M. Bates

I'm not surprised by that. I'd take a Greyhound to beat a Panther or Tiger any day.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I for one just jump on Madmatt's chat. I find someone inside of a minute or two. Piece of cake.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Except for when it isn't working... like now. I can't believe that Combat Mission won't be on Ganeranger. For Christ's sake - someone has managed to do something similar on the PC and he wasn't even paid for it!! Gameranger gain thru extra traffic, and CM gets more exposure to Mac gamers. For all the crap games which are on Gameranger and are never ever played - surely there is space for Combat Mission?!

Why give a replica gun to a 14 year old??? Get him a tennis racket or something!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It can't be moded its part of the game cod.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutely right. With fish stocks the way they are, soon no one will be able to have cod for dinner.

I remember now, that's how I got the beta patch after I had a system re-install. However, why should people have to scrounge around and search through forums just to have the latest piece of software? I may have the answer in a website I was working on until a couple of months ago. It might be worth having another go at it.

Then I can't help you my friend. battlefront.com is about ten years out of date. Maybe someone can email you a copy of the patch.

Try Mad Max's CMHQ, they have PC and Mac versions there.

Yeah, but we've got to be friends with these people afterwards!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All that aside, I think that modeling soft factors like 'national characteristics' is a slippery slope leading to a black hole, building as much on cultural prejudice as fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're a foreigner, you would say that!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whose lives? Are you suggesting that a military not use an effective weapon because it will kill more of the enemy than it will save friendly lives? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes sir that is -exactly- what I am suggesting. Of course it is in the end a matter of judgement. For example, wiping Iraq off the face of the earth a few years ago would have had more downsides than upsides, no matter how many Allied lives could have gotten saved.

>I just used the human wave attack example to illustrate that I was sidling up to the concept of agreeing with Bates. In some cases if the army --operating from a doctrinal standpoint -- ordered something dumb, you didn't have much choice regarding dying no matter how battle hardened you were. lol, I bet that the Russian soldiers were ordered to hop on one leg towards the enemy because "it saves energy". Mind you, they did smarten their acts up, as otherwise the Russians wouldn't have won the war. Hats off to 'em, they fought bravely that's for sure.

>No. I won't bother refuting your contention on a point by point basis. Too easy. I'll jsut pick an easy one: *One* man can proabbly produce several hundred guns a year. But he can only get himself killed once. Hehe, it was supposed to be semi-funny, but I suspect that such scary ideas were not so uncommon in the Soviet Union... >The incidence of the "human wave" attacks by the Soviets are well over-stated. I'd been wondering about that. If they had been so prevalent as I read about in the books, then the Reds might have been down to one man and his dog by late '41.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And firebombing Dresden "looked good"? The idea that the US was nice enough to spare Berlin the bomb is a pipe dream. Germany was the intended target for the bomb, and you can be certain that had the bomb been ready in May 1944, the US would have wasted no time in making that nasty invasion thing unnecessary. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I forget how many died on the beaches on D Day, but I think it was under 10,000. Dropping the bomb on Germany would cost more lives than save.

>I suppose it doesn't matter how battle hardened you are if the polkovnik announces that the regiment has been selected for a human wave attack and the NKVD guys at the back of the formation are loading their pistols and looking speculatively at the back of your head.... My theory is that Stalin ordered those human wave attacks as a means of not having to produce firearms. Therefore, when the first lines are cut down in their swathes, the next lot of men pick up the weapons and then carry on. It probably takes two men to produce a gun, so it is cheaper for one man to die and to have two factory workers take his place than to provide guns for everyone individually. Is this a sound theory? I'll get me coat...

>Wouldn't battle hardened Russian troops have transcended their training during the course of becoming Battle Hardened. Yes to some extent, but there would have still been the same arse-about-face structure behind them. Perhaps a game like CM doesn't lend itself to national characteristics because the player is responsible for each individual man, I just don't know. BTW the 'miserable gits' was in ref. to the topic starting post getting pulled and quoted to bits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The bomb was developed to end the war. If that meant bombing Germany or Japan then we were up to it. If it meant bombing Moscow then we were almost certainly up to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Surely the USA used the bomb against Japan rather than see unnecessary bloodshed with a ground invasion of the mainland. Doing it in Asia is one thing, but I don't think the USA would have dropped it in mainland Europe, it just wouldn't look good.

I found that very interesting Chief, thank you for posting that. While I don't think the AI suggestions would get implemented - though I wouldn't mind if they were - I agree that the points could be tailored to give each force more "character". If people say that you can just have lots of green troops versus a few veteran, then that's not good enough. Even battle-experienced Russian troops could fight poorly because of their training. (now wait for the miserable gits to pick it apart).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The goal is immersion. Not like the film total recall but as close as you can get with today's tech. It's about teams and team work. It will be the first game that will make me unwrap the microphone that came with my cpu and use it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WWIIOnline is using 1:2 scale of the world. How can thousands of players be adequate for this?? Why don't they just simulate set battles? For example, Stalingrad. You would have tanks infantry and planes, but at a more sensible scale.

Pak, I am positive that I have had times of a minute when calling artillery blind.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have found (with the new patch anyway). That you can assign a target while out of LOS and during the next move move into LOS. This is espceially useful when it takes several minutes to bring down any fire. Note: Note you need to balance having your FO ready with LOS or out of the way in cover. Basically there will be an increased delay in calling arty strikes if you have your FO hidden. Thus by the time you have him ready your target may have gone or dispersed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So THAT'S how you destroyed 6 of my Shermans for no loss on your part!! BTW my surrender should be winging towards your email inbox about now. ------------------ Great Quotes Maximus: "And what's that Rob? The rest of the world doesn't care? I can assure you that when Boris Yeltsin stepped down in Russia last New Years, the world cared. Oh wait, you live in Canada. That's right, Canada only cares 'aboot' Canada. The whole world could be on the brink of destruction and as long as Canadian soil isn't involved, they could care less. Does the phrase, "Isolationist China" mean anything to ya?" Rob/1: "Lets just say I dont like americans ok... if you have a prolbem with that Minumis is one of the resions." jshandorf: "Suck" jshandorf: "How about Stephen Hawkins! Yeah! I would kick his skinny, whellchair ass any day of the week! Bring it on roller boy!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote: > What I said about the CC series has nothing to do with CM so it's preposterous for you to say what you did. People seem to like slinging the term "preposterous" around whenever someone says something they don't like. What MantaRay said was perfectly relevant. David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's just preposterous.

Yeah but it's difficult to get good LOS a lot of the time. In future, if I have say 4 platoons and 2 spotters, I'll have the spotter moving a slight distance behind, ready to call down fire. Infantry engagements in any case take a turn or two to get going, which allows for enough time for the artillery to be the deciding factor. As soon as I get one aspect of CM right, I forget another...

Take the average meeting engagement map. There will be a big hill somewhere in your setup zone. The logical thing to do is to put an arty spotter up there and call down fire onto the enemy, right? Well what happens when I do this, is I get the benefit of increased visibility across much of the battlefield. But on the downside there is a sizeable chance that the enemy player will bring down an artillery barrage on the hill top and kill my arty FOs. So exactly what is the downside of calling in artillery blind?? I haven't noticed much more time in getting the shells onto target when clicking onto areas I want to fire upon. And when I adjust the fire, even though the arty FO has no line of site, I only loose around 7 or 10 seconds before the fire re-commences again. Do most other people find this a more effective use of artillery? I concede that there are downsides, but surely alive FOs are better than dead ones!!

Is this real or is it intended to be funny?

I agree. I really hope that a good North African TC is produced, because all of the neccessary units are already in place - ie Germans Brits and Americans.