Ron

I upgraded the OS on my system (PII300) a couple weeks ago to Win2K with no problems but realized pretty quick the 64M of ram wouldn't cut it, so I bought a 256M stick and plugged it in. All good, no problems, except I got tired of watching the ram count everytime I booted up and decided to remove the old ram sticks, 2x32PC66. However, next time I started up the graphics on the desktop were corrupted and the cursor left a persitent black trail behind it. I removed the video drivers for my TNT2Ultra and reinstalled, even tried different drivers but still had the same problem. It only corrected itself when in VGA mode, which wasn't acceptable. Pondering a bit I decided to plug in one of the old ram sticks again. Wonders be told, the corruption was gone and hasn't come back. :confused: I can live with the 288M ram count now, but I am left wondering the why's and wherefore's. I would much appreciate enlightenment, as technical as possible, from a knowledgeable person. Muchas gracias in advance. Ron

Double-click <My Computer>, double-click the CD Rom drive with CM then double click <Setup.exe> and proceed with the installation. Post again if that doesn't work. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sitzkrieg: I wasn't saying CM4 is all European fronts. I was saying CMII (engine rewrite) would be all European fronts. But then again, look who I'm replying to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then again you are still wrong Aren't these smilies wonderful? Ron

A very good idea, another aspect of unpredictability is always good. Differing reaction times for troops under fire is already in CM so perhaps it wouldn't be a stretch to expand that further, who knows. Definitely worth a bump. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Crowley: Etc etc....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Seems like a good *method* to illicit some info for which I am all ears as well, though Steve has already said after the last previews we wouldn't hear anything more for awhile. I imagine they are all hard at work on CMBB and in the long run that is best for all of us. Juju: AFAIK GPW stands for Great Patriotic War Ron

Interesting stuff in a sense, but like you commented, it would be more useful if more of the 'parameters' were known and broken down. I would be especially interested in the types of battles being fought by the corresponding sides that achieved the win/loss ratios you concluded. As for the win percentage of the British, that doesn't suprise me. They may not have uber-infantry but the Firefly is in a class by itself when it comes to armor battles as portrayed in CM, and their flexible artillery more than makes up for their 'weak' infantry. I remember early on in the first Rugged Defense Tournament, say about 60 games finished, the win/loss for the Brits and Germans were basically dead even. Ron

There are good ones posted on the web already. Check them out at Scenario Depot or Der Kessel to name two. BTW whatever happened to the ops and scenarios you were making that were going to be kick-ass? Ron

Very impressive, look forward to using this utility. Thanks in advance to the creators. Anyone know if a feature like this will be built into CMBB? Ron

Sure send it my way, looking to start another blind PBEM game soon. Will offer AAR comment, thanks. Ron

Start counting the number of split squads you have... Ron

Yeah, I can see it now, the John Wayne types standing freestyle on the engine deck spraying fire left and right one handed, while the other hand (or is it foot?) is rapping directions to the tank crew through the turret, you know right 38', 100m or some such, while the tank is moving unerringly, precision-like like the eleventh coming of Doom, while the enemy is struck numb by the sheer beauty of these acrobatics (oh and getting suppressed to hell as well), unable to fire on such an easy target etc etc etc. What was the consenus of firing from HTs? At least with a HT a soldier would have the luxury(!) of something to brace himself against. Don't mind me I have a vivid imagination as well. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cauldron: Hy, I am pretty new to campaigm design and would appreciate some help in understanding the intricasies of how these things work. In a recent game of mine, the first day I did fairly well, on the second day my reinforcements completely failed to appear !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When you create an Op go to the parameters screen, there are several options to tailor the type of Op you want. They are all really self-explanatory but refer to the manual if necessary. You will have to do some tweaking and testing to get it the way you want. One reminder is setting 'No Man's Land' too high will be extremely frustrating for the defender in Advance/Assaults, unless that's what you want to achieve. The chance for reinforcements to appear is set by the designer. In the Unit Purchase screen you select the Battle and their chance of arriving, if you want their arrival guaranteed then put that to 100%. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cauldron: I also want my reinforcements to enter on the map edgeand NOT be available for repositioning. Can someone tell me how to do this. (With flags in battles it was easy but there is NO flags for such in campaigns).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Reinforcements will only arrive at the beginning of a new battle, ie able to be setup and repositioned at will, not in the middle of one so what you are asking for isn't possible. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cauldron: Lastly, if you have made maps amd have them saved (as maps) can you please send them to me. I don't care how many I get.. Thanks eric I hope this is an alive and kicking area of CM as I intend to develop two or three kick ass scenario's that you will have dreams over <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Scenarios and Ops need quite a bit of testing to be 'kisk-ass', if you have done the necessary work then by all means post them for feedback and/or further testing. My only suggestion would be to get a few play-testers to really go over them, there are quite a few scenarios out there of widely varying quality, largely a hit or miss affair it seems. If you put together good battles then you will be recognized. Hope that helps. Ron

Yeah I know what you are talking about. I noticed this last year and posted Here but received no response. I don't think operations as a whole are an area where BTS wants to spend much time from comments in the past. I know of no way to get around that quirk. Ron

Feldgrau Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by opfor6: Has anyone tried using faster German vehicles on the move? I am curious if the result is just not a Allied slanted item.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In CM, AFVs like the US Stuart and Hellcat can Fast move and fire effectively because they have a fast turret speed to stay on target and a quick rate of fire while doing so. None of the German AFVs compare in that regard so aren't really 'suited' for that. Check out the performance of the Daimler or Greyhound, both with medium turret speeds, for comparison and you'll see they don't do it as well either. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: Well I ran a test to see which was the better tank and it turns out the PZ IVG hands down. The first test was at 552m. Ten tanks each, face to pretty face. After it was over no Sherman's but 5 PZ IVG's left. So I think - OK, that's kind of expected due to the range. The PZ is more accurate at the longer distances. Now I set up same number of tanks but at 284m. Well, when the smoke clears there again are no Sherman's left but this time 6 PZ's left. Now I'm not sure but I do believe the PZ IVG is a better tank and therefore should cost more. One other test was run. This was same 10 tanks but they were back to back about 20 meters apart. Well the Shermans do have a faster turrert. No PZ's left but 9 Sherman's were laughing and joking about how easy PZ's blow up. Anyway, it was rather interesting but now more then ever I feel that the valve of the PZ's are understated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are only looking at AT capability when the factors for a unit's "cost" include also armor and its quality, turret speed, ammo loadout etc etc. The M4, M4A1, M4A3 and the three PzIV variants are all roughly "equal" in overall cost, each side with differing strengths and weaknesses but both able to KO the other. The M4s are more well rounded and versatile in my opinion. The part I question is the big jump in price to the M4A3(W) as the "improvements" of wet stowage, slightly better armor and quality, and more ammo don't seem to justify it. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Well, I just ran a shooting gallery test at 2000m and the TRP seems to have no effect at all on chances to hit. I set 4 Nashorns against 4 ammoless Jumbos at 2100m with sharpshooters at 1600m to provide spotting. All units were regular The chance with and without a TRP was the same at 9% Interestingly, even with bracketing, my chance to hit never rose beyond 31%; not unreasonable considering the range. What was scary is that even Jumbos can be killed at 2000m by the 88L71, artificial though the test may be, and from frontal turret hits, no less. [ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Triumvir ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not sure how the underlying engine *sees* a TRP, but for the player, if you target an enemy AFV near a TRP twice then you will see the improved hit chance. Admittedly it probably won't be much of an increase at 2000m. Ron

That's just too reasonable Philistine Now back out with the knives! :eek: Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: I'm afraid this is simply not at all true. A quick look at the CM FP ratings shows that SMGs beat rifles hands down at 100m. FP at 100m: <UL TYPE=SQUARE>K98k 5.2 Garand 7 Lee-Enfield 6 SMG (all models) 9 [ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What isn't true? I said a SMG squad versus a US Rifle squad, not a single SMG versus a single Rifle. CM is a squad level game, so where's the all Rifle squad so I can see where it gets beat hands down? Point is still there, SMG squads are only effective in the sub 40m range. If you think otherwise let me ask you this, do you regularly open up with SMG squads at 100m? What have you noticed? Ron

No, I haven't tried your proposed changes, don't think it's warranted or necessary for a few reasons, but am interested in hearing the results of those that do. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This was disputed by some for a while, and a valid case was made that automatic infantry in general (including 2 LMG types with many autos) can sometimes be better still.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This has been my experience by far. For the Germans, the SS Motorized and FJ are deadly effective out to the 100-150m range; for the Allies, the US Rifle 45 pattern. One thing to remember in your analysis on SMG squads, any squad with automatic weapons has an increased rate of fire in the sub 40m range, usually 8-9 bursts/minute. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>SMGs will do more per shot at any reasonable range for them (~100 yards, like now). - SMGs are useful defensively and offensively, out to 100 yards,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm really don't know where you are getting that from. Pure SMG squads are useless at 100m and only come into their own at the 40m range. From experience playing or a 'sterile' test, SMG squads will cause zero to minimal casualties at 100m while US Rifle squads will eventually chew said SMG squads up at that range. SMG squads are only good at close assault. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...failed to notice what every green CMer manages to figure out by the end of his second or third outing in "A Chance Encounter".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol, I must be slow for I played that scenario more times than I care to count or remember. What I took from it is unless the VG can safely get into close range, their advantage in FP is negated, period. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If someone honestly thinks that the balance is perfect at 40 shots for all squads, all he has to do is give his opponent choice of side, and with it choice of squad type.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do and I do, it's never been a problem or a concern; the key has always been tactics and combined arms. That '40 shots' is good for one maybe two assaults, if things go well, then the squad is no longer useful. Off the top of my head, 35 shots for SMG squads won't hamper them too too much for what they are good at, however 45-50 shots for a US Rifle 45 squad, with 12 men, goes too far IMO. As an example I just finished a large battle - a VG Bn(Grn&Reg) and a SS Mot Bn(Reg&Vet), both slightly reduced, with armor support attacking(to exit) a US 45 Bn through heavily forested terrain. Should be 'ideal' for the Germans with their close range FP advantage, right? Well, the casualties were about 475 for the Axis versus about 500 for the US, with the last quarter of the game having the Germans(with Low ammo) trying to avoid any combat at all. Obviously there are other variables at play. The cost, in ammo and men, to eliminate a 12 man squad is high. I could well imagine the results with ammo tweaks, which is well and fine for a specific scenario design but not as a general rule. Ron

If you do a search with "ammo" in the subject line, you will get many threads explaining why it's the way it is now. Here's one, with comments from BTS, for starters - Sharing Ammo Ron

Bring Elvis back! What are the naysayers doing *here* anyway?

Managing HQs - has two tables at the end of the article to answer your questions. Ron

Turcan has a new simulation coming out called Battalia, Wargamer for a preview. Ron

It can get pretty big some games lol :eek: , but what never fails to get a chuckle is seeing a HT get KO'd from a 'weak spot' penetration, I wonder what happened there. Ron