Pak40

By Crispian Balmer PARIS (Reuters) - Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks, inspired by their award-winning film "Saving Private Ryan," return to the D-Day beaches in June to unveil their latest World War Two epic -- a multi-million dollar TV series. "Band of Brothers," a true-life tale tracing the dramatic exploits of a U.S. army unit as it fights its way across Europe, had a $120 advertisement million budget and is being billed as one of the most expensive television programs in history. The series will receive its premiere in an auditorium seating 1,000 people to be built beside Normandy's Utah Beach, the scene of some of the fiercest D-Day fighting. The screening is set for June 6, the 57th anniversary of the 1944 landings by allied forces on the heavily defended Channel beaches of German-occupied France. "We decided that an extraordinary story and project like this demanded an extraordinary premiere," Richard Pepler, the executive vice president at U.S. pay-TV network Home Box Office (HBO) which funded the 10-part extravaganza, said Wednesday. Filmed in Britain last year over eight intensive months, "Band of Brothers" features some 500 speaking parts, employed 10,000 extras and was put together by eight directors. The 1998 picture "Saving Private Ryan" won Spielberg an Oscar as best director and left the two Hollywood heavyweights hungry for more war drama. They decided on adapting a best-selling book by Stephen Ambrose, which focuses on a small group of soldiers in the U.S. army's 101st Airborne Division. The story follows the men of Easy Company through training and onto D-Day when they parachute into France behind Nazi German enemy lines. It climaxes with their daring capture in 1945 of Hitler's fortified mountain retreat, the Eagle's Nest. WALK-ON PART FOR HANKS Realizing that such a huge story could not be told in one feature-length film, Spielberg and Hanks suggested it as a 10-part television serial and quickly got HBO on board. In a change of role, Spielberg and Hanks executive produce "Band of Brothers," while Hanks also directs an episode -- not an entirely happy experience by his own admission. "I'm much happier being on the other side of the camera," he tells series web site, http//members.aol.com/amblin55/BOB.htm. Hanks's acting in the series is limited to a fleeting walk-on part. HBO spared no expense when it came to special effects. By the third episode of shooting, more pyrotechnics had been used than in the entire production of Saving Private Ryan, while more than 130 tons of paper was used to create snow for a single forest set -- a record, HBO say. The production managed to save money by shunning stars. With the exception of Friends favorite David Schwimmer, the cast consists of virtual unknowns, but HBO executives insist that this was an artistic rather than financial decision. "It is important that people don't just see this as Hollywood. We want to make people understand that had they been born 75 years earlier it would have been them going off to fight," Anne Thomopoulos, who oversaw Band of Brothers for HBO, told a news conference in Paris. The series will be broadcast in the United States from September 9 and will play on European television in the weeks and months that follow.

If I encounter an AT gun then I use my tanks against it as a last resort. Typically I try these methods first: 1. kill it with artillery, either on board or off 2. I'll be patient and work my infantry to the AT gun to kill it. This depends how far back the gun is and how well protected it is. 3. AA guns or armored cars with 20mm guns work fairly well against AT guns. They have high accuracy and high rate of fire and can usually knock out an AT gun before it is able to rotate towars my unit. Also, these units are cheaper to sacrifice than a tank. 4. lay offboard mortar smoke on the AT gun, making it useless for 2-3 turns while I move around my armor assets into better supporting fire areas. If you do choose to use your tanks to take out an AT gun then be prepared to lose at least one tank (sometimes you have no choice due to ambushes and terrain layout. I suggest the following ): 1. Take out AT guns one at a time if possible. 2. Use two or more tanks against it. Spread those two tanks out so that the AT gun has to rotate a lot in order to kill both. AT guns rotate so slowly that it should be dead before killing the second tank. 3. If not too risky, make sure your tanks are unbuttoned. This will help them spot the AT gun quicker. 4. Put as much supressing fire on the AT guns as possible in order to make the crew take longer to rotate, fire, spot, and reload. Mortars and Mgs are great units for this job. 5. The best tank vs. AT gun technique that I can think of is this: Spread your two tanks as far apart as possible but where they will both have LOS to the gun(obviously move the tanks near to these spots while out of LOS of the gun. The best spots are just behind the crest of a hill.) Then use the PAUSE command on both tanks twice(30 sec delay), then use the fast command to move the tank into LOS. Each tank should be able to get off one round before the end of the turn, assuming the tanks have spotted the gun. On the NEXT turn issue the reverse command to bring the tank back to it's hiding spot, they should both be able to get off another round before reversing. The idea here is to allow only 20-25 seconds of time where the AT gun has a LOS to the tanks. Since AT guns rotate so slowly, then they will rarely be able to get a shot off. You may have to do this for 2-4 turns before killing it but it should work well. Use techniques 1-4 in conjunction with this technique. Also, if possible, use a 105mm SP gun. Experiment with playing Cat and Mouse with AT guns. If the AT gun is pointing straight at tank A but not at tank B, then engage it with tank B first, then use tank A 15-30 seconds later. The AT gun will spend most of its time rotating.

glad to see that you found a home for these maps.

If I read every post from every thread I've replied to then I wouldn't have a life. And since I often skim through threads on my work time, it isn't wise to read every post (if I want to keep my job). Please accept my humble apology, for you were the first person to post about the wet storage.

I think the abstaction thing explains it. BTW, ever throw an M-80 in water? The wick still burns. I don't understand the physics of it but I've seen it with my own eyes.

A minor note: The W, I think, is for the Wet ammo stowage which will reduce the chance of the tank brewing up. This probably wont help in a scenario because a knocked out tank is useless; but, in an operation it might come in usefull because a non-burning knocked out tank has a chance of being recovered in a later battle.

I tried making a backup when I first got the game and got a similar message. I think the Adaptec software got confused because the .bmp files don't have dates. I havn't tried since. I have a brand new burner and will try tonight. try using another CD burning software. Also remember to name the CD the exact same as the original. **************** TO ANYONE ABOUT TO BUY A NEW CD BURNER: Buffer underun is no longer a problem on CDR drives with BurnProof technology. It virtually eliminates buffer underuns and you can even multi-task while burning. Plextor and a couple of other brands offer BurnProof on their newer models of CDRW drives. Mine is a Plextor 12x10x32 for about $220

I too have been disapointed in the panzerfaust modeling in CM. But, then again, I am probably spoiled from Close Combat where Germans fired panzerfausts as soon as the AFV was in range and seemed to have a better than 50% chance of hitting, even at long range. So I wonder which game models panzerfausts more accurately? Or maybe it's somewhere in between. Can BTS give us some rhyme or reason why squads don't use their fausts even when in perfect range of a juicy target? And what sources of material did BTS base their panzerfaust modeling on? BTW, WineCape, do you by chance have a beautiful sister who's a famous actress?

I just did a test and discovered that there is no point limit. I was able to but over 30000 points worth of elite King tigers. The limit is on the total number of units. I didn't bother counting the number but I only managed 3 or 4 batallions of infantry before it didn't let me place any more. My advice it to beef up the attacker with armor rather than infantry so that you can balance the scenario with the few remaining unit slots that you have.

Just because the enemy shoots at you doesn't mean that you will immediately see every one of his units and know exactly how strong and of which type each of them are. The same is said for minefields when they are discovered. The distance shown on the LOS and target lines is a totally different subject. However, I do agree that it's not 100% realistic. But, it is a common feature of all wargames to provide some basis of distance measuring for the players, wheather it's counting hexes or displayed in the LOS command. Here is an easy solution for you. It will take you about 1 minute to do this: Open the scenario editor, choose a few allied and german units including all types of mines that are available. Then go to the map builder and launch the preview mode. You will be able to move & rotate the mine. It will show you exactly how big each on is. You can measure them for future referece and next time you come across mines in a game you will know exactly how big a mine field is.

Are you sure you told the tank to move to the other side of the minefield? Since you don't know the size of the field, maybe you told it to move what you thought was the other side of the field but in fact it was still within the field.

You can see the full extent of friendly mine areas but enemy mines, once discovered, only show the center of the area. This is part of the fog of war. Just because a mine field has been discovered doesn't mean that you will automatically know every corner of the minefield. It would take some time (beyond the scope of a battle) to have combat engineers use mine detectors to find out the exact or rough dimentions of a mine field.

You can see the full extent of friendly mine areas but enemy mines, once discovered, only show the center of the area. This is part of the fog of war. Just because a mine field has been discovered doesn't mean that you will automatically know every corner of the minefield. It would take some time (beyond the scope of a battle) to have combat engineers use mine detectors to find out the exact or rough dimentions of a mine field.

You didn't specify the correct directory when you executed the patch .exe file. Just re-run the patch and make sure you're specifying the Combat Mission directory.

Sorry, but the WHOLE PURPOSE of sneaking is to remain unoticed and safe while moving. That's why sneaking units don't fire unless from a very close and dangerous enemy. BTW, moving units do not "shoot as need be", they fire immediately upon whatever unit they have targeted. The MOVE command is an abstraction of units moving forward, providing fire, ducking, taking cover and then basically repeating the whole process until they get to their destination. Sorry again, but a hiding unit(in a forest) will almost always get the first shot on a moving unit. It doesn't matter if they are moving, sneaking, running or "hunting". Therefore, the sneak command in a dense forrest acts very much like a hunt command. My common sense works a little differently than yours. It tells me that if you are sneaking through a forest, then you don't want to be seen and therefore you wouldn't give your position away by shooting at anything that you saw, especially if it's over 50 meters away. Now, if your goal is to MOVE rather than SNEAK, then you can achieve both a) and so long as you use short movement techniques. It's really not that hard. I don't see what the big fuss is about.

... And that's exactly what I was trying to say earlier in this thread.

Actually, I'm in the process of getting the entire manual tatooed on my body but Im only up to page 42. The 1.25 to 1 ratio is determined by adding VL points, casualties caused, and captures, not just kills.

From my experience playing CM, the scoring seems to be equally divided between capturing the flags and killing your opponent. But it is also possible to design a scenario without flags. Also, operations are scored entirely differently. I don't have the manual with me today (I'm at work right now), but I seem to recall the scoring formula in the manual. Can someone take a look?

Homba, I am offering a realistic explanation of mabybe why BTS chose to model the VL flags the way they did. One of their goals, I believe, was to make CM as realistic as possible while making it a playable game. As I have stated previously, I believe the way they modeled the VLs is more historically and realistically correct. Let me try to put it another way. Each one of those VL flags represents a some sort of military goal. For instance, let's say one of the flags is a fuel or ammo depot. If there were any enemy forces anywhere near the area, wouldn't you have at least one unit gaurding it so you knew that it was in your control? The more realistic and historic answer is "YES". The gaming answer is "not necessarily" - but, as I stated before, BTS is striving for realism and playability combined; and with their current method you get a little of both. BTW, the operation system in CM acts exactly the way you want: everything behind your MLR is under your control, even if none of your units are in the area or ever came near the area. BTS has caught a little bit of flak for modeling operations like this but maybe you'd be more happy with it.

Tiger, good idea. I bet we could really dominate with our knowledge of tactics and hardware. Of coarse, this all depends on if the game is actually anything remotely realistic and not an "Age of Clickfest" Good call on the "kOoL dOoDz" - I bet they will be there in droves.

Yes, it is slow and the attacker is under the clock. But show me a bunch of infantry constantly on the move through dense forest and I'll show you a bunch of dead infantry. I assume you've hear of "stop, look, and listen". Well, it's good to apply that in CM. One of the most common mistakes I've seen my PBEM and TCP/IP opponents make is to rush things when they think they don't have much time. They don't take the time to sneak and comb the battlefield. Because they tend to rush in the early part of the battle, then I either can set a great ambush or discover their plan of attack. But the opponents who take their time and sneak up as far as they can before their attack are the hardest to defeat. Short movement commands Unrealistic?? Not in dense forrest! When you can't see more than 20 meters in any direction, it's a good idea not to tell your men to march a 100 meters ahead before the next set of orders is issued. Besides, moving by leaps and bounds(leapfrogging) is a common (and realistic) combat tactic. Quick short movements while other teams provide cover fire, then your cover fire teams move up. But usually, I keep a platoon tightly packed while sneaking the entire platoon through a forrest. This ensures that the entire platoon stops and returns fire upon enemy contact. Hopefully the platoon will come across one enemy squad at a time, giving me a 3 to 1 advantage.

Leonidas, Considering that you were in the woods, if you would used the sneak command, then your troops would have done exactly what you wanted to them do: stop and return fire. In the open the sneak command wont work as well because your squad needs a close and dangerous threat in order to cancel the sneak command. This is a case of knowing which command to use in the right situation. Something all CM players will learn as they gain more experience. Also, as Michael Emrys pointed out before me, use movement commands in smaller increments, especially when your units can't see far. I think it's part of the fun of learning the game, although you and others seem to view it as a nuisance. Anyway, a HUNT command for infantry would be useless anyway. Here's three reasons why: 1) In sparse or open areas, your units would not get far at all because they would stop at any sight of enemy infantry and return fire, no matter how far away. Since, in most battles, any one enemy unit can see literally several or dozens of enemy infantry, this command ensures that your unit would not move far at all. This would really be bad if your unit is in the open when enemy infantry is sighted. 2) As stated above, the sneak command does what you want in dense forrest because any threat that your unit meets will be considered close and dangerous. Your unit will most likely stop and return fire. It wont resume it's movement like a HUNT command but that's probably a good thing since it may take several turns to kill the enemy units. 3) Use of smaller movement lengths as well as moving units by leaps and bounds are great methods of ensuring that you dont run or move past enemy infantry.

in the 3D preview, the same way you set up the units on the battlefield.

Homba, I agree with you to a small degree but you seem to think that front lines are very linear and well defined, when, in reality they weren't always like that. Many many times in history the front lines are more like groups of many units constantly probing the enemy for weaknesses and information. A lot of these probes and attacks actually get "behind" enemy units, either on purpose or accident. I've read about many incidents where units retreat to safety only to find that "safe area" occupied by enemy troops. My point is, just because that Flag is "behind" a wall of your troops doesn't mean that the enemy hasn't gotten through and occupied your "safe area". There are always other battles happening around your localized battle and it is quite possible that enemy units from that battle have broken through and occupied your rear which you thought was safe. Maybe if you try thinking of the front lines as more of groups of enemy and friendly units mixed together and less of well defined lines you might get a better picture of my point.

Also, if you change the orientation of the attacker all of the units get placed back on the map edge. Very annoying. I don't think these are bugs, just annoying traits of the map builder. Thanks for the info on the shift key to increase the map size on the west and south, I didn't know that.