Diceman

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: In part you're correct, which is why I have emphasised from the start that this is an argument which has two sides to it. One, the question of effectiveness, the second, the question of graphic representation. I am still undecided on the former, but its obvious on the latter some work is required IMO. I cannot see how this can be provided by third parties, when it would require a completely new layer for the vehicle but I admit I could be wrong. .<hr></blockquote>I was going to call this line of reasoning a non-sequester, but it lacks the specious appeal to be given such dignity. This is a classic absurdity. Non or questionable effectiveness does not in anyway equate to must have. Modeling sandbags and other 3 dimensional expedients would be a huge pain in the but to model, and a big hit on polygon counts, not to mention a huge consumption of valuable time. Even if sufficient evidence were provided to quantify there effectiveness, these thing would have to be coded without graphical representation, much like the add-on plates for Shermans and the Super-Pershing are coded but not graphically represented. Shutzen on the other hand were a factory standard, and are fairly easy to model, because they are ostensibly 2 dimensional objects.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by lucero1148: Considering that there are almost 8000 registered players on this board it might be safe to say 1.5 x's more CD's as a callculated guess..<hr></blockquote> BTS had estimated only one in ten fans are registered on the board, so that may be as many as 80,000 copies sold. Still a small # compared to the big hits, but not bad considering the marketing strategy, and well beyond what BTS dared to dream. Anyone know how CM is doing in Germany where it's being marketed on the shelf?

One should also remember that the basic vehicle for the Sturmtiger was already built. Much easier to build a new upper superstucture for a design already in place than to build a vehicle from sratch. Also, unless I'm mistaken, although shurtzen is modeled graphicaly in CM it has little effect on game play. It may add a few mill of side armor, but thats about it. I'm almost certain its alleged anti heat round properties are not modeled. Seems there was a debate as to whether such devises defeated heat rounds, or helped them by provideing a benificial standoff distance for the rounds. JasonC provided a descent link: http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html which give some evidence, supporting the idea that at least for smaller heat rounds such as the bazooka, shurtsen was an effective anti-heat device; but, the argument rages on. What we really need is a weapons engineer that could clear this issue up once and for all.

How in the world did this post get into this thread? Ignore mty ramblings please. :confused: [ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Diceman ]</p>

My tank survival rate hasn't been that good lately either, but it would have been even worse except for one thing: I keep my armor in platoons. A lone tank is a dead tank. Cheers Eric

Give me an M18 Hellcat anyday.

Tanks spinning on foxholes would be cool.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: I knew Combat Mission could not be as good as I thought it was. Thank you for telling me how much it sucks. What a relief. :confused: <hr></blockquote> Yes indeed, it creates copious amounts of vacuum. It's sucked up more of my free time than any other game I've played in a long time.

It is my understanding that CMBB will probably not have a campaign system. But how about linked maps for operations? This would expand the capabilities of operations tremendously, putting how far the designer wants to stretch operations in his hands. What say?

Now that was interesting! It appears that the jet stream of the bazooka was weak enough to be deflected by objects which caused it to detonate before making contact with the target armor. Based on the discription of the non-penetrating gouge, along with the comment: Upon the front armor, it is difficult to get an effective burst, as the slope of the armor will ricochet the rocket. "No perpendicular hits were obtained during the trial", it may also be possible that the bazooka round had a design flaw wich caused it to either ricochet or detonate at less than an optimum angle. Possible root causes include a wobble in flight causing it to hit at less than optimum angle ("No perpendicular hits were obtained during the trial"), b: the detonator on the round was defectively slow causing the rounds to shift from true or bounce off before detonation, c: the shape of the round did not allow reliable impact fuse contact on sloped armor resulting in ricochet, or d: (least likely given the amount of effort expended here) these guys weren't paying attention to the angle of shot. This also gives more credence to the effectiveness of side skirts against bazookas issue, especially the wheel hits (which would act in a similar manner to skirts). Is there any colaborating evidence? Cheers Eric [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Diceman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Vanir Ausf B: As for Jason's "tests"... all I see is axe grinding. Doesn't interest us. Why? Because we don't like his style? No, because we think his "evidence" is out of context and therefore not very informative. Steve<hr></blockquote> Now if someone could give test evidence proving for instance that the American zook wobbled in flight, causing its penetration cabability to vary, now that would be interesting! Or maybe documented evidence that 95mm penetration test A was more valid than test B becouse test A was done by fireing the round from the weapon, while test B was done igniting the weapon while it was affixed to a test stand, now that would be interesting! The gauntel is layed down. Can anyone do this? I must confess I can't lean one way or another on these issues, as I don't have the reference material, but I'd love to see it, if its out there. I must agree with Steve, circumstantial evidence proves nothing. Even the H35 clip was self contradictory. First the guy complains about not being able to take out the H35 with zooks, then he goes on about the tanks being knocked out!

Originally stated by Steve: "All of the 3D vehicle models have been created, but few are in the game yet. Let me tell you, that is going to be a fun month of my time." Can we pleeaaase have a vehicle list? Purrty please?

Mmmmm meat. Wait that just made me hungry for more!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombatGeneral: how do i contact madmat? I used a credit card from a long time ago, i dont have that number anymore? I would like to replace my CM but how do I go about that?<hr></blockquote> Try this: sales@battlefront.com or: matt@battlefront.com That should get you where you're going.

Hmmm, why the CM CD first. You married? Perhaps the dog had help. If you drop BTS an e-mail, I'm sure they can replace the CD at a very reasonable price. Something in the neighborhood of cost plus shipping I suspect, but I'm just guessing. Ask Madmat, he handles that kind of thing Cheers Eric

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by eeyore: Can I broaden this out a bit? A question for BTS: Is CMBO a simulation or are allowances made for creating a balanced game? In other words, if there was such a thing as an invincable ubertank, would it modelled as such or are allowances made in the interest of a balanced game? <hr></blockquote> I'm not BTS, and cannot speak for them, but I think I can answer your question nonetheless. The Answer is: the tanks are modeled based on design data (which you can observe by selecting a unit and hitting enter). For instance the front Upper hull of a Tiger 2 is 150mm @ 50degrees. Thin spots such as mg ports and optic ports are also modeled. Unless I'm mistaken armor hardness is also modeled. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by eeyore: I ask because there's always going to be a tension between creating a simulation and creating an enjoyable game (perhaps exagerated with the need to create balanced encounters via Quick Battle option). I don't mean to imply that each is mutually exclusive; just that it might be hard to reconcile both aims satisfactorily. If the KT was as impervious to bazooka and heat as some suggest (I wouldn't know and I certainly don't have any evidence one way or the other) then perhaps other factors can be modelled (cheaper allied aircraft, greater use of "bogging down" to simulate lack of fuel or breakdowns where crew abandon tank). I know, too late for CMBO but something to consider for future? Yeknod [ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: eeyore ]<hr></blockquote> No weapon platform has been under-modeled for the sake of game play. Some would suggest that the 90% armor rating constitutes under modeling. I'm no export on this so I can't add to the debate. I can only tell you that ample test data has been brought to my attention through this forum to support downgrading the quality of late war uber cats. Not a single test report on late war uber cats has been sighted on this forum (that I'm aware of) that does not make note of metallurgical problems with late war German armor, while many that do make note of it have been sighted. I have seen pictures of German armor failure due to metallurgical problems, but I don't own the book and can't remember its name. As you have suggested, game balance has been carefully calculated on a purchase point basis. Cheers Eric

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: Mostly you will find the answers you seek here. Enter at your own risk.<hr></blockquote> The horror, the horror!

March?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Shep: Holy night of the refreshing monkeys, Batman!<hr></blockquote> Hey I resemble that remark! Actualy I only refreshed my screen a dozen times or so in hopes of retrieving the gold demo before giving it up as a bad job and going away. But the next morning (IIRC), it was there, and well worth the wait. I doubt however, that this is sush an auspicious occasion. I could be wrong though.

CM already can do most of what you're asking for - through the scenario editer, but not via quick battles. A QB is a different beast from a scenario. A QB is a fast and efficient way to generate a field for player vs player competition. The things you are asking for would be inapropriate most of the time for this purpose. On the other hand, if you want to create a historical situation, the scenario editor gives you many tools to do that, including damaged or burning building, low ammo, and unit moral.

What kind of info did the computer give you on the front turret penetration? I'd think you'd just about have to hit the turret right in the coax MG to have a hope of penetrating the front turret armor. I've had King Tigers take numerous hits in the turret without penetration. You must have got very lucky. The side shot was not a fluke. The Sherman short can easily penetrate the King Tiger's side armor at that range if he has a near flush hit. One thing I wonder though, does CM take into account the possibility of hitting the side plateof many turret designs from the front, and does it recognize the sharp angle sush a shot would have? If not will CMBB model front hits to this detail?

As I was. Found a nice one by Marco Bergman. Cheers Eric [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Diceman ]</p>

Very nice work, where can I get it?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: If the problems are driver related I don't think running under Win98 emulation is going to help.<hr></blockquote> Actually it might. One of the root causes of WIN2000/WINXP problems, so I'm told (read that as - I got this second hand) is that WIN2000/WINXP are true 32 bit systems, while WIN9X is not. The trick is to get the drivers to work on both systems. Since the drivers in question were originaly coded for WIN 9X, it is possible, (and the experience of some on this forum) that the drivers work better with the older OS. As new cards come out, with drivers written for XP from the ground up, this situation will reverse. Cheers Eric

I was considering buying a setup much like Linda's. In the closed thread on this topic, it was mentioned that XP can be run in WIN98 mode. Is this accurate, and does it solve the problem? I was going to purchase XP along with the barebones I was going to buy (discount if purchased with computer), but I'm now wondering if it's worth the money. BTW how would I set things up for a dual booting system, I.E. be able to boot XP or 98 as required, and is it nessesary with the WIN98 mode capability? Inquireing minds want to know.