Neutral Party

Must be really cool to be able the predict the past like that.

I do make my own panic sounds.

DO you re-enact being dead?

When you can't see them anymore they're gone.

Another reason why I have levelled a few buildings is to deny an elevated viewpoint to FOs who I suspect might be able to see my troops from the first floor but not from ground level. Joe

To add to the Scottish curse, they will also be permanently surrounded by a cloud of midges, only be allowed to eat deep-fried Mars bars and forced to watch Rangers win the league every year.

I think the second explanation is the right one.

Check out the laptop thread on the tech board.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be. Mortiis get yourself back on icq and send me your turn.

Only after a few whiskies

Sometimes when I'm out of town I play CM on my laptop. It's a Compaq Presario 180XL with 600MHz PIII, 8MB ATI Rage mobility graphics and a 15" screen. The game plays well but without high quality smoke, fog or transparency effects. This seems to be a universal finding with ATI graphics (although I don't know about the new Radeon). One weird thing is setting the graphics preferences from a 1024x768 desktop does not allow me to choose 1024 x 768 resolution for CM. I can see the splash screen with the 1024 x 768 option but the mouse/pointing device is inoperative so I can't click OK. When the resolution option drops to 800 x 600, the mouse becomes operational again and I can click OK. Joe

After a cursory examination of a dozen or so assault vs. probe set-ups I think Ted's suggestion is probably right. The probe generally has most or all of the objective locations at the near side (to the enemy) of the set-up zone whereas for the assault, most or all are at the far side of the zone. This would mean a probe would not have to penetrate far into a prepared defensive position to control the flags. In contrast, an assault would have to penetrate all the way through a possible defense in depth. This was bugging me and I'm glad to have finally got the point.

ASL Veteran I can assure you it is perfectly possible to lose this scenario as the Germans. I for one am well on my way to achieving this. Without discussing any specifics I would say that, if anything, it is biased in favor of the smelly brown horde. Joe

SWINE!

Ted That might indeed be it. I'll check it out when I get home.

I share pcelt's concerns with respect to the demarcation between probe/attack/assault. There does not appear to be any real difference in mission goals in the game as opposed to in reality. If the goal of a probe is to scout out a location then why the victory flags. AFAIK the point values for these locations are the same for the different mission types. The way things are at present seems to be three mission types: attack, probe (underpowered attack) and assault (overpowered attack). Am I missing something? Joe

If this is not meant as a spoiler, what is it meant as ?

bounce

I was playing a pbem DYO where at a critical juncture, a one-on-one dual between a Hellcat and a PzIV/70 took place. Due to, presumably, a combination of terrain and armor slope it became fairly evident that the PzIV/70 was impervious to the Hellcat's 76mm AP shot, although the quoted kill chance was "excellent". Five ricochets off the front superstructure later, the PzIV pops the Hellcat. Now during all this time that the Hellcat was bouncing shots off the stationary PzIV/70 it had two nice shiny tungsten rounds sitting around, but chose not to use them. My question is how does the AI decide whether or not to use this enhanced ammo? Is it based on the calculated kill chance with standard AP and if so does this factor in the effects of terrain and armor slope on target survivability. Are there any circumstances in which the AI will fire tungsten rounds if standard ammo is having no effect. Joe

I think Smack got it pretty much right too. For a variety of reasons at this point in history the USA is by far the most powerful nation on earth. However it was not always so and it will not neccessarily always be so. A hundred years ago the honor fell to Britain, with its Navy and Empire "upon which the sun never sets". To most Britons at the time of Victoria's Golden Jubilee, the idea that their nation would sink to it's current place in the World pecking order would be inconceivable. The USA's current pre-eminence in more sustainable as it is a much greater land with many more natural resources - but it one sense it is similar. It is built on a military/industrial/technological advantage that is becoming increasingly more difficult to maintain. Such is the way of history and there really isn't much that can be done about it. Where will the USA be in a hundred years time in comparison to nations currently "underperforming" with respect to their potential (e.g., Russia, China, Brazil, India) ? Got to be better than Britain - right? The USA is an imperial power. Is there such a big difference between the crushing of Saddams forces in the Gulf and the crushing of the Mahdi's forces at Omdurman. Both were imperial expeditionary slaughters produced largely by a technology gap. The motivations for maintaining a Pax Americana are also similar to those for the Pax Britannica of a bygone age. That is to generate profits for the nations' commerce. I believe that this was also the main driving force for the American-funded rebuilding of (Western) Europe and Japan after the war. Putting a man on the Moon was a spectacular success and produced the collateral benefits of the microelectronics revolution amongst others, but in the long term it can only be judged a missed opportunity. Rather than the first steps in the exploration of interplanetary space, it was a dead end. Yeah the USA beat the USSR - big deal. What is the legacy of the Space Race? Is it a grand vision for humanity or is it the infinitely corrupt and fundamentally bogus "Star Wars"-driven redistribution of wealth into the pockets of huge corporations and their soon-to-be-employed military cronies. Bottom line: Americans are nice people - I like them. America is a big vampire that sucks the life-force out of the world, but the Western Europeans are just as bad and so are the Japs. [This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 07-11-2000).]

Now it all makes sense AFV behaviour: while(target not in LOS) { ...If(any nonthreatening unit appears) ......Target = new threat, exit while loop; ...If(any threatening unit appears) ......Ignore = threat (it will go away); ...Move slowly toward the target } REVERSE AFV! fire smoke; find mudhole; get stuck; button up; bail out; assign blame Above code guarantees Belly Up position with respect to target if such position is possible. If it is not the AFV will stop when man walking dog is in LOS. Joe

Here's another 2c (We'll soon have a dollar). I find I can't take the game seriously enough against the AI. I don't spend enough time studying the terrain. I use group move too much. And I just want to get into contact with the baddies. On the other hand, I love pbem. There is the element of real as opposed to virtual humiliation (and I've my fair share of it) and you can be sure I bloody well study that terrain before I start ordering units around. Competing against a human is so much better because: 1. they're smarter (bastards!) 2. they snigger when I do something stupid (bastards!) 3. They tell me lies (BASTARDS!) I don't know if I will be able to handle tcp/ip - I might end up spontaneously combusting. Joe

Always search POWs for chewing gum and chocolate if they're Americans. If they're German search them for leather coats and SS daggers. If they're British, search them for tea and scones. If they're Canadian laugh at their haircuts. If they're Polish steal their mustaches and if they're French, check your wallets.

I've had that same problem but only on the "All or Nothing" scenario (huge map & rain - maybe something to do with it). I have a PII 333MHz, Voodoo3 2000PCI, 64M RAM. Will try the evaluation copy of memturbo - thanks for the link Kevin. Joe

I think this is an excellent review. IMO Bruce Geryk is probably the most insightful reviewer of wargames that I have come across and to get this score from him is praise indeed. I look forward to seeing his second opinion piece in gamesdomain (following Tim Chown's excellent primary review). I actually think getting sub-perfect scores in things like sounds etc., is good - irrespective of whether you believe the sounds are perfect. Nothing discredits a review in art or science more than a perfect score. People naturally assume the reviewer has "gone native" and cannot be trusted to provide an objective opinion. Anyway if the sounds were perfect MadMatt would be wasting his time right and I'm sure nobody would believe such a preposterous suggestion. Joe