kump

Schugger, Nice test, but your evaluation on direct fire mortars is lacking one important aspect. The tanks had nothing else to grab their attention. If it is an actual battle with mortars playing a support role, the tanks would be too busy firing at other threats to worry about your direct fire mortars which are stationed much further away. Your test does show accuracy to be high with mortars against vehicles. It seems to me that the mortars are a bit too accurate for targeting vehicles. Only an opinion from a guy who doesn't know better.

Another observation, which may lead some to believe that mortars are deadly when in fact it is something else.... Hidden AT infantry may fire at vehicles and not reveal their location. When this happens, no shell is seen. You just get the explosion near your vehicle. It can be mistaken as mortar rounds, when in fact, it is AT fire. I lost one vehicle from a top hit, sure it was a mortar. Turned out to be a PIAT on a second floor building about 120m away. One way to validate is go visit on the map all the dead and living after the battle and bring up their kill stats. You can find out exactly who was responsible for the vehicle kills. You may be surprised.

Tale of the 2in Mortar Blaster... Well, well, I finally found that 2 inch mortar. It was almost out of ammo when I stumbled on it (on other side of river). Since the 2in mortar had taken out six vehicles, about 75% of my armor, I was excited to get my revenge! I gleefully moved a surviving 251/9 to slam it with a 75mm round when BAMMM!!! A hidden 6pdr AT gun beside the mortar opened up and my 251/9 went up in a catastrophic giant fire ball! I fell out of my seat grasping my chest. Fortunately, the sounds of battle ceased as I wreathed on the floor. Remembering it was just a game, I finally got up. Now I can take an ambush from a hidden AT gun, that's fair. But that 2in mortar with six vehicle kills can not survive this fight. NO! I'll send all the guys to their doom if need be, but I won't let that evil tank busting 2in mortar survive! Woops, my soldiers found the mortar to be flanked by infantry squads and my troops are now kissing bridge. That blasted mortar is going to live....NOOOOOOoooooo....

Besides the two modpacks, there is also a tremendous amount of third party mods. To keep things straight, get in the habit of viewing each moded bmp file. Then look at the one in your CMBO\BMP directory. If windows, double click on the file and a default bmp viewer should open the file for viewing. If you think the new is better, replace it only. You will soon learn the numbering, which group is for which tank, tree, etc.. After awhile, you will start to get ideas. Like the free french and ami tank mod, where you can run a batch file to replace the same graphics file. I use this method for german uniforms, so I can see them all. I have icons on my desktop which say... german army with summer camo, german army with gray, german paratroopers with brown helmet, etc, etc. These batch files rename files so that I can use multiple bmp's for the same bmp, choosing which to use depending on the scenario I am playing. Gives great variety. If you make a mistake, the CD is fortunately not compressed, so you can go directly to its BMP directory and recover to the original. A safety net I've used once in awhile....

This thread was not on "lethality" of mortars. That has been discussed a plenty, with velocity and shell size and etc, etc. My comment is on on-board mortar ACCURACY. Its very reliable. I did not know it was so accurate. I thought mortars were built to allow a spread over an area. If they hit the same spot repeatedly, then they are considered ill designed. If they disperse as they should, being primarily intended to use against infantry, then how can they be so accurate at taking out a targeted vehicle? Not saying it can't, it just seems to happen a little too easily and often. As for open vs closed top vehicles, I returned to my scenario that was in progress and immediately I lost another Mark IV tank to the same 2 inch mortar. It was having no problems knocking out buttoned up tanks. The trick is to keep my armor moving every turn. But this almost reminds me of my battle front games, where my troops would move back and forth between two hexes to avoid the artillery barrages. Not near that bad, but it made me think of it. CM handles artillery far, far better then anything previously done. Without starting up another debate about if a 2 inch mortar shell should be able to penetrate top armor of a buttoned up tank, I just observed that on-board mortars tend to be pretty accurate at hitting their vehicle targets. Just seems a little too high. Mortar crews should not be targeting a platoon of buttoned up tanks when a full company of infantry is fast approaching. Yet, due to accuracy and lethality, it becomes an irresistible habit. I have no idea and no practical experience, but it doesn't 'feel right'. Hey, what do I know? Not much, except CM is my game dream come true. Just making an observation.

ckoharik, I usually avoid such nasty surprises by entering all buildings and suspected hiding places with infantry in front. I never put armor up front. I sit them way back. So yes, I fear AT teams as well, they force me to play with a slow infantry advance. I love this game, infantry plays such a key role! I really do fear Infantry AT weapons, I play to avoid them. But I don't know how to counter small mortars. The issue I have with SMALL mortars is that they seem to hit often against vehicles and it seems to often take them out. Its the accuracy, the number of hits they score, that has me scratching my noggin.

After playing with the 1.05 for twenty scenarios, I've continued to notice the lethality of on-map mortars against armored vehicles. I think the accuracy of these things versus armored vehicles is a bit too much. That's my opinion, not experience. In one scenario, the British airborne infantry took out three armored vehicles with a single 2 inch mortar, all within five turns. One of these vehicles was a Mark IV tank! Luck? This may be an extreme example, but there is no denying the CM mortar's anti-tank capability. When controlling armored forces, I have more fear of small mortars then I do of enemy Infantry AT weapons. This seems odd to me. I've started to apply the same trick with my own mortars. I have no problems with off map artillery. Its those small caliber ON-MAP mortars that have me scratching my noggin. ADDITION: In case someone thinks me ungrateful, this is the best wargame, nah, best computer game I've ever had grace my hard drive. I'll be playing this one for years. [This message has been edited by kump (edited 10-21-2000).]

Haven't been around for a couple of months, business and a chance for CM to mature a bit. Came back, and man, mods everywhere and version 1.05 plays real nice. What a rush. One thing though. Playing a lot of scenarios I keep getting the JPz IV. With several tanks getting the hi-rez treatment, and some new camo, its a shame no one has addressed this eye sore. I wish I had the talent. The JPz IV has a very ugly skin. Take a look at its rear, under carriage, etc. It really appears to be of a much lower standard than all the other stock skins in CM. I certainly hope one of the gifted takes pity on this tank destroyer. It really is crying for help. I'm so interested in seeing this ugly duckling prettied up that I'm willing to ($) ... send me email if your interested on working on this model and I'll tell you what I'm willing to do.

43.. no... 42.. 44? 40, heck, I can't remember....what was I talking about? 43

Two copies of CM I also have. Pure addiction. My post wasn't too clear either.. CM is probably very portable between OS's, with only I/O, graphics, and other system calls being different. I'd be surprised if Charles didn't add a level of indirection by adding his own CM system calls that are portable that hide the actual system calls below it. This would make maintenance of CM for both OS's much easier, the core code of CM basically being the same. Fix TacAI, compile for both machines. That is why I don't think you will see any divergence between MAC CM and PC CM in the future. With better systems, the improvement will be in performance. You will be able to play larger scenarios without a hit. You can always hope Charles in his wizardry will take some advantage of new chip technology, but I just don't think it will diverge from the main game plan, CM series in a format that is easy to maintain/enhance for both systems. I'm going to keep my mouth shut on this from now on, since I'm only a PC fan. Maybe Charles will enlighten... [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-17-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS: It's a good idea to read posts carefully to make sure that one is not reading things into them that the writer never intended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh Geezz (rolls eyes) Then what is the question on impact to the cross-pollination to the PC world? It wasn't "do you plan on optimizing CM2 for Altivec" only question! What, did I imagine it! My POINT was the answer to THAT question is NO IMPACT! If there is an optimization to Altivec, GREAT. Yes, one should read posts more carefully!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What impact will this have on CM development and cross-pollution, ...uhh cross-pollination to the PC world?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hate to break it to you. Selling enough copies of CM to continue the series is mighty important to BTS. They don't plan to get on the top ten best seller list, but need enough to continue the mission. If it wasn't for that cross-pollination to the PC world, you may be in trouble waiting for future CMs. I've no access to BTS plans, but I'll bet my house that BTS will never opt to a Mac only plan.

Hmm... I thought this post had finally faded away... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Quote from Senior Editor Glenn, All in all, a 7 is not bad. Do I personally enjoy Earth 2150 or Ground Control more? Yes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This one little snippet of Glenn's response had me desist and forget about the whole thing. It wasn't worth the effort. Glenn's two games he used for comparrison were RTS offerings, no historical wargames at all. Does Glenn like playing Rising Sun, which Gamecenter awarded a 9 and editor's choice award? Does Glenn enjoy playing the RTS titles he mentioned more than Rising Sun? Guess that means the rating of Rising Sun is too high. I immediately realized that Gamecenter was evaluating CM from a different perspective. Judging CM on how it measured up to the model created by the C&C and WarCraft/StarCraft designs. CM doesn't fit very well in that regard. Its too different. There will be many more true wargaming reviews that will recognize what CM is all about. This little small 9mm review from Gamecenter won't even scratch the turret. [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-16-2000).]

Pillar, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hehe, Kump, take it easy pal. "Lunatics" was just an expression, I'm not insulting your mental stability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh good. I thought you really knew me or something and I don't recall seeing you at the ward. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sheesh, I like Combat Mission too man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whew. That's good, cause I didn't want to kill you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyone has the freedom to disagree with a review. However, I don't think we should start trying to "rally the forum" and get everyone emailing on this. That's where I draw the line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, I see! Rallying is bad? Okay, I'm of a different opinion. Forums are where like minded folks visit and I assumed other like minded readers may agree with my assessment. However, everyone can make up their own minds and ignore any calls to rally. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Get emailing folks" - kump "Alright you CM fanatics, start firing..." - kump<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Those are beautiful quotes man, where did you get them? Brings tears to my eyes. The person being quoted is a pure genius with words, but probably a lunatic if you ask me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Just emailed him - C'mon everyone get in the act, we haveto change that score!" - OsinO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, now that quote I can agree with. Okay, can't change scores, but can make noise. But agree, jihads are bad. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Like I said in my previous post, if you "have a big mouth" and absolutely have to use it, don't expect to recieve much respect from others. "The right to an opinion" entails a right to each person.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, now we big mouth folks who use it have no respect? I knew it! I have always said I get no respect. My pearl back, voicing a complaint about people voicing complaints will lead to further complaints. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not going to bug you, do what you will. My post was more directed at others reading the thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh no! Too late! Understood your points. [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-14-2000).]

British tank crew member, "Sorry Sergeant, we ran out of white paint for the star on the rear, but I don't think any Americans will be behind us on the next mission anyway." [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-14-2000).]

Spook, EXACTLY, and that is why a response to the senior editor who assigns who rates what may tend to keep Mark Walker off future wargaming titles and into FPS and RTS titles where he may feel more comfortable. Just an opinion... PS: Believe it or not, Gamecenter does want to review objectively and accurately as much as possible. Responses to reviews do count.

Pillar As originally posted, the review was acknowledged as saying some nice things. Its only the rating when compared to past reviewed Gamecenter strategy titles that comes into question, at least for some of us CM zombies. You are right, its only an opinion. But the single one man reviewer's opinion does not have to be the last word accepted. That is what feedback is all about. Gamecenter does read feedback on reviews. It helps the editor to decide who reviews what in the future. I can object to a review and have done just that, but it doesn't make me a lunatic, thank you very much. I can also wave a flag for other players to point out my objection, and if they agree, they can object too. Now they may be a bunch lunatics, I can't tell. Lets keep it in perspective, shall we? On both sides of the issue. I agree, don't go on Jihads, but don't sit idly by if something occurs that you object to and have a legal and politically correct way of voicing your opinion. The opposite is just to accept everything you read and keep your mouth shut. Sorry, I have a big mouth.

Okay, the email I gave is to the senior editor. Alright you CM fanatics, start firing... Glenn Rubenstein, Senior Editor Assigns and edits Gamecenter's computer game reviews glennr@cnet.com

From the review at http://www.gamecenter.com/Reviews/Item/0,6,0-4442,00.html you can click on Mark Walker's name, but you will get what I believe is one of the editor's emails: glennr@cnet.com I've already sent an email, first addressing to Gamecenter, next to Mr. Walker. Get emailing folks.....

(addition - put in url to review) http://www.gamecenter.com/Reviews/Item/0,6,0-4442,00.html Okay, noted that the reviewer at Gamecenter reviewed and rated CM a 7. Didn't say bad things, and was actually a pretty pleasant review. But wait, I've seen that reviewer's name before...yes, this is it. Aghhhh... Mark H. Walker. Mark H. Walker, reviewed Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge for Gamecenter in December of 1999 and gave it a rating of 9 and an Editor's Choice award! And this wasn't the first CC to get a 9 and Editor's Choice award. Okay, I won't say it was a tainted review. But lets just look at the "Strategy and War" games that got higher ratings than CM during the year 2000 only, just for perspective... Earth 2150 Ground Control (Award) Shogun SimCity 3000 Imperium Galactica II Allegiance (Award) Risk II Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim SimTheme Park Rising Sun (Award) Battlezone II 12 O'Clock High: Bombing the Reich and a couple from December... Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge (Award) Age of Wonders And those strategy titles that rated equal to CM? Star Trek: Armada Campaign 1776: The American Revolution Tzar: The Burden of the Crown Armies of Armageddon: WDK 2K Hmmm... Maybe I'm just a CM zombie and have lost my perspective. Maybe reviewers need to spend more time with titles too. Oh, and look at those screen shots of CM in the review. See the interface at the bottom of the screen? Ever see it that crunched up before? Means low resolution setting. Graphics not good enough huh? Got a suggestion to improve it, I do. [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-14-2000).]

Even "Risk II" scored higher than CM at Gamecenter in the "war and strategy" department. I guess that is more to their liking. [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-13-2000).]

I asked this question over in the tips and techniques forum, but decided to repost here also due to higher traffic volume. Hope someone can help. Okay, one of the things that has me a little confused are the scenarios with victory point areas and exit areas. Is it prudent to exit all my forces? Must I hold objective areas and exit some forces? Should I give victory areas top priority and "bleed" off some forces to exit to get additional points? Just exactly what should get the priority? Holding or exiting? As I exit forces, holding becomes tougher. If I hold and disregard the exiting of forces, then I'm squandering points and not following the scenario intent, that of exiting. So what is a commander to do when initially making plans for playing this type of scenario?

Okay, one of the things that has me a little confused are the scenarios with exit areas. Is it prudent to exit all my forces? Must I hold objective areas AND exit some forces? Should I give victory areas top priority and "bleed" off some forces to exit to get additional points? [This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-09-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Top Ten Last Words Of A Tiger Commander<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, wait a minute! I just realized this topic title is about the Commander, not the Tiger itself. So heres a few more... 1) "Hey, is that a sniper over there in tha...." 2) "I'm going out to relieve myself. I'll be right back. Don't go anywhere." 3) "If we charge those ten Pershings, we will definately take them by surprise. Hienz, why are you drawing your pistol?" and finally 4) "So I got carried away with the contest to bag as many AFV crews as I could, but hey, we still all made it out anyway! Not only that, we are two up! Hienz, why are you drawing your pistol?"

Geez, I couldn't stay quiet any longer. Where did the definition come up where fanatic means your guys go nuts? I thought fanatic meant the troops don't panic, break, or rout and will rarely surrender? This simulates fanatical defenders and such. I did not know CM also has some code to have fanatic behave as bezerkers! I never saw that anywhere. Sure seems to be the accepted definition in this thread. I don't think fanatic means bezerk. Just because the attackers seem to have lost their minds and charged ahead, it doesn't mean they are fanatical. Seems folks just like to use that word for "unusual behavior". In such cases, there must be other reasons why the TacAI has your troops charge forward. I don't think fanaticism is the reason. Maybe BTS can jump in and explain, or at least validate that fanatic doesn't mean looney.