pcelt

I do like the idea of increasing the possible randomness but I think you would need to have reservations re the map/Force- type combination. Totally random choice could well give you terrain (eg v heavily wooded ) and a totally armoured force of tanks etc with no routes through the terrain With a random choice of force type i think you would need to ensure a mixed terrain through which any force could operate in some way.

Schrullenhaft Many thanks . I am indebted to you for your clear help and advice. [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 08-03-2000).]

Welcome you boring old fart. Been to any good "Pikerdice" sessions lately? Perhaps we could get together and play a pbem across the Irish Sea in near future.

Yes the system is working correctly---its just that when selecting, you are offered- "+ 25% or"+ 50%".But later when confirming your forces it states you have "125%" or "150%" of original force. They mean the same thing. I really dont know why programmers have to confuse us so much----there is no need-----problems-- problems --problems

Just a small clarification please------once you have used your spotter to select a target for the arty, am I right in assuming he can then revert to "hiding" with no adverse effect on the accuracy or timing of the requested bombardment.

There have recently been various posts re pbem virus transmission. I should like some expert advice re the best anti-virus software that is straightforward to install annd effective but does not cause interference with other programmes . Clear step by step advice please for someone whose tech ability peaked with chewing gum and sticky tape. Many thanks

Pat------just a point of clarification. If you select "Armour" you get an opportunity still to purchase infantry /support/arty etc-----its just that the proportion of these purchasable is lower and the armour in the mix can be maximised if you wish. Its interesting and intriguing to vary your "type" selection as clearly the approach and tactics demanded with each can be quite different and provides variety of battle type.

Perhaps you need to be taught a lesson on how to use a forum in a sociable and constructive way-------the first part of your post is a constructive question--but the second part is totally unnecessary, puerile, pointless and non-productive bluster.

I can confirm, after a brief survey, that there does appear to be a distinct relationship between the attack mode and the depth of enemy territory which needs to be overrun to control the Victory Flags. This is fine and is a logical link with the 3 forms of attack and justification for the variations in point allowance in each attack. I should like to thank Ted and Neutral Party for pointing me in the right direction. It has helped clarify a nagging uncertainty I had about Quick Battles. However what we cannot be certain of is whether there are any other more hidden differentiating factors built into the scoring in relation to factors like enemy unit kills/captures etc.in the different attack modes. Could I please respectfully request a comment on this from BTS to fully clarify these possible further differences so we can more fully understand our goals in these different battles. Many thanks.

Neutral Party---thanks for that----if as you suggest this is the case ,I too am more content with the logic-----Is there .do you think , any difference as well in the value given to the destruction of enemy units in the three different modes of attack-- eg fewer points in an assault with powerful forces than in a probe with scant forces. Could BTS possibly kindly comment on this issue to clarify the situation? Thanks.

OsinO----Im afraid your thread does not really answer the question about goal or task difficulty differences among the 3 forms of attack----only that they have different points totals to try and achieve their goal. Ted and Neutral Party----you seemed onto some possible goal differences------any conclusions ? I have had a quick look at Victory flag locations in the three types of attack but have not noticed any marked differences re depth of position in the 3 types. I'll have another look at this possibility, Thanks for all contributions on this. ------Any other explanations welcome.

I understand the difference in concept between a probe, attack and assault. But isnt the aim in each of these in the Quick Battle game the same -----to control the victory flag areas? If I were a defender and my main object was to win why would I not always prefer to face a probe where the attacker is least superior----and If I were an attacker why would I mot always prefer an assault where my forces are most superior. I cannot help feeling that the goals of a "probe" should actually be recognisably EASIER than the goals of an "attack" and the goals of an "assault" MORE DIFFICULT. But to me the practical goals in all the "Quick Battles" look very similar. I thank you for your help and insights which I appreciate but I am still confused about how the Quick Battle format reflects the differences.Surely the actual goals for each type of attack should be at different levels of difficulty to reflect the attackers intentions in using the form of attack he has selected.He wants to achieve much more with an assault than with a probe. [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 07-27-2000).]

I am puzzled about the different PBEM Quick Battle types and their assumed degree of difficulty. The attacker gets more and more points relative to the defender from "probe" through "attack" up to "assault" . But what I am not clear about is why, in these scenarios, are these defenses seen as more and more challenging---the defender can buy the same units and organize them equally carefully,, the terrain can be the same, the victory locations can be similar . What is it that makes them of varying challenge to warrant different levels of points for the attacker . Am I missing something crucial here that intrinsically creates different levels of challenge for the attacker.

I am unselfishly considering opening an R&R facility for CM "abandoned women"---I've always quite liked abandoned women anyway ---so just ship them all out to my luxury facility in the beautiful idyllic paradise isle of the U.K. I'll unselfishly pamper and entertain them all for a couple of weeks R&R whilst you can all get on with the mayhem .. N.B-----to all my PBEM opponents-----all games are cancelled until further notice. --Who said altruism is dead?

Just to assist the diagnosis process------- I dont think the problem can be purely voodoo related. I have been using a V3 3000 with driver 1.04 since the game was issued and have experienced no texture problems or crashes whatsoever.

Is there any posibility that it might be possible to have a grid imposed only on those "above" views in order to have a map -like feature to achieve clear terrain awareness---but at the lower eye view levels the terrain was ungridded and the battle would need to be fought with a combinstion of insights from a gridded map allied with lower down non-gridded battlefield views. This is a solution that i would find very acceptable in terms of realism and aesthetics.

As the person who started this thread, I did so in order to learn 1) something about the factors that most caused tanks to bog 2) What factors does the game actually use in its code and 3) Are there any measures one can take to a) reduce the likelihood (eg speed) etc and to help free a tank which has bogged. There was some very interesting and useful discussion before the thread was railroaded by some petty squabble . Would those protagonists please have the decency to allow those who are genuinely interested in developing the topic to proceed constructiveitly with it. Thanks

Having just been playing the German side in a Quick Game in snow and finding that 2 of my 3 Tigers became "immobile" in the first couple of moves-----I wonder if any of you more experienced players have deduced any principles and advice to minimise this frustrating problem. First i presume "immobility " is a worse state than "bogged" and less reversible? I assume movement speed is one factor----I was using "hunt" mode with these tanks. Is it the slower the better in wet and snow?-----Does sitting in one spot for a period contribute to bogging and immobility----- I should welcome any info/advice from experienced snow and wet ground experts to help minimise this hazard which can really screw up your plan. Thanks from someone all too frequently caught in the bog [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 07-20-2000).]

Can anyone tell me how widespread was the use of winter snow camouflage for vehicles and men in the winter of 1944/45 in Western Europe. Was it employed by all the major armies or only by some? Many thanks for any reliable info on this topic.

Thanks guys-----as you said a new autosave file is created with new game-----quite a relief as i had visions of the need for partial reinstalls and ,for me, general tech mayhem. Cheers

I rather caerlessly deleted the "autosave" line from the scenario file and should like some advice about how to reinstall this function. Many thanks for any help please. ----O.K Prob resolved thanks to advice. ---"-Autosave" reappears when new scenario is played------aint modern technology mind-blowing? [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 07-17-2000).]

I carelessly deleted the "autosave" line from the scenario selection page. Could someone please advise me the best way of reinstalling this function which is very useful. Many thanks

So can I just ask a question and invite opinions-------Do you stop all suppressive fire both direct and area when squads are actually in the process of assaulting--------or do you stop area fire but not direct fire support------or do you maintain both during the assault. I should be grateful for a range of views and opinions from experienced players. Thanks.

I presume that in the turn that you send squads to assault , it is safe to maintain direct suppressive fire against specific enemy units targetted in the assault, but not wise to maintain area fire which presumably is just as likely to damage your assaulting units. Am I right in this assessment in terms of the operation of this game. Thanks for any comments by experienced CM players.

Jeroen----- Many people in Holland and every other part of Europe have ordered and received their copies.I live in the U.K. and have now ordered a second copy for a friend. Believe me the support and customer care you will get here surpasses that of any "professional-looking site " you have ever used. Refuse to order this game and you miss out on the biggest step forward in small unit war- gaming since the beginning of the computer age. If you like small scale war gaming WW2 period you must not miss this one-------go read the review on "Gamespot" if you want an independent review.