Pham911

Same here(by mistake). Was looking up info on West Front using dejanews.com and kept reading mentions of something called CM in peoples Usenet posts. I then searched for CM, and after some misses, finally found an address for this two letter game everyone was raving about(this was pre-beta, and it already was getting great feedback on what they were attempting, at least, as well as great tester comments). The address was battlefront.com, and the rest is history.

I've had about as much luck with ambushes as with area fire; meaning none at all. When you focus on an ambush marker or an area target it seems that the shooter *never* breaks contact with the marker/area even when he comes under fire. There was some discussion on this a while back(search for sticky and marker, maybe?). Best solution for it that I've found is to not use ambushes except in very, very specific circumstances when you know the enemy is coming at the marker and you know that no suprise enemies will pop in and attack from either a distance or from a spot other than near the marker. Hope this helps.

Interesting idea, but it probably falls under the "too much info" problem that BTS omitted the OOB for. Not sure, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Place them in scattered trees. Close to buildings might help as well. Neither is fool-proof, but should enhance survivability. If you're playing Allies, then their flex MGs will act as AA also, unless the vehicle is buttoned. Cheers Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> German PSW 234/3's can also offer AA fire with MG's. Probably other German tanks can also, but I can only speak of personal experience with that one doing it. You're dead on the money with your suggestion that scattered trees provide concealment. Not only does this make sense(which is why I tried it in the first place after losing a ton of equipment on the planes first pass), but CM models it apparently quite well. The question I have about this is; Does hiding armor(the actual hide command) while in trees increase the odds of their not being spotted by the plane? Can planes see anything in wooded areas? Also, does firing at the plane make it more likely that you'll draw return fire? Anyone know how it works?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if CM uses floating point numbers to calculate battles, and if floating point numbers are rounded differently depending on your CPU, doesn't this already impact gameplay between people? If turn 1 is processed by my computer, which gives a slightly faster turret rotation speed than my opponents(for example), then turn 2 is processed by him and the rotation is slower, doesn't this mean that my tanks have variable rotation speeds within the same game? Doesn't it also mean that between different opponents of mine that my tanks will perform differently, even if under the same battlefield conditions? Someone said that there were millions of calculations per turn(I think it was millions, anyways). Wouldn't this amplify the problem if all those FP's were being rounded differently every other turn? I.E. I process turn 1 and all my tanks rotate slightly faster(and above what they are supposed to by design), and I score more kills. Turn 2, processed by my opponent, my tanks now rotate not only slower than normal, but also slower than they were when I processed the last turn, so I lose more tanks on average. Just trying to understand. Any help appreciated.

There was a post recently that they were dropping all future Combat Mission games so that BTS could concentrate on the lucrative Squad Leader clone market.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt: "3. The Vietnamese then occupied the surrounding hills, brought well-camouflaged artillery onto the hills (the French artillery commander committed suicide due to his inability to provide counter-battery fire, I believe) and shelled the very strong French force in Dien Bien Phu. AA guns on the hills closed the French airstrip, supply drops were inaccurate, and the French suffered a defeat that shocked the world." All I have to say is that the French finding a way to lose is no shock. In fact, kind of expected. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the French were pretty good at warfare throughout the 20th century. They held the Germans in WWI, they fought well but to no avail in WWII. WWI, they had help, sure, but then again neither the British nor the Americans(or any of the other allies) could have done it alone either IMO. In WWII they were done in by pitting thier armor doctrine against the vastly superior German doctrine along with not expecting the invasion to take place as it did. Consider, though, that the British were forced out of France at the same time. It's hardly Frances fault that they were the ones invaded and didn't have the same chance as the British to gain ground elsewhere and try again. As for Vietnam, it's a totally different situation. It's an insurection, and not a war, and America faired exactly 0% better than France in that fiasco. So, while France bashing is pretty common in the US(not sure where you're from, btw), it's also mostly misguided.

I think the the CAS controllers(or advisors, or whatever they were called... Drawing a blank) were attached above the company level, so it would be out of CM's scope. Maybe someone knows otherwise though. It's a mystery. Also, I know for a fact that PSW 234/3's will fire at CAS. It surpised the hell out of me when the did it, but I was just praying they'd shoot the *!@#! down after a single bomb crippled a tank platoon of mine(seperate from the 234/3's). They didn't, but the CAS stoped coming around after a few turns(and after taking out 2 of 4 of the PSW's with MG fire...) I hate CAS. I think that if BTS won't include bikes, they should dump the CAS which *always* works against me, even when it's my own.

Didn't they fix bayonettes and then use the bikes for jousting? I seem to recall seeing that somewhere. They'd wear puffy clothes and say things like, "Herr Weiss, Me thinketh that thou hath had too many tankards full of ale. Sig Heileth." I dunno. Maybe I'm getting this mixed up with something else. Actually, BTS is halfway to the bikes now. They just need the graphics, as they can use that damn "oil my wheels" squeak of the tanks if they just cut out the engine noise. Squeak squeak Squeak squeak Ding ding And, someone could make a mod for the bike troops so I could have a frenchman deliver bread to my front line soldiers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: Try it in a pbem, tell us what happens. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've no problem using armor to force a bridgehead in a normal PBEM(in theory, as I've only done it with the AI to date.. may not work as well against another person, but it seems to rely mostly on the TacAI, and I'm not sure what another person could do once it was in full motion), but in a ladder game... Nah. The reason? If it doesn't work on a given attempt, it doesn't work spectacularly well. And then you find yourself yelling to your infantry, "Stop running! Can't you friggin see that the assault didn't work?!? The crews are out of the tanks" But, of course, they can't hear you and keep on charging into the MG fire without a care in the world. Like I said, it either works or it doesn't. It's pretty cool to watch either way, though. Not for the feint of heart, or for anyone who hasn't wiped all serious armor threats off the map first. May cause drowsiness, fatigue, or leg cramps. Call doctor if problems persist. And, Pillar, why aren't you asleep? It's past 3:30am. Getting closer to 4 now. Go to bed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt:

I'm not sure I agree with the necessary support of armor by infantry. I was playing with the theory that armor should not move seperatly(at least by much) from infantry so that you have a good combined force that can hopefully crush any opposition. Then, while reading "Panzer Battles" by F.W. Von Mellenthin I came across something that really stuck out: "The Allied military leaders, and particularly the French, still though in terms of World War I, and split up thier armor among the infantry divisions." Now, obviously, CM doesn't deal with divisional levels, but I started playing around with unsupported armor even though it seemed like a dumb assed idea at the tactical level. Maybe it is in reality, but I found that in CM it works wonderfully. My armor suddenly changed from plodding along as the infantry swept for possible AT teams in woods, houses, etc, to being amazingly fast and, the key thing, my tank losses actually decreased. I've found the following through PBEM play, which I assume is a better gague than playing against the AI: My tanks last longer and are mostly invunerable to being immobilized by artillery due to movement. If an AT team pops up near your tank, the TacAI for your tanks will attempt to avoid it(reverse) while at the same time firing at it. If you've got 3 or 4 tanks grouped together, that's 3 or 4 heavy MG's, along with HE rounds hitting the AT team, which will usually suppress or die with only a single shot being fired by them. If you're not preparing for known contact, use fast move instead of hunt and you'll pass most threats before they open up on you. And those that get a shot off will usually miss. In fact, you can plot longer moves to race past trouble spots and then do a short hunt move for the last waypoint to peek over a hill and engage once you spot enemy armor. If you take care to use one of the tanks for overwatch, you can even stop next to dicey, unsearched locations. This doesn't work well at all when buttoned, however, but if you fire into the unsearched location with the buttoned overwatch tank(assuming it can't unbutton, which would be better), you can compensate for this shortcoming. You can do wide and rapid flanking moves and can sometimes actually penetrate into the enemies rear area, which will usually screw any plans he has, especially if you're the defender and you've just charged him with your tanks. And the kicker, if you elliminate most or all of the enemy armor, you can create a bridgehead by ramming into enemy infantry lines with your armor as your own infantry charges. Mileage may vary, as this can turn into a fiasco in a hurry. I wouldn't do this in a PBEM ladder game personally. All of this assumes that it's a big enough map to manuver on, and that you have control over your tank groups(platoon, two tanks, whatever) as well as the individual tanks that comprise the group. I guess it goes back to the old debate, should armor support infantry or should infantry support armor. In CM, I say screw it. Sepearate the two and call it a day.

Can bridges be damaged by gunfire? If I were you, I'd either silence that gun or I'd start looking for a ford.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: Think of it this way, a tank blows up, a blown up tank takes its place, no tank debris. A squad is killed, a dead body takes its, no body debris (ewwww!), a house blows up, rubble takes it's place, no house debris. It's just a matter of replacing the bmp with a new one. The bmp has to take on the same spacial limitations of the one that it's replacing...make sense? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah.... I understand how it currently works, but what I'm saying is that if the game can add bmps to replace old ones, it can add other stuff too. It also can understand differences in tiles during the course of a game. In fact, it does add new things to the map all the time in the form of shell holes. They're not just graphical, either, as craters provide protection that wasn't there before, and are added many times during a game. My point is that the game can do what I'm asking. If it will or not is up to BTS, obviously.

Oh, oh, oh... Here's something relating to burning buildings. I borrowed it from Todd C. Justice's infantry article on combat-mission.com: "You should always attempt to preserve the structure. A well executed attack will be successful with minimum casualties. The structure can then be used by use as a staging area, SBF position, or hasty defensive position. None of which you could do if you level it while trying to take it." This is what I'm talking about trying to deny the enemy by buring the building. He wants to take the building, and if I feel I can't hold it for long, burning it seems like a logical choice to thwart his plans.