TeAcH

Binkie, I can appreciate what you are saying but I have lockups during the turn crunching phase and sometimes during the red bar data transfers which occur after the 100% and prior to the completing data transfer notice. Whole game freezes IIRC. Then the save files are corrupted. Ill gather then up and send them to MadMatt. TeAcH

Can't say that I disagree with all of that. TeAcH

Ill jump in here before someone pounces on Napoleon to say that I know of several other people, myself included who have experienced lockups during TCPIP play. I'm not saying that I know what causes it..may not even be the game, although one does wonder. TeAcH

Well, On behalf of Jimmy4Eyes, BradleyH and myself, we have all experienced this with the 1.12 patch. Game lock ups during turn crunching, data transfer and while playing. The save file (autosave) in some instances get corrupted and wont load. We now make sure that we save the game prior to pressing GO. We each use Win 2k but our systems differ other than that. Oh, we do use various versions of Det 3 with no luck and DX8a doesnt seem to help. I know BTS might say that they changed nothing with respect to the engine in this patch aside from fixing bugs, but Id ask that they check again cuz something seems afoot. I wonder how many other players out there have had this same problem yet dont post about it. TeAcH

Thanks All. So Tiger, thanks for the comments but are you saying that you think barbed wire should cost the same as an AP or AT minefield? If so, just curious, but how do you justify that? Enlighten me (not intending to be sarcastic here just curious). Thanks, TeAcH

I see the point but I am still of the opinion that they are too high. I mean, Let me spend 100 on 20 barbed wire if I want too. Perhaps there is a good reason why they are the same price as minefields. Dunno. TeAcH

Forcing FSAA in all aps works like a charm on my Geforce Det 3 Win 2k system. If I turn it off, I get the transparent and flashing graphics. Even at the lowest FSAA setting, it is fixed. TeAcH

I mean minfields cost ten and I would say they took much more material and expertise to setup. When playing a quickbattle on defense, seems like the defender should be given these at a better rate. Dunno. Just seems a little to high, but what do I know. TeAcH

Just another example of why this needs to be fixed. During the last turn of a TCPIP game, my opponent who managed to get an empty universal carrier around my flank, charged it at a large VL next to some woods and change it to a question mark. All in sixty seconds. Granted, All I had at that one was a crew since my front lines were busy defending (He was attacking). The point is, VLs should be fought for and not raced to. TeAcH

Id like to use a predisgned map but still allow myself and my opponent the ability to purchase our own units for an attack/defend game. Currently, Id prefer if the map generation in a QB game was done first allowing each player to preview the terrain. Then if the generated map sucked, then you could generate a new one right then (click "generate again") then click GO when you see one you like. As it stands, you might end up with a lame map and if you are on defense, it doesnt seem logical that the defender would set up fortications in an area that works against them. Thanks TeAcH

I have the ELSA GeForce 2 GTS and use Win2k, 6.47 Det and DX 8.0a. When I go into my advanced Direct3D options and force FSAA in in all applications (even at the lowest fsaa setting), the transparent/flashing text problem is fixed. Try it. It'll fix it for you. TeAcH

I use the MS Intellimouse optical USB mouse and have had no problems with CM or anything else. It has been my favorite mouse thus far. TeAcH

I have the ELSA GeForce 2 GTS and use Win2k, 6.47 Det and DX 8.0a. When I go into my advanced Direct3D options and force FSAA in in all applications (even at the lowest fsaa setting), the transparent/flashing text problem is fixed. Try it. It'll fix it for you. TeAcH

This exact thing occurred on a friends system I was trying to update (win2k pro, DX8.0a, Det 6.50). When I reverted back to Det 6.31 no more reboot when he chose join network game. Also, I use win2k and when I force FSAA even at its lowest level, the transparent text issue is fixed. TeAcH

Shouldn't they at least have a knife? A can opener? Or two hands which they can use to choke out and subdue the enemy? Not a BIG deal but a real bugger when it happens to you. BTS is all about details, we know that. It seems this is onne where I (yeah, I know, who cares what I think) would make a slight modification so AT teams engage in some sort of hand-to-hand. Anyone disagree with that? Thanks, TeAcH

Here's what happened. A regular shreck team with one casualty unknowingly stumbled into a hidden AT gun of mine (unknowingly because I asked my TCPIP opponent later on). The 17 pdr opened up at 20-30 meters and the shreck team/soldier panicked and ran about 10 meters out of the LOF and into some nearby woods where he took a dive. Meanwhile, the only unit I had close (don't ask...it was near the end of the battle) was a VET PIAT unit with one casualty and 1 or 2 rounds left. I ran the PIAT within 15-20m and he missed the proned out shreck team with both shots. Fearing that the shreck soldier would regain his composure and move within striking distance of my gun, I decided to take advantage of the fact that he was cowered and had my PIAT close on him to within 5 meters to go hand-to-hand. For the next two turns, nothing happened. The PIAT stood by facing the panicked shreck soldier. So I moved the PIAT directly onto the shreck soldier trying to force him to engage in hand to hand. Nothing! And that's how they remained for the next ten turns or so until the battle ended; directly on top of eachother. Question: Why wouldn't they engage in hand to hand? Why wouldn't the VET PIAT soldier do something instead of trading cigarettes with the shreck soldier. All the shreck had to do was regain his composure sooner and march off within range of my gun (or something else) and fire off some shots. Thanks TeAcH

As a proponent of random turns in an earlier post of mine, I'd like to once again wade in with a suggestion for a modification. It would require two changes. First, allow the scenario/QB to have either a random or user defined game length modifier. At the start of scenario design OR during a QB setup, the players would agree to select how much, if any at all, of an end turn modifier they want; EXACTLY like we/they do now when selecting turn time limits in a TCPIP game. Everyone gets it their way. Secondly, add in Lt Bull's suggestion that a VL needs to be held for X number of turns (say 2 or 3) before the flag changes control. Voila', this situation is handled. It seems that BTS has made considerable effort to prevent players from using gamey tactics (i.e. the game long distinction of CREWS from INFANTRY), so this just seems right-in-line with their design. I, too, have been in those games with rushes to the flag in the last turn and it really detracts from the game when that happens. Thanks, TeAcH BTW, We shouldn't hold our breath for a CM1 modification.

Nothing original, just short for my last name, Teachworth.

Well, I'd like to think I had a hand in this decision..heheh If it generates lots of sales, it was my idea. (haha) If it flops.....it was Fionn's. Just kidding!!!!! TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 02-02-2001).]

I also noticed right off that it looked blurry. Some people (Rom) need not be so sensitive. Good effort Maximus. If it wasnt for people like you (MOD makers), this game wouldnt look as pretty as it does. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 02-02-2001).]

Slap - I think Juardis was...err...umm.....joking. TeAcH

Sounds like a bug. Dunno

Yeah...hehe

Taken from Computer Games Online posted 7/15/1998: ------------------------ Computer Squad Leader is dead by Scott Udell It’s a story strangely reminiscent of the Beyond Squad Leader saga of several years ago. Wargame developer Big Time Software (like developer Atomic Games) was signed by Avalon Hill to do a computer version of the classic board wargame Squad Leader. Like Atomic's Beyond Squad Leader (which became Close Combat and was published by Microsoft), Big Time’s early design was not a direct translation of the board game (although it was much closer), but instead a game in the spirit of the board game. And also like Atomic, Big Time has experienced some "strategic differences" with Avalon Hill and has broken with them on this project, taking the design (now called Combat Mission) on the road. "Combat Mission is an entirely original work that uses nothing from Advanced Squad Leader [ASL]," says Charles Moylan, president of Big Time Software. According to him he "shifted the original design work to the front [of the development schedule], pushing the inclusion of copyrighted ASL materials (like scenarios, vehicle data, etc.) back to the very end of the schedule." Since he maintains rights to the original portions of the project, this approach has allowed him to take all his design work to date with him; because of this, he says "we’re free and clear to continue development without skipping a beat. No delays!" While he’s not talking about potential publishers yet, Moylan says he is in serious discussions, and that even now Big Time has the resources to complete the game, on its own, by Spring of 1999 (a "rough release date"). Computer Games Online contacted several known wargame publishers but at press time have spoken only with Jim Rose, president of TalonSoft, who said they were not at this time talking to Big Time (although Rose, upon hearing the news of the split with Avalon Hill, indicated he would be contacting Moylan soon). CGO also spoke with Avalon Hill’s Eric Dott, who had little comment beyond confirming that Big Time would no longer be developing Computer Squad Leader. Neither Moylan nor Dott could comment for certain on the publication status of Big Time’s other development project for Avalon Hill, Whistling Death (the Pacific Theater follow-on to Over the Reich and Achtung! Spitfire), saying only that things were up in the air (Moylan did say that Big Time would continue development on the project after Combat Mission was finished). ---------------- TeAcH

I understand your point and yes the idea is to make the ending unknown to players. But if for example the player choses a 35 turn game, they will always have an idea when the game will come close to ending or at least when they are nearing the end of the scenario. Nothing will ever change that as long as we have a given and known set of turns. My proposal allows players to dicatate how much of an effect they want to on when the last round will occur. Moreover, there are going to be some people out there, for whatever the case may be, who will want to disable a feature like this altogether. They may want to design a scenario that says it is 15 turns long (simulating severe time constraints like the rail bridge must be held at XX:XX time as an example). Personally, I would probably always use random endings. As you know, there are those who both use and disable the timer in TCPIP games. BTW, I also like the idea Charles suggested too in addition to this concept. Thanks for the input, TeAcH