Mark L

Well, I tried, but couldn't seem to get the web-chat to work. In case htere's another one... is there a minimum browser requirement? Maybe Netscape 3 wasn't enough. Or perhaps I can use an IRC client? (Fionn, I think you mentioned you were going to do that?). If so, is there a particular IRC network I should use, and where can I find a list of public servers (if there are any)? TIA, Mark

"Odd that it doesn't happen all the time though " Hmmm, I'm not sure what to make of that smiley! Does it imply there's a puzzle here to figure out?? "(thanks Mark for the save!)" I'm honored that I could help out! "Since my other units were unaffected, it seems like it's the rubble causing the bug. Something to keep in mind playing demo PBEM." Interesting observation. The two units I had trouble with were also in rubble I believe. But it's not just restricted to PBEM games. It happened to me in a saved game vs. the AI. Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I saw a post about Mac Voodoo talking about a "black screen" on launching the game. I had this same problem on one of my systems that had both an ATI rage 128 and voodoo 2 card installed. Disabling the voodoo card's drivers fixed the problem. Could there have been a conflict between the two cards?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pritzl: It's been a while since ya posted, but... Yes, it might have been a driver conflict. I run a similar configuration (ATI XClaim VR and a Voodoo2 on a hopped-up 7600). It's probably best to disable the Voodoo drivers and use the ATI drivers. I'm using the 3dfx reference drivers. Those drivers include a separate "3dfx RAVE" extension, as well as the "GlideLib" extensions (dunno how this compares with your IMC drivers, tho). The "3dfx RAVE" extension conflicts with the ATI drivers if you try to run a RAVE-enabled game. For general use, my default config is to have the ATI driver enabled but to leave "3dfx RAVE" off. (I can still leave the GlideLib drivers on with no problem - but they don't do anything for CM). If you REALLY want to try the 3dfx RAVE, make sure to disable the ATI driver. You'll probably find that you can run at higher resolutions on the ATI card, tho (with the reference drivers, my 12MB Voodoo2 is limited to 800x600), but my 8MB ATI is quite happy at 1024x768. The only difference, tho, seems to be a somewhat wider camera field-of-view with higher res. Mark

I'd like to see MajorH (TacOps) and BTS collaborate! Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another thing to remember is that if you can't see the .50 cal, you might not see any tracers or anything (though I think you'll hear it... I'm not sure)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I, too, think you might hear the .50 cal. It's a fairly distinct and loud "hammering" sound. In my first playing of CM (Riesberg), an MG42 opened up on a running squad from somewhere in town. It was otherwise quite at the time, so I definitely heard it. Quite eerie. If there are lots of other sounds of battle going on, which it sounds like there may have been (i.e. mortar fire etc.), the sound may be lost in the general cacophony. Another possibility for the HT loss is a nearby mortar airburst. I apparently lost one in LD that way. It definitely wasn't a "top penetration"). The crew also took a casualty, so I'm not sure if the HT was actually shredded or if the remaining crew member just decided it wasn't worth it. (HT was marked as "Abandoned"). Mark

Yeow! I see what you mean by wanting plenty of ammo for a close assault! Playing the Germans in Last Defense, I watched my veteran PG squad assault a yankee rifle squad in the building next to the wheatfield. The yankee squad had been under the almost constant attention of a StuG, and I figured it was well suppressed. My PG squad started with 9 men and about 14 ammo. With plenty of covering fire, they charged 60m from the wall, and fired 3-4 times at various targets on the way. They also took one more casualty enroute, which seemed to take away a few more ammo points. When they entered the building, they were down to 7 ammo. In the remaining 20 seconds of the turn, they used up ALL the rest of their ammo, and maybe caused one more US casualty. (I seem to recall hearing a very long extended SMG burst <g>). The US rifle squad was revealed to be down to 6 men. Fortunately, all the firing apparently thoroughly pinned the US squad, as my LOW ammo PGs dispatched them with ease the next turn (using bayonets and entrenching tools, I guess). 14 ammo expended in one assault. Yikes! Mark

Wow! That's a cool link! Thanks, R.C.! Mark

This sounds like a known bug. I had something similar happen with half-squads in a saved game vs. the AI. I reported it to BTS (Steve Grammont) and it is indeed a new bug which has been squashed for the full version. So far, I've only seen it happen once in the beta demo, but it's kinda unfortunate. My case was with a saved game file vs. the AI, tho, so I don't know if it's exactly the same thing. Maybe BTS can clarify? Mark

I'm running CM just fine on a PowerMac 7600, using an ATI XClaim VR. Do you know if your XClaim 3D card is using the Rage Pro chipset or the older Rage II? I'm not sure how you tell, but if it's more than say 2 years old, it's probably Rage II. My VR uses the Rage Pro. BTS, will CM run on Rage II? Also, how much memory does your XClaim 3D have? (The "3D Memory" section of the ATI Displays control panel can tell you how much) If it's 4 Meg or less, maybe reducing your monitor resolution will help? Mark

My concern was mainly with how quickly the bazooka-ignited fire appeared to turn into a full 400 sq. m. conflagration. (within seconds). It was the first time I'd seen terrain blaze in CM. It seems to me that any fire, including those started by a flamethrower, should perhaps spread a little slower? Maybe this has already been discussed previously... Mark [This message has been edited by Mark L (edited 11-17-99).]

Well, I've tried it a couple of times and it seemed to work. In addition to the Hunt command, I also use the target command to specifically indicate my intended target (even if it's initially out of LOS). I don't know if the latter really has any additional effect tho. Mark

Webs: It happened to me once too. I thought it was cool, even if I was the target of the StuGs attention. Fionn: Even the front of a Tiger, for instance? I guess I'm gonna have to go look at those CM stats again! Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Other day I had a zookdude apparently ignite his own building with backblast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I apparently just witnessed the same thing. At first I couldn't tell what happened. I was playing the Germans in Last Defence, and on turn 2 a building just seemed to spontaneously combust! Upon closer inspection, I noticed a suspicious bazooka round detonating near one of my half-tracks. Never did see the bazooka team again... The whole building suddenly bursting into flames seems a little much, IMHO. Mark

Of course, if I start seeing all that enemy infantry in one house, I start thinking of ways to knock the whole house down!! Mark

Cool. The DYO thing sounds like it will be a suitable substitute for random OOB options, IMHO. Man, I can't wait for the full version!!! Mark

Well, I've only finished two games so far (as the Yanks in Riesberg and Last Defence). From what I've seen so far, I don't think the AI in the CM demo will give me too much problem in terms of victory. (although, perhaps this impression will change after a few more playings ). I've also been using the random computer set-up option, rather than the predefined set-up for my first games. Maybe the predefined set-up is better optimized? However, even if I don't have too much trouble defeating the AI, it still has presented me with some pretty cool and interesting situations to respond to, which keeps the game interesting, IMHO. (besides, it's nice to WIN ) I also tend to set my own goals (minimize casualties, total victory or nothing, etc.). And in the release version, if I think it's too easy, I can always use the scenario editor and beef up the computers forces (TWO Tigers in Last Defence, anyone? ). I think Sage's observations regarding scripted vs. non-scripted AI is correct. The downside of a scripted AI is that it makes scenario design far more difficult (tedious) if you want to povide for a scripted computer opponent. However, I think it would be kind of neat to allow for a scripted AI, as an option. It's sometimes interesting to go back and replay a turn from the autosave file (I've gotten in the habit of saving the autosaves of interesting turns). A turn can play out quite differently each time, with a wide variety of AI responses. It's also been noted that the AI doesn't "remember" things from game to game, and doesn't have foreknowledge of reinforcements ot OOBs. It wouldn't bother if it DID have such knowledge and could use it somehow. And what would be REALLY cool, is if the AI could learn from repeated replaying of a scenario, and adapt somewhat to a persons particular playing style (on a scenario by scenario basis). I don't know diddly about AI programming, however, and from what I gather, this kind of AI is very sophisticated and may not be realistically feasible; but maybe it could be done in some limited way? Mark

Then I guess you have to position them kinda carefully, WAY in the corners. I've tried to put a squad and an HQ along the same side of the house and STILL get the repositioning. Same with a two-man team (zook or FO). Thanks for the info, Steve. Mark [This message has been edited by Mark L (edited 11-14-99).] [This message has been edited by Mark L (edited 11-14-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is code in there that is supposed to keep units realistically spaced apart,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I've seen this code in action when I try to position two infantry squads too close together. One of the two always seems to auto-plot a small move away. Unfortunatly, this sometimes leaves them facing the wrong way or without the intended LOS to the enemy. In the worst case, I saw squad start to try to leave the cover of a building! How much spacing is required between squads? Mark

Ah, good point. By "Low Ammo" do you mean Ammo=2, or 1, for instance, or do you mean Ammo="LOW"? I ask because I noticed that my machine gunners seem to shoot a little less as their ammo count gets lower. Mark

Hehe, MikeO. I had the same thing happen with a StuG that had closed to point blank range ("Big as a house! Bigger even!"). With their first shot, the zook team reported a hit and penetration on the front upper hull. I sat in the trees with the zooks and just watched it as it sat there, stunned (I kept looking for the crew to pile out) The zooks got off a second shot, which sailed over the top. Then, the confounded thing started moving again, popped smoke, and backed away. I relished every minute of it! Sitting there in the woods using the trench-cam, it was EASY to imagine the looks on the bazooka temas faces - eyes as big as saucers as the beast came back to life! Mark

Gene, I wasn't really saying that you DIDN'T see something wierd, but from what I've been reading here, there are apparently a whole BUNCH of subtle details modelled in CM that aren't obviously visible. And sometimes the necessarily simplistic animations of the soldiers might give the wrong visual impression (i.e they might be kneeling alertly upright, looking right at the enemy squad, yet still be "cautious" or otherwise unwilling/unable to engage). But I love the grenade tossing animation in CC, tho. I thought it was a little wierd that my troops in the building wouldn't quickly dispatch the FO, but I just rationalized it as battlefield confusion and moved on! Mark

Interesting discussion over there in the "Ammo management" thread, tho just a tad off-topic , so I'm creating a new one. However, the discussion does seem to be bogging down into a bit of a stalemate... Nevertheless, I thought I'd weigh in (wearing an asbestos suit ), more from a semi-dedicated wargamers' perspective, than as a devout student of the military arts (which I'm not). First, IMHO, Fionn has supported his opinions fairly well on German use of offset facing. It seems to me that German tactics in Africa as observed by the British are essentially maneuver doctrine, and can probably be duplicated in CM very well by just moving the tanks so as to approach the enemy position obliquely. The trickier question is how CMs TacAI should handle this when the tank isn't on the move or encounters an unexpected enemy during a turn. Let's not forget that CM is still a warGAME (and that is not meant to belittle CM in ANY way! ). As players, we still have far too much omniscience of enemy strength and battlefield events. We also benefit greatly from hindsight, both in terms of tactics and capabilities of the military hardware. Therefore, we have the luxury of trying tactics that our real-world counterparts never would have considered 55 years ago (not to mention the fact that it's only cyber-soldiers who we are leading into the meat-grinder). Also, as a game, CM allows us to simultaneously assume numerous battlefield roles - company CO, platoon leader, or even squad leader or tank commander to some extent (when the TacAI doesn't take over <g>). IMHO, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun locked only into the role as battalion or company commander, with the limited perspective that would entail (not to mention that you would need an extremely sophisticated AI for friendly troops that was borderline sentient). In keeping with this spirit of CM as a game, and considering the apparently VERY detailed armor model, I think it's only appropriate to allow the PLAYER the ability to apply the offset-facing tactic (yes, even my Shermans! ). If a tank is already positioned obliquely to it's threat, I would prefer that my tank KEEP that offset (if that offset is within, say, 30 degrees, for example). Of course, to preserve battlefield chaos, there should still be a probability of it not maintaining that offset and instead turning to face the threat directly - and this probability could possibly be based on nationalty, training, and morale (i.e how much "stress" the crew is currently experiencing). That way, I could yell "Dumkopfs!" at the veteran Tiger crew that suddenly decides to rotate to face the Hellcats, or award medals to a Sherman crew for their innovation and calmness under fire. If the intended target moves during the turn or a more dangerous threat appears such that it is outside of the 30-degree (for example) arc, and the AI decides it would be in it's best interest to pivot the tank, it should just face the new threat directly (no offset). Keeps things simple, IMHO. Plus, it's also consistent with the pure "battlefield perspective" of the unit under TacAI control, IMHO (i.e. "There's one Hellcat... now where did the rest of his platoon go? If I offset left, are the other's gonna show up suddenly on my right?!?") You can just chalk that up to "the best plans not surviving contact with the enemy". And of course, at the beginning of the next turn, if you aren't happy with the TacAIs decision to directly face a new threat, and through your battlefield omniscience you know that the other Hellcats are maneuvering to your left, you can order the Tiger to reorient itself as you see fit. But if your decision to micromanage causes the Tiger's next round to miss because the tank was jockeying around, it serves you right if the first Hellcat cleans your clock! I must admit...I haven't actually played the demo enough yet to decide if it already plays that way (but it was GREAT fun watching the shells fly around my maneuvering Hellcats in Last Defence!). But that's how I would like to see it work. And if it doesn't work that way in the release version, well, I guess I'll just pout. Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>imagine a city combat scenario, in a town the size of the reisberg map!!! That would be beautifully chaotic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM2... Stalingrad.... it gives me chills just thinkin' about it. That may be too intense for younger audiences. Mark

I was playing the Yanks in last defense and had a German FO run right into the same building as one of my squads, practically right on top of them. My squad ignored them, until I ordered them to shoot. The squad had come under some heavy fire previously and was hiding at the time, so maybe that had something to do with it. It looked kinda funny tho - reminded me of stories from Stalingrad where whole platoons of Germans nad Russians would be in adjacent rooms and too scared to venture into the others lair. I had another interesting CC situation later in the same game in some nearby woods. A veteran SS squad was hanging out in some scattered trees giving the aforementioned guys in the building some grief. The rest of my platoon was deeper in the woods out of LOS, so I decided to have them sneak forward to hit the SS squad from two directions. The crafty Germans chose the same turn to move into the woods toward me! The tension mounted as I watched a green squad moving forward through the brush toward the Germans' left flank. They practically walked right passed the Germans, who then turned around and bushwacked the green squad! I cringed as the SS squad lobbed two grenades at my frightened boys. Fortunately, my squad of regulars then got into the fray from behind the Germans and convinced them to leave. But the incident cost me more soldiers than I had intended. The veteran German squad had lost a few of it's members previously when crossing the open field. I hate to think what might have happened if that had been a full-strength veteran squad! But this was clearly a case of the inexperienced green troops just not seeing the veteran Germans. It was interesting to go back to the autosave file and replay the whole episode. The second time around, the green squad is more alert and detects the German squad in time. The resulting two-squad ambush wiped out the Germans to no US loss. It was pretty cool to see the whole ambush/counter-ambush scenario modelled and played out. Even cooler to sit IN the trees and watch it all! Mark

I reported this problem last week and sent files to Steve Grammont. He indicated that it is indeed a bug and has now been squashed. Mark