Pham911

Another benefit of crawling in open terrain(or anywhere else for that matter as far as I can tell) is that your units aren't upright and exposed for the first burst of fire from a hidden enemy before they hit the dirt and return fire(or, god forbid, run away and expose themselves further). I'm basing the assumption that sneaking troops are more exposed on test results showing a greater casualty rate and morale reduction over crawling troops. It's still very taxing on your troops, which may or may not outweigh the bonus depending on the situation.

The mortars have been explained, but keep in mind that you can't move the mortar after setup or indirect fire won't work anymore. It works best if you dedicate a Company HQ to spotting from a mortar park or two that you set up behind cover. The beauty of this is that the HQ doesn't need to be unhidden for the mortar strikes to work, and using a Company HQ won't tie up a whole platoon near the mortar park(although good rear area security doesn't hurt...). You can also use the HQ to trace a fire line(which shows his LOS to the target), then have your mortars target the same point, then cancel your HQ area target and re-hide him. That's just a little tip, as it can be hard to find exact LOS from a seperate unit when using indirect mortar fire. Oh, and the HQ can move freely without screwing up your chances of using indirect fire, but he has to stay in command range of the mortars for it to work. The graphics sharpness seems to depend on both video card type and what your resolution your screen(and CMBO) is set to display at. I noticed a huge increase in level of detail and overall sharpness between 1024x768 and 1280x1024. Way more than I would have expected. This is on a PC, so since you're using a Mac your milage may vary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by groundpounder: I know this is not the Scenario Forum and I will probably get flamed for this, however... I would like to urge anyone who has downloaded and played scenarios from CMHQ Scenario Depot to please voice your opinion and vote on the scenarios. MadMatt has put in place a very nice rating mechanism, which virtually no one is using! So many of the scenarios are stuck at 3 stars, most by virtue of only one vote! However, if you look at the number of downloads per scenario most are in the hundreds. Is anyone playing these scenarios or are you using them just to fill the bad blocks on your HD? From what I see on these forums this crowd is very opinionated, except when it comes to scenarios! More air time is given to hamsters! Maybe MadMatt should change the rating system from stars to hamsters. Good or bad...please vote. Thanks, groundpounder<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The rating system is busted(no offense, Matt). You can vote multiple times for a scenario(good or bad), which makes any rating suspect. I've seen scenarios that I didn't care for(seemed thrown together, huge tank fights, max turns possible, etc) get high marks, while ones that were great(researched, fun, good balance, obviously play tested) get panned in the ratings. It makes one wonder who's voting and how often... I'd like to see the rating system replaced by the review system that they were doing(still are? not sure). A thumbs up from the Roger Ebert of the CM world would mean more than user ratings to me. Even if you never agree with him, at least you'd know which scenarios to avoid. But, since Matt was doing that alone(I think), it looks unlikely given his new duties making the Battlefront.com FTP servers as slow as the Gamers Net ones. (<---a lil' joke...)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oberst Angsthase: Good advice. My concern was that Fast and Move commands cause the tank to proceed to its destination regardless of what pops up, thereby exposing itself to a flank shot. Am I mistaken in this? I wanted to move from point A to point B, but respond to (kill) any armor that I saw along the way as well. I agree that scouting with a heavy tank is not good strategy, but as the tank was my only starting unit it left me with few choices.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, it'll still shoot if moving or fast moving, but you're right that it'll expose it's flank if the enemy pops up to one side or another instead of in front. There's really no good solution to this that I've found. The hunt command will indeed stop the tank, and then the TacAI should turn to face the threat with the stronger front armor, but this still puts it in a possible fatal situation if it's in the open. I suppose that it's a trade off of sorts, as it stands now. If you move or fast move you'll offer flank shots to the enemy, but he'll be aiming at a moving target which should(ideally) be heading for cover. If you hunt, then you stop and engage the enemy, reducing flank shots, but offering a stationary target in the open for him to target. Best bet, use multiple move orders. Hunt while in cover(through scattered trees, climbing hills, etc), then a fast move to dart to nearest cover, then hunt through that area, then fast move to next cover, etc. This won't fix your problem, but at least in this case the tank should stop while protected and engage any threats before dashing forward through open ground. At least you'd lower your exposure while still being able to hunt(which is indeed useful, don't get me wrong).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: Not (obviously) speaking for BTS in any official capacity... The 1.06/TCP/IP patch will possibly be out within a month. There may be a few other minor tweaks in addition to the TCP/IP play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've kind of lost touch with where the patching situation is at. Does the above mean that TCP/IP is a definate go for the next patch(whenever that may come out)?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Sneak vs. Crawl What's the difference? Which provides the least chance to be seen by the enemy? It seems, to me, that crawling would, as it provides the smallest silhouette possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unofficial answer through independent test(i.e. me testing it...): Sneak works best in trees, or other areas of cover, whereas crawl works best across open ground where there is no real cover. Sneak is faster, I believe, and units don't fatigue as quick, so use it over crawl if possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Spending money in and of itself is hardly an indicator of effectivness be it the military or education. There is no doubt that the military is weaker now than it was during the Gulf War. I find it unlikely that we could even repeat such an operation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, this goes without saying. During a *war*, the military tends to bloat for various reasons. Since we haven't been to war(as such), it stands to reason that there has been a deflation in military strength. Remember how long of a buildup we had in the Gulf before we engaged the enemy. Besides, we've got technology up the ass and still a boat of explosives finds its mark. How does this have anything to do with military readiness or the budget? I'd say it's just "one of those things". Tragic, but not really preventable by increasing military size.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red Dog: I'm torn between "Das Boot", "Stalingrad", and "Cross of Iron" for the best WW2 movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Stalingrad: wide screen, subtitled= great movie. The infantry/tank battle is phenomenal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark: Hmmmm... even though (as just stated) I'm at a loss to understand cheating to win, I guess I can understand the temptation to regenerate a map if you happen to see that you have vast open wastelands to run your troops across towards a defending enemy. Once again, I just hope most CM players are honest enough to play a fair game. Personally, I'd just see it as a challenge. I haven't been here long, but I honestly can't see any of the regulars here cheating... everyone seems way too concerned with accuracy, etc. Why worry about whether or not a tanks turret is turning at the exact right speed, and then cheat to win?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true. I can't see any of the regulars cheating either... However, in ladder games or other contests, it would be a sore temptation to not get your ass kicked(like I'm getting in a couple of PBEM's at the moment) and look like some kind of PBEM god. Personally, I wouldn't do it, but the real issue is there's no way of knowing if your opponent would or did. The only 'fix' at the moment is for you(in general, not you as in you, Mr. Clark) to control the setup if the other player trusts you to not re-generate maps. Really, though, the game should dis-allow map viewing by not allowing unit placement until after your opponent gets to place his and by not allowing you to save the QB and play it as a seperate test game to see if the map is good or not.

I'd like to see the ability to change platoon/company/battalion/team names, squad size, and arms in the editor. Then you could have all the Rangers, Marines, etc, that you wanted, even if they didn't ship with the game. Tanks shouldn't be changeable beyond names, though.

I'm not sure if this really applies to your situation or not, and this really applies more to PBEM than playing the more predictable AI, but... The Hunt command shouldn't be your primary movement command, and can cause major casualties if used all the time. If your tank, even a heavy tank like the Tiger, is between enemy infantry and enemy armor, you're asking for trouble. If you could force the tank to not target the infantry and instead move until it finds a tank then you're giving an open invitation to the enemy to move his infantry up on the rear of your tank and attempt to immobilize it(or destroy it, depending on the infantrys weaponry). It would be very easy for an oppenent to assess that your armor isn't targeting infantry just by noticing that it *isn't targeting infantry* and exploit that advantage. If your tank is in the position you mentioned, you've moved too fast and should have removed the infantry before advancing to thier armor. Otherwise, you should be moving fast(if the situation calls for it, otherwise move normally) to the position you've decided on as a goal. If you're not sure if it's clear for the tank to approach, then you're scouting with the tank behind enemy lines... and good luck with that. Hunt should be used to smash enemy positions, move forward until new contact, and repeat. It shouldn't be used to move from A to B unless you're assaulting known positions or are moving to a hull down vantage point with a good field of fire against known enemies(and want the tank to freeze behind cover once the enemy is targetable, and not to continue moving forward to its destination.). If you're moving along with hunt as your primary move order, you'll find your armor stopping in the open and sitting there trying to trade shots with an entrenched enemy(s). That said, it would be nice to have some sort of SOP choices for all units(move to contact, avoid contact, suppresive fire, direct fire, or something similar).

If you play a QB PBEM with the computer picking the forces, it seems that the person setting up the game gets to see the map before sending any emails to his opponent(and without saving it and loading it as a mirrored game). This leads to the same problem, i.e. one person can dictate the terrain and get a major advantage over the other without the opponent knowing it. Is it a big problem? Yep. Any time you can see the map and then decide if you want to fight on it or not you're tipping the balance majorly in your favor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buddy: Support our military - vote Bush/Cheney.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This isn't really a political forum, but do you really think that Gore will attempt to dismantle the military or weaken it? Clinton, in his 8 years, actually increased military spending despite dire predictions to the contrary prior to his election. And I doubt that we'll get involved over one ship, callous as that may sound. If it was a terrorist incident, who are we going to attack? Also, before going nuts about this incident and reports we get, repeat "Gulf of Tonkin" over and over... Don't believe everything that you read.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lindan: <font size=+2> "Combat Mission 2: Beyond Valor" </font> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like it because the text is big.

What is the real difference between a TD, an assault gun, a tank, etc? Most of these seem to be usable interchangably, depending on circumstances(similar caliber, similar armor, etc), but I'm guessing there's a real seperation of these for some reason. Anyone have an explanation? Or is it just what they're tasked for? i.e. A Stug is an assault gun because it's used as an assault gun.

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but in a current PBEM game, I was able to see my opponents tank targeting an ambush marker. I couldn't see the marker, but the text was above it when I selected his tank, and a red line extended to the place I'm guessing the marker was. Bug?

I know that in the training for Steel Beasts you're told that once a round is loaded it gets fired, so if you change your mind about what you need you're stuck with the previous loading until you actually fire it and the loader can put in a new round. Of course, this is modern warfare, but I'd figure that it would be the same in WWII(there must be some sort of saftey mechanism that you'd remove I assume, which would make it dangerous to be pulling rounds out of the gun if they weren't fired). Anyone know what the SOP was for this in WWII?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS_PanzerLeader: Well I can't believe it the demo swayed me and I bought the full version, something I never thought I would do. The maps are very nice and the effects, AI blows but that was expected... But I bought it for the multiplayer which is alot of fun , I playe d a few games int he zone tonight and had a great time ... been a long time since i gamed till 2 am I still love CM the best but I am awaiting multiplayer ;p I've only played a few games and havent explored it totally but it is far better than CC3 or CC4 which is why I bought it. The Air strikes are pretty sweet as well Its nice to see atomic made some worthy changes ... maybe some of BTS rubbed off on them . Hopefully they will continue to improve and we will get a super RTS one day in the ww2 genre <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gotta agree with you. CC5 is actually a pretty fun game, with some wicked intense firefights now that tanks don't rule the world. What I dislike about it, so far, is the beach invasion maps. It seems weird that only 15 squads are used to take out 5 bunkers, strongpoints, a beach wall, and five victory locations, and a defensive force of(go figure) about 15 squads... Maybe I'm just weird that way. I don't know. Overall, though, it's a pretty good and quick game so far. No CM, but what is(except for CM, natch).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Red Devils wrote: > Uhh,huh-huh-huh...he said "testes." Oh no, what are we going to do now? – Run around screaming "HE SAID TESTES!!"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is my first choice. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just ignore me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is my second.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: For once, Rob/1 is correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, no, really... It's a compliment...

Aren't beaches bad for computers?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joseph Porta: You don' mean...you are...SELLING !!!!!! it ???!!! (faint) Judas ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, copies anyways. (note: The above was a joke, and isn't meant to impune Mr. Olson's reputation. He does not sell pirated copies of CM to my knowledge. That's Joseph Porta's job.) (note: That was a joke also.)

Matt, Is it just my connection or does the ftp server at CMHQ's host suck? Once my download starts it goes fine, but it can take up to two minutes to get from the download screen to actually having the download window pop up. I'm on a cable modem, BTW, but it could be a bad router or some such along the way from here to there.

Speaking as a German player(usually); I don't root for the SS to win. There are more units than the SS in CM, and even if I am playing with an SS force I don't root for the SS(and the political implications associated with them), but for my command ability to win over another person. It's not like I'm gearing up to commit genocide if I beat someone on a ladder match. Also, I don't see a great imbalance at all. I will attack, defend, or meet as the Germans, and have had mixed luck with any situations. A recent PBEM game(ongoing), had a platoon of light armor crest a hill to pelt some advancing infantry, then retreat back behind the hill. Good plan, but the enemy had deployed two TD's on top of the other hill(which was on his side), hidden in a nook that blocked LOS to them from anywhere but the hill I was coming over. They were already traversed and ready to fire when my armor appeared and I then lost 3 of my tanks in the space of 10 seconds and was unable to return effective fire. I just lost a PzIV in the same game to a 110m bazooka shot while my tank was going top speed to flee a high profile area. Then, the other tank that was with it found itself broadside to a Sherman that my opponent had re-deployed(I assume) to counter my tank mobility and firepower. My point is this, complaining about lack of balance in PBEM doesn't seem valid to me. If you're asking for a better balance in long range tank dueling power, I'd have to ask why you're taking on German armor(or any armor, really) across long, open spaces. You can kill German armor easily if you manuver around and intelligently attack it. It should never get to a point where 5 Shermans cost as much as 1 Tiger, as that would tip the scales in favor of the Allie player who parks his armor and tried to slug it out with anyone who shows thier head way too much. I'm not sure what's really being asked of BTS here. Should tank cost be relative to your opponents tank costs? Or, should the Allies be granted an automatic bonus(which is the same effect as the previous question)?

Was searching for some info on Talonsoft's West Front on dejanews.com and kept getting mentions in the posts it found about CM this and CM that. I thought, "what the hell's a CM?" and started searching for information on it. Finally found what it stood for and the web site address and happened to stumble in here for the first time just days before the Beta Demo was released. And I've never looked back at West Front since... Go figure.