Dr Dan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: What you guys didn't get to see is how CM evolved. The original concept and implementation was so much more basic than anybody can imagine. But as we worked on it we kept seeing more potential for improvement, which we did, which caused us to see other areas we could improve upon, etc. etc. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, have you guys given any thought to writing a book about the development of Combat Mission? The process you describe might make for a very interesting read, even to a (more) general audience. Dan CM will be forever refreshing!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Software FP calculations are very slow, so that's probably not an option. The idea of masking the least significant digit(s) in a defined way doesn't work too because rounding differences can cause more significant bits to flip too (0.9999 to 1.0000 for example). You should consider that there really isn't a quick solution to solve this problem. Dschugaschwili<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did NOT suggest using software FP, but rather forcing the compiler to generate code using the software FP option, replacing the software FP routines with specially coded HARDWARE ones when the program is linked. There are a number of ways to force the desired rounding effect, several of which have been mentioned earlier. Actually, this may or may not be a quick fix depending on the information available to the programmers regarding the FP libraries, etc. For example, some compiler manufacturers supply library source with their distributions, making the task fairly easy, if a bit tedious. Dan CM is captivating.

Well, you guys probably already thought of this, but what the heck.... Does the C compiler you use generate inline FP instructions or does it call ( or INT to) library routines? -- if library routines are used, then you could modify them alone to force uniform "rounding" without needing to alter the entire CM code base. ...or... You might force this situation by setting the compiler to use software FP and then substituting your (homemade) hardware FP routines for the software library at link time (or DLL load, etc.) Dan CM "floats," but the results are real. [This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 11-07-2000).]

Yeah, this does happen and it can be really annoying. The AI also uses the tactic very effectively to gain ground at the end of battles in operations. However, there have been several discussions on the forum of whether the real "problem" is VL's or rather, a fixed number of turns? Maybe the latter creates the opening for gamey action. Dan CM is real!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Ive passed this one on to Charles guys, if its indeed a bug Id say you will see it fixed in the next patch <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for responding. If needed, I can provide numerous examples of this behavior. By the way, you said: "...Charles guys..." Has Charles been CLONED? Dan CM has depth!

Still curious. Dan CM is interesting!

I have noticed that if a tank targets an antitank team, the LOS line indicates if the tank is hull down relative to the team. This seems reasonable. However, I also note that I receive the hull down indication even if the target unit has not been identified - i.e. shows only as "infantry?" Since the hull down indication relative to infantry units ONLY appears for AT teams (I think), haven't I learned the identity of the infantry unit without proper spotting? Small problem, just curious. Dan CM remains FUN!

This sounds like a good idea and would allow for some interesting new battle situations. Unfortunately, using the scenario editor means you always know what the other side has. With all the turnover that occurred in units during the war, wouldn't a mixture of experience levels appear pretty often? Dan CM is FUN!

Look guys, that silly thing uses ROCKETS, and we all KNOW how effective/accurate German rockets are. Dan CM continues to be fun!

Tiger If you can arrange it, you might try getting the gun crew into C&C with a good HQ unit. Sometimes this will make them "feel" more secure. Dan

This is turning into a very silly thread. Dan

Topic Drift -- Maybe Sherman tanks can survive the same way SOME red shirts did on Star Trek -- they need to hang out with the engineers. (Aye, that and a wee bit more, Captain). As the historical reality folks might remind us, combat engineers had much lower casualty rates than (most) other unit types. Dan CM is ALWAYS fun!

Slapdragon, thanks for your observations. What you describe about heavy German tanks certainly appears to be true, although I have seen 'gun destroyed' a couple of times even on a Sherman. Also, large HE or similar IS a factor; it seems that tanks like the Cromwell VI or the Churchill VIII, which use HOLLW © ammo, are particularly good "gun destroyers." As for what actually is taken out, I think Steve said earlier that 'gun destroyed' covered more than just the barrel, including the sights/optics, mechanical failures, etc. Hey, Steve, BTS, can you guys comment? One thing that I would really like to know is where you can find raw data that indicates specific types of tank damage throughout the war. I've tried searching ( ) the web, but I'm not exactly sure what to seek. Any WWII historians know where to look? Dan CM is STILL fun!

O.K., in accordance with forum bylaws, as well as currently accepted etiquette, I did a search on this but couldn't answer my question: How does CM model 'Gun Destroyed?' I understand the method used to determine armor penetration, but I can't find anything that indicates how gun hits are determined and what makes a 'hit' become a 'destroyed.' Dan CM is STILL fun!

From the definitive source of WWII information, the Sunday Newspaper ad by MATCHBOOK COLLECTIBLE Die-Cast Models, comes (and I'm not making this up) "The Great Tanks of World War II." "For the first couple years, it looked like [Axis forces] would win. The German war machine crushed Allied forces with a seemingly invincible force of armored warriors. But then, the Allies - led by America - rose to the challenge, developing advanced artillery and tanks that stopped the Germans in their tracks. Now you can own the eight greatest tanks of World War II... On one are the forces of freedom: the A22 Infantry Tank Mk IV Churchill, the finest British infantry tank...the Russian T-34/76, which halted the German advance in the East...and the best of the best, the two American Sherman tanks [the M4A3 105mm and the M4A3 76mm] that literally changed the course of the war. Then there are the worthy adversaries: the Wirbelwind that shot down Allied planes...the dreaded Panzers, one of the deadliest forces the Allies would face...and the Panther, the "big cat" that was the best tank in the world until America created the Sherman..." And, the models look just like the ones in Combat Mission!!!!! BTS, fellow CM'ers, it seems pretty clear, the Sherman tanks are obviously UNDERPRICED. Dan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Although it is impossible for us to completely simulate the real world situations commanders and units found themselves limited by, we can try. And the degree that we have is DIRECTLY releated to how much people have been enjoying CM. A little bit of gamey doesn't kill a wargame, but a lot certainly does. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I think there are many reasons why gamers like CM. For "plain-old" strategy gamers (i.e. not historical war gamers), CM is enjoyable because it is PLAUSIBLY real, because it has a very well conceived, easily accessed interface, because of the WEGO system, and because, like most successful games, it is infinitely variable. By plausibly real I mean that CM's world has consistent rules/physics, units that function logically within that framework, and sufficiently good AI to mimic some level of true intelligence, as opposed to say scripted behavior. As you (Steve) have essentially said, it is a very good simulation. It is true that a variety of non-historical things can happen in CM. But I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. It means that while two dedicated historical wargamers can fight it out "as it happened," a couple of (previously ) bored strategy gamers can be stimulated by a no-holds barred battle. In either case people are having fun with the world you guys have created. Isn't that a large part of what you have sought in developing CM? IMHO, I believe the appeal of CM is much broader than historical accuracy/reality. I think it is great that precise re-creation is possible; playing CM has certainly pushed me to learn lots more about WWII. However, other types of gamers with different interests also play the game and come to this forum. Isn't that a remarkable thing? Shouldn't that balance continue? Dan CM is fun!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Thanks all... In the end Combat Mission is just a game. OK, perhaps a very special one, but it isn't something that should be held to impossible and unreasonable standards. CM will improve over time, both graphically and game wise. That much is assured Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, a special game that makes people want to play more...and more. I'm honestly not sure I understand why all the fussing about graphics. CM is great because it PLAYS SO WELL. Chess has crummy graphics too, but people have been playing it for thousands of years. IMO, BTS should be congratulated for breaking new ground in TECHNIQUE, for making the game work well despite the limitations of available computer hardware. Dan CM is fun! [This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-19-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coralsaw: I just feel that I would have a more enjoyable battle if I chose my forces after looking at the map first. CoralSaw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, this is something I think would be fun too. Besides, if you truly believe in only using "what is at hand," then shouldn't you always allow the QB generator to pick your troops -- if you make selections based on what you DO know, then isn't that defeating the whole concept of being forced to use only what "command" allocated to you? Since you are going to select your force anyway, based on what you think you know (i.e. area type, amount of vegetation, weather, etc.), what does it hurt to view the actual map first, allowing some changes to the force structure? Dan CM is fun! [This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-19-2000).]

Hey everybody, calm down, enjoy the game, Gamey or not . O.K. Steve, what I really want to know, if you don't mind my asking, is Where the heck do you get G.I. Joe without Kung-Fu grip as Lewis mentioned earlier in this thread? And...will he (Joe, that is) be included in the add-on pack for the game? Dan [This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-19-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bigmac: PBEM match (my first...GOD I LOVE THIS GAME!!!) and observed something unexpected. I had maneuvered my Daimler SC behind a house due to the presence of multiple halftracks. Next turn had it reverse down a slope and out of site in front of a copse of tall pines. Set it to "rotate to" face an elevated road which would expose said halftracks to me should they venture down the road as they passed in front of the house. Well, surprise surprise, the Daimler starts up the hill following the path laid down by my "rotate to" command... Directly into the path of a green 'Shrekt team. One shot from 150m later, one dead Daimler. Now, I've used this "rotate to" command many times, but have never observed the unit to proceed along the path as if it were a move command. Is this normal or was this some type of fluke? It is my impression that the rotate to command doesn't involve any movement with the exception of spinning in place to face the indicated direction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have seen the type of behavior you describe happen maybe two or three times. If I recall correctly, in each case I had set a rotate to command that extended a long way, i.e. I was trying to line up with something in the distance. Actually, the first time this happened, a Tank Destroyer charged down a hill and took out a Panther from VERY close range and then moved on (and I definitely had indicated rotate at the end of fast move, hunt, rotate). Since the game was new to me then, I thought maybe the TacAI was using some cool move that I didn't understand. However, it has happened once or twice subsequently, so I stopped making long rotate to lines. Are you using version 1.05? For some reason, I thought maybe the problem had already been fixed. Dan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: I personally believe that the LOS tool should only be available to be used from positions you could attain in 60 seconds. I also think that if you check from a position, then you cant take back. seems fair? [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-03-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like a promising idea. Being able to have a look around but limited to the context of the next turn might be a reasonable way "seeing" the real map without gaining too much information. A couple of questions: 1. How would you determine the "60 sec" radius? Fastest unit? Slowest? 2. What do you mean "can't take back?" Do you have to move something there? Are you limiting the player to a single look? Dan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Nothing unrealistic which would not significantly improve the game, within BTS's vision, will be included. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (Emphasis added by me) This is really the crux of the matter, IMO. There are many of us who would like to see certain features (such as point LOS) added because, to us, gameplay WOULD BE significantly enhanced without a detrimental effect on CM's world. Maybe we are novices, maybe we lack time to develop an in-depth appreciation for the finer aspects of CM play. Perhaps, we feel that adding anywhere LOS is really no different than having the God-view camera, or as in my case, are simply frustrated by the discrepancy between the "seen" world and the internal "real" one. Given one of these viewpoints, this type of feature does markedly improve gameplay, realistic or not. Does this matter? Only a little. Its BTS's game, their design vision, and certainly, their right to choose what features might be added in the interest of improved play. And, IMHO, most of us accept that right without much concern -- after all, CM is a fantastic game already. Further, the general openness shown by BTS to new/different ideas, which by all accounts HAS led to a better game, is a model for the software industry as a whole. I only hope, and I think this is part of Jaded's point, is their receptiveness not be drowned out by the "choir." So, go forth, enjoy the work of Charles and Steve (and others), and look forward to the next surprise! Dan [This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-04-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Note *quite* correct. Here is the correct phrasing IMHO: "Making all your customers happy is not the first rule of business" Ironically, since this is impossible to make all your customers happy (especially for a wargames business ) it isn't even on our "rules of business" list! Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-03-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, whatever happened to the customer is always right? (JUST KIDDING!!!) I just wanted to toss in here the fact that I went and played a small battle in '1' view. For infantry this was actually fun, if a bit hard. However, working with armored units was a nightmare, primarily because the targetting distances are so much longer, and, (here it comes ) without WYSIWYG or um, some other type of assistance, getting them to useful places (i.e. in LOS) was almost impossible. I mean, my virtual self stood there at the top of the hill looking down on the clearly "visible" flag. My MK IV's obediently hunted into position and sat...and sat. Extending the unit LOS (which is tricky from ground level) indicated that these guys could only see about 30 meters over the edge of the hill, although they WERE hull down at least . So, I moved them over the edge and down the slope what I "guessed" would be far enough to "penetrate" the scattered trees. The virtual "Dan commander" (batteries NOT included) riding on the back of V-1 insisted that he could still see the flag and surrounding terrain below. The MK IV guys just sat...and sat. The extended unit LOS tool yielded the dread "black line of darkness." "Still can't see, can you boys?," asked the commander. Unt. Eisenbahn snickered; Unt. Luft merely stared at the sky. The SS Motorized skittered around in a manner that reminded some of hamsters, while others saw formidable warriors "on hold." The commander, who was beginning to believe that his vision needed checking, ordered the MK IV's to hunt again ... and again. Finally, THEY could see the flag, AND, oh oh, those nasty, heavily-armored Churchill's. Bye, bye MK IV's. Sometime later, the commander was found in a virtual woods beside a virtual pond not far from a group of virtual light buildings (the nice ones with wood paneling). He swore he could see the bright red high-resolution roofs of the village, despite the intervening huge grove of virtual tall trees. His (remaining) men, who could see nothing but the forest and the trees, knocked him out, later putting him on a virtual train to the REAL Eastern Front. The moral: WYSIWYG actually means "What you see is why you're gone" OR Never send hamster men to do a Fallschirmjager's job. Night all. Dan Oh wow, why I was "wandering" here, Jaded put up a really good post. Go Jaded, go! [This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-03-2000).]

Conscription reaches a new low.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Dan, if you want to see flames, you've come to the wrong forum. I rarely see anything BUT civility here. Sure, a lot of people (including myself) feel strongly about certain things, but you should never confuse an argument with a flamewar. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Relatively speaking, you are absolutely right about this forum vs. others. IMHO, that is a reflection of the outstanding support BTS provides. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that sometimes passionate argument "scares away" open discussion and dissenting views. New ideas come from all over; often they are discarded because they don't fit the "model." However, once in a while, if there is openness to change, the "model" is revised. And yes, BTS generally seems to be pretty open. Thinking about the "model" brings me to what I seem to need to understand (no arguing, I'm just interested): Why is the goal maximum "reality?" Why can't the game include features that might enhance play simply because the tradeoff is deviation from strict realism ( space aliens not included )? Dan Hope everyone is having an enjoyable holiday weekend!