Holdit

Merlot for me, please. Mmmmmmmm...

So, so. Things could have been a lot worse. I mean, they actually managed to put a Panther on the cover, did they not? Could have been a lot worse. Imagine an GI dragging his buddy in front on a charging WV Beetle. That would have been bad. </font>

That crowd could make a mess of selling lifebelts on the Titanic. I'm reminded of a saying involving the words "piss-up" and "brewery". What a shower of wasters. :mad: [ September 30, 2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Holdit ]

Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, GWAN!!!

...and still no mention of when it might be on Irish shelves. Ho hum. Time to look for an American sponsor, methinks.

Won't this tile do the trick? | / |/ |

Ha! At least the French and the English have been given a date. CDV responded to an e-mail of mine yesterday saying that they still can't say when it'll b e released in the Republic of Ireland. Talk about sucking on the hind tit...

*Sigh*...if only. Good point. I didn't realise there were people here with an interest in it. I'll post something in the general forum to take a straw poll and see if there are many others. _______________________

With a 300Mhz processor, my first battle will be...a small one. ___________

D'Erlons formations have indeed been the subject of some discussion along the lines of "what the hell was he thinking of?". I've heard it claimed a couple of times that it was intended that the columns would deploy into a line that would match the breadth of the British one, and thus be at less of a disadvantage in the ensuing firefight. The best explanation of how this was to come about is offered by Jac Weller in "Wellington at Waterloo". Apparently the comumns were effectively three battalions in line, one behind the other. Like so: ______________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ______________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ______________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (The underscores are just to stop the rows aligning to the left) The idea was that the foremost battalion would stay put, while the second and third would make quarter-turns alternately to the left and right, and move so that their (now) rearmost men came level with those on the extreme left and right of the front batalion respectively. Like so: ______________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ________________________________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Then the left and right battalions face to the front again and step up level with the front battalion and end up with... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ...thus matching the frontage of the British formation. The reason for this system seems to be that it was actually less complicated than the usual method of deploying a battalion into line. As Weller hinmself says, the system was unlikely to have been tried out on spec on the day of battle, and was more than likely practised beforehand, so the whole thing may not have been as stupid as it looks at first sight. As far as I know, the columns were still in the process of carrying out this deployment when Uxbridge's heavy cavalry hit them, and that was the end of that. Now we'll never know for sure how effective it would have been. Quite right. If a Napoleonic battalion in such a formation would be because it was badly disordered. Note to Napoleonics fans: 1. If you haven't done so already, check out my Napoleonic CMBO maps at the Combat Mission Scenario Depot. 2. BBC2 7.30 tonight: War Walks - Waterloo with Prof. Richard Holmes.

It seems that those occasions where hand-to-hand combat did happen was when one side was defending and obstacle, building or fortification e.g. La Haye Sainte at Waterloo or the Grand Redoubt at Borodino. The reason seems to be that there was something to fight over: the attackers would be motivated to gain the protection of the obstacle and get out of the open, while the defenders would be motiviated to keep posession of the obstacle and not get pushed out into the open. On the other hand, where there was no obstacle, troops probably had it in the backs of their minds that one piece of open ground was as good as another, and the less determined side would flinch before contact. A number of experienced Napoleonic commentators are quoted as saying that it was unknown for opposing infantry units to cross bayonets in open ground. ________________________

They say that quantity has a quality all of its own...

I seem to remember enjoying Sowchos 79 best.

For what my opinion's worth, as an early-ish CM player but only occasional poster, I can't see what all the fuss is about. I suspect, though, that there may be something psychological going on in that perhaps some people expected to get the same rush from this demo as we did from the CMBO demo. I thought too that the scenarios weren't as interesting as 'Valley of Trouble' and 'Chance Encounter' but then I realised that the CMBO scenarios were presented to us in the context of a brand new game - did I say game? - a brand new concept! With the CMBO demo, the novelty was in your face; right up there in glorious 3D. With CMBB it's a lot more subtle, that's all. If you're a CMBO player, there's less to get excited about this time round because the demo is of a game that's already quite familiar ("3D? Of course it's bloody 3D... Tell me something to get me excited ..."). And before somebody has a pop, I am in no way being dismissive of the improvements and additions that have been made. Or maybe the terrain's too uninteresting - well, welcome to Russia . Or perhaps it's the lack of sexy weaponry - I don't recall anyone saying that they were looking forward to using 45mm anti-tank guns. I think this is a case of BTS looking a bit deeper than the mere obvious - and assuming that their customers can do so too, which is actually a bit of a compliment. As far as I can see, the two scenarios in the CMBB demo do a good job of reproducing two of the mental images I had of the war in Russia: Russian infantry attacks against numerically inferior defender and German armoured thrusts against layered Soviet anti-tank defences. What more could you ask from a demo other than to demonstrate? Hunker down in view 1 behind an AT gun in 'Citadel' and watch the panzers approach and you'll see a scene that's remarkably like to stock images of Kursk that we've all seen in the books - and the grassy doodads make it even better. As for Yare?/Stare?/the other one...well, I would imagine that the attack and defense skills necessary for that scenario will be necessary for many others too so they're worth working on. Anyway, it works for me, and my processor is so slow I have time to make a cup of tea while it processes the turns, so it's even less stimulating!

I'm running the demo on a PII 300 with 480MB RAM and a 32MB graphics card. Turn calculation is slow because of the processor, but everything else is OK. I'll upgrade whenI can, but at least I can play the smaller scenarios. If you beef up your graphics card and add some memory, you should be OK.

That last example must be the one that suggests one should indulge in an unnaturally intensive display of affection towards one's female parent. :eek: My take on the language thing in CM is similar to my take on it in the cinema - I prefer the original language with subtitles or clear and accentless English to dubbing and/or dodgy accents. Nevertheless, as someone else has said, a Russian listening to other Russians doesn't hear foreign words, and I agree with this too. So if someone does do a translation into English of the German/Russian/whatever speech, keep it clear and keep the accents to a minimum - just enough to know that the speaker isn't from New York, London or Sydney. In a nutshell: Good approach: A Bridge too Far, Das Boot (TV), Enemy at the Gates, Conspiracy. Bad approach: Cross of Iron, dubbed version of Das Boot. Awful approach: Silent Hunter II translations I'm happy enough to learn a few Russian phrases - especially the more colourful ones, so I wouldn't be in any hurry to change. But how about this for a solution? If you tend to play one side in particular, just replace that sides voice wavs with English - that way you can understand your own men, but the enemy still speaks a foreign language.

Thanks for the feedback & info. I've completed the download and will give it a try when I get home this evening. I'm happy to put up with it being slower/less sexy until I can afford/justify a new PC.

I note that the minumum specs for CMBB include a 500+ Mhz processor. I have a PII300 with 480MB RAM and a 32MB video card. I don't mind toning down the graphics in order to make it work until I can upgrade, but before I go to the trouble of downloading it, will it be capable of running on my system (a) at all, (b)playably ? Thanks in advance, etc.

"Come and See" is a film I'd love to see again. Is it available on video?

Glad to see someone's made use of it. I'm not sure how well my system can cope with those kinds of numbers, but I'd like to take a look. Regards, Paul

Who he? :confused:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by murpes: Forget that. What I want is Combat Mission: Gettysburg. A civil war game like this would rock.<hr></blockquote> It would, but not half as much as a Combat Mission: Napoleon. Just think of the opportunities for uniform mods... Imagine panning and tilting the camera to your hearts content as French Cuirassiers overrun the Grand Redoubt, or as British musketry blows away the head of an attacking French column, or as a grand battery pulverises an enemy line prior to the attack, or just relax watching the opposing skirmish lines trade shots. Imagine the sounds of musket volleys, hooves, pipes, drums, the whizz of solid shot and the jangling of horse furniture, the rattle of musket balls striking cuirasses...imagine...imagine... Em...what's the best way to get drool out of a keyboard? Seriously, be it for the American Civil War, or the Napoleonic Wars or even the Punic Wars, the terrain engine as it is would do fine. For most aspects. Dreaming on... Regards, Paul

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Now, break up both the scattered trees and the bocage with woods and, in the case of bocage, stone walls.<hr></blockquote> Brilliant! It looks...anarchic. Much more natural-looking and solves some of the other problems too. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Also, don't forget to add the occasional scattered tree tile in the middle of your fields... oh, and vary your fields between wheat, brush and open <hr></blockquote> That's already SOP. Apart from the fields that contain just open ground. Must rememebr that. Thanks. Another thing I like to do is vary elevations with fields - let the m roll a little. Regards, Paul

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panther G: Holdit, Thanks for reviewing my maps. Mine were the ones based off of PanzerBlitz, and yes, there were lacking in detail (I made the maps when I was more of a novice). I'll respond to your reviews there, possibly make changes, and possibly review some of your maps. Thanks again! Regards, Ryan<hr></blockquote> Yes, apologies to SurlyBen for the mix-up; serves me right for logging in from work...ahem. Thanks for the input. Reviews and maps gratefully received. Oh yes, the town with the stadium is "B2 - Town with railway station". The way Henk made the stadium shows what you can do with the editor and a little imagination. Regards, Paul [ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Holdit ]</p>

Great work, Mensch. I've just tried out your technique like this: Scattered trees x x x x x x x x x xx Bocage (elevated)----------------------- Road ======================= Bocage (elevated)----------------------- Scattered trees x x x x x x x x x xx The road tiles are alternate between road-with-scattered trees and road-with-woods and the result looks good. Thanks. Paul