C Colapietro

That's true, but I don't think I can program the mouse on a per-app basis, so I have no real desire to dedicate those two mouse buttons just to DropTeam as I use them in other games.

I just got a Logitech MX-518 "Gaming Grade" mouse (a fairly standard 8-button layout with scroll wheel) and ran into a problem while setting up my DropTeam controls - the control assignment screen does not seem to recognize the two buttons on the left side of the mouse - ie when I choose a game function, then press the "Mouse" button to assign a mouse function, then press one of the side buttons, nothing registers. I can set any of the L/M/R main buttons, and it recognizes the scroll wheel rotation (Up as button 4 etc...), but no dice on the side buttons. These buttons seem to work fine in other games, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Any suggestions?

Thanks - I appreciate the quick response!

I originally posted this in the general forum, but it probably makes more sense for it to be here - sorry for the dup. post... ------------------------------------------------ I have dial-up on my home machine - an iMac G5 - and so the update process is really painful. In fact after a 8+ hour update to 1.1.2 (I think - it ran 2 separate updates), the game is unfortunately virtually unplayable. I would like to get the latest version to see if things improve, but don't want to do it dial up. I do however have access to high-speed at work, and have a usb drive to transport files - is there any way to get an update packaged up which I can run locally on my machine? As an alternative, can I copy over the data files from my work PC (Not a Mac - a PC) which is up-to-date with DT 1.1.5, then run the updater to download just the updated execuatables? While a nice idea, the web-update just is not a practical feature for some. It would be great if you could offer stand-alone updaters, or even up-to-date installers for the entire app.

120mm HE is also good for taking down trees, for what that's worth...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a Macintosh G3 Powerbook, 400Mhz. Running system 8.6. basically straight out of the box. I am also running it with virtual memeory on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I also have a G3/400 pb w/128meg (I highly recommend getting the extra memory) and OS9 (I highly recommend NOT going to OS9 yet). The game runs with no problems for me. One thing I might recommend, however, is getting the latest ATI graphics extensions. I believe that the OpenGL 1.2 installer on Apple's web site has the latest drivers included in it. Virtual memory might be the problem, but that's a wierd symptom. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Odd, that box shouldn't come up unless you hit the "programmer's button".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed, and I don't believe the G3PB has a dedicated programmer's button on it. This sounds like a serious low-level problem. The usual advice applies - try turning off as many extensions as possible (make a gaming set in Extension Manager) and avoid running under VM if possible. Also, if you have any familiarity at all with MacsBug (also available for download) you might put this on your machine in the hopes of getting a little more detail than ">" on the problem. For the record, this is the best piece of hardware I have ever owned - everyone should run out and buy one! I have Virtual PC 3.0 installed and it bechmarks as a 200 mhz Pentium II in emulation! Great for most non-3d PC games. You really need the extra RAM for VPC though - I'd consider putting in an additional 128meg when the price is right.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you are using that sniper in a bell tower analogy from S.P.R., then you must know that any poorly trained sniper wouldn't be caught alive in one. They would be caught dead, but not alive <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As this is something I have always wondered about, I asked a friend of mine that went through US Army sniper training. His response confirmed my thoughts on this - if the vantage point of an obvious spot offers enough advantage and the situation calls for it, something like a bell tower would be used. It depends on how important it is to remain hidden, what the assumed enemy threat level is, and what kind of friendly support there is. A great sniper position, or MG position, or Bazooka position etc is obvious for a reason - its the best place to be for effective fire (from a purely offensive standpoint). The question reminds me a bit of the pre-Vietnam argument against using helicopters in direct combat situations - they can be easily spotted and shot down by small arms fire. This makes sense in theory, but in practice it is a little more difficult when the waist-gunner is raining fire down on the top of your head in your 'concealed' position. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense...

Mike - I have been unable to find that thread - any idea when it was or what the general response was? If there's a good fix I'd like to find it before my armor gets whacked...

Coffee - thanks, but that's not the issue. If it wasn't clear, the problem is that when issuing orders SOME units, generally vehicles, will not accept orders while the others operate just fine. One final piece of info just occurred to me - I believe this problem only happens on turns where I issue orders immediately after watching the movie (ie when I generate the small PBEM file). [This message has been edited by C Colapietro (edited 12-14-99).]

Boy- tough crowd... I bought it & played through the whole game. I had a blast with it (although I agree that the Germans w/Panzerschreks was an unnecessary pain). If you're looking for a FPS CM, then this is not it (I don't think an ultra-realistic WWII FPS would be much fun anyway) but I had a great time playing this game. Rent it first and make your own judgements.

I did try to seacrh for this, but the PBEM topic just returns too many results so I appologize if this has been covered. I am in a Last Defense PBEM game right now between a PC (opponent, Allies) and a Mac (Me, Axis) On several turns I have been unable to issue orders to some/most of my vehicles. I can select them, but if I try to issue orders by keyboard there is no response, and if I try to access the order menu by mouse it won't come up. I believe on one turn this also affected a couple of infantry squads. The particularly odd thing is that quitting and resarting CM doesn't seem to help, but restarting the machine and re-running sometimes does. Overall it is somewhat random on a per-run basis for the same PBEM file which units are affected (but it always involves the vehicles when it happens). As you can imagine, it is quite distressing to lose control of my Tiger/Stugs/Halftracks early in the game... My last turn I never was able to get the app to allow orders for some units. It will be interesting to see if the Tac AI still allows them to operate on their own. One other note - If a unit is 'stuck' it's pending orders (ie unfinished movement) do not display when all paths are shown, but if a re-load of the file makes the unit available again they do show back up. For reference I am running on a G3/400mhz powerbook w/128 meg and OS9, and use Claris E-Mailer to download the files from AOL uncompressed. Chris

Reverendo: The 'Heavy' MG42 truly qualifies as a heavier weapon than the non-mounted version. The increase in the rate of sustained fire attainable and the improvement in accuracy made it a tough weapon to match in any calibre. IMO the only real disadvantage it had (vs other HGMs) was aginst lightly armored targets, but that was not its intended application. I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I'd guess a single round of .50 cal is about 4x(?) the weight of an MG42 round - probably not a good trade off vs infantry. I'd rather have the extra rate of fire & extra ammo... Anybody got the weight figures handy?

Do you suppose the Poles considered the German Blitzkrieg 'gamey' tactics? I mean, who in their right mind would charge their armor head-long cross country while bypassing important objectives? How about bypassing the Maginot Line by going through a neutral country - no fair! They took advantage of the edge of the map! I think if the units are modeled properly, and the penalties for failure are appropriate, any tactics go. After all, we don't simply want to re-create historical battles (at least I don't) - we want to try our hands at leadership under the same conditions that were historically available. If you choose to be a leader with contempt for the lives of your men, and you can pull it off, then so be it. The long-term ramifications should balance out a high-risk approach. As far as file-hacking etc, it goes without saying that that's a no-no. Just my $.02

(Duplicate post deleted - #$%&*! Internet Explorer!!!) [This message has been edited by C Colapietro (edited 12-10-99).]

(Deleted duplicate post) [This message has been edited by C Colapietro (edited 12-10-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I guess I really wonder about was the lack of a large caliber machinegun (similar to the US .50 cal or the Russian 12.7mm) in the German military. Did the Germans ever suffer tactically as a result of not having a large caliber mahinegun? Any thoughts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm on the road and don't have any reference material with me, but I think one of the MGs used on aircraft was available in a ground version, just not used much. I'm thinking the MG-15 or MG-131(?) or one of these was close to 50 cal. As far as suffering tactically, the German doctrine treated the MG very differently than others. The MG was the focus of the squad and the riflemen's purpose was to support the MG (The opposite of western doctrine). It was not used as a 'spray and pray' weapon - Instead the squad leader directed the fire in short, accurate, controlled burst with the intent of destroying the target rather than simply suppression. For this type of doctrine, the light MG42 was ideal - it was very portable, accurate, had an insanely high rate of fire, and had an ingeniously simple barrel-change procedure (took around 5 seconds I think?) which allowed near continuous fire. The heavy version with the tripod sacrificed mobility for superior accuracy thus turning it back into more of a support weapon. .50 cal is really overkill for use against non-vehicle targets, and the German army had other effective means of dealing with vehicles. There is also a lot to be said for having a single calibre of ammo from the supply standpoint. Anybody got some better info on german HMGs? I'll try to look up some info when I get home. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This post has nothing to do with CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> By the way - not true. The accurate modeling in CM makes historical knowledge of doctrine and equipment a real asset during play. Good question - the lack of a high-calibre ground MG is one I have wondered about myself. Someone else want to chime in on their take on the tactical implications of this?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem with that is the main processor in a console system is complete trash.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not so for the next-gen systems coming out. The specs on the PlayStation 2 are remarkable (I'm not as familiar with the Dreamcast specs, but I'd bet they could handle a turn-based game just fine). I think that porting CM to a next-gen system is definately within the realm of technical feasability, but I'm not sure if it has the market potential to offset the development costs. BTW, I was thinking about console potential just the other day as well. I wonder how Panzer/Allied General did on the Playstation...

Any particular reason for the exclusion of the PzKw III from the list of units? I though later models (N?) of this tank remained in use until very late in the war. Or was that only on the East front?

Thanks Steve. I've been toying with the Idea of playing an entire game from camera angle 1, full tree density, and only from the POV of the units (ie no panning, just cycling through each) just to get an idea of how hard it would be to read the battlefield at ground level. I'll bet the hills become a little more imortant! Fog would make this quite an experience indeed...

Minedogs were much more dangerous to friendly troops than to the enemy as they preferred the familiar sound and smells of the armor they trained on...

If this has been covered I appologize - I searched on "Fog" and got 100+ matches, & didn't see anything that answered my Q. How will fog be modeled in the game - Is it simply a graphic "eye-candy" from the point of view of the camera, or will the fog density depend on what your units can see? For example: If the camera is on the south edge of a map at the beginning of a scenario and a hill on the North edge cannot be seen through the fog, will it become more visible as you pan the camera north towards the hill until it is clear when the camera rests on the hill... OR Will the fog appear to get denser as the camera pans away from your troops to maintain the limited visibility at range, thus keeping the hill hidden? In order to support the later, I suppose a visibility map would need to be calculated realtive to your troops and the starting fog level at the camera's position adjusted accordingly (ie volumetric fog?). Probably not in there, but just a thought. IMO it would be a nice feature to have and add a lot to the fog of war to have the terrain fogged in as well. Perhaps a similar result could be obtained by restricting the camera movement in low visibility to a certain distance from friendly troops. Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, there is only *one* extra swap involved, not x2:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah... I misunderstood the process (I finally got started on a PBEM game and we just finished the 1st turn after 4 days...). Thanks for the quick response! I'm looking forward to playing out this game vs a Human opponent. Chris

I know this has been discussed, but I would like to address it myself... I understand the need for the current turn sequencing from the standpoint of tournament play etc, but for me the double mailing per turn is a huge hassle. a) I don't need to worry about the people I game with cheating (no coincidence). I generally can only get around to checking my e-mail once a day, so if we're lucky a turn gets completed every two days. This means a 30 turn game takes at least 2 MONTHS. I would really like to see the ability to play with a single exchange per turn, or else the PBEM is going to be a less than desirable feature for me. One thought just occurred to me - Is it possible to play Hotseat on both machines and just exchange the save-game file? ie: 1) Player 1 issues orders, saves game 2) P1 mails save game to P2 3) P2 issues orders 4) P2 watches movie, saves game 5) P2 mails saved game to P1 6) P1 watches movie (is this possible after save?) 7) go to 1) Chris

As far as the 'Back of the house' thing goes, I rarely assualt a building that I don't know for a fact is empty without first spraying it with some MG fire, and HE shells if I have armor available (using area fire). This goes for any position that potentially has concealed units. 'Recon by Fire' can be very effective and can cause hidden units to reveal. I don't know how well this will work in CM for units in the back of a building - BTS: are they in complete cover at this point, or will MG fire & HE fire still get to them through the building? Same for mortars and artillery - if a position seems like somewhere you would definately have your units set up if you were the opponent, there's a good chance that it is occupied.

Dar, >> ...Funny, I thought the opposite was more likely: that the Germans were more likely to close assault AFVs.. You may very well be correct - I can't recall exactly where I got the impression that the Germans were a bit shocked early on by infantry close assualts. From what I remember it had to do with the fact that the infantry would come right up to the AFV to plant grenades and explosives with seemingly little regard for their hides as opposed to the 'sporting' method of engaging with a projectile weapon. I guess that freaked them out a bit - maybe something similar to British troops in the Rev. War dealing with the Americans who refused to stand in a neat line and fight back. If I'm way off here someone feel free to chime in!