xerxes

Certainly does, it suggests that if you're defending, CAS will be quite effective and even more so if you skip that AFVs. If attacking, CAS is a definite risk. If your opponent gets tanks you'll be in good shape.

I'm surprised by the results of Combined Arms testing. It suggests that CAS friendly fire in CM is fairly predictable. Difficult for anyone to say how realistic it is, but it makes sense that things like tanks/trucks are a lot easier to pick out that infantrymen (even if they are hard to identify). Thanks!

It doesn't sound like the same problem that existing in CMBB where the scores could end up wildly different. This sounds like rounding error. Split the difference and call the score 59.5% to 40.5%.

Cintheaux is an excellent (large) CMBO battle.

Wire. Lots of wire. Placed in the open with hmgs covering from long range and infantry backing up the wire at close range (for those that make it through) is a fearsome defence.

They don't disappear, they get absorbed into other squads (along with the weapon they're carrying). That's how you can get 3 lmg german infantry squads. You might even be able to geta 4lmg squad though I've never seen that happen. 3 lmg squads kick out some serious 100-150m firepower.

Withdraw can be useful when you need to move quickly, but not when you're taking fire. i.e. pretty limited utility.

I've had problems with acrobat reader freezing. You just have to kill the process and load it again. BTW, I really enjoyed reading all the AARs for my scenario. Thanks!

I've always thought CM drastically underestimates the protective value of foxholes but I have no idea how one really determines how effective foxholes are in real life. In CM a foxhole behind a wall seems more like the real effectiveness of foxholes. If you go heads down your exposure goes to zero.

I almost always use casualties (20-30%) when I play a QB. I like a little randomness, adds spice.

How many games could there be with a silly name lke "Afrika Korps"? And lok at speelng, leet.

Brixia is the Italian 45mm mortar.

"biggie size" It costs you a couple of IQ points to just read that.

Also CMBB/CMAK mgs make short work of thin skinned vehicles and the mg often goes unspotted to boot. If your AT guns have armored covered arcs they won't open up on the jeeps/trucks/HTs. Makes gamey light vehicle suicide recon more like just plain old suicide.

I don't think you're correct Sergie. CM alternates the turn processing computer from everything I've seen. Then again, I could be wrong.

Retreat from Metemma. The M11 is a terror, but, it can be taken out by the ATRs and the M11 can't stop infantry very well. It simply doesn't have the ammo to put a serious hurt on the infantry. The Italian defender has a variety of options as to how to defend and with the tankettes has some serious counterpunching power. The Italian being able to place his tank to overwatch the reinforcement entry zone was an oversight on my part, I didn't think the Italians could get LOS from his setup to the reinforcement zone. I try to setup reinforcement zones specifically so this won't happen. It is always possible that an aggressive defender will still manage to get LOS to the reinforcement zone no matter how you protect it. I'll use scattered trees in the final published version to improve the protection of the reinforcement zone. My apologies because I understand how this really wrecked the scenario for you. -marc s

If you're making a map you can use alternating large buildings and two story light buildings to make a row of buildings passable.

Often houses were built with a shared wall, no alley no door. The standard technique was to create a hole in the wall (mousehole) so infantry could pass. Mouseholes aren't modelled in CM, they will be in the engine rewrite. Just the way it is.

my 400mhz titanium ran CM great, a 800mhz titanium would be dreamy. My new dell laptop with nVidia basically blows chunks with CM.

I prefer sneak because if you're seen, you'll be fired on and then your squad/team won't use their AT weapons. Sneaking squads will also fire AT weapons while sneaking. More of a stealthy hunter approach then a guns blazing rambo attack (i.e. assault command)

Infantry will use handheld AT weapons on their own without any commands. You just need to be in range. Generally the infantry will only use these if they aren't under fire. I always rely on the TacAI to handle the infantry AT weapons, my job is to just get my squads in position to do so.

I have a brand new 1.6ghz dell laptop with 512mb memory and a nVidia GeForce FX video card (latest drivers installed). CM runs slower on this then my 3 year old mac laptop. In particular, scrolling the editor map (editing mode) is ridiculously slow. In game I get little halts. I'm not running anything else while I run CM except Outlook express and maybe an Internet explorer window. Is there any way to improve performance? Is this the way it's supposed to be?

You can regroup across impassable walls even. You can even split a squad and have the split occur across an impassable wall. The morale of the regrouped squad will be that of the "A" team. A "rattled" B team rejoining a normal A team will produce a normal squad. That's why it's good to scout with the B team.

I had a game were my opponent entered no password. And yes, I accidently opened his file As soon as I realized it, I closed it and made sure to never look at it again. That said, it sure would be funny to make all his tanks "cower", his infantry charge across the open, his arty to fall off the board, etc, etc. This is all an elaborate deception anyways methinks. Damn double agents are everywhere.

Sim trainers are really quite interesting. I don't have the research at hand, but PC flight simulators actually do a very good job of teaching people how to fly. It doesn't take long for an experience PC combat simulator player to transition quite successfully to flying real aircraft. The results were rather shocking to the training community that believed only very high fidely simulators would allow significant transfer of training to occur. The CM series is absolutely a simulation of WWII tactical combat. As with any simulation it's not the same as the actual role a commander has to play. The global "micromanging" that can be done at the squad level is certainly unrealistic. If you wanted to use it as a more accurate simulation, you wouldn't allow the "commander" to directly control anything out of their immediate area. All other "commands" would need to be relayed to subordinates who actually plotted them. The next generation CM game, that will hopefully include multiplayer would be a much BETTER simulation of WWII combat. Assuming things like FOW were specific to each player and you would start to see more realistic command structures and the miscommunications and command channel limitations arising. In a multiplayer game, the overall commander certainly needs to be a leader and not just have good tactical/strategic skills. They have to be able to motivate and control a diverse set of subordinates. But, in reality a good commander needs to possess both strategic/tactical knowledge and have good "leader" qualities. It will be quite interesting to see how things develop if the next generation of CM is multiplayer.