Fred

That will not happen. Take a look at the situation now: - Europeans are not allowed to order directly as with CMBO - Europeans pay the same price but do not get a printed manual (only a 2nd class pdf file) - Europeans get a modified exe file (censorship is hardcoded in it) - Europeans are called whiners for complaining about this two-class handling of paying customers - Europeans with some latest DVD drives will have trouble with CDC legendary copy-protection scheme And BF still comes with the argument, that more people will now play CM b/c of CDV...suddenly they do hunt for the twitch crowd...funny! Neither SHRAPNEL Games nor MATRIX did this, and both companys are successful too...hmmm The second biggest market for entertainment software (europe) should be handled with care, not with hybris. Fred

The problem with CDVs copy protection scheme is, that a lot of DVD drives do not work together with it. That is why I get myself a US version with the help of a nice guy from the forum. Lots of customers had the same problems with Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind...needless to say, that both programs were pirated 1 hr. after release...so the only ones that suffered were earnest customers with new DVD drives... Strange, at business school we learned, not to handle customers like this.... Fred

Hi, I designed a 'mini-campaign' where you lead a german PzGren company through the war. The series is designed solely for a german player vs. the AI. It's called 'Against all Odds' (6 scenarios), available at the Scenario Depot or at Toms CMHQ... http://www.dragonlair.net/combatmission/ Fred [ September 17, 2002, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Fred ]

There is a simple solution to the 'weak' explosion sounds; fire up your fav wave-editor and increase the volume (I increased all explosions to 300%), and now BOOM! I like it, that CM can be customized in many ways. Fred

View level 2 and 1 (at higer levels most doodats (sp?) are not visible). Just a reload of the same save-game often makes the framerate return to reasonable numbers. I am using the german demo version (with this strange CDV "Starter" Program...maybe that influences it?). I use the latest drivers from Asus for my GTS2 (V.6.31c). Never had any problems in CMBO or other 3-D games with this driver/card. Fred

I found a strange behaviour regarding scrolling speed (or lack of it it). In Citadel, when Shift-N set to FULL, I got around 5-8 FPS. I thought, well, all the Hi-Res Graphics... Later, after a break, I reloaded the game, and suddenly, with all the same settings(!) I got around 20 FPS! What I do now is, when the game starts out slow, I save and reload, and usually scrolling performance goes up a considerable amount. Windows 98, DX 8.1, GeForce 2 GTS 32 MB, 128 MB system RAM. Is this performance bug already known? Fred

Any official words on this topic yet? Fred

Yes, tactical ROEs, this victory point thingie was not this important to me...I usually do not read the number count, I look on the map and I know if I am winning or loosing...and in CMBB the AI kicks my aXX ! I raise my hat to Charles, because no one from BFC ever stated that the AI will be improved...but they did! Fred

double post... [ September 04, 2002, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Fred ]

Dan, just a minority opinion...people that think that NO information is realistic...on a tactical level, every AT gun commander can tell, if a tank you shoot at 100m is disabled or not...it simply does not shoot back So the level of EFOW is well done by BFC, and, obviously, well researched. Fred Fred

Well, au contraire, mon cher! I am not known for being a fanboy (ask them!), so I do not defend them. And you should read more carefully...I talked about things one can see...if there is something no one could see, but the game still tells you, it is a ..bug! If the Victory Points tell you something you usually can not know, it is a bug... I just talked about an AT gun Commander, and what I talked about was right on target. Fred

Peace Vader...we wargamers have to stay together... Fred

To an extent I agree. The usefulness of the info is now limited in EFOW as the gun/tank crew really don't know what is happening with thier target until the bail or brew up. They can see the hits of course (that's why you get the report), but they keep firing until you retarget or they can confirm the kill. I love the new EFOW! :cool: </font>

You people do not get it... An AT gun has a gunner, a loader, an assistant loader and a CO. And this CO has his binoculars locked on the target. He can SEE if a shell penetrates; he can SEE if the crew abandons..he can see glancing blows. He only has one aim...to watch the guns target. He is not blindfolded...CMBB is right on target. Fred

I never said that. Among the books in my bookshelf are works by Carell (yes!), Panzermeyer, Guderian, Mannstein, etc... and many works by non-german writers as well. My main point is that you should never rely on one source when judging complex topics. What Carell depicts in his "stirring, emotional and immensely personal view" (Glantz) books may well be completely different than what a soviet officer has to say about the same issue, or an american historican who researched that topic after the war. Take all the information you can get, think about it, and then draw your own conclusions. [edit: ah, the art of quoting...]</font>

Fact is, you are wrong. As a look in mid to late-war Soviet infantry doctrine would show you. Like it or not. If you base your statements about Soviet doctrine on things written by those on the receiving end, that is a mistake. To insist that they are right and refuse to even try and inform yourself, would be ignorance. The material is out there, so why not check it and see what your opinion is afterwards? What have you got to lose apart from some long-held opinions, maybe? Of course the Soviet officers are biased. But to understand what happened you need to look at both sides.</font>

Maybe we read the same books with a different point of view. And if you think "Barbarossa" was written from a neutral point of view, well... maybe then "Signal" was written from a "neutral" point of view, too. Among the first books I've read about WWII were some of "Carell's" books. Why? Simply because the way he portrays Germany's (the german soldiers') behaviour during WWII is exactly the way most Germans want them to be, which means you'll find a lot of Carrel's books everywhere and many other books quote from him. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to bash you, but if you base your knowledge about the german role in WWII mainly on (german) general's memoirs and Carell's books there's much to discover for you.</font>

Which is just what you would expect from Paul Carell, erstwhile Paul Schmidt, chief of the propaganda department in the Nazi foreign office, and editor-in-chief of 'Signal' magazine. The thing about it is quite simple. What to you looks like a human wave attack on the receiving end could just be the application of overwhelming force in a concentrated sector to achieve a rapid breakthrough with minimal losses. Of course the Germans never understood what happened to them post-1943, so they preferred to think they were outnumbered, and not outfought.</font>

Well, maybe we read different books...esp. Operation Barbarossa showed a very neutral point of view, as the author showed the russion point of view in more than one instance. No heroic german units, just the way it was. And no Ubermensch attitude in this book. I have around 20 books about the ETO and I talked to some veterans. Carell just don't talked about the bloodshed and horror in detail, and now wonder..it was another time when he wrote this book. Fred

Not at all... here is a quote: " 300.000 men (lost in the first few month; ed.)meant nothing to them. Russia was 46 times as large as germany. 190 million people lived in Russia. 16 million soldiers could be mobilised." Fred [ September 04, 2002, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Fred ]

*cough*, I would take all of Carell's books with a big grain of salt...</font>

Yes, Mark Clark throwing the Texas Brigade across the Rapidan river to certain death reads like something from the First World War. The brigade's CO protested the order to no avail. Churchills 'Stand or Die' order to the Aussies in Tobruk only escapes criticism because it worked (and the RN was better at re-supplying the besieged garrison that the Luftwaffe was at Stalingrad). As you and Andreas say, people seem to be exrapolating a lot from a scenario based on a 1941 battle with pooly trained conscripts. A quick read of people like von Mellinthin will show how the Russians fought later in the war.</font>

Well, that may work vs. an understrength german company, but what if you face real opposition? In this case, you simply need your superior manpower, to oversaturate the enemy with possible targets. And, btw, I made a draw at Jelnja (as it is spelled in german) while playing the defenders. Fred [ September 04, 2002, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Fred ]

Vader, with all due respect, I was not talking to you... And if I need your advice, I will politely ask for it. Fred</font>

There was a difference in doctrine between the western allies and the russians. The soviet leaders at the higher commands were not interested in the wellfare of their troops. So they stupidly ordered wave after wave vs. strong german positions. All the western allies were democratic societies, so the loss of soldiers was a serious problem. Not so in the ETO; Stalin simply don't cared about losses; he wanted to achieve his goals. And so he did. It was a brutal struggle, on both sides. Fred