R-Man

Hi Steve, First of all, you’re going to have to smoke that bridge to get across. Second, when moving a column I usually hit pause before setting the waypoints of the second, third, fourth, etc. vehicles in the column. No pause for the first one, one pause for the second, etc... A more effective way to do it is to line your column up in order of vehicle speed, with the fastest in the front. However, there can be problems in mud and snow, but if your on a road it shouldn’t matter too much. Keep your spacing.

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll try reinstalling the Panther mod. Perhaps I screwed up somehow. [This message has been edited by R-Man (edited 09-12-2000).]

I love the winter camo mods, but notice that not all of the Panther variants are available. I would like to simply overwrite or rename the Panther A mod so that it works for the Panther G and late G as well. Is this possible, and if so, what file name(s) should I use? Also, does anyone have a list of what file names = what vehicles? Thanks in advance for any help on this subject.

Another thing to think about while “counting points” *during* the scenario is fog of war. I starting counting points in a QB last night, but what I thought where four Stug IV’s turned out to be only Hetzers, and the “Tigers” turned out to be Mark IV’s. That left a lot of points on the table that were unaccounted for, and made the attacking force look much larger and more powerful than it realy was.

I couldn’t run the game on my Dell 333 with a 4MB STB Velocity 128 card, nor on my Dell Inspiron with the 8 MB rage mobile (until a driver update). So I guess I was wrong about the minimum requirements being 16 MB of VRAM, but I’m pretty sure that at least 8 MB are still required. In the cases mentioned above, I guess you lucked out. As for the game originally being designed for 4 MB VRAM, I offer the following quote and the link: “Changing 3D hardware: Only an ingrate whose computer game is behind schedule would actually complain about improvements in 3D hardware. Well, that's me. Not that I don't love the new chips, because I do. They're wonderful. The trouble is that a design meant for 4MB video cards (the state of the art at the time we started Combat Mission) doesn't make full use of the power afforded by faster 32MB cards, which were developed during the time it took to code the game. It's my fault for not planning sufficiently ahead and for allowing the game to miss deadlines, but it did mean that we had to redo a significant portion of the original artwork at a higher resolution to make maximum visual impact on the latest hardware. “ By: Charles Moylan http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/features/pc/postgame_wrapup/index.html Ah well, so much for asking questions regarding CM2. I guess I’ll go back to lurking, reading about neo-nazis and hamsters. Over and out

Actually, I wasn't really begging for the game as much as I was begging for a little information. I havn't even scratched the surface of the current game, even after hundereds of hours of play. I think one of the first things BTS would do in developing CM2 would be to establish some parameters. Also, I would like to see the CM2 forum get established as soon as possible so that my questions regarding it won't clutter up this forum.

LOL! That is NOT what I expected from the title of your post! Thanks for cooling off an otherwise flame-hot day on the forum.

Yeah, I agree. Depending upon the development cycle that BTS expects, they could really up the ante on graphics requirements. IIRC, CMBO started out with a VRAM requirement of only 4 MB, then near the end of the development they enhanced the graphics and upped the requirements to 16 MB.

Prior to CM, I always played the German side in wargames. Partially because I am of German descent, but particularly because I liked the ability to “change history.” In CMBO, however, I never play as the Germans because I don’t find it as challenging as playing as the Americans. Brewing up a King Tiger with a bazooka (as I did last night ) is much more gratifying than beating up on Shermans with the big cats.

I know, I know, it’s way too early to start begging for the next game, but I am wondering if development/programming has begun, or if it is in a holding pattern until the final adjustments to CMBO are finished (TCP/IP)? Is work on CM2 going on concurrently? Also, assuming that CM2 will take at least the better part of a year (or two) to finish, what will the minimum computer requirements be? I would hope that they would aim high, and be at least a 266 MHz PII, 64 MB of RAM, and 32 MB of VRAM. The base graphics and AI would be greatly improved, maps could be much larger, and it might turn those review scores of 9’s into 10’s. As an alternative, the game could have a “high-end” option for those with at least 500 MHz, 128 RAM, and 64 VRAM. In two years time, the average desktop system could easily exceed these parameters. Finally, I would like to see a separate forum for CM2. At 100,000 posts, the current forum is pretty cumbersome, and grows too quickly. Thanks BTS.

Woah! Version 1.05 already? I just played my first game of 1.04 last night!

I can't believe that this topic is still alive! 23 October 1961, Chicago, IL.

It’s been a long time since I’ve played VoT, but as I recall, I waited to take on the AT pillbox until after my reinforcements arrived. Then, I would drive all of my tanks up the road (N) to the ridge at the east map edge. I would then unload on the bunker with all of my Shermans. Don’t waste artillery on the pillbox, as it is not very effective (until version 1.03 of the full retail game.) The Shermans should be able to knock it out with little or no losses. It depends on your luck. If you’re feeling lucky, you can then leave your tanks on the ridge and await the Panther. I have played that situation over and over with a saved file and have determined that 8 out of 10 times the 5 remaining Shermans will at least get a “gun hit,” basically negating the Panther’s superior firepower and armor. Make sure that you have the tank damage notification option on (or whatever it’s called) by clicking the “hotkeys” button at the bottom of the screen. It’s funny to watch those poor little Shermans trying to tangle with that big cat. They constantly pop smoke and reverse. Just stay with it, keep moving them forward, and don’t chicken out. R-Man P.S. Get the full game!

Hey, I never thought of that! If you don't mind lowering the effectiveness of your squads at the start, and you don't mind blowing your cover by moving to recombine them, it seems perfectly legitimate to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: 3. The "Hull Down" command is two part: first designate target/position, then designate the maximum move forward to area. A two string command. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like this idea. The tank moves into HD position relative to a target point, or stops to fire on targets of opportunity on the way. That is, as long as the "movement" command is "hunt." [This message has been edited by R-Man (edited 08-14-2000).]

Hmmm. The review is great, the score is not. The reviewer has two major problems with the game; TCP/IP and graphics. As for the first, I think we all know the answer, it’s on the way. As for graphics, may I suggest that the retail game adopt Madmatt’s graphic’s package. Last Friday I went home for a long weekend, and toted my Inspiron laptop along with me. The game installed and ran beautifully, but I noticed a severe problem with the graphics; Madmatt’s grass and tree patches were missing. MDMP’s grass is sooooo much better, and the patches of trees don’t look like mud. It may not be enough to garner another review point or two, but it sure improves the immersion factor. One problem, Matt. The patches of woods have a pink artifact at the NW and SE corners. They are like boundary points. I have a TNT2 graphics card.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ianc: Can someone explain to me what skill is required here? It's not difficult (to me) to spot the position at all; in fact it's cake. The difficulty is maneuvering into it effectively.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you've answered your own question. The skill is in the determination of where that Hunt command should terminate relative to the intended target area. A "skilled" player knows where to click. An "unskilled" player either comes up short or over-shoots the spot. You are right regarding the hit-or-miss aspect. Often there are other obstructions or rises which interfere with LOS even after the initial rise has been successfully maneuvered. That's why I think the tank's Hunt/Hull-down movement should be terminated after 30 meters (or less) if no clear LOS can be drawn to the intended hull-down target.

It seems that most of the reasoning behind Charles' reluctance to add the Hunt/Hull-down command is its effect on play-balance. Particularly, the fact that automating such a maneuver rewards less competent players. However, I think that there are a few arguments for the command that may have been missed in this discussion. First, we already have the Hunt command. Duh, I know, but this is certainly comparable in "automation" to any Hunt/Hull-down command. The only difference is that Hunt targets units (generally resulting in placing your tank in the near-best possible hull-down position relative to the first unit spotted), while a Hunt/Hull-down command targets a point on the map. What's the difference? Second, for those of us that play the TacAI, it can be rather frustrating knowing that the computer opponent ALWAYS has the Hunt/Hull-down capability. The computer doesn't have to screw around with positioning, it just moves right to the spot, or sets up in that position at the beginning of the scenario. I realize that the AI needs some advantages to make it competitive, but this is relevant to the debate. Third, as stated by TargetDrone above, the reality was that all but the greenest crews knew how to find a hull-down position relative to a point of interest, i.e. ambush point. Here is how I would implement the command: The Hunt/Hull-down line, looking much like the LOS line does now, could be drawn to a map point beyond the rise and clicked. The tank would then move at hunt speed towards the marker until it has a clear line of site, and then travel a few meters further. In order to reflect reality, the tank would then reverse until it was in hull-down relative to that point. If the tank cannot find a clear LOS due to other obstructions within, say, 30 meters, it would halt. This would avoid the possibility of that tank continuing to the marker in a never-ending quest for hull-down. If the tank gets blown to pieces by an unseen enemy in the process, so be it.

Save-able end of game movies with a double-speed playback is by far my greatest CM desire. A few AI improvements are always welcome too.

I saw a preview on a computer game magazine web site (cdmag?) a couple of weeks before the beta demo came out. October 1999? I downloaded the beta within a couple of days of its release, and it's been ruining my life ever since

I'm a bit confused. You have an infantry platoon with low ammo and two tanks. Why don't you follow Mikeydz's advice and blast the hell out of the building? The enemy will either cut-and-run, allowing you to mow them down, or bury their heads in the floor taking cover, allowing your infantry to charge the building after a couple of turns. Either way, it sure beats charging a building full of unsuppressed infantry.

Last night I set up a custom scenario with air support on each side and full FOW. I placed my Allied armor in light trees to see if it would offer any concealment. When the battle started, I basically sat and waited. By turn six or so the Allied fighter bombers started to fire at the German armor, immobilizing one panther, destroying a half-track, and perhaps even taking out a tank commander. The armor stayed buttoned until they met their untimely demise at the hands of my TD crews. The German air support never showed. Can I assume that one side or the other will gain local air superiority, thus, only one side will be able to execute a ground attack? Is the resolution of air superiority based on the randomness of the computer-selected air assets involved? I must admit that I have not read the manual as closely as perhaps I should have, and a search on this topic brought up nothing relevant to my particular question.

Turret said; "So I installed R/C units in the tanks and gave the controls to my wife and instructed her to drive each test tank in "combatish" way. I drank a pot of Starbucks coffee to simulate the heat of battle and then a case of beer to simulate the fog of war. I then went "hunting" in the yard. "The results of my test: Typically the Tiger was shot in the front as it was hard to get a flanking shot with my wife's quickly learned simulation of German tank tactics." Oh my God! I'm at work, so I couldn't LOL. I was therefore reduced to violent convulsions with tears running out of my eyes. Thanks for the belly-laugh. I just read it again, and I'm still laughing. [This message has been edited by R-Man (edited 08-08-2000).]

Milwaukee, USA

38.8