Papa Khann

I don't know what changed between the TCP/IP Beta Demo and the v1.1 Final. I have a P166 running Win95 and a 700 Athlon Thunderbird running Win98. Both boxes are hooked into a LAN using NICs and a Switch. I can play Network games of other titles (like Starcraft) without any problems. And I had the Beta Demo version of CM working across the LAN as well (after I specified IP addresses and Subnet Masks manually). However, now that I have v1.1 installed on both machines, I can't get CM Network games to work over the LAN. Can't make a connection at all (at least not from within CM... as I said, everything else is still working properly so I don't think it's a hardware problem or anything). Need help. Suggestions? Papa P.S. Have played TCP/IP using v1.1 over the Internet and it works just fine. I just can't figure out how to get it to work on the LAN. [This message has been edited by Papa Khann (edited 01-26-2001).]

empty, CM2 is the next installment of the program. It will cover the Russian front. Papa [This message has been edited by Papa Khann (edited 01-25-2001).]

Jeff H. wrote: <hr> Current stated *minimum* requirements for CM: Windows 95/98/ME/2000 Pentium (P5) 166MHz w/3D card Pentium (P5) 200MHz w/o 3D card 32MB of RAM 100MB of Hard Disk Space (est.) CD ROM drive DirectX 6.0 compatible video card DirectX 6.0 compatible sound card 28.8 modem for multiplayer At this time, you could not buy that system new if you wanted to. In fact, if I owned such a system, I think the best use for it would be as a door stop. I sure wouldn't even *try* to run CM on it. It might crawl, but it certainly would not run. <hr> I'm all for graphic improvements. Obviously not at the expense of Charles' time to code more nifty features into the engine, but in my book how CM looks and sounds IS important. However, I feel I should comment on your comments... Actually, I have an old P166 that I've retained just to run CM on a LAN. With a 16MB Voodoo 3 2000, it RUNS (not crawls) CM just fine. Can't have all the mods installed on that machine, or play a Huge scenario, but it's still just fine. Which is a tribute to how well this software is coded. Papa

David A. wrote: <hr> Gunny Bunny wrote: > I would suggest that CM takes advantage of the opportunity to enhance their software. Still not worked out who actually makes the game, eh Gunny? While we're at it, can we have interpolated combo moves for the infantry? When they get into close combat we should be able to take control individually and use our martial arts skills to overcome the enemy. I suggest various moves such as punch, kick, flying kick, rolling dodge, throw and half-nelson. This would increase BTS's appeal to a much wider audience. BTS is a great game but CM should keep it up to date with computer technology. David <hr> Jeez, all the guy asked for was a few minor improvements in the graphic engine. Give him a break. Personally, I've got lots of mods installed to make the game look and sound better than it does out of the box. I suppose you think that means I'd prefer to play from a first person perspective inside a tank? With arcade style controls? Papa

It would be nice to have two "area target" comands. One would work the way area targeting currently works in the game, which is to target a specific point. It would be great to see a "wide area target" command added for those times when I want to put suppressing fire on an area rather than just a single point. Papa

Thanks to both Schrullenhaft and NigelO. I think the problem was with the Subnet Masks. I've got it working now. I can only host from the P166, but I think that might have to do with having BlackIce Defender installed on the AMD rig. Anyways it's not a problem thanks to Charles coding it up so that the faster machine processes the turns regardless of which one hosts (thanks, Charles). Papa

Just set up my 1st LAN so I'm a real newbie here. It all seems to work fine for file sharing and other games work across it o.k. (Starcraft and TeamFortress anyway). Trying to host on an AMD 700 Thunderbird running Win98SE. When I try to join a CM game with a P166 running WIN 95, I get an error message saying it can't connect to the IP addy I specified. I think I have the correct IP addy, since Winipcfg seems to confirm the number CM wants to use. The '95 machine appears to want to use dial-up connecting to try to search for the IP addy (it pops up the Dial Up Connection box back in Windows). Help? Papa

Wow, lots of memories... In no particular order: - Combat Mission - XCom: UFO Defense - Starcraft (this one was almost a religion for me) - Clash of Steel - GemStoneIII (see Starcraft comments, above) - Falcon (Amiga) - Sim City (Amiga) - Silent Service (C-64) - Archon (C-64) Papa

I think the buildings themselves function just fine as regards their durability. Though I do sort of like the suggestion to key the morale status of infantry inside a building getting pounded by HE to their current situation. Makes perfect sense to me that if a ton of HE was dropping on the building I was in, I would probably start to feel like I was having a very bad day and consider "downgrading" myself to "Panicked" or "Routed". Could this be tied to the overall condition of the building (damaged or heavily damaged) and also to whether or not the building was currently under HE fire? Is so, it's possible that infantry could run out of a building under those conditions and perhaps not get killed by falling debris while feeling just fine about it (morale wise). Papa

Just the other day I was wishing CM had a feature like this. It worked well in SP to discourage the "final turn of the game rush tactics" and I believe it would do the same for CM. Even +/- 3 turns would be enough to require players to "rethink" end-game tactics. Papa

Not sure how much work this would involve for Charles, but how about adding an additional category? Rather than just Vehicles and Armor, the program could divvy the points up between Vehicles, Light Armor, and Heavy Armor? Papa

Maastrictian, I think it's an excellent suggestion and would make a worthy addition to the interface. Papa

David wrote: *Combat Mission provides you with numerous ways to keep track of your men, and understand what they're doing, by looking at them. All the information is there, down on the ground.* And since the info is already there, I still don't see the harm in added one additional tool that presents it in a more complete format. This tool would not "replace" the type of activity you are describing (using the level 1 camera setting to check LOS, etc.), it would simply add an additional and alternative method to access that same information. *Close Combat needs lots of statistics screens because there's a limit to the information you can glean by looking at your men.* I don't play CC anymore, so who cares. *This subverts the focus from the battlefield, and the way you fight your battles is less realistic as a result.* I see no correlation between the lack/addition of a roster screen and realism in CM. CM "appears" realistic because of the 3D modeling and the immense amount of research Charles has (most admirably) incorporated into the design. But it's still just a game. Furthermore, the game elements (sound, 3D video, ballistics modeling, etc.) won't be less "realistic" because I can turn a roster screen on or can't. In my mind, the issue of "realism" vs. "should there be a roster" are not related. By that reasoning, the "+" and "-" key functionality should be removed, because it's "not realistic". Ridiculous. *Instead of getting down there and fighting, you sit back and watch all your flashy statistics.* I'm not "down there fighting" now. I'm entering orders on my computer, to which this wonderful software responds by generating 3D movies. It will do that with or without the roster screen. *If you get into CM properly, and play it the way it was meant to be played, you won't need a roster.* Good of you to point out to the rest of us how CM is "supposed" to be played. *Such an addition would simply encourage people to play CM like CC, which is wrong. CM may resemble CC, but the way it works is completely different.* CC is real-time. CM is not and should never be. Again, I hardly see the addition of a roster screen influencing my style of play in the manner you propose. In the end, you could always choose not to use the roster screen, were one added. Papa

IMHO, a roster would make is easier to check on the status of your forces quickly. That would be a good thing. It obviously won't decrease the need to set the camera to level 1 and check LOS at key points, etc, but in my mind, any tool that increases the efficiency of the software and decreases the amount of time it takes me to complete a turn would be great. If you really believe the lack of a roster makes you a better player (and the logic here completely eludes me), then you could choose not to use it. Papa

Was it just me? Or when replying did anyone else feel like they were standing up at a support meeting for recovering addicts and saying "Hello, my name is Papa Khann, and...." Papa

These days, I seem to play CM and not a lot else, except for a bit of Diablo II now and then. Plus I still boot up StarCraft every once in a while, just to shake a bit of the rust off. At various points in the past, I've spent anywhere from a "fair amount of time" to a "major amount of time" on these: On the Amiga (Yep, I'm that old): Falcon Populous Gemstone III on GEnie SimCity On the PC: Civilization Steel Panthers Close Combat II Panzer General Diablo And finally, in a time-sucking-where-did-my-life-go class all it's own... (drum roll please): StarCraft Papa

Once more, into the breach... Done. Papa

41 Papa

IDF, I also have a P166. When I had a 2mb video card installed, I could not run CM in a usable fashion, even with 64mb RAM. Upgrading my video card to a Voodoo 3 2000 with 16mb VRAM made all the difference in the world. Though I've since acquired a faster box, I've hung on to the P166 simply because it CAN run CM (as long as the map isn't too large... small and meduim sized battles are just fine though). When TCP/IP arrives, I'll set up a little LAN action. As for upgrading your P166, as howardb noted, it really depends on your motherboard. I'm guessing yours is probably pretty old, which means you won't have a lot of options. It probably has 2 DIMM slots for RAM? Is it an OEM machine? If you can, boosting your RAM to 64mb may help also. Papa

Done

Well, it sounds like a bug, but as long as BTS adds the following to the game's standard infantry kit, it shouldn't be to hard to live with: 1) Silver ammunition 2) Wooden stakes and hammers 3) Crucifixes Now let's see, what am I forgetting...? Papa

I doubt VERY much that Steve and Charles would sell the rights to CM to anyone. This product definitely shows signs of being "their baby". Though I suppose that enough $$$ would get the attention of any of us. Hope it never happens though. I would cringe in horror if it did happen. Not that it could ONLY be bad for the game, but I for one would certainly expect such a move to be very bad for the game. Yes, I can envision it now.... BTS sells CM to some soul-less software development firm, who immediately drops the software in the middle of it's marketing/development/production team. Here are a few "possible" suggestions they might have on how to proceed with CM2... 1) "The basic mechanics aren't too bad, but I think we could make it more accessible by turning it into an RTS." 2) "I'd like to see players be able to work the tank guns arcade style... can we add support for joysticks?" 3) "The whole thing seems sort of slanted towards WWII, don't you think?" 4) "The sounds remind me of a battlefield. We need some background music to liven things up. Has anyone checked Puff Daddy's availability?" 5) "CM2: UFO Defense" Nope. Not for me, thanks. Here's hoping Steve and Charles retain the reins for a long time to come. Papa

Congrats to BTS. I'm really glad the game is doing so well, because I want to see a lot more of it! When CM2 happens and I have access to this game system on the Russian Front.... boy, I better start thinking up excuses for my wife and business clients now; I'm going to be MIA A LOT. Papa

OFF Board ARTY/Spotters: It is mentioned in the manual that a Company Commander can call for off board arty if the Spotter for that Arty is eliminated. Is this correct? If so, then how do you do it? <hr> If this is correct, I'd really like to know about it. Not that I'm exceptionally talented at getting my FO's killed or anything... well, o.k., maybe sometimes. Papa

Zaffod, I don't think you can really pin down an "average" length for a PBEM. I've played several and they all take a good, long while, with both sides swapping files once and sometimes even twice a day. At 3 file swaps for a turn, it's pretty rough to complete more than one turn a day, unless you can arrange a time with your opponent where you'll do nothing but send files and check for returns for a few hours (and IMHO, PBEM isn't really all that well suited for that... still too much waiting around while your opponent ponders how best to attempt your disassembly). For myself, I don't mind the games taking a long time to conclude (generally a few weeks to a couple months, but it varies wildly depending upon how large the game is and how evenly matched it turns out to be). I often don't have several hours to time to dedicate to a single sitting anyway. When we get the TCP/IP patch, things should definitly speed up. Papa