jKMkIII

This rarity system what is coming to CMBB is exactly what I have been hoping, at least if I have understood it right But on related thing I would like to know if there are going to be tank formations? Like you can buy infantry in platoons, companies, battalions can you buy tanks and other vehicles in bigger formations? I don't like playing with any short-75 or panther-76 rules because they just limit what tanks you can get, but not "how" you get them. Still can get 6 different types of tanks and 1 of every type, and would be happier to see enemy have 4 KTs than collection of all german tanks that fit under some rule. Also quite hard to get one Firefly to give british Sherman platoon needed AT power if playing under short-75 rule. So is there going to be vehicle platoons, companies etc. or something that would encourage people to buy tanks as groups and not singe units.

And I think CM only checks for CD when you start the game. At least I have taken CD out of computer and didn't notice any problems (my work computers CD drive makes some strange noice..) And like Soddball said, just run Winamp or other MP3, or CD player, software on back.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by c3k: Geier, Yes, the T-72 gunner had to do it all. The auto-loading contraption was supposed to get the selected round, load it, close the breech and standby. Imagine that hydraulic linkage moving around, rising, dropping, spinning, gripping. Given the option of either having my arm ripped off or having to double as loader, I'd choose the latter option. Ken<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What are your references for it being such bad system? My belief are little different, but anyway mailed my friend who was in tank forces and lets see what he says. Edit. My friend replied and according to him (gunner in T-72) autoloader in T-72 is not dangerous. And I believe my friends knows this better, unless you are one-handed ex-T-72 gunner You might be thinking T-64 that I believe was first tank with autoloader and I think it had repuation of being little dangerous.. [ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: jKMkIII ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fieldmarshall: Listen, playing with armored caskets is your business, but listen, the Sherman my not pack a big punch in gun power, and is a limp wristed faggot when it comes to armor, but it has a gyrostablized, accurate gun, that could hit a 400m away target, especially if he took his time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What? My Shermans at least seem to have lots of armour. Once my Sherman (don't remember which model, french with 75mm) took 3 hits from Panther from about 200m and survived. But those damn french backed away behind building, just because they lost their gun. Then other time my Sherman survived frontal shot from PzIV from 30-40m ..and that round bounced off and knocked out another PzIV that was next to one that fired And sure those Shermans can shoot too.. in recent battle my Sherman (I think it was II, brit with 75mm anyway) fired 2 shots to Panthers side turret and both penetrated, but didn't do any damage Perhaps because it was from 1.6km Just if I could drive them offroad without bogging

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: All they have to do is make it an option... thus if u have a crap PC u have 3 man squads, if u have a sweet pc u can select 5/6 man squads<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Would you be happy to have 1 figure presenting 2 men? Would you also want more figures to support weapons and HQs? My personal opinion is that if those figures will not show actual place of men (or even combat pair) and they just are grouped together to show center point of squad it serves no purpose to add those extra men. First either squad marker should take more space, or those 6 figures would be grouped together so closely it would look stupid Second. If figures would be put in so that it would clearly show how many men (or pairs) there are should still check what weapons they have (half dead squad with 3 riffles is pretty much different than same squad with 2 LMGs and SMG) Third. How much does it hurt performance if you multiply your infantry figure by 2 or 3? (more than 2 because surely MGs with 6 men need more than 1 figure?) At least I do not see any need to put those extra figures into squads. I have learnt to see how beaten squads are from 3 figures. And playing around with Coy to Bn size troops you really do not need to know exactly how many men you have, just how much power you have and that can be seen from 3 figures and checking morale. When those figures can be made to represent actions of single soldiers, or combat pairs, and they start to spread out and are not just 3d markers they are now I will start wanting more figures to game. But until that day I do not see any need to pollute battlefield with more figures.

Isn't that what could be expected? You told your men to look at specific point (ambush marker) Enemy drove there, but your men didn't see them (only sound contact and tanks DO not shoot at sound contacts because that can be 100m off When they saw it enemy was in wrong place and your men concentrated their attention to ambush marker and got killed. I think your problem was that your Stug was on FAST MOVE and thus couldn't see pretty much anything. How I use ambush marker for AFVs is that I move them to place and almost always do not give ambush command while on move and after they have moved place I want to setup ambush I give order. If am moving to hull down position where I want to place my AFV watching I can set ambush marker before move to place (usually only few meters left at this point), but then also my AFV will have LOS to ambush area.

Gordon do you know that I do not like you at all. You make my modem turn red and me go broke for downloading all those mods..

Korea would be nice, haven't seen many games from it. Pacific would be total boredom.. again those boring yanks. And Fulda 1950 could be ok. But early war and desert would, or should I say will be, be cool

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: 2)I want a CM which lets me plot my orders and stand even further back from the action. If each turn is even two minutes long, let alone five, each player has to really really think about what the objectives are before hitting go. With longer turns, you can't back out of bad orders, and if siht happens, it _happens_. Conversely, with shorter turns, you are forgiven bad orders more easily. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you play with crack etc. troops with few sec command delays you can change your plan every turn if you want, but try playing with green units.. with them you really have to plan forward because command delay will be pretty long But making turn length much longer than 1min would require at least TacAI that would know how to react to new situations better.. for example I have already screamed to my MGs to stop their area firing when enemy assaulted over open ground from different direction. And ability to set up pauses between commands, certainly it would be nice even with current turn lengths, but with longer turns it would be mandatory. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3) I want the opposite of an adrenalin rush -- or more precisely, I want the option to adjust the amount of adrenalin I want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One way to get extra action in TCP/IP is to set time you can use to give commands to something limited. And for PBEM limitin turn length isn't really nice option.. 30s turns would double emails sent per game. And again without enhancing AI and having ways to give more detailed orders I do not believe it is wise to make turns much longer (and why change little because it doesn't change things much, it would be change just for change) [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: jKMkIII ]

It is true that taking quality element too far in defence can be dangerous. I remember playing battle where I was defending small village and quite big area around it with FJ troops, and I think I had all of them veterans. And my enemy was attacking regular brit&US troops.. Sure my troops, that were still alive after infernal bombarment, were hard to kick out form heavy buildings/forests they were but quantity of enemies running against my few defenders was not fun. I think in my enemys main attack he had 1 platoon for every team I got. Luckily got 2 88mm bunkers and 1 or 2 75mm AT guns positioned well so his tanks had to stay away from action. After all I won, but I think that was just because my opponent surrended (even I was certain I was going to loose

I have same problems as you have, and it is just because for some reason pure white is lost ..but what I do is to switch to desktop and back. And did little GUI mod that doesn't have anything totally white, so texts don't look strange when white disappears ..and also made it little nicer to look by using few colours and simplified things as much as possible.

You propably have scenario with lot of tanks? I have only once got scenario file that big, and it was in scenario that had lot of tanks in it. But even with bigger battles I haven't had file bigger than ~800k ..and currently am starting QB with 5000p and files at least so far have been around 800k.

In one scenario where I got Sherman 76 W+ or something like that as reinforcement that little extra armour propably helped (at least for that extra second It was really dark and visibility was about 50m. My enemy moved two Pz IVs toward me, and I tried hit and run with my Sherman at same time. I think my Sherman fired first, but missed.. then another PzIV fires and hit my Sherman in upper front hull and it ricochets and hits other PzIV damaging its gun But unfortunately schreck or something got my Sherman second later.. but that extra armour got me one gun damaged PzIV Not that it helped, I got my butt kicked anyway

If platoon looses it HQ those squads will be out of command (unless there is higher HQ present) and that brings in command delays and they are easier to break. Just try green squads without HQ and they will run when they even think about enemy and even when not under enemy fire they will have command delays close to 50 seconds. And I don't think it would be good to make them run or make player unable to give commands to them. Certainly those men know what to do even there isn't commander to tell them what to do, at least when I was in army I didn't need some commander telling me all the time what to do. Only if AI would be at such level that they could continue doing their mission (that also would have been given before) then it would be possible to take command off from player. Player is after all commanding all squads and other units at same time. ------------------ jK.MkIII

I believe that even they show up as neutral they are under your control (when points are counted) unless enemy has taken control of them. So flags that are behind your troops are still under control even when they show up as neutral because you can't be sure there is no enemy there. ------------------ jK.MkIII

Also in 1.12 operations are ****ad.. We played Carentan operation with 0m no-mans-land setting and after first battle my friend was pushed back few hundred meters from where my first troops were.. and front was straight line And he also tested (don't remember operation) that you only need one man to sneak as far as possible and enemy will be pushed back few hundred meters from that position Have not checked if it is same for all types of operations, but at least for Carentan v2 (+ I edited it to 0m no-mans-land) So I say we really need 1.13 ..just get working code from old betas where it worked. ------------------ jK.MkIII

Take it slow. Get your troops in good firing positions and fire at enemy from different angles. And don't worry about ammo usage.. just keep enemy surpressed and if you fire from wide angle at them they hopefully break.. And keep them in command radius, and plan ahead.. you don't want to wait 50s for squad to start moving ------------------ jK.MkIII

Haven't used them, well once against computer but computer had couple Panthers But if play big enough QB in city as brits I will certainly buy them And for hitting anything.. I don't think they are meant to be used against moving targets. ------------------ jK.MkIII

j - Jari K - Kujansuu And because my father is Jouko and brother is Jarno so I am third design... MkIII ------------------ jK.MkIII

Yes I could have avoided if would have known it before. But in this case area where they wouldn't go was very narrow. And I could have moved them closer to fire on any other wall of houses, but not just on that narrow area between houses. Also I sometimes see my vehicles generating lot of extra waypoints, some forward and then little back.. And of course woudln't even ask CM to show me my men will move if route is changed because someone shoot at them.. Anyway just one little suggestion for UI, that could help me determine if I need more waypoints and could avoid things like that.. ------------------ jK.MkIII

I see that you didn't read my post carefully Or my image wasn't clear enough because all extra spaces didn't show From point 1 to waypoint 2 (in rubble, NE from 1) just because didn't want my men move on road. Then from point 2 I wanted to move between burning buildings to point 3. ..3 ./. 2.. .\. ..1 Movement what I liked was something like that. What I got was more like this.. ..3 ...\ 2..| .\./ ..1 And route between 1 and 2 was moved twice because they first got to 2, then saw invisible fence between two burning buildings and came back to starting position and went on to street to die. What I want is: "Show me how computer will modify moving routes between waypoints" and that shouldn't be hard to do. Many games (example TOAW) shows what route your troops will actually move before you tell them to move so it isn't rocket science. It could be made an optional feature that would show only when you want and perhaps have some maximum distance how far it will work. Actually when I moved that squad to die I had waypoints between every 2 meters because had tried to move panzerschreck earlier with only those waypoints I mentioned and tought perhaps rubble just is so hard to move that they saw it faster to run on street or that I had told them to move on road by mistake.. I think this would be helpfull UI upgrade and I don't see it being that hard. Of course would also like if you could move even if there are two burning buildings like that.. what is right word, diagonally? X. .X Like that.. Because with that much open space between them I was really surprised that I couldn't move between them.. and only noticed that invisible wall after played while with movement command. ------------------ jK.MkIII

Hi, Would it be possible to show units routes to their waypoints before you press GO and have to see them butchered because they went wrong route? In following situation.. F = burning house, R = ruble, H = house * = enemy sherman HH| | HH| -+-----+- |FF R3| |FF RR| | | |RR FF| |R2 FF| | | |HH H1| |HH HH| -+-----+- | | Buildings are all light two story buildings so there seems to be lots of room between them.. So I am in point 1 and set waypoint to 2 so my troops wont run on road and get butchered by enemy Sherman and finally want to get to point 3. So I press GO and my troops run from 1 to 2, then turn back and goto through point 1 to street and try to reach point 3 but MGs on Sherman kill half of them and send rest running away in panic. Well I was pretty surprised about this, and reason why they did that was those two flaming buildings.. there was thin line where my men couldn't go. In this situation I would have liked that two burning buildings that shouldn't block my mens route wouldn't have done it but I have had my troops and tanks modify their routes to something pretty exciting after I press GO, so ability to see what route they will actually take would be nice.. Would it be possible? ------------------ jK.MkIII

Well against AI you don't really need that kind of rules because even it might have King Tiger or something it doesn't "optimize" troops like humans do.. at least I haven't noticed so. But for CM2 it would be nice if would be choices for historical unit formations, for example you could say recon unit and force points and possible choises would be modified to give you recon force that might have actually existed. ------------------ jK.MkIII

Status update: Combat Mission: 52.5% The Sims: 25.7 Shogun: 21.6% Total votes: 369 ------------------ jK.MkIII

Well if they would do that automatically I would shoot all my tank commanders. In battlefield where enemy propably has AT guns and infantry hiding behind every tree and under every rock I want my tanks drive where I tell them (straight line if possible) and not go where it is easiest (on road) and be shot. Certainly in some cases it could be nice if could give movement order that caused troops to move fastest possible route (in some limits) to endpoint, but battle I have fought this have been rare. And surely Annalist could rephase his postings better and propably he would get nicer ansers.. ------------------ jK.MkIII