PvK

I'd say that units should be able to fire into and slightly through smoke (but not fire behind, because they can't see where the ground is so they're more likely to over or under-shoot. However, the firepower should be significantly reduced, perhaps as a function of how far behind the smoke the intended beaten zone is. I like the idea of allowing defenders to specify target areas that their units can hit without LOS if they haven't moved, representing pre-aimed fire into areas that may be smoked. It'd still be at a fairly high penalty compared to being able to see the target, I'd say. One addition for mines could be the ability to place single mines. When not on roads, they'd almost never be hit, but hitting one would result in the enemy seeing a dummy minefield marker. They hit one mine, and assume the area is a minefield, although it won't actually hurt anything else that tries to move there. However, units would be reluctant to go near since a mine had gone off there. PvK

Shooter wrote: "Did you consider that your shot did NOT have a flat trajectory after it left the gun? From your pictures, it seems to me that your shot could have arced over the bridge surface and still hit the target. At that range, I would think your shell would have to drop to some degree due to gravity" Shooter, that idea did occur to me. However, as I mentioned in the first post, I actually watched the replay of the shot, and watched the shot arcing along, going right through the stone. Shooter also wrote: "Maybe the gunner is using a little Kentucky windage to adjust for it. If so, I'm really impressed with the game's AI!" Hehe, yeah, there's probably a realistic 1/50,000 chance that the shooter is a Hollywood action hero genius who doesn't need to see his target in order to know where to shoot. Maybe he was able to judge from a reflected shadow in the water under the bridge... One thing that may have something to do with it is that the firer did have an LOS to the target on the turn before at some time, but then lost it, and both units had moved. It stopped to fire to make this shot, however, as if the hill were enough to block LOS, but not the stone bridge. Maybe having the target acquired before was a factor in the programming. Anyway, it appeared like the stone bridge was not a LOS-blocking object. Has anyone ever seen a bridge actually definately block LOS or LOF in CM? PvK [edited to replace <quot> tags with quote marks - what is the HTML this board recognizes for quotes?] [This message has been edited by PvK (edited 07-02-2000).]

NotnowJohn: Spoiler? I don't see how - this is a small US-only training scenario and I only minimally described a singular shot several turns into the action, which started with the AI option to be able to set up its own forces as it pleased. I had to move the unit to the target position myself, so the situation isn't part of the scenario, but part of the result of moves. The info that the Germans have something with a gun that drives is clear from reading the scenario's briefing.

Ok, I took screenshots from the firing and target positions, facing each other. The firer's position on the bridge can see a little of the FAR side of the ravine, but not the side that the target was on. <img src="http:\\www.wargamer.com\cm\PvKimages\1.jpg". ) The target's position can see none of the bridge the firer was on - I marked the approximate firer position with a red X. <img src="http:\\www.wargamer.com\cm\PvKimages\2.jpg". ) [This message has been edited by PvK (edited 07-01-2000).]

Ah! That's a good point, but yes, I was using "Realistic" unit scale, and it was a fairly extreme case where the firer was on the bridge up the river, at the same level as the stone bridge, I think, and the target unit was a jeep down in the ravine below, next to the river. Also, I could see the rounds from the firer going through the stone bridge. I'll try to reproduce it and take screenshots. PvK

I don't know if this is a new topic or not (if not just let me know), but I noticed that solid stone bridges can be fired through. I was playing the rather challenging (for my first try, anyway) second training scenario "Small Gain," and saw what looked like a nice blind spot hiding on the reverse slope by the side of the bridge. However, the Germans driving along the wooden bridge managed to spot and fire at my units directly through the stone bridge. The LOS/LOF line had to bend over the stone bridge to get to my units, and I watched the fire from the German gunner's position, and saw it going through the stone. PvK

Thanks to everyone for the help. It turned out that the overclocked Celeron was the problem. I tried turning up the voltage, but then it crashed during the intro animation! I then turned down the speed and after that the game runs fine, even against the AI - no crashes - I made it through the Tutorial scenario vs. the AI, thrashed the Germans <g>, with no problems. So, I guess I'm the third overclocked Celeron to have lockups during the AI turn. It runs almost as well at reduced speed as it does at full speed. Anyway, thanks again, all! PvK

Thanks for the ideas, everyone! Tiltboy, my Celeron IS overclocked as yours was - since you said you had the same problem, that sounds like a good guess and I'll try cranking it down and see if that works. I don't see how it can be a sound or graphics issue if I can play the game fine without the AI opponent, and it only freezes when the graphics and sound aren't doing anything, but I guess it could be an interaction issue of some sort. Hmmm. I'll try turning the system clock down tonight and report back if it worked. PvK

Oh, I also tried running in 640 x 480, deleting the prefs file first. No luck. PvK

Hi, I'm writing to bring this thread to the top, in case anyone has a clue what might help. Since I first posted, I've re-tried many times, and it only got through the AI move-plotting phase once - the rest of the times, it always froze up at some random point along the task bar, and I either had to exit the program, or reset the computer with the reset button. I HAVE been able to play PBEM and hotseat turns without any problem. I've tried this with the demo and with the full retail version, using the 6/15/00 patch, and get the same result. I asked Big Time Software about this, but they hadn't heard of this problem and suggested I post here in case anyone else has any ideas. They suggested mouse drivers but I wasn't using any, and I tried changing mice - no luck. My machine is a 450 MHz Celeron with 64 MB RAM, 300 MB permanent swap file, 16MB Guillemot Phoenix Voodoo Banshee video card. The only programs that show running in Task Manager are Explorer, Systray, and system tray apps for my Trident 4DWave PCI audio card, and for my Logitech digital joystick. I'm running Win95 OSR 2.5. If any gurus out there have any clues, I'd appreciate hearing about them. Thanks, PvK

Video seems flawless; the game seems to work up until the AI's turn comes, and is thinking about it's move after I've entered move orders and hit the GO! button. The "AI thinking" progress bar moves some variable part of the way along, then stops, and the computer is utterly locked up, and needs the Reset button to recover. The beta demo worked fine on this machine. DirectX7.0A installed, Celeron 450MHz, Guillemot Voodoo Phoenix Banshee (video works fine in orders & placement phases). Another would-be player I've heard from had the same problems. He said he was trying too hard a resolution and deleted his prefs and tried 800 x 600, which worked for him. I however have always been trying in 800 x 600. Any tips? PvK

Fionn, wow. I won't sink to the level of that mean email you just wrote, but go take a look at the current version of the preview. Is there anything inaccurate in it? If so, let me know and I'll gladly add a note explaining the mistake. The previewer very clearly explains his level of experience with WW2 games. I simply disagree with you and Mr. Grammont that a non-grognard shouldn't be allowed to publish their experience with the game. Most gamers are non-grognards, so I feel this view is valuable. Moreover, it seems to me that the inaccuracies in the article are all simple, minor, and honest representations of the writer's experience and knowledge. So we corrected and clarified them. So what's your problem, other than that you have a long grudge list? PvK

Hi folks, I'm the editor at The Wargamer. Please take a look at the comments I added throughout the review, and let me know if I missed anything, via email (although I am quite interested in CM, I can't keep up with the pace of this message board without falling behind on other work, except when something specific comes up). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Let me be VERY clear why we are upset with this preview: 1. That it is SEVEN MONTHS late. Even had it been posted in January it still would have been 3 months late. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry. Our initial previewer vanished on us. We have a volunteer staff, but we do accept submissions - if anyone had sent in a useable preview based on the CM demo (or other CM-related article), we surely would have posted it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2. I fail to understand why it took 3 more months since January to get the preview posted. That doesn't speak well for the publication rather than the reviewer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I received this draft on March 19. We've been extremely backlogged on editing and HTML conversion, but are now mostly caught up. Since I realized that the CM demo was not the latest news, and this was a preview of a product that wasn't released, and was also an article aimed at showing a hard-core game to a more mainstream audience, perhaps it didn't seem as urgent as reviews of games that were released. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3. That it was published, knowing that it was woefully out of date does NOT speak well for the publication. It certainly is unfair to us, especially because the press knows darned well how careful they are supposed to be with preview material because of the nature of it (i.e. IT ISN'T FINISHED). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We didn't know it was out of date until this morning, when your most avid fans informed us. We did send it through peer review, which entails showing it to dozens of wargamers, several of which are fans of the game, and we addressed all objections, of which there were few. I do realize that previews should be sensitive to the fact that the game could change, and perhaps I should have edited to make that clearer, as I just did, but the game does say it was based on a beta version. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 4. We sent a full Beta off to The Wargamer a LONG time ago. I also answered a ton of questions from the first individual CM was given to ages ago, and this was not Spike. BF.C is not responsible for the lateness of the preview, or the lack of answers from us to reviewer questions, in any way shape or form. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We're unhappy that our initial previewer disappeared too. With volunteer writers it's impossible to guarantee that every game will be reviewed, or that even important wargames like CM will always be reviewed in a timely way, although we do try. I'm not aware that we ever heard any concern from Battlefront about a review, or any news of updates or impending releases. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 5. Combat Mission is a Big Deal for wargaming. Period. This is not a biased statement, but one of pure fact. There has never been a 3D wargame EVER. And at this level of combat there has been nothing major since Steel Panthers' first release nearly 5 years ago. To have such lame coverage from a supposedly serious "wargame" publication is a HUGE black spot on the publication as a whole. Add to it the length of time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry you feel that way. We do have three or four old articles on CM, and a CM section (the original maintainer of which had to bow out as well). The game isn't released yet, but we will surely review it when it is available. So there has been a playable demo and new developments in the game - we came out with a somewhat outdated preview showing the perspective of a gamer who wasn't a hard-core WWII buff, which was intended to help introduce similar players to a game that might appeal to them too. I don't see this as "a HUGE black spot" myself - again, sorry if you do. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 6. The slant of the reviewer was NOT relevant to what CM is about. Therefore, Spike should never have been selected for an EARLY look at the game. I have NO objections to a "general gamer's look" at Combat Mission if it is done in conjunction with a true wargamer's perspective. Problem is, this is the first "official" look at the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not our first official look - we have 3-4 earlier articles and a support section on the game. I disagree that having a mainstream gamer write about a hard-core wargame is inappropriate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes, I see that retractions have been posted pretty quickly (they weren't there when I read it this morning). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The retractions weren't there before 11am PDT because none of us knew there were mistakes before then, including your fans on our staff - I added comments as soon as your more attentive fans pointed out problems. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This is fine, but why were they necessary? That is my point. That preview should either have gone up in January (still late and the wrong slant mind you!) when it was written, or not at all. It is like putting up a review of the stock market by a novice investor 7 months after the time being written about. There is no point, so why do it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As far as I know, this was submitted March 19. If it was based on an old beta, it's because that's the latest version The Wargamer had at that time. I had played the CM demo, the review seemed in line with my experience, and as far as I knew, there was no newer version available. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We don't mind critical discussion of CM. We don't mind having minor beefs with previews/reviews. We DO have a problem with something like this though. And if you spent 3 years working on something, and have been in the business long enough to know good journalism from sloppy, then you might understand better why we were blown away by this preview. It is unprofessional at best. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Yep, we made some mistakes, but we did try. In hindsight, we should've passed it by you for an accuracy check. With the corrections, I think it does a pretty good job: 1) It shows that a non-WW2-nut can really enjoy the game, from the point of view of one. 2) It shows that Combat Mission has many of rabidly-enthusiastic fans. 3) The editor's comments make the distinctions between the casual-gamer writer's point of view, and the hard-core gamer's details, quite clear. 4) The comments show that the game has been improved in many important ways, including addressing issues that the reviewer noticed were the problems. All in all, it looks like a very positive piece, which I imagine could even have a more positive effect than if we'd caught the mistakes in advance and corrected it seamlessly. It makes us look a little sloppy, but it shows that we will correct ourselves, and it makes Combat Mission look like a very promising game that a lot of gamers are excited about. So please accept my apologies, let me know if I missed any corrections, and please do send us a version of the final product as soon as it's available - we will be sure to cover it in serious detail. Regards, Peter von Kleinsmid Executive Editor The Wargamer www.wargamer.com