[Mac?]

Originally posted by Sixxkiller:

Apple needs to expand or die.

-Ray

I have been a Mac used for over 15 years and have heard this statment almost every one of them

[Idea and a question]

I was wondering if the TAC AI could provide feedback to the game engine to define how much was 'going on'. Then the end of the turn could be defined as occuring after enough has happened to require a new orders phase (with thresholds at both extremes to prevent things getting out of hand).

In this way long march routes where nothing much is happening may stretct to 2-3 mins and super hectic all out mayhem may be sufficient to fill a 20-30 second turn.

Just a thought....

[Module Question]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It really is much more simple than many of you think.

Steve

Steve

Could you comment maybe on the relationship between modules and 3rd party scenarios ?

Will there be a strict interdependence. ie. Scenario X Absolutely requires Modules A, B & D ?

Thanks.

[Module Question]

What is not clear to me is the way that 3rd party scenarios (which are a large part of the phenomenal game replayability of the previous CM generation) will be able to cope with added modules.

If designed for the lowest common denominator (the modules shipped on the install DVD) then the buildings, vehicles and weapons, and hence the degree of replayability, is likely to be significantly constrained (depending on exactly now narrow the initial release is set up).

If designed to exploit additional follow up modules then does this mean that these scenarios can ONLY be played by the small subset of people whose module collection includes all those required by the scenario ?

Will scenarios all have to list the modules required to allow them to work ?

It sounds like a sure way to piss of those new to the fold. What if they cannot run 90% of scenarios because of module requirements ? Also imagine the outcry if they then buy an extra module specifically to run a scenario that they turns out to suck.

Remember folks – the vast majority of CMBB etc players never bothered with mods and do not waste their lives hanging around in fora like these. Its unlikely that they will all rush out to download the latest module to add rare Finnish über AFVs even if they are equipped with AT toothpicks and alcohol/air explosives. Even less likely if they have to pay for them.

Hoping for the best. Fearing the worst….

[Mac?]

Not being a Mac developer I do not speak from a position of knowledge. However, given that the vast majority of the Mac user base will be running PPC based computers for some time after the Intel switch can I plead for fat binary code capable of running on both processor types ?

Also, splitting the work among multiprocessors would be nice..

Thanks !

Its been a longtime since I played (non-OS9 bootable computer). I look forward to being able to return to the fold

[Could have Germany won?]

Originally posted by PatAWilson:

How about this scenario:

In early 1941 Germany forces a peace treaty on France for the return of Alsace and Lorraine. Germany then unilaterally declares peace, claiming that the humiliation of Versailles has been erased. Germany does not declare war on the U.S. with Japan and does not attack Russia. Now Germany has annexed Alsace and Lorraine from France, western Poland, and Czecheslovakia. Germany withdraws troops from all other areas.

Would Russia initiate hostilities?

Would England continue to fight?

Would the U.S. enter the war?

This is an interesting scenario.

I would guess:

1) Probably not, although its hard to say given the paranoia of Stalin.

2) No, not in the long/medium term. Assuming that the U-boats withdrew.

3) NO

[Could have Germany won?]

Originally posted by Alexei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bushido:

(...) the British pretty much controlled the Mediteranian after the Italian Navy was destroyed.

Actually it was the opposite. I am not sure about the date - I believe it is in beginning of 1942 - the Royal Navy had no more BBs in Mediterranean Sea (Italian minisubs + some diverted to Pacific I guess).

It was the right moment to attack Malta, but Rommel wanted to run for Cairo...

What if Malta had fallen ? </font>

[What u want to see in CMX2]

And it would also be cool to be able to synchronise units in some way. The convoy command is one that gets mentioned a lot, but what about:

- A 'formation' command, possible for infantry but particularly for tanks (of course this would need to depend on state of morale and quality of the HQ but it would save a lot of micromanaging) (and even a 'stay on road' command)

I second this suggestion. Part of the frustration with the way things are now is the necessity to micro-manage in order to do well.

More global commands such as being able to give an orders such as 'take control of this area' to a company commander would be good.

Even better if one could still maintain the ability to jump in and tweak individual subunits if you felt so inclined.

Something like this may well make the game more accessible to those of a less 'control freakery' nature.

More Finns would also be an improvement. Especially in the PTO...

[The Shell Game]

The Finns, of course, just threw matchsticks at everyone and thus won WWII.

Regards

JonS [/QB]

Indeed.... even the mosy lowly of finnish infantry grunts could call down whole boxes of matchsticks onto targets using only immitation bird calls to direct and correct the fall of fire.

I have heard it said that the effects were shattering to any troops unlucky enough to come under attack in this way and some of the splinters inflicted were very nasty....

The kind that just break off so you cant pull them out.

[German optics in the desert, total allied destruction?]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Patton21:

Alright, there seems to be some confusion on my part. When I said that the round from my m10 landed behind the m10, that is exactly what i meant. The round came out of the gun, turned around and exploded behind the tank.

It turned around? Like in a Roadrunner cartoon? </font>

[Till alla svenska CMBB spelare]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

BFC, make the Squareheads stop it. I feel like they're talking about me, and it makes me uncomfortable.

Are they talking about world domination? Incontinence? Canada? Make 'em stop.

I demand they insult me to my face.

After all, it must all be about me, mustn't it?

Mustn't it...mustn't it...bugger, that sounds right, but looks awful...

Dont worry Seanachai ! I'm sure they are just working out how to express their deeply held, and passionately argued hate in this strange foreign language so that you can truly appreciate the true feelings that your guts engender in them.

Despisedly yours,

FP

[Allied flame units: Why greater range than Axis?]

I'm sure a more worthy grog will be along shortly, but I think that many of the allied vehicle mounted FT's used pumps to shoot out the flaming goo whereas the German ones used gas pressure.

I would well be wrong though...

[Sloped Armour - isnt it obvious ?]

I was under the impression that the appearance of the T34 was a big shock to the Germans who had just finalised designs for the Tiger I (with essentially vertical armour). The replacement for the PzIV then on the drawing board was essentially scrapped and a new design (competition) started to design the 'answer' to the T34 - what eventually emerged as the Panther with (surprise !) sloped armour, followed thereafter by the Tiger II that also featured sloped protection.

Wouldnt this argue against the 'problems with production' school of thought and imply that the emergence of an effective enemy tank with sloped armour was essentially copied ? And if so this would imply that they didnt know about (or hadnt seriously considered) the merits of sloped metal so eloquently outlined by Rexford ?

Just a thought….

Edit: because I mixed up PzIV and VI

[ September 20, 2003, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: Fly Pusher ]

[Sloped Armour - isnt it obvious ?]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Also Vertical armour allows for comparably greater internal volume allied with less armour weight. For instance one needs less 8cm armour on the Panzer IV in covering the front than the sloped glacis of the Panther.

I must take acception to at least part of this statement. I just did a quick back of an envelope calculation ..

A 100cmx100cm vertical armour plate that is 10cm thick contains 100,000cm3 of metal.

To cover the same frontal area with an armour plate sloped at 45o the plate now needs to be 141.4cm long , its still 100cm wide , but now need be only 7.07cm thick to present an effective (horizontal) thickness of 10cm.

141.4x100x7.07 = 100,000cm3 (more or less)

So assuming a constant density the weight is the same in both cases and the chance of ricochet significantly increased.

I would certainly agree that a slab sided tank would give more internal room though....

[Sloped Armour - isnt it obvious ?]

One thing that struck me whist playing both CMBB and CMBO is the sudden, and visually striking, change from essentially vertical armour (such as the Churchill, PII and many others) to the graceful slopes of later tanks such as the T34 and Panther.

With the benefit of hindsight it seems blindingly obvious that a given thickness of armour held at a slope would be more difficult to defeat than flat plate (not to mention the increased chance of ricochet).

Was this effect really unknown in the 1930's when many of the early war tanks were being designed ? If so this is quite an amazing lack of insight. Alternatively, was there some other reason I dont know about responsible for the early box style tanks ?

A Groggish insight would be much appreciated....

Edit: coz I cant spell...

[ September 18, 2003, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Fly Pusher ]

[CMAK Screenshot Gallery updated with dozens of new pics!]

Nice pictures, I look forward to the game coming out.

My only plea would be for a demo more accessible to beginners and people new to the CM genre.

I also have a question (appologies if this has already been answered elsewhere). But will it be possible to engage two independent targets using the two cannon on the Grant M3 tank ?Will it also be possible to engage one target with both to increase the effective rate of fire ?

Thanks...

[I Can "Knock Out" A Gun. Why Not An MG?]

I would like to point out that HMG's in trenches SHOULD be very difficult to knock out. In Word War I battles litteraly millions of shells were fired in an attempt to destroy emplaced MG's - often to little effect. MG's were killers and litterally thousands of infantrymen would be cut down by just a handful of guns.

Time & again I read here of people complaining about some particular unit being 'too powerful'. What they do not seem to grasp is that is exactly the point ! Thats why striving for technical superiority is called an arms race.

As a general on the ground your job is to make life as difficult as possible for your enemy - often this is achieved by using the latest technology and / or a large excess of men and material. Thus the vast majority of battles were (and are) intrinsically NOT balanced ! In fact - the bigger the imbalance the better (at least as seen from one side)

CM is a simulation of war and the vast majority of 'balanced' scenarios represent situations that most competent officers would do their very best to avoid.

OK. Rant over....

[Knocked out? Abandoned?]

You can continue to target abandoned and knocked out AFV's in the game should you have the time and spare ammo.

This was apparently done in real life in an attempt to set fire to potentially recoverable tank and so destroy them completely. Even if such a burnt out tank was cleaned up and everything burnable was replaced the armor will have been re-tempered by the heat of the fire and is no longer much use.

[What do you do March 1942 as the Germans?]

I recently found myself in a similarly dire situation. In desperation I targeted a small group of T34's with an 80mm FO and after two rounds got a top penetration and knocked out one of them.

Didnt stop the other two from tearing up my infantry though...

[Its been fun, but farewell]

I think it says a lot that someone given the choice between playing CMBB or playing with a new Mac would choose the latter.

Farewell...

[Ok, Played the demo last night and am confused..]

Firstly welcome to the fold. You will be assimilated shortly....

Secondly the CMBB demo blows chunks and is not a fair representation of the full game. Battlefront were under great pressure from folks like us to show off the changes that they had instigated between the original CMBO and CMBB. The demo shows these changes but does not (IMHO) give a good intro into the concept of the game as a whole.

If I were you I would go and download the CMBO demo and play that all night..... and all day, and all the next night too.

Also:

Originally posted by Dave K:

In the read me file it mentions blue and red colored areas on the map... is there a way to view a larger map other than the battlefield view itself or the small map on the command bar?

Yes - press the number keys whilst you are setting up your troops at the beginning of a battle. This changes your perspective of the battlefield. Some hardcore nutters like to spend an entire battle in view 1. Others prefer the god like 3 or 4.

You will find that the higher numbers give a birds eye view. 8 or 9 give you a view of the whole battlefield and will highlight the red and blue 'setup zones' in which you can initially position your troops.

Have fun !

[Is this a new record?]

Originally posted by Keke:

Gents,

In a recent PBEM-game, which was a pure armor ME, 2000 pts, July 1943, I made classic envelopment attack againts my happles opponent, who had rushed and packed his Soviet tanks near the flags. During turns 19-20 I managed to kill 11 T-34s and 3 SU-152s! Most of the kills were done by Pz-IVHs and Stugs, btw...Could this be a new record or somefink?

I suggest that you hop right on over to the nice ladies & gentlemen at the Peng Challenge Thread and tell them all about it.

I'm sure you'll be much happier with the response you get there...

Edit: Coz eye kant spell

[ February 21, 2003, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Fly Pusher ]

[Turning ability of vehicles]

I dont wish to intrude into this fascinating discussion on tank steering, but to return to the original subject, I would just like to point out that the times quited to turn 180 degrees in a Kübelwagen are way too long.

This is a small car (think old style VW Beetle with the top cut off). Fom a standing start with the engine running I would guess no more than 5-10 seconds and probably faster.

Certainly faster than a truck.

[Water Crossing Vehicles]

Originally posted by Quintus:

AFAIK there are no amphibious vehicles in Combat Mission.

Nor is the ability of the European Hamster (Cricetus cricetus) to inflate its' cheek pouches as a bouyancy aid while crossing rivers modelled in the SS-hamstertruppen.

BTS pleez fix or somefink

As far as I am aware, its not even certain that the SS-hamstertruppen ever saw action before the end of the war. You should be glad they are moddled at all !

Now the white rabbits - they were real killers. Very nasty.

Probably the big teeth I expect....

[Just Another CMII Feature Request list thread]

I would like to see sound effects that change with relation to environment. So that a grenade that explodes in a small heavy building will sound different (and much louder) to one that explodes outside in the snow.