Olle Petersson

Your point being? Having your M1s knocked out is by no means impossible. The M1s just have better odds in a duel situation, since it usually takes more hits for a T-72 to knock out an M1 than the other way around. Anybody with experience from professional simulators can tell you that... Cheers Olle

My take on the issues... ... but reading briefings that look like they've been written by a 1930-ies typewriter on cheap wartime paper is cool! That's the general impression i currently get when reading the briefings, provided they're well written. It's allready there in the form of colour coding for armour and penetration as well as direct info (hit percentage and kill probability) through the LOS/target tool. Which you do have! In the units listing just point on an item to get the vital statistics in the lower left corner. When those data are the same, you can also get some clue through the point value of said item. Higher point cost (before rarity modification) usually means better! Cheers Olle

No, it isn't. It's your legal right to have one backup at a time, but the ability to make that backup isn't guaranteed by the law. You are, for example, not allowed to bypass any technical copy protection. Yeah, Swedish law isn't very smart in this respect... PDF manuals rule! ... provided they're properly designed for online reading, with hyperlinks and a generally suitable layout. In my work I sometimes have to fix some advanced defibrillators, and the service manual is a PDF. Troubleshooting and the following instructions how to do work like charm! Links all over that take me straight to the relevant page in the document. Unfortunately all game manuals I've come across have been nothing but unprinted books, which I need to print myself to use properly. With simulation games like CM the manual is usually more than 250 pages, so the associated personal printing cost match or exceed what it would cost me (as the end consumer) to have a properly printed manual shipped with the game. The most recent example I've encountered is even worse; a scanned 1/3 of the manual to "Sim Golf", which I bought the other day. The most interesting chapters and pages were simply not scanned to make the 90+ page printed manual fit in a 35 page PDF. :mad: ... and no page indexing! :mad: Try 270 pages, which is more like the CM manual... Cheers Olle

Thread hijacking here... Trench or foxhole? When setting up a defence I generally have the option. A test I made came to the conclusion that when approaching dug in stationary troops that are neither "hiding" nor shooting you'll spot, in order: 1) Trenches. 2) Foxholes. 3) Troops in foxholes. 4) Troops in trenches. If the terrain is other than open the spotting distance will be very short for the last two, but well beyond 100m to spot a trench. The trench provide very good cover for troops as well as the concealment, on the other hand it's quite easy for an attacker to spray the trench with area fire whereas an unspotted foxhole won't draw attention. Personally I slow down and approach really slow if/when I spot a trench ahead. Perhaps empty trenches should be used as decoys... Any comments? /Olle

What makes me slightly upset is the poor (wrong!) use of the word "boresighted" in CM. The actual (real life) meaning of the word is that the aim and hit points coincide at that distance. Since the gun sight normally is positioned at the side of the barrel there will be a slight offset between the line of aim (sight) and the line of fire. When boresighting the line of aim (not adjusted for distance) is set to coincide with the central line through the barrel at some range, typically half of max range but can be done at any range. Thereby the gun barrel won't point in a significantly different direction than the gun sight. In CM the word "Boresighted" should be replaced by "pre measured distance", as is real life SOP when setting up an ATG firing position unless the enemy is within range immediately. (Been there, done that!) Cheers Olle

Wow, this stirred up some heat (and confusion)... I'll try to respond to some of it, most of which has been covered in the thread I linked before. Depends on how it's used. What's done with dongle protection is that parts of the executable is encrypted, so it can't run as is. The dongle contains decryption hardware that, given a valid license, decrypts the executable. To crack it somebody has to decrypt the file and re-code it. That is possible to do but requires a lot of time and effort. Not worth it for "cheap" software. Earlier it was also common to have the same parts of the executable encrypted throughout all versions (updates), which made cracking all that easier once one version was cracked. That's why you can find cracked software around, but you might not find the latest versions... Nowadays different portions of the files are encrypted with each update, which means that a cracker has to pretty much start from scratch with each new release. How many would prefer to play a cracked 1.00 when all legal players use version 1.03, that's not multiplayer compatible to 1.00? I, for one, must say I won't mind having another USB-memory. Optional hardware coded HDD encryption might also attract some users. Both of these come with the dongle! As for "inconvenience" I find it a lot more inconvenient having to locate the proper "CD" and having to listen to the noisy CD/DVD-drive than to have a dongle quietly sitting in an USB port. Not a big problem. Your licenses are not only stored in the dongle, but also by the software editor and the dongle editor. If, for any reason, your dongle is "gone" you just have to buy a new one and install the licenses onto that one. The old dongle will then automatically be made "invalid" and useless for anybody trying to use it. - What do you do when your copy-protected "CD", required for starting specific software, is destroyed/stolen? That should conclude my thoughts on dongles: A nice, useful piece of hardware that can do lots of stuff, including license management... Now to anti-piracy measurements in general. What they should do: - Prevent illegal use of the software. What they should not do: - Prevent backup copying. - Prevent legal use of the software. - Prevent installation on more than one computer (at all). - Mess with the OS and/or hardware and/or other software. - Require an Internet connection (other than possibly for registration/activation once, when the software is purchased, and preferably not even then). How does it work? - Anybody that knows any valid code should have no problems! Either any registered code goes public or somebody will come up with a code generator... How would that help? Well, it would if the game is distributed as shareware and registration is the same as buying the game. No money changeing hands before registration... SF is known to do lots of nasty things to the computer! CD keys are not "unique" either. Find a valid key and use it for registration. When the legal owner of that key later on tries to register there will be problems! /Olle

I think that's mostly post WW2. Rather from 60:ies on. For a "semi-meeting" engagement you can have a scenario with a strategically important (victory) location near the centre of the map. Player A start with a small force (platoon-ish) defending the VL, while Player B start in full force (2 companies+) near his map edge. Both players know A will receive reinforcements from his map edge, starting a couple of turns later. Player B better control the VL before A's reinforcements get there. Cheers Olle

There's been some serious discussion about how to protect the upcoming release of Steel Beasts from piracy, and that discussion together with the modular system intended for CMx2 make me just think: Dongle! Dongle protection seems to be just right for CMx2, at least for those of us that are likely to buy more than one module. The only known downside with a dongle is that the hardware costs from 40$ and up, depending on model. You don't need more than one though, and with dongle protection the software can be distributed simply as easy access downloads and/or on disks without copy protection. (That, in turn, usually ends up as cheaper license cost! ) To make the game run you buy a license that's installed on your dongle, and plug the dongle into any computer that has the game installed. When a new module is available, download and install the software, then upgrade your license in the dongle. Perhaps there still needs to be a more conventional release version as well, to attract those that haven't yet "seen the light"... Cheers Olle

Regarding crunch times; I played CMBO with crunch times well above five minutes, if gun fire was heavy. (P2/300MHz/64MB RAM) A one minute cruch time for a medium size battle computed on a state of the art computer seems playable, with crunch times doubled or quadrupled on lesser hardware. (Anything less than five minutes is fine with me.) /Olle

So what, more precisely, is the BoF battlefield? And why shouldn't AFV tactics be an issue when AFVs are exactly what you, as the player, use in BoF? (For SB the battlefield is not urban, but just about anything else, in my experience.) I can agree with that. To some extent BoF is more realistic in that aspect. All can be adjusted to your liking.</font>

But what about other units? If the AI can't drive my vehicle (effectively) it shouldn't be able to rive any other vehicle in the game either! "Move to waypoint" must be one of the single most common commands in the game, and the AI can't handle it! :mad: And if, as I assume, I am to control (command) more than one vehicle at a time, then a crappy AI makes matters a lot worse... I agree that it seems pretty good. The problem (for me) is that the competition from another small developer is so much better! Although this game have many features I really appreciate... - The ability to dig entrenchments during the game. - The vehicles available. (Love those more or less vintage tanks!) - The fairly accurate gunnery models. (Exactly how accurate I don't know.) ... there are some features that put me off and/or doesn't get any attention within the demo. - Crappy AI. Driving discussed above, and when I, as the TC, man the HMG (F8) I really don't want the AI gunner to mess up my aim and LOS by attacking targets or rotating the turret on his own! (Happens when trying to attack the helicopter in the demo.) - Controlling multiple units. In the map view I see there are a couple of buttons for formations and such, but I don't get to use them in the demo... - Plain view marking of targets and waypoints. Takes a deep cut in realism, doesn't it? (It's helpful though, and could optionally be turned on/off.) - Strange mix of decisions made for the graphics engine, or at least that's what it looks like on my hardware. Nice but slowdowns: Swaying grass, natural clouds, hi-res textures. Ugly and fast: Black shadows, ugly tree lines. I, personally, still think that the 5 y.o. SB seems to be a better sim, and it's successor SB Pro PE, that seems to be released this autumn, will be an even better simulator (while not a game) but cost about 100$ more than BoF. (Not aimed at the mass market at all!) (I could, of course, opt to buy them all...) Cheers Olle

This post really taught me some new things... Not to forget the Italian 45mm mortars. Very common! ... in either way: - It has very few rounds and a long response time, so compared to lighter artillery it's more likely to not hit anything essential. - It's very expensive, so if it doesn't do lot's of damage to the opposition the user is in trouble! British 2" mortars have a minimum range of 0m, so these can be used, even in a very foggy night. Early on they get the StuG III (with 75mm gun), which in various versions was used throughout the war. Later on they got the StuH 42 with a 105mm howitzer. Then let's not forget the "piece-de-resistance", the Sturmtiger! All howitzers, not "guns", and because of that the last one is M8 HMC. A most valuable chapter! Differs a bit depending on what guns/howitzers are used, doesn't it? This #2 was news to me. Good to learn something new! (Unrealistic as can be, but since it is the way it works in the game it's well worth knowing.) Cheers Olle

Just compare what a field with an armoured infantry battalion, located some three miles away, look like in those games, and let's then discuss the graphics. I have no experience whatsoever with Far Cry and Joint Ops, but in BF2 you can see exactly nothing beyond 450m (and very little beyond 400m)! That's a non starter for a tank sim where engagement ranges go beyond 4000m. There simply must be some drop in eye-candy if you are to have a large piece of terrain with lots of units in it in view all at once! To comment on the demo in general; I don't really like it either. It just doesn't tell me what I need to know, neither to play the demo nor what the full game is all about. Judging from comments posted by other players the command function for attached units is awkward to use yet lacking complex options. Being used to the easy to use yet complex Steel Beasts interface, that's a huge turnoff for me! Cheers Olle

I agree! It should! ... but it doesn't! Some snippets: "- B - release mountain brake," What the **** is a "mountain brake"? In the game it seems to work like a regular parking brake, but this one is to stop mountains from moving, or what? "- B and N keys - select ammunition type;" The keys turn a knob to a new position, but it doesn't help me understand the abbreviations (in Russian spelling with Latin letters) for the different ammo types. It says nothing about the gun sight and the heap of other stuff you need to know "to use the tank controls in the demo correctly". /Olle

1500m what? Maximum LRF range? If so that seems waaay strange when you're supposed to fire sabot and HEAT rounds at targets twice that far away... Cheers Olle

Soo... playing the demo: Does anybody know where I can find manual for manually determing range to target using T-72 optics? It should be there somewhere, IMO, but I can't find it... Cheers Olle

Ditto, since I feel the demo is lacking some needed stuff. Assuming one vs one scenarios are typical for this game that's okay, but it doesn't seem typical and thus at least one "typical" scenario is needed in the demo. I think so too. Not much problem here. That's not my problem(s). I expect having to slightly adjust the position of the tank to get a clear shot. The problems are more complex than that. This is pretty much a simulation game where efforts have been taken to make it realistic. As such it's imperative to get the knowledge what and how to do to use the tank properly, before exercising the actions. - What are the different ammo types? - Which type should I use for a specific target? - How do I select that ammo type and load the round into the gun? - What gun sight options are there? - How do I pick the correct view for my selected ammo type? - What does the markings in the gun sight mean, and how do I use them? - How do I get the correct range to the target, and how do I get that data into the fire control system? Since I've been an ATG gunner IRL and played Steel Beasts a bit I've been able to figure out the answers to about half of the questions above, but not thanks to the instructions provided with the demo. A total newbie must have a nightmare... Now for the shooting range itself... It is definitely not self evitent what is targets and what isn't, or when you're done, and the instructions doesn't help a lot. - In the "Military Camp" I started shooting at the buildings to destroy the "camp". Later on I discover that the real target is a manned RR inside the camp, while the buildings doesn't matter. - Then the various troops show up. Are these really "targets" and not just other trainees on exercise? I had to shoot them to find out, and the scenario didn't tell me when I was finished... - The moving Leopard tank was the only target where the given instructions made real sense! - The helicopter. Instructions: "Load ATGM, fire it and then switch to view F8 to guide it." (Or something to that extent.) Now which ammo type is ATGM? I managed to figure that out, loaded it and fired, covering the view in smoke and dust. Switched to F8 and realised I was suddenly looking in some totally different direction! :eek: I soon realised that F8 was the AAMG, and had absolutely nothing to do with the ATGM guidance. I also realised that firing an ATGM at the helicopter is stupid, since due to all the smoke and dust you can't see the target again until the missile has passed (or accidentally hit) it. It's much better to use a sabot round at this short range. To sum up the firing range: Good as such, but more teaching is needed! A very simple and straightforward scenario where you control your one tank. Nothing to it and not very interesting. Coming down a front slope there's no possibility to hide or find a good firing position. No room to adopt higher tank tactics, but a simple shootout... (I haven't installed the hotfix yet though.) I've never tested the older demo version, so I can't comment on this, but it seems BoF scenarios typically urge the player to control more units than a single tank, and that very important part of the game isn't even available in the current demo! :eek: Parts of this game seem very attractive to me, from a distance, like detailed simulation of some vintage tanks. Unfortunately the demo doesn't do much to straighten out my question marks, but rather add doubts to wether this really is a good simulator game or not... The old Steel Beasts demo sets my standards for what a good demo for this kind of game can provide: - Complete instructions to all aspects of playing the game as a gunner. (Using the primary sight, the secondary sight and the thermal sight. Selecting ammo. Using the lasr range finder and the fire control system. Using the various gunnery backup systems.) - Complete instructions to all aspects of playing the game as a tank commander. (Driving the tank, plotting routes, pointing out targets to the gunner, overriding the gunner, using the TC's HMG, etc.) - Complete instructions to all aspects of calling artillery. - Complete instructions to all aspects of controlling multiple units. And finally... - One single player scenario that let you use all the skills aquired in training (and available in the game). /Olle

Is it, really? "Intel reports show the enemy is building up a high concentration of troops directly in front of your sector. An attack is probably imminent, and your weak units are unlikely to prevent a major breakthrough. Since no reserve troops will reach you in time we've ordered our corps artillery to blanket the suspected area to break off the attack." The other option available is to have more and/or better defenders using direct(ed) fire on spotted enemies. Pointwise it's a simple tradeoff between initial firepower and remaining firepower. My remaining firepower was almost abyssmal. Depending on the terrain, it can be viewed as gamey to prepfire the small portion of the map actually useful for setup by the enemy. In my case I plastered ~90% of the setup zone in a QB, which includes large areas where I was pretty sure there was no enemies at all. My point exactly. The defender don't know what minute the attack is planned to start, but only hope his barrage will drop before the attackers have moved out. Cheers Olle [ May 15, 2005, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Olle Petersson ]

Is there such an issue? Well maybe, because of game limitations. As I see it, the #1 problem with "historical" scenarios is that for several reasons it's impossible to make them "accurate". a) The most often overlooked "flaw" is player knowledge. Quite often the players know a lot more about the circumstances than the historical commanders. - For well known battles the players might very well know beforehand exactly (or nearly so) what units are available at both sides, and where they are at the start of the battle. - (Good/experienced) players also often have a better understanding of different tactics available, and like to apply tactics that were out-of-fashion or not even invented when the historical battle took place. Lacking designer knowledge. It's almost impossible to get pinpoint accurate information about exactly who were there, their exact locations, the exact ammunition loadouts, fuel, food and sleep status. Detailed maps/photographs of the entire battlefield, such as it was at the start of the battle, are also just about impossible to get hold of. c) Simulator limitations. - Suppose the designer knows everything. The software still doesn't allow perfect representation of the conditions at hand. At best you can get pretty close, and have the situation almost accurate at the start of the battle. - Simulation "flaws". Dependin what simulator is used it does have a series of flaws that will make the outcome deviate quite a bit from the historical, even if you try to apply the historical battle plans. That said; I do like to play plausibly historical, assymetric battles where one side have a massive tactical advantage (numerical/point superiority). These still don't have to be unbalanced, since balance is a matter of victory conditions. Wiping out the opponent might be very easy. Doing it within a limited time while taking very few casualties in return might be a real feat! Cheers Olle

The closest you can get is to make a scenario with paratroopers arriving as "reinforcements" in the midst of the enemy setup zone. Cheers Olle

Here's my take on the issue: Rockets are good for area fire. Use them, en masse, to upset large areas, not point targets. Quite a while ago I did this in a quite large CMBO PBEM. Playing as defending German, with low quality troops, I got myself four modules each of 155mm and 210mm rockets, together with a bunch of TRPs. (I still had points left to get some tube artillery as well, to support my infantry.) I set those rockets up as prep fire, targeted side by side on four TRPs with one module of each calibre for each TRP. That was sufficient to cover almost all of my opponent's setup zone! (All I left was a small 25m strip at the far rear of the map, expecting my opponent to have just about nothing stationary that far behind with a covering ridge some 100m ahead.) Why risk missing the enemy when you can make sure you hit 'em all in the first blow? The rockets really messed up all troops in the huge area covered! Problem for me was that the opponent really did start with everything on the rear edge of the map, only moving a few scouting units ahead into my kill zone... My choice of arty was based on tests I did balanced with cost efficiency. The 155mm rockets are good at making infantry run, much like 8cm mortars. They're cheap! 210mm rockets really hurt running infantry, and direct hits take out armoured vehicles. They're affordable in smaller quantities. 300mm rockets are grim reapers, but they cost a bundle! Cheers Olle

The exceptions I've seen is when the "cover" is way off in front of the unit. Example: Two tanks in a wide, flat field, ~1km apart. Between them, in the middle of the field, is a low ridge and/or stone wall (cover equivalent) that impact the LOS. Here it's very possible that both tanks are hull down, while any projectile fired can easily drop an extra metre to hit the lower part of the target (out of sight to the shooter). Cheers Olle

Ehh... nope. It's because LOS is blocked to their lower parts, not the LOF. What the others have forgotten to mention is that CM model one other aspect of height; the target size (silhouette). Tall vehicles present a much easier target than low ones, since you don't need that much accuracy in range estimation to hit them. Height of the vehicle is a more important factor than length and width when determining "target size". Cheers Olle

IIRC this question was up around the time for the release of CMBB, and the following answer is my recollection of that thread (that should be available in the archives of 2002). The issue is about the resolutions available. - CMBO can be run in 640x480 and up. - CMBB and CMAK require 800x600 or higher. - OSX (early versions) Classic only support 640x480. Therefore CMBO can be run in Classic at 640x480, and no other game/resolution combination is supported. Cheers Olle

Depending on the situation there's definitely some merit in this. a) Given that your tanks have a decent probability (50% or better) to win a 1-on-1 duel head on with the enemy tanks, then spreading the fire is the fastest (and therefore safest) way to knock out the enemy. Tanks that are being fired at perform worse than those not under fire. Example: 10 vs 10 tanks, head on at medium range, with both sides able to score one shot kills on the opposition at equal probability. Side A concentrate their fire towards a single enemy tank at a time, while side B spread their fire. Volley 1: Both sides score mostly misses, since they haven't the distance properly measured. Volley 2: Side A will most probably knock out one enemy, spending 10 rounds to do so. Side B is likely to score hits on several enemies, knocking a couple of them out and throwing several others more or less "off balance". Volley 3: The remains of side A redirect their guns to target #2 and score some hits on it, quite possibly knocking it out. Side B knock out more enemies with clean hits. Volley 4+: Side A is no longer a fighting unit. Side B is mopping up. This is why the 1-on-1 approach is used in modern (anti)armour tactics when the shooters are MBTs or ATGMs. Cheers Olle