kunzler

Send me a setup too you hack. You too PanzerKeller, if you want to that is. Brian

I had a similar problem playing the game on a laptop. In the end, it turned out that my comp was overheating. Strangely enough, setting the computer on a tray of ice seemed to help the problem. Blowing an external fan on it also helped somewhat. Getting a new 1Ghz desktop with a Geforce II finally solved the problem Try opening the computer and feel the components to see if they are hot to the touch after you lock up. If so, you will need to add some cooling capabilities in order to play the game. Also, try posting this in the tech support forum. There are some quite knowledgable people that hang out there.

Yes, a gamey response to not having victory flags would be to just pick a nice defensive position close to your setup zone and wait for the opponent to come to you. Even more gamey would be to pick lots of artillery observers and shower him with artillery then hide them or bail from the map. I am wondering if maybe putting several victory flags in or near the setup zones of each opponent would not help. That way, it would be more of a challenge to eliminate the other player's forces so that you could get to his flags, rather than game just being a rush to be the first one to the middle.

Just wondering what frame rates people are getting and if they make a difference in the appearance of the game after about 30 or so. I downloaded FRAPS, (great little program) and I am only getting 25 FPS in view 8 with a new high end system. The lower the view I go, however, the higher the FPS go. I get between 35 and 50 in the lower views. I wonder if resolution makes a difference also, as I am running in 1600 x 1200 resolution. What results are others seeing with high end systems?

Oh thou (oops) great fonts of wisdom and knowledge, hear my pleas for illumination on the following subjects. What is the most cost effective type of artillery for Germans, British, and Americans? Is it better and more cost effective to select regular or expert infantry? Tanks? When given the option, in most situations, would you spend more points than the average player on infantry, on tanks, on artillery, or on support units? Have you found a good (and cost effective) use for German half-tracks against American forces that likely have .50 caliber MGs? How do you beat a strategy under the rule of 76s in a meeting engagement where your opponent pushes forward to the objectives with an infantry screen with Panthers behind them in an overwatch position and hidden guns or hull-down tanks guarding the flanks? Berli has mentioned Fionn, Tomcat, and Sgt Morgue as great CM players. Do the rest of you agree, and what other players do the Cesspool denizens consider to be the toughest CM opponents? Finally, does anyone know a really good Italian restaurant in Salt Lake City? [This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 12-28-2000).]

Jeff, In the case of our PBEM, the answere is.... back your tanks slowly into the middle of the map. That should clear the way for your infantry to come later. It works. Really. Trust me.

Ok, count me in. I keep losing PBEM partners by attrition. This sounds like a good way to pick up games.

This is a very good question, that as far as I can tell has never been definitively answered. I conducted searches on "victory condition(s)" and on "score(s)" and while I did find instances of these questions being asked, I did not find the answers. In fact, in one post, Steve said that he would have to ask Charles when he got back from vacation. The thread ended there. IMO it is quite important to know exactly how victory points are allotted. How much is taking that last victory flag worh, for instance, if it costs an entire platoon or company to take it? Personally, I generally just duke it out until I am sure that I can gain nothing more, without considering the cost in terms of loss of units. I am sure that I am losing points in some instances with this approach by sacrificing more in loss of troops than the victory points are worth. This has particular bearing now, as one of my esteemed and very experienced opponents(whose name shall remain undisclosed to save Berli embarassment) seems to be vacating the map to me and running his troops for the edges rather than stick around and fight for the victory flags. It is quite possible that it is worth it to do so in terms of the final outcome. What say ye Charles, is this to remain a mystery or not?

Actually, with German troops and their panzerfausts, it is quite successful, if you can get in close (Right Chris?). With allied troops, the results are mixed, but if you can get a lot of troops up close, they sometimes disable the tank with grenades and cause it to be abandoned. Engineers with satchel charges can often take a tank out also.

I don't know that I want to see the price of light vehicles increased, as I think it would one-sidedly affect the U.S. forces, and I tend to agree with the camp that believes the U.S. forces to be more costly for their effectiveness than the German forces (slightly). How about just taking the .50 Jeep out of the quick battle selection menu? I would leave it in the scenario editor, but take out of the quick battles. IMO, the regular jeep makes a more realistic recon unit, as it is able to dash a scout such as a sharpshooter out to a forward position and then rush to cover. This is a more acceptable recon technique to me. Another solution might be to quickly erode the morale of thin-skinned vehicles when they get out of sight of their buddies. Thus, when a jeep or light armored car gets too far ahead of the bulk of a player's force and starts taking fire, there would be a high chance of it turning tail and running. A further fix might be to use the rarity factor as discussed by Steve in the Cherry Picking thread (preferably in the manner suggested by yours truly and use a high rarity factor for vehicles that have a tendency to be abused, whether truly rare or not. As the rarity factors can be toggled on and off, you would not need it for trusted opponents and the rarity of vehicles would not affect normal pricing. BTW BT, can we expect to see rarity pricing in a patch before the release of CM2?

Well, do a search. No, I mean it. Search for certain banned words and when you find a post with his name on it, you have it. Or search users for Fionn, and when you get to his last post or two... I say leave him banned until he gives me the game he originally challenged me to. Then only unban him if he beats me. Ok, I guess that would mean unban him. By the way, I would like to see him back here, as long as he is civil. I think he added a lot to the forum. But that is between him, Steve and Charles. I do not think it is a pollable matter. [This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-26-2000).]

Well, if use of historical forces is something that can be toggled on in CM2, could it not be handled just like current costing is done, but be calculated in addition to but independent of current points cost? For example, a player who gets 2000 points allotted could also get, say 100 rarity points. The player could expend the entire 100 points on one King Tiger, which would also cost the usual points from the standard points pool, or the player could purchase two Panthers, which have a rarity cost of 40 each, for instance, and then have to select all Stugs, which have a rarity cost of say, 5. Standard infantry would have no rarity points, for instance. Once the allotted rarity points are used up, the player would have the option to select only no-rarity-cost units such as standard infantry. CM would have to keep track of another list in addition to infantry points, support points, etc., and would simply keep another column on the force selection screen. Again, though, the one difference would be that rarity points would be independant of regular points. In fact, maybe rarity points could be adjustable in increments, from totally ahistorical, with unlimited rarity points, to semi-historical, to tight historical, with a descending allotment of points for each selection. This could be a setup option in quick battles, like weather, date, etc. Again, the rarity points would not be part of the standard calculation, but would be an additional parameter. Players who find rarity points too tedious or difficult, or what not would simply default to the totally ahistorical category. Any comments, questions, flames? Edited because attorneys should know better than to leave typos. [This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-26-2000).]

Actually, that would be a semi- sly backhanded slam at all of the cess poolers. But, as they say, if the shoe fits, wear it. I would post more here about how your reinforcements are arriving just in time to find nothing more than a battalion of burned out hulks and dead bodies, but that sort of thing belongs in the cess pool, which I try to avoid like the plague that it is.

Sure Seanachi, trying to get a thread with your name on it over 2000 posts again aren't you? Well, in that case, you cesspooler you, er, uh, let me help you. I have room for a few more PBEM opponents. I am registered at tournament house, but it doesn't matter whether my opponents are or not. No cesspoolers though, the quality of my last cess pooler opponent's play has made a marked decline since he started posting in that hive of filth.

BK6583, One solution to your disatisfaction with the AI is to play a human in a PBEM. Actually, play several PBEMs, that way you are not always waiting for your opponent's file to come. I am still accepting opponents, by the way. I keep losing mine to attrition. That and the cess pool After you have started playing PBEMs, you will not want to go back to playing the AI. For instance, it is no fun to taunt and berate the AI when you win and to give it lame excuses when you lose Other than that, as has been said before, the AI is better at attacking than defending, so play defending battles against the AI. Also, it is not the optimal solution, but there mechanisms such as adding points to the AI to even things up a bit.