David Aitken

I would suggest that the "passport" (whatever it is) is the reason why the pictures aren't working. If you can't access the pictures on the pages, I don't see how you could link to them. Is this service not meant for storing files, rather than posting images? If you want to e-mail me the pictures, I can host them for you.

Jumbo wrote: > Right now, we have Fionn's short 75 & 76 Panther rules. Toss in rarity for AFVs and you see that players strive to make their CMBO experience historical and enjoyable. That is pure speculation. The existence of Fionn's rule proves only that he himself thinks it is important. I am confident that a lot of people use it, but I am also confident that most people don't – and that accounts for the large proportion of CM owners who do not frequent this board. If you care about this kind of thing, you have the tools to do what you like. BTS, however, has to please everybody with the one product – and a Quick Battle, which is usually a competition, has to be certifiably fair and foolproof. David

I do know that b24 was modified because vehicles were invulnerable to bogging or hitting mines while reversing. This may have had knock-on effects. However, if immobilisation always occurs this quickly, there may be a problem. Shadow 1st Hussars wrote: > YOU STOLE MY SIGNATURE!! You both stole it from Patton, but at least Head said so.

Berlichtingen wrote: > Can you send me a file that gives an example of what you are talking about? He basically means that, even on the defensive, the AI is wont to order its men out of their cosy foxholes if they're not in a position to shoot at you. I've seen it do this with AT guns, for goodness sake. I made up a (daft) scenario with a horde of German machineguns, flamethrowers, mortars and AT guns dug in behind a wall – a perfect defensive position – and they all just got up and started marching for the gate, thus rendering themselves sitting ducks to the Allied onslaught and, in the AT guns' case, being unable to reorientate themselves in time to do any damage before they were destroyed. I think sticking a VL nearby is the solution – in other words, if you want to see this effect, do the opposite.

Jeff Duquette wrote: > "In front of me an anti-tank gun knocked out a wagon (sic. panzer). Sorry, pet hate. If this had been translated properly it would read "vehicle". "Panzer" is no more appropriate – it simply means "armoured". PanzerKampfwagen / PzKpfw / Armoured Fighting Vehicle / AFV. "Wagen" does not translate to "wagon", although this seems to be an American favourite. =)

As you are aware, this applies to Quick Battles only. If you want a historical scenario (such as your Ardennes example) where units of completely different quality are mixed, you can design one in the editor. However, Quick Battles are orientated towards competition and fairness, the idea being that you're playing to win, rather than recreating historical events. If you had complete freedom in Quick Battles, you could simply buy Elite armour with Conscript infantry to screen it, or use Conscript infantry to locate the enemy and waste their ammo before sending in your Elite troops, for example. David

Croda wrote: > Here's hoping that the Y2K+1 bug bites you all in your ass Genius! You could sell that idea to the IT industry for billions. Think of all the geeks who have been out of work since the Y2K meltdown failed to materialise. Next up... Bill Gates sneezed while coding DOS, and accidentally programmed it to self-destruct on... oh, say New Year's Day next year? And this problem will have leaked into your ROM chip, so you can't simply upgrade to Win2K+2 (although you'll have to do that anyway), you first have to hire a geek to eradicate the time-bomb, a process which will take, say, a week. There, that should give the industry a boom year, and then we can do the same thing all over again next year.

tss wrote: > ...and then the one-legged Finnish tanker wiped out a platoon of veteran Russians with his bare hands... Oh no, the Finnish brigade has arrived! tss, best not give people any unusual ideas about what the average bailed crew can achieve. =)

Of course, units in CM are always on a combat footing, which means they will fire on the enemy, rather than keeping still as a German sentry unwittingly stomps on their toes in the darkness. Now, when can we have a Dirty Dozen squad – poorly trained and inexperienced, but capable of taking on a Company of enemy infantry without injury (only to suddenly be wiped out at a cinematically appropriate juncture)?

Back to the top we go...

Germanboy wrote: > Look forward to your Edinburgh pictures - get some of the Grassmarket in here Ah, good idea. There's a brilliant road at the northeast corner that's stuck in my mind. A nice nightmare for BTS – narrow, curving, sloping road hemmed in by tall buildings – pretty much sums up everything the engine can't handle. =) Basebal351 wrote: > And a fine picture of a PATROL sign it was, David! An excellent example of the beauty to be found in everyday life, and in road signs everywhere! Yes, and I expect to see them in CM2! =D

Not enough space in the Expedition to take the kids to school? Then you need an M3A1 halftrack! All the space of our regular M3 model, but now with a .50 cal machinegun ring mount and plenty of ammunition stowage! Steve: No! Chamberlin & Ellis clearly states that the A1 variant is a command/control or utility vehicle! You can't get all your kids in there unless you remove the stowage bins, and what happens if you crash? They'll go flying through the windscreen, that's what! Ahem... That's right, the M3A1 offers all the features of our acclaimed M3, and comes in attractive army-issue olive green! The M3A1 is the safest vehicle in its class – Steve: Now just wait a minute! The army only used halftracks for two years, before they realised that they were too thin-skinned to be useful in combat! And what with Babra sitting on the stowage bins, they're a death trap!! As we were saying... The all new M3A1 halftrack! Nothing even comes close, except the M3A2 – but they haven't made any of those! Babra: Rubbish! Plenty of M3s were retrofitted in the field! Tris: My soldiers don't have memories! Steve: Arrrgghh!! Okay, okay! I've had a word with Charles, and he's pretty confident that infantry can be retrofitted with a .50 cal ring mount, provided we remove the stowage bins, and M5A1s will have memories and stay out of heavily damaged buildings!

Hmm... I played a TCP/IP game where I had two lots of mines, and placed them – but during the game I saw a third right at the rear edge of the map, which I'm sure I didn't have in the first place. As for prisoners, there is a good reason for moving them. If you leave them behind, they'll make off and rejoin the battle. Likewise if you march them towards their comrades – you're not taunting your opponent, you're just giving him his men back. Prisoners need to be closely guarded to remain prisoners. David

Derfel wrote: > Is there any way to stop infantry (in this particular case British infantry but I think the problem is general) from behaving like Kamikaze Lemmings? I have noticed this myself, and it's a bit annoying. However, I think the rule is, if you're playing against the AI, and its troops can't see your troops, it will move them until they can. Regardless of whether it means abandoning nice safe positions. Look at it this way – the AI is allowed to position its forces itself, but what if it puts them in a completely useless position? They'll sit there the entire battle and do nothing. Therefore, the only way to ensure that the AI can bring all its troops into battle, is by telling it to advance them, even if it's defending. This of course isn't a problem when you're playing a human opponent. I think there may be scenario design techniques which help to avoid it, although I haven't done enough experimentation myself. I think the best idea is to put a Victory Location (flag) nearby, so that the troops know the enemy will be coming to get them, and they'll hopefully stay where they are. If you have a lot of troops spread over a wide area, use small flags, so that there aren't a lot of huge objectives on the map. I think the AI will treat any forces forward of a VL as scouts or a mobile defence, so it won't leave them in place. Anyone who has more experience of this, or who has found the perfect solution, please speak up. David

Regarding an LOS tool, check out this thread: Feature Request: Point Line-of-Site As for your squads doing their own thinking... say you positioned a squad, expecting the enemy to appear from a particular direction. Then a nearby squad engaged the enemy, as you suggest. Would you want the first squad to abandon its positions, potentially leaving your flank open to attack? In other words, the computer can't read your mind, and if it did things on its own you'd just get annoyed. =) David

Why don't we just admit that someone made up the calendar from their imagination, and the millennium, whenever it was, has no real significance – it's just a counting device. Oh goody, now we use a '2' at the beginning of our dates. The only effect that has is to screw up computers, except it didn't. The day of reckoning hasn't shown up, Christ seems to be late for his second coming, and the world hasn't ended. Damn, that means I've still got work to do.

If you're new to CM, then you can't have explored more than a fraction of what it has to offer. CMBO is the best it gets – CM2 doesn't exist yet, so enjoy what you've got, instead of forever waiting for newer things! =) David

dNorwood wrote: > if anything, the issues are tougher in Germany (at least the part of Franconia I just came from) than what you indicate. Don't worry, I could come up with some much more complicated examples if I put my mind to it. =) I took the pictures I've posted here on my way home – I didn't even take a detour. Linlithgow is just a town, whereas I'm near the city of Edinburgh which is a goldmine of complex terrain. I'm planning to give it the digital camera treatment when I get the chance, and I'll post the results here. =) If you have any specific issues in mind, do throw them into the ring – if you had a way of getting some of your photos up too, that would be great!

Okay, I've dug up a thread from Steve from more than a year ago which gives an excellent description of how the tile system works. I'm not sure whether increasing the resolution is any more feasible now than it was then, but I suppose it's just another CPU demand, and we can't have everything. Explanation of CM's Tile System

Forever Babra wrote: > Maybe 1m x 1m? That's a bit drastic... even 10m or 5m would be a big improvement. I'm not sure what issues govern tile size, though. There may be a big processor hit involved, in which case even this may be unfeasible in the short term. Maybe I should call upon my good friend the Search Engine, as I'm sure it's been discussed before. =)

Thanks, you too! I'll have to take bad photos next time to avoid distracting people. =)

DraGoon wrote: > I have however seen pictures of mansion houses (schloss etc.) in the ETO that still had their railings intact. I suppose it had to do with the relative importance of the building and its surrounds. Aye, that's what I would have thought. I still think railings would be an interesting addition to the game. They can't be any scarcer than Jagdtigers. =D David

DraGoon wrote: > most were removed and the iron smelted 'for the war effort'. Hmm, good point. I know the British government made appeals for pots and pans during the war, on the pretence of using them to build Spitfires, which was nonsense. I think it was mainly for morale purposes, so people would feel they're helping the war effort. Considering that railings tend to serve an important purpose (security, which is a big problem in wartime), do you have any evidence that intact railings really were a rare sight in Europe or Russia? David

Michael emrys wrote: > Do this sort of thing professionally? Nope. =) I've thought about it, but so has everyone else. I don't really think photography is a big deal – you just need a good subject with good lighting, and a good camera. That said, you've only seen one of the pictures I took for artistic purposes – the rest weren't supposed to be pretty. =) Chupacabra wrote: > I think the issue is the 20x20 tile size, which simply doesn't offer enough variation Making the tiles smaller is probably the main enhancement which BTS could make in the short term. They're already coming up with a greater variety of buildings for CM 2, so hopefully we'll see different kinds of walls/railings too. In other words, we're looking at greater variety, and possibly greater density, depending on whether reducing the tile size is feasible. That would be a big improvement, more than adequate for a sequel. More fundamental enhancements to what the engine is capable of will probably have to wait until CM II. David

retarded_keydet wrote: > is there any chance artillery spotters could be given some sort of close combat weapons. Have a look at this thread: Anti tank team problems David