Tarkus

I hear you. I'll try to find some things to work on. And now that I read comments here, I am thinking of making two different ingame CMAK interface sets. Apparently the "matrix-ish sci-fi-esque" camera controls just doesn't cut it for most. Like I said, this is going to be fun :eek: 6th century ? Boy, you're tracking back quite far. Not to worry though, just about everybody complain about French Canadians Now, Norway isn't bad, is it ? Cheers

Thanks Aristoteles. I am an happy man now But just so you know, and nothing against France really, I am French Canadian. Best of both world: Good Food and Hockey Not a problem. Nice work. I've downloaded it and the HQ bonuses you did are nice, mostly closer to the originals. You are right, color is indeed required for this information. As for the color of the text, I used LettrGoth12 BT - 10 points (8 points for the captured/unarmed BMPs. I see you changed the 1085 "captured" bmp. You should likewise change the 1086 "unarmed" bmp for consistency.) Feel free to edit as you see fit and post the patch. Do you mean for the video playback control panel ? The camera controls ? For the rest of the interface, one does not have much space to work with. But the 40's vintage look may be achieved otherwise. I'll explore the question. Now I must find an old radio set, and perhaps look inside WWII armored vehicles for inspiration. This is going to be fun. I'll keep you all informed. Cheers. Tarkus

One of the testers said the exact same thing about the video controls being too futuristic. I decided to leave it as is because I personnaly like it a lot, but I understand your point. I am away from home right now, but I'll try to think of something less glossy and keep you informed. As for the HQ icons, you are also right, it is indeed a part were I think things can be improved. The one I am working on for CMAK should be better, but I'll look yours too, so we come up with the best compromise. I'll open a thread in the CMAK forum soon to show you guys where I am going, and we'll then be able to benefit frow all your ideas. For the unit status, well, I personnally had no problem with the variation, but it is true that the font does not change - only the background. I will look at your modification and try it out though, because if it is better, BOOM, it'll go in. Thanks for these constructive critics guys. I will keep them in mind for the CMAK interface, and feel free to comments more of the job as well. Best Tarkus

Thanks guys. These comments are always encouraging, really. I've just uploaded the french ingame version of the interface. Plus, for those who might want to keep the original portraits, but also want to keep the darksteel interface, I've uploaded a patch with them original pics to which I added a frame and proper shadows. Good for both english and french version. Now the question is: a german version anyone ? I'll be needing help if so. The Human wave icon is also interesting... It captures well the essence of the move All rigth. Let's get back to this CMAK interface.

It looks extremely good to me. I look forward seeing it on the battlefield. - hopefully on my side Best [ September 03, 2004, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

It looks extremely good to me. I look forward seeing it on the battlefield. - hopefully on my side Best [ September 03, 2004, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Thanks Europa. Yep, I plan to redo the CMAK interface as well, and I just found my main design as of today. But this will not be ready until a few months I guess. Back to University :cool: Best

Also included is a nifty little icon set I made for all three games, including battle and operations files icons. Tarkus

Greetings. After months of hard work, it is with great pleasure that I present you this total interface conversion set. It changes both ingame and offgame user interface, including units portraits (made in good part with the help of many reenactment units, see readme file) and the order menu. I've uploaded it at the usual place. I hope you like playing with it as much as I did designing it. Any and all comments most welcome. Cheers Tarkus

Don't get confused by the odd syntaxe. Simply copy/paste the whole thing in the proper file and your done. Cheers

I'd recommend Day of Defeat, a Half-Life mod. Crappy installation, moderately stable software, not at all user friendly as far as tweaking is concerned, way too many cheats, but if you can manage to join cool down-to-earth players, the best gameplay around, hands down. (for a FPS, that is) And with microphones on the net, you get some real good adrenaline fixes, I'll tell you that ! :cool: No power pack, no multiple-clips-between-the-eyes survival and a good clean and lethal MP 44. Too bad the online FPS community isn't as civilized as this one. I get tired of name calling and insult rather quickly. In any case, no matter how good a FPS is, I still go for CM. Best, all around. Period. Cheers :: Tarkus ::

I think you're right on the mark there. I will experiment with this. It would be cool if you could designate a target out of LOS and that this designation would serve as the relative point for hulldown, instead of the terrain around. This binary condition makes one wonder if it's more advantageous to try to achieve hulldown position with specific vehicles, since the passive protection of certain vehicles being structurally better than others on the turret/upper hull, OR the silouhette value modified being different on each type. I guess CM is computing all these things to come up with a basic modifier. Now, imagine how things will differ if BFC decide to try and succeed in making the relationship between a unit and the terrain truly dynamic. In the specific case of armor combat, we can suppose the relative value of various vehicles would change somehow. The Marders, for instance, although poorly armored, might get a new life among many people, for their guns are rather high on the superstructure, making it a reasonnably interesting ambush weapon if the vehicle can assume the proper hull defilement position. Indeed. Very interesting. The reverse slope advice in particular. I'll pay attention to that. Thanks guys. cheers

If you mean you use hulldown as a tactical disposition, I would venture to say that most CM player feel compelled, one day or another, to do so, since tank combat is so realistically depicted in the game. My opening question was referring specifically to the "seek hulldown" order which, although deriving from a valid and most useful tank combat concept, is, IMHO, very difficult to use to good effect in the game. That being said, as I didn't know about the enhanced move-to-contact thing, perhaps there is something I also ignore about this hulldown order... Example. I got these nifty little BA-10 on my left flank, 4 of them, cool, odd and of doubtful usefulness, up a hill, in full defilement, with the sole task of discouraging any counterattack on that flank while I proceed on my right with the main attack. Forward recce team spots two PzIIIs doing just that. From what I see of the terrain, it is rather open steppe, with all likelyhood of getting as good a LOS as can be. I order a seek hulldown to the point where the panzers will most likely get into position, hoping for a good shot or two before things get too hot, gambling on the fact that, somehow, four guys againts two give me some kind of an edge. Of course, I was wrong on both counts. Not mentionning the poor odds on purely technical grounds, the seek hulldown induced my guys to move out of cover, fully, therefore giving away the sole tiny advantage they had. The panzers crew, obviously seasonned vets, were no doubt laughing big time on those sweet top notch optics. What followed is some good lurking around these forums, only to discover that the order is not really used anyway. Or is it ? In any case it was, at least, a good show. Cheers.

Interesting. And it seems the hulldown order is rarely used, if ever. So I suppose it doesnt matter much what is the tank stance when moving after overshooting the ridge it was suppose to use for hull defilement, since it is never related to the initial intention of the player, that is, improving the position instead of gambling on a hazardous (and not quite voluntary) bound. I guess shoot and scoot is probably the best order to adjust a firing position then. Fair enough. As for move-to-contact, I am happy with the change. The order now seems quite useful to me. Best

Hi, I've been reading some interesting topics on the hulldown order, but am still wondering what is the vehicle's stance while seeking the hulldown position. Is it considered like a simple "move" order, or rather "hunt"? Given the fact that one cannot be sure if the relative point of search will be in the unit's LOS, and that the vehicle has always a chance of keep moving in full view of the ennemy, it would be interesting to know if they simply roam around or are at least readying themselves for a fight. I guess I am still trying to figure out whether the order has any use the way it is implemented in the game. I had rather bad experiences, to say the least, trying to use it, going from a "hehehe, be afraid, I am getting the best position to kick your butt" attitude to something like "WTF is this guy doing ?!?... stop ! stoooop ! *Kabooom* noooooo! -blushing all red in embarrassment" kind of feeling. Exciting, but not very healthy for my troops. Also, I'd be happy to learn your way of using the Move-to-Contact order. Reading an interesting scout thread started by Bruceov on the CMBB board, someone mentionned using move to contact with a covered arc. Does this method enable the unit to react (meaning, stop moving) only to ennemy units sighted within the arc ? Or will the unit still stops at any sighted ennemy, even a lonely Kübel 3000 yards away ? Here again, I am simply trying to figure out the best way to use the order. I know it has the advantage of modifying the unit stance from a neutral one (like move) to a more ready state of mind, with consequences on moral. Best Tarkus

Hi, I think the following might be of interest to some of you. If you are looking for good maps for CMBB, I suggest you try the ones made by Manstein, available on cmmods.com. He made three packs, including QBs versions with setup zones. These are one of the best maps I've ever seen and I use some for fictionnal scenarios. Really nice touch of realism and tactical possibilities. IMHO, truly and example of the proper use of the CM map engine. Highly recommended. Best Tarkus

Hi guys. I am having trouble figuring out what is the proper conduct with the following. Any input appreciated. I am redoing all portaits for CMBB interface. It represents all in all 282 bmp files. I use pictures from images taken from the web, modifing them to fits the interface I am doing. Some are achives stuff, some from reenactements units' pix, some paintings. The result is terrific, having b & W faces instead of shoulders...anyway. Case no.1: I release the whole thing on the net for other people to DL. I specify on a readme file that part of the material included isn't my own, but with no futher details about the source. Question : Is this ok/sufficient/polite/put in whatever you see fits/...enough ? Case no.2: I am asked to put it on a bonus CD of some sort with a pc game magazine that offers various mods and scenarios for CM. I receive no money whatesoever for this but the magazine does. Question: a) Is it even honest to uses other people pix, even if they are hugely modified, for such a project ? well, what would be the proper conduct on this one ? I drop it altogether ? Produces a ten lines disclaimer ? I am not overconcern with legal stuff here, but rather about simple respect to other peoples endeavours. I dont want to steal anything from anyone, yet I have no idea where I took all the materials for a project that was not initially intended to be broadly distributed, so asking permission is not really an option. Any suggestions ? TIA Tarkus

Hi guys. I am back from among the deads and am presently working on some new stuff for the CMBB interface along the same line as the Grey Steel interface I made for CMBO a couple of years ago, only a zillion times better! (All new portraits, yes, that's true, all 282 of them...arrrg !), completely overhauled weapon rack, new in-command indicator, among other equally thrilling new stuff (do I sound like a I am trying to sell a car ? right...). It will be a total (and i mean TOTAL) interface conversion pack. And I just put my grey steel interface for CMBO back online at www.cmmods.com Some will remember it from a couple of years ago. It just occured to me that it was was no longer online. Go have a look and expect news as soon as I can figure out how to post screenshots here. Cheers ! Tarkus ps.: German and french versions of the Grey Steel CMBO interface will be put online ASAP.

Hi guys. I just put my grey steel interface back online at www.cmmods.com Some will remember it from a couple of years ago, but as I am working on a total (and I mean TOTAL !) conversion project for CMBB interface, it occured to me that the one I made for CMBO was no longer online. Go give it a try, tell me what you think, and look for some new stuff for your CMBB interface along the same line only zillion times better pretty soon! (All new portraits, yes, that's true, all 282 of them...arrrg !), completely overhaul weapon rack, new in-command indicator, among other equally thrilling new stuff (do I sound like a I am trying to sell a car ? right...) Cheers ! Tarkus ps.: German and french versions will be put online ASAP.

Although many people here already voiced my feelings toward Combat Missions site, I feel it's my duty to give my 110% support to Manx for his endeavour. - I've downloaded quite a few scenarios from his site, as well as many mods. - I've read probably all the articles currently hosted there, for which I am most grateful. - This site is my one CM mod shopping site, along with Madmatt's - I cannot understand why people concerned with historical accuracy don't express their view in a more constructive way. Beside, as an history student myself (who plan to specialize in WWII) I think it is a major fault to undermine a project like Manx's site for so-called innacuracies, and nobody should call themselves historians if, by their actions, they prevent someone like Manx to bring people's contribution to this absolutly fantastic game that is CM. Somebody already mentioned that CM is a WWII tactical simulator. As such, even fictional scenarios are pretty worthy historically, if you know what I mean. All this to say that I support every initiative that makes CM a better game, and, IMHO, Manx's work is doing that with much class. Don't give up by anything else then your own will. Tarkus

Ok guys, this time I'll make it short and sweet. Will there be any change regarding C&C as to whether platoon HQ will be given the capability to command non organic squads, given some restrictions, during operations? Thanks Tarkus

A word about the the rumors about whether or not the book is real. It comes from an historian (sorry, don't remember who) who said there was some mistakes in the book, like Grossdeutschland sleeve insignia on the wrond sleeve, wrong caliber for some weapons, etc. M. Sajer, when told about that, sais plainly that his book was not intended to be an history treaty nor was he sure of his recollection being a totally accurate account, especially on the technical side. As for the wrong geographic location, it is notorious that most german soldiers in Russia rarely knew where they were. He added that the point he wanted to make is to tell what he went throught. I honestly think that in that respect, it is a complete and total success. Plus there were numerous German veterans who were ask about their opinion on the book, and almost all said that they didn't care whether the story was true or not, they said war on the Eastern Front was just like M. Sajer described it. All this to says exactly like everyone else here: get the book. HTH Cheers Tarkus

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Stalin's Organ So company commanders would be 1 level worse when commanding squads?? No thanks. Company and battalion commanders would be well known to their men most of the time, and quite capable of leading them competently (except that my ones always seem to cmoe with NO modifiers at all!! )Even within a company the platoon comanders would probably be known to most of the troops and they'd be able to transfer around a bit without too much bother. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd like to submit three points here. 1.- The way I see it, the "no leadership bonuses" suggestion is more related to platoon HQs being assigned non-organic squads, not to company HQs or higher. 2.- I agree with you that company and battalion commander were probably well known by their men and could lead them in the field. But, IMHO, leading men in the field (read: giving men orders) is slightly different than efficiently manoeuvering a combat formation under fire. If one assume that the leadership bonuses are only a representation of the leader's leadership talent, then the rationale of the "no leadership bonuses" doesn't make any sense. I personnaly think that the leader's stats are a representation of both his leadership abilities and the result of training with his men. Of course, this does not hold with support weapons team that you can assign to anybody, but I'd venture to say that commanding a two-men zook team is a little less complex than it is a 12-men squad. 3.- Not having the leadership modifiers applied to non-organic squads would be a good way to illustrate the hastly conditions under which these arrangements were made. Ok, I guess it's time for me to take my pill. Cheers Tarkus

From M Hofbauer <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Usually, such administrative reorganizations would not occur at the climax of a melee of a 30-turn CM battle. I think such reorganizations are definitely outside of CM's time scope. The CM batles show only the hot half hour of an engagement, not the preparation, not the aftermath. I think there will not be reorganizations just like there won't be rearming,refueling, and repair. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think we both agree on the fact that during a battle (or at any other time), no HQ, whether divisional or regimental, could (or should) get involved in any admin that deal with platoon and squad organisation. What I have in mind is for tactical reorg between battles (as depicted in operations). I also agree with the fact that such reorg were not a common practice nor did they occured under fire. On the other hand, and to stick to my example of the Ardennes offensive, many US units saw continuous action for days, hence the need for some units-swapping at the front. Perhaps a drop-down menu such as "Allow HQ to command any squad" in the opration parameter editor would be the solution? See below for limitations. From patbovin <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Maybe the HQ units could be 1 level worse than when they are commanding their own units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was thinking along these lines as well, say, no leadership bonuses applied and a maximum of three commanded squads. Thanks for your input guys. Oh, and again, any clue about the appearance of the Brummbär in CMBB? Cheers Tarkus

Hey guys, With the huge fuss around the IS-3, my inquirery got lost, and I still would like to know what people here think about it (I'd like to get Steve point of view as well, but I don't want to be the one that prevent the guy from finishing CMBB ASAP .) So here we go again: When, in CMBO, a squad has lost its appropriate HQ, the only way to regain a proper command over that unit is to bring up a higher level HQ unit, that is, a company or a battalion HQ. The problem that sometimes occur, mostly in operations, is when losses are high enough to call for a major administrative overhaul to reassign units, in order to form more balanced platoons. My question: have you guys at BTS thought about a way to implement a feature where Platoon HQ could command squads other than their organic ones? I have been given extensive thoughts about that (both historically and game-wise) and think this would be an accurate one. Just to take a few examples, the Ardennes campaign (mostly for the US Army) saw many such an arrangement, as did the Wehrmacht in Normandy. And I do have good references on this. Anyway, let me know your thoughts on this. Ciao Tarkus