von Nev

Hey 666th, If a neutered dog can get testicular implants, I'm sure they can fix you up with a pair. Sizes probably vary, but I would go for the ones that they use on great danes. http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html

Looks like the problem is an ATI Radeon graphics card specific issue. Over in tech support there is a link to some replacement BMP files that correct the issue. Thanks all, Marty

I reinstalled CMBB after my computer hard drive crashed. I installed some mods from CMMODs using CMB Mod Manager and when I play now there is a white space around words like the number of turns, victory progress, "Knocked out" or "Immobile" and such. I uninstalled all the mods and reinstalled CMBB and still have the issue. Is this a graphics card issue? I updated my graphics card with a new ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro graphics card. DOes this have anything to do with the initial graphics selection when one first starts CMBB and it asks for some sort of DirectX test? Thanks for the help. Marty Marty

I noticed too that the posts have slowed down a lot. Sadly, many of the new posts ask about things like when is this going to be fixed or what should I look for in the next patch. Over on the Blitz.org gaming club, last month there were over 500 CMx1 games between players logged while CMSF had less than 10, I think it was 6. Yikes. That is a shock considering the hype around this game when it launched.

These are histerical! And sad . . . what a mess.

This is very exciting news indeed! Besides HPS's Moscow 41 game this is the best gaming news I have heard all year. I look forward to hearing more details about this. It sounds like a great combination of Strategic Command and CMBB. If it works like Total War then I am a buyer. v. Nev

It is also my understanding that although there is a question whether PBEM is in but playing TCP/IP is in. From my perspective (and I understand the file size issue) not having PBEM will be a big minus for me and unless the game is very compelling on a stand alone basis that includes a dramatically improved AI I probably will not buy it. First, I find that I really like the challenge of playing another human (or space lobster). I find the play is more challenging and the game experience more rewarding. Secondly, my life is not flexible enough to be able to sit down and play a even a small scenario by linking computers. CMx1 is really very time management friendly as I can download the latest turn, watch the turn for a minute or two (including replays), make a couple of order changes and send the file back. From start to finish it is really quick maybe just 5 minutes. Having to set asides hours at a time too potentially to play a scenario from start to finish (or even a couple of turns) is just not a luxury I have. Regards, v. Nev

I am disappointed in the setting although I will reserve the final view on the game until I try the demo. My "problem" is I have 15 years (ending in late 2003) of service in the US Marine Corps. I have conducted joint training with with both Arab (Egyptian mainly) and former Soviet military personnel. There is just no real comparison between the two and the modern US military. With a modern hypothetical settings one has the real problem with how does "model" what are known truths today about balance and realism. In the latest couple of "modern" wars where the US was involved they completely overwelmed and destroyed their opponents MILITARILY. There were battles in the first and second Gulf Wars were entire Iraqi regiments and divisions were annilated in HOURS! Regardless of one's political view the US modern military today can only be effectively countered in training and equipment by its Western allies or perhaps the Russians states or the Chinese. I would be VERY disappointed if the thesis of the game will be that the modern US military with all of its state of the art military assets (M1A2's, arty, CAS, helos) is fighting on "equal" footing with Syrian forces. It just would not happen at anything larger than small units. If it did happen with large units the battles would be in minutes with the outcome predetermined. The Gulf wars and in the war in Afghanistan showed that small forces (as little at 4 man Spec Ops teams) were able to call in ENORMOUS amounts of firepower (arty, CAS, etc) and wipe out whatever they faced however big it was. Are the Syrians suppose to have an effective airforce? What would be the engagement criteria? The US forces stumble unprepared into a Syrian regiment dug-in? Would it be Syrian regiment versus a US infantry company to make it an "balanced" fight considering US ability to call for massive fire within minutes? The basis for any theoretical engagement would be key. My view is that unless it stays small unit/small map where there is more "balance" because it is infantry-on-infantry and there would be less time to the US to "shape the battlefield" then the "realism" police will start sniffing around and poking holes in the game mechanics. Anyway, that is my two cents. Fire away. Marty

I had two positive experiences with the "Follow Vehicle" command. The first was I sent a German tank hunter team after a Russian BA-64 armored car. The tank hunter team was in the woods about 30 meters adjacent to the vehicle. They started to attack the vehicle when the vehicle was hit by a Marder 75mm round. The vehicle was not knocked out but was "shocked." It immediately retreated behind some woods. Unfortunately for the tank hunter team it continued to retreat . . and retreat . . and retreat! The tank hunter team chased the armored car 100 meters all the while throwing grenades. The armored car finally stopped but by that point the tank hunter team was out of grenades and totally exhausted! They stood facing eachother doing nothing until the Marder showed back up and destroyed it. The other story was a crack T-34 rushed forward across open ground about 300 meters and caught my Marder turning and knocked it out. I had a veteran German infantry squad about 50 meters away in the woods. I "ran" them to within 20 meters of the tank, therefore still in the woods, then had them "follow vehicle" to destroy it. The next turn they got within 10 meters and threw a grenade bundle and with one hit destroyed the tank. I have had luck with the command but only when there is a covered and/or concealled route to get within 10 meteres.

Hands down the WORST was General Arthur Percival the commander of British forces in Singapore. He was soundly crushed in a humiliating defest by a smaller Japanese army that was short on supply and far from their bases. In fact the Japanese survived by living off of the abandoned British supplies. On 25th January 1942, General Arthur Percival gave orders for a general retreat across the Johore Strait to the island of Singapore. The island was difficult to defend and on 8th February, 13,000 Japanese troops landed on the northwest corner of the island. The next day another 17,000 arrived in the west. Percival, moved his soldiers to the southern tip of the island but on 15th February he admitted defeat and surrendered his 138,000 soldiers to the Japanese.

This is a great thread. I love dispelling myths with fact. I still am amazed at the rhetoric arounds stats (kills/losses, etc) that "prove" the Germans won Kursk. The Germans tactically "won" numerous engagements and really did destroy huge amounts of Russian equipment and men but strategicly and operationally it was a huge loss and one that solidly placed the initiative in the Soviet camp for the remainder of the war. One has to step back and look at the overall situation on July 14, 1943, and assess which side achieved their goals. If the German strategic and operational goal was to pinch off Kursk it was VERY far from the goal. In pure land terms they had to go roughly 200 km's to achieve their goal. They ended up 15% to 20% of the way to their goal. The northern attack was stopped cold within a week and the southern attack created a road to nowhere. In fact at the pace of the attack in the south they would have had to advance all the way to Orel to close the salient since the northern front was being threatened with encirclement and was withdrawing. Could they have continued to attack in the south? Sure, but at what cost and to achieve what? Let's assume they get to Kursk. What then? They still had a road to nowhere. For those that believe the German goal was to destroy a lot of Russian forces to "balance" the front they failed here too. The losses the Russians incurred were not enough and the fact the Russians launched major counter offenses DURING the German attack (north towards Orel) and shortly after the calling off of the southern attack supports that claim that whatever losses the Russians took it did little to disrupt their counteroffensive timetables. If the Russian goal was to absorb the offensive and grind it to a halt therefore maintaining the salient into the German lines and then launching a counteroffensive into the stalled German forces (especially in the flanks) I submit it achieved its goal. They probably lost more troops then they expected but they had no illusion as to the power of the attack that was expected. They did assemble 3 Fronts for the purpose of stopping the attack and dug extensive defensive belts deep into their rear. They had learned much from their defeats during the summer of 1942. In grand strategic terms just the fact that the Russians occupied the entire Kursk battlefield (including the German starting points) and then some within a month is a glaring fact supporting the failure of the German attack. The Germans were expecting to be celebrating a great victory in the streets of Kursk by this point. It must have been a rude awakening for the "victorious" German soldiers that by August 23rd they were celebrating their victory fighting desperate defensive battles far west of Orel and south of Kharkov.

Ditto the comments on the incredible work. Simply amazing. von Nev

The most fun I had (not actually playing anyone) was with I believe a scenario called "Fun with Firepower". Somebody created it just to see how much damage could be done by a single shot. So they created a valley map and packed something like 1000 troops into the valley. On the top of the hill was a lone German Sturmtiger with its 38cm rocket launcher/mortar. When the turn started the troops started to run in all directions trying to get the hell out of the way. The tank slowly moved its gun almost like it was trying to find the best place to get the most casualties. It fired one shot into the packed troops and killed everyone of them in a TREMENDOUS explosion. I laughed so hard on that one I think my stomach hurt. (Boy I am a sick freak) von Nev

This is just a note to potentially help alleviate any problems that you experience after your had already successfully loaded CM** on your computer. The other day for whatever reason I experienced an error while trying to launch CMBB. I was getting the error that it could not find the "Openplay.dll" file and recommended that I reinstall the game again to fix the problem. I panic for a couple of minutes desperately trying to fix it without reinstalling the entire game and all the updates. I just played the game. What gives!?! I went to this forum trying to figure out what was going on and my eyes started to roll when it was recommended that I start searching the CD for the files . . . . So, remembering that it worked last week Wednesday I used the function available on Microsoft Windows XP (I also have the Media Version) that allowed me to go back to a system configuration version from a couple of days ago. Using this function I simply went back to a version from a week ago (when I knew the game worked) and *Poof* the game worked!! Very cool function. Now I understand that this does not solve why the problem happened in the first place, but it now works! This function is typically found under: Start/Programs/Accessories/System Tools. Hope this helps you as much as it helped me. von Nev

Downloaded this MOD manager for the first time. Great job. I do not know how I got along without it! von Nev