Vetch

Guys, don't forget that operations link several individual battles together. Having this kind of information handed to you after ONE of those battles would ruin the ongoing FOW for the rest of an operation. Much better (and more accurate) to have to spend five minutes looking over the carnage and putting together your estimate of what your opponent still has left for the next go. Vetch

Agreed. It was a solid start and very well done as far as it went. But there is still much room for discussion in subsequent articles. 'Course, hopefully the manual will give us lots of insight into the subtle workings of some of the game mechanics. Vetch

Posted my two cents over there. My headline was "The greatest thing to EVER happent to mac wargaming. Period!" Heck, it's also the greatest thing to ever happen to PC wargaming too, but they'll figure that out when they try the demo, won't they. Vetch

Whoops! Forgot to check Madmatt's thread where he posted the news. Ack. My bad.

This feature looks great and is another fine addition by the BTS gods. Two questions: 1) Can catastrophic vehicle explosions cause damage to nearby troops and light skinned vehicles or are they just eye-candy? 2) Is there a chance that a tank that brews up but doesn't explode immediately will blow up later? A small percentage chance that a burning tank would go boom each turn (kinda like the way the chance of reinforcements showing up on any given turn works) would be a neat addition and capture the real-life concerns of getting too close to burning vehicles for fear that stuff might start cooking off. Anybody have the skinny on this cool new feature? Vetch

Yeah, the Russians had their own variety, which were nicknamed "Stalin's Organs" according to one of Keegan's books. Hopefully, we'll get to try them out in CM2.

Looks awesome, Moon. Keep up the good work!

Did a search but couldn't find the answer to this one. Do overlapping minefields provide a better chance that someone walking in a given piece of terrain will step on a mine? Or is overlapping two (or more) minefields a waste of resources? In other words, can minefields "stack" to increase the mine density in a given piece of terrain?

Hmmm.. I have two macs, a blue and white G3 running 8.6 and a new 400 mHz iMac DVD running 9.0.4. Don't have any problems except that my mouse or keyboard sometimes lock up in CM on the G3, but that could be a hardware issue as I'm using a third party keyboard and a logitech two-button scrolling mouse. My only wish is that there were a save game *button* on the main window so that I could save my game and restart when my keyboard craps out in the middle of a turn. I can still finish a turn using only the mouse and use the autosave file without it, but it sucks to go through a lot of units issuing orders with only the mouse when you're used to the convenience of the keyboard. Also, if your keyboard craps out, there's no way to change your view and you're locked into whatever view you were on. Other than that, CM works fine on both my systems.

Madmatt wrote: Just a comment in reagrds to use of translucent as opposed to transparent. Well, they aren't transparent, when you are inside a building with a unit YOU CAN NOT SEE OUT THROUGH THE WALLS, I tried to show this with the 'split screen' schreck unit. The walls are translucent as they only allow about 30% or so of the light to pass through which gives the units inside that ghostly appearance. If the they were transparent we wouldn't see the walls at all. ------------- With respect, I still disagree. If the walls were "invisible," you wouldn't see them at all--which is what we have in the beta. When the walls are "transparent" (or semi-transparent if you want to be really abstruse) then you should see the wall and what's on the other side of it--though they both might look a little ghostly. This is what we have in the new feature. If the wall was really "translucent" as you suggest, you would only see shadows of what's on the other side. If you want to emphasize the point that you only see through the walls in one direction, then "semi-transparent" is the beast you're after. I'm the first to admit that this is a minor point but as long as they're getting everything else right, why not have an accurate description? Vetch

Wow, this looks great. Kudos again to Steve and Charles for going the extra mile. I have one nit to pick, however. I hate to be the grammar police but I don't think "Translucent" is the word you want here. I think a better descriptor is "Transparent Occupied Buildings." "Translucent" merely means that the material allows some amount of light to pass through it, i.e., it's not completely opaque. A stained glass window might be translucent, but you're not going to see anything on the other side of it. This would still clearly differentiate the new feature from the old way, which had invisible walls. I wouldn't mention this at all but it seems as if "Translucent Occupied Buildings" might actually be the text used in the game (with shift-y as the toggle) and not just the descriptor used here and at CMHQ. Ok, grammar police mode off. Again, it's a great new feature.... Vetch

LOL, I thought it was yours! Vetch

Well, this has happened against both of my opponents in PBEM so far (in four separate games). Both are on PCs while I'm on a mac. Really hope they take a look at this one. Vetch

Another big fat NO! Simply put, I trust Steve and Charles far more than I trust any of you. No offense. Vetch [This message has been edited by Vetch (edited 11-17-99).]

Glad to hear you guys are thinking about adding this at some point, Steve. After reading "Closing with the Enemy" it seems like there definitely was such as a thing as Veteran units that got a little too much "experience." The point was made several times that US replacements (later changed to the less inhuman "reinforcements") were actively quarantined from veteran units while on their way to the front so that the tired old hands wouldn't scare and demoralize them too badly before they ever got into the action. And there were several recorded incidents of US veteran troops not pressing forward in the face of serious resistance out of a well-learned sense of self-preservation, good judgment, and a fine working knowledge of enemy weapons systems and capabilities. This was in the exact timeframe and geographical area that CM is modeling. Vetch

Congrats, Argo! Now where's that PBEM turn you owe me?!?! Vetch (aka Cuke 501FF: WarBirds)

Thanks, Dar... I remember that discussion, though it was a bit technical for me. But my friend's point was that within our group of friends we really don't need any extra measures and that it would be nice to have an option to disable all the extra swapping in those situations and just send 1 file each time. If two is enough to still have security, great, but I'd still like to see an option to turn the whole shebang off and just play. Vetch

I know, I know, 'feature request' has to be the two dirtiest words known to Steve and Charles at this point in time, but one of my current e-mail opponents (Argo) had a suggestion that I thought was too good not to pass on. We were both bemoaning the e-mail dance--that extra file swap thingy so that you never plot and then watch the movie--that security from cheating currently requires (a price that we are willing to pay for that security, though) when Argo said something like "Consarn it all, why not give us the option of turning off the hyper security dance to make the games go faster when we are playing someone we know and trust." I couldn't think of a good reason why not and had never seen it on this board. Heck, since it's adding the option to disable a current feature, I thought it might not even be a prohibitive amount of work, especially given the significant impact it would have in streamlining common PBEM games with trusted opponents. So please, Steve and Charles, don't beat me with the ugly stick. I really thought you might want to hear this one. Vetch

It would be very nice if there were an option for the player to at least decline the automatic foxhole for some of the units even when starting with a prepared defense. For example, you might want to run some forward recon elements deep behind enemy lines and park em, without leaving those tell-tale holes in the ground. This won't be so bad when the foxhole spotting bug is fixed, but it will still be a problem. Guess the current workaround is to put those units you don't want dug in into the nearest building on setup (think that makes em pass on the foxhole) but that is really quite less than ideal. Maybe this won't make it into initial release. Dont want to delay the game yadda yadda yadda, but I think it should go in there at some point. Vetch

Also, did I miss something that tells you which units are going to get foxholes when you place them before you place them? Is there a cue in the setup for this? Would be nice to know before you start picking spots for them. Vetch

Third game. Last Defense as Allies versus the computer. Watched in horror as a StuG blew right past my bazooka team lying in ambush in a house by the side of the road then laughed with glee when the StuG decided to park about 15 meters past the house and the little guy inside promptly spun around and put one right through the trunk from point-blank range. My third time playing Riesberg (first time playing as the Germans): The sole survivor of one of my SMG teams crawls frantically away from a Sherman and about 60 Americans into a house in the first row of town. As he nears the house, the sole surviving member of an American rifle squad runs right past him into the same house, not even seeing him because the German soldier is crawling. On the next turn, the German soldier makes it into the house behind the American, raises his submachine gun, and brrrrrrp, nails the American in the back. I couldn't believe it. Vetch

Here's the link... The word is getting out. http://www.strategy-gaming.com/editorials/grognards_and_graphics.shtml

Thanks for the "frickin' bone"!!!!!! Seriously, it was majorly fun to read all these and I really appreciate all the work everybody involved put into them. That ending with the two tanks facing off in a quick draw down main street was straight outta a western movie. Here's hoping this Halloween will be more "treat" than "trick" if ya know what I mean.

He also left out Nursie, Lord Flashheart and "Bob".

More info can be found here... http://www.clanplaid.net/misc/series/