Guest Big Time Software Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Moon, as I understand it you are not *exactly* correct If I took either of my M29c manuals (TM 9-772 and TM 9-1772) and made copies to sell, I would be in violation of the copyright of Portrayal Press. The thinking is that I got my source material from a copy, not from the original. What I am protected from is if I took an ORIGINAL manual, made a copy, and sold it. In this case Portrayal Press can't say boo, because I got it from the original, unproteced, source. And a translation is even worse, since something like the Tiger manual was originally in German Portrayal Press' English version can not be duped legally. BUT, as long as you cite the source you are allowed to use any part of it in print. Also the cited material can not be sold by itself, but can be sold as part of something else. There is a line where you cross over from citing to duping, but that isn't a hard line. Doug, the equations used are based on lots of complex math, but in the end the exact results are in part influenced by probablity (die roll). The difference between this and something like CC is that the heavy math sets up realistic probabilities and their possible results. Huge difference. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Are you guys at BTS just sorta hanging around this forum, praying for us to ask questions? If this continues even after release, there may be a new definition of Customer Support. Kewl Beans. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Doug, It's a lot more than a dice roll. There is randomness (for example, whether the shell strikes the upper or lower hull). But the rough outline is as follows: 1. Determine (with some randomness) where the shell strikes the vehicle (facing, turret or hull, etc.) 2. Calculate "armor basis" at that point. This involves a bazillion things, like armor thickness, quality, brinnell hardness, face-hardened (depending on incoming shell type), slope, side angle, skirts, and a whole lot more. 3. Determine shell's velocity and by extension, its kinetic energy. 4. Determine shell's penetrating ability, taking into consideration pircing caps, structural weaknesses, T/D ratio, etc. A +/- 5-10% randomness is added in here, because no two shells are constructed equally. Even on a closed firing range under test conditions, armor penetrations from the same gun can vary. 5. If penetration value is greater than armor basis, penetration results. Extent of damage is determined by hit location, shell size and type, and target vehicle size and type. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 29, 1999 Share Posted May 29, 1999 Aye Steve, that's pretty much what I was told. I was told that the original document was uncopyrighted BUT the English version was (since the translator etc had worked on it). In any case since it will be going up on a site with banner ads it MAY be construed by law as earning money so I wanted to cover myself. Just to be extra-safe I think ur US War Department quotes are OK though since they were originally in the public domain from a non-profit book and you'll handily credit the original anyway (as will I). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 29, 1999 Share Posted May 29, 1999 I've also got original wartime GPO copies of several manuals, including the entire Handbook on German Military Forces. How about 2.5 inch thick book uploaded to the internet? The potential for banner ads is amazing Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted May 29, 1999 Share Posted May 29, 1999 "Anything ETO will outsell anything PTO..." If you say so...(not that I beleive it) "Crete...Poland...France...Yugoslavia (!!!!)" Man, I must live in a different world. "Very few games support these areas..." Yep, but NONE (ZERO) support Pacific operations. To each his own, but I can hope can't I! ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 29, 1999 Share Posted May 29, 1999 I can't believe it - Scott Clinton used a " "... something's very very wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 29, 1999 Share Posted May 29, 1999 Obviously someone is posting using Scott's name .. The use of smileys and levity is the key .. We know what you're up to.. Steve, I know Scott. He really doesn't like the ETO.. What he REALLY wants is another game covering the Battle of the Bulge.. Can u do it? can u huh? huh? huh? Steve: Don't tempt me. I've had some pretty weird ideas along those lines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted May 30, 1999 Share Posted May 30, 1999 HEY! I use those #@$%&* smiley faces all the $#%&*# time! ! ! ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 31, 1999 Share Posted May 31, 1999 Aww look it IS Scott .. The Grumbler's back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixman Posted June 2, 1999 Share Posted June 2, 1999 Scott, SSI's Pacific General covers PTO. It is not at the scale of CM but at least it is set there. My comments on PTO is that it was so Navy/Marine dominated. I guess you could have a Guadalcanal campaign. Or the Marianas and Phillipines. But the best part of the Phillipines was the battle of Leyte gulf -- a naval engagement. Iwo Jima would do nothing for me. I don't know, maybe the guys at BTS would not mind modeling jungle rot, booby traps, caves, beach assaults and banzai charges. For me, the geometry of such warfare (endless beach landings, ambushes and flamethrower attacks) is not nearly as interesting as that available in the more open terrain of other theatres. I do think the PTO provides wonderful gaming opportunities at a more strategic level that incorporates naval actions, aerial bombardment and marine assaults. Just gathering intelligence on what the heck the Jap Fleet is up to would be a blast (i.e. Midway). Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 3, 1999 Share Posted June 3, 1999 "SSI's Pacific General covers PTO. It is not at the scale of CM but at least it is set there." I hope you are joking. I thought we were talking about WARGAMES.... There are literally tens of thousands of engagements that could qualify as 'fluid' to be modeled in the Pacific (assuming that is what you want). I don't know why there is such a stereotype about the 'Pacific War' being just "...jungle rot...booby traps...(and) beach landings..." I am sorry, but I expect this kind of uninformed nonsense from the 'general public'. BUT, from 'historically minded wargamers' I expect a more... It's like me going off on "Dragoon" (a darn good game from what I understand) and saying its just a bunch of guys that did not know any better than to stand in nice strait lines while they shot at each other....EXCEPT, this is just not true! That 'period' is not one I am familiar with. Thus I refrain from propagating such false stereotypes, the same kind of stereotypes as "...jungle rot...booby traps...(and) beach landings..." However, I think the issue is closed as far as I am concerned. According to "Big Time" its way down on the list. Maybe for Combat Mission 2.... ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted June 3, 1999 Share Posted June 3, 1999 Gees Scott, you just described the attitude of some of the original Dragoon reviewers. They complained when the guys used standard tactics and doctrine for that age. Ya gotta love the knowledge base of some reviewers eh? hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts