Nathman

See topic at General Discussion.

Actually, I'm not sure if retargeting to a place where the FO has no LOS makes any difference. I believe it is dependent on the distance from the original target to where it is re-targeted. If you re-target within a certain radius from the original, the delay is only usually 10-15 seconds (denoted by a green line if in LOS), but if you stray outside that radius, the delay will be 1-2 minutes (denoted by a blue line if in LOS). If not in LOS, then I don't believe it is possible to know where the delay will jump up to 1-2 minutes - you just have to take a best guess.

81mm FO's are a great value IMO. To keep them from running through their ammo too quickly, I usually re-target them slightly over consecutive turns so there is about a 10-15 second delay before they start firing again.

The F6F Hellcat was responsible for nearly 75% of all US navy's air-to-air victories against Japanese aircraft (shot down nearly 5000). To quote Bill Gunston, noted British military aviation historian, "Though pugnacious rather than elegant, the Hellcat was a truly war-winning aircraft". I doubt the phrase "war-winning" could be said for the M18 Hellcat.

The "unrestricted" option can be set separately for either allies or axis. For example, If I decide to play the axis side against the AI playing the allies, I would select unrestricted for myself so as to get a disproportionate amount of artillery (which I can't do and is the point of this question), and either combined, armor, or combined arms for the allies, played by the AI, depending on what situation I'm trying to simulate. Having a hypothetical unrestricted artillery option for myself bears zero relevance upon the force makeup the AI chooses to make. I'm not sure why it is obvious to you that the reason they don't allow unrestricted artillery is because the AI wouldn't choose manuevere units. Even if I did select "unrestricted" for the AI, why would the AI not choose manuever units? Are you saying that the AI would forgo manuever units in favor of artillery? What do you base this on and what am I missing that makes this obvious to you? Please enlighten!

Combat Mission! Congrats to BTS! www.wargamer.com

I found out the hard way the effects of a 14" shell burst while playing the Omaha Beach scenario. My 14" FO miraculously made it to the beach and I had him target a pillbox. The first round fell "a little" short and wiped out 150 of my troops, so I'm aware of the killing power of large caliber shells in the game. An example of what I am talking about is that in a 1000 pt meeting engagement with unrestricted selected, I still can't purchase a single 105mm VT FO. Since BTS allows maximum points to be spent on other categories, why exclude artillery? Besides, aren't the point values of all the units in the game proportionate to their capabilities, hence the high cost of FO's? It's not a big deal, and I'm bringing up the question merely as a point of curiousity.

Scipio, the answer would be no, just as I wouldn't spend all my points on armor, infantry, etc etc, however that misses the point. BTS gives us the freedom to spend a disproportionate amount of points on all categories except artillery and I'm just asking why. I'm just curious - nothing more, nothing less. There are times when I think it would be interesting to simulate a situation in where a platoon might be cut off but yet have the support of a disproportionate amount of artillery available.

With the 1.12 patch, there is now an option to have unrestricted limits when purchasing units, except in the case of artillery. Why was artillery singled out as still having the point restrictions in place?

Runyan, I've got the same problem. I'd love to try Kampfgruppe, but can't get past the documentation check. If anyone has the original manual and can list some of the words that would work (ie What is the 3rd word, 2nd paragraph, 6th page). It looks like there are only about a dozen or so different words that would work, but without the manual it's hopeless.

I have to agree with you Gremlin. It's one thing to have "heard" about Combat Mission, as Michael states, but when the casual pc gamer comes across this ad with the quotes from the reviewers and the awards it has recieved, I have to believe that it takes it to a whole new level, one where people are going to think they are missing out on a great game, which in fact they are.

Great looking ad! Not being a marketing whiz, I'd be willing to bet that if you put that same ad in pc gaming mags, it would be money well spent.

Combat Mission only has 51% of the vote at this time.... not exactly an overwhelming majority, but maybe there's still some more CM'ers who believe it's the most innovative game of 2000?

Just a heads up that there is a poll going on at Strategy Gaming Online regarding the most innovative game of 2000. It's The Sims vs Shogun: Total War vs Combat Mission. It's nearly a dead heat between the three of them. Consider this a call to arms! www.strategy-gaming.com [This message has been edited by Nathman (edited 01-28-2001).]

Thanks, Garry, for filling me in on CNET with your very informative post. Sounds like they could use a real wargamer to review wargames.