Jump to content

Freak

Members
  • Posts

    568
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Freak

  1. Apple's web site has highlighted WWII oriented games on their games section and Combat Mission is included. Apples website:web page Notice the caption under the Combat Mission screenshot says: 'Close Combat:' Woops.
  2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: To correctly answer the question, the MG43 HMG and LMG are .312 caliber (7.92mm). ;p<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Woops how'd that get in there? Doh! Thanks L. Tankersley.
  3. What Caliber is the MG42HMG & MG42LMG? To answer the question, the MG42 HMG and LMG are .0312 caliber. (7.92mm)
  4. Just FYI, Rob/1 (panzerman) is on vacation. Not sure if he has computer access.
  5. I am with Compassion on this. The Geforce 3 is a bit overkill for CM when looking at the price. The 32mb Geforce 2 is about the ideal card for CM. The Geforce 3 should come down in price at about the same time of CM2BB release, so it might be a good idea to wait it out a little bit.
  6. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak: Capt, While I support your cause and your ambition. I am afraid that what you are seeking can not be found. There were a lot of post about CM when they were using diffrent forum software. So the latest post you'll find here is just when they changed software, which will be nowhere near the first post. Lorak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am pretty sure that the old messeges were transfered to the new forum. I have a few messeges from the old BBS that are searchable (when the search function works) and show up as a topic. EDIT- However I am not sure if all were saved. Its possible that some were lost. [ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]
  7. Hey, lets not get carried away here...Tiger has made some damn good mods. Specificaly his Panther G late and his Panther A mods are classic CM mods in the mod community. The Panther G especially in my mind has yet to be surpassed! It is still is on my HD and as far as I can see is not being taken off ! Well, anyway, I think Tiger did a great job modding. Better then MOST, in my opinion. Yeah his sherman was surpased by Marco's version (how can a mod get any better then that!) but I believe that Tigers original sherman mod was out way before Marco's. I should know, I had them installed for a quick while. Ok so lets stop all the nonsense!!
  8. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: One of the things Allied tankers admired about the Tiger I was its ability to pivot in place. It could pivot faster than its turret could spin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm that would make quite a differnce in a tight spot...
  9. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Depends on what you mean by "turn in place". It can lock one track and spin the other, so in essence it would be almost in one place turning. The panther, Tiger, and later models could put one track in reverse and one in forward. So in effect they could spin in place. It wasn't until the Pershing, I think, that an allied tank could do this. jeff [ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: jshandorf ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats it, thanks for the the correction. I knew it had something to do with the turning ability of the sherman which is not modeled correctly AFAIK. Thanks again!
  10. The Weimer Republic, eighty-two years ago was born on this day.
  11. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waxx_IK: I agree totally with Freak. There is no person on this board who I wouldn't trust in a game. If cheating does occur, maybe there could be an option for both players to have the ability to kick an observer out of the game?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good idea Waxx_IK, I like that idea. [ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]
  12. Are there any left? Lycos is nice, but it doesn't allow linking. Any ones that are still out there for free? Best Ragards Freak. [ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]
  13. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Vehicle rotation speed was reduced in an update to CM, because tanks were programmed to rotate both their hull and turret to an AT threat, thus bringing the gun to bear as fast. This is a problem with unturreted vehicles, because they take forever and a day to bring the gun round, especially if they are ambushed from the rear. There is a slight bug, in that a tank which spots an enemy AT asset at the end of a turn, will not continue rotating its hull in the next turn unless ordered. Also, one must keep in mind that giving a tank a target order will only rotate its turret. Giving a separate rotate order is necessary to bring the gun to bear ASAP. Indeed it is difficult to turn in place, but is a Jagdpanzer IV or the like going to just sit there and try desperately to swivel round, taking a minute or more to do so in certain terrain, whilst an enemy tank takes leisurely pot shots from behind? No, they're going to move in a small arc and do it much more quickly. Unforunately vehicles will not do this of their own volition in CM. I might add that giving a movement order causes the vehicle to rotate 'in place' (excusable as an abstraction) a good bit faster than a rotate order, although if rotating ASAP is your goal, obviously a movement order suffers from the command delay. This has doubtlessly been discussed before – I may do a search at some point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think, and I may be very wrong, but IIRC, the allied sherman tank does not have the ability to "turn in place" in reality. I think this discussion was brought up some time ago and (obviously discussed to death).
  14. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Also, as a scenario designer, you can use a sharpshooter to represent a scout or sentry. For the Germans, if you want a special LMG team, just buy the LMG listed in the support column.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, I have always wondered what the consences was on using sharpshooters as scouts. What does the CM community think about it? Is it considered gamey? Or is it accepted as a scouting party? Any comments?
  15. I am for it. A grimmace falls upon my face at the thought of toasting T-34's form a quick flank.
  16. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Subvet: It would be fun to have this. I'd only want it though if both players had to agree to let people observe. This would open a HUGE security hole. Obviously is you can observe then you can tell the players what you see. Don't forget that we aren't just talking about the in-game chat function. You could be talking to one of the players outside the game in some chat room or ICQ for example. In fact, a player could log on with another computer and see his opponents every move all by himself! I've found CM players to be the best group of on-line gamers ever. I wouldn't really worry about this stuff too much in regular gaming. I'd probably agree to let people watch. But I'd be very nervous about tourney games being watched. I've seen players that are normally friendly easy going people totally freak out when playing a tourney game. I think the temptation to cheat may be too much for some people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good points Subvet and I agree. But I think there is a way to do it with lessening the security issues as a problem. Originally posted by Holien the problem with people passing information on is a serious one and I guess stops this idea dead. Anyone got any ideas how the se I think its possible to do but it needs to be implemented. Weather this is in CM2, from my point of veiw is, doubtful. But I believe that this is a real possibility for CMII the rewrite. I think the best place to see an example (from my experience) to see this done well is with Myth II. Myth II set an excellent example on how to implement multiplayer gaming. First, what differs from Bungie's Myth II multiplayer in regards to BTS's multiplayer is that Bungie's Myth II has a central server. Gamers meet at the central server (acts like a hub) and players see each other and see different games, different parameters different maps all on the screen for each game. Also one can see the set rules for the game and how many people allowed to play and how many people are in the game at that time. To spice it off the creator of the game gives the game a title with a little personal touch like " I am gonna kick your ass!!!" kind of thing. Now I dont think BTS has to do what Bungie did to have a succesful internet (tcp/ip) multiplayer function, but some of this would be neat and certainly welcome, and it would add an interesting flavor to the community. I also do realize that Bungie is a much bigger company then BTS so I would not expect BTS to be able to do what Bungie did and has done with their interent gaming servers for over the last 4 years. Bungie and Myth I and II are still playable through Bungies Myth serevers and its (still) free. All you need is the game(and internet connection and compuetr). But, with that being said, I don't think it would be fair to ask BTS to implement such a wide (and expensive?) internet multiplayer server for their clients (though this would be nice certainly). I certainly do think it would be too much to ask for, for such a small company. I do not know what it costs bungie to maintain there gaming servers, though I would expect the maintenace of the servers, would be expensive and that would require BTS to add more people to the fold, something I don't think they would want to do. Ok, so now that I have spilled the guts of Bungies excellent server multiplayer tcp/ip gaming implementation, let me narrow it down to how observers worked and how it could be done in BTS's CM. In Myth II player A sets up a game. (Lets bypass the idea that their is a central server so this model can be used for CM). So player A sets up a game much like we do now in CM. Player A selects all of the game functions as he does now in CM, adjusting the game, adjusting the map, the time the year, and so forth, then he decides to choose what kind of game so he chooses "tcp/ip" play. Ok, so far everything is done just like in CM. But now, we have the option to either have an observer in game or not. Lets say player A selects observer. We could have an option to have as many as 1-4 observers in game at a time if we want. Player A decides two obsevers are going to be in the game and selects. An alternative to this method would be to have the server (host) have a pregame chat area built into the game when one select tcp/ip game from the game menu. With the pre game chat, the host acting as the server, we can have observers come at this time and chat along if they wish. (what is important is that the players (both) know who is in the game as observers here) On security: One idea is to have a password for each observer so that no one not invited can get in, plus have a lock on the number of observers in the game (set to 2 or 3 or 4 or 1). Observers can then (presumebly they know the gamers which is a good thing - trust is key here) leave the game if the wish, but also have the ability to get back in if they lose connection to the game while observeing. The password part is critical because it allows no one other then the invited party into the game. (two seprate passwords could be issued for each observer) Another aspect of this part of multiplayer funtion is that palyer both players should talk before the game about observers. They must be aware of it and it must be known. We can not have a game where one player knows there is an observer and the other does not. An idea would be that once player A and player B arrive in the game (on the battlefield) the game screen announces that the observers are in the game. This is crucial, becouse this can lead to serious mistrust amongst players in the community and could be used against a player without knowing it. (this would be done by having a player be in an outside chat relaying information to the player about his enemy's postions and force makeup) Problem: what to do about both players having in game observers and cheating with outside game chat relays like ICQ? Well, this is a very tough one what can I say? One thing that comes to mind is trust. But there is there a better solution? Players may not like this but it could work. The hitch is, there is no minimization. No minimization of CM is allowed. Is it possible?? I am not sure. It is on mac, I believe it can be hard coded that way for mac). If one cannot get out of the game then one cannot use chat apps like ICQ to communicate with observers. Of course this would not work with someone who has two computers or had a telephone. What can we do? I believe it comes down to one thing and one thing only between gamers and that is trust. Regards the Freak. disclaimer: these are just ideas off the top of my head and are not meant as concrete examples on how to implement any of it. I know nothing of programming except little bits of basic and even that is not extensive. [ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Freak ] [ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]
  17. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Tanks also had a speed they could turn in place at. This is also modelled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not sure if the allied sherman tanks were modeled correctly in regards to "turning in place".
  18. Yes agreed. I too would like to see folders within the scenario folder. I think I made a post about this somewhere, probably in the "what would you like to see in CM2 BB thread".
  19. Thats true Slpadragon, BTS stated if I recall correctly, full movie playback will be on the list for CM2 and will try hard to get it in. Weather they do or don't is anyones guess. It sure would add a another dimension to the CM world especially in the ability to see real world strategies applied in CM. I hope it does make it in becasue it would open up CM to be seen differently. This being said, if it becomes to much trouble to implicate into CM2 then we should look foward to it in CMII.
  20. Nevermind. [ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]
  21. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I have never played PBEM with a T-34/76 either. What is your reason for pointing this out? :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The point is simple. Kingtigers are rarely seen at all in CMBO because of its already built in expense. They are there, but very rare. Please refer to my original post on this matter.
  22. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Freak, We just got over trying to slow down the amount of flaming on this board. Please refrain from casting flames in what were otherwise adult conversations. They do not improve the atmosphere of the posting, nor do they transmit any information of use to anyone. In addition, they make the flamer look a bit like an idiot if he strikes first, which you have just done. Please reread Steve Grammonts comments on flaming and take them to heart. There is no nead for this childishness, it only gets in the way of good discussions, as this one has been.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slapdragon, I should have given it more of a Peng flavor to it or maybe put a " :D" or a " "(though that would take away its pengness) (and no I am not a penger) Anyway, my post was just that, to be in jest. Not the other way around! That being said , I had hoped you would respond to my original post in response to your comments. I was looking foward to it [ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]
×
×
  • Create New...