thewood

This is probably a stupid question, but can't the weather be set in the editor?

I don't know where it is but there was a long raging thread on Soviet heavy tank cowardice and geberated several interesting posts on the misconceptions about JS-2's. I wouldn't even know where to begion searching for it. IIRC, Redleg was a significant contributer on it.

If you read the entire discussion, you'll see that they aren't showing up at all. Unless some people somehow got different versions of the patch. I still don't buy the historical accuracy arguement. When it comes to OOB's there is an incredible amount of slop in any records. While equipment may not show up in theoretical records, anyone can see and site anecdotes where equipment was used or kept around for longer than official records indicate, especially armies far away from the motherland. Eventually spares force the issue, but hard dates for equipment changeover are always suspect. That is why I think having some book based on 50 year old records dictating whether a model that has already been built and included in the game must be removed. I have always considered BFC one of the most customer-friendly organizations around. But removing models that have already been developed and included and then turning around and saying other models that should be included can't be included because of development efforts seems strange. I am no Pz IIIJ short fan, but the logic behind it seems very forced. I really don't understand what BFC thinks its losing by including these models. If anything it seems to me to be an added extra from the guys at BFC. It ends up being a win-win. If anyone complains that it is an unfair advantage, use your usual explaination that the model was already developed, much like the IS-3 in CMBB. Also, you can just lock it out of QB's.

I can completely understand the historical issue, but when the models are already there, why remove them. You are only talking a few months difference. I can go back to several units in CMBO. like the M16 that were used, but not included. I can completely understand not wanting make new models, but why remove existing models? It makes no sense from an historical standpoint to draw such a fine, drastic line in the sand. A month or two either way seems within reason of a what if. If quick battles are an issue, inflate the rarity factor. Once again, I want to make this point clear, I am not arguing for inclusion of new models. I am just preplexed why you would go through the effort to develop models, take up space on a CD, and do all the research, and then, based on a hard cut off, delete them in a patch.

No, you're correct and I'm wrong. I've been looking at a different beta of the patch. As you and others have stated about Pz III availability, several models are no longer present. I've notified Matt (if he didn't know already). I have no idea if this will be changed or not since I'm not comparing CMAK to any TO&E's or OOB's, etc. </font>

I must be doing something wrong. I only see the Pz IIF in May '41. I see no Pz IIIJ (long or short) in December '41.

I couldn't find the Pz III w/ the 37mm either. Also, were all the short-barrel Pz IIIJ's removed completely? If so, why? If the models already exist, why not leave them in for a few small what if's?

I'm glad I don't work for you.

Didn't you know, gun damage happens way too frequently in CM. Just kidding. Once a month someone brings up that they think gun damage, which includes turret jams, happens far more in CM than in real life. I don't think anyone has brought more to the argument than anecdotes and conjecture, which also happens way more frequently in CM than in real life.

I have played all CM's on an IBM thinkpad A20 with 750MHz CPU, 128M of Ram, and an 8M integrated video processor. That is on par with what you have. The main issue I had was smoke graphics and having average settings for trees and such. Larger scnerios were very jerky in moving around at levels 3 and up, but manageable.

Actually, considering the age of CMAK, I have played at least 100 times the number of battles in CMBB. That is where my reference is from. I have played all three CM games through all levels of patching and still never encountered anywhere near the gun damage you are talking about. You also mentioned immobilization. I see more stuck vehicles than gun damaged vehicles, although still not at the levels I have heard by a minority on this forum. I still wonder if I am somehow not playing the same game as some other people. btw, read through the Panzertruppen books and you will see mention of gun damaged vehicles. You do seem to see more immobilized vehicles, but gun damage does show up enough to be mentioned.

If you are getting 70-80% gun damage, that is a problem, although you and I must be playing completely different games. Has anyone ever had 70-80% gun damage before...

I know BFC answered this question in both the CMBB and CMBO forums a while back. A search on gun damage will probably answer the question. I think it basically came down to they picked a number that seemed reasonable and unless someone comes up with documented evidence to refute it, it stays. I personally have never had the wild, out-of-control gun damage fests that other people have. I get one per game at most.

You guys should check out EYSA, if individual soldier modeling is the thing. As many problems as its has, the patches are making it a playable infantry game. But keep in mind that you are limited to 20 units. Although it sounds like that won't be a problem for you guys. As far as sacrificing infantry for armor fidelity, I disagree. Name another game out there at this scale that presents combined arms combat with this level of fidelity. And please don't say SPWAW, I always get that thrown back at me. SPWAW is fun but it has far more abstractions than CM, at least CMBB and CMAK. There was only so much that Matrix could do with the old girl.

I have a hard time understanding someone being so stubborn as to return CMAK because 2-lber performance doesn't match up with their expectations... I believe this thread alone cast enough doubt on the issue to make someone at least soften their tone. Instead it has only seemed to harden it. Even if the points are valid, other than going to a board game like Tobruk or ASL, I don't see many alternatives within this scale of combat to turn to. Is one going to now just give up on wargames because BFC hasn't responded to a minor issue within a couple of weeks? I am just curious because I must be missing something if there is an alternative to CM. Maybe SPWAW or SPWW2, with some fairly abstracted combat resolutions, I would really like to know. Am I alone in feeling that a lot of people on this board over-react to these issues? I remember similar passive-aggressive tactics around fatigue and reaction under fire when CMBB came out.

I have a hard time understanding someone being so stubborn as to return CMAK because 2-lber performance doesn't match up with their expectations... I believe this thread alone cast enough doubt on the issue to make someone at least soften their tone. Instead it has only seemed to harden it. Even if the points are valid, other than going to a board game like Tobruk or ASL, I don't see many alternatives within this scale of combat to turn to. Is one going to now just give up on wargames because BFC hasn't responded to a minor issue within a couple of weeks? I am just curious because I must be missing something if there is an alternative to CM. Maybe SPWAW or SPWW2, with some fairly abstracted combat resolutions, I would really like to know. Am I alone in feeling that a lot of people on this board over-react to these issues? I remember similar passive-aggressive tactics around fatigue and reaction under fire when CMBB came out.

Got mine, looks like Boston's proximity to Vermont finally pays off. Now if we can just find a use for Maine and NH.

I tried uninstalling and reinstalling and it seems to work now...go figure!

I have a dell laptop with an Intel video system. The CMAK demo, as well as CMBB, ran fine, but the full version only software mode and won't run. What am I doing wrong.

Michael, Actually, I was refering to early war US Army. The Army did a much better job after North Africa in getting competent leaders into the field, although they struggled in the rush to get 90-day wonders out in late '44. As far as green troops go, I was suggesting that green troops also represent green leaders, in CM terms, but if you have a lot of high-quality leaders in platoon and company, you can make green troops in CM very effective.

One thing Wicky mentions that is probably more important than any other is leadership. The key to German infantry success was small unit leadership and the stressing of initiative. American combat infantry performance can probably be traced to a large extent to lack of solid, motivated, and trained company/platoon leadership. Most good books on WWII stress small unit leaders made the day for either side. Green troops with adequate experienced leadership can perform as well as elite forces with poor small unit leaders in many situations. On a side note...The main reason Americans were needed in Torch was for landing craft and amphibious support craft. It was also expected to be the live-fire training ground for the invasion of Europe. Although I do believe that Rommel would have eventually collapsed, it would have taken longer without American logistical support. It would also have meant that the core of the american infantry divisions would have been green going into Italy, and Torch problems would have been transferred to the Italian landings.

I can't resist... What grass mod are you using?

Can this thread be looked long enough for me to get a beer and some snacks and then unlocked when I get back? I don't want to miss a thing. Nevermind...I already hear the grogs stirring.

I am not so concerned with the HQ id's, but the ability of the AI to discriminate experience and qaulity of the threats it faces. Any word on that.

My understanding is that the assault rifle (AR) is a compromise, just look at the ammo. The ammo is between a rifle and pistol round. Someone else mentioned that a soldier can switch from ranged rifle fire to close-up auto fire with one weapon. Isn't that the entire reason behind an AR? It has nothing to do with the AR being better than either a rifle or a SMG, but it is in many ways a compromise between the two. Unfortuantely, a compromise is just that...limited range compared to a rifle and limited firepower compared to a SMG. Now if you factor in that most soldiers can't effectively engage beyond 200m, the AR looks like a winner. But that is also why modern armies equip with ARs, but use SOPs of single shot for ranged fire, and auto for up close. This is the best evidence that the AR is a compromise between the rifle and the SMG. Now for whether you want an AR, a rifle, or a SMG. As has been stated before, if you can gaurentee me good open fields of fire foe 400 or 500 yards rifles supporting a LMG is the best. If I know I am up close and personal, I'll take SMGs and grenades. If I have to be prepared for anything, an AR and a very light SAW. Now looking at this, would the MP44 have prolonged the war? Only if the Germans could have rationalized thier logistics and tactics to take advantage of the compromise. That is extremely unlikely. Look how long it has taken modern armeis to truly adopt tactics that take advantage of the AR abilities. I hope that is a good summation of the previous posts.