Cameroon

Hell, drive it in reverse then Seriously, while I wouldn't drive around everywhere in reverse, it might make sense to approach sites of possible attack in a "ready" posture. Of course, this is probably taking advantage of absolute spotting which might be considered gamey by some. *shrug*

I've actually grown to like the small caliber mortars as long as the map isn't just a big open plain. While one won't likely stop an infantry advance, they're great against annoying MGs, ATGs and "staging areas" (e.g. that last bit of cover before the open ground where all those troops keep coming from ). You can't let the mortar be in LOS of anything though, or as has been said, they draw lots of fire. My biggest complaint is not their speed of movement but the rate at which they become slow moving, defensless targets. I love the delivery rate of their rounds, but wow does it go through those fast.

Am I the only one seeing severely crazy images? What I can see of the mod looks great, but all but one of the images seems corrupted. This is happening in both IE and Mozilla (both on a Mac). The first image is fine until about half-way down, then it gets "lightened." The second image is fine. The third image is fine for about the first half, then it gets mangled and everything gets real washed out and tinted green. The fourth image is a total loss. It's almost completely dark and tinted very green. The same thing (though to a lesser extent) was shows up with the jeep shots. I've cleared the cache, reloaded the images and viewed them in different browsers. So is it my software somewhere or are others seeing this too? [ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Cameroon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tanks a Lot: Cameroon: I don't see your e-mail address in your profile.<hr></blockquote> Stupid button... didn't get set... grumble... Ok, well it should show up now. Looking forward to new water

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: it's a motherbeautiful terrain mod. I wonder how the edges get along with my grass terrain tiles? can't remember if the grass is part of the edge tiles or not. If they are, there would be a difference in hue between the grass at the watertile edge and the rest. anybody care to illuminate me?<hr></blockquote> Yup, water tiles have a "border" of grass -- this could be made as a border of mud though, thus handily alleviating your problem. Haven't seen the mod "in person" yet so I can't say if it went that way. Oh, and since I didn't see this particular version over at the Last Stand yet, I'd like a copy (e-mail's in the profile -- pesky e-mail spiders). [ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Cameroon ]</p>

There is another way also, use Snapz Pro (from Ambrosia Software) to record a Quicktime movie from the game. This is a Mac product, but you said you've got a Mac so... Granted, as you said it's a memory hog but it does avoid the sub-optimal transfer(s) to VHS. Gyrene did this and posted a short "film" not too long ago. He played with it afterward to make it look grainy, etc. Personally I wish I could record my games in their entirety (I heard rumors about this coming in the future, but not for CMBO), or at least portions (even a "save movie clip" button would do it for me *shrug*). <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>It's very cool - your battles now become movies, and you're the director!<hr></blockquote> Except neither side listens to you screaming "No! NOOOO! Don't go THERE!"

Well the thing to remember about night battles is that your own troops sometimes mistakenly fire on each other. So it's possible the other Kangaroo opened up on it or maybe a .50 cal. The only good thing I've ever had come about from a night battle (along those lines) is two german infantry squads turn on each other while my guys took a much needed break from fire.

Maybe there has to be at least one enemy left to surrender and there were none? I offer this as a suggestion because I'm almost 100% sure that there's no way to turn off auto-surrender.

Specifically, resources files on the Mac can be a maximum of 16 megs in size. Yes, that can drastically limit the size and quality of your installed mods. There may be some ways around this, but the best option right now is to be aware of which resource file(s) the mod(s) will be added to and then guess whether they will fit. If you aren't sure, backup the appropriate resource files first. Then if you get weirdness, just put the old resource file back. CM:BB for the Mac is rumored to be using .bmp files just like its Windows counterpart thus avoiding this problem altogether.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: Macs are more lenient than PC's when it comes to what symbols you can use in a file name, all PC legal symbols work with the Mac. Btw, can PC names have more than one dot? "."? i.e: file.name.is.this.zip? Gyrene<hr></blockquote> Ah, not quite true Gyrene and a good question by Marco. The ":" is a special character for the Mac file system much like "/" is in *nix file systems and "\" in Windows. I can't see colon's being used much in the mod names, but just one extra thing... So to sum it up, the only file name limits I'm aware of on the Mac are 31 characters and no colons. And what file system/naming convention brought about the no spaces thing anyway?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon: Cameroon, I actually considered accessing the BMPs directly from ZIP files. There's a couple of reasons why I rejected it (at least for now). The main issue is that there is not a 1-to-1 mapping between mods (ZIP files) and CMMOS RuleSets. For example, there are probably more than 10 separate and independent mods that are processed by the "Commonwealth Vehicles" RuleSet. Therefore there's no convenient way for CMMOS to know which ZIP files are applicable to which RuleSets. [snip] Gordon<hr></blockquote> I've got some ideas on solutions for that "problem", but I don't have the time to elaborate on them right now.

From my perspective as a user (instead of as a developer), the "best" solution for me would be for the mods to remain zipped on my computer. Ideally my mod management software reads the info.txt (or whatever) file from the archive for displaying the information from its GUI. Then, if the mod is being installed, the manager extracts the necessary BMPs. Additionally, a small web cgi could be used to perform a similar operation so that web masters wouldn't even have to worry about extracting the info file. The cgi could, and then generate the HTML for the mod. That is, assume the zip is blah_blah_blah_blahblah.zip. Then the cgi just pulls the info file from the archive to create the stuff the user sees. To create something like "Train Tracks (hi res) by Gyrene." Again, this is from the user standpoint. It would be the most useful solution for me as a user because I don't have to care about the file name of the mod, my "tools" will display all the information I need.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: I wonder how a 'rule set' is made? This sounds very complicated. About the CMMOS for Mac. I have only limited knowledge in C++, but isn't the sourcecode in princip independent from the platform and can be simply compiled?<hr></blockquote> The ability to transport code between platforms is pretty much dependent upon how much said code makes use of OS specific features/tools. Probably the only portable portion of code would be that which deals with parsing the rule files, and then only if it's using standard library stuff. None of the GUI code would port and none of the file system code would port. Since CMMOS is mostly a GUI tool for manipulating the file system, there's not a lot of opportunity for porting. I'd be a software engineer/programmer by trade as well, once someone hires me... stupid slowdown

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon: Gyrene, I'm still looking for someone to work with on the Mac side to see if we can't get something equivalent to CMMOS for Mac users (even if it's just some extra capabilities added into the existing Mac mod manager(s) that will help solve these sorts of issues. Yes, something on the order of "_BO"/"_BB" (or the absence of "_BB" means it's a CM:BO mod) is probably sufficient, but the naming convention goes far beyond that, including version information, low/hi res, summer/winter, etc. Gordon<hr></blockquote> Not to get anyone's hopes up, but I (a Mac developer) have been messing around with creating a CMMOS compatible (not copy) Mac mod manager. If CM worked in OS X I'd probably already have such a beast out (OS X is soooo much easier to write for than pre-X). Perhaps I'll re-motivate myself Rest assured, I will let the community know about my progress. Regarding naming conventions, there is at least one important issue to make note of. Mac file names may only be a total of 31 characters (unless you're in OS X but since CM doesn't work there...). File naming conventions should probably take this into account as 13344_1942_winter_camo_bloc_uk.bmp isn't going to work

Let's put it this way, load up Chambois as the allies. Dismount any mounted infantry. Now, give vehicles and infantry move orders to put them all together. Not as a formation or anything, just all jumbled up with no more than 5 meters between you and anything else, and preferably less than 2 meters. Now give a bunch of movement orders to all those units to make them mill around that area in a completely incoherent pattern. Remember though, they can't get more than 5 meters apart. Basically if you can imagine that, you can imagine what I saw. I mean, not only were the AFVs all tangled up but the infantry was too. It was in the same area and facing in all random directions. The Vickers sitting in the middle was pretty amusing though. There was this 5 meter in radius circle of calm centered on him. I should go into the editor and place the units similar to what I saw so I can give you a screen shot. panzerwerfer, hopefully you can see that this was worse then the AFV dance of death. This was the AFV and Infantry Orgy of Inactivity. Speaking of reversing into combat... I've watched a number of AFVs do so in CM 1.12. Not only that, my first Chambois as the Germans, right at the end the Allies turned their tanks around (ie front facing where they came from) and started driving AWAY from the VLs. All their tanks, in unison, just turned around and drove away. SlowMotion, sure, you can e-mail me the screen shot. My address is in my profile, I'll let you know if it's like what I saw. [ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Cameroon ]</p>

The best I've been able to come up with so far is to use the "Color Range..." tool with the Fuzziness set to 0. Click one of the main color (i.e. the most widespread) and then shift-click on the remaining "off" colors. This is faster than the magic wand. It also works better if you are zoomed in pretty far. Once you've selected everything, you should be able to fill/delete or whatever without getting antialiasing problems. The trick seems to be the Fuzziness setting. If you set it to something other than zero, you'll select colors more effectively. However, doing this also means that delete/fill/etc end up causing anti-aliasing. Yuck. At least that's how it all seems in Photoshop 5.0.2. I was fighting with this quite extensively the other day when I took a high-res mod and made it lo-res (limited space, good looking mod but over sized imho). I didn't figure this out then, but I decided to do some playing just now to see if I could find a solution. Also, if you need to use an eraser tool that doesn't anti-alias, the "Block" eraser works well. Anyway, hope someone can use this info and/or refine it to be more accurate/comprehensive. [ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Cameroon ]</p>

I really like being able to play against the AI, even if one can do so only from one side. Better than just against AI is when a scenario is playable against either the AI or a human. Even if I were to start playing PBEM games (something I'm not currently interested in due to the length of such games), I also like the instant gratification of being able to see the outcome of the turn within moments. The size of the map (both in geography and point cost) is not as important as the "content" of the scenario. What I mean is that I enjoy scenarios for their thoughtfulness in design (is it detailed and realistic looking?) and effort to make it mission oriented instead of QB-esque. Fertile Fields is exemplary at both of those. However, I also would think it crazy to request that amount of work for every scenario. Other, more sane, examples are Armored Ambush and even the supplied St. Anne's Chapelle (its fun and quick). For example, an assault on a small outpost that has some anti-aircraft guns because it needs air protection NOT because it's a cheap and effective light armor and infantry killer. Regarding length, 45 is about my limit (though the 75 turn All or Nothing was fun, if frustrating) with my preferred being between 15 - 30 (depending on size and objectives). I'm not a big fan of infantry-only type scenarios, unless the scenario idea is of the commando raid variety or similar. St. Anne's Chapelle is probably an exception because it's short, small and straightforward. So even if what I've written above makes no sense to you , I'd probably like scenarios that JasonC likes.

Warning, there be spoilers here relating to the Chambois scenario. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ok, so I decided I'd play Chambois as the German side even though I figured I could be gamey and just race for the edge. The first time I didn't do so and due, I think, mostly to extreme in-attention I lost. Also none of my armor seemed to be able to hit anything and the allies hit everything they aimed at. Had I paid a bit more attention to where my armor was placed I could probably have managed a much better job. As it was, those Poles ended up with a minor victory. Eh, ok whatever. So I loaded it up again determined just to participate in an all out slaughter of allied armor by being gamey and exploiting what I knew the AI would likely do. (I also rushed everything but armor off the exit edge). So 25 turns later, what has happend? Nothing. I haven't seen even a sound contact. 25 turns, nada.... this seems highly unnatural. So I look at the map and what greets my eyes? Literally ALL the allied forces are in a tiny little knot at that "middle" ridge near the patch of woods (basically forward of the middle starting area). I wish I had taken a screenshot of the mess. It looked like a major freeway at rush hour... with both lanes blocked by a major accident... and people running (well, not moving at all, just gawking) all over the place. Has anyone ever anything even remotely like this happen to them? I mean, I've seen some ugly vehicle AI involving bridges (much to my gunners' delight) but this was insane.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder: I read of an M-8 that actually did knock out a Panther at close range. The gunner panicked and sent the 37mm round ricocheting off the pavement and into the underside of the Panther, penetrating it and igniting rounds in the turret. Wonder who was more shocked, the Panther crew or the M-8 Crew? Somehow I see the American crewman carefully explaining his poise and deadly aim in taking out that Panther ! WB<hr></blockquote> Just to add to the incredible odds of these M8 shots, they were somewhere between 450 - 500 meters. And I have to agree on the crew's reaction "Why yes, sir, I noticed that I had a possible weak point shot and..."

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by kmead: [snip]CMBO and OS9.2 do not get along well together, I wouldn't suggest any OS above 9.1 and I run 9.04 on my 400mhz iMac and 8.6 on my Rev B.<hr></blockquote> I swear I can't figure out why people say CMBO doesn't play well with 9.2... I've got 9.2.1 and the only thing I really ever experience is it "losing" the mouse (which might be a whole lot of things not related to the OS). And that only requires me to unplug/replug the mouse. Anyway, I guess your mileage may vary.

As a note to those with Photoshop or Photoshop-like applications, lightening the track by about %20 seems to be a good amount. At least if you are trying to get it to fit better with DD's terrain.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: I also noticed that FO's and sole surviving members of HQ's are almost bullet proof. I once had a flamethrower team get killed while riding in a HT. The HT crew wasn't scratched. Gyrene<hr></blockquote> Better than bullet proof. I had a Company HQ holding a lone patch of woods with 1 member of a decimated squad against a MG firing down on them and at least two squads in buildings firing across at them. Not only were they not surpressed, but when charged (albeit by a 3 or 4 man squad) they fought back and won. The rifle squad was eliminated but the HQ actually took out the two remaining members of the squad that rushed them. I praised the Company HQ for quite a few turns after that. Unfortunately I do believe he ended up dying in the end after that the area around that patch had been secured.

Having played a couple of times (at least once as Allied and twice as the Germans) I figured I'd post my comments. spoilers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I found playing as the Germans vs the AI to be a rather straightforward win. The AI advances with armor in the forward town (sometimes leaving a squad mounted and never ever moved) which is easy pickings for the AT and panzershreck to get a couple. My first game vs the AI gave me 4 tanks (firefly, cromwell and two shermans) at that location. After that, keeping my own armor back for ambush shots proved a consistent, easy method for taking out all the allied armor (with minimal losses of my own). In fact, I moved most of my infantry into the city to fire from the buildings on any enemy infantry that got too close. Very little ever did, they were quite powerfully suppressed by the Tigers' firepower. In the end I lost one Tiger, Nashorn and StuG (IIRC) as well as one ATG. Infantry casualities were very light. I played as the allies against my brother (a newcomer and 12 ) so there was less to discuss tactically from that side. However, Ligur you may feel better about losing your Tigers when you hear how he lost one of his. One of my Stuarts popped a Tiger from the front (damned weak points! ). And imagine losing Panther Gs to M8 Greyhounds (a recent me vs AI battle, one M8 recorded 3 Panther G kills). I tend to agree with Jack Trap on the "back-door" approach. Though against a human opponent such a tactic will probably work less effectively. End comment? I thoroughly enjoy this scenario. While the German Tigers provide an air of superiority there is always the tense moments when those Fireflies get off some shots. And if those Tigers go, likely so does the town. Of course, as the Allies it seems you have overwhelming odds... and then you start losing armor As an oddity, in the last few turns against my brother (before they automatically surrendered) a seeming random set of arty/mortars dropped in the middle of one of the open spaces. There was NO infantry anywhere near the spot, but I couldn't figure out who fired the rounds.

Hey nice mod Gyrene, now I just need to get scenarios that make use of train tracks.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Holien: Slightly off thread but about pillboxes. Would people think IRL that you could knock out a HMG wooden bunker with one Piat round? When you compare this to a HMG team in a heavy building which would not be knocked out by a single Piat round? What do people think? Shold CM model that for HMG teams a single round knockout? H<hr></blockquote> It seems (from casual observation) that pillboxes, wood and concrete, are modeled much like stationary Armor. That being so, there was a thread about the seemingly over-likelihood of crews abandoning their vehicles when a round only penetrates (especially by low cal. rounds). To answer your question, I don't think a single penetration by a PIAT would make one abandon the rather decent protection of the bunker. Granted I've never been in combat so I couldn't really say, but it seems to me that if I were being fired upon I'd want to be where the cover is, namely inside the bunker (until the arty comes ). This round-about brings me to a question of my own. How come infantry often try and sprint across the tens of meters they just covered under fire instead of ducking into that house 5 meters in front of them? Especially when just "cautious." [Edited 'cause my grammar sucks at times.] [ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Cameroon ]</p>