SFJaykey

Sorry I can't answer your question, but if you have a nice marsh mod I hope you will post it. I have been looking for a greener "marsh" than either the default or the mods I have seen. - Matt

I have been fortunate to travel quite a bit in Spain, and yes, much of the interior looks quite like the photo. Note the perspective of the photo limits the horizon....if you were on top of that ridge in the backgound you would likely see low rocky mtns (with some trees) in the distance, or a tree-lined river valley.

Boy, if I had thought of this when the "Most Wanted Mod" thread was hot, this is what I would have said. The generic markers are durn ugly. The light grey ones are particularly annoying. Just because a vehicle is unidentified, it shouldn't stand out so glaringly from the landscape...if anything the generic markers should be darker, more mysterious. I hope one of the talented modders agrees and takes this one on! - Matt

Thanks for the garden comments...sounds like I am on the right track in terms of simulation, and hope someone does the mod. While I'm at it I'll request a new version of small heavy building: a chapel. I am told by those who have travelled the Russian countryside that these are all over the place, at least in areas that escaped the worst of Stalinization. Something like this: On a related topic: I notice that each time the same map is reloaded on different occasions, the computer will pick from a variety of images or colors for each building type...is texture the right word? Anyway as I reload maps I am working on in the editor the buildings change color, roof type etc. Is there a way to "pin" a certain appearance (texture?) to a building? Sometimes I would like to have all the blockhouses on a city street in a matching color, or choose the stucco house instead of the brick. Thanks, Matt

Yesterday I was reading an article by a Soviet officer at the "GD for CM" site, in which he mentioned that one of the distinguishing features of Russian villages was the fenced-in gardens at every door. So I opened up a couple of the QB maps I'd downloaded and started adding little patches of brush in all the yards....I figure the terrain effects are about right to simulate these gardens(some concealment, slight slowing compared to open, little cover), and the 20m tile size seems about right for a serious vegetable garden. But it sure would be nice to see neat little green rows of vegetables on tilled brown earth! Anybody think steppe or some other tile would be a more accurate stand-in for the typical large vegetable garden, in terms of terrain effects?

Captain Wacky's gridded terrain is at www.cmmods.com. But if you are not in too big of a hurry, I think it is going to be available imminently in a CMMOS compatible version, which will greatly ease installation. Contour lines might be a nice feature, but this is _almost_ like giving the player the ability to check LOS from anywhere on the map. This is undesireable, IMO: the player's god-like perspective on the map is already quite unrealistic. I doubt WWII East Front combatants on _either_ side had anything approaching the quality of topo maps that are so familiar to us today, except for major cities. If you really want to see something like contours, you can open the map via the scenario editor and look at the height values for each tile. I just zip around the map at level 1.

FWIW I recall reading an article on some gaming site recently that somebody _does_ have a big, LotR-based wargame under development, IIRC due for Xmas 2003. Sorry no details but I recall it is supposed to be a "war" game and not RPG. Probably won't measure up to CMBB but might be fun.

When CM is endorsed like this by people with experience as real infantry, it becomes even more enjoyable to play....knowing that it is a good simulation. No flame was inferred here; thanks for the reply. Re: the comparison to CC, which I don't want to beat to death: In CC orders were given to squads as units, and they acted as units, including surrender etc. Only occasionally would a man or two become separated, but most often the separated individuals were at very low morale and wouldn't listen to orders, anyway. So the burden on the player seemed no greater than in CM. But in CC the soldiers were _depicted_ as individuals graphically, ten little guys each with their own name, weaponry, morale. It just felt a little more real, by removing a level of abstraction. The realism of the simulation is the most important thing (to this player), but if that can be maintained or improved while going to 1:1 depiction, that would be my ideal. - Matt

Thanks for replies! Steve I'll take your word for it that flanking fire is modelled and watch for its effects more closely. You're right of course...CC is no authoritative source for realism, but the fact that the modelling in CM is apparently more subtle has made it less noticeable to me, up till now. Sorry to those who found the provocative thread title upsetting to the stomach, but it did earn a reply from The Authorities. Glad that Steve apparently read to the bottom of my post and saw that I do think CM is tops!! And BTW I liked the medals in CC, too....in CM I have starting doing it myself, saving a screenshot of the "heroes" of each battle. If I ever get around to putting a website up, there will be a gallery... - Matt

Ok, maybe on this one small point.... In Close Combat infantry taking fire from several directions broke or became pinned quite quickly, definitely more quickly than from the same volume of fire coming from one direction. This seemed realistic as it modeled 1) the psychological impact of being outflanked, possibly cut off, and 2) the practical reality that most cover is much less effective in blocking fire/LOS from multiple directions. You can't hide on both sides of that wall/tree/tombstone at once! This doesn't seem to be modeled, at least not nearly to the same extent, in CM. Just for example one of my first PBEMs is winding down now, and I have about a platoon of German infantry completely surrounded, in brush, outnumbered probably 3-1, taking all kinds of fire including MG from all directions at ranges around 100m, and they have taken several turns to break. In CC I think those infantrymen would have been "hands up" a long time ago, and that seemed a little more realistic....Comments? Also, while CM is overall a vastly superior game and I haven't played CC since getting it, I did enjoy the fact that in CC each soldier was depicted individually. Any rumors on whether this may be the plan for CM3? - Matt

Sorry, this was meant for main cMBB forum and has been moved there. - Matt [ February 09, 2003, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Uhhhhh...... My 300 and 301 were small buildings because I'd earlier installed Ed's Small Buildings, which I now see was meant for CMBO. No wonder my tracers were the color of stucco. And you know, when I look really carefully, they do appear to be thatched... Thanks LD.

Lumbergh- I will jump in as optics is something I have some experience with. Higher magnification in an optical system will dim the apparent image unless the objective lens (the lens pointed toward the target) is increased in size to compensate. This is one reason why sizes of binoculars are usually described as "AxB". A is the magnification and B is the size of the objective lens, in mm, and by dividing B/A you can get a good idea of how bright the image will be: the image in 7x35s will be about as bright as that in 10x50s, and 10x25s will be much dimmer than 7x50s. (This assumes optical quality is constant, a _big_ assumption). So, the designers of higher powered sights could increase the size of the objective in their system to maintain brightness. But, since that means a bigger window, which means a bigger chink in your front turret armor, designers may have compromised and settled for dimmer optics. Those with access to detailed specs on the gunsights in AFVs may be able to contribute here. Dimmer views are more difficult to use for aiming. Another very important factor is image contrast, which is determined largely by optical quality. Poor optics should suffer a much greater handicap when shooting into the sun, or at backlit targets...I wonder if CMBB models this in the Dusk/Dawn environments? - Matt

Hi....I just downloaded CW's hi-vis tracers from cmmods, but the bmp #s stated in the readme are incorrect: 300 and 301 are small buildings. Maybe this was a CMBO mod? It should still work if I replace the right bmps, right? Anyone know what they are for CMBB? Thanks, Matt

Hi All - I just upgraded to DSL, SBC/Yahoo, and am looking forward to some online combat! But, before I start, I want to make sure my opponents will be able to get through my firewall. I am using the free edition of ZoneAlarm that is included with SBC DSL, and running WindowsXP. The ZoneAlarm helpfile (and posts in this forum's archive) seem to say that all I need to do is give CMBB permission to access the internet, and all will be well... I assume "Barbarossa to Berlin.exe" is the correct file to enable? Does it need both Access and Server permission? And don't I need to inform the firewall of my opponent's IP, or anything? Thanks for any advice...I could muddle through myself but since another sentient being (my opponent) would be suffering through the frustrations of any errors I'd like to sort this out before inviting a game. I'd also appreciate general comments on minimizing any security risks or other headaches associated with TCP/IP play, and on whether the free edition of ZoneAlarm is an adequate firewall for my always-connected home PC. Such comments might be off-topic for this forum so please email me directly at sfjaykey48@yahoo.com Thanks! Matt

I agree with Combined Arms. Up till now I have had reasonable success with off-map artillery, and in my current (first) PBEM my opponent has used it against me with good effect....unless he has been missing too but "missed lucky." But, here are the results I have obtained with my own 81mm mortars, 6 tubes, Regular FO in the same game: 1st target (smoke), in LOS. Result: on target. Next target (HE), in LOS. result: 400m short (!) Adjust Fire, in unbroken LOS. Result: 250m short, fell right in front of my own tanks, buttoning them. This is _Adjusted Fire_, with good, uninterrupted LOS. Adjust Fire again, toward enemy rear, still in unbroken LOS. Result: 300m short, almost same spot as previous. New target, also in LOS...maybe something is weird with that side of the map. Result: 250m short, shelling my own MGs. To emphasize: in every case my FO was in OK status (he has not been fired on yet) and as best I could tell had uninterrupted LOS to target. (There's no way to check LOS _during_ the turn, only during orders phase, right?) And these are battalion level mortars. In all but one case the FFE came down in the same turn as the spotting round, giving me no chance to correct or cancel. What could I be doing wrong? Should I send files to someone to look at? (PS to Panzer76: I'm going to beat your red dogs anyway!) MattT

Re: tanks struck by non-penetrating rounds, this from an interview with Dmitriy Loza, who commanded mostly lend-lease Shermans during the war: "Did the crew receive a concussion when a round hit the tank, even if it did not penetrate the armor? - Generally, no. It depended on where the round hit. Let's say that I was sitting in the left side of the turret and a round struck near me. I heard this hit but it did not harm me. If it struck somewhere on the hull, I might not hear it at all. This happened several times. We would come out of an engagement and inspect the tank. In several places the armor would show an impact, like a hot knife that had cut through butter. But I did not hear the round impacts. Sometimes the driver would shout, "They're shooting from the left!" But there was no overwhelming sound. Of course, if such a powerful gun as the JSU-152 hit you, you heard it! And it would take off your head along with the turret." I expect that the excitment of combat, the noise being made by his own tank etc, masked a lot of the impact sounds. This and many other excellent interviews and historical stuff at the Russian Battlefield: www.battlefield.ru MattT

Thanks for pointing out the earlier thread...it is a long one and i have only started reading it. As someone said: "there are no new ideas." Well maybe that's an overstatement, but I'm not surprised that others have mentioned this before. As far as the objections to the "chain of intel" model: RSColonel and Ace are right, it would cast the player as an on-field commander....but that's the way I'd like to play. Others might prefer a more liberal spotting model, and I would want it too in certain situations...it should be something that could be turned on and off, whether as part of the FOW setting or as a distinct setting. And the fact that this model would reward more responsible use of HQs is one of its more attractive points, IMO. Yes the TacAI would need to be upgraded for this to work really well, but I expect that's the plan in any case. As it is the TacAI already makes a lot of decisions about target selection and withdrawl from superior forces, so I don't think it's too far away...a few new tools to go with Covered Arc, Cover Armor, Hulldown etc, and some refinement of the tools already in the game, and I think it'd be very workable. The idea of true multiplayer games, with several human players to a side, is exciting....A C&C tree built into the engine would seem to make this possible and I think that'd would be a heckuva lot of fun! Just my $.02, anyhoo...the folks at BFC clearly know what they're doing and I expect the next game will probably offer something even better than what I'm suggesting. - Matt

One thing I think of when I read of "aiming at the turret rings," is that the turret ring is pretty close to the center of the target for most tanks....especially since the lower part of the hull and track will most likely be obscured by grass/whatever, even when not hull down. So I wonder: when German gunners cited this as their strategy for dealing with tough Soviet tanks, maybe they had tongues half in cheek. Or maybe they were saying, seriously, that they were just trying to aim quickly and fire first, and hit the darn things with as much AP as possible, and the historians and armchair tankers (like me) have taken the bit about the turret rings too literally. MattT

I know there have been a lot of threads related to "Borg spotting," but I haven't seen anyone mention this suggestion for a better model, so here goes... (keeping in mind I know squat about coding and have know idea how hard it would be to implement) Base spotting on the chain of command. Enemy units spotted directly by the highest-level HQ on the field (usually a company or battalion) are immediately visible to the player. Units spotted directly by lower tier commanders remain invisible for a time related to the command delays of the individual HQs, simulating the time needed to pass the info up the chain of command and each HQ's efficiency in doing that. Enemies spotted only by individual squads or teams would only become visible onscreen after waiting through the appropriate delay for each layer of HQ they have to pass through on the way up the ladder. The friendly units would react to the enemy, returning fire, pinning etc, but the location of the contact would not be visible to the player until after the cumulative delay had expired. If the enemy goes out of LOS before the delay expires, the player would see the "last sighted here" symbol. Fog of War setting should affect the delays....I would vote that under Extreme FOW units spotted only by out-of-command squads or teams _remain_ invisible indefinitely, or until that unit again came within command range....at which time the delay would _start_ ticking. This would seem to make the game a lot tougher, and large battles very difficult to manage, but I think it'd be a lot more realistic. Of course, for larger battles the FOW setting could be turned down....perhaps the new "Full FOW" would look similar to the current "Extreme," and so on. Keeping units in command would become even more important, as would troop quality. And sound contacts would become more important...a company HQ would likely hear an enemy firing long before they got a good report on its location and ID. Like I said I don't know anything about computer code, but it seems like using the chain of command might be a way to build un-Borg spotting into the engine without starting from scratch? And have it come out feeling realistic? Any thoughts? MattT

Great mod, PM! I hope this makes it into MikeT's CMMOS update. And sorry for giving incorrect credit for your great winter SU-122 mod in my "Must-Have mods" post...the error has been corrected. Not _that_ Matt

OK, by your own figures: 100+ mods, at 15 minutes for a "simple" mod...so over 1500 minutes (or 25 hours) in the last week or so! Thanks so much for your efforts, it is appreciated! (You too, MrNoobie...among many fine examples your snowy KV-2 is one big, bad boy.) Matt

Thought I'd contribute to the "must-have mods" thread, as a means of thanking the selfless and hard-working modders who've made a great game into an _awesome_ visual experience! If you're just starting to shop for mods I'd concentrate on terrain, as that adds both visual pleasure and playability. The highest priority should be a better grass/snow. I've tried all those available at cmmods and while all improve on the original, my favorite is the latest gridded grass, steppe and snow by Captain Wacky, with the more subdued grid lines. Flesh's Rough Grass is also excellent and helps see contours better than the default grass, if you don't like the grid lines. (I didn't at first, but got used to them...the subdued lines are much less intrusive than the original bold ones) Ed's trees and tree bases are also great....I have all the bases installed and most of the trees. I did leave a few of the default trees, like the birch and one or two of the tall pines. I use the low-res versions of the tree bases as the high-res makes panning painful. (High-res grass is ok, though, on my P4-2.0 w/64 meg video) And BTW Ed's handle on cmmods.com is "Tanks a lot," if you are looking for his mods. One mod not mentioned often but which I find very helpful is "Ruines transparente" by XBood. With this mod ruins still _look_ like ruins, but it's a lot easier to see your units in them. Before installing it I was "misplacing" a couple of units in the ruins every game! The above mods are not only nice to look at, but make it easier to find your units and analyze the terrain. More in the category of "eye candy," but IMO Must-Have Eye Candy, are Juju's Satis-factory and stone bridge. His stone walls are great, too, as is NZN's hedge. For vehicles, I am using only CMMOS mods for now, since the utility makes installation and switching _so_ much easier (and that leaves more time for gaming!) I have been using Gordon's dunkelgrau vehicle sets, and they are very nice, but the lighter grey of Canon's recent German mods is appealing and I'll probably switch over a little at a time. Mr Noobie's Russian tanks with numbers and slogans are excellent...and Panzermartin's wintry Su-122 looks especially nasty. Modders, any chance of packaging up your CMMOS vehicle mods in sets, as with Gordon's? Those of use still in the dark age of dial-up downloading would be grateful! So thank you modders! You've made a happy CMBBer into a _very_ happy CMBBer! > Matt [ February 05, 2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Mike- This is awesome, and will be especially great for those who haven't spent the last couple of days installing all the modded terrain manually! :mad: Is there any plan to combine them into packs as with Gordon's Dunkelgrau AFVs at CMHQ? Or is there an ability within CMMOS to do so, that I haven't found? Thanks for all the work you've put into this! Matt

Luck plays a big role but I suspect one reason the Tigers didn't live up to their reputation in this case is the range. At under 500m the T-34 has decent penetration against their armor, and the mediocre Russian sights are not too much of a disadvantage. At longer ranges the 88's harder punch and the Tiger's better optics are more telling, and their armor will deflect many T-34 hits. Also at short ranges the Tiger's slow turret rotation can reduce its ROF considerably against moving targets. - Matt