frozen

While building a battle from a board game. The board game specified a JU with a different load-out (like one 500lb). Well CMBB has the plane, but only with the MOAB and some baby bombs. What the hell I put the plane in. Testing the Russians, my tanks are a bit bunched up to begin with, so on turn one me and my comrades organize our approach and drive some tanks to the left and some to the right. Than the sound of plane... The MOAB blocked out the sun, and hit between two 34s (killing them of course), two other nearby AFVs had their looky loo comanders sent to the promised land. Two others viewing the devestation went into their version of shock and awe. Over all the death and destruction combined with the giant hole in the ground put a real damper on the rest of the op (lol).

Having blown the dust off of CMBB recently, I decided to take a look at the forums and TPG. Just to get caught up. {{ jumping in with both...}} I think it is awfully generous that some folk(s) are willing to donate their time, money and energy to making a place for expanding the base of this series of games; and happens to use a common form of authentication in the process. Yes, yes he could have gone completely with some form of sessions and lost some of the obvious benefits, but he could also force us all to rush out and buy RSA fobs is some paranoid effort to factor up the protection for my newest CMBB creation. Philippe's concept seems valid, but not when logically applied to TPG or similar soon-to-be sites. A review of existing U.S. Federal laws and the type of business that is currently being conducted by doubleclick and others would seem to support this conclusion: GLB, HIPAA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, COPPA do not apply (most TPG folks are probably over 13, and the data collected seems far from the definition of what ‘personal’ is). If your from the US, of course your State could have it’s own take on the issue. Review the code, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of third parties supplying the dreaded “loaded” image file (except that funky sucker fish…lol). If those bastards that run the site sell my sad record of downloads in an effort to shame me at TPG combined with some slick ad scheme to entice me to buy T-72, oh well…. The harsh words used seemed out-of-place for a fan’s web site authentication scheme. They seem better suited for those responsible for the erosion of those rights, in important matters. The list is too long to site, but visiting the ACLU, EFF, EPIC or CDT web sites should give you plenty of information from those who consider the 4th Amendment dear. If he starts asking for a SSN I’ll take it all back….

Thanks Sergei!

I have a battle that only will allow a single player to select the Germans. The Russians get |Hotseat|Email|TCP/IP but thats it. What am I missing?? Thanks ahead of time.

I like to play both. frozen_sof2@yahoo.com. From early posts: if you like It would be no problem to put them on my web site, if the bandwidth goes over 100mb a month there may be a problem

I would be interested in getting the op, how large is the file??

Tooz, Thanks for taking the time to play, and post your results, when I do the map review I will re-examine the battle elements. Men-wise I feel the Russians are set, but there AT, AC, AFV contingent has been the area of rework. The 52d at this stage has taken a beating, their tanks have been attached else where, but they have plenty of previously attached (AT & Arty) units where I can put in remnants for this battle, and of course as a semi-his op, there is some flexibility. The flaming vodka bottle throwers: I saw a picture of 3 of them, side-by-side, in a ditch (at Kursk), and I thought they sounded cool when they fired (Ka-chunk, Ka-chunk). I've never actually read anything of their use. They were the secret weapon, lol. The Germans: I feel (and your notes support) the Germans are sort of the reverse. I see the armor side being pretty well set. The inf. is where the work is needed. More Pioneers vs. inf. platoons for two reasons: time delays in getting the mines removed with a squad or two and if that squad(s) were taken out, getting across the river seemed unlikely (without a friendly map placement after a battle). So I'll give that a look when I get the board game. 'Eicke' gets assigned the responsibility for getting the bridgehead, but the AAR for that day shows 'Thule' leapfrogged over to hill 226.6. So there is some room on what can be in the semi-his op. Questions: 1. Did the one German plane make an appearance? Whom did he bomb, you or them? 2. I've taken out the Russian 76mm regiment guns, as I am sure you noticed the AI can pretty much see everything of yours and the combination of the 76 and mortars caused numerous problems for the Germans (right now the mortars have 1/2 there ammo). Any thoughts on that, most of the maps I have show a arty unit on the backside of the hill. But for playability, the current conditions are set. 3. The map used to be smaller, not so much space east space around the village. The size increase was due to the type of op, it scrolled at first. Now its static flags. Any thoughts? Thinking about shrinken it, although I think this allows for some room for a 2 player game. 4. Did the 45mm AT guns get any kills? The idea was to get a side shot at close range. For me its usually, Battle One: Umm things aren't going so well. Battle Two: Things are going great. Battle Three: Maybe I can win. PS: How can 60% weakened troops with no tanks, two small at guns, hold up the German advance so well....It keeps me playing because it frustrates me that they do so well... Thanks again.

Tooz, S-35, no on the source. I wanted a light tank, something dif. than a I or II, with the ACs going up in flames so much. I have to say, the 35 is now my favorite tank'ete. Troops can jump on it, it rolls through barb wire, over trenches, takes some punishment, and as a scout I find it extremely useful. I debated on the IIIs. N or J. I went with J for the scouts. OoB lists IIIs in 3SSPz in some quantity (includ. N), but most of the photos i've seen look like the 50mm type. As I started testing, I measured my success in 10s of meters. Umm got a bit farther that time, using the left, or hmmm lets try pushing everything right. The idea of reaching the village, seemed far off, and gaining some sort of foothold on the NE side of the river was my only goal. Lack of cover: In the beginning, there are four places to hide (vehicles). Anything, anywhere else is subject to gain the attention of the arty crew at the start. Anything ya can send on your experience is welcomed. I'll be curious as to your progress in battle #2. I will send you a copy of an update, when the board game shows up, and I end up changing the map a bit. Side-note: My fav is to push the middle, putting the pioneer sqd in the creek-bed north of the road, hide the SPWs in the woods behind the houses, running the light tanks up the road. I hold the Recon Plt. back somewhere out of the way (using the HQ to spot for the SPWs), with the idea they will serve as the front of any foothold i get for the start of battle 2. During one test a pioneer squad jumped off a tank, ran forward while throwing a satchel charge at the mine field in front of them, I had to wipe away a tear at that..... it was so unlike them. [ August 18, 2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: frozen ]

I've used Linksys Wireless before, and I would lean towards the info Redwolf put up and try and get port forwarding to work (either static the DHCP address to a MAC address, or static the IP address of the desktop). Exposing your desktop with a DMZ assignment (assuming the WAN port is connected to the Internet) is discouraged by most. Found this at Linksys: Port Forwarding http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=688&p_created=1084219690&p_sid=dVJT2gjh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jv d19jbnQ9MTk2JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9c2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcHJvZF9sdmwxPSZwX3Byb2RfbHZsMj0mcF9jYXRfbHZsMT0mcF9jYXRfbHZsMj0mcF9zY2ZfbGFuZz0xJnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9cG9ydCBmb3J3YXJkaW5n &p_li= Port Triggering http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=344

Hey Tooz, I ordered a board game called "Combat Kursk: Clash Along the Psel 1943"(still waiting on the game). Figuring I would be re-doing the maps (hopefully nothing more than a few tweaks here and there) for Psel I, II, III, I pulled them off PG. If you could post the AAR here that would be great, or you can just email me your suggestions, I would greatly appreciate them.

Didn't Wittmann spend a bit of time early on in the Stu.G. III? He performed well in that vehicle as I recall, but the others prob. did the same prior to the Vs.

Thanks for the link R. The whole idea came from seeing the picture in Classic Battles (those little thin white books) by Steven Zaloga, and how in my 3 designs the pioneer squads take a beating in the fords clearing nearby mines. Be kinda cool to be in an AFV instead of gettng raked by mg fire (yes i know in your example everyone starts shooting at the tank from paks to slingshots...still). [ August 12, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: frozen ]

Richie Yep, BF was nice enough to explain that efforts were going to the new, and that's great. I got the message from Kingfish's post.

Thanks rune for the note, and again the idea behind this thread was if something new was coming down the pipe, could you add this to the list (no funds for 1.04).

Having only skimmed the CMBB specific forum, and the others barely. Good point.

Joachim, I was leaning more towards MS history of reluctance to offer updates and patches in a timely manner, and that as an example, some piece of antiquated software still shows up on their list of "we support it" (given this was from some customer pressure). There seem to be a bit of irony there. Please keep in mind, this was an "suggestion" for a "consideration" if there was going to be a fourth patch. Since reading through the readme for 1.03 listed that new units had been added. That’s it, nothing more... diesel, As I stated, when the advancement stops, I look to see what’s next. Yeah SD and PG provide ways to keep the current system going. CMAK, no, probably better to wait and see what the new offering is going to look like. In the mean time there are a host of other games to look at, count me lookn. (only game I'm aware of that pushed the limits of lifespan, Neverwinter Nights, giving out the editor the designers use, including the ability to create your own objects and methods in quasi C++.) flamingknives.. Well BF was nice enough to add units in 1.03 (Several Romanian aircraft added and data updated) minor but an addition. Neverwinter Nights has added new units on each patch. And yes they have stopped patching, now new units come from the community, via the editor system described above. So far BF has been very nice in responding and taking the time to explain their approach. On the other hand, the ignorant can't resist putting in insults along with their opinions, and find any questioning threatening. Mission critical? For some it appears to be... [ August 12, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: frozen ]

I bought the games when they came out, and dusted them off recently to take a look at the editing capabilities. Read the entire thread next time, this is a discussion on updates and support, not on game mechanics or strategy.

As a MSDN member for a number of years, your information is wrong Rune (and I shoulda been clearer in that MS recently announced the dates of ending support), Paid incident support for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Edition (Me) is available through June 30, 2006. Critical security updates will be provided on the Windows Update site through June 30, 2006. Customers may request non-critical security fixes for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Me, and the most current version of their components until June 30, 2006 through typical assisted-support channels. Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me downloads for existing security issues will continue to be available through regular assisted-support channels at no charge until June 30, 2006. Noting that driver support is left to third parties, and were not likely to see NTFS released for 98, that only leaves the CIA model, of which all of the above addresses. I don't want to get into a debate on enhancement vs. bug (as MS calls bunches of bug fixes Service Packs). Needless to say I understand there will be no further "enhancements" to CMBB. Save your insults Sergei, as I was making constructive comments, and not insulting the game, but making suggestions if there were still being excepted. Disenting views should be encouraged, and ideas freely expressed. I understand your a small company, and I was making the above comments if there was still work going on. This is not the case, so as I said I won't post requests or ideas for CMBB. Maybe there could be consideration for releasing older code, if a completly new engine is being worked on, sort of on the Open Source concept. Maybe die-hards in the community could offer to do maitenance work on CMBO and CMBB....before some flamer goes berzerk, its just a thought. As a newer member to the board, I get the feeling some folks are a bit sensitive about inquiries or comments? Looking back through some of the older posts, I've seen some pretty rough comments, this is not meant to be one of those, just an opinion. [ August 11, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: frozen ]

I agree that all projects have a acceptable support lifespan, and that too many cooks in the kitchen and nothing gets done, so you take some people's suggestions and others ignore. Joachim, I have no idea if the game represents effectiveness of the weapons accurately, I leave that to the designers, I don't have the expertise or the research materials to comment. For others, like yourself, I could see this as a point of contention if you had knowledge that supported outcomes not being represented in the game. For me its about units, that information I can find in OoBs and other sources (CMBB has a lot units I know). I just was noting things I was finding as I explored the game, not knowing if anyone cared or not. With this knowledge obviously I won't be bothering anyone with minor notes. My view on support is, if your still selling the game, you should be actively supporting it. No if, ands, or buts. Selling without support is a method developed by accountants to increase return on investment, and represents a lack of integrity in conducting business for the buyers of CMBO and CMBB (hell Microsoft just stopped supporting Win98). At a minimum you should list those games as "not supported".

Dang published in 1983... :eek:

If what you say is accurate, that is too bad. As a programmer my experience has been when a project is no longer supported through improvements, updates, patches, you’re basically saying to the customer, "Hey we stopped caring, and so should you. If you want something better, buy our new product." What I've found is that while this doesn't get rid of customers immediately, it puts them into a state of mind of constantly being on the lookout for a new vendor (and product). Count me lookn.

As I take a break from Kursk, and move on, I found a book on Bagration 1944 ("The destruction of Army Group Center"). Commited to the fighting around Byelorussia, the PT-34 mineroller tank (116th Separate Engineering Tank Regiment). Can't seem to find it in CMBB?? If I'm correct, and this is not in the game, please add this to the Stu.G. III w/skirts for July 43 (South) request for correction. I haven't a clue whether BF reads any of this *stuff*, so maybe the community can advise on any success with suggestions or requests efforts, otherwise I'll save the finger exercising??

WoW! That worked great, thanks Pyewacket and Sergei for the quik advice.

I am looking at changing a battle to a two battle operation, am I going to have to redo the map?? Is there some way to import a existing battle map? The rule book comments look grim...

Great link Steve