aka_tom_w

mods have no effect on gameplay EVER not against the AI and not in TCP/IP or PBEM play Mods are only skins on 3D models which do not change and are inherent to the game. Mods are ONLY eye-candy to make your game look better. SO use ALL the mods you want Have FUN! some of them are Remarkably detailed and very artistic!! try this site for some nice ones: http://www.afv-uk.net/cmoutpost/ -tom w [ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

"You should try playing by the Iron Man Rules. Under these rules you can only view the battlefield from view 1 and only from the position of your units. This means no more "cheating" by having aerial or top-down views of the battlefield, only the realistic views that your soldiers get. Also, you can't turn off the trees so it makes moving in a forest very confusing. There are many other rules that make the Iron man rules very challenging and more realistic. It actually makes the computer AI more challenging to play. " This concept has also been formalized by Franco who has also posted a complete "rule set" My problem is that I don't have enough self discpline to adhear to all the rules when I play and I can't imagine trusting my opponent in human game to strictly follow the rules. Would BTS consider an option in CMBB that would mean you could choose the new extreme fog of war AND Iron Man Rules. Now that would sure make for an intense game. I post this to continue the concept that troops in the woods at night under human control "should" somehow have the "opportunity" to get lost. Iron Man rules with NO compass would mean direction finding at night on a large map would sure as hell be a navigational challenge. (NO GPS for those boys on the ground back in WW II) Just a Thought! -tom w

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scorpio: Hello My name is Scorpio I was wondering if you had to pay money per month to play this online??? pleas reply <hr></blockquote> No Just buy the game No money per month no club to join no membership fees you just need the game disk, and technically you don't even need the game disk in the computer to play online vs. another player who has the disk and who is "hosting" the game, then you just simple join the game, all online games are one on one. OK? -tom w [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

This thread seems to be getting better with age. But I'm still waiting to see a post by Rexford. I wonder..... are we missing any other "heavy hitters" here? (I mean absent Grogs who generally post with some significant degree of authority on these issues) From what I have read I here and elsewhere, I am of the (possibly uninformed :confused: ) opinion that the zook and CS or C rounds in CMBO are modeled as more effective then they were in historical reality of WW II combat . BUT hey! that's only my opinion. -tom w

wait! when is CM II the engine re-write of the ETO going to happen? Within CM3 of after it? I'm very keen to see all the NEW features in CMBB intorduced into the ETO post day in a re-write of the current engine. I thought they were considering CM II (major engine re-write after CMBB??? comments? -tom w

This is not really news (to me anyway) zooks work GREAT at killing uber tanks In a game setting the secret is to POUR the smoke on HEAVY and insert a Vet (or better) zook team within about 25-30 m of the side or rear of the tank (unsupressed of course) and you can just about guarantee its untimely death, the tank that is, you might loose the zook team, but that's life. Its nice to hide the 'zooks and wait for the tank to approach, but skilled players know better than to let this happen so sometimes you have to be a bit more proactive and go after them and try to get those zook teams in close. To insert them close, use something light and fast under cover of smoke like a HT or a Greyhound. Using ALOT of smoke is the sercret, then make a quick dash in, an HT with 2 'zook teams can do wonders, or else risk being called "really gamey" and rush a 'zook team in (under cover of smoke of course) in the back of a jeep, as they are fast and expendable. AND yes I learned sometime ago, Jason is correct, the 'zook anti tank weapon, (if is can get a hit) works exceedingly well against all German armour, even Tigers and KTs. Great post Jason C! And YES Buy more 'zooks they are cheap and work well when used correctly in a battlefield situation. (No wonder the Krauts lost!) -tom w [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

Sounds Great Thanks for the Update!! keep up the good work! -tom w

not again :confused:

oh look!! My FAVOURITE topic you really should read that thread that was quoted. Hsve FUN! -tom w

again... Does anyone have Rexford's book? Does it address this issue? Rexford! Hey Where's Rexford when you need him? I'm sure Mr. Rexford would be interested in shedding some light on this issue. (thanks Jason C for the specific references and historical references and insight) The first time I KO'd a KT with a GREAT flank shot from 500-600 m with a 57mm AT gun my opponent Screamed BULL****!! Damn Yankee designed game no wonder they under modeled the armour on the KT. Sure in this case the KT was advancing unsupported, sure I diverted its attention, sure it did not see the 57 mm AT gun in a foxhole in the woods, and yes I got lucky with a first shot kill, AND no this is not really germain to the issue of HEAT rounds or the penetration ability of the 'zook. BUT the KT still "seems" under modeled. Keep up the Good work Gentlemen -tom w

I have not ordered a copy yet but does anyone out there have Rexford's WW II amrour penetration book? Does it address this issue? It is my own sense or "gut feeling" that the US 'zook seems a little over effective against the KT. I enjoy the thrill of KO'ing one of these monsters with a well placed 'zook shot as much as the next Allied player, but sometimes it all seems a little too easy.... -tom w [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cameroon: It wasn't the debris but the blast from their shot (90mm HE round) that hit too closely. I was playing a scenario recently where a Stuart HMC did the same thing. It fired too closely to itself and knocked itself out.<hr></blockquote> This is now the easiest way to KILL an HMC Send in some infantry close to it and it will try to shoot them with a BIG HE round and blow its self up EVERY time. sort annoying actually. -tom w

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: However, before anyone proclaims the power of the 37mm, it should be realized that this is, as far as I can tell, an isolated incident related to the movement of a tank without infantry support rather than due to any great killing power of the Greyhound. Nearly any tank with a rear shot can kill any other if given the target and the time.<hr></blockquote> And this is VERY true in CMBO as well Rear shots and flank shots at close range by almost ANY Allied weapon will kill almost any German unber tank And so it should be. But I would not care to disagree with Jason C when he suggests ,,,,, "It is noteworthy that bazookas in CM can routinely kill KTs from the side, provided the side angle isn't steep. They need a decent "roll" for how flat the shot hits (HEAT penetration being variable). Whereas, in the real deal, KT kills with zooks were exceedingly rare, at best (although M-kills definitely occurred). So much so that men who crawled within 20 meters went after accompanying infantry with grenades, after finding the zook inadequate against the KT itself." I have found 'zooks to be surpriseingly effective against the KT its actually easy, (against the AI its easy anyway, humans are trickier) pour the smoke on like LOTS, 3-4 minutes worth, use a jeep, HT or greyhound on a suicide run and deposit a vet or better zook team immediately to the rear of ANY German tank (within say 30-40 meters) and if the zook team is not supressed (thats the key) you can kiss your uber tank good-bye -tom w

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir Elgnid: Hi all, I FINALLY upgraded the old 486 to a new AMD 1 Ghz and you know CM was going to be one of the first software purchases! Quick question: My CD has version 1.12 on it and it looks GREAT! Do I need any graphical MODS??? I know these are "depends upon your preference", but I was just wondering if the community suggests "MUST HAVE" MODS? I've only been able to play a few of the smaller scenarios so far, but I must say those Panzers and Shermans look great to me!<hr></blockquote> Do you NEED mods? That depends if you want more eye-candy than what came oringally with the game. Some of us are picky about the terrain colour and buildings and camo patterns on our AFV's and uniforms, others could not care less. I like the mods you can find here. http://www.afv-uk.net/cmoutpost/ Mods are really just like icing on the cake, the game works GREAT with out them. The only MUST have mod I would say would be Juju's latest explosions. If you really like to see things blow up get the latest best fire smoke and explosion mods I think it is at CMHQ try this page for new smoke and fire mods they come from different authors I think I am using nathan Shinn's smoke and Juju's explosions check them out here: http://www.combatmission.com/mods/sfx.asp ok? -tom w [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Madmatt: There are new commands in place (Cover Arcs for one) which will take care of all the issues you mentioned. More info will be forthcoming but basically you can in essence designate a target bias for your units either soft targets or limited to Armor/Anti-Armor threats. You are just gonna have to wait to see precisely how this is accomplished though...It IS rather cool though I must say...and works wonderfully... Madmatt<hr></blockquote> Now thats a BREAKTHROUGH!! Totally COOL! I only wish we wouldn't have to wait another 2 years to see these improvements in CMBO. With all the new toys, tricks and COOL new features, options and improvements we will see in CMBB It is a REAL shame that we will be STUCK with CMBO as the "proto-type" of a COOL wargame in the ETO until the new game engine is re-written for the ETO and Med. BUMMER!!!! Any way ALL the news about CMBB sounds REALLY exciting, I wish I could get a little more excited about the Eastern front and tank combat on the frozen steppe of Russia. oh well Cool new improvements, thanks for the LEAK!! -tom w

some definition of who and what is a "newbie" would be a really good Idea I would say anyone in the top 20 of ANY ladder is not a newbie. I have played Abbott and Kiwi Joe and I KNOW they are NOT newbies -tom w

"The one little thing that needs to be fixed is when you have targeted arty on a previous turn and come the next turn, you want to re-direct the fire. Currently, you have to click on a spot if you want to see the time difference it will take to re-direct. The problem is, if you don't like that spot, you're screwed. You can't go back to your old spot unless you load the turn back up. Let's see this fixed for CMBB." VERY well put that is a REALLY annoying problem "The problem is, if you don't like that spot, you're screwed.!!!" Thats it in a nutshell then you have to wait 2-3 minutes (if you are lucky) for the redirect. Good point. -tom w

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SlowMotion: hi there! I just came up with a simple idea that is totally non-historical, maybe silly I don't know, but that IMO could make PBEM games more fun: When planning a PBEM turn, one could select a unit and write some text that this unit would "say" during the turn. Like in cartoons. The words would be displayed near the unit the same way "gun hit" or other such things. Then when watching the movie you could see things like a Stuart commander aiming at a KT shouting "I have higher ROF!" or other serious or not so serious things. I think this simple thing could make movies very atmospheric. And to make it perfect, it would be nice to specify a delay, like when using the Pause command, that would tell when during the turn the words would be shown. Like after 10 seconds or 30 seconds. What do you think?<hr></blockquote> I am not a Grog and I think it would be aGREAT idea So that our units and men on the ground could actually taunt each other during combat With things like "I love it when a plan comes together" or "I pity the Fool that fires on my Elite Panther" or "All your bases are belong to us" or "Surrender now you Kraut bastards, my Tank destroyers just showed up as reinforcements and you don't know where they are coming from!" I Like it!! I really like it! -tom w

"So, why does Combat Mission treat tanks as individual units?" Like the board game Tobruk, thats the way the designers wanted it. They wanted to design a game that would simulate WWII post D-Day combat at the scale of the single vehicle. Tank platoons and tank platoon battles can be, and are simulated in CMBO Try Vengance or Victory a battelion level Meeting Engagement with infantry and what you could call "tank platoons" Now that's ONE helluva a scenario for a tank battle. -tom w

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by themaltese: Tom, I never mentioned re-crewing abandoned vehicles. With that, I agree that vehicles that are abandoned are done so for some good, incapacitating reason. However, for purposes of scouting or switching crews for some other reason (on functioning vehicles), I don't see a problem. [ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: themaltese ]<hr></blockquote> As it stands now crews that abandon tanks have compromised spotting ability so they can't be used in a "gamey" way as expendable forward scouts. Now what you are suggesting is scouting with tank crews. SO then there would have to be a difference between the spotting ability of a tank crew that you asked to dismount and go out spotting and a tank crew that has abandoned its mount.... I'm not sure BTS will go for this As it is now with absolute spotting, having ANY other unit walk out in front of the tank for scouting purposes will do exactly the same thing as having the crew dismount and get out and look around. (unless of course you have no other units in which case you are in a tight situation already.) -tom w

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by themaltese: Why is it that we can't have our tank crews (or all vehicle crews for that matter) board or exit their vehicles? If this were possible, scenarios dealing with actions like Villers-Bocage (were Wittmann scouted the scene on foot and observed unmanned British armor, with crews lingering around doing other things) could be more realistic. Also, again using the Villers-Bocage example, Wittmann ran out of ammo (and I believe was also low on fuel) for his Tiger, and then ran back to get another Tiger to finish off the job. In CM, when we have a tank suffer an "immobile", we could exit our crack or elite crew, and move them into a "mobile" vehicle. We could also replace crews that have suffered a casualty. I'm no programmer, but would this addition actually be possible?<hr></blockquote> Possible gamey tactics When is this realistic? When would it be seriously exploited for "gamey" tactic exploitation?? I fully support the idea of NEVER allowing tanks or weapons to be re-crewed once abandonded (They were abandoned presumably for a very good reason the first time) BUT that said I would be great to evacuate and retreat and dismount crews from immobile vehicles to save their precious hides. As it is now they just sit there and wait for their mount to get blown up from under them! And then some of them die and the rest run away paniced. -tom w

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish: I agree, they should be useless for at least 10-15 turns. Better yet, once shocked the A.I. should take over and withdraw them off the map. Good idea, Cap <hr></blockquote> I have no reall basis in fact or experience to disagree with this but I do disagree none the less. "they should be useless for at least 10-15 turns." I would agree for a green crew that could be a worst case scenario, in the event of the death of the TC BUT if an elite crew suffers a minor grazing wound to the TC and he becomes a casualty and is shocked but not killed, then the 15-20 sec "shock Delay" seems quite normal. Lets remember, there could be a REALLY big difference between in the behaviour of a shocked tank, between a TC that gets killed (JFK'd by an AP round for instance) and a TC that takes a stray round from small arms fire to the arm. Perhaps a wider range of shocked tank behaviour is needed. and as mentioned, with the new tank crew morale concept in CMBB I think this has probably been considered. -tom w [ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

This is a GREAT scenario. It is fair and well balanced, with a nicely designed map. I played it against the AI and Won as the Allies it would be best againt a smart human opponent (as would almost all scenarios) but it does play well and it is fun and the AI does a pretty good job of keeping you on your toes! Play it and enjoy (both sides are fun to play) -tom w

I know this is NOT at all relevant to this thread but CMBO was designed on a MAC with RAVE 3D video support in mind and now Apple has abandoned RAVE and CMBO and CMBB won't run on MAC OSX, (THe latest Apple OS for the MAC, it is based on a BSD unix kernel) I'm not sure if that makes anyone feel any better, but now their latest offering (not even released yet, CMBB) is now suspected not to be able to run under Mac OSX because OSX does not support the RAVE API, at this time. did that make anyone feel any better? (Linda??) I didn't think so oh well -tom w

I'm buying CMBB because it is being designed, written and tested on a MAC!! (of course it won't run under Mac OSX, because of that stinking RAVE issue, but I'm buying it anyway because I KNOW it will run great on OS 9.1!!) -tom w [ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>