Mike D
-
Posts
485 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Mike D
-
-
It would sure be nice to be able to hit the escape key, F1, or something to quickly bring up the hot key list.
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
"To be honest; the only negative is that I would like a selectable list of units that are active, ie....press a hot key and get a list of active units that I could switch to by using the mouse or keyboard"
Tom,
I had this exact same thought last night. If this is possible BTS, it is something that I think would sure make things a whole lot easier. What I ended up doing is just cycling through the units using the plus and minus keys, but the above suggestion would be a vast improvement IMHO.
Other than that I'll just say once again that this is a great game BTS. You've done an outstanding job overall.
Regards,
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
BTS,
Great Job, Love the Demo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now to the interface. If everyone is not liking it then it might need some fixing, no?
My biggest gripe is the lack of easy to use rotation and zoom features. I'd suggest the following that works absolutely great on the 3d CAD design system I use every day. When you hold down the control key and the left mouse button and move the mouse it causes your view to rotate in 3d. When you hold down the control key and the right mouse button and move the mouse to the right you zoom out, to the left you zoom in. It is very easy to use and works wonderfully. It even works well for lefties and righties equally well because there is a control key on the bottom left and right corners of the keyboard that is extemely easy to find for both without even needing to look. This together with just pushing the cursort to the edge of the map in the direction you want to pan might just "solve" all of the "difficulties" in trying to find a way to move around the map easily, zoom in and out, and rotate your views. It's worth some thought if nothing else.
Regards,
Mike D
aka Mikester
[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-29-99).]
-
Wow, I'm 45 minutes from Nirvana!!! Well, at least that is what the estimated download clock time is telling me. Time to run to the store and get some beer. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, beer. And might as well call in now and leave a message at work to tell them that I anticipate becoming extremely ill in the next hour or so too!!!!!!!!
Yiiiipppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!
While I wait, I'm curious BTS, is the beta demo pretty much the same build (w/o scenario editor, and various other full functions of course) that the BETA testers have been playing???
Thanks for getting this out. It has been a long hard wait, but with all the work you have put into it I'm sure that it will be a great game. Congratulations in advance.
Regards,
Mike D
aka Mikester
"A fools wisdom knows no bounds other than the infinite space between his ears."
-
Hooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaayyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh fraptious joy, it is finally here.
Mikester
-
Panzer Elite is supposed to be available in stores now as well according to their website.
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
LOS,
Some very good comments. Makes sense to me.
Pixman,
You are right as well. If a scenario designer is going design a scenario where the overiding victory condition is based on a time constraint, then they had better do so with the considerations that you've mentioned.
Of course, as LOS pointed out, a scenario totally (perhaps even partially) based upon such time constraints probably isn't the norm. Although I would disagree that they didn't occur at all. Take for example your company has been ordered to break through an enemy encirclement that occurred earlier that day in order to relieve your fellow grunts. You better believe time might matter, especially if that surrounded force is being squeezed by a superior force and/or is holding a critical objective like a bridge, etc.
Mikester
[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-28-99).]
-
I would whole-heartedly agree Henri. However, sometimes you don't have this luxary. Such as when you are ordered to take pos. x by time y (see quote from the FAQ below). And time y is only z minutes from now.
In such cases you don't have the time to do painstaking recon like you otherwise might, so you have to do the best you can in the time allotted, take some calculated risks, and hope for the best. And since CM will feature scenarios simulating such victory conditions based on time constraints, then folks are going to have to learn to fight w/ minimum recon as well when the scenario/situation calls for doing so.
_____________________________________________
CM FAQ
"What kinds of victory conditions and objectives are you going to include?
We haven't created our scenarios yet. But we can assure you there will be multiple objectives and ways to win. No single victory condition will cause you to win orlose a battle. Instead you will be judged on the following (tentative) categories:
Objectives - Physical areas in your possession at the end of the game.
Casualties - a ratio of friendly to enemy losses that must be maintained.
Prisoners - captured enemies can provide useful intelligence.
Time - a time range to accomplish a certain goal.
Maneuver - moving forces through a particular objective area or map edge, or preventing the enemy from doing the same.
____________________________________________
Bottom line is recon is always a good idea. But depending on the scenario victory conditions, and what type of situation the scenario designer is trying to simulate w/ these conditions, this may not be possible, or even recommended. You can't spend 30+ minutes doing recon and feeling out the enemies MLR (main line of resistance) when you only have 45 minutes to take the key objective that lies 1 km behind the MLR. You'll simply never get there in time to do so. So every situation calls for different strategies and tactics. Extensive recon may be possible and very prudent in one situation, while it is nearly totally useless/unachievable in another due to time constraints. As Charles, Steve, Moon, Fionn, and others have said over and over again, get ready to unlearn.
Which is why when all is said and done I believe a flexible battle plan is one of the most important aspects of any successful operation. Even if you have the time to do proper recon, things can still surprise you, bad luck can happen, enemy can do something you didn't expect, etc. So as others have already said here on the board, flexibility in your attack/defense is equally as important as anything else. Which is a tactical tenet I have always followed and most certainly plan to continue to follow when CM comes out.
Regards,
Mike D
aka Mikester
[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-28-99).]
-
Yes, all is quiet on the Battlefront. Probably, at least in part, as a result of one of the other threads that popped up here and caused such a furor in the last 24 hours. All I can say of that is that I'm actually glad I didn't take part in it.
On a lighter note, has anyone downloaded and played the new demo that they just posted for TacOps???? I tried downloading it, but it didn't seem to want to load when I went to install it. I'm going to try again and see if I get better results since maybe it didn't finish downloading or something the first time. Has anyone else tried and run into similar trouble???
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
I'll chime in my 2 cents here. The panzerfaust smoke trails as the projectile tracks toward the target should not be in the game if they didn't really exist.
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
Herr Oberst,
I don't think you started anything. It just makes for an interesting discussion. Especially since I've never heard of the Typhoon/rocket theory in regards to Wittmann's demise.
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
Rob,
At least for the German stuff there is a pretty good book called the "Handbook on German Military Forces" that was put out by the US War Dept. It goes into all manner of info on German tanks, artillery, machine guns, small arms, grenades, fortifications, etc. Even some info on various German tactics and other good stuff. A fairly good number of pictures and diagrams are also included.
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
All I can say is:
COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
Charles,
I ditto your comments above. PG1 was a good general wargame and a heck of a lot of fun. But all that came after it in terms of it's sequels added little to the original. Ergo, I never bought any of the rest of them. The "unfortunate" thing is that a lot of people do buy sequels that are really nothing better than an agrandized version of the original. But to each his own. If folks want to plop down $40 or so of their hard earned money on such things, then let them. I for one certainly won't. But if nothing else it does tend to support the wargaming industry and keep it going. The downside to this is that people buying into the sequels simply perpetuate the game companies continuing to release them! Which is why I'm glad to hear that you don't believe in doing such things here at BTS. So while I'm sure CM2 will use much of the code of the CM1, I also expect a fair number of improvements and additions to the game as well. Things which I'm sure by your's and Steve's comments here on the board will happen.
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
Dohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It looks like I've lost my crown of being the king of the diatribe. I do hearby bequeth this honor onto Herr Hofbauer. Congratulations sir. All hail to the new king of the diatribe! Anyway, I'm sure I can come up w/ any number of other ways to make myself infamous.
Regards,
Mike D
aka Mikester
PS: Some really good posts too by the way Mr. Hofbauer. You've made quite a few good points along the way. Keep up the good work, it makes for a good discussion on the game.
-
I concur w/ Desert Fox here. I don't have time to go in to all the details until I get home tonight and recheck the book, so I'm going from memory here (what I reread last night that is). However, it is clear from Agte's book that there was no air attack! It is in no way shape or form mentioned by any of the German eyewitnesses. And trust me, all throughout the book they make mention of darn near each any every air attack they encountered. Nor is mention made of any air attacks in the unit history of the English unit that was situated on their right flank in the tree line where the infamous Firefly was hiding.
Next, Wittmann was definitely in Tiger 007! Several German eye witnesses attest to this fact. Including one of the other Tiger commanders in the battle which climbed into his tank at the same time Wittmann did, just before proceeding with the advance. He clearly states that Wittmann went into battle in a command tank and that that tank was 007. Since Wittmann was the company commander of the 2nd company his regular tank would have been 201. This is not entirely uncommon though. In fact I believe Wittman wasn't even in his own tank at Villers Bocage. I don't remember why at the moment though(I'll have to go checke the book again tonight.) Regardless, the reason he wasn't in his normal tank on that particular day is that he had assumed command of the battalion several weeks before after H. VonWesterhagen had had to step down due to aggravations with an old head wound. In fact he hadn't even been in the thick of the fighting for the most part since is return from leave after receiving the Knight's Cross w/ Oak Leaves from the Fuhrer after his magnificant achievement at Villers Bocage. He in fact probably wouldn't have gone into battle this day either, save for the fact that that the company commander (Heurich) that would otherwise have lead them had never even seen action before. One eye witness has quoted Wittmann stating before the battle something to the effect (I'm going from memory here), "I must go, Heurich can't handle this himself".
Finally, the pictures. I don't know what pictures anyone else has seen, but Agte has two in the book that were taken by a French civilian after the battle. Supposedly these are the only two pictures in existence of any of the Tigers knocked out during the battle. One of which is a pretty darn good shot of tank 007 showing the turret blown off. First off, there isn't a single scratch on the rear of the turret. No burn/blast marks, no holes, nothing. And surprisingly, not on the right side of it either which is clearly visible in the picture since the turret is sitting on the ground upside down. This latter fact doesn't mean much, other than it is interesting since the German tanks came under fire from their right flank. It does show that this isn't where the penetrating hit occurred if nothing else. However, the fact that there are no indications on the rear of the turret of any AT or rocket hit whatsoever (not even a nearby hit which one would certainly think would leave some type of blast mark on the rear of the turret!) would also seem to indicate that there was no hit on the rear deck of the tank either. The photo also shows the rear of the tank, but unfortunately is taken from ground level so you can't see the rear deck. From what you can see though, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever of any type of rocket hit. No burn/blast marks, etc. Nothing.
My "guess" is that Wittman's tank was one of the three knocked out by the English Firefly on the Germans right flank. The English unit history clearly states that this tank took out at least 3 of the 4 Tigers on the east side of the road that were knocked out, or immobilized. The fourth was probably hit by other Shermans as it was reported to have lost a track and become immobile. The other 3 were clear kills. Most likely the Firefly round penetrated the right hull and got into the ammo store somewhere on that side. The tank then brewed up and the ammo went off blowing off the turret.
I'm not saying this is the end all conclusive story of what happened. However, it is told by eyewitnesses and references official reports and unit histories. So I think that it does hold a fairly high degree of credibility.
Mike D
aka Mikester
[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-21-99).]
-
Herr Oberst,
I'm curious what research / source stated that Wittmann's Tiger was hit by a rocket. All that I've ever read of his last battle never even mentions an air attack taking place when he met his demise. In fact, one book has at least one or two eye witness accounts from the German side of the battle of folks that were not too far behind Wittmanns advancing columns and they make no mention of an air attack either. I'm not saying that I don't believe you, just that it goes against all I've read about Wittmann's death.
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
Simon,
I know, isn't it a shame???
Sorry to have let you down. I'll come up w/ some more diatribes in the future. I thought about suggesting the update to the FAQ as well. I don't think Steve has time to do this though, otherwise he probably already would have. Plus, I doubt there is any way he could capture all the info that has come out in BTS's answers to various questions here on the board without spending dozens of hours doing so.
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
Steve,
For the love of God could you please post some kind of brief tutorial/reminder on how people can do a search here on the board to find the info they are looking for? The questions that keep coming up have been covered over and over again in numerous threads here, but people just seem to 1) not know that they can search for the info, 2) don't know how to do so, or 3) as in the case of OSCAR apparently refuse to do so. While we can't do much to for folks in the third category, I think it would go a long way to cutting down "needless" traffic here on the board if you could spend a little time and give people some pointers on where to find and how to use the search functions here. Ultimately, I'm afraid if you don't that you are going to simply get swamped w/ the same old questions over and over again. As CM nears demo and then final release the traffic here is going to reach critical mass as the number of posts will probably start to increase exponentially.
Thanks a million in advance,
Mike D
aka Mikester
[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-20-99).]
-
You guys really need to start using the search functions here on the board.
I just did a search on the word "pacific" and found the following thread entitled "Eastern Front" (it took all of 2 minutes I might add, if that AND there were about 2 dozen threads where the word "pacific" came up) which states the following:
__________________________________________
Since the EF module is next, will desert follow? Will it be part of the EF? I assume that the Pacific Theater will be last. This is neat, talking about the future of a game that we all KNOW will work. Most designers can't do that.
------------------
Climb to Glory! Big Time Software
posted 04-30-99 02:40 PM ET (US)
_____________________________________________
Each release will concentrate on one particular theater, so EF and North Africa will not be combined. There are several reasons for this, all of which are technical and practical issues. It takes A LOT of time and energy to make tile sets, tank models, textures, nationality differences, etc. CM is not designed to be a generic "plop some stuff in and you have x, more stuff and you have y" kind of generic game. We can't say for sure what will come after EF, but it will most likely be the Med. Theater (North Africa, Italy, Greece, etc.). The range of terrain is doable, we will have most German vehicles done by then, and a decent number of Allied stuff will be done too (remember CM isn't covering all the US and British vehicles from 41 to early 44). So this makes sense. Further off in the crystal ball we see 1939/40 combat. Pacific? I very much doubt we will go there. It isn't our area of expertise and the nature of the ground combat is far less interesting to us (lots of bloody static battles and beach landings). Having said all of this, we make no promises beyond the next installment, which is the Eastern Front. Although we don't mind talking about our future plans, we won't talk about future games themselves. In other words, we don't mind telling everybody that the next game will be EF, but we don't want to get into discussing the EF until AFTER Combat Mission - Beyond Overlord is released. One thing at a time
Steve
___________________________________________
This was just one thread that came up. And you have to remember that the search engine searches through the text of every last thread too. That's why I found this thread listed when I did a search on "pacific".
Happy Searching,
Mike D
aka Mikester
[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-20-99).]
-
Fionn / BTS,
Peter raises an interesting dilema that has already crossed my mind once or twice before. Is thegamers.net (and hopefully BTS's and any other sites involved that are going to post scenario's for download) going to rate and/or somehow qualify scenarios submitted by individuals to some type of standard before posting them for download??? Sure would be nice if there was some kind of ranking/rating system on the quality and/or accuracy of the scenario, playability, "fun factor", etc. that we could go by in chosing scenarios to play that have been done by others vs. having to waste our time trying to find the "good ones" by actaully havingn to download and play them.
Regards,
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
Chris,
From what I understand there will be no "patch" for CM2. It is going to be written as a total stand alone game, but still loosely based on the CM engine from what I understand. I'll let Steve go into the reasons why, but I think it has something to do w/ the new terrain types, overall future game improvements, and other factors that simply cannot be achieved by, expanding/adding to, the code of the existing (CM1) game.
Mike D
aka Mikester
-
Oscar,
I can see your point, but only to a minor extent. First though, let me clear up something. I'm a mechanical engineer. That's what my degree is in, that's what I do. In fact I've designed all sorts of things from control mechanisms and wing/body structures in aircraft, to tooling, to believe it or not, rockets. Lot's of having to understand 3d physics, mechanics and the like along with using numerous tools, including writing computer code and the appropriate physics equations in order to model real objects in a real 3d world in order to solve real problems. What I did not claim, nor would I, is that I have a degree in 3d graphics.
However, I don't need one by any means to speak w/ some degree of authority about modeling the real world. By pure logic it is easy to reason that a 3d model of a 3 dimensional system is inherently more accurate in every way shape and form, than some form of 2d approximation of a 3d system. There are no if's, and's, or but's about it. It's pretty much a pure and simple fact. If you took any physics classes in college you should know this (I'm not trying to slam you here by the way, just pointing out simple facts).
Next, by classifying CM as "this type of game" you immediately throw it into a category (I'm assuming here, but it sure is what it sounds like to me) along with other 3d games like Quake, Doom, and the like. In many ways CM is nothing like these games, so such comparisons really don't buy us much. Just as worrying about how many polygons each tree, tank, building, soldier, etc. is represented by don't either. Fact of the matter is as far as I understand how CM is designed it JUST PLAIN DOESN'T MATTER. Why? Because the game is a 3d mathematical engine which models the 3d physics of the CM world for the most part totally independentt of the 3d graphics themselves. That is to say that the 3d graphics are largely just layered on top of the true 3d game engine model if you want to think of it that way to form an overall cohesive picture (Charles/Steve please correct me if I'm wrong here). So worrying about how many polygons are used to model the entities in this world really doesn't matter that much. The downside of this is that certain approximations have to be made in order to make the system work, but they are:
1) Still wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better, and more accurate I might add, than having to deal with the approximations of ANY 2d model of our 3d world that you seem to cling to so dearly.
And
2) About as close as "we" can come to having a tactical game at CM's scale without having to run it on a CRAY super-computer. Which is probably what it would take (if not a whole lot more) to actually model every entity (tank, soldier, wall, tree, building, etc.) in the CM world, with a couple hundred polygons each, in order to derive an accurate 3d physics model based on the same 3d graphical model as the graphics themselves.
Think of it as if you wrote a purely mathematical based program to simulate a 3 dimensional robot for the next Star Wars movie. A program that simulates and models every last movement and function of the robot in all of its gory detail. 3d masses, accelerations, vectors and the whole bloody mess it all entails. And then a grahpic artist came along and built the actual 3d graphics of the robot on top of your model as it were, and together you tied the two together so that they work in unison as a single seamless entity on the movie screen. In a nutshell (although I'm sure there are some differences) this is exactly what is going on in CM (again Steve/Charles correct me if I'm wrong here).
"This is one of the problems with the 3D implementation, scale of game, micromanagement and the lack of, or balance in portraiting "micro" details are other areas where problems surely must arise."
I think you are dreaming up problems out of assumptions and inuendo here that in all liklihood simply don't exist. Hopefully when the demo comes out you can play it for yourself and I think you will find that the game doesn't suffer much, IF ANY, from these potential problems you are raising. Will it be 100% perfect? I very much doubt it. Will it probably be an order of magnitude, or even better, improvement over any other tactical wargame ever made modeling combat at the battalion level and available for sale to the public? My guess is you are going to find out it most certainly is. But only time will tell, right?
Finally, I think you've raised some very interesting questions and discussions here and over in the other earilier thread. It's always good to have someone with a fresh view on things and even a certain amount of skepticism can be a good thing too. Only problem is most of your arguments are based on false assumptions, total lack of facts, or comparison to another game which simply is not even in the same class as CM in terms of it's ability to model the real 3d world as near as I can tell. By the way I make no claim whatsoever about the accuracy, or lack there of, of the HPS games. I know nothing about them and have honestly never played them although I have heard that they were supposed to be farily good games. So what I say here in terms of comparing the two games is merely an inference from what I've heard about the game from here and elsewhere. Nothing more, and nothing less.
"Can you now understand why I still think "less" could be more?"
Yes, but I also understand that you can look at a glass that's 50% full of water and decide that it is either half empty, or half full. Only problem here is that you are looking at a glass of water in CM that is really way more than half full and still seeing a glass that is only, at best, half empty.
Like I said before, you can give CM a chance and play the demo or you can close your eyes and crawl back into the supposedly better world of HPS and the like and never even attempt to see if CM really is a "good" game, or not. It's a free world, the choice is yours.Mike
[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-19-99).]
-
"But instead of delaying the game for another 4 months to put them all in, we are only going to get to a fraction of them"
Steve,
Ahemmmm, don't make me and about 100+ others come hunt you down now!
Oscar,
"hmmm... did someone, somewhere talk about the difficulties simulating the REAL world with 3D? ..sorry I JUST couldn't resist guys."
Sorry, but I just "couldn't resist" myself.
Also, I appoligize in advance if my post offends you (or anyone else here for that matter) in any way, shape, or form. However, I'm getting tired of hearing some of this come up over and over again. So here goes nothing. This is my "opinion" and it is only my "opinion". Take it for whatever it is worth!
Yes, there are going to be "difficulties" simulating the real world. However, doing so w/ a computerized 3d physics model is going to be infinitely "easier" and "more accurate" than trying to approximate it w/ a 2d model!!! I know this for a fact. I've spent 10 years as a degreed mechanical engineer modeleling the "real world", it's physics, and how it works. And I can tell you with 100% certainty, that there is nothing to say that doing the game in 2D would be any more realistic or accurate than doing it in 3d. Quite to the contrary, there are any number of abstractions that are absolutely necessary to even attempt to model the 3d aspects of the "real world" in a 2d game (or any other 2d approximation of any aspect of real world physics in general for that matter) that do not even need to be attempted as abstractions if the game models true 3d terrain, ballistics, LOS, etc. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT CM IS GOING TO PROVIDE!
Yourself, and several others, seem to be totally hung up on the notion that the 3d aspects of CM are nothing but "eye-candy" and "window dressing". That the actual 3d graphics that you, the player, will see on the screen are just that, while the game itself is nothing more than an approximation. Pretty pictures to wow the crowds and increase sales of the game, right? NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. CM has a real 3d engine, modeling real world 3d physics in all of its nasty splendor, at it's very foundation that is probably better than anything else out there in terms of tactical wargames (assuming that what Steve and Charles have been feeding us is the "truth"). They are modeling the real world actual 3d physics and all! The approximations and abstractions required to make a game when you have such a game engine are quite frankly minimal. Especially in comparison to any game out there that is trying to model the real 3d world, w/ 2d physics and all of the approximation and abstractions that become absolutely necessary if you do this. All the pretty 3d graphics in CM are just the "icing on the cake", but the substance is still the true 3d engine underlying all of this that is driving everything.
Which is exactly why CM is going to be a great game; it is going to provide what I believe will be a state-of-the-art 3D physics model of "the real world" and game engine combined w/ pretty good overall 3D graphics. I'm not sure what more you could ask for, but if you want to stay locked in your little HPS world please feel free to do so. In my humble opinion, it will be your loss.
Regards,
Mike D
aka Mikester
Exciting Chatter
in Combat Mission Archive #1 (1999)
Posted
Hey Steve,
I havn't gotten my new computer yet so I'm actually running the demo on my old one. Orginal 1st generation Pentium, 100Mhz CPU, 48 MB of RAM, Diamond 3d2000 video card (if I'm remembering correctly) w/ 4MB RAM, and an old first generation Voodoo 3d accelerator card (I think it only has 4MB of RAM as well, maybe 8). It actually doesn't run half bad. A little jumpy here and there when I try to pan or rotate around, especially over large distances. Also a few problems running the rubberband LOS lines way out away from the unit. But other than that it worked pretty darn well all things considered. Although I imagine it would be worse if it were a larger action w/ more units on the screen, etc. As it stands even watching the 3d replays didn't look too bad, not really jumpy/glitchy or anything. I can say it looked great on my new 19" Hitachi Superscan monitor that I just got the night before however!!!!!!!!!! Now if intel would just get off their butts and get the i820 chipsets fixed and systems out so I can buy one before the real game comes out I'll be all set!
Regards,
Mike D
aka Mikester
[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-29-99).]