Von Fauster

Okay. I'll bite. The obvious thing to do would be to wait for a demo and more reviews. No one is forcing you to jump in blind. Personally, with Battlefront and 1C behind it, I'm suprised you'd even say that. I suspect your experience with the Combat Mission series and the IL-2 series is very limited. At any rate, with it not even out yet, there is really no reason to go negative this early in my opinion.

That's where I'm at. Gone for a while, dropped by Battlefront to see what the latest and greatest was... OH.. TOW! Battlefront? 1C? Where do I sign up! A little early download is cool, but I just wanted to get in on the game. Anyone remember back when CMBO first sold out?

39. Been doing Combat Mission since way, way back. Was a grunt myself back in the 80's. 4th Infantry Division. Now a daddy, scale modeler, and guitar nut. Toodles!

Reporting for Duty! Pre-order placed. Been watching this "title" for I can't remember how long. Between this and the impending patch for Silent Hunter 4, I may as well not be married. If the divorce papers read: "Reason: Husband never leaves his computer" I'll post it for you to see!

Good question. 'fraid I don't know the answer to that. Have to try it I suppose.

Salute all. IIRC, there was some discussion about the small size of QB maps, especially given the flat, open terrain of North Afrika. To get around that problem here is what I do and it doesn't take very long at all. I use the Scenario Editor>Map editor to make a map as big as I want (6000m X 6000m seems to be the limit), then press Generate Random Map. I preview it just for kicks, then save it in the QB folder, filename that references the size and location, ie. 1600m North Africa. You can make some truly huge maps this way. Then I simply load that map when generating a QB. Only takes a minute or two, and has the added bonus of allowing me to tweak the terrain for my QB if I want to. Just thought I'd pass it along. Regards. Von_Fauster [ December 13, 2003, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Von Fauster ]

Personally, I like the idea. I'm sure volunteers could be found to locate and track Division deployment throughout the course of the war. For example, I'd volunteer to track Divisions 1 through 4 (my old Division), and then research where each division was for each month from say formation through May, 1945. Put that information in a spreadsheet and send it (with source references) to my heroes at BTS. [ December 09, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Von Fauster ]

On behalf of all Yanks, please accept our heart-felt apology for that 'ol boy. If it's any consolation, we botched our own Pearl Harbor movie too.

Points well taken fellas. I guess that's what I'm wondering. I don't mind if an author has opinions or draws conclusions. I'm a reasonably educated person and can form my own opinions given the facts-- I'm just wondering about the facts. I like the library suggestion, but I've got Irving's book sitting in my bookshelf and I'm wondering if I should dismiss it out of hand as propagandist tripe, or, give it a go as a reasonably well researched history. While I'm at it and have your attention- I also picked up Knights Cross by David Fraser. Any good? [ December 08, 2003, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Von Fauster ]

DISCLAIMER: This is a simple, honest, straightforward question (with no alterior motive)that I am asking because I know that there are many people here who are better read than I am. I am not trying to start a debate on David Irving's political beliefs- especially regarding his opinions on the Holocaust. I picked up a couple of books, mostly used, a number of years ago on the North African campaign and, for obvious reason, am interested in reading them now. One of the books was David Irving's Rommel: The Trail of the Fox . Because of his reputation as an apologist and/or revisionist I am wondering if the his statements/facts in THIS particular work can be considered reasonably accurate. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful opinions.

Tanks! er... Thanks! That is a very interesting link.

Always had 'em since they came out. Bought CMBO back in jeez, when was that, 2000? Pre-orderd CMBB, Pre-ordered CMAK. Built a new rig this summer and the first software installed (after the OS, of course) was CMBO and CMBB. Added CMAK this week. Keep 'em coming. I'll get a bigger a hard drive if I need to. [ December 06, 2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Von Fauster ]

First, let me get this out of the way: I am absolutely loving this game. Right on BTS. Job well, well done. However, one thing I didn't count on was my own ignorance. I have quickly discovered that there are a bunch of tanks I know nothing about. For example: I'm playing "Ambush!" right now (great scenario by the way Wild Bill), and I'm finding 1)the Crusader seems to be a rather whimpy tank and 2) Both the Crusader MkII CS and the Valentine II seem very prone to Gun Damage. Is this reasonably realistic, or just a quirk of the game engine? I honestly don't know. Anybody out there familiar with these tanks? Thanks!

Hey, cool trick man!

Good points. The elevation of Cassino is something like 5,000 feet. Not sure what the surrounding countryside elevation is, but it's a fair guess that Cassino rises at least a couple thousand feet higher than it's surrounding terrain. Does anyone know the maximum elevation variation or spread achievable in CM? Also, I don't mind if it's been destroyed before: I like watching rubble bounce!

Couldn't wait to get home with it, so I loaded it at work just to look at the content. First impression: fantastic. I LOVE the background terrain. Just perfect. The attention to detail is superb. Question: I looked through the battles and campaigns and didn't see a Cassino battle/assualt. Did I miss something, or is there no scenario for this? Not that a person couldn't make one, of course.

Wow! I waited till my receptionist went to lunch, then snagged the key to the mailbox (she's very sensitive about anyone checking the mail)... And it was there! Dang, and I'm working late tonight! Portland, Oregon.

I suggest a change in shipping policy: West Coast first. Then slowly walk it back to the East Coast. That way we all get to go to war at the same time. Sounds fair, and life's suppose to be fair. Right? Thanks again BTS.

Great news and a nice way to start the day. Thank you!

Makes sense that the N. Africa fighting might not be to everyone's liking. But because of the significant differences in terrain between N. Africa and Italy, I would suggest holding off final judgement until you had a chance to fight a few battles on the boot. I've only played the demo thus far, but I sure like what I see. BTW, I don't typically play pre-made scenarios. I tend toward QB's. You might give that a try too. Regards!

Ahh, just the opposite for me. Next to the OS, I consider CM in all it's incarnations a vital part of my computer. Just keep bringing 'em on battlefront! Now... about doing a 1939-1943 Blitzkrieg version, or Pacific Theater...

I use a USB mouse with no problem. Start with the simple solutions first: 1)try a different mouse 2)try cleaning the mouse 3)make sure it works in a different program 4)try a different USB port- the problem may be the port. You might also consider the Tech forum. Lots of smart folks in there. Anyway welcome, good luck and happy hunting! [ June 11, 2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Von Fauster ]

Just an FYI to those who have posted or read this thread: I found what I was looking for I think... I reinstalled from the retail disk (as opposed to my older internet purchased disk) and then came to the conclusion that the terrain looks quite good straight from that disk! (Slaps head like Homer, "Doh!"). The tree bases and grass go quite nicely together. It's probably not as bright as Normandy is reality, but I really don't want it that bright anyway. Now I'm just selectively tweaking the objects I want to tweak and happy as a clam to be playing both Western and Eastern Front battles again. Now if we could just get North Africa/Italy.... Great job BTS. [ June 11, 2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Von Fauster ]

That makes sense tooz. And I didn't think of the fact that maybe what I'm trying to replicate is my OWN exprience with trees and brush- instead of an accurate portrayal of Normandy/Europe. We get a fair amount of rainfall here in the Pacific Northwest, but even with that I've never considered the vegitation to be very "bright"- could be the predominately grey skies, or the difference in soil. Combat Mission: Portland! Ha! Anyway, I'm going to revisit what WWII color footage I have (WWII in Color, WWII In Color: Lost Archives, Mein Krieg, etc) and rethink exactly what "shade" of Europe I'm looking for. Hope to actually see those battlefields someday. Speaking of which, I know that Steve and Charles et al., put a ferocious amount of research in to both CM's. Did they get a chance to actually visit some of the battlefields?

Thanks Dandelion. Very nice description of Normandy. I had no idea it was that green. I guess in my mind's eye I've been seeing old WWII movies and SPR's washed out footage and trying to replicate that. I appreciate the input.