because they contradict you and your subjective thoughts on the matter. No Jeff you haven’t come up with a dam thing to support your argument while I’ve already put two pertaining to the discussion up. Instead you come up with ‘weird outta your arse calculations’ and specious statements that a direct hit is required to put a sight out of action. Did you know that there is a diameter around that tiny hole that can offer as little as 50% protection of the actual thickness involved. You don’t even need a direct hit on the hole to 'reach' in and break things that the hole hides because any penetration a calibre away will cave the hole in as the shell/shot plops through the weak area. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really, I am soooo impressed. It doesn't take a wizard to snip a quote or document and make it fit whatever you want. I am sure if I search hard and long enough I could find a single report on how durable the optic sights are in a certain German tank, but if I did would it prove my point? Would you be convinced? No. So don't be so naive. So attacking this discussion from a logical and scientific standpoint is just pulling things out of my arse? Well then we all might as well quit debating this, right? Get real. So far there has been no real hard proven documentation on the aspect of gun damage hits. A single report of a Battalion needing more sights for thier tanks is at best marginal support. Also as it has been pointed out before that was a report from '43 and if there was a problem it would have been addressed long before Mid '44. THEREFORE your evidence is at best useless. So quit touting it as proof. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-13-2000).] [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-13-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: "No it doesn't. The bullet leaves the gun. It is in your hand. If the bullet has enough force to knock a person off it's feet it would knock YOU off your feet. Period. Man, go back to school on this. You are wrong." no he isn't. I guess we all agree that the kinetic energy is the same, obviously (actio counterequal to reactio). However, the buildup of the force is slower in the firing person, the person is prepared for firing the handgun, and the gun is held in such a position that the absorbing of the same kinetic energy is possible, whil that same kinetic energy in the target hits even faster, an unprepared position and in a (if it does) inopportune location. If you fire a 44 magnum by holding it in a combat grip it will give you a nasty kick. If you hit some unprepared person at the right location it might very well knock that person over. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the person being shot was prepared they could also NOT be knocked down. Also if the person firing the gun was not prepared then they could fall down. Basically the principle is, if the force is enough where it can knock your target down it can knock you down and vice versa. Don't make me find my High School physics teacher's e-mail address so that he can correct you on this. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-13-2000).]