Pirx

Funny I was about to post on the same topic. Played as Americans and not surprisingly routed the Germans with a total surrender. What was disappointing was that Barkmann's panther did nothing. It sat in the corner of the map taking no action. The Germans surrendered before I even found it! So the AI plan, whatever it was, didn't produce a challenging or fun game. A larger issue is how to figure out which scenarios are playable solo or not. I don't have time for head to head games so I play scenarios vs. AI only. It would nice if the scenario designer provided information on whether the scenario was balanced for H2H or vs. AI (and which side). I think this information should be mandatory, actually. Maybe this experience will prod me to finally try PBEM!

I'm waiting for the demo, too. I need to see how this game will actually run on my dual-core system before I pull the trigger on a purchase.

I don't know anything about eLicense so I have a question. I'm guessing that when you activate the software, your computer provides some sort of computer-specific registration key to eLicense which then checks it against a database and authorizes the installation or not. Adding additional computers requires you to deactivate the license for existing computers. My question is what happens if eLicense goes out of business? Will you lose the ability to un-install and re-install the software?

I find these allegations of cheating to be way out of line. The main complaint against the "cheaters" is that they are exploiting an unrealistically modelled situation. A problem arises, however, when one considers the fact that no aspect of the game is a perfect model of reality. Therefore, any action taken in the game is imperfectly modeled, and will therefore produce an advantage for one of the players. All game decisions are therefore "cheating". Where do you draw the line at how bad the "cheating" has to be before it is banned? I don't think there is an objective answer to this question. In my opinion the cheater-haters are overly confident that only they know how to "fix" the game. I think its perfectly acceptable to create "house rules" to adjust for perceived modeling flaws in the game. Clearly, one of JasonC's rules is no ATGs on the reverse slope of a crest. If a player agrees to the house rules and then knowingly violates them, then that player should be called out. If a player doesnt play by one individual's house rules, however, thats not cheating. That is just playing the game as the game designers intended it.

Those specs are very similar to my laptop. CMBB runs fine on it, even the "large" size scenarios. I think that only the hugest scenarios, in urban environments with lots of rubble and smoke, could potentially give you a problem with the graphics. That doesnt bother me because I don't have the time to play a huge-sized scenario!

Hi www2steel Just thought you might be interested in some probability calculations based on your excellent experiment. Thanks for passing on your interesting observations.

I calculated the p-value for your test to be 0.10 (www.matforsk.no/loa/fisher.htm). This can be conceptualized as meaning there is a 10% probability that the observed difference was a coincidence, and therefore the porportion that will become immobilized is actually the same in both groups. This is based on your numbers from above: Rescue vehicle: 7/34 become immoblized No rescure vehicle: 22/57 become immobilized That p-value is relatively low but is still above the arbitrary threshold of <0.05 that is usually defined as "statistically significant". If you are interested in repeating your experiment, you may be interested to know that you need to do 100 tests in each group to have an 80% chance of detecting a difference that is significant at the p<0.05 level. This is assuming that 21% and 39% are the true probabilities of being immobilized with and without a rescue vehicle.

Presumably the rescuee vehicle got bogged for a reason, such as unfavorable terrain. How often did the rescuer vehicle get bogged while attempting the rescue? You should take this into account before concluding that attempting a rescue is wise.

I just bought a new widescreen laptop (native resolution 1680 by 1050). I can confirm, as the others have said, that CM does not support that resolution. By default the picture was stretched horizontally to fill the screen. This widened everyting by 10%. This was just enough to make it look slightly strange, but liveable. I found this other post (attached below) and learned how to set my computer graphic card (Nvidia) to "fixed aspect ratio scaling", which scales up the picture without stretching. I also had a centered option, which displays the lower resolution picture in the center without any scaling. "Thanks! Found it under the nVidia tab right where you suggested. 3 options are available for display of lower resolutions: "Display adapter scaling" [stretched to fill screen] "Centered output" [stretched to screen aspect ratio but centered, with border all around] "Fixed aspect ratio scaling" [bingo! with that setting CMAK fills the screen top to bottom with black side borders and no distortion.] Thanks for the pointer - My ACs have round wheels again!"

To be precise, the new Microsoft OS was called Longhorn while it was a development project. The commercial product that will result will be named Vista (not Visa, probably a typo there). According to the NY Times, Microsoft recently pushed back the release date from "late 2006" to after the holiday season. So we are looking at early 2007. I have no idea about whether there will be full back-compatibility or not.

Don't hide your troops at the end of the advances. The key to winning the scenario is getting a full ID on the MG, so you can suppress it with targeted fire from your squads. Hiding the squads significantly reduces their spotting ability.

I dont think any of those tactics are gamey. Let me know if they work and I will try them! Some tanks carry smoke shells (abbreviated "S" in the ammo listing). You can fire at an area target using the "target smoke" command (at least I think that is what it is called). There is no way to control when your tanks pop smoke in self defense. If there are suspected enemy hide outs visible, such as a building or patch of rough, it's perfectly acceptable to do "recon by fire".

Sergei, I guess you are right. I was able to log in to CMMODS this morning, but not now. What does your sig line mean? It reads like it was translated from another language by a crappy web translator.

In case you hadn't come across it already, the top site for downloading mods is www.cmmods.com. There are also mod managers, like McMMM, which make it easier to install and uninstall mods. These managers are also available at the cmmods website. My main use for the website is to download winter uniforms and vehicle whitewash, which are not included on the CD.

Keep in mind that the Pvt Ryan-style assault is abstracted in the game, therefore you don't see a graphical representation of the assault. What you should see is that your squad unhides when the enemy vehicle enters the cover arc, then throws a grenade (or shoots a rifle grenade) every 20-30 secs. DON'T assault or use the "follow vehicle" command because it gives away your position, drawing murderous fire. I suspect what happened is either: 1) Your squad got spotted before the assualt. Bad luck 2) The game engine may treat halftracks differently than tanks. The TacAI may have considered the halftrack as more of an "infantry"-type target than an AFV, and therefore used small arms fire rather than grenades. Some of those halftracks are pretty thin-skinned, after all, and can be damaged by machine-gun fire. This is just speculation on my part, but more experienced players may know whether this is explanation is plausible. It might have been better on your part to keep your squad hidden and let the halftrack pass, then assault the tank. After all, your squad is going to get mauled by the surviving AFV. Wouldn't it be better to trade your dead squad for a dead tank, rather than a dead halftrack?