David Aitken

Kuroth wrote: > THis is BS... Dont waste you time!!!!! Oh damn, and there was me thinking my monitor was actually a video camera in disguise, and a telepath was doing online fortune-telling. Is there any way to simultaneously delete a thread, and also the person who started it? I don't mean delete their username, I mean delete THEM. Suggestions please. David

patboivin wrote: > in the Microsoft software, they went overboard. Sadly Microsoft never goes overboard in the right places. Anyway, I speak as a proponent of inertia! (As opposed to a proponent of change and advancement). Seriously, I think the CM map editor is great. I think it's ridiculously easy to make maps, and BTS have truly gone beyond the call of duty to integrate this feature with the game. Don't forget that games like SimCity are all about building. You can't expect BTS to devote too much time to the map editor, because it's an optional extra - not the focus of the game. The important thing is that you can quickly and easily create amazing maps, and as long as you keep the limitations of the editor in mind, there are no significant problems. Sure it could be better, but I'd prefer they concentrate on the game itself. They didn't need to include an editor at all - usually a company would just issue file formats, and it would be up to fans to create their own editors. David (No, I'm not saying we shouldn't suggest improvements. =P I'm just putting things in perspective!)

Frenchy wrote: > we should all just pull out and forget about posting... At last, someone is getting the idea! Soon the forum will be all mine! MINE!! AHhaHAHahhAhHAHhahHAh!!!

I assume you're highlighting the absence of a "hand grenade" listing in the index, rather than the manual itself. There's stuff in about hand grenades (just making sure). =) P.S. BTS are constantly updating the manual, 'cause Charles keeps updating the game. =) They've said in their announcements that with each new run of CDs the manual gets updated, to correct errors as well as cover new features. [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-13-2000).]

I said elephants, not Elefants. =P It's got Rhinoceroses, though. =)

THAT's not a one-in-a-million shot. What about the round from my Challenger that ricocheted off a Marder II, hit the barrier between make-believe and reality at a weak point, spun 55 years into the future and right near took my head off? My crews are obviously losing their touch. David

All the weapons typically used in the war are there. Your basic infantry squad carries the small arms, and there are separate teams for mortars, bazookas and the like. It's all there (I mean everything, and that includes elephants). Now buy the game! =) David

I'm not sure many people would be willing to waste all their HE levelling every building on the map. And even then, rubble makes very good cover - any units inside a building when it collapses will take a few casualties, but afterwards the rubble is still a very attractive place to hide (and if you're playing Mark IV or TeAcH, just pile everyone into the rubble and they won't take a scratch! Sorry, couldn't resist). =P This is what is known as a gamey tactic. I'm not really sure it would be of much advantage to the person doing it, so you needn't really worry. The only problem would be if you're playing an unrealistic map where buildings are the only cover. David

Mark IV wrote: > I dasn't risk the ire of the board police Didn't notice that the first time I read your post. You'll be pleased to know that the Military Police (simulation division, spoilsport branch) are too tired and too busy to keep proper tabs on what's going on just now. =) David

Quick, Peters - traverse to 2 o'clock and take out those Hotchkisss... Hotchkississ... Hotchkies... Hotchkii... Hot - oh sod it!! WITHDRAW!!

Shouldn't that be "Hotchkii"?

I've been wondering about the British M3A1 model. I gather the distinction between an M3 and an M3A1 is that the latter has a .5in MG, as well as the M3's .3in. The American models reflect this, in that the M3 has a .3in at the back, whereas the M3A1 has a .5in in a 'pulpit'. However, the British M3A1 model appears to be the same as the M3. The physics are all there - there is a difference in the MGs the two vehicles fire, but the models are the same. Was this done for a specific reason, or is it an ommission which could be addresssed? Thanks David

A few weeks ago I put together a map for my own amusement, simulating a British airborne raid on a secret German installation (can't be very secret if they raided it, mind) on a foggy night. My paras got through the bocage perimeter, and were sneaking up to a road, when they got a sound contact from an unidentified armoured vehicle, about 20 metres away. Being a sound contact it was apparently driving straight through walls and things - very ghostly. On another go, they were crawling along a wall, and this bloody flak vehicle materialised right on top of them. I designed the scenario with the intention that the paras would sneak around undetected, but unfortunately all units in CM are on a battle footing, so they keep opening up on harmless trucks and things even if it's suicidal. David

Some games look really awful in 16-bit, but CM looks great. I much prefer high res to high colour anyway. David

V B wrote: > Clint Eastwood is in his 70's So he was alive in WW2. Yeah, that crossed my mind - but my post wasn't intended to be legally watertight. =) David

XPav wrote: > I was trying to find the arty spotters [...] This was painful as hell. Obviously I don't know how you're playing, but you might try getting a better grasp of your forces before you start. It's a very good idea to take time in the setup phase - find a clear bit of ground, and lay out all your units in their command order - Battalion and Company HQ's at the back, then teams, then Platoon HQs and their squads. Tack teams onto the platoons - for example, each British platoon should have a 2in mortar and a PIAT. Take a moment to soak up what kind of teams you have, and how many, and then decide where they're going to go on the battlefield. Put your platoons in position first, then lay out your teams in supporting positions, where you think they'll be most useful. Then when the action starts, you shouldn't have any trouble finding those spotters, because you'll remember the logic to where you placed them. This is an example of how to get the most out of Combat Mission - as I was just thinking this evening, the more you put in, the more you get out. It's not the kind of game where you either win or you lose - you can play well, or you can play badly, and the outcome will be completely different. Sure, maybe a roster would help you keep track of your forces - but if you take the time to organise them, you'll have less need for a roster, and you'll be a better player to boot. Just imagine in reality - units can get lost there too. "Hey, where did Johnson go? Have you seen him?" This isn't an elitist way to play, it's just common sense. By the way, this is just general advice - if you're way above it, no biggie - I'm sure it'll be of benefit to someone. =) David

PzKpfw 1 wrote: > BTW this is not a pitch for a fix or a slam on the algorthems in CM its my opinion from reading David's remark above about spotting and negateing camoflage thru MF based on personel experience, but not vs a dug in camo'd AT gun. Cripes, that sentence was a bit of a mouthful! =) Engagements in Combat Mission tend to happen at shorter-than-average ranges. For example, a German 88 could hit a target miles away, but a typical CM map is less than a mile across. So in most battles, the source of any kind of fire isn't usually too hard to spot. I haven't personally done any long-range spotting tests in CM, but I would imagine a field gun firing from two miles away wouldn't be spotted nearly as quickly as one a few hundred metres away. If you want to preserve your guns in CM, you need quite a bit of experience of how and why units get spotted, and how fire is brought to bear on them (for example, you don't want your gun to be adjacent to your opponent's main line of advance, so it'll get popped by the first tank that shows up). David [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-11-2000).]

danielh wrote: > - Targets well hidden in Woods are spotted much too easy once they open fire Opening fire pretty much negates camouflage. Ever heard of muzzle flash? > - The HMG42/or Heavy allied 0.3 MG's effectiveness against infantry is a bit to low IMO The effectiveness of machineguns has been discussed repeatedly and at length in this forum - try doing a search. The two basic things to keep in mind are (1) infantry in Combat Mission is shown just running in a straight line, but this is only an abstraction of what they are actually doing. They are nowhere near as good targets as this. (2) a single machinegun is not a wonder weapon which will eliminate any squad you fire in the general direction of. > - AT-Guns and fieldguns effectiveness is much to low. They can be spotted much to easy especially in Woods,scat trees. [...] In CM they can be taken out even by small arms fire up to laughable distances (> 400 m). Scattered trees is exactly what it says on the tin - scattered trees. Even infantry would have trouble going unspotted here. And again, once you start firing, camouflage will do you no good. As for resilience - I find bigger guns can withstand a lot, but infantry guns don't tend to have much protection, even if they're dug in. > Also the big 8.8 is of no use in this game, because it's so big, but these guns were usually digged in up to the barrel and very well camouflaged (In Africa, the Normandy and the Westwall the 8.8 took a heavy toll on enemy armor). What do you mean by that? 88's in Combat Mission are the nemesis of any Allied armour. David

John wrote: > But I personally think rosters, when done well, really work. I would ask you to at least consider the idea. They have, and they've made this clear, even in the post you're responding to. David

Germanboy wrote: > We could, but that is merely a suggestion, talk about hamsters again. Are you sure that's the Hamster Liberation Front, as opposed to the Front for Hamster Liberation? Still, you should never underestimate those hamsters. If I may quote from my extensive knowledge on the subject of Hamsters In Action, 1939-45: On September 15th, 1944, an entire battalion of battle-hardened Waffen SS soldiers simply routed and ran away in the face of an attack from the 5th Division, King's Own Football Hooligans. The reputation of this formidable division has long taken credit for the Germans' loss of heart, but new evidence suggests an entirely different reason. Hamsters. It is understood that, for the previous week, the SS Battalion billets had been infested with the creatures. On the eve of the British assault, Company commander Wolfgang an dem Schwarzwaldekirschtorten cracked, proclaiming "Diese teufel Hamsters! I vill getoten every last vun of them!". What happened next is unclear, but when Sergeant Bob Diddeley jumped down from his Humber scout car, he landed in what he could only describe as "An SS uniform, filled with some kind of green gunk". The German battalion was recorded as being 40% of its original strength from that day onwards.

Lawyer wrote: > Do these dreams involve moisture? All bodily fluids are of the red variety.

Heather Graham? That's a woman, right? You must be a newbie... the only females in MY life have vital statistics measuring 76mm or 105mm. =) David

Infantry can close-assault tanks, which is a simulation of exactly this. It modelled graphically by infantry tossing grenades at the tank in question, but in reality they would be climbing onto the tank. The rule with Combat Mission (this is my mantra these days =) ) is What You See Is NOT What You Get. It's all nicely modelled under the hood, but to produce nice graphical animations for every single little thing would be a nightmare. David

Neutral Party wrote: > I think they are sneaking along behind my schwereMorrisMinor Company but when I want to call down some heavy artillery I find the bastards are standing around smoking fags at the start line. I understand BTS are working on this one. They are trying to model a special 'power-up' you can buy - the Anti-Smoking Initiative. If you purchase this, all the walls and trees in the scenario will be adorned with posters bearing slogans such as "Smoking Kills" and "Smoking While Pregnant Harms Your Baby". Once all your soldiers are made aware of the harm they are causing themselves, they will immediately extinguish their cigarettes and return to the healthy lifestyle of a frontline infantryman. David P.S. I find the schwereMorrisMinor to be far less effective than the ReliantabschutzengewaffeRobin. The special three-tracked design made for far better weight distribution, and also spawned some of Germany's funniest jokes, involving headlights and startled GI's.

Haven't tried it personally, but I believe you can ram vehicles to unbog them. What I have seen is where an immobilised vehicle is pushed out of the way - so it would make sense if a bogged vehicle became unbogged if you nudged it. I'm not sure if you can re-mobilise a vehicle if it has become immobilised through bogging - I think this indicated a thrown track, so probably not. David