John O'Reilly

Hi guys, I am unable to save files for PBEM. For example, opponent sends first file which I save to "Incoming e-mails". I can open this no problem and it prompts me for password and then a save file "_002". After I hit "ok" I can find no file by that name with search or otherwise. Any ideas? Have tried it multiple times. Running Vista Ultimate. Thanks, John

Hi folks, Just started playing CMSF which I am enjoying. I just finished playing the Al Fubar battle and by game end as Uncons I had no ammunition left - is there no way of picking up weaponry/ammo from fallen enemy? If a unit has no ammo listed can it be effective in "close combat"? I would love to see a replay feature - I knocked out all but two Strykers but I wish I knew how! Failing that could we please see a kills list for each unit? Given the sophisticated engine now being used how difficult would this be? Thanks for all responses

Schrullenhaft, Thanks for the extensive response. I may have solved the problem following on from your suggestions. I have the latest BIOS installed and decided to check through it last night. The only two RAM frequency options available were "Auto" and "333" despite the fact that the specifications of my mother board (ASUS A7V8X) advertise 400 MHz compatability. Well my RAM was of the 400 MHz variety so I swapped it for 512 MB of 333 MHz that I had to hand. I was only able to play for about an hour following that but it didn't crash once. More testing to come. Fingers crossed that this was the problem and thanks for the help, John

Hello again, Well memtest shows no problems. I have removed one stick and now I am getting reboots during gaming. I disabled the autorestart and the blue screen lists the following error DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL Please tell me that this means something to someone, it's driving me crazy. I have seen some posts suggesting that power issues can lead to problems similar to those I am having. my own is 400W, does it need to be higher? Thanks again to all who offer advice, John

Hpt., Will give those a try and report back

Hello all, Just wondering if anyone can help with a general crashing/freezing problem. I have an AMD 3000+ XP and FX5900 card with 1gig of ram. I experience frequent game freezes. I have the latest drivers and my CPU temperature never rises above 59 degrees C. I am running Windows XP. Sometimes my crashes are recorded by the event viewer. Things like Source: Service Control Manager Event: 7000 Source: DCOM Event: 10010 And Source: Application error/hang Event: 1000/1002 It’s all greek to me but I am wondering if there is anything useful that might be extracted, this is becoming very frustrating,….. Thanks in advance, John

Junk, I have auto-update switched off. I should note that I generally use "end it all" to terminate all non-vital background applications. I still get crashes though if I do not use end it all.

While playing CMBB/AK and all other games I am getting a mixture of computer lock up and crashes to desktop. My system specs are AMD 3000+ XP FX5900 1 gig RAM Until recently I was using Windows 98 and only 512MB RAM and had no problems. I wanted to use more RAM and so upgraded to XP and the frequent crashes have started since. I only have crashes while playing games. I have the latest drivers for all hardware, my CPU temperature never rises above 62 degress (centigrade) and my power supply is adequate. The curious thing is that there seems to be no periodic behaviour in these crashes, sometimes they don't happen for hours and other times after just a few minutes play. Any advice would be appreciated, John

Michael, A 10-point system allows one greater discrimination. Is a map slightly above average but not something you can consider "good"? Fine then it's a 6. Bog standard? It's a 5. Pretty straightforward. As for my rating, I can only believe you are now being either obtuse or overly sensitive as I already explained this to you in a personal communication. The Russian briefing was functional (noted by the reviewer just before me by the way) and the German one was good. Where does that leave me overall? Well slightly above average which equals a 6. Most people do not detail the thinking behind the rating system in whatever text they enter, you are a notable exception. I generally tend to comment on what most stood out for me in a scenario. If it was one that I enjoyed or found really challenging then that will tend to get more commentary. What do you expect? You can equally say that it is your own rating system that has brought this discussion up since it is opposed to mine. Who defined your approach as the appropriate meter stick? You previously wrote that you mark everything on the higher end of things. I find this of little use since if all marks are in the same narrow range they tell me nothing. Hoo-ray for everything. As for enjoyment being subjective, well this whole system is! We all have our preferences and even for categories like "Map" where one might expect a consensus, there is variability in peoples response. If you look at very popular scenarios then you will see that the majority of comments are glowing, whether they come from winners or losers. The former and latter might disagree on balance (maybe not), which would be reflected in their scores for that particular category but would probably be unanimous if given the chance to specify their overall enjoyment. This great scenario might have very low replayability which will result in either it being marked down or people entering zeros. Why not allow for a low mark in replayability (or another category) and a high mark for the overall quality of the experience? Hope this is clear, John

I just want to elaborate on my earlier suggestion which has much in common with Berli's. Why not retain the current structure of the depot and add an additional rating for "enjoyment"? This score would replace the "overall" score and would allow someone to mark down things like replayability while still giving a glowing review and marking high for enjoyment. Scenarios would then be advertised according to their enjoyment level and if someone was interested, they could then go and see what reviewers opinion of the briefing, etc was. As to a 5-point vs 10-point marking system, I think either is practical but prefer the latter since it allows for better descrimination between scenarios. There could be reviewing guidelines along the lines of 1-2 Terrible 3-4 Poor 5-6 Average 7-8 Good 9-10 Excellent while perhaps retaining the 0 for "no opinion". That is pretty straightforward and I think most would follow such guidelines. From the designers point of view, it would really mean something to score a 10! I think that this might be the most straightforward way for change to be made to the depot with a minimum of fuss for those involved. I also want to note my appreciation of the depot and all who sail her, she has provided many a pleasant hour,....ahem. John

Michael, Just a clarification as said reviewer once more. I do rate 8s or higher, but not as frequently as others. If everything is rated towards the higher end of the scale then we have a very coarse system which doesn't seem very useful . We might be better off with a 5 point scale in the first place. One of the problems inherent to the current system is that scores such as replayability can drag down the average. For example, in a scenario designed to be played double-blind with plenty of surprises, the score for replayability can only be average to low. This drags down the rating for what might be an incredible scenario. I suppose I could put "0" in such a case, as I have noticed others are doing. I would like to see a score for "enjoyment". After all, that is what people are really looking for and might be more meaningful when quickly perusing a large number of potential downloads. The other scores could retain some functionality without detracting from the overall rating. All the best, John

Me too

I am playtesting a very enjoyable scenario at the moment involving plenty of entrenched MGs. I played first as the Russian attackers and when encountering the entrenched MGs, went on to engage each with at least 4-5 HE chuckers (all with 76mm guns). I had plenty of armor in this scenario and it proved very effective at routing the MGs out of their positions. I had each tank area target the vicinity of the MG. While this kept him (sometimes them) pretty well supressed, I moved up Maxims with an HQ with a +2 combat bonus. The added weight ot their fire moved the enemy out quicksharp. I am now playing as the German defenders and have pretty much avoided the above by designing my setup to make it as difficult as possible for Russian armor to get into positions where they can dominate as above without getting shot at by AT guns, shreks and some reinforcing tanks I received. In only one place was he able to achieve this local superiority and drove a squad (veteran) out in one turn with direct fire from 3 AGs. I should note that the platoon leader was giving him a +1 morale bonus too. In general, I engaged most of these MGs from lower elevation, perhaps not in the extreme situation that you describe though. What I am trying to suggest, is that perhaps the addition of more suppresive fire, especially direct HE, is hugely and nonlinearly more effective than a single HE firer? John

Very sorry to take up space with this but could be aforementioned please contact me since I have very cleverly managed to delete all messages from them and thus their e-mail addresses! That will teach me to tidy up my e-mail in the future! John

Copied from Scenario Depot As previous reviewers have noted this is a tough one. I played this without knowledge of what was ahead of me. I formulated a plan based on the terrain and forces available and then went on to reject it due to the setup zones that seemed to prompt a differnt approach. Bad idea! I gave up about half way through. The second time I tried my original approach detailed in spoilers below and came out with a major victory. I think this is a great learning scenario for infatry operations in face of entrenched opposition. It showcases the infantry model in CMBB and I highly recommend it in this light although be wary and prepared for some frustration at first! I think a better briefing would have made this a lot easier for the Finns. As for PBEM, I think the Finnish player would certainly have a very hard time of it and if a less than optimal strategy is selected he will probably go down hard. *********************SPOLIERS********************* The posession of the Race track building and the locked tank seems to suggest an atack on the left flank (all this from Finnish perspective). In my first attempt I tried this with two Maxims and the spotter in this building and I think another 2 platoons to support the one that starts there. The rest of my forces I placed on the far right to advance through the brush. Well it seemed to be working reasonably well although my tank was not doing much due to ATR fire. Everyone that popped up was suppressed by overwhelming fire. This was my first and biggest mistake. By the time I got to the cemetary region my ammunition was very low. When I approached the victory location I found I just did not have the firepower to seriously threaten it. On the left flank I was going nowhere fast. On the second attempt I went with my original idea and abandoned the Racetrack building and put everyone on the right flank, keeping most of the Greenies as close to the map edge as possible and behind the forward Regs and Vets. The tank made its way through the scattered trees to join in the advance after about 10 turns. This time when I needed to suppress I mostly used just the sharpshooter, maxims and lights. They did the job quite nicely while the platoons mostly moved and occasionally advanced forward. I used the terrain to the fullest extent possible. This is the first game where my attacking troops were arriving at their goal considerably fatigued but they got there with remarkably few casualties and in strength. Rather have knackered than dead soldiers! How sweet it was to watch the final assault totally overwhelm the defenders with the tank providing valuable covering fire. Very satisfying. I think the designer would be well advised to remove the setup zone at the race track since it encourages a Finnish attack on the left flank which I think would be suicide, perhaps unlocking the tank too. He might also offer some more information in the briefing as to the strengths of the Russian force again encouraging the Finns to stick together. Then again, perhaps this is the lesson that the scenario is showcasing? Try it, John

Actually, I don't mind the limitations, they are inherent in the form. In fact, I quite enjoy the "feel" of ASL and many other boardgames. Plus there is something special about face to face gaming, especially when multiple players are involved. Also it is easier to curse dice than some digitised random number generator

Tom, Oh I didn't mean around here, I was thinking of places like the ASL mailing list and such. Just an open question relating to a core mechanism is prone to ignite a considerable conflagration Interesting to know that Steve et al might have started this whole business through dissatisfaction with ASL armoured combat. General, I recognise the limitations imposed by the fact that it is a boardgame, but if indeed the ROF of tanks in ASL is too low it should not be too difficult to create rules to increase it. John

I have noticed that there are quite a few designers adopting ASL scenarios to CMBB. Just finished "Berezina River" by Abbott for example which was a real blast. Now, I stopped playing ASL just over four years ago when I emigrated since it is not exactly the most portable of games! Now that I am returning home I intend to play it again. One thing that always "bothered" me was the rate of fire of tanks. Each ASL turn is a couple of minutes and when a tank fires (dice are rolled)this is abstracted to represent in fact several shots. Ok, but really, barring "intensive fire", or a lucky "ROF" roll you are limited to engaging one target per turn. When I first tried CMBO about one year ago I was amazed by the rate of fire of the tanks and there was no problem engaging multiple targets. From what I have subsequently read it seems accurate. Now with the death clock the number of targets engaged in a CMBB turn may be less although this is a function of many variables including luck. Since I am returning to ASL I would like to have opinions from those who play it and have experience with CM regarding ROF. Does ASL simply have it wrong? I hesitate to ask such a question of the ASL community since I am all out of fire retardant! John [ December 05, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: John O'Reilly ]

Thanks Rune, Always enjoy your work

Actually, I generally find it to be a very useful command and use it frequently. The key is not to wait until the very last minute to put it into action or else by then it will probably be too late. Also, having everyone doing it at once is not a good idea unless you are in the middle of the woods. Leaving a squad or two to cover those retreating is a good idea if possible. The problem is that you will probably have paniced squads. My experience is that if they are Vets and above they recover this quickly. So for example, in one scenario I have recently played there is a German platoon of 3 squads, 2 vets and one crack dug in at the edge of some woods. On turn one they are attacked by hordes of Russian infantry. I immediately have fears of being flanked so I order my two vets and the HQ to withdraw. By now, one of them is shaken and I think had taken one or two hits. The crack remained to beat up any pursuers and then withdrew next turn. By the end of the game each squad had caused about 15 casualties so it was worth my while saving them instead of leaving them to die! So in the end, yes, I find it a very useful command, just need to be careful, not very surprising when you think that it is the equivalent of saying to your troops, "run run the bogey man is coming!"

I don't understand those that are claiming Steve is being a bit highhanded. If you reread the sequence of posts, it is Steve that is, in every response to redwolf, extracting quotes and offering detailed explanation or criticism. This is the essence of argument, from what I can see he has not run away from anything. Other well known and respected members of the forum have done the same. In response it seems that he has someone who is consistently shifting the goalposts as he realises that his original assertions are shaky at the very least. He then has the audacity to criticise Steve for overlong responses to his "simple" question. This is an absolute classic! It might work in conversation since as drawn out as this has become, it is easy to forget exactly what has been said. Fortunately it is all here in black and errrr olive drab? Now I am finding I know little about armoured warfare on the Eastern front and not only has this game been the best I have ever played it is also an education. I will never forget my first playing of Jagermeister (sp?) where my IS tanks kept backing away, maybe after getting a first shot. It didn't fit with my conception of the role of this tank (honed by ASL) I finally got about 5 of them on top of a ridge to engage only to see them all destroyed. I was amazed by their slow rate of fire and I began to understand why the crews were behaving as they were! The detail and atmosphere of this game is extraordinary. It has been improved, as BFC acknowledges and encourages by constructive debate on the forums (CMBO was patched to 1.12?). They have a track record of listening, their dedication and hard work is so evident in their product. Their support is superb. Anyone who has been on the forums for any length of time knows this. So when someone wanders in with his Igor-like henchman and behaves as they do, one ignoring most substantive responses and questions and the other flinging muck I can only imagine Steve et al. getting extremely pissed off. I would certainly not have been as restrained! But that's just me, and I expect the majority of people Thanks for the game, the continued support, the fun and education BFC, John

******SPOLIERS******* I might add by the way (as TRL's opponent in "A Deadly affair") that I lost two trucks to the troops that suddenly appeared. That's 1/3 of all of my exitable trucks by the way. Two squads teleported into open ground literally right in front of my lead truck. I lost both almost instantly. It's a bit silly that reinforcements that appear in the middle of a map do not do so utilising the cover available and with some tactical sense to their positions. John

Just played a scenario with lots of AT rifles against light armour and half tracks. The rifles seem to be very effective at shocking (killing one crew member) but has anyone ever seen them actually kill of a crew completely? It just occured to me since I have seen so many shocked results but never once a completely eliminated crew despite already shocked units taking subsequent hits, John

I have just finished playing "Boroviska (sp?) Station" as the Russians. ***********SPOLIERS*************** In this scenario I lost only one tank to the German army but as many as 8 or 9 to the airforce and this after my AA halftracks took down one of the attacking aircraft in the early going. Every single attack that was made, be it with cannon or bombs killed a tank. That is, not a single miss. Now, I have played other scenarios with airpower and I did not pay close attention but I am not sure that I have seen many misses. This mostly against fast moving targets by the way. Although they also seem to have no problem hitting those hiding in scattered trees. I am really quite ignorant as to the effectiveness of ground attack in WWII and am throwing this out both as a question and for some enlightenment, grogs, start your engines John

Ok, just finished this as the Russians vs the AI to test the effectiveness of the Russian armour in ambush. I got a major victory without trying too hard. AI did a credible job in the attack, hitting me on both flanks and the center! I lost 3 T34s in all and accounted for 4 Panthers. The SU100s are bad news for the big cats and can kill from the front IF they hit. I found hitting to be a problem. One T34 actually took out a Panther at 150m with two frontal turret hits! This was with regular AP! Obvioulsy the "curved" effect coming into play. The only disadvantage of the SU100 is it's slow reload time. Shoot and scoot suggests itself. In fact I had a bit of a mishap when first using this with them. A Panther was presenting a flank shot while my TDs were crossing the ford. I ordered S&S forgetting that the first part of that order is a fast move and the two Green TDs promptly bogged and immobilised themselves! I think this is a finely balanced scenario. The Russian has armour that can hurt the big cats frontally, he just has to use it carefully. Night and the reverse slope defense provide opportunity. The one thing that bothered me was the reluctance of the T34s to use tungsten ammo. Not once did I see it. Now I can accept that they will range with AP but once they start hitting surely switching to "T" would be best? I know TRL has seen this in another sceanrio too, is this worthy of bringing to the attention of BFC? By the by, anyone who thinks infantry is brittle obviously wasn't watching the Germans in my game dash across the snow under fire to kick my squads out of their nice cosy buildings! Perhaps I am just unlucky? John