Hunter

Thanks for the help. I had the same problem and the driver update fixed it wonderfully

Bruce Poon reporting in. Melbourne. hunter@scientist.com

Magua, Are you still planning to release further packs? Could you also email me please? Thanks Hunter hunter@scientist.com ps: Sorry for dragging up an old thread.

Just renewed my votes which had expired. CM is at 16 I see Bruce

In my last game I bought Infantry first but I found that I often never got around to my tanks in time! Because I tend to '+' my way through every unit every turn if I can, I will try and buy the more expensive units first next time I think. Note that this is a different consideration than most people have mentioned, and it depends upon your style of play. Bruce

Damn good thinking there! I would also like to see a reduction in shooting accuracy (not just visibility) in bad weather, possibly depending (as the first poster pointed out) on cover available to the gunner. A very obscure but maybe worthwhile change. Of course, it may already be in there? Bruce

Henri, Yes it is possible to put together a serious defensive position with 1000 points. It sounds like you had a rollover because the opponent chose / played poorly, but one sparrow does not make a summer (or something like that ). To start with, as you yourself suggest, a rifle company to hold ground and some AT guns would probably come in pretty handy in the defence. Defending is always difficult against a determined and practiced attacker, but it is fun when it works and you can actually win total victories sometimes. Bruce ps: I'm back from Nepal after 7 weeks and this is my first post. Go easy on me

Could the calculation be changed to favour the defender rather than the attacker then? The Front Line could be drawn NOT where the attacker's foremost troops are, but where the defenders foremost troops are. This is slightly more justifiable, as it could be argued that any strong points not able to be taken along a line in the length of a battle would mean the attacker 'straightening out his line' would have to fall back to behind that strongpoint. It eliminates the 'Bastogne by stealth' problem while creating the 'holding ground by hiding a sniper in a ditch somewhere' problem. I think this problem is more easily overcome by the attacker who should be scouting out the length of his line in any case. I only suggest it as it might provide a quick fix (presumably, not knowing what the code does of course). Bruce

Another vote for the PzIII. They were used at Arnhem and will have to be done for CM2 anyway. And I would also love to have a go with the Quad 50 cal halftrack. Parker's Crossroads isn't the same without it. Bruce

I have always assumed that the Hamsters arrived after the Gerbils. The Gerbils would have arrived after people noticed that one of the german troop types (Mountain Infantry) ALMOST looks like Gerbil Jagers, hence started calling them 'Gerbils' for short. Then it started to get silly... Bruce

Steve, Glad to know that you are onto it I agree with many of the posters, and think defence is a 'bad bet' for a ladder player. Not only is it harder to win (although I have) but it is harder to get a 'big win' (although I have done that too). Could fortifications be lowered more when it is an assault than for an attack? It would be really nice to be able to buy mines and wire but you just can't afford the points as it is. After all, you are already outnumbered two to one, why make it worse by spending your points on easily avoided wire? TRPs should be dang-near free for the defender in an assault? After all, they don't take resources to build. I know that the points are a reflection of how useful they are, not how much they cost to build, but maybe the presence of TRPs for the defender can just be built into the 'defenders advantage'. Maybe reduce the points from 30 to 20? Or alternatively give the defender one TRP for each 1000 points. Shouldn't the attack:defence ratios be different for allied and german? After all, the germans get bunkers and the like, whereas the allies don't? Bruce

I'm using the Viewsonic P810 21" and it works fine. I run CM at 1600 x 1200 and everything is just dandy. Bruce

I find the points costs remarkably well done. I have often fought against and with Mk IVs, which are a good balanced medium tank without the expense of a Panther. Of course, I still have my favourites and those I think are 'good value' in certain circumstances. I agree with you that the 'Combined Arms, Quick Battle' is a slightly unrealistic battle situation, but if that is what we choose to play... Remember that the Allies would be expecting to fight german infantry forces most of the time, and for that job the Sherman is a nice piece of kit. The pieces that I think are 'too expensive' are mg armed halftracks and the like, but I look forward to somebody proving me wrong on the battlefield. Bruce

Kump, Great work at making and collecting the mods. I am going about the task now of making my game all 'dark side'. I think it looks great. Is there any chance that you could put all the 'best' mods, as determined by you, into 1 big file that we can download and install. Too many decisions, too many decisions... Thanks, Bruce

Sharpie, I went through the same exercise myself a while back. I decided on Tournament House because the system they use there for points works pretty well (not perfect - but pretty good). The competition is pretty good, but I don't know how the other ladders are developing now, as I only play on the one. Last I heard the CMHQ one was US. Bruce

Twosheds, That looks great, I can't wait for that package to be released. Bruce ps: By the way, how are those sheds coming along?

David, I haven't finished the whole scenario, but some early thoughts: a. I like it. I particularly liked watching my 6pdr fire under the bridge at Zoom x8. b. The Hetzer as PzIII seems a bit odd. Perhaps a PzII would be a better substitute. The Hetzer is quirky in that I can't pop them from the front because of that outrageous armor. c. That's it so far. My reference material for Arnhem is on it's way and I will be able to check some of the details better then. Bruce

John, Can you explain to me the context and background to that quote from Patton? How is it that they were so keen to see TigerIIs opposing them? Thanks, Bruce

Foobar, That is an interesting site, thanks for pointing it out. So that's a fifth CM ladder. Actually, is it a CM ladder or an 'everything' ladder including CM? Bruce

I am bewildered by the array of ladders available to play on?! The ones I know about include: Tournament House CM Ladder Rugged Defence CM Ladder Blitzkrieg Gaming Club CM Ladder CMRS CM Ladder For all I know there may even be a Case's ladder?! Which is the best? Why? Maybe what is more relevant (using the Beta vs VHS analogy), Which is going to be the most popular? I don't think there is 'market room' for so many ladders although I could be wrong. Perhaps there will have to be a title unification battle in the future? Perhaps the ladder operators can post here about their aims and plans with each ladder, so we can choose where to go? Maybe somebody could rank them all (Functionality, Presentation, # of players) and produce a ladder ladder? Bruce

We were occupied? Bruce (Melbourne, Australia)

I am not in the US and don't know what is available over there....but is there such a thing as 'Small Business of the Year' or something like that? If there were something along those lines, I wonder if anybody here that could think of an innovative small company that displayed outstanding client service, dedication to quality, value for money, etc, etc? If you could, perhaps you could make a nomination? I dunno, we have awards like that over here in Oz every now and again. Remember, think of CM2, CM3 etc.... Bruce

I wonder if the fact that the Aus$ is so low compared to the $US is related to the fact that an Australian would post such a clueless (sorry mate whinge? Is it the lack of basic education in economics and business (or even Capitalism 101) that leads us to have lower levels of innovation and business achievement, which leads in turn to the lower currency value? And what do we do about it? Innovate, generate wealth, provide value to others? No, we whinge and wonder why the world does it to us! Mate you could be an aussie Prime Minister As was mentioned at the World Economic Forum in Melbourne the other day "Australia has a plan for low tech production and high tech consumption". Super. /Rant mode off/ Bruce ps: I pre-apologise for being offensive on this one occasion.

Yo Yobobo, Great to see the site up and running. It looks really nice. I am glad you decided to alter the algorithm to accommodate different victory types...it keeps the games going with interest throughout. I am just signing up and will play my first PBEM There is an error in the Rating Classification documentation. You call newbies Class 1 one minute, and Class 4 the next. Good luck with it, Bruce

Michael wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think this is something we could really play with. The higher the experience level of your troops, and particularly the better your junior officers are, the more things they would be able to decide without having to pass the buck upstairs. This would make your force more flexible and responsive to a new and developing situation. As already exists in the game, you could have the option to purchase more experienced troops with your points. But also perhaps a new trait could be added to command groups: Initiative. It could also be arranged so that it was easier to obtain in some armies than in others. Along with this, I would be interested in seeing a new rule causing troops under fire to be slower to obey certain kinds of orders. I don't think much needs to be done in that regard though, as I think something very much like that already occurs as a result of self-preservation instincts present in the troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To the first point I agree completely. The Initiative feature is important. This should not just be a reflection of the personal quality of the officer however, but more a doctrinal effect. An average German junior officer was able to take more initiative in the offence than the average British officer, owing to the way that there orders were organised and briefings structured. Briefly, the germans 'directive control' structure was more along the lines of "This is what Battallion is trying to do, This is what my Company is trying to do, therefore this is what your Platoon should try and do. However, given that '**** happens' when trying to do that, remember what we are overall trying to achieve here and figure out what to do when you get there.". Sort of anyway. This compares to the more structured and detailed orders provided to Limeys, where every effort is to be made to succeed in achieving the orders, not necessarily to review them as things change. To the second point I would add a personal view that troops in contact / under fire don't react well to too many orders. Withdraw is probably one they quite like. The idea of giving an order any more organise than 'charge' or 'fire' or 'withdraw' when under direct fire is hard to conceive. Troops need to be protected from DF in order to organise themselves properly to stage an assault. I have to go Later.... Bruce