Warmonger

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FurballMagGP: as long as I dont start getting porn/marketing/donation spam from the account.... NG's are much better, imho.....great idea <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks allot friend, hope to see you there. The 'key' now is for people who read this to send an email or phone their Internet Service Provider ( ISP ) to have alt.game.combat-mission added to their ISP's Usenet server. It is called propagation and allows you and others on the same Usenet server to use the newsgroup from now on. This should insure the success of the group. http://www.geocities.com/combat_mission1/Charter.htm Once you get it on your Usenet server, start an interesting thread and get people talking there. Best regards, Warmonger

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Ah, but look at what you just wrote: COMP.SYS.IBM.PC Lots of people here use Macintosh AND I think that many will see a new Combat Mission newsgroup as a good thing!! Close Combat has one!! (or a few)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed, the comp.sys. group is poorly named. Newbies will never find it. This group has Combat Mission built right into the name. Unfortunately, a troll is at the group spamming it so just ignore the spam and start an interesting thread. I am confident the ng has a bright future with your support. Regards, Warmonger

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Cripes, how many different forums do we need?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hello, In this case, there is only one Usenet newsgroup dedicated to Combat Mission. That is: alt.games.combat-mission Other newgroups are just a mish-mash of every strategy game imaginable. CM is now becoming quite popular and deserves it's own newsgroup. Go there and post and interesting topic. Contact your ISP and have the group added. It is good for Combat Mission and good for the people who wish to discuss CM. Thx for you input. Regards, Warmonger

Please cross-post this message to other Web Boards or Usenet groups where Combat Mission is discussed. A new Usenet group has been created: alt.games.combat-mission The http homepage for this group is here: http://www.geocities.com/combat_mission1/Charter.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lanzfeld: Is the only American AA units the 40mm and the 90mm? I thought the US had a halftrack with Quad-Fifties on it but I cant find it in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is this one: http://www.geocities.com/alt_games_combat_mission/Half_Track.jpg

command not cammand

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: Warmonger I did design a WWI scenario for CM A hundred Germans on a slight rise with a double belt of wire and trenches made of rubble.They have 7 MG pill boxes & 3 FO's I made two versions, one had 1200 British soldiers attacking A second with 900 British infantry and 4 Kangaroos (closest thing to a WWI tank I could find!) I ran the scenario 9 times. The Brits won once but took 400 casualties and the other eight times they stalled at the wire and squads getting thru were machined gun by the support trench. I ran the tank version 7 times with the Brits winning all but once (in that one all four tanks bogged or were hit by artillery) The battles at the wire were intense but when they would break thru (while the artillery from both sides beat down) the support line would cut them to pieces. Mortars and flamethrowers were usefull if they could survive the barrage. The tanks ability to run thru the wire and directly machine gun the Germans in the "rubble" trenches was key. All in all, ghastly! Ernst Junger would have loved it!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not sure if this is a positive or a negative. It sounds like the players would have a ball playing that scenario

They are certainly over using the Padlock. For instance they padlocked two of mine in two days and there was no spam in either. They just felt 'in their opinion' it should be closed ! That's not right ! Regards, Warmonger

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by harlock: The only way a Geforce would off load the CPU would be if the game supports T&L which CM1 doessn't and there is a debate if it a hardware T&L support game would really look any better then the current software base. The T&L doesn't improve frame rate per-say it allows more lighting and Triangles to be drawn without a frame rate hit. It doesn't improve frame rate across the board. If the CPU is slower then T&L of the Geforce when doing T&L then the Geforce would help and only if the game supports T&L via hardware(Geforce) If you look at the benchmarks between 32megs and 64megs there isn't much difference and this type of game there wouldn't be any difference because the game doesn't push a large amount of graphics quickly. I think you've bought into the NVidia's marketing. Harlock<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "CM1 doesn't support T&L" My point exactly...why ?? Read the thread header "Room For Improvement". "The T&L doesn't improve frame rate" That's correct, but that is not what I said. A GPU free's up the CPU so it can work on increased frame rate, or any other tasks assigned. "there wouldn't be any difference because the game doesn't push a large amount of graphics quickly." Yes, again my point exactly, "Room For Improvement" there is room for improvement ! They are NOT utilizing the hardware that is available, lots of room for improvement. If they target their graphics to a 64 meg potential environment, the graphics improve, more polygons, more triangles, better graphics, better flares, better smoke, better running water, better looking soldiers and the list goes on...64 megs can used up quickly in a game like CM if the programmers decide to do so ! "I think you've bought into the NVidia's marketing" Don't worry, I do my homework before I give anyone my money Thank you for keeping me on my toes though. For anyone interested in this post, there is a nice graph at the bottom of the following web page that describes this post nicely: http://www.asus.com/Products/Addon/Vga/agpv6600d/per.html Regards, Warmonger

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: "so: should we go like monks over ancient religious texts and try and argue that bts will design for a 32mb vid card or that they will try to satisfy lower end systems?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My suggestion would be that when your writing CM 2, with a release date of the summer of 2001 that you write it for a 64 meg video card. By then they should be the next standard for video cards and with the GPU on the Geforce 256 card it takes the drag off the CPU, so you do not have to worry about framerates. I do not know what you are targeting now, but if it is 16 mgs or 32 mgs, your missing the target for CM 2 like you did for CM 1. Also, backward compatibility to at least 32 or 16 megs would be important. Regards, Warmonger

Guy w/Gun stated: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a Geforce 32mb ddr. While its not the most powerful card anymore, it's still VERY good. Do i want better graphics? No. I think if there were better graphics, other things would suffer. Framerate, game speed, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a common misconception, in fact, the new Geforce 256 64 mgs with its' Graphic Processing Unit ( GPU ) on board takes the workload from the CPU and allows it to function without drag. I find it rather strange that people say they do not want better graphics ! If this were a fact why not stop at 4 mg cards or play 2 D wargames !? This argument is similiar to the to the Luddites - Here are the facts: A short time ago CM1 was written for a 4 meg video card, now 32 megs are the standard and a month or two more the new standard shall be 64 megs and six months later 128 megs.... Knowledge and hardware should continue to improve, so why shouldn't the CM program continue to evolve... it would be nonsensical if it did not...if it doesn't it shall be replaced by another software company...we all know that ! This is not to say they couldn't write software for 64 mgs and still allow a 16 mg card to be used, so don't panic ! Right now you can use CM 1 with a 4 mg card although 16 mgs is recommended. Anyone here who says they do not want CM to improve its graphics, may wish to reconsider there position ! Regards, Warmonger

Hello group, We are all very happy that there is a three D strategy wargame ! However, the graphics in CM 1 are when compared to other 3D games only average, I don't think they even use bumps. Now that the engines for CM are written, perhaps they may take CM 2 to the next level. Write the program for a 64 meg video card, don't worry people will buy one ! Push the graphics to the limit. Interested to hear whether the group agrees or disagrees with these points. Thx, Warmonger

After reading some reviews, with the GPU that GEFORCE has it is clearly leading in the video card market. Go here and take a look ! http://www.nvidia.com/Products/geforce2gts.nsf/action.html I hope the authors of CM are aware of the new hardware capabilities and utilize it !

I do not have a problem with CM 2, it is already in development and sounds interesting. But CM 3 & 4 is just a re-hash of CM 1 & 2...why not try something else. In regard to the nay sayers about WW I, let me state the following: - All nay sayers have left out mention about the tanks: Until the tank rumbled, the front may have moved 100 metres per day and then the first day the tanks rolled, the front line move 6 miles !! So please do not tell me a WW I scenario is just another "shoot'em up" I think it would be great !! - All nay sayers have stated that it would be boring and the casualties would be to high ! Yes the casualties would be high...but that is war, this is the WW I scenario...high body counts, digging under ground tunnels and placing explosives under the enemy, bi-planes dropping bomblets, think of the old artillery pieces off board, how about a "Sturmpanzerwagen A7V" quite literally a giant steel box with many machine gun ports on tracks 'imagine' the pain you could inflict on the Allies....now that is fun !! How about a pair of "Tank MkV" crashing through the barb wire leading an infantry assault or storming a pill box on a hill, with the old rifles and minimal support !! GIVE ME A WW I SCENARIO OR GIVE ME DEATH... In regard to the modern combat version of CM, a modern army now considers the front to be mobile and extends fifty kilometre's deep. I believe somebody mentioned the front is 2 to 4 km, this is simply incorrect. Regards, Warmonger

At the 11th hour on the morning of November 11, 1918, the "war to end all wars" WWI ended. Long trenches with those glorious machine guns and hulking armour crashing through fortified trenches and they themselves becoming entangled in tank traps ! Now this is a classic and 'must do' for CM 3. Perhaps, we could start an 'Internet poll' and let the endusers have some input. In an article written by 'David Filip' with regard to an email interview with the President of BTS, 'Charles Moylan', he was quoted as stating the following: ------- The next game will take place on the Russian Front from 1941 to 1945, pitting the German Whermacht against the Soviet Red Army juggernaut. I can't wait to see masses of T-34's racing across the steppes to do thunderous battle with Tiger and Panthers. It will be tremendous [...] After that, plans are not solidified but we'll most likely visit the North African and Mediterranean theaters for Combat Mission 3, and the early-war Blitzkrieg for CM4 [...] but other periods are still possible. I think the most likely is a modern-era game pitting M1A1 Abrams tanks and modern infantry against T-80s, helicopters, wireguided missiles and more ------- One problem with the American's against anyone, no equipment can match it ! In the Iraqi war they lost zero M1A1 Abrams, although some did take some hits. Regards, Warmonger