the MG 34 machinegun

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamo:

OK, I'm not slamming USERNAME, but I find it rather amusing that he lambasted Scott for using the term "Kraut" only to use it himself in the very next post...Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course I am joking. Just as I am joking that I would want to be an attacker in a Bocage scenario. Just wanted to see if Fionn would jump at the chance to easily beat me. Obviously he wants to humiliate me and give me no wiggle room.

Lewis

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Now, just in case Steve missed my requests for consideration (having been buried in a half-dozen ot posts)...I will re-state it.

> Now, my request: considering that the MG34

> must SURELY be included in CMII (the

> Russian Front). Would it be possible to at

> least consider (at a later date of course)

> patching CM to include these additional

> weapons and formations?

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott, you are a cruel bastard! Do you really think, just as we are finishing up CM 1 that I *really* want to be thinking about the 5,000 squad types that are calling out to me for 4 years worth of combat involving some 5 or 6 nationalities? The Eastern Front has already got my hands a shaking and my eyes a bulging

Seriously, yes the MG34 will be included in CM2 for sure. As for the concern about somehow balancing things in favor of the Germans, I don't think the MG34/42 thing is such a decision. Simple case of it not being important enough to have a whole slew of additional unit types. And many of those 2nd line units did in fact have MG42s because they were recently formed and/or reconstituted from destroyed units. Remember, the MG42 had been in service for nearly 2 years by this point in the war, so I think the number of MG34s still allocated to squads would be insignificant.

I also can't think of anything else in the game that you could point to that would put the Germans at an advantage in an organizational way that wasn't realistic. In fact, quite the opposite. On paper the German 45 pattern infantry squad was supposed to be armed with Sturmgewehrs, but we only gave them a couple since that is *at best* all they would have.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

I am not interested in this thread getting off topic on the "kraut" issue, but Lewis' comments were right on the money. It is an ethnic slur. He was simply hammering that message home.

This has been brought up several times before, and I personally think it is best to keep the ethnic slurs off the BBS for the most part. And I certainly think this is really no place to discuss this issue in any case, so I would be very thankfull if this line of discussion ended with this post.

Thanks,

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Random weapon assignments is a good way to keep the impact to the interface down to a minium. It might be the way we will have to go in CM2 since there were several transitional periods while in CM1 there really aren't any.

Steve

[Guest -panzershreck-]

well ill be damned thanks dude who wrote all that stuff

[Guest Big Fat Guy]

I don't get it BTS.

5,000 squad types?

Including three types of MG 34 weapons and some MG 15's are not that big a deal.

I do understand that the game is done, but it is not that big a deal.

Another question I have is the inclusion of other weapons types such as Russian and Italian weapons the Germans used quite regularly. Will these be in CM2?

Will the data base be mod friendly to include these weapons if we want them?

[tss]

Including three types of MG 34 weapons and some MG 15's are not that big a deal.

Well, as just about each German unit has at least one machine gun, adding a new MG type essentially doubles the number of German infantry units.

- Tommi

[Guest Madmatt]

BFG, you asked if the game dataset (weapons performance, unit types etc..) is mod friendly and in a word NO.

Due to potential exploits and cheats in tournamaents and ladders the core data files will NOT be modifiable. Sounds and graphics are and will continue to be however.

There about 10,000 messages about this issue so please do a search to find out why BTS has chosen to go with a non-open source file structure.

One caveat though, BTS will and has (rifle grenades for example) make changes to the data set when verifiable information is brought to their attention. You see something that seems wrong and you can PROVE that its wrong and show data that is correct, they will change it...

Also, someone asked that Beta testers NOT disclose info about scenarios, well you guys need to make up your DAMN minds what you want. You scream and whine that you want AAR's and info on the current beta then get ticked when Fionn mentions in passing one of his favorite scenarios. By the way, you have absolutely NO IDEA WHICH battle he was talking about and if its the one I think it is there, the makeup of the enemy is already pretty much established in the briefings for either side. The fun in that one is trying to crack a bocage entrenched German Defense line NOT figuring how many/type of guys they have... Just my .02...

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

combathq.thegamers.net

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 04-27-2000).]

[Dalton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Fat Guy:

I don't get it BTS.

5,000 squad types?

Easily that many!

Including three types of MG 34 weapons and some MG 15's are not that big a deal.

Will the data base be mod friendly to include these weapons if we want them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not being a beta tester, nor BTS designer my information is just a guess - but from what I've gathered, a generic squad is not assigned, at runtime, a selection of weapons. Instead, each squad type is predefined to have a specific weapon mix (with some randomness). This means that for each weapon mix a different type of squad must be created - thus the 5000 types of squads.

So, unless the game is changed to have more generic 'basic' squad types that have variable weapon mixes it is a lot of work to introduce 1 new weapon. Each type of squad has to be modified to include this new weapon. For example: A basic rifle squad that has MG "type A" is a completely different squad type than one that has MG "type B"! Multiple this by heavy weapons teams, second-line units, HQ units, airborne, mechanized, I hope you've got the picture.

BTS has probably looked at this already, but... If the weapon mix was determined at runtime by having a list of probable weapons for each man in a squad, with probablities for each weapon type, then you can get the requested variation, without an enormous number of unique squad types. This does make it a bit more difficult to ensure a historically correct weapon mix for specific battles, without assigning a weapon to each man in the battle though! But it would give the scenario designer the flexibility to customize each trooper if they wanted to.

...Dalton

[Fionn]

Matt is right.

In any case that scenario gives you a very good idea of the force structures. The only challenge involved is actually making the assault/ planning the defence.

[spider]

Youre all so mean, the guys are just finishing up cm1 and youre asking stupid questions about the forthcoming cm 23.7

will fatty mass determine bullet proofing on russian tankcrews?

will performance be simulated for "thermally challenged" germans?

will lee harvey oswald make an appearrance and shoot the entire russian army with 1 shot,

or two?

its a conspiracy i tell you!!!

leave bts alone for a while, let them rest, they have a long journey ahead of them, hours of coding scrapping it and starting again, sleepless nights wondering are those armor values just right, and 10,000 times that on this board listening to whining annoying people talking out their @sshol£s

about cm in space and panthers fighting in ohio..........

when is the game out wise ones?

(nobody take offence at this or ill be forced to kill you by anal electrocution. )

------------------

This is my rifle,

this is my gun.

This ones for killing, this ones a tasty alternative to turkey at christmas.....

[Username]

I agree. Let BTS be. You cant change stuff now anyway.

But I will be posting the sturmartillerie " counteroffensive" shortly..

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Easy now... no flaming necessary.

All I have to say is that there are only two people qualified to identify issues as "big deal" or "not a big deal". That is Charles and myself. Any gamer that thinks he knows more than we do about how CM works can reference previous posts about suggestions I made regarding lip placement on certain rear sections of the human anatomy

98% of gamers out there couldn't design a complex game if their lives depended on it. Doubt me? Look at how many professional GAME DEVELOPERS couldn't design good games if their lives depended on it? By my informal count, most. So forgive me if I am a bit put off by someone who thinks they know what we can and can not do.

No, there will most likely NOT be MG15s in CM 1, 2, 3, 4, or whatever. They were hardly ever used in combat. Even if 10,000 were used in the 5 years of combat, big deal. CM is not about simulating exceptionally small and uncommon details. Why? Because if one screws one's vision down to see only the minute details they lose sight of the larger picture. And then, if you ever finish the game, it will most likely suck or at best be just "OK". Three words... Road To Moscow. And since you can't play what isn't released, what good is it?

The MG34 will certainly be simulated in CM2 because, afterall, the MG42 was not in use for the first year at all and only increasingly during the second year. But we will not be simulating every oddball weapon the Germans happened to pick up along their sight seeing tours around Europe. Standard issue only as a rule, with some possible exceptions if we feel that they are warrented.

As I stated quite clearly before, the difference between many of these weapons is completely, and utterly, insignificant at CM's level of simulation. And since it is a big deal to simulate (a reminder that we are the only ones who have the credability to state this) there is no point in wasting our time on such a trivial issue when we could insted put our energies towards things that actually matter at CM's scale.

That is pretty much all that I have to say about that

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-28-2000).]

[spider]

I was gonna say that myself or somethin,

oh sorry about o/t posts steve, it wont happen again, just..., dont hit me too hard.....

[Guest Big Time Software]

No problem about the OTs Every once and a while is fine, but there have been lots of them over the last two weeks or so. I have just figured out that if I don't close them up even more pop up the next day. So my recent lock ups are just a friendly, and non judgemental, reminder that this isn't a multi-purpose discussion forum.

Steve

[spider]

Its gettin a bit outta hand alright,

Its making it hard to search for anything,