Scipio

First edit : Ferdinand has been added to the Superheavy Class

Never requested, often feared - I have created a new CMBB tank purchase rule similar to the CMBO edition. I have not listed each single tank with all sub-models, but I hope it's clear anyway. If somebody thinks that I have forgotten a special vehicel, or you have any constructive critics, please post @ the WarfareHQ forum. This rule is a first draft, however, I guess it's nearly complete. Finaly, the link : Scipio's CMBB purchase rule This page is also available over the WFHQ-CM section HQ

With all resepect to Charles - I know he has written the full CM code on his own and developed the 3D engine. But maybe BTS should consider to find an additional person to create the new 3D engine. I guess this would also decrease the developing time for CM2. And time is money! I can understand that BTS won't piss off all the people with old & slow PCs, but does it necessarily mean that those with better PCs must suffer from this? This is a very personal view, but it sucks when I have a some thousand dollar machine, and my most prefered game has no benefit from it. From what I can see, CM doesn't works significant better then it did on my old 1000 MHz machine. Indeed I have now more problems then I had before. [ July 04, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Well, I asked those who should know : ATI (producer of the Radeon chips). The answer was short and simple : Radeon cards can support fog table emulation via DirectX. Sounds to me like they won't include it into new drives, cause it ain't necessary. Does this mean that Radeon users have to wait for the engine rewrite, what means 2+ years?

I found this on the FAQ page. Now I'm seriously surprised. From other games I often read that hints about performance issues that tell me to en-/ or disable the fog table with RadeonTeaker program (what is indeed possible, but with no effect in CM) - so I assume the Radeon has one? BTW, is the 'fog table emulation' not a part of DirectX, too, even in Version 6.x? Sorry if I'm wrong [ July 01, 2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Hm... so simple 2D content kills my machine? What seriously surprised me, I used a Geforce4 4600Ti before I upgraded to the Radeon - and there is NO better performance in CM - and I don't even play with FSAA on, because of the text problem, and I also can't see fog anymore in CM. BTW, to turn on/off graphical details doesn't improve my perfomance. BTS fix or something!? But I can run - for example - 'Operation Flashpoint' with 6x FSAA really smooth with full details on, what was completly impossible with the old graphic card.

I remember that once was said that CM is the game with the most polygons in a game. I wonder - how many polygons do we have in the greatest scenario/operation 'To the Volga'? Has somebody ever attempted to calculate them? I was very surprised that even my AMD XP2400+, 1 GB of DDR-RAM & a 128MB Radeon9700pro (transforms 325 million polygons per second) is unable to handle this.

1) If you set month to something beyound May (for example June) and year to random, you can end in June (or later) 45 - without any available forces, of course 2) When you setup a QB (noticed this as Axis in a PBEM) and set your own forces to autoselection and your opponents forces to human selection, you start with the setup before the turn is send to your opponent, so you can proof your forces and the map before the opponent. After this setup, your opponent can make his selection and then must send you the file back without knowing the map. Then you start again in the setup (if you have placed your troops already, they keep this positions). I'm not sure if it's sheduled that way or not. 3) If you set a nationality for your forces, it's not possible to set the Division type to random. Would be nice if this feature could be added. 4) If temperature is set to random, then this is not saved for the next QB setup. Temperature is always set to the setting of the last QB (for example 'warm') [ June 23, 2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Funny...they have also only 3-man teams like in CM...

Yes, because BTS doesn't support it. But they should.

Mh...I wonder if BTS can't just use the same pink as on the 3D textures to make the text background invisible!?

Why blame ATI? The CM graphics engine is 4 years old. Compared to fast develoment in graphic-card-tech, it's like running Windows95 on a modern computer system.

Have you seen Thin Red Line? There one man sneaks & crawls ahead to find out where the Japanese bunker is. Then he heads back to inform the company. </font>

Maybe I have missed it, or I'm just do stupid to use the search function right... Is sheduled to publish the guide in other languages, and will it be available in former Großdeutschland (Europe), or only as direct order from the US? I better ask before I force all my friends to make a group order with me...

THX, I will check this. BTW, does anyone know if CMBB (or any other game) makes ever use of the AGP feature? AFAIK, the 'only' advantage is that the video card is able to use the RAM memory if the video memory is full...and I have 128 MB of video memory. I have read once that there ar no known games that need so much video Ram, but this info could be outdated. [ May 07, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

CMBB (1.2) sometimes freezes with an Unhandled exception : c000001d at address: 005a3ef5 It happens both in the order and the action phase. I'm not sure about any conspicuous regularities before the error occurs. The background sound is still running, but I can't do anything except to exit to the desktop with the 'Windows' button. Anyone else had this problem?

Cough cough - why don't you go for the T34obr43 with the 76 gun, instead of the 41 model? June 44 -5% (85 +5%); Dec 44 +5% (85 -10%); it is only in 1945 that there is a big difference, and even then variable rarity will probably affect that. The reason the obr41 is extremely rare is that presumably by 1944 there were none of them left. As for the general point - QBs are the competitive part of the game. People will cherry-pick. Play scenarios, or find yourself a PBEM opponent who is interested in exploring these situations and purchase for your battle in the editor. Asking random opponents to go for crap tanks which will almost guarantee them a loss is like asking them to watch the paralympics. It is a laudable and worthy thing, but it is never going to be as popular as the real thing. </font>

Yeah, that's something I never understood. If the CM rarity was supposed to restrict cherry picking...then why are the cherrys always the cheapiest tanks? In a setup I made some days ago, I had T-34/85 at -10% and T-34/76 1941 at +some hundrets%. Who would ever purchase obsolet euipment when he is additonally punished with high purchase costs? I would also like to see that rarity uses avaiable numbers, not an abstract purchase system. What would IMO mean that much eqipment is not available at many times an some parts of the front. When Barbarossa started, only the southern front had T-34 in numbers worth mentioning. But CM rarity shows for the T34 M40 & M41 always +20% for North, Central and South. Also, the first Panthers were only available at Kursk, but you can purchase them in June 43 on all frontlines. Seems to me that the general concept of rarity is wrong.

Mh, wouldn't this mean that a squad commander could take over command already when he is cut of from his platoon HQ for whatever reason?

Why don't you stop to use imputations? To help you: imagine an infantry platoon in a safe place (maybe preparing for an attack). OK? Imagine that it is supported by a tank and this tank is very close. OK? This tank has radio. OK? Will the tank-commander inform the infantry platoon by telling the next infantry unit, where enemy units are, that are reported to him by his HQ tank? Don't you know that it was very common, that inf. platoon commanders ordered one man to the tank, for getting this precious information? </font>

Schoerner How often are you moving your infantry within a 5 meters radius of your tank? BTW, I wouldn't like to see my tanks stopping for a half minute - not even for a second - for a smalltalk if I suspect enemy guns or tanks near by, what is nearly always true in a CM battle :eek: . Redwolf I know the US M48 for example had a telephone on his back, but I never heard the WWII tanks had one, too - but I really don't know this. Which tanks was it? I suspect only some late war models?

This is right, but for all artillery that falls to a random place. Well, but if an artillery order out of LOS can't be corrected without plotting a new target order (even into an LOS area)? Once the target area is out of LOS, a correction order would be always cause the new order with long delay and a new target area (of course random, if the new target is out of LOS, too). Wouldn't this cut the advantage?

Schoerner You seem to miss my point. I wonder if you ever were in or close to a tank with runnning motors. The peoples in the tank need already special communication system to talk to each other, usually some kind of larynx microphones. You are not able to talk to somebody outside, maybe you can SHOUT direct into somebodies ear when he jumps on the tank. That's why I always speak of radios. Try to rise the attention of the TC and give him signals with the hands is the best you can do. I wouldn't see this as a very reliable way of communication. [ April 23, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

I see what you mean, but I guess I had something else in mind. A target correcteion order to an unspotted point (within the normaly allowed correction area) is possible (in reality) and mostly as accurate as a correction to a spotted new target. I didn't meant that a correction order from a point out of LOS to another point (spotted or not) should be accurate, too. The delay might be (maybe - I never tried to correct an unspotted artillery order) shorter, but the accuracy of the second correction will be as worse as it would be to any other unspotted point. In programming terms you need only one or two boolean variables to keep track of it.

I give a correction order from a target in LOS. When the new order is within spotting range, no problem, short delay, good accuracy. When the new order is only one meter out of LOS, a complete new order is plotted. Seems odd to me. Regarding the delay & accuracy - why is a new order plotted? Within the normal range of a correction order it doesn't matter if the new order is in or out of LOS! Nobody from the FO to the gun crew needs more time for the correction (indeed does nobody except the FO even know if they fire with or without LOS). And an FO indeed order not much more then 'range plus 100, 50 to the left). It doesn't matter if he order it with or without LOS. The only thing that would influence this could be the experience of the FO.