BDW

Yes, same thing for me: the freeze/crash happens at the end of the Allied AI turn. I am playing v1.03 standard 1939 campaign without any edits or mods. I also have the autosave file if needed. [ August 28, 2006, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: BDW ]

I started in '39 and now I am up to summer of '45. It's been doing this since '43 or so, but now it is really bad; I cannot even complete the turn I'm on. I've loaded the game on a second (and totally different) computer, and I'm having the same issue. I think this must be a bug of some kind. Also, I thought I might be impatient (and maybe the AI was just doing some super comlicated calculations), so I just let it run, and eventually (20 minutes later) the game screen went blank, and the CPU usage was still pegged (this happened on both computers, both requiring a forced quit of the application). [ August 28, 2006, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: BDW ]

AI is "Thinking..." CPU=99%, just stays like that, frozen, then I have to kill the process and restart the game. This keeps happening. Any ideas? Anything I can tweak, so the AI can complete its turn?

If Zemke was really an officer planning missions in Iraq, then all i have to say is: NO WONDER we're losing

The Bush administration has reportedly considered launching military strikes on Iraq's neighbor Syria and finding someone to replace Syria's President, Bashar al-Assad. Newsweek reports that at a high-level meeting held on October 1st, U.S. officials debated striking training camps inside the Syrian border used by insurgents in Iraq. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined yesterday to verify the magazine's account that she had successfully opposed the strikes. Meanwhile, the Financial Times is reporting that Bush's security adviser Stephen Hadley is coordinating an inter-agency search for someone to replace al-Hassad as president of Syria. The U.S. has accused Syria of harboring Iraqi insurgents and aiding Palestinian and Lebanese militias. One administration official told Newsweek last month that military planning around the country and Iran is "busier than ever." Last week, Fox News television host Bill O'Reilly called for al-Assad's assassination, saying QUOTE "we should take his life if he doesn't help us out." http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/11/1451241

I've been watching Steve and Charles develop these CM games (and the company) since before it was named CM and when they were still parting ways with Avalon Hill. When I found BTS, I didn't really know jack about WWII, and I was looking for a cool realistic tactical simulation. Steve and Charles had to defend against WITHERING criticism and abuse for going with a 3D game - especially after they released a very silly looking pre-alpha screenshot (if I recall correctly, the trees were simply a brown rectangle with a big green triangle on top). Needless to say, they stayed true to their vision for the first game and really blew everyone away. Since then I think they have truly built trust with their core players. I've never seen ANY company listen to it's customers and engage them as much as this one. When I look at this modern Syria version of CM, I think, "I don't know jack about modern warfare or Syria. But I imagine the modern battlefield is way more complex and varied than the WWII battlefield, with lots of different units and weapons, offering many more combinations of tactics and much more varied game play." When you combine that with the FACT that Charles' and Steve's #1 priority has always been making the best game possible, then I think we are likely going to be in store for easily the best tactical war game ever created. I'll bet even the most insane naysayers like that Plucker guy will windup buying the game! Steve and Charles' have never been "sell-outs" at all. In fact, their development and marketing philosophy with these games has probably precluded them from getting rich - and thank goodness for that!

Very cool. Thanks for the reply Steve. I was more concerned about the physics. Glad to hear this will be physically possible in CMx2.

Because they were told to (assumes that the guns are commanded by the player) Don't overcomplicate my point. If the current system simply had an area fire "aim high" command, that would do the trick. You can simulate this in the current system by setting up some conscript gunners shotting down at the very top of a rise in the ground, with a forest behind and below the rise. Many of the errant rounds will go shooting into the forest at various distances. All I am saying is that I want to see the "area fire" command issued in more than 2 dimensions, considering this is a 3D battle environment. [ October 06, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: BDW ]

You guys are still missing my point. They DO have LOS to where they are firing; they are firing into the tree-tops that they can clearly see. No "borg" or "god" spotting issues here at all. The commander is assuming a likely approach of the enemy through the patch of trees, and decides to make that approach less attractive to the enemy by ordering his gun crews to fire 150mm rounds into those trees that they have clear LOS to. However, he orders them to aim the gun HIGH in order to get deeper penetration into the forest. I hope this is possible in CMx2 becuase it is something that I find really unrealsitic and annoying in CMAK. Many, many times I've been frustrated when the enemy is barely 5 meters deeper into the forest then my LOS goes, so I am unable to fire rounds at them with any effect.

Borg spotting is a separate issue. For my example, assume that the gun crews were on a rise and saw the enemy enter the patch of trees. No borg spotting. Try this: set up a battle with a 100m X 100m patch of forest. Put a company of Allies on the W side and put 100 elite German 150mm guns on the other side. Have the computer control the Allies, and start area firing your guns into the trees. Guess who takes the flag? My issue/point has nothing to do with indirect firing or so-called "borg spotting". Let me restate my point: In CMx2 I want to be able to AIM the guns HIGH into the trees, in order to get the rounds to penetrate the forest deeper and tree-burst, etc. It is just that simple. Think about it: 100 150mm rounds traveling at 240m/sec would turn that 100m patch of forest into a living hell on earth, with some rounds penetrating very deep into the forest and exploding in the trees, etc. I use the exaggerated example to make the point. But the same thing should apply to a single gun. Currently, there is zero effect on a platoon entering the 100m patch of trees. In real life, if you were in a platoon, entering a 100 m patch of trees, and there was a crazy german gun crew shooting 150mm rounds into the tree-tops, you'd proabably get "alerted" at the very least, and a lucky round could wipe out most of your squad mates or at least put them on the ground looking for cover.

My comment about the 150mm guns was a little misconstrued. Let me clarify: firing a 150mm gun into the visible tree-tops is not indirect firing; it is area-firing the gun and aiming high. Right now, CMAK only allows you to area fire into a spot on the ground, rather than area firing high into the tree-tops. So, my point is that I when enemy troops are spotted entering a forested area from the E and I have guns set up on the W, I want to be able to fire those guns deeper into the forest. For example, say I have four 150 guns aimed at a 200 meter square patch of forest that an enemy platoon just entered from the other side. I should be able to use those 150mm guns to make that patch of forest a living hell by firing rounds into the trees and generally tearing up the forest. (not sure if CMx2 will allow destructible forests, but you get the idea) So if you use my example in the current CMAK engine, the 150mm guns would only be able to target the leading edge of the forest, instead of being able to actually aim the gun, you are forced to aim them at the ground at the leading edge of the forest (where LOS is limited). I hope that clarifies my comment.

I'd just like to add my two cents to this discussion: One thing that bothers me about the current LOS/aiming is that when area firing you are limited to a 2D plane, which is annoying becuase it is a 3D map. In other words, in CMx2 I want to be able to aim my 150mm gun HIGH into the wooded area that I just saw an enemy platoon enter from the other side. This would have the effect of blasting the 150mm rounds deeper into the trees to suppress the platoon.

I am sure someone has already suggested this, but I thought I'd throw it out there again anyhow. What I would love to see is, during the plotting phase, a "suggested" path, which the AI suggests when I choose a unit and a destination, then I can tweak, delete and move the waypoints. So, it is still totally player controlled movement, but it would be really handy for certain situations, when you don't want to plot a bunch of waypoints (e.g. moving a vehicle down a curvy road). So you could choose the "suggest path" option for the unit and the AI would plot a path for you. It could be really basic, too, just move the unit along the road, or use obvious cover. Nothing complex, but instead just a handy path for the player to tweak a little. Not sure if this would be super useful most of the time, but I'll bet it would come in handy for some situations. For example, one of the things I struggle with when moving units, is plttting the path to take advantage of the subtle variations of the terrin elevations that mioght provide better cover. Sometimes just a few meters can make all the difference. With a "suggest path" system, if you moved a unit accross open terrain, the "suggested path" would perhaps take advantage of the cover better. You get the idea. Curious if this has been suggested before and what the response was.

I am surprised nobody has actually manually tabulated and posted the results yet, given the fanatical nature of the crowd here...

5 top things I'd like to see added: 1. better unit descriptions and details during the purchasing phase! (images and ammo details would be nice) 2. More, different and various victory conditions - especially those relating to time. For example: "hold X bridge for Y turns, then exit at least 60% of armor by turn Z". Or, "seize control of Hill 524 by turn 15 and hold it until the end of the game". 3. "Green" should NOT always translate to "slow, wimpy and a bad shot". "Green" should instead translate to "performance during combat will be unpredictable". I'd like the purchasing of green units to be more of a gamble. They might suck or they might kick ass. 4. Pre-organized companies & platoons at the set-up phase 5. Integrated PBEM system for multi-multi-player

re: the AI, it pains me to think of Charles spending time trying to improve the AI player, when he could be doing other things for CMx2 When CM was first released, and nobody knew how to play the game, playing agianst the AI was good for learning. Now that there is an established community of CM players, it is so easy to find a PBEM opponent, I never play vs the AI anymore. I see the AI player as a tutorial player, or useful only when you want to mess around and experiment with stuff. So my point is: I hope Charles et al do not spend too much time trying to improve the AI player at the expense of adding features to CMx2! [ January 22, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: BDW ]

I was going to commit suicide this evening, but then I read the description of CM2 and I decided to hold off for now. I'll reconsider after the game is released. So, the longer it takes BFC to release CM2, the longer I am guaranteed to live. But, rest assured, if the game sucks, I'm ending it all. Charles, my life is in your hands. :eek:

Hi - I can't figure this out. Everything was great with CMAK, then recently (I must have changed something) the performance started to suck. My system: AMD 3200+, dual DDR 400MHz 512M, Radeon 9800, Win XP. So, everything was just great, but now, when I move the camera around it is intermittently "jerky" - it freezes up for a half second now and then. Really annoying. Also, noticed this: I ran the Task Manager and when the pauses happen, the CPU usage % plummets. Normally, with CM playback going, the CPU is up at 99%... Also, when I give CM "above normal" CPU priority the problem mostly goes away. But what gives? Everything used to be perfectly fine. I am stumped. I was hoping some of you would have some ideas of things to try/ tweak. Or un-tweak, as I probably changed something in my environment that caused this to start happening. thanks

That is in their defense? Let's see: the vehicle was disabled. Why not just evacuate the area and wait until he gets thirsty and gives himself up? You canonly sit in a bulldozer/tank for so long before you calm down and realize you aren't going anywhere. Typical US police. The police ought to charged with murder. They KILLED this guy and all he did was wreck some property.

If you have any info on the next version of the game engine, please post here! I am starting to get curious, and wondered if anyone knew anything about it...

http://www.tankride.com/tankrides.html This looks like fun. Has anyone done it? Is it worth the $120?

Thanks guys! I am going to check these out. I knew I could count on people here for some good recommendations. thanks again

Hi everyone - I need your help in finding a book to read on WWII tank combat. I can't think of a better place to ask for this advice!! I am looking for a personal account type of book - with tactics and a feeling of what it was really like to be INSIDE a tank in WWII. Here are two possibilities that I found on amazon.com: Panzer Operations: The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941-1945 Armor Battles of the Waffen SS, 1943-45 (Stackpole Military History Series) Has anyone read these? If so can you recommend them? Any other suggestions? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!!

My top request is to have a better vehicle column waypoint/navigation system. I've figured out how to finess this by being aware of pause times and top speed of vehicle, by staggering start times and movement speeds. But it is a pain, and inevitabley one vehicle holds up the whole column and creates chaos. I think a "column move" command would be fantastic!

'nuff said, but I'll elaborate: I'd like to be able to click on a target line to select the targeting unit, just like with the movement lines where you click on a movement line to select the moving unit. This would be a great time saver, especially when my units are close together and on "+4 size" and they are hard to select.