Bullethead

Very easy to explain. The Shermans realized they had no chance in this situation so took cover to avoid dying uselessly. Basically, Panthers have about the best gun in the game and it's able to kill most Shermans pretty easily at nearly all CM battlefield ranges. At the same time, the Panther's frontal armor is essentially immune from the guns of most Shermans even at point blank range. Thus, Shermans will do everything to avoid a frontal confrontation with a Panther--it's a no-win situation. Would you have been happier if they'd tried and died? ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Dirtweasle said: Well, this is a very different thing than using them for on-map INdirect fire Some things to keep in mind about this stuff. First, the Priest was by TO&E the exclusive property of armored divisions. I don't think US infantry divisions ever had any and if they did, that was by far the exception. I'm also pretty sure the same applied to the SP arty of other nations. Second, the main job of SP arty was providing indirect arty support for the armored divisions, just as towed guns did for infantry divisions. Thus, using Priests as assault guns could only be done at the expensive of at least some of the armored divisions' indirect fire support. For the assault gun role, armored divisions had 18 Sherm105s. So IMHO Priests were only used as assault guns in a limited number of special situations. First, you're talking about an armored division, which weren't as common as infantry divisions. Second, the armored division is doing an assault on a heavily fortified area, which isn't something they were supposed to do much of. Third, the armored division didn't have enough of its regular assault guns available to do the job. And fourth, it either didn't need all its available indirect arty support, or was willing to sacrifice some temporarily to get more assault guns. So you can see why using Priests as assault guns wasn't in FM 100-5. Such use was ultra vires on all levels from division HQ down to individual Priests. Did it happen? Yes. Did it work? Yes. Was it common? I seriously doubt it. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Sgt. Beavis said: No comment. I'd like to see this also. Not just guns and tanks, but bunkers and pillboxes too. Maybe they could do it as an extension of "allow defending vehicles to dig in" (which IMHO should be removed from the scenario parameters section and made a set-up phase option for each unit). Various threads have said this is all possible using the editor in pre-made scenarios. I haven't tried it myself, but the word is, you use the preview mode of the map editor to position the unit on a piece of clear terrain, then go to the terrain editor and put a house in that tile. The result is the unit inside the building. Tweaking the exact position of the unit allows better LOS in some directions than others out of the building. While this is all very nice, it would be way better to just allow this sort of positioning in the set-up phase, to eliminate the hassle. Plus then it would be available in QBs as well. This is already in the game, although indirectly. CM's spotting system is universal and absolute (see various threads on "relative spotting"). Instead of each unit having its own list of spotted targets, apparently there's 1 master list of spotted enemies for the whole side. Thus, every unit knows were all spotted badguys are, it's just a question of whether or not a given unit has an LOS to a given badguy. To simulate buttoned tanks not being able to see very well, the game gives them a much higher reaction time than when they're unbuttoned. Thus, even though a buttoned tank always knows the badguys are over there, it takes them a relatively long time to do anything about it. This isn't perfect but it's not too bad, either, and is the best we can get with the current spotting system. BTS has stated that they want to have relative spotting someday in CM. This will solve this and many other problems (although it will no doubt introduce some new ones, at least at first ). But until that day, which appears to be far in the future, we've just got to live with what we've got now. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Michael emrys said: I can't say for sure that ALL WW2 SP guns had this limitation, but all for which I have stats did. These include the M7, M7B1, M8 HMC (although this maybe better called a light assault gun than an SP gun), Wespe, and Hummel. And I'm pretty sure the Sexton also, because it had the same hull as the Priest, although I can't verify that right now. The main reason for this limitation was that despite these guns being intended for use as arty way behind the FEBA, the designers gave them the lowest possible silouhette. OTOH, this also saved some weight and improved stability. But anyway, they achieved this by mounting the guns' trunnions not far above the hull floor. This prevented the gun from elevating to anything near its full extent, or at least recoiling at such an angle. In fact, most couldn't even reach 45^ and so had less max range, as well as greater min range, than the towed version of the same gun. The M7/M7B1 Priest is perhaps the best illustration here. Its max elevation was only 35^. This caused such problems that during WW2 it was often parked on hillsides to get more elevation. This was even more of a problem in mountainous Korea, so they came out with the M7B2. This mounted the gun MUCH higher to allow the full 65^ elevation possible with the towed gun. Here's a picture on my web page showing an M7B2 parked next to a M7B1, so you can see the difference in height. Note how the trunnions on the B2 are above the top of the hull, thus also requiring a taller "pulpit". Not thrilled . To do this right, you'd have to have full batteries on the map because single guns were almost never detached from their batteries. And by full batteries, I mean the whole 9 yards required to make an arty battery function. Not only all their guns, but also all their ammo vehicles, troop vehicles, support vehicles, piles of shells being fuzed, some sort of tent or covered vehicle for their FDC, some guys forming a thin local security perimeter, a few AA guns, an antenna farm, comm wire laid all over Hell, etc. All in all, a lot of trash you'd rather not have cluttering up the battlefield, costing you purchase points, or being used in non-realistic ways by your opponents. And all of this just to get on-map indirect fire support, which is why you have mortars. Leave the arty in the rear where it belongs ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

aka_tom_w said: Not me. Even if CM2 has bigger maps than are usual for average-size CM1 battles (and I've seen nothing to indicate that this will be the case), there are still beaucoup reasons why on-map indirect fire for anything other than mortars is bogus and should not be included. 1. Minimum Range Still Huge Very short range indirect fire (less than a couple thousand meters--CM map size range) is achieved like it is with mortars, via very high, looping trajectories. This is only possible with tube elevations above 45^ because arty propellant comes in fixed-size bags so there's only so much you can do with reducing the charge. However, nearly all WW2 SP guns were incapable of achieving even 45^ elevation. Thus, there was no way for them to shoot short-range indirect fire. 2. Lack of Surveyed Firing Points All indirect fire is shooting at a unknown point from the guns' POV. Indirect fire accurate enough to be seen in the general area by an FO and adjusted onto the DMPI must therefore come from a known point--otherwise, you're shooting from 1 unknown point to another and have no hope at all of hitting anything. The process of making the guns' position "known" (as in located to a gnat's ass in the map coordinate system) is called survey and is begun as soon as guns arrive in a new position. In WW2, this was a very time-consuming process requiring assets not found in the CM OOB and more time than most CM battles last. So even assuming you found a WW2 SP gun with a minimum range short enough to provide useful indirect fire on the typical CM map, it would only be able to do indirect fire if it NEVER moved during the battle. 3. Lack of Communications Remember this: SP guns were guns first, vehicles second. IOW, in use, they were intended to be controlled just like towed guns--being SP just allowed them to move faster. As such, SP guns often were controlled by telephone, not radio, because while in position they were no different than other types of guns. So, if an SP gun is being controlled by telephone, it can't move because it can't take the wire with it. OTOH, control by radio requires the FO to be using the same type of radio. At least for the Germans, the only FOs with the same type of radio as the SP guns were specialized vehicular FOs. Thus, even disregarding all previously mentioned problems, moving German SP guns could only do indirect fire for FOs mounted in special vehicles. 4. Lack of FDC FDC means "fire direction center". While this is a modern term, they had such things in WW2. FDC means guys with maps and books of firing data who calculate the elevation and deflection of the guns needed to hit a given indirect target (hence the need for the guns to be surveyed). Guns are not FDCs--FDCs control guns, and without an FDC a gun cannot figure out how to hit an indirect target. So you need at least an arty battery HQ containing this FDC section on the map, as well as its battery of short-ranged, surveyed SP guns, all in communication with each other and the assigned FO, to be able to do indirect fire at unknown points. 5. Lack of Full Crew and Ammo Many SP guns were SP because the gun was too big to tow without a huge tractor just as expensive as an SP chassis. But with such guns, the SP chassis could only carry a fraction of the crew and ammo. Thus, such guns always had another vehicle teamed with them to carry the rest of the crew and ammo. These support vehicles are not in CM and I doubt they'll be in CM2. So even if all the above conditions are met, on-map indirect fire would only be available to the subset of SP guns not needing support vehicles. Hell, if it was up to me, SP guns needing such support vehicles wouldn't even be in the game because they can't move with a full crew. 6. SP Guns are NOT Battlefield Weapons SP guns are arty. They are not tanks or assault guns. As such, they should NEVER be used in a CM tactical battle unless the battle represents some battery getting overrun, or some historical situation where the SP guns were pressed into frontline service in emergency. In the vast majority of situations, SP guns should be off the map and represented in the game by an FO unit. Frequent use of SP guns in QBs is highly unrealistic. Having said all that, compare on-map indirect fire by mortars to the capabilities and limitations of SP guns: Mortars by definition have very looping trajectories so minimum range is never more than a couple hundred meters--no problem there. Mortars can only shoot indirect fire in 2 situations: TRPs and while in command. In the former case, the FDC work is assumed to have taken place before the battle and the mortars can only shoot TRPs if they don't move--this solves the survey problem. In the commanded case, communications isn't a problem because the controlling HQ unit is within shouting/signaling distance of the mortar. Mortars are battlefield weapons and are organic to the line units they support, so there's no unreality in having them on the map all the time. Thus, mortars can do limited on-map indirect fire. But SP guns just don't meet any of these requirements, so they can't do on-map indirect fire in CM1, and I certainly hope they can't in CM2 either. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

The Cromwells are basically the homegrown Brit "Sherman analog", but are slightly less effective than Shermans. As such, they tend only to be used by die-hard Brit hardware fettishers (you know, the same sort of guy who likes the style of old Brit sportscars enough to constantly be tweaking and extinguishing the electrical system). In general, use them the same as you would the corresponding type of Sherman. This basically means rely heavily on other arms to backstop the tank's deficiencies in 1 role or another, which is more of a problem for the Brits than the US because the other arms of the Brit army also suck. The best way to get to know Cromwells is to compare them to Shermans, with which everybody is familiar. Armor of both is the same for practical purposes--they both die easily to most German AT weapons so why worry about a few millimeters? However, the Shermans have the edge in guns. While the Brit and US 75mm are about equally pathetic vs. armor and equally good vs. troops, the Sherman carries way more ammo. Basically, it's the same story with the Brit 95mm vs. the US 105mm. Plus the Shermans have a .50cal AAMG which the Cromwells lack. OTOH, Cromwells are considerably faster than Shermans. But due to similar inadequacies of armor and firepower as the Sherman, this usually means they just have the opportunity to die faster than Shermans . ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

McAuliffe said: I wonder if this has been changed in line with the changes in force ratios in single battles.... ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

aka_tom_w said: Which itself is totally insignificant compared to the way MGs are currently undermodeled . I am lobbying for changes that make the whole CM family more realistic. Making CM more realistic is an oft-stated express goal of BTS, so I figure we're all helping them in this regard, and they don't mind. In fact, BTS has proven time and again that they appreciate and act on user suggestions. Because of this, IMHO it would be a great disservice to everybody involved with CM, both players and BTS, to stop talking about problems with CM1. BTS has said that CM2 will be a refinement of CM1, not a new engine from scratch. As such, it seems reasonable to expect that all problems not fixed in CM1, or at least not recognized now and put on "the list", will also be present in CM2. Besides, all we have in our hands is CM1, so we can only discuss problems in a CM1 context. But the CM family is BTS' baby. I leave all implementation decisions to them. I never ask for changes to be made in any specific version, I just hope to see them some time in the future. If BTS decides to do another CM1 patch, that would be great--I'd like a few things fixed in the 1-2 years it will be before I see CM2. If they decide to incorporate an improvement mentioned in a CM1 context into CM2, that would also be great, because at least the problem would get fixed eventually. That's BTS' call. But if we don't bring problems to BTS' attention, they might never get fixed. Yes, it's a big deal. It's totally incorrect modeling a major weapons system, in this case arty. If CM had antitank guns but for some reason didn't let them target tanks, that would be a big deal, right? Same thing here. Actually, the prior situation might have been a true bug, as in code doing something other than intended by its maker. However, it was much more realistic. Even a 100m radius for "adjustments" is too small compared to real life--several hundred meters is more like it. But regardless, the current implementation of TRPs is just plain wrong, whether it's what BTS intended or not. Thus, it needs to be corrected, whether it's really a bug or not. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Blackhorse: In a QB, you can't have independent HQ units because you can't delete their subordinate troops. You can only do that in pre-made scenarios. Speaking of which, has anybody ever tried a real recon scenario specifically built to put recon into it's proper context? I've been thinking about this for some time, because it sounds like fun to me, but CM's victory conditions don't work well for it. Hence, you have to make some external systems to handle victory here. For example, say you have a scenario where the attacker is in command of a specialized recon force gathering intel for the division's G2 in preparation for a major attack coming soon. The recon force has the following missions: 1) to go snoop out as much about the enemy as possible; 2) get this info back home; and 3) preserve your force for future recon missions. Capturing an enemy or 2 would be very nice. However, the attacker is going in and out, not taking ground. Furthermore, the attacker wants to minimize fighting because if the enemy knows his positions have been spotted, he's going to move so the expected barrage doesn't get him, thus making the intel acquired by the recon unit worthless. Meanwhile, the defender has a normal "line-type" force dug in defending the area in expectation of the coming major attack. He has the somewhat conflicting goals of foiling all the attacker's missions without revealing very much about himself, and without abandoning his prepared positions needlessly. Obviously, if the players of such a scenario rely on CM's victory conditions, the defender is always going to have a major victory. He will control all the flags and have relatively few losses, even if the attacker knows everything about him. Thus, the players have to agree on alternate victory conditions in advance. My proposal is that the attacker player must write an intel report just like his real life counterpart would do, relating the intel collected. The attacker would write this report and send it to his opponent between the last turn of the scenario and looking at the AAR map. Then the map is revealed and the attacker wins if his report matches the defender's deployments to some agree-upon level. Further enhancements are possible, such as only counting things spotted by the surviving attacking units. Anyway, how does this all sound? ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

The_Capt said: Hehehe, you said exactly the same thing I did, only in a more amusing way . It is a difference in play styles that lies at the root of the "gamey recon" argument, and these different play styles stem from the different attitudes the players take into the game. I was just saying where I think these attitudes come from. Well, considering CM was designed and built to be a historically accurate simulation of WW2 tactical combat, I couldn't disagree more that trying to use the game as such is an "empty" or "unattainable" goal. CM does this quite well, in fact. Sure, it has problems, and I point them out just as much as anybody. Why? To hopefully get BTS to change them now or in the future, to make the game even more historically accurate. But it's not like CM is a total failure of BTS' intent, as you seem to imply here Hell, even I, despite my preference for historical correctness, do stuff like this from time to time. CM is after all my toy, and I can play with it however I want. I've made scenarios where the object is to race ACs to a flag at the far end of a narrow map through various obstacles and while shooting at each other. And a few other totally non-serious things. I think you might like them. If interested, drop me an e and I'll shoot 'em to you. Exactly. Ground rules are essential before you start the game. And one of the sources of argument is that different players have different defaults in the absence of ground rules. Basically, guys like me know that CM is intended to create historical engagements, so we default to historical OOBs and tactics. This is because we assume everybody else knows that CM is all about historical simulation (it's only posted all over the BTS site, the manual, and this forum ), and thus expects that kind of fight, so it would be ungentlemanly to spring "gamey" RTS-like stuff on the other guy without his consent. And our howls of protest when such is done to us are composed at least in part of remorse at being improperly equipped for a non-realistic game ourselves. You'd be surprised at how much us "historically correct" types like to let our hair down if given advanced warning. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 03-13-2001).]

Classic example of what I call a "bottom-up" view of CM. Thanks for providing this illustration ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Leland said: Could be, but it has totally destroyed all utility of TRPs. The current system is a "pay me now or pay me later" deal. You can pay the full delay time up front without a TRP by carefully planning where to call for fire several turns before the enemy arrives, then moving the MPI around quickly once he gets there. Or you can use a TRP, wait on calling fire until (if) the enemy happens to step right on it, and then be stuck paying the full delay time to move the MPI just when you need to move it the quickest. Guess which method is a more effective use of arty? TRPs are supposed to be pre-paid. The idea is, you spent the delay time before the scenario started in the form of purchase points. You do this to make your arty more effective. But now, TRPs actually make arty less effective. It's ridiculous. I'll never buy another TRP until this gets fixed. Very good point. If the FO knows how far he can adjust the MPI from where it currently is, he doesn't need to see the specific point on the battlefield. He can just say like "add 100 repeat" and/or use his map. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Michael emrys said: But just running with the simple fact that various light vehicles were used for "recon" misses several points IMHO. And these points I consider as going directly to the heart of the whole gamey-ness thing. In the 1st place, does anybody know the real tactics employed by such units when they did recon? I mean, did jeeps and such cruise all over the potential battlefield in plain sight, or did they just serve as a means to get foot scouts to the desired spot fast enough to stay ahead of the main body? By the latter, I mean that the heavier recon units would overwatch on the approach march, but once the target area had been reached, did the jeep drivers park behind cover, look around it with binos, and scout the immediate area on foot? This of course is impossible in CM, but if real scouts wanted to live long enough to report anything, I bet they did NOT go driving around in plain sight where the enemy was expected to be. More importantly, I consider this entire recon business almost completely out of context at the scale (as to time, distance, and force size) of a CM battle. I feel this way because I have a "top-down" view of CM. Forces the size of those found in CM battles are only on the battlefield because some general stuck a pin in a map way back at HQ. So there are basically 2 situations for an attacking CM force to be in--part of a diliberate attack, and part of a hasty attack--but in both cases, they are part of a larger context off the map edges, and the key word is attack. In a deliberate attack, systematic recon has already been done before CM-size battle groups arrive on the map. The mission of the battle groups is to act on this info. CM models deliberate attacks with pre-made scenarios and the recon info available to the attacking commander should be in the briefing. If it's not, the scenario is flawed. But in any case, it's not the business of the attacking force to do the recon--it's mission is to attack. And because it only has a limited time to secure its objectives, it had better get on with it. A hasty attack, OTOH, is one performed without as much prior recon as you'd like. Like say you've broken through and are exploiting in unexplored territory, or are doing a quick counterattack where the mission is to blunt the enemy's drive ASAP. In both cases, the priority is to attack NOW, not screw around driving jeeps everywhere. CM handles this sort of battle with QBs, where you get no briefing at all. In both cases, one of the key context problems with systematic recon in a single CM battle is the time scale. In real life, recon info has to take time to get back to the boss, who then has to take time to make plans based on it, then give orders to the next lower level of command, and so on until it finally reaches the riflemen. But CM's spotting system eliminates ALL of this required time by instantly letting everybody know what the scouts are seeing. And, of course, time stands still while the player is making plans for and giving orders to maybe a full battalion based on this info. Thus, recon in CM gives conveys far too much into to far too many people way too soon. Hand in hand with my view of the over-all context of CM battles is the use of historical OOBs. How often, in real life, did every friggin' reinforced rifle company have its own collection of recon vehicles? Not bloody often, I'd wager, but you'd never know it from looking at the forces frequently picked for QBs. But because people pick such forces to attack with, defenders are forced into equally ahistorical selections to give themselves a "counter recon" capability. This situation to me is indicative of a "bottom-up" view of CM. It seems that such players view the totality of the universe as bounded by the map edges of this particular CM scenario. Hence, they are unconcerned as to how their force and its mission fits into the overall war context because they view the whole war as their single battle. Hence, they feel they have to provide for every need and are not bothered by selecting historically inappropriate force mixes. To me, it seems like this sort of attitude is a carry-over from RTS games, where the player's forces really ARE the whole show. Having said all this, there ARE a few situations in which I feel that trying to do systematic recon is appropriate at CM's scale. One is where recon is the whole mission of the attacking side. CM doesn't do too well with this because it figures victory based on kills and flags, not info gained, but this can be worked around outside the game. Another is during an operation, like using a night battle for patrolling to try to find a way around a strongpoint or find good arty targets for tomorrow. This is part of why operations exist, and systematic recon is acceptable in them because they lift the time constraint. There is enough time for the info obtained by recon in 1 battle to get back and plans for the next battle to be made based on it. OK, that's where I'm coming from. I imagine a goodly number of others have a "top-down" view of CM as well. So when guys who think like me see somebody doing systematic recon in a stand-alone battle, with recon units he probably shoulnd't have to begin with, and using them in a way they probably weren't used in real life, we're prone to say "GAMEY!" Perhaps "gamey" isn't the correct term. Maybe instead we should say "unrealistic and ahistorical", or even "immersion-destroying". OTOH, the guy doing such things sees nothing wrong with it based on his "bottom-up" CM worldview. Thus, we have all these threads on "gamey recon". And they will never end as long as there are 2 views of the CM battle's context. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I would love to hear their answer because this very limited TRP adjustment radius is highly unrealistic IMHO. All a TRP means is that you've already done the whole spotting round thing at that point so you can put FFE right on it later. But once the FFE is going, it's no different at all from FFE anywhere else on the map and the process for adjusting the MPI is exactly the same. Hence, there is no real-life adjusting-process reason for this restriction in CM. In fact, if anything, adjusting off a TRP should be easier than for elsewhere on the map because the TRP is a known point that was established during the registration process. Without a TRP, the FO has to observe the target and guesstimate its position on the map. The guns shoot at this guesstimated position, which probably isn't totally correct, so the FO often has to ask for corrections. OTOH, with a TRP, the guns and FO have already agreed on exactly where the target is, so the FO's instructions for adjusting fire off of the TRP are more accurate than otherwise. As originally implemented, I thought TRPs were too cheap. This is because damn near everything could get some benefit from them, which to get in real life requires way more coordination, due to everybody being on different communications channels, than just 1 FO registering his own battery. So to me, the proper solution would have been to jack the price up. IMHO, this 20m adjustment radius is, to put it bluntly, bogus, and effectively destroys all utility of TRPs. In any case, if you all decide to keep this 20m adjustment radius, at least fix the lime green line so it doesn't lie to players like it does at present. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Kanonier- The word "abandoned" in CM doesn't mean the same thing as it did in SP. In SP, "abandoned" meant the crew had just buggered off but the weapon was fine. In CM, OTOH, "abandoned" means the weapon was in fact damaged in some minor yet critical way so as to make it inoperable. IOW, in CM, "abandoned" is a form of "knocked out". So why bother with both "abandoned" and "knocked out" if they mean the same thing for practical purposes? Because in operations, it's easier to fix "abandoned" equipment. In single battles, of course, this doesn't apply, but both types of game use the same results system. So in single battles, just consider "abandoned" as "knocked out". ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

DEFINITION Adjust/adjustment: moving the MPI of on-going FFE a small amount so that the delay time incurred for the change of MPI is minimized. The area in which this is possible in CM is supposed to be shown by a lime green targeting line for the FO unit. PROBLEMS 1. Adjustment Radius Too Small When the FFE is falling on a TRP, the radius in which you can adjust fire with minimal delay is only 20m. This compares to 100m for non-TRP FFE. 2. Lying Lime Green Line When adjusting fire off a TRP, you get the lime green line for the full 100m radius from the current MPI just as with non-TRP FFE. However, between 20-100m from the TRP, the FO's delay time resets to its normal, non-TRP value, even though you clicked on a place where the targeting line was lime green. COMMENTS The 2 problems above are an either-or situation. Either you should be able to adjust fire for up to 100m off a TRP, or the targeting line should only be lime green within 20m. IMHO, the real problem is #1, because a 20m adjustment radius is ridiculously small, especially when working from a point as well-known to the arty as a TRP. I favor increasing the adjustment radius to several hundred meters, but it should at least be the same 100m as for non-TRP targets. OBSERVATIONS I have saved games showing this problem if anybody wants them. This bug seems to be relatively new. I did not have this problem in 1.05, as various PBEM opponents can attest. And I kept on playing 1.05 instead of getting the various betas. Then my time for CM went away and I've only gotten back into it the last month or so. Only in the last week have I tried to use TRPs with v1.12. And even so, it Ariel had to point this out to me. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 03-11-2001).]

It's quite possible, if somewhat cumbersome, to play co-op CM via PBEM. However, I don't think it will work via TCP/IP as currently set up. But I haven't tried it to make sure. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

This is the same scenario I sent Gerbiltoy. He just has not mentioned receiving it. Therefore, he cedes the initiative to you. And BTW, I'm sure he'll like it. I named the various landmarks after his favorite forms of entertainment. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

mensch said: This is starting to annoy me. Why do the current, pale shadows of the Peng thread keep getting locked after a mere 100-200 posts? I mean, that only takes 24 hours or so, making it hard to keep track of what's going on and leading to schysms. But never fear, Munched my old droogie. With or without the Pool, your suffering shall not end. Yesterday, Gerbiltoy conjured me up to create a battle for you 2 pederasts. I accepted the virginal nutria souls he offered, undertook this task, completed it, and laid the resulting Hell-born abomination upon his workbench per the contract. However, Gerbiltoy has failed to acknowledge my work, so I will now deliver it to you, that I may return to my Lake of Boiling Blood and plot revenge on Gerbiltoy. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I agree with Pak. To me, it's not really an historical scenario unless it's almost an exact match of terrain and units with the real battle. So I'd call what you're doing "historically based" or something similar. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I bet Predator is thinking about the way the guys in "Seven Roads to Hell" were using M1919s as SAWs. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Yeah, I've ordered this badboy. We'll see how it lives up to its billing (in both senses....) ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I think this is only an interface problem. You overwrite the morale status graphic in the unit info box but it seems to me the troops still act as though pinned or taking cover. But yeah, this has been around forever. I remember trying this in the beta demo to "rally" my troops. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Unfortunately, no. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

rlh1138 said: Well, folks like Madmatt read all the messages and note things that might be worth looking into, even if they say nothing about it at the time. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.