Tris

Can't beat a little officer humor! I concur that squad NCO's should have a more significant role other than the loss of the submachine gun--which ought to be picked up by someone, as long as we're on it, same same for the BAR. Anyway, if we rate sarge for command and morale then we'd have to rate the squad's corporal as well, which seems to imply individual characteristics for all those mosquito wings and E1's. So while I can see the advantage and recognize the shortcoming of the game's present treatment I really doubt if a simple sergeant rating will do. Also, I have a feeling way down low this ain't gonna fly very far fast at BTS, but we'll see.

These assets are expensive out of proportion to their normal contribution, but I'm sure BTS took this into consideration and views it as an issue of play balance. At this point in the war over France Allied air superiority was such that if it were to be modelled historically, say, on a random basis vis-a-vis weather, you'd see 100 Allied fighter bombers for every sortie by the Luftwaffe. Now that's history and so I could easily live with it (in fact I'd be just the person to argue strenuously for it if I bothered at all), but then where would be the game? I think BTS could offer this sort of treatment as an option with no dire effect, but I think it likely soon enough most players would eschew it accordingly (due to above noted play-balance issue).

One disadvantage I've noticed with the grids is that they disappear at resolutions higher than 1152x864. Has anyone else noticed this? Well, you know (logically) that they must still be there, yes? I run my game at 1280 x 1024 32 bpp with a modfied Richard Tremblett hi-res subdued velvet w/faded white grids grass set and all's well. Sounds like your system (quite possibly your monitor) is struggling to keep up with the demands you place on it. Afterall, you're asking it to push around a lot of small colored pixels.

A few more entries come to mind. While these are war films they are somewhat offbeat with their treatments for one reason or another. The Train From Here to Eternity Hell's Angels The Bridges at Toko-Ri The Bridge on the River Kwai Stalag 17 The Caine Mutiny Castle Keep Go Tell the Spartans The last two films star Burt Lancaster (as do John Frankenheimer's intriguing The Train, ably supported by Paul Scofield and Jeanne Moreau, and Fred Zinnemann's equally passionate if more jaded From Here to Eternity with Montgomery Clift and Frank Sinatra) and might seem almost bizarre today in their presentations given Hollywood's standards over the years. If you have not viewed Hell's Angels you owe it to yourself--early Howard Hughes fare with a kink. <g> The other titles are classics in their own rights. Must haves, all. P.S. I'm thinking about throwing in The Young Lions, but I don't know. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 12-03-2000).]

His work is outstanding, too. Just look at those vehicles--some detail over here, a touch of color there . . . .

So basically what we need is a mixture of the two! That (combined with about five times as many building tiles ) would amount to perfection. (butimnotholdingmybreath...headded)

Magua's work is as good as anything going and utterly superior to most. Panzertruppen's buildings are beautiful, no denying that, with lots of interesting detail, but Magua's work has a charm of its own just in its simplicty. Also, the coloring's what I'm looking for as it captures the ambience of our period accurately. Of course that's a personal thing, but if you'd visit Europe and poke around some I think you'd agree.

Actually Patriot plays it fast and loose with history all the way through. It's okay but not a great film. Great films were never the "norm," of course, but they're harder to find now than before. (There are reasons for that but I won't get into it.) I forgot one recent film that is great by any standard, though I don't know if it's a war film, per se. Put Schindler's List up on my post somewhere.

Okay, Alan's wife gave him 15 minutes with me this afternoon (we actually took 22 ) and everything seems to work allright. The program runs fast and so far it's been stable. Chat's fine, too. That character below the tilde (whatever it's called) is in a convenient position, at least for the North American keyboard/character set. And the walkie-talkie "squawk" is a nice touch. Good show!

I'm not sure what's available for DVD, but here's a short list of excellent war films: Battleground Command Decision Stalingrad Twelve O'Clock High Falling more in the category of "Adventures" would be: The Guns of Navarone Where Eagles Dare Ice Station Zebra

Good questions, Chief, no good answers here. But don't feel bad. I have a very large scenario that needs to be stripped of a lot of M3A1'a now and re-equipped with M3's. **** happens.

Well, I doubt if the secretaries could have cared less, and no doubt you make a mean cup of coffee.

Sounds like I won't need it, either, as all worked before without. My new DSL service just might, though, so it's good know. Thanks for the feedback. (Though I'll be back to whine on Sunday after my next scheduled session if it still doesn't work. )

Okay, that's clear enough. Why the leading 0 to the address? Is that a special requirement of Directplay, too?

Your system must either have another IP adaptor (another Modem, network card, AOL Drivers etc..) and as such CM is only reporting the First IP address it sees. Winipcfg lets you list ALL the IP's assigned to your system (thats what the little down arrow to the right of the white text field does). I do have an ethernet card waiting for my DSL to arrive, and sure enough, according to WINIPCFG that is the address reported by your program. (That's a phantom address, by the way. The card is not hooked up to anything except one of my PCI slots.) Three questions: 1) Why wouldn't the program also report more than one address if more than one address is present? 2) Do you mean to say that I would need to uninstall my ethernet PCI card in order to play CMBO over the net, or at the least in order that I might establish a session myself? 3) Would it be possible to have your program search for all addresses the way WINIPCFG apparently does, then allow the user to choose? As to the continuation of a PBEM, you will need to SAVE it in the older version of CM (ALt-s) then load it into Public Beta and when prompted select TCP/IP as the connection method. Thats all there is to it. We did that right away. No problem, Matt. But when I click on that file (assuming it's the right file--the only one I'm offered says AUTOSAVE with the scenario name after it) I'm told by your program that it's unable to establish an address. (I forget the exact error message now, but it's generated by your program.) What's up with that?

I tried to start my first internet session with a buddy this evening but the program gave me the following address TCP/IP: 169.254.24.169 The problem is when I run WINIPCFG I'm told my address is 216.192.33.38. I am confident the latter is the correct address. I've played many TCP/IP sessions of Age of Sail with various people and never had a hitch. Any idea what the deal is? Also, if this is spelled out in the patch README I failed to catch it: how doe sone continue an existing PBEM game over the Net? Thanks.

It isn't the texture on the tile but that when laid together the edges of rough tiles do not meld the way they would if the tiles were woods or tall pine. Rough tiles when laid leave a small border all around of clear terrain. Try it yourself. Run a row of rough tiles completely across a map, set some armor up on one side, then order the armor to the other side. The armor will have small difficulty finding the right paths.

I was way off. I thought Steve meant to say that instead of one unit per tile side with a 10x10 scheme it would then amount to ten units per tile side--in other words, instead of one tile there would now be 100 within that same space! If he referred to meters as the game measures them per tile side, if he is only talking about a decrease (increase in granularity) by a factor of 50%, then while this would amount to an improvement it would in no way approach the sort of improvement I envisaged and had hoped for, as this must then still leave all sorts of problems for the scenario designer. Oh well, back to bug eyes and lots of overview. P.S. Yes, if he meant that 10m per tile side would be the new tile dimension then that would represent a four-fold increase in tiles to work with for the same area over what we have now. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-30-2000).]

While I agree with this in general, I don't think we have to improve the resolution THAT much in order to solve most of the problems. If we used a 10x10 grid it would be possible to have fixed Bullethead's problems completely. That is only a 2 fold increase in terrain resolution, which is the minimal improvement allowable (well, from a sensible approach anyhoo). I personally would like to see a 5x5 or even a 2x2 system, but even 10x10 would be a HUGE improvement for map design. I haven't the necessary background to come up with the terminology (jargon) of computer graphical design, Steve. I meant to refer to greater resolution as it appears to the user on screen, not to the way the mathematical model works internally. I understand your example (I think--you've given it a couple of other places), but unless I'm mistaken the same humps and points would dot the map landscape once you examined it closely, though to a (much) lesser degree (assuming a 10x10 display). If there's a CAD program around that can accurately depict ground contours down to the smallest detail I haven't seen it at work (I've seen some CAD's which do depict ground contours, certainly, but not to depict each ebb and eddy of the landscape down to small stones and folds in the grass at one-foot intervals); even if such a program exists it's doubtless a standalone job, not something used to get a scenario editor for some piece of recreational software along its way. Regardless of that, I wanted to mainly address the CMBO scenario editor as it actually exists, possibly to offer practical (and theoretical) considerations as to how users might improve scenarios through the creation of better (more aesthetically pleasing and functional) maps. By the way, wouldn't a 10x10 approach represent precisely one order of magnitude improvement over what we have now? If not, where am I wrong? Keep in mind you speak to an old sportswriter with z-e-r-o experience in your field . . . but a still healthy curiosity . . . and ego

Also, request Win 98 SE when purchasing your system, as Win ME has some bugs. As if Win98 SE does not. Agreed re video cards. The TNT2 technology is great but as you note getting long in the tooth. However, unless you're gonna pop for the next best nVIDIA tech (GeForce) with 64 MB of DDRRAM you'd probably be better off sticking with the TNT2 until nVIDIA releases its next-generation card. While I'm happy with the GeForce GTS I now own, my Diamond Viper (32 MB) ran without a hitch. Were it not for the excessive pixels to push around in CMBO from all these new hi-res mods I would not have changed video cards at this time. Re vendors: unless you're a do-it-yourself sort of guy it's not a bad idea to find (if possible) a reliable local shop to build your computer system, assuming it's willing to offer reasonable support after sale. If you read some, hang around while these people work on your unit and ask the odd question or two it's possible to learn a lot about computers quickly. Turnaround is minimized, also. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-30-2000).]

I happen to have an operation map that begs for a battalion-scale battle. Let me know if you want to use it. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-30-2000).]

As it turns out there are quirks to the editor which allow the scenario designer to "cheat" here and there (these I only discovered through the process of design oversight) with changes of elevations from tile to tile in mind, but it seems to be the case that the maximum deviation can only be two tile elevation values viewed diagonally, and if both elevation value changes lie within the same tile than only that one contiguous tile may contain the difference. The optimal approach for a designer coming in, should he wish to avoid the unhappiest realization, is to resolve to plan ahead for such elevation discrepancies, think instead from the start in terms of broad, shallow slopes whenever roads, housing and water tiles are considered for placement. That is to say, the designer is well advised to visualize, as far as this might be possible, where he wishes to place his towns and roads systems and river gullies before he actually begins work on the map. Now, as I assume 0 elevation for these latter tiles with regard to rivers, per se (it is allright to use higher elevations for water tiles to represent highland lakes and ponds), and given one of the two extremes this elevation value represents, I nominate river gullies as likely the most critical map terrain feature--afterall, around and above these tiles everything else will be asked to revolve. If a designer were to conceptualize a map with no rivers to worry about then roads/housing might well assume the next order of importance with planning in mind, but in that case I would suggest to the designer that he step back first and get in his mind a broad overview of the map, satisfy himself that his higher elevations are where he generally wants these to be with relationship to one another, all of this considered in relation to the tactical demands of the scenario at hand. After the designer is satisfied with the implications of this overview he can proceed to approach the intertwined problem which rivers, roads/housing, tile/elevation realities tend to pose with larger confidence that his method will probably minimize false starts, save time and frustration making the inevitable corrections along the way. The above note re "cheating" the tile elevation system only wanted to reference the appearance of related problems as these bear in relation to the use of clear terrain tiles in juxtaposition to a road system, where everything sticks out like a sore thumb. Sometimes these and similar design issues can be masked through the use of certain coverage tiles--brush is a logical candidate here. This effort to "window dress" will not get around flat versus jagged road beds, however; road tiles need to be laid with care; a firm resolve to get this aspect of the map mainly correct before proceeding to other projects will save much grief. Which brings us approximately back to that overview process the designer (hopefully) went to the pains to make coming in: an ideal result of this effort would be to have afforded the map enough breathing room at each quarter to ensure the space necessary to allow incorporation of all desired map terrain without causing eventual displacement of our river/road/housing network. Finally, while we speak to a problem extant of the editor in terms of its design limitations, these same shortcomings might be employed to achieve spectacular results if the changes in elevation are rendered severely enough. Where it might cast a wholly undesirable result to place a couple of 7 woods tiles next to a few 5 clear terrain tiles all sandwiched around a combination of 4/5/6 road-bed tiles, it is quite possible to run that same road bed (I would advise in this case to make the road bed one elevation or another) directly past a monstrous cliff where the elevation change runs from, say, six to 19 in the run of 20 lateral meters, and with breathtaking effect. Furthermore, it is then possible to dress that new cliff overhanging your road with rough terrain (be careful with the mods you employ in this area--some work entirely better visually than others) or brush as your tasste dictates, and soon enough your map, at least in that particular area, will assume dramatic change, possibly with compelling appeal. You can go nuts with this, too, but as a "touch" here and there this technique often pays handsome dividends. Bottom line: planning is essential to harmonious design, and this will not change no matter how finely BTS decides to one day finely tune the granularity of its terrain tile building blocks--any change along that line will only afford relative design relief unless the change affected reaches an order of magnitude, with issues of terrain elevation discrepancy always in play, albeit to a smaller degree. Improvement is still longed for here, as it must offer welcome aid to our scenario designer with road bed placement and housing dispersals in mind, but the main benefit realized will most likely be expressed in a decrease of time required to slap together a reasonably eye-pleasing and utilitarian map. An end result having anything to do with "art" will require greater investment of time and of effort, always. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-30-2000).]

Well, you sparked enough curiosity within me to seek an answer to the question you posed, Maj. Bosco. So, it's basically the same test as before, but this time we will only run four M4 Sherman tanks over the 1000m dry grass course. Also, for this test each tank was afforded an acceleration of phase of approximately 30m. The M4 Sherman tank ordered to Fast required 12 seconds to reach this new nominal start mark, Reverse required 16 seconds (Hunt :19 and Move :24). Results Speed Time Td FAST 3:23 :08 REVERSE 4:45 :06 HUNT 6:12 :08 MOVE 10:40 :03 KEY: Td Time differential from previous test The result for the Fast and Move ordered tanks looks about right, as we would expect a longer acceleration period for a tank trying to gear all the way up to top end than for one merely inched along. I do wonder, however, if :03 is an accurate gauge of how much time it requires a tank standing still to lurch into "walking" gear. Of more surprise is the fact it required the faster Reverse-ordered Sherman less time to reach its ordered speed than the slower Hunt-ordered Sherman. The discrepancy isn't great, and keep in mind that this test was performed by only one ordered tank at each speed, but we would have expected to see a :02 difference between the two times rendered in reverse order. What we do not know is whether a 30m acceleration zone is sufficient for tanks to reach their maximum speeds for the respective orders. I think it is safe to say that this distance is sufficient for Move and probably sufficient for Hunt; it might not be for Reverse and Fast. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-29-2000).]

The apparent increase in the speed of foot travellers over the second half of a 1000m course is the only thing I found truly amiss from the few tests I ran the other night, Steve; at that, my sample is small enough to where the results might not be (though they probably are) representative. I haven't tested this yet but I'm (mildly) curious to see whether if the course were increased to 2000m the speed of travellers would increase even more still--or perhaps the speed would begin to decrease at some mark along the course. For that matter I'd like to see if fatigue might eventually become a dynamic, if uphill/woods/marsh travelling affects the issue, etc. What effect any such data derived would have in practical game terms is something else. This is the primary reason the speed decision for reverse doesn't bother me much, the other being that I'm just not sure what the reverse speeds for tanks were. And yes, it would be a happy Allied player, indeed, who met an opponent who chooses to drive panzers in reverse solely to prevent these from becoming bogged. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-29-2000).]

Thank you, Matt . . for the quiet reply. Of course it's good information. I had no idea as I've yet to explore the CMBO folders. I had just assumed, as you rightly guessed, that the editor was a discrete program. Jeff must have as well, judging by the gist of his post, and since he apparently is versed in programming that might not say a whole lot for my chances with "poking around" in mind.