OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!

You could try this, but it only works if you are playing as the Germans:- Bring up your KruppSpringenHamsterFlingenMachinen and load the rubber sling with several SS-Hamstertruppen. Target the flag(s) and click "GO". There will be a delay of approx 30 seconds (may vary) to simulate the winding of the SpringenSprocket and targeting, then a loud *swiissshhh.....thucker-thucker-thucker* as the catapult arm of the KSHFM is released to swing forward. The sling load of SS-Hamstertruppen, by now sporting well and truly pee-soaked lederhosen, will fly forward toward the flag(s) as a slowly expanding clump of terrified hamster fur and piddle. If your aim is true and you are lucky, most of this soggy mass will slap into the cotton flag(s), soaking the cloth with a variety of SS-Hamstertruppen fluids. The result will be a transparent flag!! No need for a tiresome "SHIFT-F" or any other such nonsense. Be aware though that the drying time for the flag(s) will be, to a large extent, a factor of a) the weather, how many SS-Hamstertruppen actually hit the flag(s) and c) how much they had to drink recently. Hope this helps. OGSF

This would be a cool feature, at least for me. I have tended to print out a Level 4 screen shot, taken from say one corner of the map. This is a compromise as it gives me some terrain info, as well as the general layout. I use it more to record my "plan" after I have inspected the actual map on the screen with different level views. Then I draw the sweeping arrows and assault areas etc. on the screen shot printout. I find the level 5 and higher views to be to large scale for my approach. To have some sort of terrain map available to print out would be very useful. The detail could be a lot less as well, simple squares for buildings and so on. I'm not sure how it could be easily coded though. I suspect it could be generated from the data in the editor, at the same time the actual map is being generated. It's probably just a nice idea though. For me the screen shots are an okay workaround while we wait for CM2, CM3, CM4 etc. OGSF

Just on the wind thing (as it were), if modelling the progressive effects of wind would be too much of a CPU hit, how about at least making the length of time smoke hangs around "random". This would simulate to some extent the tactical effect of wind (the river crossing in "A Bridge Too Far" comes to mind). Of course, the player would have to be given some way of knowing that there is wind about, so that erratic smoke times could be anticipated. *mumble* *mumble* Thinking aloud.... OGSF

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog: How about geting toasted by a Typoon Big Dog<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oooh yeah! I am currently in a QB PBEM set around Feb '45 I think. I am Germans and setting out on an extremely cunning flanking move, guaranteed to swing behind Jeff's forces and whup 'em good. Move two - wheeeeee BOOM! BOOM! - Jabo gets my Panther and routes a couple of squads. Move three - wheeeee BOOM! BOOM! - Jabo comes back and kills my Jagdpanther (and you *know* that hurt!), routes a couple of squads. Move three, five, etc, Tatatatatata! - Jabo strafes my stout Wermacht laddies and Jeff's Priest dies as it kills my AC. End of armor, end of flanking move. Not to worry, I'm certain what's left of my lads can kill his Pershing! I did kill some HTs' with my 250mm arty though! Next time I'm gonna bring some flak with me. OGSF

I d/l'd and played the demo to death back in Feb/March or so. The eye candy is pretty nice, but tactics are a bit lame. My main flanking tactic consisted of driving tanks through the woods, blowing trees out of the ground as I went, and stopping to reload from the ammo truck every so often. Then one wonderful day, some clown-boy on the BB over at SS posted about this "feeble attempt at a Sudden Strike wannabe called Combat Mission" and he posted the link. Haven't been back, not even once..... See? Even clown-boys have a purpose! OGSF

Tiger, you're good at this! Where can I get a hold of this mod, and see the rest of your work? OGSF

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k: What I don't understand is if we're all getting assimilated, why is he/she the only CM Borg? -Andrew <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not an authority on this (although I did see a Star Trek movie which had borgs in it once), but I think the borg concept revolves around a single entity. By being assimilated, one becomes part of that same, single entity. So whenever the CMBorg appears, it's like, we are *all* appearing. Isn't it great!? Of course, I could be mistaken (wanders off picking nose)... OGSF Edited for HamsterBorgs [This message has been edited by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! (edited 08-14-2000).]

Good find Basil, thanks! A good read indeed, and I liked the way Charles used the word "genre"! :^) OGSF

Ouch Doug! Not good news, I hope it all gets better quickly. I am on the verge of buying an AMD 850 Thunderbird PC with 256MB RAM (so I can play All or Nothing without whiteouts, I also have a new video card), and I am seriously considering getting this from a vendor online. Would you mind telling who your vendor is / was? If a public forum is not appropriate, please emal me via my profile. Cheers, OGSF

Luxury! I used to dream about having troops that would actually get up and advance against the enemy on a foggy night! But never fear, Iggi - there is a solution to your problem and I will share it with you. But don't tell anyone else...*furtive glance*..."use SS Hamstermen"...sshhhh, don't clap your hands and squeal in glee...it's a secret. The little furry-bummed pant-wetters are guaranteed to run at the first hint of anything, or even nothing, on a foggy night - and the best part is, it will never be towards the enemy! I think I can further assure you ,that even veteran SS Hamstermen will not let you down! OGSF PS: Sshhhhh! Remember, it's a secret! Especially don't tell Germanboy.... :^) [This message has been edited by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! (edited 08-10-2000).]Edited for Hamster droppings. [This message has been edited by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! (edited 08-10-2000).]Demmed hemstars! [This message has been edited by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! (edited 08-10-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak: Umm... I really have nothing to add except. Steve said my name!! *faint*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And mine! And mine! *"You go girl!" dance with the hands stirring an invisible pot in the opposite direction to the knees and....never mind* OGSF <--- What *Steve* said!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Minnesota Joe: I dont really see a difference between CM and Hind terrainwise except for Hind has fewer trees. [This message has been edited by Minnesota Joe (edited 08-09-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> G'day Joe, Not discounting your suggestion here, but I think there might be a difference in how the terrain is modelled between CM and Hind. I am guessing of course, not having played it, but I am thinking the terrain in Hind does not affect gameplay too much. Of course hills and gullies do, but is line of sight modelled through trees, varying depending on the density of the forest/woods/scattered trees? And things like wet ground vs dry, marshes, fords, roads and bridges - all of whic have different affects on the troop and vehicle movement. These features in CM make for a lot of CPU horsepower requirements, and this I believe may limit how big the maps can actually get. Just a thought. OGSF

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Well, all I can say is that in order to beat me you are going to have to exploit how well or how badly my units move in convoys, you are gonna be in BIG trouble . I would add that contrary to some here, I find this much more of a problem for vehicles than for infantry, and only when the vehicles are forced to stay on roads like in the "All or Nothing" scenario Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On your first point, I would agree with you (assuming there is an "if" in that sentence somewhere). When I play I try to use all assets available to me, units, terrain, weather, my opponents logistical problems in certain scenarios. I think I agree with most folks on this thread that moving vehicles down a road in convoy is time consuming, frustrating and cumbersome. I would be happy to see a feature included which removed these non-enjoyable aspects of the interface. What I don't want is a feature which does that at the cost of negatively impacting the tactical implications of trying to move a strong armour / vehicle force down a confined route. Obviously I don't rely on this aspect of the game to win, any more than I soley rely on trees, fords, bridges, fog or anything else which affects the tactics employed by both players. If I win or lose it's because of my own ineptitude or my opponents dazzling skill. What I have not really seen in this thread is a sugggestion of how a "follow" command for vehicles woud not impact the tactical realism. We know it would make a few scenarios easier and less frustrating to play. Yet on the one hand the player gets bags of armour to use, on the other there are difficulties in bringing the armour to bear on the enemy in a timely manner. That is an important tactical element IMO. It is also a realistic one. An example of this can be found in George Forty's book, "Road to Berlin". On page 47 there is a photo of a mess of British Bren Carriers in a lane, not moving. The caption reads: "With British forces south of Caumont, 31 July 1944. They even had traffic jams in the front line! This lane is very congested with infantry-filled carriers, all trying to get forward. (IWM - B 8308)". I reckon these guys would have liked a "follow" command, and the Germans were glad they didn't have one! Another example would be the German Ardenne Offensive in December 1944, or 1940 for that matter. The Allies did not think the Germans could get a significant amount of armour through the Ardenne forest with it's confined roads. In this case, the lack of a real life "follow" command affected not only tactical, but strategic thinking. That the German's were able to mount the offensive does not remove the fact that Allied thinking was affected to their initial detriment. A player who can manage their untis more effectively than someone else will have an advantage. If everyone has a "follow" command available, that advantage is nullified. Would it be a leap of logic to ultimately then give everyone the same type of tank? If the actual game play could be made less frustrating in those situations, without affecting that tactical element then fine. I personally can't see how a "follow" command would achieve that. I'd obviously support a feature that could. As someone pointed out earlier, perhaps it's already there as the "move" command. OGSF

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: This sounds to me like "If you don't like this game, play something else..." We each filter things our own way. Assuming there were such a command, no one would be forced to use it, so I don't see how this would degrade your command ability [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-09-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I have a load of vehicles which need to be moved down a road to the front line before thay can be brought into action, there are potential tactical opportunities for my opponenet due to my logistical challenges. If I have some nifty command which ensures my vehicles don't bunch up, get congested, stop and wait etc, and I use it, I am denying my opponent those tactical opportunities. Whether my opponenet chooses to use the command is irrelevant, I have already derived a potential tactical advantage (or removed a disadvantage) by my use of it. A more balanced way to move a lot of vehicles easily without affecting the tactical balance, IMO, is to use less vehicles. :^) And yes, if you want to manage units like it's done in Age of Empires or Red Alert, why are you wasting your time with a tactical wargame? I am not against improving CM where it is reasonable and feasible to do so, but this is a change which would not be an improvement IMO, for the reasons I have outlined. If you begin watering down tactical and other features of this game with follow commands, whats the next thing? And the one after that? Pretty soon your back with the rubbish CM was such a refreshing move away from. OGSF [This message has been edited by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! (edited 08-09-2000).]

Perth, Australia - but now living in Denver, Colorado. "What's the difference between a buffalo and a bison?" "You can't wash your hands in a buffalo"

G'day Mick, Was the "out of range" like far away or up close? The German 81mm mortars for example will show "out of range" for anything under 100 meters from them. On the other hand, if something is too far away, you just have to get closer or wait for them to come in. Also, the 50mm mortars (German) have a shorter range than the 81mm (duh, but you never know). :^)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obergefreiter Porta: [bI wonder what the so called anti-roster lobby think about the option to turn off the Fog of War....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *Rolls eyes skyward* This is a new genre of PC game. Closest thing to it I have seen is a table top miniature wargame. Cm is what I have wanted in a PC game since Adam was a boy. If I wanted bloody Rosters, "Follow" commands, War elephants and bloody MG Carriers with pulsar laser guns I'd buy a pretty box produced by one of the big game companies. If you want all that crap, go and play the games that have it in them already. With the possible exception of Tigers targeting bailed crews in bocage maps instead of other tanks, every time I have had or seen a queston about "why this" or "whats up with that", there has been a rational , thought out, researched, concious decision made about it by BTS. Once you know, it makes sense. This is a wargame, and is intended to be played as such. Not for me to speak for BTS, but they have had the opportunity to sell out to big gaming publishers before, and elected not too so they could retain full control over content. I would imagine that if they had sold out, this is exactly the sort of candy crap that the "big house" would make them put in the game. I some folks spent half the time actually playing the game as they spend whining on the board because it doesn't work like a cross between Close Combat and Star Wars Fleet Command, perhaps they'd begin to appreciate it for what it is. *puff* *puff* Sorry, just sick of the whining, sounds like a frozen cat on a bandsaw. I think I'll go and have a lie down. OGSF edited to wipe off spittle [This message has been edited by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! (edited 08-08-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Havermeyer: If the developer wishes to accentuate the difficulties in organizing armored/motorized coordination-- it can be done without so much bloody oversight by the player. It is time consuming and painful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why have we got multiple threads on this topic? I posted to the "Convoy command" thread what was, for me, a reasonably well constructed argument against the "follow" command. And now I see there's been an end run into a new thread. Not cool. If you don't want to have the trouble of managing lots of vehicles along a road, don't play those type of scenarios. Simple. But don't deny me tactical opportunities inherent in such games by inserting some Age of Empires type "follow" command. If you cannot or will not control your forces when they are on the move, then you will get a whupping. That's wargaming. I know it's a pain in the arse moving all them trucks and tanks. It's meant to be. For my more elaborate logic, please refer to the other thread. :^) OGSF

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Well, try the "Allor Nothing" scenario and see if you still have the same opinion after spending 80% of the game adjusting movement on the roads for dozens of units... Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hear you Henri, I have played it - in a PBEM as the Germans. An excellent illustration of both my points. First, congestion at the bridge, ala "real life". My 88 caused some serious damage. Second, why should my opponent get their reinforcements into the firefight any quicker than would have been realistically possible? To smooth his way with a "follow" command which produced an unrealistic arrival time would have been to my tactical disadvantage. If I want that to happen to me, I can go back to playing Age of Empires or Red Alert. I really do understand the frustration of moving a lot of vehicles along a road in convuy in CM. And a "follow" command would be very nice to have available to ease the tedium and frustration. But what would be the point of having different terrain effects if you could negate them by having auto pilot for the convoys - may as well drive them straight across muddy fields with no danger of bogging in. The point of having terrain which will bog in your vehicles, is to encourage you to keep them on the road. And that introduces a tactical problem for the commander. And a headache for the Player, but if you want the tactical realism I reckon the headaches come with the turf. :^)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: This seems to be the best way to keep them from bunching up, or falling behind (the "Accordian Effect"). Interestingly, this "Effect" is a real-world problem in armored road marches. It takes a lot of training to keep vehicles spaced properly. Best of luck!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I reckon Mannheim has hit the nail on the head here. I too would find a "follow" command useful, but at what cost to the game? I don't really want to get into a "realism" vs "it's only a GAME" scrap here, but convenient as a "follow" command would be I think it would detract from the realism of the game, not to mention deprive players of tactical opportunities. As Mannheim points out so nicely, the old "follow the leader" command as exemplified in "Age of Wonders" et al is not what occured in actual combat zones, including roads leading to those zones. There was congestion, "concertina effect" (just like on the highway at rush hour) and keeping a convoy moving smoothly was not easy. CM does a fine job of allowing the player to recreate that chaos! :^) And tactically, if Joe Blow is bunched up trying to get across a bridge and I'm his/her opponent, I'm going to take advantage of that if I can and hit that area with arty, armor, zooks, schrecks and so on. An "Age of Wonders" follow command may well deprive me of that tactical opportunity. Which is more realistic - the Germans escaping the chaos of the Faliase Pocket by utilizing a "follow command", or getting slammed by fighter bombers and Polish Armour and so on because the trafficcongestion was a very real tactical problem for them? So IMHO a "follow" command would subtract from my CM gaming experience more than it woud add to it. And having it as an option which I could choose not to use would not work for me, as my opponent may still be able to get their reinforcements to the front faster than was realisticly possible, or scamper across a bridge in good order unlike a real tactical situation would allow. I've got me thoughts, and that's them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin: I am playing a scenario now in a snowstorm, and my 3 inch mortar is totally useless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heheh! I too am playing a scenario in a snowstorm (at night) and can't see past my nose. I have a mortar crew baking cookies in a house out the back of the scenario. But I was able to spray mortar rounds about earlier in the game because I had an FO for 81mm mortars. He couldn't see squat, but he was able to place indirect fire out of his LOS. Not that it did me much good, eh Pat? :^)

Since the SS hamstermen debacle (let's not go there), I have tended to stick to good old Wermacht, or Heer troops. I tried the Fallschirmjagger lads and IIRC the "buying options" were more limited than the army boys, so I shied away from them. Or was that the mountaineer fellas, I forget now. OGSF

41 and by my counting, the average age as of this post is now 34.5.

Hey Simon, love your sig. Fair dinkum!

This is just a "Same problem here and I'm glad I found this thread" post. Sorry I don't hava a solution either, but I sure am interested in one. I have a PIII 450, 128MB RAM and the suspiciously ubiquitous Voodoo3 (think its the 3500). I was thinking to buy up to a Voodoo5, but if it is the 3dfx chipset causing the problem....*sigh* Hope we get a fix for this from somewhere!!! OGSF