Holman

(SPOILER for Operation "Utrechtseweg" follows!) . . . . . . . . . I've just seen a bug that may be related to the "clown car" problem someone posted earlier. The situation: I'm well-along (battle 7 or 8 of 12, I think) as the besieged British in the "Utrechtseweg" Operation that I downloaded from Moon's site. My troops have been holding the line, and there are a couple of wrecked SPWs from previous battles littering the field. In the present battle, the Germans bring up some Tigers, but I have a couple of skilled PIAT teams who kill the Tigers with close-range side-armor shots. Meanwhile, Allied air support is overflying the battlefield, dropping bombs and strafing some targets I can't see. The problem: Eventually the planes start dropping bombs on the two dead Tigers, which is realistic since the tanks aren't burning yet. After that, the planes start to strafe the dead SPWs that have been out of commission for several days (i.e. a few battles ago). Imagine my surprise when a "top penetration" results from one of these attacks, and a fresh crew team pops out and runs away! Imagine my further surprise when, over the next four or five turns, this happens again with two other long-dead SPWs still on the battlefield. In fact, the first SPW to be hit gets to spawn yet another crew before the battle ends on turn 15. I saved a copy of the campaign on the turn right after the first SPW crew appeared. Since the planes are very active, you can probably reproduce the problem just by waiting for them to attack another of the old SPWs. Should I send this turn to you, BTS? At what address? Thanks for an excellent game (despite this minor glitch)! Paul "Martyr" Roberts

(If you've read this far, you've already encountered this thread's SPOILER...) I played that scenario as the Axis recently, and the PzIV showed up just when I thought all was lost. Whoever that tanker was, he was my hero! Of course, we still lost the battle. I just couldn't get my boys into the town after all.

I wonder if "A Walk in Paris" is particularly slow because of all the buildings: row upon row of them. Perhaps that many big terrain objects cramp the speed of the game engine.

I may be suggesting something that's obvious to everyone else, but here goes... From the moment I first fired up CM, I've been keeping a scenario log. I'm simply listing the scen, the date I played it, the side I played, any advantages I gave to the AI, and the result. This helps me three ways: first, I'll have a complete record of my CM gaming history in years to come! Second, it allows me to be certain that I have or have not played a certain scenario or a certain side when I'm looking for a fresh challenge. Finally, it will keep me honest when I start PBEMing and want to play a truly blind game. With so many scenarios soon to appear, I'm glad I'm keeping track of where I've been.

Out of the six scenarios I've played so far (not counting DYOs), the AI has won two games (Tactical Victories) and a third was a draw. I doubt the AI will get many Total Victories, but a Tactical gets the job done. As I gain experience against the AI, I'm sure I'll win more than half my games. To compensate for my computer's inherent stupidity, I usually give the AI +25% units (or +50% if I'm in the mood). This seems a fair adjustment.

I can verify that friendly fire is indeed in the game. In a recent night-time scenario, I was shocked during the orders phase to realize that *two* of my units had traced targetting lines to two of my other units! Naturally, I gave them new orders. This seemed realistic to me, especially since the units firing at each other were not part of a single battle line, but were in different clusters of troops. I can easily imagine how the mistake was made.

Excellent advice, Wild Bill. (I'm really enjoying all the Raiders' scenarios, by the way.) Is there any chance that you might put together a tutorial on CM scenario design? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this editor and its particular strengths and weaknesses.

IIRC, Madmatt once mentioned that the CM disk ships with 50 of the *many* scenarios that the beta testers were working with. Are any of those remaining scenarios currently being polished for release, perhaps by the testers themselves? Thanks for any info.

Dragon-6, I had the fog white-out problem too, until I went into my video card properties and enabled "fog table emulation." Works great now!

How about the ability to set up Quick Battles on a specific map (one that we have predesigned in the scenario editor)? It would be great to create a map you like and to try very different DYO scenarios on it. This would give Seanachi (above) the ability to fight his Quick Battles in the bocage, as well...

After playing this excellent game for about 24 hours (no, not straight), I've got a couple of minor suggestions: 1) I'd love to see an order of battle hotkey. This would throw up a text box containing a list of all the player's units and their ID codes. (Making this list clickable to jump to a selected unit would be icing on the cake.) Wouldn't this make large scenarios and complicated organizations more manageable? 2) As an option to replace the unit bases (which can't be seen from some angles and in some terrains), how about a bright square (red for Axis, green for Allies) similar to the yellow square that appears when a single unit is selected? The drab bases somehow just don't look good to me, and they block the view of the terrain underfoot.

Indeed, it did do the trick! I enabled fog table emulation and all is well. Thanks for the quick response. What a game!

Hi BTS, I've installed CM and, so far, everything is perfect but for one thing. When I play a scenario with foggy conditions, the 3D map portion of the screen is completely gray except for label text and (if I'm looking that way) the compass "north" indicator. I can't see any unit shapes even when I go to view "1" and lock on. The gray-out occurs equally with both "full" and "partial" weather effects, but it disappears (and the game looks fine) when I turn off weather entirely. Snow, rain, and clear conditions cause no problem. Smoke, explosions, and building transparency look fine on my system. My system: Gateway P2/400 (not overclocked) 128MB RAM Guillemot 3D Prophet GeForce 32MB (not o/c) NVidia 5.22 drivers DirectX 7a 800 x 600 resolution, 16 bit color Using CM patch 1.01 Mods from Mad Matt's site (low-res grass) Thanks for the best wargame I've seen in 15 years of playing. I'd love to see the fog, though. Paul Roberts

Just for the record, I'm out of town right now while my copy of CM sits in my box at my hometown post office. I don't know whether to feel secure now that it has arrived, or frustrated that I can't play it yet...

Wow--thanks for reminding me about UNDER FIRE. It and COMPUTER AMBUSH occupied a lot of my time all those years ago. Much of that time was of course spent waiting for the computer to process its turn...

As for me: I'm 31, married for almost two years now, no children. I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where I came in 1992 to start graduate school. Well, grad school turned out to be not all it's cracked up to be, and now I plan to go straight into teaching rather than finishing my dissertation. I do write, and I hope to publish something interesting soon. I started playing D&D in fifth grade, and that led pretty naturally into wargames (same shops, you know). I've been avid about computer games ever since Dad and I brought home a TRS-80 in 1979. The distance that the games have come in only 20 years can still astound me. COMBAT MISSION is a dream come true in that department. [This message has been edited by Martyr (edited 06-15-2000).]

I preordered on or near November 11, 1999. Seems like a long time ago. Alas, I'll be out of town (starting, *sob*, Friday morning!) when my package arrives. At least it will be waiting for me when I get home next week. Martyr

I'd be interested in hearing more about the authenticity of the vehicles in A BRIDGE TOO FAR. The movie is very faithful to Cornelius Ryan's book in its depiction of events and tactics, of course. There is a lot of equipment used in the movie: not just the uniforms of several nations, but also PIATs, Brens, lots of Shermans, Daimler armored cars, and a variety of German armored personnel carriers. Does anyone know what substitutions were made, particularly on the German side? I have heard that the gliders used in the film cost $35,000 each to build.

BREAKOUT looks good--I haven't read it yet, but I have a copy on my shelf waiting for some free time. I'm sure that CM4 (or 5 or 6), "The Korean Conflict," will be a big incentive for people to read this one! This board has been great for book and movie recommendations. I've learned a lot from several threads lately.

I want to send a big thanks to Charles and Steve for making this game happen. I can hardly believe it! Where were you when you first heard of CM? I think I saw a note on a newsgroup, back in the summer of '98, that there was a "computer conversion of ASL in the works" from a group affiliated with Avalon Hill. So much has changed since then, and all of it for the better. I remember the controversy about the first screen shots--obviously, BTS has the last laugh against the doubters! Again, thanks, guys. I can't wait to see the real thing.

Really, as they say, "to each his own." I certainly don't want to minimize the reactions of a real veteran (Zamo's father, above) to the TRL movie. But the film's less-than-Gung-Ho attitude towards combat seems pretty close to the attitude of books like Jones' original and Mailer's THE NAKED AND THE DEAD (both written not long after the war). Since both Jones and Mailer fought in the Pacific island campaigns, I'd say that their brand of cynicism has some historical validity. The Pacific Theater was a pretty bad time for everyone involved, and the TRL is trying to convey that through monologues and thoughts (which can be dull, I'll grant you) rather than through the usual war movie stylings. Naturally, it doesn't have to be your cup of tea.

Add this one: Michael Doubler, "Closing with the Enemy: How GIs Fought the War in Europe"

Here's something I've wondered about for a long time: When I read about U.S. forces in WW2, it seems that almost every piece of equipment carries a designation of "M1," "M2," or "M3." For instance, "M1" can refer to a rifle, a tank, a halftrack, etc., while there seem to be at least two common tanks carrying the "M3" designation. I may be wrong in trying to remember specific examples, but I think the confusion factor is obvious. I assume that "M#" designates where in the development series a particular model of equipment lies. But I just wonder why the U.S. didn't assign a unique letter/number for every major line of ground equipment (as with fighter planes: B-17, P-47, P-51, P-38, etc). If nothing else, wouldn't it have made the supply sergeants' job easier? Can anyone shed some light for me? Why was it done this way?

I agree: WAR OF THE RATS is a good one. I read it at night while at an academic conference, and the vivid story was a great antidote to the scholarly papers I was listening to all day.

I've read Jones' book, and it's very good. It's a very human story of war, and anything but sentimental. Norman Mailer's THE NAKED AND THE DEAD (also about Guadalcanal, more or less) is good in some similar ways. THE THIN RED LINE as a movie is different, but I think it has its strengths. A lot of people seem to hate it because it's not a typical courage-centered war movie (even though it has some very exciting and realistic images of battle). But if you approach it as a portrait of the feelings (rather than the actions) of men in combat, thousands of miles from home, in a strange war with rules they don't understand, the movie becomes pretty powerful. I think the main problem people have with it is that it slides between different kinds of presentation, and some of these aren't very "war movie" at all. The tone shifts between fast-paced combat and slow, philosophical inwardness, and then to meditative shots that ask you to look at the island itself. But if you think all of these kinds of movie-making are valid, I can't think of anything (aside from Travolta's acting) that's truly bad about the movie. [This message has been edited by Martyr (edited 06-12-2000).]