Juardis

Doug, how sure are you of this? Because that means moving your captured troops off the map is the absolute WRONG thing to do. I guess I could test it, but capturing units is not an easy thing to do. [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 03-22-2001).]

4 Charizards 4 Charmeleons 4 Blastoise 4 Warturtles Sprinkled liberally with Water and Fire energies Lots of remove energies, gusts of wind, potions and energy removals Voila, my winning pokemon deck. No one can touch it, bwhahahahaha <evil laugh>

Well, I would check for the scenario in the Saved game directory, the Scenario directory, and the PBEM directory. Upon discovering that it's not there, then you can consider yourself screwed. Sorry.

we're on turn 68. I've kept him busy on his side of the river. He is very wary of my infantry trying to take his flags so he is guarding them. He hasn't even attempted to cross my river. Doesn't look like he's going to either, but I guess there's still time. All those Jadgpanthers and Hetzers he has too...

I captured a unit the other night and walked him off the middle of the map. Viewing the AAR I did not get credit for capturing any units. Grrrrr . So I'm guessing that the middle of the map is the neutral zone and exiting any captured units in that zone effectively frees the prisoners. Is that right? What if I exited them off the map all the way on my side of the map? What if the scenario you're in has no "sides"? Furthermore, what if I exit my guys off the edge of the map on his side? Are my guys effectively captured then? I've been under the assumption that I have to exit my guys at least in the neutral zone (provided you know where that is) for them to be OK, but sometimes it'd be easier just to exit them off his side. I'm wrapping up a 7500 pt, 75 turn battle and I've captured 6-7 units. Instead of wasting manpower guarding them or risking that they run away if I send them to my rear, I've exited them in the middle of the map. I now think I screwed up! ------------------ Jeff Abbott

The ultimate solution is that you, the human, only see what your units with radios or in LOS or C&C of a unit with a radio sees. That means your sniper is out there on his own. The only way to give him orders once out of LOS or C&C is to get someone with a radio in his LOS or C&C. Once he gets back in C&C he can give a mini scouting report as he tells of what he has seen. Then little unit markers could pop up over the map much like they do for when enemy units are out of LOS. Basically though, only you the human can give orders and only to those who have radios. Same with tanks. Unbuttoned tanks can communicate with infantry or other tanks via their radios. If their radios are damaged or they have no radios, then they can only communicate with you the human when within C&C range of someone with a radio. Likewise, they too can give an intel report of all they have seen when they were out of communications with you the human. If they're buttoned, they can only give/receive orders if they have radios. They can only see what other tanks with radios see and nothing of what the infantry sees. Yes, you may have instances where your tank is firing at something yet you the human are clueless as to what he's firing at. That's the nature of command. You don't know everything. You may have instances where your mortar teams are firing at something you don't see. To make all this work, you need the ability to set target priorities for when your units are out of C&C. It's one idea. Obviously a lot of testing would have to take place to determine how much fun this is, but it would certainly necessitate a different style of play, that's for sure. Barring that, just make it so tanks can only communicate with other tanks provided both have radios and/or are within LOS of each other or with infantry ONLY if they're unbuttoned. If buttoned, they only see what other tanks with radios see or what they themselves can see through the vision blocks (realistically see, not some HQ unit 650m in the fog). If buttoned, they cannot communicate with infantry or if they can, the command delay should be very long (like 2 minutes or longer).

No, but if you find out let us know. I got disconnected 3 times last night and only completed 12 turns out of 20.

I think perhaps this is the relative spotting thing? Maybe the HQ unit spotted the bogies faster than the TC would have and thus the tank reacted quicker than if it was just operating by itself. Just a theory.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but... Reading Citizen Soldiers by Stephen Ambrose (actually, I'm listening to the tape of it), there is this passage in the 1st chapter about tanks and infantry in the hedgerows. Tanks were severely hampered in the hedgerow country. The narrow tree lined lanes between the rows was too restrictive for tanks to maneuver in or traverse their turrets. So they tried going through the opening in the hedgerow into the fields only to discover all the openings were pre-sighted for mortar and fausts. So they tried to go over the hedges without success. They couldn't hang out on the main roads because the Germans had the high ground with 88s having nice fire lanes to them. American doctrine was for the tanks to provide close support to the infantry and the two were supposed to work in tandem. However, one of the personal stories related the problems of this doctrine. Basically, there was this squad/platoon/company walking down a road when incoming arty started landing. One of the infantry guys looks around and sees a church steeple and thinks that's where the spotter is. So he turns to a buttoned up tank that is supposed to be providing close support and he can't get it's attention. He bangs on the side but to no avail. He ultimately gets in front of the tank and waves his arms to stop. Finally he got the tanks attention and directed them to fire at the church. Since tanks couldn't lead the fight, and soldiers couldn't communicate with buttoned up tanks, the tanks were relegated to bringing up the rear while in the hedgerows. At least, that's what Ambrose said. I guess by the time Hurten forest rolled around there were external phones on each tank to allow the infantry to communicate with the TC inside the tank, so that helped some but most infantry didn't know those phones were there. Which brings me back to my crusade and beating the dead horse. Tanks know too much. Communicating with infantry was difficult at best. I have ideas how to model this, but I'm sure no one is interested. So I just want to request again that somehow this get put into CM2 and not wait until CMII. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Actually, all I'm hoping for is some cool tank poster with my pre-order. I missed out on the trinkets for the first pre-order (although I did pre-order, just not pre- enouugh) ------------------ Jeff Abbott

------------------ Jeff Abbott

Well, I can easily see two forums developing, but if not, I don't think it'll be a big problem. Reason is that they are two distinctly different theaters. I doubt anyone will get confused about which theater is being discussed. And besides, if it's the same engine then any comments wrt CM2 will be applicable to CM1. If there are two forums though, I will go to both and post in whichever one my comment/question applies (most likely CM2 since that is where I anticipate playing the most whenever it comes out). ------------------ Jeff Abbott

He said "Operation". Operations are mutliple battles strung together. If you're playing a scenario or QB, that is considered a single battle and your crew will not get back in the tank. In operations, there is down time between battles during which time your crew MIGHT get back in the tank (or get a new one). ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Good first post. Mainly because I agree though I consider myself historical. I use reasonable force selections. Never have I purchased jumbos, KTs, JTs, Pershings, etc unless I do it against the computer for the fun of it. However, I also consider myself somewhat of a power gamer in that I will use the game mechanics to my advantage as I assume my opponent will. I don't use crews to attack with or scout with. But I will use an AT team without any ammo left to act as a decoy (you don't know that I'm out of ammo). I will use gun damaged vehicles to act as decoys (you possibly don't know that it's gun damaged). I will charge at one squad with 3 squads knowing they can only target one at a time. I don't see anything wrong with that. As Volstag said, you can be both. At Dogs of War we have tournaments going on constantly and I use those for both the tournament and the ladder. I enjoy tournaments because they are moderated. Usually, you send your force selection to someone and they purchase the units for you. Or, they are custom scenarios where you have no choice of units (better than computer generated). Which brings me to a solution I use regularly. Make a custom map, agree to the rules of force selection (short 75, rule of 76, etc), then have a 3rd party purchase the forces for both of you. That is infinitely more interesting than a computer generated QB and infinitely more flexible in that you can have regulars mixed with elites with any combination you prefer. You have no way of knowing when you've knocked out his last armor asset because you don't know what he allocated to armor. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Yeah, I use regular Hummels and only target buildings. But again, I haven't had one since 1.05. Interesting that the StuH is as inaccurate (or more correctly, imprecise) as it is. The Hummel doesn't need to be accurate since it packs a huge blast. Given the choice between the StuH and the Wespe though you almost have to go with the StuH.

Well done Martin, thanks for taking the time to test and post your results. As far as ROF for the Hummel though, I've only had success in getting it to fire once per 60 sec turn. Don't know where the 3 times per/turn came from. This with a previous version of the game though, so maybe ROF has changed? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Thanks Joe, I knew we had to wait for CMII for relative spotting, but IIRC, Charles is working on what to do with Russian tanks since many did not have radios (early war). Without radios, the way tanks are modeled now is incorrect. My intention was to point out something that is applicable in CM1 that could benefit from whatever Charles is working on for early russian tanks and the subsequent CMII rewrite provided Charles knew about what I was describing. Specifically, the modeling of communication break downs from tanks for whatever reason.

and your graphics card is....?

I'm reading the Bloody Forest by Gerald Astor and happened upon the following: "Tank Platoon leader Fleig said 'You'd never know we were in the same army. We married up with the infantry on the run. There was little or no coordination of communication, routes of attack, etc. Even though each tank had an external phone for ground forces to use, the infantry didn't know that. The phone was in a box at the rear of the tank and painted the same color as the tank. The usual method of communication was to bang on the side of the tank until you got the TCs attention and then point to the target. Often, the infantry would not approach the tank for fear of drawing arty and mortar fire' American tankers labored under a severe communications handicap. Aside from the unfamiliarity of their partners with the external phone, the armor relied upon SCR506 line of sight radios that depended on a clear path for transmissions. Mountains, hills, and thick stands of trees interfered with the signal. If the antenna touched a tree branch, it grounded it. Furthermore, the external aerial, necessary for any distance, often was damaged by enemy fire or from simply plowing through obstacles. According to John Alyea, the radios in most tanks could only receive orders and lacked ability to call back. Only the tanks carrying a platoon leader or a platoon sgt had 2 way radios" Now, relative spotting is a personal crusade of mine and since BTS is reworking the communications aspects of tanks for the Russians, I want them to be aware that allied tanks could also labor under similar constraints. As somone on this board proposed a while ago, perhaps tanks can be organized into platoons (like in Steel Panthers) where there is the plt leader with 2-way comms and then there are the rest that can have 2-way comm under ideal conditions but generally can only receive orders if their radio/antennas are damaged. Furthermore, if out of LOS of the plt leader, then the tank should be considered out of C&C. I get more and more frustrated by the ability of tanks facing 180 degrees to spot my infantry from 100s of meters away as if they have a direct overhead view of each and every unit on the battlefield. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

You're in for a nasty surprise if you ever try to use that copy. At least I was. When I first got my CD back in June the first thing I did was to make a copy so that I could play off the copy and keep the original safe from my youngun's. Well, the game looks for the CD in the drive before you can play it and for some reason, whatever info it was looking for was not copied to the backup CD since it kept telling me to put the CD in the drive. But it is says I. No it isn't says the game. Arrrghh. So now I guard the original as if it were the holy grail or something

Well, seeings as we're related somehow , glad to hear the gene pool is still around. You still playing at the Tournament House? When I used to visit that site I kept noticing you were in the top 3 on the ladder and eventually I was gonna have to kick your ass, but you left before the hammer could fall.... I have since joined theblitz and the Dogs of War. Dogs is very very active with a core group of hard core players and tournaments being played constantly. DOW came into existence while you were gone. I suggest you check it out. Welcome back and glad to hear you're ok. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

You sure about that? What if they've been routed but recovered so that they have a ! after their condition. Seems to me that getting them off the board would increase global morale. Also seems to me that getting them off the board would mean that they are safe and hence global morale should improve, but I'm speculating.

How about those neverwhatchimacallits killing your own troops when said tank is being close assaulted? Or ricochets killing a nearby asset, vehicular or otherwise? I've seen any of those before, but I've heard of the first happening, not the 2nd (although theoretically the 2nd could happen).

If you surrender (voluntarily or otherwise), you lose points for each unit captured. If you have units captured, your opponent gains more points than if they were just killed. So moving them off the map to avoid capture ensures your opponent won't get credit. If you have units get killed, that gives your opponent points. No sense in keeping a mortar team without ammo on the map if there is a chance they would die/get captured. IIRC, crews are worth additional points, so getting them out of harms way helps with the scoring. And finally, it's a cleaner battlefield to manage if you take off the dead wood. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I've been thinking on this, and here's what bothers me. Perhaps this has been posted already in the thread I never saw and don't feel like searching for, but...Most of the time I let my sharps pick their targets and most of the time they fire at AFVs to button them up. Very effective, but an AFV will button up way before the 2nd shot would have ever been fired. So in CM, my sharp is wasting ammo and possibly giving away his position needlessly by firing several shots in rapid succession (modeled in CM as one shot with multiple bullets). I don't understand why BTS chose to do it this way. Why not give them 40-50 rounds like they would have in real life and why not let them fire in rapid succession like in real life? One ammo point equals one bullet. I mean, it's a lot like a tank in this regard. This just does not seem like it would be difficult to code, but what do I know, I just play the game...