Shriker

Thanks Martin! -Shriker

I've been trying to check out the Tacops Headquarters (in the 'Resources Section) and have gotten a broken link all day. Any Battlefront types here who could take a look at that problem..? Thanks, -Shriker

I'm having the same problem now. I've had CM for a long time (since it came out) but recently had a HD crash so had it reformatted as a secondary HD and bought a new HD for the master. Subsequently my CD drive is now drive "E" (use to be drive "D"). I see there is a minor scratch on the CD but have used it fine on a laptop recently.. Is there a problem having the CD drive as "E"? (I doubt that's it). Nothing aside from the HD and adding more RAM has changed before. I click on the CM icon, the cursor 'jumps' to the middle of the screen, then... nothing. It locks up and after a few seconds windows (98) insicates CM is not responding. Bah. Any additional help much appreciated as I have a PBEM game to play! -Steve

re: above. It's true that an "assault vehicle" command would not be perfect in all situations. Perhaps there would need to be more coding added; possibly aborting the squad's order to assault if the vehicle moved X distance from its position at the start of that turn. In the scenario I'm envisioning (and have done) I generally try to attack a vehicle from opposite sides or at least have two or more squads (or a split squad) spaced apart while they're rushing the vehicle. Thus the vehicle itself probably can only shoot at one of the attackers, possibly sending them back from whence they came, before the other squads have closed to attack range. Additionally, I have attacked buttoned vehicles from behind and so they may not even be aware of my squads until they're right on top of it (and so wouldn't be shooting at them as they closed). Naysayers are correct that this proposed order type may cause unwanted results, but the current lack of an "assault vehicle" command is certainly doing that already and (again) I've had it happen more than once. I'd still rather have it added, and can decide then if I want to use it in a given situation. I don't know for certain, but would suspect there may be ways to prevent an attacking squad from pursuing a vehicle that'll end up too far away to attack (i.e. like mentioned above). Still just my 2 cents. It's an imperfect game (but aren't they all <G>), but it comes as close to prefection and with realistic results as I've seen, and this command would allow me to do what I've wanted to do in the past. Regards, -Steve

I'd just like to quasi-delurk to add my vote to adding an "assault vehicle" order that would allow me to have troops run to vehicle and close assault, regardless of whether it moves a few meters away from where it started at the beginning of that turn. There's been more than once where I've had a squad pop out of concealment to attack a half-track or tank with grenades, etc, and then the vehicle moves 10 or 20 meters away and my men end up finishing the turn standing in the middle of nowhere, revealed and likely under fire. I'd rather they "intercept" a moving vehicle as best they can instead. Re: Keith's comments: **1) Infantry teams already assault vehicles if they are not supressed and are adjacent to a vehicle.** That's true and it can work well. However if the tank moves 20 meters (or whatever is just beyond close assault range) away from their start position then the squad cannot close attack it because they end up where the vehicle WAS at the start of the turn, not where it ended up. **2) Ridiculous anti-historical results are likely. I can just see a bunch of squads getting mowed down trying to follow a tank around a map.** From what little i know about actual close assaults of vehicles, many were attacked while on the move... a squad or Rambo soldier runs up and slaps a sticky bomb to the side or leaps onto the tank and drops a grenade down an open hatch or whatever. Not all tanks taken out by infantry in WW2 were standing still at the time. You are correct that sometimes the vehicle may move too far or fast for the CM infantry to catch it - I'd imagine (based on my observations) that my squad would turn around and high tail it to cover if they came under too much fire while running to the vehicle. Either way, I'd rather that happen than what I experience now when the enemy vehicle moves a few meters from where my troops end up. I doubt most players would consider trying to close assault a half-track as it races by at high speed, but then again who knows. **3) BTS is going to release the game in this quarter so the chance of getting in new features is exactly 0%** Perhaps, but they did patch/upgrade CM1 over time, and this change probably wouldn't be too tough to implement. Similar to being able to order a unit to "embark" on a friendly vehicle, it may present the option to "assault" if the move cursor is over an enemy vehicle. **4) I would never use the command.** I probably don't use every available command in CM either, but I think this would make a good addition and obviously some people want it for good reason, imo. **5) Gross micromanagement** Only if you're picking your nose while implementing this 'assault vehicle' command. Just my 2 cents. I've been frustrated with attacking troops ending up JUST out of range of a vehicle I want them to close assault and would like a way to make it work more realistically imo. Regards, -Steve

Re: <<A .5 cal "rifle" is currently deployed in the Canadian Army for plinking AFVs. The "rifle" is, of course, scoped and the soldiers are trained as snipers. The difference is that instead of picking off human targets, they're targetting weapon systems.>> Just a heads up that December 2001 "Jane's International Defense Review" magazine has an article about this very thing, entitled "Material Killers". .50 calibre scoped rifles are indeed mentioned along with many others and I find .50 calibres in CM dandy for taking out halftracks and will even take some shots at the rear armor of enemy Panzers if I'm given the chance (don't recall any specific incident off hand, or what the outcome may have been). Just fyi, -Steve

I'll just jump in here to say that I believe the 'ambush' marker is advantageous because your tank's turret will swing to point in the right direction before it pops out of cover or even sees the KT. This is obviously advantageous because your turret won't have to start swinging *after* it gets into the intersection and spots the enemy tank. If I were in your position, I'd use that ambush marker tactic and 'fast move' into the intersection and stop right where your tank can see the rear of the KT. This will allow your tank the best hit chance as both it and the KT are standing still, plus the KT turret and tank rotate slowly so you should get off at least a couple of shots before needing to worry (I'd guess a buttoned tank wouldn't even begin to react to a tank behind it until after it's been hit first). I'm a wee bit on the daring side, but I'd bet this would work. If your tankers get worried, they can still back up or drive ahead into cover on their own. Let us know what happens! -Steve

Howdy, Has anyone noticed/reported that the troops' AI cannot handle bridges very well at all? I'm playing the Red Devils Arnhem Operation in PBEM, and during the 1st scenario my opponent ran some troops to try and take my side of the lone intact bridge. But as his guys came under fire on my end of the bridge, they ran back and forth like a duck shoot game, unable or unwilling to either retreat completely back or to continue to my end of the bridge and take cover somewhere on dry land. Although that fiasco of his caused me to hug my knees in glee, when *I* tried to get some guys to cross the bridge, I came under great fire and had the same thing happen - my guys ran back and forth game until they were massacred to a man. Under close inspection, it appears the AI would 'draw' a direct line to the buildings beside the bridge (the physically closest cover) when my guys came under fire but the path was in a straight line to the building, making it impossible to do unless they were to leap to their death or dismemberments, instead of giving them a path to the end of the bridge and THEN to the nearest form of cover. We've now had this type of running about in 3 or 4 attempted bridge crossings so far in the Operation. I tried to give my guys new orders to force them to the end of the bridge and then to cover, but it didn't seem to work (and impossible to even try on troops that I can't give orders to (panic)). Any suggestions or comments? I hope this is on the list of improvements for CM2, thus making an excellent game...excellenter. Just my 2 cents and gripe. -Steve

Drat - looks like I should've grabbed both sides of the bridge when I had a chance, instead of trying to hold one side more effectively. Now that the Hun has reenforcements it will be much more difficult. Oh well, live and learn (which happens a LOT with this game from scenario to scenario <G>). Thanks for the info! -Steve

Hey all, I'm playing my first PBEM Campaign (the Arnhem 'Bridge too far' campaign) as the Allies. My mission is to hold the bridge for 3 days and have the one side pretty well held - however, I don't want to try and death march my guys across the bridge in an attempt to control that end too unless I have to. So is controlling 1 side of the bridge enough to be considered "holding" it, or do I have to control both sides? Thanks in advance, -Steve

When I posted my last reply there weren't any other posts (that I recall) pointing out how an improvement in spelling would've helped your case, so pardon my unintended beating of a dead horse earlier(which is actually plenty of fun, until the Animal Rights folks catch you <G> j/k). However I gotta say that "The_Capt"'s post of: ".....but someday you may throw at your kids (and judging by the way things are going they will be grunting and whistling) someday." ..Just KILLED me! LOL. Very nicely put (although scary when you consider that you're probably correct in that prediction). Additionally, this comment of his: "And here is another hot tip, women love a man who can write like a hot-damn, makes em wonder what else you can do really well Har har har!" Is absolutely right, although I realize I'm sharing in some off-topic chatter with this reply... I have it on very good authority from both my Gfriend and other ladies that women really DO go for a guy who can write, especially those who take the time to spell properly. They consider proper spelling to mean that the guy considers them 'worth the effort'. Also consider that it's a scientific fact (as far as I've ever read) that women are more turned on by the 'written word' than men are (while men are more 'visual') - hence the huge volume of "Harlequin Romances" that've flown off the shelves for decades. To a woman, reading properly spelled and well thought out words from a man is the equivalent of a guy watching a hot lady slowly disrobe, then "make-out" with her equally hot girlfriend, and then leap into bed with the guy for some "shenanigans"... or something like that. If you take no other advise or suggestion from this discussion, then do yourself a favor and take this one...unless you're gay (not that there's anything wrong with that), in which case I can't help you. <G> Oh - and I have to say something about your comment (the comment "Panzer Man" - is it?- made) about Canada not having a real army: Although the Canadian Government has stripped the Canadian Forces of just about everything they can - including sending our troops to Bosnia with baseball caps instead of helmets (a simplification that I won't take the time to elaborate on here) and leaving our shiny new mine clearing vehicles in Canada so they won't get scratched up by being used in Bosnia to save lives - the Canadian soldiers themselves are regarded very highly worldwide based on what I've read historically (since WW1) and from posts I've read from serving military personnel from other Countries. They do an excellent job in very trying surroundings, we just don't always hear about it. Did you know that the Canadians fought a battle in Bosnia a few years back that was the largest battle Canadians have been involved in since the Korean War? Neither did I until somewhat recently, and I can't find anything online orin print about it in any detail. If it was the American military that had been involved, there would have been live coverage by CNN and a ticker tape parade when their troops came home, because they value their troops more than Canadians in general value ours(imo). Well, I'll get off my soapbox now... No, actually I won't... "God bless Canada!" ..okay, NOW I'm off my soapbox. Wait....! No... I'm off. Regards and I apologize for this digression and off-topic chatter. -Steve

Let me semi-delurk for a second and say that you should be commended (imo) for having an interest in WWII and (I would guess) military history, strategy and tactics in general. Equally commendable is that you don't "laugh" at war vets like you say other teens do (although they'd be laughing out the other side of their pierced eyebrows if (somehow) a WW2 vet could be zapped back to their age and then kick the snot outta them... but I digress). However, if you want your opinions to be respected around here, I would humbly suggest that you (and you aren't the only one) take an earlier poster's advice and buy a dictionary or, the 21st century equivalent: use spell check on your posts (i.e. paste them into "Word" or some other program and do a spell check on it and then repaste as your new improved post). While it's fine to ICQ and email your buds with misspellings etc, you'll have an uphill battle trying to be taken seriously and with respect on this board (or wherever you eventually get employed, for that matter) if your spelling sucks. I'd bet that virtually everyone here is very much in favor of any young person that shows an interest in WW2 and in CM. Your initial post wasn't quite as out-of-line as the flood of replies would indicate in my opinion (I've seen lots of responses elsewhere, suggesting someone use the 'search' feature), but I did grimace a few times over the sadistic mutilation of the English language (spelling) demonstrated here (and again - not just by you). Typos are one thing, and everyone has a few "pet" spelling mistakes that their brain just can't get over, but an obvious disregard for correct spelling is something else and makes your comments less regarded than they might otherwise be. Just my 2 cents; take it for what it's worth... and seeing as how the 2 cents is in Canadian currency, that may not be much. <G> Regards, -Steve

Dobermines..? As mentioned, they existed but were little used if at all. However, they were the most (in)famous of the German programs that trained dogs to attack the enemy. Lesser known breeds included: Saint Burn-inards: Suicidal dogs w. Molotav Cocktails strapped to their backs. Tor-poodles: swam underwater towards ships w. neutrally bouyant explosives attached to their back. Pit Bull Terrorer: packs of rabid pit bulls parachuted into Allied staging areas to break up attacks. Gold-Hun Retriever - used by Nazi Party Officials whenever a new town, etc was overrun by the Germans. This breed was used to 'sniff out' gold coin and treasure that may have been hidden by the populous to prevent their capture. Dough-Boy-Man Pinchers: Actually conceived during WW1, the Germans intended these dogs to infiltrate enemy trenches on the Western Front and mercilessly pinch and torment sleeping soldiers (aka "Dough Boys"). This program was cancelled when it proved impossible to breed a dog with opposable thumbs (needed for pinching). That's just a few of the experimental canine weapons recently uncovered, and they'll soon be featured on the History Channel's upcoming "Dogs of War" series. Hope this helps, -Steve

*bump* It's on tomorrow (today's tomorrow, anyway) - Sunday noon! Then this Thursday at 10pm (EST) & the following Sunday at noon (EST) deals with the Germans invading Russia - any idea what tanks will be/should be featured on that show? It'll be a preview of the next Combat Mission's units in B&W, colour, and in computer animations!

Just a heads up that the History Channel (in Canada at least) is showing a series called "Tanks" every Thursday at 10pm (and repeated Sundays at noon, iirc). Although it isn't kicking "ER" in the ratings (yet <G>), it's a great show for we CMers. This week they showed the Tiger, Churchill, and M3, etc and discussed their use in Africa. I was particularly interested in the Tiger segment since I've just finished a PBEM game where I had some foot units jumping up and down on one particular Tiger with little effect (aside from being mowed down by the Tiger's machinegun fire)...that Tiger soon afterwards bit the dust when it was bum-blasted by a Pershing. In any case, a great show with lots of WW2 tank video and info - see your fav CM units in living colour...or B&W at least. Next week deals with the German Invasion of Russia. Regards, -Steve