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.

But what also has my panties in a wad is that they didn't even have a wargame category. Is wargaming so out of the mainstream that it isn't even recognized as a genre anymore? Geez....

Did I miss something? I just read through the CNET Gamecenter awards pages, and as far as I can tell, they didn't even mention Combat Mission, let alone even have a wargame category. Just wondering if I missed something because I can't imagine that CM wouldn't get some sort of an award or even a nomination. At any rate, I emailed Gamecenter with my opinion that they made a gross oversight if that is indeed the case, and would urge others to follow suit. It's not like it's the end of the world, but I think the public at large that goes to a site like Gamecenter should be aware that Combat Mission exists and is worthy of special mention, if not a game of the year award. That's all.

[This message has been edited by Nathman (edited 01-24-2001).]

Oh really? Having never played CM 2, I wasn't aware of that. I'm led to believe that CM2 will have new game features and also since it concerns the eastern front, Soviet weaponry (not much discussion will concern that, I'm sure ). I guess time will tell if BTS starts a new forum on CM 2 or not, but the reason I believe it would be nice if they did revolves around the search function and making it easier to find CM 2 specific topics without having to search through CM topics, but since most of the discussions are appropriate to both, I concede to your argument. [This message has been edited by Nathman (edited 01-24-2001).]

Exactly my point. It is the Combat Mission forum. I would expect at some time BTS will create a separate forum for CM II, and why not do it now rather than later?

Seems like I see quite a few references to CM II on this forum, even though it will be many, many months before it's released. I'm wondering if for the sake of searching for info regarding CM II, it might make sense to start a separate forum so as not to clutter this one. Just a thought. [This message has been edited by Nathman (edited 01-24-2001).]

Captain, USAF. Spent six years in the UK and Italy. In the UK I was a GLCM (Ground Launch Cruise Missile) launch control officer (I turned the key that let the nukes fly) at RAF Greenham Common. By the way, any Brits out there who can tell me if the "peace women" are still camped out there? In Italy I was in Aviano as a command post puke and hated every second - not Italy, the job. The higher the rank, the worse the job is, at least that was my experience. Now I'm enjoying life in the Colorado rockies building houses and snowboarding (and playing CM!)

Chess! To quote James Dunnigan, " All wargames derive from that earliest and simplest of wargames: chess."

I'm glad this topic has been brought up. I for one am appalled that there are no windmills in any scenarios I've ever played. What's up with that? Too many churches, no whorehouses or windmills, there are just so many things wrong with this game that I refuse to play it until these glaring errors are corrected!

Here's something I want to throw into the v1.1 hull rotation "bug" debate to see what everyone thinks. A fairly large number of german tanks were turretless, and therefore had no choice but to rotate the hull to engage their targets. I guess this could be seen as a real world "bug" and a lack of flexibility for this particular sort of tank. Is anyone aware of the perception these tank crews had with regards to this handicap? Did they hate their tank because they had to turn the hull in order to engage, thereby risking a flank shot by an unseen enemy? What was the offical german view regarding this type of tank? Why did they continue to produce them if it was such a handicap (apart from cost effectiveness issues)? I really don't have an opinion one way or the other regarding this "bug", as it hasn't caused me any problems, but just want to bring up a real world situation in which turning the hull was necessary and to see if anyone had any anecdotal evidence which may shed more light on this issue.