Måkjager Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 My minor quibble / suggestion is about the Stug / Panzerjager crews uniforms in CMBO and suggestion for CM2 . All the Stug /Pzjg crews in CMBO wear the black Panzer uniform. As far as i am aware ( i stand to be corrected ) only crews from the Panzers and mb the Pz Aufklärung formations were allowed to wear this uniform . The crews of the Stug / Pzjg detachments were issued a similar type of uniform but in a field grey/ green colour. In cases where crews of Stugs/ Pzjg vehicles did appear to have the black Pz uniform , i think that can be put down to the serious loss of vehicles and damage to production centers , forcing Panzer crews with the black uniform to be issued with Stug / PzJg vehicles as stop gaps. In march 1945 sPzAbt 511, a Tiger unit had on its TOE 3 Kompanies , the 2nd was issued with Tiger 1s , 3rd Kompanie with Tiger IIs , whilst the 1st had a Kompanie of 10 Hetzers . What i would like to see in CM2( and mb if possible in a patch for CMBO ) if space and time allows BTS to do it is have a software routine that picks the appropirate crew uniforms for the branch of service. This goes as well for the late war WSS peas pattern uniform in the panzer style that the WSS Pz crews used , especially the heavy Tiger / Tiger II Abteilungs. Just a few suggestions from a mad man Måkjager ------------------ Once an Ubërcabbage Always an Ubërcabbage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 Thanks for the suggestion and trust me, we are listening. Steve has said before that he had a great deal of other uniforms planed for CM but to be honest, they just ran out of time. With a newly hired in house artist we are hopeful that we won't have such issues again. You here that Kwazydog? GET BACK TO WORK! Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: With a newly hired in house artist we are hopeful that we won't have such issues again. You here that Kwazydog? GET BACK TO WORK! Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't suppose you have a spot for a newly hired in-house audio/music designer, eh wot guv? ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Måkjager Posted November 6, 2000 Author Share Posted November 6, 2000 Thanks for replying to my post MadMatt.Its nice to know that you ( BTS ) are prepared to listen and not just mouth hollow words. Tis a good line to draw in the sand for a company that knows how to build a quality product. Never had so much fun with a "game" like this....constantly being amazed at the detail within it. Keep up the great work. Måkjager Måkjager ------------------ Once an Ubërcabbage Always an Ubërcabbage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Måkjager Posted November 6, 2000 Author Share Posted November 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Måkjager: Thanks for replying to my post MadMatt.Its nice to know that you , Dan , Steve and Charles are prepared to listen and not just mouth hollow words. Tis a good line to draw in the sand for a company that knows how to build a quality product. Never had so much fun with a "game" like this....constantly being amazed at the detail within it. Keep up the great work. Måkjager Måkjager <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ Once an Ubërcabbage Always an Ubërcabbage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 Thanks for the suggestion and trust me, we are listening. Steve has said before that he had a great deal of other uniforms planed for CM but to be honest, they just ran out of time. With a newly hired in house artist we are hopeful that we won't have such issues again. You here that Kwazydog? GET BACK TO WORK! This game enjoys a veritable embarassment of wealth when it comes to third-party mods, Matt. What effectively stymies this select little niche of the wargaming market, though, with regard to these add-ons, is the inability to efficiently (and completely) interface all this great artwork which has thus far been made available due to a rather conservative design decision to not create a helluva lot more slots for things such as uniforms and terrain. If the authors want to see this title really take off, that would be the cheapest ticket. You know, I can easily recall, back in the good old days of DOS, when software developers claimed that the "memory" issue was the great bugaboo as to why their games then could not support such robust parameters. So here we are, some ten years down the road, with scads of accessible memory and system power to burn . . . and still this same-same school of design conservatism seems to reign supreme with developers. Now why is that do you suppose? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 Er, no offense, but I sorta doubt that wargames are niche products because their designers don't model five hundred different kinds of uniforms No one except the groggiest of grogs is going to notice whether the GIs are toting FPZ-13 Field Canteens Mark 3 or FPZ-13 Field Canteens Mark 4. I'd be willing to venture that I know quite a lot more about WW2 than the average computer gamer, but for all I know, German armored car drivers were issued uniform feldgrau bunny slippers in 1943. The majority of gamers are going to look for whizbang stuff, not how many uniform BMPs there are. ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 Er, no offense, but I sorta doubt that wargames are niche products because their designers don't model five hundred different kinds of uniforms No offense taken, I assure you. But your impication (that I do draw this conclusion) I find to be curious. Why would you suppose that I believe anything of the kind? No one except the groggiest of grogs is going to notice whether the GIs are toting FPZ-13 Field Canteens Mark 3 or FPZ-13 Field Canteens Mark 4. No one has mentioned equipment detail down to canteens on this thread yet, to the best of my knowledge. Certainly I have not mentioned canteens. I'd be willing to venture that I know quite a lot more about WW2 than the average computer gamer, but for all I know, German armored car drivers were issued uniform feldgrau bunny slippers in 1943. The majority of gamers are going to look for whizbang stuff, not how many uniform BMPs there are. I don't know re the uniforms, either, though I'm interested. In film it's almost always the case that we find our little tankers wearing black outfits, but then I do not recommend using "Hollywood" as one's primary source. And don't get me going on the "average" gamer out there. While I don't know, my guess is that CMBO has its fair share of this dubious type based on my reading from this board re some attitudes around here, especially with regard to wide acceptance of gamey solutions to common wargame situations/problems. But here's the thing: my thesis was and is that CMBO would be infinitely better off if the developers would implement a better (call it more extensive, if you want) database use schematic for items such as terrain, buildings and vehicles (so that multiple buildings, say, could be designed and used at once in the same scenario). How anyone who has spent more than an hour or two with this game's editor could doubt as much is quite beyond me, and in any event it is nothing I'd care to argue too heatedly, as I find it to be something of a truism. Be happy to argue with you in general on almost anything else you'd care to mention, though. I'm always up for exercise here. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-06-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 Okay, the direction that this thread is headed is a topic which has been covered a great many times in the past. There are many design reasons why the CM was not more of an open architecture design and those reasons are pretty ingrained in how we do things. However, I myself have worked with mod artists from the start and knowledge gained from those relationships is not going to waste. I think a lot of the limitations you see came about because Steve and Charles had no idea that the Mod community would be as active as it was. Perhaps that is in some small way my fault and the work done at CMHQ( )) but I can assure you that as long as I am working on CM2 and future products I will continue to champion game elemets which will benefit the Mod authors. Will you ever get to model your own vehicle and terrain types? Thats doubful and the reasons can be found in numerous earlier discussions, but things like enhanced graphics slots (for lack of a better term) HAVE already occurred. Winter uniforms, for instance, were not originally supported until I asked Charles to add them AFTER the game was released! CM2 is likely to be more advanced in every manner possible from CM1, and we will be looking at many facets that will make the game even more approachable for mods. Thanks! Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 An intelligent reply. Thanks. It continues to amaze me just what this simulation is capable of accomplishing. When one considers this is but the first version then it is easy to entertain greater hope still for future releases. I might add that the small scale of the CMBO model is not what I look for in my gameware as a rule--I'm more of an "operational" kind of guy--yet after a mere few weeks with this one I find myself more and more a slave to its sultry siren ways. Keep up the splendid work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tris: ... You know, I can easily recall, back in the good old days of DOS, when software developers claimed that the "memory" issue was the great bugaboo as to why their games then could not support such robust parameters. So here we are, some ten years down the road, with scads of accessible memory and system power to burn . . . and still this same-same school of design conservatism seems to reign supreme with developers. Now why is that do you suppose? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-05-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm... Well, what I have seen happen is that while the capabilities of the machines have grown enormously, so have the demands placed on those machines. I spent 12 years developing software for the US government where we were forced to go the route of the "least-common-denominator", and were developing first DOS, then 16-bit Windows software long after the "leading edge" of the industry had advanced beyond these pitiful operating systems. Now I hope that everyone lives in "32-bit land", where memory is less expensive, hard drives are enormous, and cable/DSL modems fly. But this is not a universal truth. BTS has been very upfront about what the minimum requirements for CM are, and how they are not willing to eliminate a portion of their potential market due to hardware issues. Not everyone has an Uber-video card in their machine. Where my old applications used to run into issues with the "D group memory block", which was a fixed hunk of memory set aside for certain operations, BTS essentially hits the same kind of issue with video memory. Its not an issue of what the high-end could achieve, but an issue of what low-end they want to support. There will always be constraints in the software imposed by the hardware, and constraints in the hardware set by the business requirements. Patience, patience... ------------------ To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee... [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 11-06-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 Back to the Tanker uniforms,I would like someone do the German "spot" camo tanker outfit,I'd do it but I don't have the first clue how. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Steiner Posted November 7, 2000 Share Posted November 7, 2000 For MakJager: the field grey uniforms worn by assault gun and SP crews could be easily done. Someone would just have to do a mod changing the panzer crew uniform color from black to field grey. Of course, tank crews would then be in field grey, but only include StuGs and SPs in your scenario, and voila, instant authentic assault gun uniforms. Only a stop-gap measure to be sure, but if you really want them bad enough, then there's your solution.. ------------------ "Natural body oils, combined with dirt, can keep you waterproof" -Krüger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Måkjager Posted November 7, 2000 Author Share Posted November 7, 2000 Thanks for your input Sgt. Steiner. I might have a bash at that myself seeing as i have gone to the trouble of making a Hetzer mod , which can be seen on the "My first mod" tread by Måkjager....unashamed plug plug plug and for your idea of only picking Stugs and PzJagers. Måkjager ------------------ Once an Ubërcabbage Always an Ubërcabbage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts