Hamstersss

Wow. So how intricate are the logistic, intelligence and strategic aspects going to be?

Keep in mind that our country fought a Civil War over the same issue the Russians are fighting. I think that your anecdotal evidence of Russian abuse of Chechens, as well as all anecdotal evidence, does not outweigh the societal fact that many of the Muslim regimes are very happy to legally and systematicly oppress their people.

Maybe I'm falling into the trap here but let's not forget what your innocent Muslim terrorists have done in and to Cheznya, Albania, Pakistan and Afganistan. Can you say "Stone a woman to death for appearing outdoors without covering her entire body." boys and girls?

I hope I'm the first to condemn this tripe. Simpleminded and in the same league as the revisionist Pakistan crap.

When you head down Highway 17 to Santa Cruz and, after rounding the last turn and spotting the church on the hill, you tell yourself again, "There has to be a way into this town not covered by that sniper."

What's the word on the when the CMMC will be implemented?

Hey, this could be Skorzeny's new nick, in which case we'll need to watch out for Duck saying, "I'm an expert at the IEEE" and then pasting up RFCs and taking credit for them.

Pvt. Ryan, you're absolutely right. I'm sorry about my tone, I'll make sure to take all my medications before posting from now on.

To clarify and make amends, I was snappy with those first two responses because, to me, the first posts by Wendell and Pvt Ryan both merely stated the basic mechanics of the bmps, which I understand, and stated it in a relatively heavy-handed way. I didn't mean to turn around and be nasty but I was a little offended. Wendell, I'm sorry I was rude to you after you were trying to patch things up. As to the portraits what had thrown me off is that everyone was Tom Hanks, from the M1919 gunners to the 60mm teams to the RI squads. I had never paid that much attention to the portraits and thought each of these guys had seperate ones. I realize now that they must not, rather they just share all the same portrait. I hate to say it, but this ruins the entire basis for my argument, as had I noticed that they all shared the same portrait, I would not have been inclined to think it was more than just two files being switched (ie I thought that I had replaced some Default Allied Portrait with ol' Tom Hanks). So, uh, chide away guys.

Well gee, "thank you" but I stated the case pretty "clearly" and you were the one that "jumped" to a "conclusion" giving what sure looks like a "superior" tone. As to the actual issue of mods, I've got every one on CMHQ, excepting some special interest ones, and they make the game great. Normally when they need some added effort, its explained. This time it wasn't.

See, these are the responses people get angry about. I'm not a moron, I understand how mods work, I was asking for specific help, not generic, "Hey, this is how the game works, kid" advice. I didn't approach this problem in a snide way, rather I made a joke about it and stated my problem. The last two responses, however, served no purpose but to pad egos (I know more than you). These mods came off of CMHQ and Madmatt noted that some renaming was necessary but said instructions were missing. If you can give a solution, please do, but don't post basic game concepts and act superior in doing so.

Everyone is Tom Hanks! I mean, I know he's a great actor and all but he can't play ALL the allied roles in CM. Or at least change his picture, give him a mustache. That, or explain why, when I unzipped the new portraits on CMHQ, everyone on the allied side uses the Tom Hanks captain picture, other than my Platoon HQs being Eastwood, that is.

A campaign mode for CM would have to be more engrossing than that and the scale would have to be accurate. Perhaps you could be placed in charge of a division or regiment and then are faced with the task of assigning arty and advancing toward strategic objectives while CM determines the type of resistance you run into where you decide which battle(s) you want to directly control. For PBEM, players alternate between picking the battle for the PBEM battle. This way you can be presented with an operational map, showing where your forces have come into conflict, with a rough idea of the forces at play, and you can assign reinforcements to any battles (If you held any in reserve) and then enter into the battle. The actual conflict marker would tell you the CM details of the battle (Length, terrain type, etc.) and any reinforcements you assign could show up later. Once we get this together, we could link them for the gold release of CMMC... Or maybe I'm going too far.

This argument sounds a bit specious to me. First off, those jeeps are soo damn vulnerable that they get abandoned when dogs pee on 'em. Secondly, from what I understand, the old 12.7mm was originally designed as an AT gun. Live with it, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, just support your armor with infantry and it won't happen.

Hey, where's the rest of the AARs??? We're not going to have to wait for Madmatt to get back from Germany are we?

I'd love to join in Onnel. Wow, to see the infamous Stug in person. Its almost like meeting Dolly Parton or Richard Simmons... I'm in Oakland, is that north enough?

Hey, Aren't you in Germany?

You just wait until those Quebecois forces complete their Cannae!

All right folks, I'm looking for anyone out there who wants to help me practice my defensive, offensive and, especially gloating skills related to CM. I'd prefer someone who can reply in a timely manner but, you know, Rome wasn't burned to the ground in a day. E-mail me at emeeks@oilbased.com

You've got it. No parameters necessary, just set her up and let's rock.

First, I'd like to start by saying that being at work while knowing you have the as-yet-unplayed full version of CM at home is the most terrible torture ever conceived... I was scanning old posts and noticed that an idea was mentioned last year and was never expanded upon, that of cooperative play in CM. I think it would be excellent to have two (Or more) allied players together trying to take on a single opponent or group of opponents. This was ixnayed in the old post because BTS thought it would provide little return, as a player had enough time to set all of his troops up and coordinate an attack but I think it serves a much greater service, that of simulating personality conflicts between commanders and the difficulties involved in coordinating attacks. Players may end up want to court-martial a few commanders for refusing to lead their platoons on a risky attack. We could open up a forum so that each side could argue their case and use the movies to support it. I know this is somewhat intangible but I wouldn't think the tech would be overly difficult and the reward may only apply to some people but those people would think it was well worth it.

You have a point regarding the ships, though keep in mind the Tredager Iron Works built a Steam Engine (In 1860 I believe) so the South wasn't THAT backwoods. I can't argue with the fact that the state of New York put out more industrial goods in 4 months than the entire South could all year but I do think that it proved that industrousness can match industry. I think that this mod would be as much fun to create as it would be to play, what with designing uniforms, weaponry and their OOB. On a side note, what are the possibilities of more than two people playing CM at once? I would think the format would allow an unlimited number of PBEM participants, such that you could have each squad controled by a different player, though such an extreme effect wouldn't be fun for most, but the possibilities of joint actions are intriguing.

You've got another satisfied member.

To respond to a few issues: 1. Germany's strength in a single front war. This is postulated to make the war even and return to Germany its prized Luftewaffe. I do think it will make the Allies' task more difficult but that makes for a great game. 2. CSA troop differences. The fact that the Confederacy would be, primarily, an Agrarian nation spread into Mexico, would force a reliance on infantry based weaponry, in my estimation, as it can be produced at a lower cost and suits a well trained army low in armor, air and artillary support. 3. The Scale. Yes, I think the political aspect of this would be excellent to explore but I'm in love with CM and think it would be best to see it here. As to programming, I haven't explored the issue but have had some experience with mods and am sure that CM won't be too difficult, with the right help. 4. The Agrarian Confederacy Even during the Civil War, the Confederacy was able to produce the Virginia and nearly the Lousiana and Alabama, all very well built warships. With the dreams of the Confederate leaders to expand ever farther south, they would have had oil reserves from Mexico and Texas and, I feel, would have industrialized somewhat. Also keep in mind many of the tactical and industrial geniuses of the WW2 period were southern (Patton's grandad served in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and the guy who invented the landing crafts for Normandy was from New Orleans). 5. That Peculiar Institution. I don't shy away from the slavery aspect. I feel the Confederacy would have freed the slaves, in the same manner as Brazil, during the 1880s. To give this issue it's due, though, I wanted one of the operations to focus on a politically disgraced Patton leading a black CSA army to free the 101st USA Airborne trapped in Bastogne. I think this would be epic and heroic as well as facilitate the addition of black soldiers to CM.

Guys, I'm new to CM but I love the game and I could write page after page about the amazing experiences within it. However, I'd rather broach the subject of modifying CM to produce a mod with all-new vehicles and troops as well as a whole pack of missions and operations based on the novel idea of a Confederate States Army and United States Army invading a Nazi Europe. To whit, there would need to be uniforms for the CSA as well as a delineation of vehicles and the addition of new vehicles. I've always pictured the difference being lower quality armor, artillary, etc in the CSA counteracted by higher quality troops and a focus on infantry-based weapons systems. The operational aspect that I've fleshed out is simultaneous invasions of Europe with the US Army heading in at Calais and the CSA heading in via Normandy. The situation would be different from the real case due to a drubbing of the Russians resulting in a (relatively) calm Eastern Front. I'd like to know what people think of this idea and how they think the American generals, weapons and vehicles would be split and varied between the US and CS armies.