GenSplatton

Maybe if you are playing the same person over and over. Personally, I don't care if you beat JoeNewbie with only 800 of your 1000 purchase points, I sure wouldn't expect to see that 200 points showing up in a game we play later. So, I guess what I'm saying is, no. Each battle is a different day on a different map when it comes to QBs. Randomness of maps and units (if comp selected) can tip the scales enough to make every game different. [ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: GenSplatton ]

Very nice. Thanks. I had been using Wolf's too and was finding it a little worn. Maybe the new look will brighten (well, darken) things up a bit.

Can't find it. Tanks was on Modern Marvels but that's it till after 1 am at least.

You were gone? Just kidding. Sorry to hear about the problems with your site. Good luck getting her back up to speed.

I finally went back and referred to my source about the muzzle velocity. In other words, I re-watched the Dangerous Missions episode on Tanks. I thought they had said the muzzle velocity was doubled with the 76mm. In fact, what they said was that the casing for the 76mm shell increased the propellant load by 50%, thereby increasing velocity. Irrelevant I know, but I had to try and redeem myself.

In a word, nope.

Very interesting MrSpkr, and thanks! Shows what I know. But it makes me wonder then. Have you ever had a game where the total adds up to 90 or so? I have, lots of times. Wonder what gives there. Maybe morale is figured in somehow???

First off, Joeski, get your butt back over to the BoB where it belongs. But yes, I think your analysis is correct. It would be a dead draw. Scipio, I think you are confusing the way the score is computed in that you are converting it to a percentage. In other words, the jeep dies, thats 25 points (example only, I don't know what a jeep costs). Therefore, one side has 100% of the points so wins 100 to nothing. I think Joeski has it right in that 25 is what, 2.5% of a thousand? So I think the score would be 2.5 to 0 (probably rounded to 3 to 0). Or maybe it's even 1.25% of 2000 (total points in the game) so it would be 1 to nothing. Or less than 1% of a 2500 point game (units + 500 points worth of flags) so 0 to 0!?!?! Argh!!! I pulled a muscle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In other words, "IF I'm not getting everything I want, then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE gimme"? Like I said, we sound like spoiled children. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Panzer is simply stating, if I am reading what I think I'm reading, that he is afraid BTS will build less of a game than they really want to so that they can keep the system requirements low, and that he would rather raise the requirements to allow them to build the game the REALLY want to make. How is that childish?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now my point, finally, is that BTS has taken the approach that its core audience are generally not on the bleeding edge of technology. Developing at the bleeding edge is not good business. The risks of not working with the various setups and configurations goes up exponentially as one develops closer to the leading edge of technology. I imagine that BTS can't afford to do that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know Panzer has already touched on this but, no one here is talking about bleeding edge. We have mostly been alluding to mid range at most. Bleeding edge would defintiely be in the Ghz, if not in the mid and upper GHz range. And graphically, we would be talking 64MB GF2 and above. I think the thread here has leaned more towards the 500 to 800MHz range as a mid level computer by todays standard. Hardly bleeding edge. And Panzer, I think the phrase you were looking for was "Ready, Fire, Aim!"

Personally, I'm just glad the thread was entitled "A little question about units" as opposed to the "Questions about little units" that I thought it said when I first glanced at the thread name.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you want some verification (this is what he told me) go to your local software store and check out all the software (not just games) and you will see it is true. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No need. I just wanted to know the source. I wasn't out to prove you wrong! As I said earlier, I know Computer Gaming World, for one, runs monthly surveys on such things. Unfortunately, while rumaging through the Ziff-Davis site, I can't find where they publish it anywhere, so I assume they don't. I was hoping your source was something like PC Magazine or some other source I could refer to online when I wanted.

Hey Priest, where did you get that "average PC" info? I wrote the techie guy at Gamespot but realistically don't expect to get an answer. Not fishing for an argument (honest!). Just wondering where you found the data for my own future use.

No worries mate (that's the extent of my Australian). It really isn't an attempt to defend you per se, or to pick on folks with lower end machines. There have been some excellent posts on both sides. But, it irks me at times to see someone post a topic with good intentions, only to see people nitpick and read things in to the statement that just aren't there solely for the sake of argument. I read your original post with a non-biased view (I bought the game when I had a 333 and upgraded later, so I've been on both sides) and just thought some of the attacks were totally unwarranted. So, I said so. Kind of like walking by a car wreck, I just had to stop and gawk with the rest of the crowd.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To some, this may sound like "Well to hell with someone with a crappy system. If they can't shell out the dough, they don't deserve to play." Again, I'm not saying that this is what you meant, but this is just how some people may interpret it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tibot, I agree with you for the most part. I agree 100% with your statement about lack of vocal inflection, facial expression, etc. But for someone to read THAT in to Panzer's statement, well, that's a personal problem. I find it to be a very large stretch in fact. That's the danger of reading IN to something as opposed to just reading what is there. p.s. Damnit, slow down Panzer. You go two replies in in the time I typed the one. [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: GenSplatton ]

First off, Panzer, congrats on your thick skin. You are obviously a better man than me when it comes to self control. You have taken, and withstood, allot of unwarranted forum abuse. Of course, newbies need to expect that kind of thing. Secondly, you are stating your point very clearly. Why it is provoking so many defensive posts is beyond me. I guess people with lesser systems feel that thinking BTS could do better is a personal afront to them, which I think is clearly not your intent. But, you are making it very clear what you are trying to say. People seem to want to manipulate your argument for the sole point of arguing against it. Thirdly, the stats you seek are available. Many, if not all, gaming magazines run monthly surveys to see what the average desk top system is. All I can say, after reading this thread, is that apparently war gamers tend to lag severly behind the average PC owning community, or at least the PC gaming community, by a large margin. I would bet, without writing to say Computer Gaming World and actually getting an answer, that the average machine is at least in the 800 Mhz range. Hmm, I'm at work and bored. Maybe I'll drop them a note and try to get everyone a difinitive answer. Finally, I can only say, I applaud BTS for making such a fine game that manages to run on such below average systems. It is truly a testament to the skill of those folks. However, if people want to try to continue to run 400 MHz systems and below, I think it won't be to long before you find there is nothing out there to run except the old stuff. I understand not wanting to upgrade, or not having the economic means to do so, but you have to face facts. Computers improve and get faster almost daily. Software companies are going to produce games that take advantage of existing technology. That's just the nature of the beast. True, graphics aren't everything, expecially to wargamers. But they are something, and they are something that helps to sell the software. And that's the bottom line. BTS may lose some folks if they raise system requirements to high, but then again, they may gain some new customers with the better graphic engine. From a purely economic standpoint, I think I would tend to cater to the newer system crowd because, face it, logic dictates they are the ones with the money. I could be wrong of course, and I think it's widely accepted that war gamers tend to be in the older demographic groups, so that is probably a factor to consider also. But, all in all, I just don't think building CM2 with say an 800MHz requirement could be considered "abandoning" the older PC crowd. At some point, you just will HAVE to upgrade if you want to play what's coming out on the market. Oh yea, to answer the original thread, I have a 1.1Ghz Athlon and a 64 meg Radeon VIVO DDR card. I don't spend tons of cash to upgrade, and I really don't buy that many games. But, buy building it myself, I am able to replace a component here and there without breaking the proverbial bank. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone. Tough subject to broach without stepping on any toes.

I have a 64MB Radeon VIVO DDR and it won't show fog either.

Ok, got it. Thanks. p.s. I like that format for weapons. May be a good look and a good way to add weapons (which was a request) to the page.

"I think it would look nice to have a larger separation between the main infantry categories. A bar ({HR} in HTML) between the Sturmgruppe info and the Waffen SS header, for example, would help make things a bit more orderly IMO." Hmm, I may have to try that and see what I think. Initially I didn't have the divisions in there, then decided it would be easier on the eyes if I did have a divider. I then attempted to NOT spread things to much, in an effort to make things more compressed and therefore easier to scan. I'm not adverse to change though. If it looks better, then it will be in there. "The first German Rifle platoon is Rifle 44. You listed the individual platoons as Rif44, but not the header. Yes, I'm picking nits." Hmm, I fully spelled out Rifle everywhere. I just looked. I don't see Rif44 anywhere!?! "The number of Fausts that come with each Plt is kinda random. Saying that you get 2 or 3 or 4 isn't always necessarily accurate. Also, the type of Faust you get depends on the time of year. Jun44~Aug44 you get PF-30. Sep44-Jan45 is PF-60. Feb45 onward is PF-100. So since the German Rifle 45's are available starting in Jan45, they will get PF-60 when playing the QB in Jan. But they get PF-100 for the other months they're available." Yes, I did realize that, although to late. Rather than remove the numbers, I should probably replace it with with an "expect to receive approximately x" type statement. "Both PzGren and PzGren Pioneer Plts come in two varieties: Motorized and Armored. Their squad makeup and firepower is dramatically different. You only list the Motorized Plts. Same goes for the SS side." True. That was a conscience decision. The amount of equipment that comes with an Armored platoon, well, it was just to much. To list all the extra additional weapons would be huge. I planned to tackle that at a future date. With CM2 being as close as it is, that may not get done. Unless I can get a laptop to take on the road when I deploy. Then it would get done and then some! "Like their Heer counterparts, the SS gets Rifle-45 troops as well." Missed that one. Actually, I missed the Rifle 45 alltogether until someone told me. I built the page using default dates and missed some things initially. I try to add them as people bring it up. An example is the Sturmgruppe. That's only been there a week or two. "You forgot the Escort squads. SS Escort as well." Hmm, are they like Sturmgruppe in that they can only be bought in company size? Or are they a"later" unit? I'll have to reasearch them. "And it would be nice to have Bn and Co HQ FP numbers. The Ger Rif44 Bn actually has more FP at 40m than the regular 9-man squad does!" Well, I'm trying to keep it platoon size honestly, since I feel that is the most commonly purchased unit size. Once again, if time permits... Nitpick away. I take all suggestions and do what I can!!!

I assume you mean on the menu? I'll check it out. Thanks! Found it... [ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: GenSplatton ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I mean it wasn't that much better then the 75MM or sure doesn't seem like it to me in CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll leave the long answers to the grogs, but from what I heard, the 76mm had nearly double the muzzle velocity of the 75mm gun. Not an insignificant improvement by any means.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> * Based on the two points above, it's desireable both to BTS and to CM players that the data presented in CM is as accurate as possible. Some sort of official clarification, possibly in the shape of an online errata and extension to the manual, from BTS would be nice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the time is better spent finishing up CM2 myself. Personally, I can live with a few small errors in the game. I think anyone who would use a game as a sole source of gunnery data is probably a little off base. If they are prefessional historians, I'm thinking they should be doing a little more research than trusting the muzzle velocity listed in CM. If they aren't professional's, then they can be wrong on occassion, it's good for the soul.

No worries there mate! What I use them for essentially is, if I have a game coming up and I know it's a night engagement, or day in heavy fog, I can saunter over to the tabel and look at 40m attack ranges and such, to see which units I want to try. I freely admit, I made the table as much for my benefit as for anyone elses!

For which John? The firepower tables I designed are an HTM file. Admittedly, I used Excel to design the layout, but the file is an HTM file type.

Thanks guys. Great suggestions all!