Scipio

I now start with Allied uniforms. Free French is already close to release (unhistoric French Western Europe pattern). BTW, someone has Hi-Res Helmets and ammo pouches for me? Both US and UK are wanted. [ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Some fresh faces would be nice, but I can't find something better.

Well, I prefer to send my men with light baggage into critical situations .

I guess a point is : femal and male units have the same combat abilities. A woman can fire a gun or throw a grenade as accurate as any male. And about close combat - I wouldn't underestimate a woman (or man) with a knife or a spade...

Fallschirmjäger Jumpsuit in SplinterB Camo (left) Volkssturm with Tan&Water camo jacket and fieldgrey trousers (right) Download it at WarfareHQ. And don't forget to praise me if you like it [ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Are you on a Mac? If so then that's why. CMMOS doesn't work with Macs. When does it ask for something in the Windows folder?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, not a Mac, but I use a different folder name. It asked for 'CMMOSlog.txt' when I try to start the program. BTW, I've added some sleeves to the Wehrmacht mod - additional to the Gebirgsjäger insignia I have a 'Großdeutschland', a 'Brandenburg' and a Jäger insignia.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Scipio, Do you mind if I do a cut and paste of the web gear that you had on your previous Splinter and Tanwater uniforms?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, but if you want to publish them somewhere, please let me know where, and please make a big link to WarfareHQ. BTW, this CMMOS makes only an error message here, it ask for something in my C:\windows folder - and I don't have c:\windows folder.

Okay, the fantastic four are online at WarfareHQ. Camo headgear is included. Max, I will take a look on the tool, I have downloaded it a few minutes ago. Wasn't here so often in the last days - programming for the club, mod creating and a little tired cause the most discussions run into nothing or feud here (mea culpa ). [ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Ehm, no I haven't seen this new tool already, and I don't know about your rules. [ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: But that's where my CMMOS German set comes in handy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ehm - have I missed something?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: You gonna make matching helmets for all of those? Just take the arm or leg file and make a 128x128 selection and create a new image. Then save it as 5015.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, helmets are no problem, even if I prefer headgear without camo - the reason is - as you surely know - that SS and Wehrmacht both use the same graphic, and I'm to idle to change'em for a scenario every time . But you may note that I don't use fieldgear, except some ammo pouches. Well - for me it's also secondary, I usually don't play with full zoom. Maybe I publish them as they are, and everyone can attach what they want.

Hi folks, I have a design for a new winter camo smock - guarenteed 100% unhistoric, cause it's based on the modern German desert camo. Problem - I like to design camo smocks, but I'm a little bit bored when I should put the fieldgear on. Someone want do this? Drop me a line. Here are two other: The left is based on a Bulgarian Forest camo and similar to the German WWII Splinter camo, the other is an Italian SanMarco-Marine camo. [ 09-06-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tecumseh: And in the orders phase. When targeting or using the LOS tool every vehicle's dynamic location would have to be considered. i think maybe this is where the real problem is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I agree. But that don't make it better - in the order phase we have no moving units. So once calculated, the position of the vehicel is 'fixed'. And especially a wreck is a fixed object. And I want to say, we don't talk about something that once maybe could have happen in the war. It was a common pratice that infantry approach behind the tank. [ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: So what does Ops Flash do under the hood? ... Seems it has a non-locational armour model, so that will make things easier, and funnily enough as soon as you get into an overview perspective on the screenshots you have fog in the background. Hmm, I wonder why that is... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Under the hood, OpFla has the base grid for the hole landscape in system memory. And that the landscape disappears in 'fog' make it very realistic. When I setup a QB, I have no infos about the enemy nor the map when I purchase, but then I have full visible, detailed map that can be explored from one end to the other! That's so realistic! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Damage model, Tac AI, all that stuff?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed is CM much better in damage model, and the TacAI can't be compared for some resons. But all the calculations are made independent from the 'movie'. So that should have absolutly no influence on the graphics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 'Similar maps/landscape' uh, not the ones in the screenshots, sorry. CMBO maps are more detailed than that, much more. Also, what is maximum size you can go in Operation Flashpoint regarding units?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I propose that you don't assess OpFla with screenshots. The CM screenshots wer absoluty deterrent for me, it takes some weeks til I was willing to download the demo. You have very much units running around, and they look much more realistic. So please don't come up with the number of poligons. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Bad graphics because it is programmed on a Mac - that is a classic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who said that? I meant the 3D engine was originally programed on a Mac - or is this wrong? And the CM 3D engine is not the best in the world. [ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diceman: That's the official line, and going by how slow the frame rates can get on my machine with a realy large map with lots of smoke, I believe it. CM can simulate truely huge environments, and that requires a tremendous amount of polygons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure if it can be compared, but - if I take a look Operation Flashpoint with similar (and gigantic) maps/landscape, more detailed buildings, also lot's of units running around...and it's running mutch better on my machine at the same graphic settings as CM. Even if I only play a very small scenario. And CM displays 'only' a precalculated movie, not a real time action.

Mmmh - I sometimes think the 3D engine of CM isn't so high end as the gameplay of CM. If I compare it with other games which displayes much more details and 3D objects... I can play most 3D games with full details smooth in 1600x1200x32, while I still have small problems in CM at 1200x1024x32 and below. Maybe it's because CM was originally written for Macs?

Would be a nice idea if a bridge can be used as VL for the attacker - I mean the bridge itself, not place an VL flag on it. Sense : bridges are very important targets. If the bridge is taken undamaged, the VL points goes to the attacker, is it destroyed or still held by the defender, they are lost. Of course it would work only with heavy stone bridges, all other bridges are to easy to destroy.

I wonder why a tank/wreck don't block LOS, and why can a tank/wreck not used for cover? Will this be changed in CMBO?

Good question - we use special FO vehicels and tanks today - were they already in use in WWII? And BTW, I wonder anyway why embarked units in general can't fire

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Never mind that, what about the 32-pounder gun? 3.7in, it was slated to appear on the Tortoise heavy tank (assault gun really, much like the Jagdtiger in concept) which was designed in 1942. Tortoise never made it and the 32-pounder gun never appeared. This, of course, brings us back to the tank design issue: we never had a tank during the war actually capable of carrying such a big gun, hence our tanks were always underarmed, bar the few that took the 17-pounder, and even that was a stretch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the Turtoise had a speed of 12mph, the Black Prince 11mph - the Jagdtiger 23mph, the Panther 30mph. Sounds easy to bring some Panthers behind them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: You can't generalise like this. Some of the British support tanks, notably the Matilda II and Churchill, were very well armoured for their time. The cruiser tanks were very fast, but under-armed and -armoured. We later decided that speed was the least desirable aspect, hence the Chieftain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I didn't generalized, David, I've written 'mostly'. But that's only two models, and they were also extremly slow. But to reach the hand - IMO one of the best British designs was the Cromwell series that can be compared to the PzIV, and especially in the role as close support tank it was even better...slightly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: As for Scipio, the victim mentality doesn't quite work here. Other countries may not have wanted to let Hitler build up a military, but to them that was a damn sight better than fighting another Somme; and Hitler himself didn't want to go to war till at least 1942.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Victim? Who feels like a victim? I'm on the side of the winners, I don't need to live in nazi Germany, thanks god. Just between you and me - black uniform don't fits me so well, and I'm allergic vs Zyklon B .

Were the British tanks bad? Well, maybe they wasn't real bad - only that most others were better. The German and Russian tanks were surely state of art, also the US had some good designs. Compared to that I would say: the typical British tanks was to slow, with much mechanical problems and not so good armed as it was necessary and mostly to bad armored. AND - the look of the most British tanks was absolutly ugly :eek: ! [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Should Germany be revered for excelling in the art of invading other people's countries and destroying their armies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Buddy, who do you think allowed Hitler to build up the military? Who made compromisses when Hitler has taken Austria, Czecheslovakia, the Rhineland? Who declared war, but keep sitting on the ass when Hitler invades Poland? What do you think would be the colour of the Europian flag if Germany hadn't slowed the communism? Yes - we did all the crimes, we invaded the all the countries, but PLEASE do not forget - you needed us to do that. Only that Hitler wasn't so good to control as the Western Allies expected. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Should Britain be criticised for spending money on better things? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You mean good things like the colonies? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But the Germans were intending to fight – we were not. If we'd known what was coming we would have designed better tanks, and done absolutely everything else differently, but that's hindsight for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Haha - the peaceloving Brits with the biggest battlefleet on Earth in the 1930s! If you want to continue this, let's move to the general board. This has nothing to do with CM. [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

No, nothing else is in the formula. Vanir, thanks for the hint - I thought scenarios with only one side loosing a jeep in the whole battle are usual I just want to hear some opions about this: is a victory calculation, mostly based on the pure balance of casualities a good way? It appears very simple, but to be true, I'm not so sure how else it could be done [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]