Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: I was going to recommend checking for slightly newer drivers, but the sites that have them posted are down at the moment. NVidia doesn't seem to post the Riva128 drivers anymore, so no luck there. When it is up try Reactorcritical http://www.reactorcritical.com Have you had this problem of loading scenarios with just the standard CM files (patched to 1.05) and no mods ? I would suggest deleting your prefs file and trying out a different (lower) resolution than what you're currently using. If this doesn't work for you reply back to this thread and I'll try to come up with more suggestions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I removed the graphics mods. I still have the sound mods, but I will remove them too. I am running it at 800x600. I will try the 640x480 setting, but that one wouldn't work one my machine the one time I tried it with the demo (of course my virus protection software was running at the time I think). I didn't care at the time since I perfer the 800x600. I will let you know after I try it tonight. I saw that you suggested using the 3.41 drivers in a previous thread. I did a search on "riva128" before posting. It appears that 3.41 drivers only apply to NT or at least that is the case on the nVidia website. I haven't found any other site that has new 9x drivers than 3.37. The drivers on the STB site are really old from before the release of win98. It appears that they were bought out. Theron

I have the full version of Combat mission, 1.05 and I have this problem where some games load fine and others freeze on the loading 3-D graphics screen or right after loading the senerio. I'm using MDMP1 sound mods, but have removed the graphics mods once I encountered the problem. The following ones work: tutorial clash of eagles fear in fog le lorey- a hard stand these don't: chambois villers-bocage last defense My system is: PII 266 96 MB of ram DirectX7.0a STB Velocity Riva128 AGP card MS drivers 4.10.1713, which I beleive are the same as the nVidia reference drivers 3.37 Windows 98 SE I've disable virus checking software and other programs that run in the background. The demo didn't like the virus checking software. Has anyone else had similar problems? Theron

I've heard that it is in beta testing right now. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T34Rules: I am totally amazed with CM, a fantastic and enjoyable game. I do have on comment. Although i am still learning the ins and outs of the game, am i correct in stating that there is absolutely no way to locate an individual squad on the battlefield. I would really like to be able to call up a roster screen that shows the status of all units in a table, and also allows the ability to highlight a unit and go to it on the map. This is particularly true in large scenerios. I was being totally demolished by the germans in a recent large (75 turn) scenerio and really would have benefited by knowing if i had any artillery spotters available without having to highlight every unit. Would really appreciate any comments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no roster in the game. You can use + and - keys to move to each unit on the screen, but this can be tedious. Do a search on "roster" if you would like to find out the reasons for and agaist having one. The roster issue has been thoroughly discussed. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: He set the battle up using the scenario creator. That way you can have any mix of troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How did he do this without finding out what his opponent's units were? He didn't list what his opponent had. Or can you select whatever troops you want, if the map was previously created? I previously read the reason that they don't allow all levels of troops in a QB is because it would be gamey. I guess they didn't want people saving points by just buying green troops for easy jobs and crack troops for the difficult ones. Therefore increasing the total number of troops they could buy for a given number of points. Theron [This message has been edited by Theron (edited 09-19-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degus: Forgive me if this exists and I have just overlooked it. Being an unorganized type, I frequently lose track of my units in a battle and tire of going from one to the next to see their status. Perhaps an in game Order of Battle giving a text listing of unit status( str, morale, ammo, in command..etc) that would allow direct keystroke access to individual units could be implemented. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do a search looking for "roster" in the subject line. There is a lot of debate over this feature. Theron [This message has been edited by Theron (edited 09-18-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dosvetertrunk: I'm looking to buy this game, but I wanted to find out more about multiplayer. Last I heard, there was no LAN support, and communication online was done only via e-mail. I saw that there was a patch available; does it address this issue at all? Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The game still has no TCP/IP support, but this is promised in a latter patch. BTS has said several times that they are working on the TCP/IP patch and it is taking longer than they originally thought it would. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: I can understnad all the abstraction that is done for squads since there are multiple members, multiple weapons, multiple ROFs, etc... That is no problem. But the sniper unit is one guy. Period. Think 'bout it. Look at the AT teams. Are they using the same params (object) as the infantry units? No. Their ammo supply, type, ROF is modeled correctly. A panzerschreck team doesn't fire 2 rockets when you see one rocket go out. Why can't the sniper be modeled the same way? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The AT teams shoot "rockets" and the sniper shoots small rounds fire. Therefore the type of fire for the two is very different. The rockets can be modeled like tank projectiles, but CM doesn't model individual rounds from machine guns/rifles/pistols hitting units. The fact of the matter is I have no idea how BTS programed snipers. I was giving this as a possible explanation as to why they are the same as other infantry units. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The whole thing about seeing the "tracer" shot from an infantry unit as an abstraction of them firing is confusing at best. So you mean to tell me that that when a squad is targeting another squad that they are firing when I don't see them firing and that the "tracer" grafix is only shown at intervals during this firing? Huh? I think that when you see a squad fire, it is firing. Period. And when it is not firing it is not firing. Period. There is no abstraction inbetween. If anything then the FP of a sniper should be lowered so that he can ONLY kill one man with each shot fired. I don't think it is unreasonable in any way. You don't use snipers to take out entire squads and if you are trying to then you are wasting your snipers. Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The abstraction isn't wether the sniper/squad is or is not firing. It is where are all those bullets going when the unit is firing. CM has a method of figuring out the chances of a hit based on fire power, exposure, etc. It doesn't decide a hit based on each bullet fired. Therefore unless a special new small arms trajectory model is calculated the sniper's shots will be like all other units. I guess a side effect of this is that snipers can fire multiple shots. You should note that the ammo count that a sniper carries is a lot less than the potential number of rounds a real sniper could carry. Theron

I agree that artillery spotters are possibly too easily detected as being different than other infantry. I think that HQ units should be easily spotted at this level of wargaming. In real life the front line infantry commanders had to "run" up and down their lines barking out orders and keeping up moral. This made them more vulnerable, not less. This is of course based on books I have read. There are some people with first hand / close to first hand knowledge who probably know better. Theron

I suspect, the sniper has the same ammo indication as all other small arms infantry becuse of programming constraints. Not because of how hard it would be to keep track of his ammo. If they are using object oriented programming the sniper could be an "infantry" object and have simlar constraints as other infantry. They changed the artillery, because of spotting rounds not counting against the total count of ammo. This was only a problem with large pieces such as the off shore naval guns, but they changed it with all the off board artillery. I would guess that this was for consistency and because all off board artillery are coded as a "artillery" object. Since the current method for keeping track of infantry ammo will stay the same I don't think that the sniper/sharp shooter will get to count individual rounds. I also beleive that the trajectories of individual small fire rounds are not calculated, they are calcuated for tanks and artillery. Therefore BTS would have to work out a special case just for the sniper. Is there a particular advantage that you can see to allowing us to know exactly how many rounds a sniper has? Some people have argued that we already have too much control over snipers. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: jim crowley wrote: > 1. British (and Polish and Canadian, I think) ranking puts companies in the charge of a Major; battalions in the charge of a Lt-Colonel. I've been wondering about this. Can't give you any evidence, but it does seem that British formations carry the same rankings as Americans, which I suspect is inaccurate. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I read on another thread that they kept all the allied armies with the same command structure as the Americans to make it simpler for people unfamilar with WWII command structures. The discusion in the other thread was about why some historical british offiers were of the incorrect rank in senerios. Theron [This message has been edited by Theron (edited 08-27-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: This is more fun than my Civil War (sic) club. For a very scholarly and unbiased discussion of the causes, check out this site: The Glorious Principles of 1776 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's a good read and reminds me of some of the things I had forgotten. The discussion in the thread has largely become a debate more about the American Civil War and less about the original topic. I suggest that further arguements as to the cause of the civil war refer to this document, since it has a much more reasoned arguement than those presented here. Including my own. As far as the topic is concerned I think it is comparing apples and oranges. The two topics have nothing to do with each other, except that they were large multiple year comflicts in which lots of people died. This could be said about a lot of wars. The principles behind the South and Nazi Germany two were totally different. The reasons why they fought were also totally different. Please read the link to refresh your memory about the reasons for the ACW. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Strat: The war with the Axis countries cannot be compared to the Civil War in the US. There is no correlation. The root of the cause of the Civil War was the issue of succession and the root of succession was the issue of government taxation of the citizens and states. Abraham Lincoln reenstated the income tax. One of the primary causes of the Revolutionary War was over the issue of British taxes. The issues concerning the Revolutionary War were still fresh in the minds of most citizens in the early to mid 1800's and was a definite motivational factor in the Civil War. Most of the confederates, late in the war, fought with rags for clotes and no shoes. They mixed sawdust in their food because there was not enough to go around. They were motivated by american history, i.e., Revolutionary War. The Confederacy depended on the theft of Union supply trains and the pillage of cities and towns. One union general was dubbed 'The Commissary' by the confederates under Stonewall Jackson. Because the union general's supplies were under constant raids by confederates. Union General Meade's army destroyed railways, burned and pillaged the southern cities. One of the bloodiest battles of the war was fought when Lee's army went into Gettysburg to pillage a shoe factory. Lee's raid of the North was plagued with numerous tactical errors. It was an attempt to get a victory in the North for recognition of the Confederacy by foriegn countries. The confederate calavary commander, Jeb Stuart, made the error of not watching the union army. Stonewall Jackson wasn't present to scout and direct matters. Strat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would like to say that from what I know about the causes of the civil war and reconstruction that Strat is right. The initial issue of what started the civil war had more to with taxes than with slavery. The most important thing that a "free and democratic" government can do is tax it's citizens. The important question is how it does it. This is of course deeply linked with states rights and soveriegnty i.e. who has the right to tax what, see the issue of South Carolina and nullification. Slavery did become an issue latter in the war, which allowed the North to claim the moral high ground. On the issue of large scale looting and pillaging. Neither side did it until late in the war i.e. after Gettysburg. The Union generals such as Sherman decided it was needed to end the war quickly. It was considered in bad taste, which is why they didn't do it at the begining of the war. If the Southern Armies were in the position to do the same to the North at this point in the war I'm sure that they would have done the same. The south only made two significant advances North into Maryland and Pennsylvania. They didn't want to loot and pillage in Maryland, because there were a lot of Southern sympathisers in the state. Maryland came close to joining the South early in the war. Theron

Delete the Combat mission preferences file which should be in the same directory as combat mission. You will then be preompted with the choices. I think this is covered in more detail in the readme file that comes with the game. I know that it is in the readme file with the DEMO. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty: I'm about halfway through my third shot at VoT as the Americans and that f!@#$% bunker on Hill 209 is killing me! So far I can handle the infantry gun,I just wait until it shows itself and dump 81mm on it,problem solved. But the 75mm AT in that concrete bunker seems to be unkillable ! I've tried 105 arty,I've targeted it with both 105mm Sherms,can't get Engineers near it. Basically HELP!!! Actually I'm going to try some of the tactics in this thread. Thanks in advance guys and gals! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In my first game of VOT I was the amis and that AT gun in the bunker made it really hard for me. I lost several shermans to it and one to the 150mm INF gun. I took the INF gun and the bunker next to it with arty. I didn't take the AT bunker out until a platoon of infantry made it around the far right side of the map. A squad from this platoon close assulted the Panther and KO it. Then the platoon routed the fresh german troops that come with the Panther. I don't remember the number of kills for the platoon, but it was at less than half strength by the end of the battle. I won the battle and captured all the flags, without using my tanks till the very end. I've also played as the germans with the amis at +50%. I won with a better than 2-1 kill ratio even though my tank gun was taken out with only killing 2 shermans (at +50% the amis get four shermans to start with). It was kind of sad seeing all the amis bodies pile up on the slopes of the hill next to plomville as they repeatedly tried to infantry assult the town. Theron

Another thing to try is to make sure that all virus checking software is off. I have the demo and had the same problems as you are having with a totally different system, until I disabled my virus scanning software. I would also check your other programs that run in the background, since they could also cause problems. If you really did loose a memory DIMM the could also be a problem, but I dobut the game caused it. Theron