Sgt Joch

Here is something which should work in XP. I have a 4890 w CAT 9.12 & XP SP3. The in-game text sometimes disappears as you describe. A workaround is to hit ctrl+alt+del and bring up the task manager which will minimize CMBB/CMAK. You then close task manager and bring back CMxx to full screen and all the text should now appear. I don't know if this works with VISTA or 7.

I would also question the need for tcp/ ip WEGO. PBEM players are minority of players and those that play tcp/ip are a minority of PBEM players. Over the past 5 years, I have consistently played CMBB, CMAK and now CMSF PBEM games, yet I have only played TCP/ip a few times. Not because it is not fun,( it is actually a real blast! ), but because it is not practical for most PBEM players. So yes, it would be nice to have, but it is way down the list of my priorities.

"Breaking the BanK" is a good one. I am playing it now PBEM as British and its a tough slog.

FYI, this is the answer Charles gave to this question sometimes back: So you just get so many rounds or artillery time allocated to you. You, as commander decide if you want to use it up as smoke, HE or AP.

John, I see you wanted to make a different point on AC losses. I was responding to this comment: I was making a different point about the overall effectiveness of Air Defences. The effectiveness of SA-2s did decline from 65 to 72, but that only tells part of the story, since the U.S. had to adopt tactics to minimise losses which lessened the effectiveness of the air strikes. In a typical "Rolling Thunder" strike on Hanoi in 66-68, fighter bombers would approach Hanoi from the NW at about 5,000 feet AGL where their approach would be masked from ground radars by mountains, the famous "Thud Ridge". As they got close, they would pop up to a high altitude, spot their targets and dive down to do their bombing run, after which they would egress back along the same route. This would lessen their exposure to SAMs, but also made it harder to spot and accurately bomb their intended targets. There was also the issue of flights which jettisoned their ordnance/fuel tanks when maneuvering defensively against SAMs which would then abort back to base. Yes, the effectiveness of SAMs went down, but so did the effectiveness of the air offensive. The history of air operations since 1960 shows the dynamic ebb and flow between offence and defence: -SAMs were overpowering in 65, but U.S. countermeasures/tactics gradually reduced their effectiveness at the cost of decreased offensive power; -the 73 Suez canal probably saw the strongest relative defence since the IAF was unprepared for the SA-6 which saw its introduction on the battlefield and was much deadlier than the SA-2s; -Bekaa 82 and Iraq 91 shows a swing back to the offence since the IAF/USAF developped new tactics which allowed them to effectively shut down the Syrian/Iraqi air defences; -Kosovo 99 shows a swing back to the defence as the Serbs adopt new tactics to prevent a repeat of Iraq 91. So you see a swing back and forth as each side adopts new technologies/tactics to give it an edge.

Actually I don't see the number of planes shot down as a good indicator of how effective an air defence system is, the real indicator is whether enemy airplanes were able to carry out their objectives or not. Kosovo 1999 is a very good example of a successful air defence. If enemy air strikes are obliged to jettison their ordnance or miss their targets, the air defense system has done its job. From the article John linked above: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICK/is_2_16/ai_90529723/?tag=content;col1 and on the results of the air campaign: yes, the Serbs only shot down 2 aircraft for 800 missiles fired, but NATO was never able to shut down the Serb's air defences. Because of that NATO was not able to strike effectively at Serb military targets.

Another thing to remember when using fragile items like ATGM vehicles is the way spotting works in CMSF. Vehicles which are moving are spotted much more quickly than vehicles which are stationary, so if your ATGM stryker is positioned behind a crest and a T-72 pops up from behind another ridge, chances are the Styker will be able to get off 1-2 shots and possibly kill the tank before it is spotted. Of course the reverse is also true. Because of this, ATGM vehicles are most effective when used to provide overwatch along likely enemy approach routes.

very nice find!

It is hard to know how effective a current air campaign would be since so much depends on who is on the other side. There is a RAND study which discusses various assumptions about how effective a 2020 air campaign could be. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf It deals mostly with the air-to-air aspect, but makes interesting observations about air power since ww2.

From what I have read the Air Defence Network around Hanoi was one of the best in the world in the late 60's/early 70's. The Soviets used North Vietnam as a testing ground for their technology. It was a dynamic conflict since the US and the Soviets kept developping new technology and tactics to keep ahead of the other side. A really good book on the Air War over North Vietnam is "Clashes" by Marshal Michel. Google has an ebook version: http://books.google.ca/books?id=ueTIMHCmw6oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=clashes+michel&source=bl&ots=bw81KQ4fb3&sig=9OkThvXNGq8YN026IuoSpQk8dlA&hl=en&ei=uetUS5VqlJe2B6e0wIwC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Oddly enough, I was reviewing a PBEM game over the weekend after 90 minutes of action and noticed a few of my Red infantry squads which have seen the heaviest fighting were labeled as Plt HQ. I will have to recheck to see if the same thing is happening.

If someone could submit a save game of the javelins bouncing off, we could try to determine what is happening.

Afreu, which scenario? warning******"UK Outmaneuvered" spoilers below********** I did a very quick test with "UK outmaneuvered" RT in 1.21 last night to see if something might have cropped up. A british javelin team on top of a two story building w. 4 Javs took out 4 enemy tanks (2x T-62s, 2x T-72s) in less than 5 mins, each one shot, one kill. Admittedly, it was under ideal conditions: clear day, open map, clear LOS, unsuppressed Jav team (veteran I believe), motionless AFVs. ******spoilers ended******************************** Again, this is not to imply there is not an issue, but we need to know more about the conditions (and a save game if someone has it) so we can see if the event falls within normal parameters or if there is a problem. Incidentally, I am involved in a red v red PBEM game where a AT-14 nest (numbers still unknown) has taken out 6 of my tanks and 2 BMPs and survived an artillery strike so far....:mad:..... I wish those missiles were less effective...

At last discussions, no there will not be any change in CMN. This issue has always existed back to CMBO. As I understand it, the amount of coding involved, not only putting in min/max elevations for each AFV, but also coding the AI to be "aware" of the restriction and not to be unduly penalized by it vs a human player, is not worthwhile considering the few times where this is an issue.

I'm sure there is still a market niche for that....

VonWebb, that is an extreme example. I have seen enemy AFVs require up to 3 Javelins to be killed, although it is often one shot-one kill as we know. It is also difficult to determine if there is an issue. In firing range tests under ideal conditions, you can achieve 95+% PK with the game. This matches up quite nicely with the published data which shows a 95% probability of kill with each shot. For some reason however, when playing actual scenarios, the javelins are sometimes not as effective as in our "tests". Javelins will not acquire and miss the target or sometimes an AFV may require 2-3 missiles to be destroyed. Part of this latter behavior may be explained when the missile hits the AFV at an odd angle and much of its energy is wasted. Charles had offered that explanation at one point and had tweaked the behavior to lessen this problem. Part of the issue may also be chalked up to FOW since the enemy AFV you hit and which appears undamaged may in fact be dead. Discounting the FOW issue, your effective PK may in fact only be 75-85%, again hard to accurately estimate since this behavior does not often appear in "Firing Tests" type scenarios. Please note however that even with this lower effectiveness, the Javelin is still by far the deadliest ATGM in game. At that point, the issue becomes whether this is a real problem. For some people it is, since they want to see the published 95% PK under all circumstances. In my case, I like to see it as the Javelin performing according to real battlefield conditions. I am personally wary about the published data since I operate on the principle that all militaries have an interest in overstating the effectiveness of their weapon systems. It makes sense that some missiles will not lock, will not track, will be duds, etc.

Colin, just reading your post. I assume you know you have the option to play either RTS or WEGO. You are not forced to only play RT.

A la Friedrich Zoller?

Don't forget CM:Normandy is being built on top of the CMSF 1.21 code, so it will have all the features presently in CMSF 1.21, plus the new features being added now and the specific Normandy 44 content, so anyone who likes CMSF 1.21 and likes WW2 will like CM:Normandy. Even though it is still only Alpha, the new game benefits from all the work that has gone into CMx2 so far, so the game is already very stable.

ugly rumour spread by the NVIDIA fanboys... ATI 4890, catalyst 9.12, win XP here. CMSF (and CM:Normandy) works and looks beautiful with no issues/artifacts.

Gautrek, dont take my comment the wrong way mate, I did include a smiley... Anyway back to the movie, the part about the basterds going behind enemy lines and killing nazis is only a small part of the movie. There are five chapters and that is chapter 2, which is unfortunately, what 90% of the trailer is made up of. There are 4-5 storylines meandering through the movie which all more or less meet up at the end. The killing of prisoners scene is quite brief and designed so you feel sympathy for the german soldiers (I am sure that was not accidental). In terms of poor taste, I can think of many movies that also had scenes where prisoners were killed, such trash as Lawrence of Arabia, Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, HBO's Band of Brothers.....

Gautrek, I think you misunderstood my post. I was not trying to convince you to see the movie since that is a personal choice. I just meant that your opinion about a movie that you have never seen is irrelevant...that's what I meant as "pointless"...

fascinating thread. On the link with CMSF, it is hard to kill a M1/CR2 with a straight frontal shot, but an ATGM/T-72/T-90 shot can still wipe out tracks resulting in an immobilization, damage the main gun/optics/sensors and it does not take much of an angle to get a side penetration resulting in a destroyed tank.

If someone sees the movie and does not like it for their own reasons is fine, but it seems a bit pointless to dismiss or refuse to see a movie based on a trailer or what you think the movie is about. I remember when United 93 came out, I initially refused to see it since I saw it as exploiting 9/11 and thought it would be a blatant U.S. propaganda. When I did see it, I was pleasantly surprised since it turned out to be an excellent movie. Trailers are made just to get as many theatergoers (i.e. teenagers) as possible into a theater. As such, they often bear no relation whatsover to the movie itself. Incidentally if you look at the U.S. domestic and japanese trailers (both are on the DVD), you would think they were talking about two different movies At the beginning, I also was not planning to see Inglorious basterds because it looked too much like a Brad Pitt/action movie/alternate history crap. However, the movie itself is excellent and works very well as what it is: a spaghetti western/black comedy, as well as an homage to movies as varied as Once upon a time in the west, The Dirty Dozen, Where Eagles dare and countless others. ..incidentally, IG is considered a serious contender for the best picture oscar...

You can take screenshots in XP: hit the "printscreen"key on your keyboard, open "Paint",type ctrl+v and voila! You can then resize or crop it and save it as a BMP, JPEG or other format.