mikeadams

An utter fabrication! That wasn't the Reserve B team, it was the first string Under 14 team

Since it is Windows only, it won't get any of the Mac CMM addicts

On a related note: do mines get used up? That is, if I run a squad through and they detonate mines, does the next squad have a higher chance of survival?

Of course anyone who has reverted probably isn't reading this board any more. Try asking at the CC forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: O that this too too solid flesh would melt/ Thaw and resolve itself into a banana. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Times flies like an arrow Fruitflies like a banana

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: It's quite tiring though. Where have all the interesting people gone?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm still here!

I know that BTS is keeping the total sales figures to themselves, but is it possible to know the percent of the total that went to Mac users? The reason I am curious is that, if the number is significant, the information might help persuade other software companies to write for the Mac.

At this rate we will have moved it from the bottom 20 list to the top 20 list within 24 hours. Keep those votes coming!!

The Mac Game Database has CM rated low because many of the people are giving it a 1. Whether this is deliberate, or they think 1 is the highest I don't know. If you want to correct the issue, you can vote at http://www.gamedb.com/ssps/0/1/00225

I think this is a case where we can have our cake and eat it too. For scenarios where the designer feels that scouting information should be included, then it can be in the briefing (as much or little as he wants). On the other hand it would be perfectly possible to include false or misleading information in the briefing, which might provide some very interesting scenarios (at least the first time you play it)

Whether the results are intentional from BTS or not, I realy don't have a problem with the computer picks. My thought is that in 'real' life a commander can't choose which forces will be at his disposal. In the game I know this is a battle with certain characteristics in terms of the opponent, terrain and weather, so I can artificially give myself an advantage my hand-picking units (i.e. mortatrs are not much use at night since by the time you can see the enemy he is closer than the minimum range). In reality you have to make do with what you have: if that means facing armor with no long-range AT, then you have to deal with it. I actually find this makes for a more interesting challenge

I have to pick Battle of the Bulge with Henry Fonda. It probably holds the record for being the most innacurate film I have ever seen: I got to the point where I was expecting the US and Germans to join forces to attack the Russians

I agree that close assault is usually the last option. Nonetheless I would like a command that allows for it: The present combination of 'Fire at Tank'plus 'Run to Where Tank Currently is' does lead to many cases where the tank moves and the troops just mill around the area it used to be like headless chickens. I would imagine that in this type of situation they would either run back to cover or look to see if the vehicle was still close enough to catch it. I don't know how difficult either option would be to code, but it would give a rather more flexible response that the current one.

Just when I get tired of the discussions about gameyness, the AI outdoes us. In a recent battle I noticed a Panzerschreck unit and a Canadian PIAT unit slogging it out toe-to-toe 4 metres and less) for four turns. Finally, both were down to one person, the German fired his last round with no effect. The Canadian fires his last round and kills them both!

In fact infantry do a great job killing tanks (if they don't have infantry support) Try this: make a QB with one side defending as Infantry and the other attacking with straight armor> I find that the Infantry get a win almost every time

It really isn't a question of cheating or not cheating; it is a question of why you play CM? For those who want to get as close to an historical simulation as possible, then gamey tactics are not appropriate, while for those who simply enjoy the game aspect may find anything that CAN be done is acceptable. For me the bottom line is to find an opponent whose philosophy matches yours, then you will both agree on which tactics are 'allowable.

I spent 24 hours without playing CM. Honest....well 18 for sure

Borg..go assimilate the NY Times

With all of the Mods now available it would be great if someone would create a Mod museum. It would contain thumbnails of all Mods and user rankings/ number of downloads for each one. That way we could quickly copare all the Panther Mods sids-bu-side and find out which ones people think work best.

In a word...smoke. This allows you to get to another angle without being slaughtred by flanking fire

This seems to be part of a much larger (and ongoing) debate: namelt 'how much micro-control should the player have?' My reading of the BTS position is that the units should be allowed to do what the AI feels is best for that unit at that moment in time, the player's desires are secondary. I agree with this, otherwise we end up with a board game where units only do exactly what we determine. For me, much of the enjoyment of CM is that I DON'T know whether a unit will do what I want, and to still be able to come up with the winning tactics.

CM notwithstanding there seems to be a dearth of good war games for the Mac. Any recommendations?

Believe it or not, there is a web page devoted to this http://www.quinion.com/words/articles/nineyards.htm

>>I don't understand why the engine does this anyway. Every building is accessible through every side except when you place them adjacent to each other. Two passable walls together = impassable? I can understand there being a need for this in some maps as a designer thing like rowhouses, but as a universal limitation it is very frustrating. << But just because two buildings are adjacent, why should they have a connection? Certainly rowhouses have no doorways from one to the other, nor do stores or office buildings. If the ability to move directly from one to another is to be modelled it should be by blowing holes through connecting walls. In this case it would not be common and might required engineers.

I have noticed a variety of requests for CM to be expanded to cover every theatre of WWII. WWI, the civil war (US), Napoleon, Frederick the Great etc. etc. Obviously BTS cannot manage all of these equests (even they wanted to). So, have you thought of licensing the underlying game engine to other developers who could take on soem of these other areas?