Tarkus

Also, I wonder if anyone ever felt safe driving around the battlefield into one of those. Look pretty thin to me. In any case, the quality and current state of the various pieces is outstanding. Very well preserved. Remind me of a Pz IV (ausf J IIRC) in Saumur, look as if it drove straight out of the factory into the museum. It's good to know some people are dedicated at preserving these pieces of hardware.

Nice pictures there. But what is this Paint scheme ?!?

Agree. The fact is that the whole briefing case would benefit from a redesign job. For example, many a designer now uses an abstract header to summarize the main infos, i.e. date, type, weather, best played as and so on. Those informations are very useful in picking up a scenario, picking sides etc. Maybe they could be made standard, requiring a field or a dropdown menu to be picked in the editor. That way a certain consistency in presentation would be easily achieved. Also, if the briefing could be made from a more flexible text editor, or HTML, or whatever, then people would be free to include pictures, maps, diagrams or whatever they deem useful. That way, very prolific designer *or designer team* could include some trademark images, hyperlinks, signature that would make them easily recognizable and would provide some sort of exposure to those who helps making the game so replayable. Still on the briefing case, other potentially interesting addition would be - tabs to switch from, with strategic background*, mission, OB list, [printer friendly]map, why not a summary of ennemy unit spotted (to overlay with map, as suggested earlier by someone); * The strategic background screen could be great to campain people. I remember playing the excellent Any Port After The Storm from Patrick T. Ware, and a stategic overview with each battle would have been an outstanding feature to already very, very good campaign style battles. - text editor (very basic) especially for multi-PBEMers to writes things downs as they go, like unit spotted, their estimate of enemy intention, basic plan or whatever. Just a notepad to keep their ideas along the proper game. - On the same line, a "tactical timer". Basically a tab where you could note something down, like, say, "move A company toward road junction" and choose, from a drop down menu, something like "notify me on turn 14". That way, that well laid plan made on setup phase could be reminded to you after three weeks of slow play via email. I don't know, just a thought... Cheers

But don't you think the "fitness" indicator already fills the bill ?

* slowly recovering after falling from my chair * This is fantastic. No wonder we didn't hear from you for so long. Keep it up Tom, it looks very promising.

Good point. It must not be a burden, because people won't be using it, plain and simple. I agree with Sequoia though, one simple way to implement this would be to enable orders-at-first-turn within the editor. You design your battle, and as soon as you are ready, you fire the order and/or event editor where you issue orders along certains rules and scripts as suggested in part one of this topic. You could even make those orders padlocked or not to leave choices open to the player. ...and, to link that with the reinforcement set-up option I was suggesting above, suppose you can, as the scenario designer, issue orders to reinforcement as well, upon arrival. That would enable a scenario to start with a different rythm, with troops already in motions and assuming battle formations, make reinforcements arrive in the middle of a video sequence, etc. Finally, suppose one-side-multiplayer is implemented, perhaps the possibility of having friendly troops the player has no or partial control over might be of interest. For example, Player X, commanding a platoon, is given the mission to advance across B company position to press on an attack. The scenario designer could set up stance, movement orders and command restriction to B company so Player X cannot issue orders to B Company yet knows these troops are there, deployed and alert. Back to Pzman comment, ideas like this leave many doors open, but balance would be a huge issue I guess, requiring extensive testing on the part of the designer. Too many options might be just like too few :confused:

That is a GREAT idea, IMHO. The player could select a "stick to scenario plan" or uses the regular AI engine as it stands now, or "load plan from file" (or simply load a different version of the same battle known to be edited by someone else) . With the application of several differents plans, AAR, tutorials and CM "masterclasses" for lack of a better word, could become something entirely different. Illustration of historical doctrines could be implemented/taught within the game. Huge historical value there I believe. Grogs would finally have a useful tool to illustrate their ideas... Of course, a plan is just that, a plan, so it would mainly focus on initial deployement, rough courses of actions and initial moves. But it is an idea worth investigating. Also, still assuming CMx2 will includes the main phases it already presents now, (deployement, order phases, we go and an editor that kicks a**), a useful little addition to the later would be the possibility to actually deploy/arrange the reinforcements the exact way we want them to apper on the map. As it is, you never really knows how the thing will show up on the map, especially when you want and armored column with supporting towed weapons. I know the workaround involves multiple reinforcments, but still, the idea to prepare for a neat column, a specific order of march and such would be realistic and useful. [ September 28, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

AFAIK, from the defender standpoint, being higher mostly involve less vulnerability to direct fire. Although I am unsure as to how CM represents this. The relative angle of your position in relation with the terrain often prevent direct fire support like flat trajectory shell and MG to actually hit your assets, a bit like a reverse slope position. In other words, shells fall short or travel far beyond your units. I can recall several occasions where my opponent did carefully place ATG to take advantage of this. But apparently, it is not always the case, as Dave mentionned. I must admit that the cover and concealment factor provided by walls in CM is something that remains obscure for me... :confused: And of course, as with anything else in CM, there are ways around this. In this particular case, mortars worth their weight in gold in these circumstances, not to mention the mortar carriers, especially in BB/AK where you can carefully hide them and direct their fire with HQs. In addition, I suppose the other way around is also true, i.e. direct fire from above on troops is proportionally more effective since the area covered by fire is clearly defined and the dead zone more focused. More bullets on the enemy = more chance to hurt someone. My two cents

Nah. Too gamey. Mine monkeys would be nice though.

You play with the sound off all the time ? Boy, I could not play that way... There are quite useful hints to gather from them, no ?

Playing twelve hours in a row does not help the vision either. These days, CMBB and CMAK are irritating my eyes all right . Cheers

All this is really interesting ! I tend to agree with Pzman on this. Although I can see your point, *I think* more graphic evidence of dead/wounds would not change --> my <-- perception of the concept as simulated in CM. On the other hand, I think the medical side of combat may be introduced with some measure of realism and success, although certainly not to send troops back on the line after receiving a 7.92mm bullet in the leg. But if evacuating troops, protecting medics and managing to get our guys out of the big mess could be tied to the point system, it might get pretty realistic, dont you think ? As for the scope of CM, I'd say it's more of a gameplay thing. Prehaps it would be plain boring to include this side of things. Another aspect that is somewhat tied to this is the communication side of combat, that could be linked to the borg spotting issue, which, IMHO, is one of the biggest challenge BFC is facing now: every one recognize its presence, but how to tackle it ? Considering what was said after the "realism leap" introduced with CMBB, we should brace ourselves for a huge gameplay change. Assuming that borg spotting is the fact that a player can decide to act upon an information that would take much longer to reach him in the real world, then I think the whole issue is tighly related to the way communications are modelled in the game. Depending on the era, field telephones, runners, radios, whisles, flags, drums and other means might be of use, and might be related to borg spotting. One way to deal with the problem might be to deal with the second part of the proposition,. i.e. time required to give orders, but that is not something that will smooth the gameplay, quite the contrary. Leave it as an option then ? If you could, for example, blow up your opponent's field telephone hub, no doubt you would gain an advantage on his overall C&C capability, and this might be a challenging, even fun aspect of the newer game. I mean, placing and planning your comm network would definitely be an important issue. Researches would be needed to compare various comm set, among other things, like optics did in BB/AK. Not easy, but possibly very rewarding. ... on the comm aspect, although not exactly on the same level as moral/combat leadership... perhaps a Comm bonus for HQ, that would express the ability of the unit to clearly report its findings, would be relevant ? Time to lurk for some previous discussion on the borg spotting issue. Best [ September 25, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

I think you are right in pointing out that this is an opportunity, but I would add it's an opportunity to be taken rather lightly. I think we will agree on the fact that ideas voiced here are just that - ideas. As Philippe says, if it triggers something for the BFC team, all the better, but for the most part, I see it like when you imagine youself winning a million dollars: you know it will probably never happens, but it's just plain good dreamin' . There might also be some sort of optionnal reinforcement system tied to the actual objectives occupied/hold/taken/... i.e. to give the possibility to players to get back to the unit purchase screen to replenish their forces somehow, along a scheme of rules to be specified by the designer and/or QB rules like "ammo resupply only"; or a certain proportion of the initial points allowed at the beginning of the battle; or that the only units available for purchase would be those of the type already on the map. That could provide some nasty change of situations. Did I say plain good dreamin' ?

Right. Still, I suppose this comment refers to professionnal evaluation in military reports.

To this day, still one of the very best scenarios I've played ! Brings a lot of memories... This one quite made me a total addict. The very best pitch BFC could do was to put this scenario in their demo, IMHO. You can find a "Valley of Trouble 2" here. from Rune. There is also a CMBB version by Thomas Klimisch ("Valley of Trouble CMBB") but apparently the download link is corrupted . And also a CMAK version as well. This time by Desert Fox. Enjoy !

You're right. From the short article we've been reading recently on CMx2 progress (couldn't dig out the link), I think BFC is experimenting with OpenGL now, instead of the current direct 3D based engine. Now what does that mean exactly, I cannot tell, but it's along what you say in terms of scalable performances, among other things. Perhaps it will also mean that I'll get to see fog with my radeon card ! yay ! But unlike FPS (where you rarely see at more than, say, 250 m) or flight sims (where you very little very far), current CM model rather precisely up to anywhere between 3000 m to what, 6000 m of reality at a time, which mean a s***load of polygons, especialy in big battles. That is why it is running lazy pretty fast. Now unless BFC change the basic principle of the game (battalion size tactical simulation), that will be moddeled still somehow, and this is where the technology leap (both software and hardware wise) might comes in. Modding may also change from bmp mapping to texture file like IL2 or FPS where one file is used for the whole model, a bit like wrapping paper. All this to say that technically speaking, I'm clueless about where this will go, although I am confident I'll be glad it got there Have a good day.

Okay, time to jump in with my two cents wish list ...of course having no idea where BFC is going, I assume much of this is, to put it Moon's way, useless, but still, * * * </font> partial HQ contact. Unit with such a state could be given one waypoint order (that is, of course, if there is any waypoint based system...) or some partial limitations, a bit like the Assault and Advance command are already in current CM. - Recon HQ bonus; Already in somewhat with the F.o.W., but might be useful to know (and, IMHO, realistic at that) that some officers are more able than other to spot-identify-report enemy sighted and/or ennemy contacts. - Different data interface for enemy units; - For the borg spotting issue, maybe something like a "commander basic interface" where contacts could be reported (with leds, I like leds ) Then, some sort of "units SITREP" button would enable anything from "jump to that unit" to see what is going on from that unit's P.o.V./LOS and/or a more or less factual, generic report like "sporadic small arms fire", "ennemy armor spotted", "mortar fire" and so on, perhaps with icons (which I'll quickly mod ). These could, like anything else, be modified by F.o.W. Just an idea... - Options, everything as an option. For example, all these combat rules and material limitations for game balance could be presented like in the flight sims where you decide of the realism options you want, like the "view 1-2-8 only" with defaults values for quick doing. ( Note: I do not mean to suggest, nor in any way imply that "unlimited ammo" should be an option ) - I would be for a multiplayer-per-side system, say in TCP/IP. I suppose that would be of immense help for meta-campaigning. - More flexibility on the units stance. Although pretty good as is, that could come from the interface, like a switch where you can go from "nil contact" to "contact expected"... So a move order would be executed differently given this setting. Now that I think about it, it could also be part of the setup phase (should there be any still) where these "danger zone" could be "drawn" on the map much like phase lines on a briefing map. That way it would not be a burden to constantly look for the stance. Of course, this implies that there would be an advantage with the "nil contact" setting, like less delay for straight road moves. In terms of scenario design, it would be very handy to somewhat simulate surprise, if the designer could force the stance. Also, this would be more of a planning tool as it is well understood that things get harder to control when the bullets fly. Another example would be that this higher-level control/setting would automatically change from "nil contact" to "alerted" or "contact expected" or something for all on-map units when an enemy arty barrage is spotted/heard or a plane is spotted, and would then be "locked" at this setting for a certain amount of time. Mmmm. It obviously requires a lot more refining, but I hope you get the point... - Possibility to import 3D buildings (Marco Bergman's idea) out of some *simple* 3D modeling tool that could enable texturing as well. I have not the faintest idea of the implications of this code-wise and for the safety of the core engine, all I say is that to give people the chance to be creative and to enhance the visual aspect of the game is one cool side of CM. If CMx2 goes a little further in that regard, we get a game that is partly us to built, customize, modify, and that is coooool ! And more than eyecandy, I am refering to a real 3D building tool where windows and doors would matters in terms of urban combat. (I know many said something about this.) You also solve part of the fortification problem with that. - Allow other shapes than square for maps, to properly model a valley, for example; Linkable maps; All this already mentionned IIRC, as are printable maps. - More variation in: - roads, like forest infantry-only paths, corduroie, mudpath left by tracked vehicles; - bridges; - infrastructures in general. - Another thing, perhaps already mentionned, would be the possibility to place wrecks on scenario map, which could even be misidentified and assumed live units instead of dead ones. A dead KT in the middle of an American position in the Ardennes would go a long way in putting me "in the game"... Moddable wreckages, of course Absolutely. And even though it might seems trivial, I'd like them to leave some sort of traces on the land they move upon. Useful - and realistic- in QBs. 3D modelled as well. What do you mean ? Again, trenches rendered in 3D with depth and perhaps more flexibility in layout. Plus everything WWB said and many many other equally interesting ideas. - among other things.</font> Now back to what I should really be doing. Essay due tomorrow. Best

Hope I am not OT but how about that : "[The Panther] approximates (corresponds roughly to) our General Sherman, a tank which evoked complimentary comment in the Nazi press." Really ? I'd be curious to learn what was the appreciation of the Sherman by the German at the time. "Complimentary" would not have been my guess though. Any insight ?

Poor Sergent Samodai. Good job Robert.

I support that. :cool: I am very happy that they are working to enhance the 3D environment and can't wait to see the results. That alone will go a long way in renovating the simulator. To keep the guessing going, even if I'd like WWII best, I'll support (read: buy) almost anything. Just about any conflict in the 20th century would be worth simulating, although 1915-1917 positionnal warfare could be a little tricky: * * * - 85% losses ? How'd you do that ? I could not achieve anything below 96% losses ? Please write an AAR ! * * * Cheers

That will get me going for sure and provide a good start. Your USA file is very detailed, now I can focus on working the portraits. The problem is then with Commonwealth troops/Poland/Free French. I suppose that if I follow the general line of theatre I should get pretty close (i.e. set 1 : North Africa, set 2 : Italy midwar set 3: italy late war). Downloaded that. It will also be of help, but I must admit I do have have the knowledge to instantly recognise all those ranks, and I do not possess ASL or uniform books for exact references... Would you happen to know if the portraits for the Germans/Italians follow the exact same logic as in CMBB ? (say, for example, 501600 - 501604: Luftwaffe Airborne set #2) From what I saw, it does. I'll try to have the sets thoroughly tested by uniform experts to correct any major errors. If any of you would like to help, drop me an email, I'll be needing knowledge here. The target date is late november for a beta set. Thanks for your help

That would be very appreciated. Thanks

Hello, I am in the process of reworking the CMAK interface and I intend to redo the interface portraits as I did for CMBB . My question is, does anyone have a clue as to what is the bmp mapping for the portraits? Apparently the system is the same as in CMBB, with many different sets of portraits for one nation depending, I suppose, of the year and theater. I recall a list made available on one of MD's sites that presented the same info in a neat table format for CMBB, and that was very helpful. Is there is any thing like that available for CMAK around ? TIA Tarkus [ September 16, 2004, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Very good work indeed. I think we are witnessing something like third generation modding here people. You got some real nice effects on that KV-1/41. It looks like the vehicle has burned or something and I like that a lot, but it does give the tank a peculiar look that might be too "dirty" for some. Nasty is more what it is really I've never seen such shading effects before. I say real good and, more importantly, getting the modding in a new, different direction. Refreshing. If anything, I hope you are going to explore the technique some more for other specific effects like plain dirt and dust. I keep it for sure and eagerly await your next offering. I'd be happy to get some insight as to how you went about doing this one. Keep us informed on your future projects, I really want to see where you go from there. Best Tarkus

Aye aye sir ! You can be sure I will keep you all fully informed. Thanks for these encouraging words. I plan to have a first work-in-progress preview in a couple of weeks on the CMAK board. I am now at my fourth pre-prod design stage, and what I have is a keeper I believe. But let us not go ahead of things. There is work to be done before anything is shown. All I can say is that it will be a worthy heir of the Dark Steel Interface. I just sended you the proper font file via email. I guess I could've thought of that the first time around. Duh ! Let us know how it turns out. As Junk2drive said, the "unarmed" status appears when you regain control of troops previously captured. A rare occurence I think. * Salutations *