Dar

You can get 25MB free space at "The Globe". You can also get 50MB free at 50MB.com. ------------------ Dar [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 01-22-2001).]

Okay! It's definitely minor, but I thought I'd report it since a search turned up empty on the topic. Thanks, ------------------ Dar

Madmatt: Thanks for the follow up! Btw,is there another forum to post bug reports to? I feel rather conspicuous posting them here in the main forum. I don't want to give the impression that I don't like CM or scare potential buyers off. I just want to help make a great product better! ------------------ Dar

Please read my post again. I'm only talking about AT mines. There is no point in putting AT mines in woods or tall pines terrain if vehicles can't go there. I have no problem with AP mines in woods, tall pines, or even buildings (per the recent thread about "booby traps"). ------------------ Dar

Yep--just had this happen to me yesterday, too. I can understand if the AI had a little problem with the bridge in the Ramelle scenario, but this was a Jackson TD doing the Moon Walk across a wide open field. Fortunately, it's a rare occurence! ------------------ Dar

Units can be set to "Hide" during Setup phase, then ordered to "Embark" on a vehicle. However, they maintain their "Hidden" status as a passenger. The "Hide" command is disabled while they're passengers and can't be toggled. Passengers appear to retain the Hidden state until after Turn 1 orders are given. On playing the Turn 1 results film, they immediately lose Hidden status.

Joeri posted earlier (12.Jan) that he's seen the AI set up AT mines in woods. However, I feel it is a bug that AT mines can be placed in woods and tall pines by anyone, user or AI. Repro: 1. Create quick battle with "human" purchasing for either side. 2. Choose "human" side and continue with defaults through to unit purchase. 3. Choose at least one AT mine from "Fortifications" category. 4. Go to setup. 5. Attempt to place AT mines in woods or tall pines. Expect: Red "illegal placement" direction line and refusal to place mines in woods. Result: Green "OK to place" direction line and mines placed in woods. [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 01-20-2001).]

Mark IV: I'm reading your post as if you are skeptical about such bombs even existing, so correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure what they weighed, but among other countries the US has also had suitcase "dial-a-yield" nukes. They are man-portable, and they contain a dial that lets you set how much of a yield you want (within a limited range, of course--i.e. we're not talking 20 megatons, but more like 5KT). If I find some links, I'll post them. ------------------ Dar

Mannheim: I understand what you're saying about a percentage being considered KIA at the end. However, I'm only concerned with the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the firing weapon or unit in question. Perhaps I should rephrase "Kill Total" as "Casualty Total". The point is I want to see what destruction a unit has accomplished. Jgdpzr: I agree 100%. This is a minor gripe in an otherwise excellent game, and I wouldn't want CM2 delayed merely for this one fix. However, I feel it is something sorely needed and, to use Program Manager speak, "it detracts from the user experience". (Suddenly I feel dirty after using PM speak... I'm going to go wash my hands!) And as an aside-- I'm aware this has been covered before, as stated in my original post. I've posted on it myself months ago. However, I've never been satisfied by any of the answers. It's a game, after all, and knowing these things at the end of the battle is a way of keeping score. ------------------ Dar

The best way is to use the LOS tool from a unit that's roughly in line with the two points you want to measure. Another way, too, is to get the "grid" terrain mod and determine how wide the grid is, then count the grid squares. Or use the number of buildings as an estimate. Tiles are roughly 20m x 20m, so something two buildings, a street, a wall, and two more buildings away is roughly 100-120m away. ------------------ Dar

Nice shot, Xavier! What's that say on the turret? "Stalnets" or something? ------------------ Dar

I know this has been discussed before, but I have never been satisfied by any answer, and I refuse to be until it is put in: I want accurate kill totals! This has aggravated me time and time again. I can understand not knowing the accurate totals during the battle. That only makes sense with the Fog of War settings set to "Full". However, after plastering the bejesus out of some woods with a 150mm arty spotter, seeing dead bodies in the woods as a result of that fire, and seeing partially identified three-figure units be reduced to two figures as a result of that arty fire, and to be told at the end of the battle that that arty spotter is credited with the destruction of one mortar is insulting! I've read arguments before that "it's realistic not too know just exactly how many kills a unit has." Yes, I agree--when it's during the battle! This is still a game, however, and at the end, I want to know what I mowed down and what mowed me down. A game is all about keeping score, isn't it? ------------------ Dar

Regarding the SPR debate: The guy that they capture and release, and who winds up on the bridge later to shoot Tom Hanks's character is the same guy: "Steamboat Willie" in the credits, I believe. He's regular army/Heer/Wehrmacht. The guy who wins the knife fight is an SS man, and he is much bigger than Willie. Check out the scene of him passing Upham on the stairs-- the guy is huge! They just all look the same because of the crew cuts. Although, as I recall, the Germans allowed hair much longer than the US Army did. ------------------ Dar

Here ya go, Bruno: Courtesy of Joan Stark's ASCII Art site.

Don't know of a site for the movie, and a search on Infoseek turned up squat. They are showing a preview in the theaters, though. Some neat looking pix of He111s flying over a burned out city landscape. The movie is based on a duel between a Russian and a German sniper, and then they have to throw in a female Russian sniper as a love interest (although I understand there were quite a few good female snipers in the Red Army). It's got Bob Hoskins as a senior Red Army commander and Ed Harris as the Ueberscharfschuetze. ------------------ Dar

The bottom line for me is that Steve and Charles consider it successful enough to warrant work on CM2! Additionally, I'm glad it's not THAT successful that Steve or Charles would go buy a new Lambourghini and wrap himself around a tree, or go buy a small country, or some such so that CM2 would not produced just as surely as it wouldn't if CM weren't somewhat of a success. Gamespot can say whatever they want, for all I care! ------------------ Dar

Although most likely cited here in lots of other threads, <u>Enemy at the Gates</u> by William Craig is an outstanding work covering the battle of Stalingrad from several personal-level perspectives. Despite the upcoming movie of the same name based on the sniper excerpts from the book (and which promises to be filled with some cheesy love story... *sigh*), the book covers the entire battle with prelogue and epilogue. Some great examples of what real leadership means to a unit are also in there, such as when a sniper kills a German company commander, rendering the entire company ineffective for some time out of sheer grief for their beloved CO. ------------------ Dar

It seems to me that if the hamster mods are too irreverent, then simulating WWII as a "game" would be just as irreverent. Keep up the good work, Kitty, and let "Andy" stew in his own juices. ------------------ Dar

I'd like to see this option especially for vehicles. Having "Wedge", "Column", "Vee", "Echelon Left" and "Echelon Right" as in M-1 Tank Platoon would be great options. However, given that CM is not centered around platoons, I'd be happy to have a "Rotate Turret To (Default)" or "Default Turret Facing" command so I could simulate formations. In other words, I could place one tank in front with its default turret facing to the front, as tanks do now in the game. And then I could trail off tanks behind and to the left with their default turret facing to their 10 o'clock positions to simulate an echelon left. If CM2 is going to have large tank battles on the steppes, this command would be a great help for folk like me! ------------------ Dar [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 01-04-2001).]

Polar: You shouldn't need to look at the post count. If you have cookies enabled on your browser, the threads that have new submissions since your last visit will appear with red folders. Threads that have no new submissions will be in yellow, and they will also follow the red folders (threads are sorted by most recent submissions first). Hope that helps, unless I misunderstood your initial post. Dar [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 01-04-2001).]

Argh! Although I like what appears to be a new feature in that the tanks will now stop during "Hunt" orders to engage halftracks and other less threatening vehicles besides tanks, I do NOT like that stationary tanks now rotate to engage infantry targets! For a prime example of this, play the "Villers-Bocage" scenario. This has got to be taken out! I really like that Wittman can now "Hunt" into the village and rack up a much more impressive score on the move than before since he stops to engage the halftracks and Brens he encounters. However, I HATE it when he pivots the entire vehicle to engage a squad after I deliberately order him to rotate to FACE the village where those nasty Fireflies, Shermans, and Cromwells are! Please, BTS, keep the "stop to engage vehicles while hunting", and lose the "pivot the entire vehicle away from the nasty tanks to engage those two grunts in the woods"! Dar

Do tanks now stop to engage all targets (even non-threatening) when executing "Hunt" orders? Having just upgraded from 23 to 24, it appears now that tanks will stop to engage halftracks instead of continuing to drive while shooting. If this is a TAC AI change, I like it! Dar

I think what happened here is that the ATG crew felt that the trailing tank was either a.) more of a threat, or b.) worth more VPs dead! I agree with IntelWeenie's opinion that the Ambush Marker is more a of a tripwire than an exact "Kill Me!" zone. In playing the Villers-Bocage scenario yesterday, I set up the Panzerscheck crew to ambush the disputed crossroads VP location from the woods (at the SE of the crossroads, next to the big wheatfield). When a Cromwell crossed the AM, the crew elected to target a Firefly right behind it instead of the Cromwell, apparently assuming it was worth more/more of a threat, just as your ATG crew did. What was cool, though, was that they took out the Firefly, the Cromwell, and another Firefly -- 3 kills with 4 rockets expended! Another Cromwell popped smoke to retreat, allowing the Panzerschreck crew to run away as well. Iron Crosses for everybody! Dar

I'm confused by the answers here. I thought on most tanks only the drive sprocket was powered by the engine, and the road wheels were free to turn... Am I way off here? Are there several axles on modern main battle tanks that are actually powered? Dar

Check out Bellona, a Norwegian site, for some great info on recent Russian sub problems and news: <a href = "http://www.bellona.no">http://www.bellona.no</a>. It's a wonder that something like the Kursk tragedy didn't happen sooner, given the articles on this site describing pillaging and near-mutinies by conscripts and black marketeers! Dar