Pak40

I disagree entirely. Direct hits on most ATG that are dug in is very dificult and the real target is the vulnerable crew. </font>

It seems like some of you are willing to wait out the first game in favor of the modules if you don't like the setting. I, however, always assumed that the modules would require the original game. 1000 pardons if this has already been clarified by BFC.

The manuals for all the CM games are quite good. If you were to print out the CMAK manual it would be quite thick and chocked full of info. I believe there are sections that walk you through the tutorial missions that come on the disk. It will definitely help out the newbie but best of all you have the whole battlfront.com community forums to post for any other questions or help. As for the different battle types, I believe there are 3 main types: Advance, Assault, and meeting engagement. Then you also have the ability to do quick battles where the computer generates a random map and you select your units based on a point value. And last of all there are Operations which are a series of linked battles where the objective is usually to gain the most amount of ground, although there can also be preset objective flags.

Yes, this is certainly a valid and historically accurate tactic. I'm reading "Tigers in the Mud" right now and the author describes this being used several times by both the Russians and Germans. Arn't those opposites?

I assume this also means that an officer can get killed without having to eliminate the entire HQ section. If so, how will command and control be handled if the CO of a platoon is killed? The Platoon seargent would typically take over command but will some C&C penalties apply?

You mean like Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich? It's not a BFC game but it's very well done in continuous time.

This is sweet music to a guy who builds Geographical Information Systems for a living. Thanks for the good news, Steve.

You've got me here! What is vector based map design? </font>

Hopefully they will use a vector based map design rather than a tile based design. Map designs will be a lot more realistic with infinite possibilities. However, I suppose all the decisions for this have already been made.

And how pissed will you be if your mortor teams fire all of their ammo at a target that they can no longer see because the target has retreated? They will waste their ammo on an unoccupied spot. This is a sound reason why the developers designed the AI to stop firing at unseen targets. This is also the reason why you, the player, can override the AI's decision by ordering an AREA FIRE if you think there is enemy still at the location.

Yes indeed. This is first and foremost a Combat Simulator. Simulators use fog of war to simulate realistic conditions in battle. If we knew exactly which enemy units could see "hex 10G" before our own units actually got there then we'd be taking a step back towards board games. Can you imagine a tank simulator that told you with 100% certainty that you have no chance of taking out that Tiger @ 400 yards before you even fired your gun? That wouldn't be realistic at all. It should be up to the player to estimate and judge if he's got a chance. It should be the same for judging LOS.

Sorry, I'm a little late to the discussion but if this helps: 1:25000 scale is 1 inch = 2083.33333 ft OR 1 cm = 250 meters

When did you notice the change, after you saved and play tested or in the 3D force setup in the editor? If you noticed the forces were rearranged in the editor, then you can just exit the editor without saving. You will lose any map changes made but it may be worth it if it is more work to setup the units. For future practice, you might save copies as you progress. Call them Beta versions. "scenarioname_beta90" , "scenarioname_beta91" etc...

The term Motorised for Germans also meant the use of motorcycles. If you look a few postings back you'll see a typical German motorcycle. With 2 man crew and a MG mounted, this vehicle is much more effective then a truck or kübelwagen. It's armed, it's fast and has good off-road ability's. Now way you can compare a motorcycle to a kübelwagen or a truck. Playing a huge battle with Blitzkrieg tactics creates the need of vehicles that can keep up with the reconnaissance task that some units have. I would rather not use a truck or kübelwagen in enemy territory. You cannot get off the roads and hiding such vehicles is almost impossible. The MG mounted on the fast motorcycles also give the units enough firepower to get the hack out of dangerous situations. Reconnaissance is a tactical move and is not 'gamy'. How it's done by CM players is an other thing. Of coarse does the scenario need to have the space to use these moves. Eichenbaum [/QB]

Well, you havn't been around these boards since the beginning of the CM craze so I'll have to fill you in... I'm sure you're aware of the term "gamey" by now. This term is used when someone exploits a weakness or bug in the game or sometimes, in Combat Mission's case, where someone does something that wasn't done historically. For example, using crews of destroyed vehicles as cannon fodder to reveal hidden enemy positions. In reality these crews would find the nearest safe area back behind the front lines, not charge forward towards the enemy with no regards to their life. Earlier in the days of CM, a lot of online players (including me once or twice ) used jeeps as a cheap way to recon on the enemy's side of the battlefield. This was an effective but unhistoric tactic to try and see what type of units the enemy had behind trees, hills and buildings. It usually was effective at finding hardware such as tanks but the jeep unit had no hopes of surviving for long before it was undenyably killed. It is considered "gamey" because historically, it didn't happen in WWII. No man would volunteer for such a suicide mission and no commander would ask a soldier to kill himself just to radio what types of tanks he had seen. Most serious online games have since banished this gamey tactic but I'm sure some people still use it, especially those new to CM. I think motorcycles will be used in the same way as jeeps were. I can really see no reason to have motorcycles because they wern't used in combat situations. Even if you wanted to depict an attack on a German General's company HQ, the motorcycles present wouldn't be used in a combat situation, it's just too suicidal. The most the bikes would be used for is to escape the attack. So why waste the time and energy adapting them when BFC can develope more imortant units or even improving the game system? just my 2 cents [ August 14, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

I'm afraid Motorcycles and bicycles will be used for a gamey recon purpose by a lot of players the same way jeeps have been used. I don't see any need for them in CM because they were basically used for messenger service and transporting troops while NOT in a combat situation. (oh yea, I almost forgot, they were also used by escaping POWs to try to get to Switzerland )

I think the picture is either bogus or chronologically misplaced. The picture is listed under Operation Barbarosa and Counterattack, which implies 1941-42. I don't think the Bazooka was even issued to US troops until 1943.

Q1 Thanks for the info, Sgtgoody Q2 It's on page 168 of the manual (U.S. version) Barbed wire: I think that their reasoning is that it takes more than an hour to remove barbed wire from an area. But I agree that engineers/pioneers should have the ability to "blast" through small holes in the wire with explosives. Perhaps they could design it so that the effectiveness of the wire is reduced but not removed entirely if explosives are used on it.

It's not really a problem there because both sides suffer equally, though. Just because something is moderately broken doesn't mean it can't be used fairly. </font>

Except that according the the unit info, the boats in the CMBB are powered by 2 hp engines. If that's the case, how come a boat can't move without a unit in it? Is the one man boat crew not enough to drive an outboard motor? Yet a sniper is a big enough unit to paddle the boat? There are serious flaws in the assault boats in CM and should be used as little as possible and shouldn't be used at all for tournament play (hint hint - whoever designed the Rugged Defense scenario)

FYI: I did a floor test in CMBO a couple of years ago to see if troops in the second floor had a firepower advantage over troops in the first floor (for purposes of shooting at an enemy behind a wall or entrenched in foxholes). I figured that logically the second floor would offer an advantage at firing over wall, fence, or foxhole obstacles as long as the obstacles were relatively close to the building. However, my test showed that there was no such advangage in firepower or exposure %. I have not run any tests in CMBB but it could be done in a matter of minutes.

According to the vehicle statistics when I press the enter key, an assault boat has a 2 horsepower engine and a crew of 1. Why then, does a boat need a unit in it in order to move? Is there an error in the statistics or a bug in the movement order? It would also help if there was at least one sentence in the manual about how to use boats.

I've seen this problem also and I think it's a bug. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to target the building in that case. If you see it, you should be able to target it, it's that simple.

take off, eh!

I believe you may have found the problem, Juardis. Hopefully it is fixed.