thewood

I have a feeling this may be related to the bad CD issue. Just before my install craps out, it slows down to about 30 sec./file. Good point, but I guess that can´t be the problem because everything else (except the wavs) installs very fast. Actually the first 4 wav files do too, but than it slows down. Guess I just have to wait 12 hours to install (my latest calculation) </font>

Would you say that that is just like the real world. There is no harsher punishment than watching your plan lead to the slaughter of fathers, brothers, and sons. Also, for the first time, you begin to see why tanks were invented. Getting fire support out to the poor bloody infantry. How many times in CMBO did the tanks go off on their own plan with the infantry just marching up the middle. Now you have a reason to keep armor and infantry togeteher for mutual support.

I didn't see Charles's original post, but that's a good one. One step further: I bet there have been more armor engagements in the CM world than in all of WW2. This is why so many wierd things happen that seem like they shouldn't from a statistical perspective. Kind of like throwing 1000 monkeys in a room with a 1000 typewriters...

I just wanted to point out, for my own piece of mind, that my CD problem was a number of physical scatches on the CD and a puncture mark on the jacket. I don't know if mine would have intalled or not, I only got a small % of the way through the BMP file. I did see the strange milky areas on the CD.

Not as frustrating as getting CMBB and finding you have one of the bad CD's.

The choice of installer has also played a significant role in the bad CD issue that quite few people are having. If they had gone to 2-disc release, I could copy around the problem spots on the CD. As it stands, WinRAR seems to look at each and every file, even if you ask it to skip the file during installation start up. If it encounters a problem, there is no option to skip the file. Most modern installs let you skip problem files.

Any word on the status of getting a replacement disc? Would it expedite the process to buy the game again. I am sure I can find someone to buy the extra game, when the first replacement disc arrives.

I have an A20m also. I run Win98 on it and the CMBB demo worked fine. I haven't been able to successfully install the full version yet. If I manage to finally get the game installed, I'll let you know what happens. I think that in general though, companies like BTS have given up on us laptop users.

Hey, misery loves company. I would actually be willing to pay for the game again to get it ASAP. I am gainfully employed and would easily pay double for CMBB. Unfortunately, no matter how much I am willing to pay, I am not going to be playing for a while. One of those situations where I should have just waited to hear how every one liked the game.

That has to be one of the whackiest fixes I ever seen. I may try it.

I would like to point out that I haven't received a fix. My install stops at the BMP files. I may be looking at weeks for a solution. I know MadMatt is probably pulling his hair out over this, and I am confident that they will fix my problem. It is extremely frustrating to see everyone else playing the game even when I preordered fairly early. It is also frustrating to see people being called whiners. Something about this board makes people think BTS can't make mistakes. They do, and just like any other company, people complain about it. BTS will fix the problem, like the good company they are, and people can and should complain until the issue is resolved. It's a basic human right in the new economy.

Has anyone else seen a problem with installing any BMP files. Mine stops half-way through the bmp files and gives no options, other than it can't read the disc. The disk looks like it was dragged across the floor. I have tried repairing it several times with no luck.

I got it this morning and have wasted 3 hours trying to install. It came with a nice big scratch and punctured cover. So much for not having jewel cases. Disappointed, to say the least.

Unfortunately, some of us have laptops that are more than a year old. I find myself in this situation constantly. I find a game I like and it runs on my laptop. Then the developer comes out with a sequel and feels obligated to add bells and whistles to draw more people in with the eye candy and, once again, I am a bottom feeder. I really hope BTS isn't becoming one of those companies that forgets some its hardcore roots. I know they need to grow, but technologically alienating the grass roots support for CM worries me. I understand the need to move on, but it was only a year ago that the typical laptop had 8M or less VRAM.

I feel a need to clarify something. I do not blame my troops or some trumped up issue with game balance. I let my little silicon soldiers down and here are the reasons I will give at my hearing: 1) Seeing that the only way to gain VLs was across the bridge. I still feel vindicated by the fact that not a single german made it across the river. 2) I knew the Cromwell speed would get it over the river quickly and that part played out very well. 3) I knew I had to quickly get at least a platoon across the river to establish a safe passage for the tanks and follow-up infantry. 4) My goal was to control the pace and activity in the engagement, unfortunately, the german strategy of just letting the Poles throw themselves on rocks turned out to be a better one. What would I do differently: 1) I am pretty proud of getting smoke onto the german positions, but I planned on following up with 3" HE to keep any reinforcements suppressed. Instead, I accidently rushed my FO across the bridge as expensive riflemen and fodder. 2) Once the Pz IV's were knocked out, I should have focused my two tanks on pounding a hole in the german lines before bringing the whole set of reinforcments in. 3) I should have held a platoon of reserves. One fresh platoon around turn 15 would have made the difference. My main goal for the entire scenario was to keep the fighting on the german side of the river. My secondary goal should have been to interdict the main reinforcements. I should have stayed focused and kept the pressure on one side of the german line, but in the heat of battle, every target looks tempting. If anyone wnats to take anything away from this, its that aggressiveness will keep your opponent constantly reacting. That's good, as long as you follow through on your plans and your reacting isn't part of your oppoentns well thought out plans. Good game BadMonkey and I will take a rematch any day.

1) what's the differnce between modmanger and CMMOS? 2) Where do I copy the files from a mod 3)WHat are rule sets and do I need one for each mod? 4) How does CMMOS work with older modes? 5) Are all CMMOS mods compatible with each other? 6) How do I know a mod will work with CMMOS? 7) How do I get insignia to work with different skins? 8) I don't understand the difference between Basic and Advanced 9) Do simpler modes, like weapons, work with CMMOS? I am sure I can dredge up more but my ignorance is starting to show.

I tell her I'm just surfing porn.

Something to keep in mind is that many wargamers, and I emphasize wargames, don't have the time to constantly tweak and upgrade their PCs. Wargamers tend to play for the playing and simulation experience. Usually, graphics only need to be good enough. A great example is what Microsoft has done to the BattleTech franchise. BattleTech has a following that would put CM and even ASL to shame. The very deep and detailed board game has been converted to both simulation and tactical computer games. The original tactical game was called MechCommander and was very well recieved, although there were many glaring inconsistencies with the BattleTech universe. The graphics were all sprite-based because of the varied sophistication of the user community, but they were good enough to keep the majority of BattleTech fans interested. Now comes MechCommander and the engine has been updated to a new 3D engine. Only a 1GHz CPU with 256Mb Ram and 64Mb video card can run it. If you read the bulliten boards, Microsoft has alienated the majority of true BattleTech fans who can't afford that type of machine in dollars or hours. MechCommander 1 sales are actually up significantly because people are going back to what they were able to run. Most BattleTech users will tell you that they would have been just as happy to have MC1 updated to fix the inconsistences. Instead, MC2 developers got caught up in the old syndrome of having to be better in the graphics department than anyone else. MS could have made just as many sales and saved a lot of development cost by just updating MC1. This is a lesson I hope more developers, including BTS, learn from. Now my point, finally, is that BTS has taken the approach that its core audience are generally not on the bleeding edge of technology. Developing at the bleeding edge is not good business. The risks of not working with the various setups and configurations goes up exponentially as one develops closer to the leading edge of technology. I imagine that BTS can't afford to do that. I for one would be more than happy if CM:BB was developed with basically the same graphics as CM:BO. I have a couple of small children and travel extensively for my job. I don't want to be constantly updating drivers and swapping out cards just to spend 1 relaxing hour playing CM. If someone wants great graphics in a tactical-level game, they should be looking at one of the RTS games and let BTS focus on making a good WW2 tactical-level simulation.

I'm not saying they are not interesting, but maybe I'm a masochist. Look at the SMG discussion where the discussion continues to go around in circles and spawning itself. After a while people don't read them for information, but to see who is going to say whet to whom. We should probably have a seperate forum for these types of discussions regarding the technical characteristics of the weapon systems, or have the tankersnet set up a discussion in the gamers forum ot that site. There is ususally some great and useful information in these discussions. Unfortunately it many times gets lost in the clutter. If anyone ignores them and then asks a question that remotely resembles the subject, you are peppered with derisive comments about not reading all of the posts. Also, many times, even the way people broach the subject is a little off-putting. I sometimes read these forums and think that the guys at BTS must have pretty thick skin. Very rarely do I hear someone say, BTS has done a great job and I know its their decision, but here is what I have found. Instead, someone will come onto the forum and tell BTS that something is wrong and its a great injustice and they have the answer, when in fact they probably only see a small piece of the puzzle and there are other things to consider. I have a good friend who doesn't come to the forum any more because he has to wade through so many technical discussions that he feels its a waste of time. I personnaly find a lot of interesting, if not entirely useful information. But I continue to find the same people posting over and over again about basically the same subjects. At some point I hope we get to the point that people will just send a suggestion along to BTS and if it starts to get extraordinarily detailed, it moves over to a seperate forum or a more technically oreinted site. This allows people looking for mods, CMBB inforamtion, tactics, or general BTS information to find it easily.

Now if BTS could only go over to the relentless armor and penetration threads and straighten them out. They have killed the horse three or four times.

After reading the blizzard of posts about the details (some times painful details) of armor penetration and armor thickness, I feel compelled to ask a question; How detailed do people expect CM to be? If you are questioning the as-built to tolerence of armor, should you also consider the same tolerence matching for the ammo? Should you consider the tolerence in propellent charge? Should you also consider the variation in production runs during christmas and Octoberfest? There are a number of variables in any given situation and a significant amount of forum bandwidth seems to be focused on the under-rating of german armor or the overrating of american armor. When someone states that a certain gun (with Xmm penetration) should penetrate X-1mm or armor and assume that little other than geometry and metalurgy varies the result, I have to wonder if the person is losing sight of the bigger picture that CM represents. I have worked in the metals and machining industry for years and know the standards by heart. But I also know the processing and the games played with tolerences and can tell you that many measuring systems, including the ruler, are single variable tools with one dimensional answers. I have seen people swear up and down that metals were delivered sub-standard, only to find out the hardness tester was never calibrated or an operator didn't know how to use it, or the user used a sample size of one. The final measure of any wargame is does the game give close to the results expected using tactics that one would expect to see in combat. I don't think there many people here that can claim to know, and I have to believe that we can find more constructive ways to spend our CM time besides arguing over 5mm of armor.

It would be interesting to follow someone using this approach. How would the logistics play into a CM-scale battle? How would availabiltiy of unit types be handled? I believe this is where the true superiority of the allies show up. While at an individual battle level, the best of the Germans is better than the best of allies, translating down from the operational-level would probably show how rare large-scale panther/tiger on Sherman encounters were. And before someone blows a gasket, I mean rare in the scheme of the number of small unit actions that took place.

BTW, does this hurt my lurker rating?

I am in if you guys (or gals) can go easy on my first foray into PBEM.

I had the same thing happen to an M18 TD. It shot at a flame team only 20m away and blew itself up. It took me a few replays to figure it out. I guess this is one way to enforce minimum target distances.