Scipio

Don't care what other people say. If you want to play on a ladder, just do it. If you don't want to, let it be. Who cares? BTW; the best ladder is of course the CM ladder at WarfareHQ BTW - Seanachai, nice talking, but there's one thing I would like to know: what's wrong on playing for victory?

If you just need 'something' for your SS in winter, then be happy : 'someone else' has made this already some time ago.

You shoudl email the turn to BTS, if you still have it.

Will we be able to continue our running PBEM games in v1.1, or must we finish them in v1.0? [ November 12, 2002, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Mh, I hope I get them all together again... 1208 - 1211 1217 - 1219 1550 - 1569 634 - 640 647 - 658 679 - 708 The trees uses a slightly different file convention. For the houses go to TomsCMHQ (sorry I haven't link at the moment)

Mh, I'm have noticed that we have two different snow tile sets in CMBB - is one for light and one for deep snow? If so, this pics are great as light snow!

AFAIK 1400 - 1457 in CMBB 1400 - 1442 in CMBO I have not checked how they match weather/daytime

The Pacific war (1942+) has a problem, it is always the same. No terraine variations, Japanese with unbreakable moral, but always bad equipment - especially tanks, and US with endless heavy support and equipment. If we go to Asia, then I would favor Korea. Great varitions in equipment and terraine. And it was one of the last 'real' wars, where both sides were at least to some degree equalized. Vietnam is BS. How should this work in CM? There were nearly no open battles. Even Tet was not much more then a giant guerilla attack. Or should I have missed the great NVA vs US tank battles? I guess the next one will be early war with Poland, France, Norway etc or Mediterraine with Greece, North Africa & Italy. However, much more important is a complete new engine.

Mh, I hope I get them all together again... 1208 - 1211 1217 - 1219 1550 - 1569 634 - 640 647 - 658 679 - 708 The trees uses a slightly different file convention. Maybe I should post them, but they are all copyrighted originals...and I fear to ask the baldheaded bouncer for permission.

I spend some time and copied CMBB gras, trees etc over to my CMBO folder. Is this cool, or what? The original CMBO graphics... ...and the CMBB landscape (the houses are from different mods, IRRC partially Maddogs and some others) Unfortunatly I don't play CMBO anymore since I own CMBB...

I just spend a few hours and copied CMBB gras, trees etc over to my CMBO folder. Is this cool, or what? The original CMBO graphics... ...and the CMBB landscape (the houses are from different mods, IRRC partially Maddogs and some others)

I guess the problem is that BTS want run the game on older machines with TNT graphic cards, too. Well, I can understand this, not everybody has a high-end PC. But I wonder why they does not solve this problem like most other games - with custom screen resolutions and colour depth setting. To turn of the bells and whistles seem to have only a very limited influence.

Just make a Google search with 'detonator 41.03'. There are many places. BTW, it's currently only available for Windows NT/2000/XP

I guess you miss the most important improvement, but obvisiously this can't be shown on screenshots - the game still runs smooth, not like a slideshow. My old hardware was of course able to use FSAA and AF, but the speed was just...you know!?

Yes

without FSAA & AF with 6xFSAA & 8xAF Rate yourself. Look especially on the tracks and the barell. Using a MSI 4600Ti 128MB, Detonator 41.03 driver [ November 08, 2002, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

AFAIK, there's only one known pevert at BTS (we all know his name) - I don't know if he is criminal, too, but I really wouldn't be surprised... :cool:

***forget it*** [ October 31, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

I'm a bit confused about that, mostly because my lack of knowledge. Is curved armor an advantage or not? I always thought it is an advantage, and AFAIK, most post WWII Soviet tanks had curved armored turrets? Please enlight me with wisom.

But this, while in itself a correct abstraction, makes the problem of "everybody has the same turret size in comparion to its hull" worse. This item actually increases my desire to push for the feature we discussed here. Is there a chance that a CMBB patch will include the "small turret" attribute for a few tanks if I: - come up with high-quality-drawing (good books) based real numbers of relation of turret size to hull size - the vehicle is common - the vehicle has a weaker turret than hull I have all the Spielberger books and a random other bunch which would allow me to do a concrete calculation not based on photos, but drawings (usually Doyle). If needed I can walk around with a folding rule in Panzermusuem Munster.</font>

Andrew, I must confess that the guns did so in CMBO, but I'M not sure they do in CMBB - I just assume they do!? If not, than it would be just a second thing that I would call wrong. BTW, another thing with Flamethrowers that I have noticed. I play the Vienna map as quick battle, my oppo has used a Flamethrower somewhere, I assume with area target order, too. It was far away from my troops, and surely out of my LOS. Anyway, I was able to locate it on the map, and also could see which building he was targeting. I guess it was just a soundspotting, but the informations I received are a bit to much for this.

The best brief description I've yet seen of the AI as attacker. Though the AI defends better than it attacks, it sometimes loses a substantial part of its force in hapless, piecemeal counterattacks when it would do better to hunker down in cover and shoot at your incoming forces.</font>

In addition, try the 'assault' command instead of just targeting.</font>

I think a better help would be to improve the editor. Some kind of scripting would really help, as well as 'triggered events', the kind of 'reinforcement 2 will not appear before VL xy is taken'. I guess that's something for the engine rewrite.