busboy

All I can suggest is make sure you have the latest versions of Mac OS 9.2.2, and the latest RAVE drivers as well as your card drivers. Other than that, my NVIDIA card doesn't give me any experience to help you.

I remember on the History Channel they interviewed Cooper in the episode of "Suicide Missions" and I think it was he who noted the difference between German and American mass production (though it might have been someone else on a different show.) Anyhoo, they noted that the U.S. and the Germans both had 105mm howitzers. The German breech had something like 100 moving parts in it, while the American version had 28. (numbers as well as I can remember.) Just because the Panther was designed for mass production doesn't mean it was ideal for it. On Patton: During the inter-war years, Patton was one of the champions for bigger and better tanks. He constantly went to bat witth Christie trying to get the army to understand that tanks would replace horses, and that the tank was not only an infantry support vehicle. Between a traditionalist army and a depression torn congress that thought the last war ever ended in 1918, there was little support for tank development. What there was might as well have been clandestine. Patton never subscribed to the idea that AT guns and tank destroyers were designed to deal with tanks, while tanks bypassed other tanks. The army had a series of wargames just before WW2 to test test the idea that AT guns made tanks ineffective. Supposedly the tank was going to be proven obsolete. Patton's 2nd Armored division not only proved the AT gun ideas wrong by winning the wargames, he did it spectacularly by concluding games ment to take days into a decisively winning the games in hours. (In one game, in fact, Patton's forces captured the opposing general of the opposing infantry division.) Patton wasn't a traditionalist. He was a cavalryman who wanted to see the cavalry evolve. It must also be noted that Patton and Chaffee were THE experts of tanks in the American Army. Patton was literally the first American who could drive a tank. When the U.S. tank corps got their tanks delivered to them in France, 1918, Col. Patton had to personally take each tank of the train cars because none of the recruits had seen an Ft-17 yet. If the question to mount a 76mm gun in a Sherman had been raised when war was still months away, I'm sure Patton would enthusiastically say hell yes. If the question was to develop the Pershing tank to replace the Sherman, if there were time to do it, he'd have said yes. However, once in war I'm sure he felt that you don't change horses in midstream. Theoretically, if we had pulled all the Shermans and started mounting 76mm guns in all of them before Normandy, tank for tank the U.S. forces would have done better, sure. However, the German tanks would still inflict heavy casualties on the Americans. The Sherman (and T-34) did not the war because they were good enough to go toe to toe with German tanks and, if used correctly, win, even though they could. They won the war because the Allied armies could afford to go toe to toe with the Germans, and lose tanks in the process. Patton, in short, was probably concerned that trying to get bigger and better tanks would only result in fewer tanks on the front against other tanks that were still superior in firepower and protection. Result: American tanks get KOed at the same rate, but with no replacements. This WOULD have been disastrus. And, if we had dropped Sherman production to develop the Pershing , we probably would have suffered until the Pershing became reliable and numerous enough to not only compete with German tanks tactically, but strategically as well. Finally, Patton was a cavalryman. He loated the idea of the super-heavy tank. After WW he noted in his diary about the plans he had seen for a WW1 era super tank. It was massive, with 75mm guns mounted in sponsons all over the hull, machine guns everywhere, a crew of something like 30. It was called a "mobile fortress." The last thin he notes was the diagram allotted only a tiny section of the middle of the tank for a small box labeled "powerplant: not yet devised." Patton went on to note that as splitting the atom was not yet possible, the proposed tanks was a ludicrus fantasy. On a similar note, Patton noted in his diary about seeing a Tiger tank for the first time. He called it "the worst piece of self propelled artillery of the war." Patton was a military realist. You do the most harm to the enemy by hitting him where he isn't, destroying his supplies, and once he's off balance you advance so fast that he can't hope to recover. This method of mobile warfare is simply the most efficient method of combat to date, deciding the issue quickly with the fewest casualties. You cannot mount a strategic end run when your main battle tanks can do only 20mph on roads, have short range, and need constant maintinance. To Patton, ubertanks may have been tactical beasts, but they were strategic jokes. I think Patton, as much as any other man, knew his tanks and tank design. However, he supported armored development as he thought it would best suit his style of fighting. Unfortunately not many other Anglo-American Generals shared such an agressive philosophy, and the Sherman was forced to be used as an assault weapon as well as a cavalry weapon. That is its failure.

Hmm, thats odd. I played a scenario the other night that had air support in it. The damn tank hunters didn't knock out a single enemy tank, and one of them took the time to strafe some of my infantry.

If I recall, the M1 uses a hybrid engine that can run on most any oil byproduct you put into it... but I think it mainly runs on diesel. As for petrol vs. diesel...yes its an isse. Ammo explodes, it doesn't catch fire. Is a hit to the gas tank going to cause an explosion? Not likely, though theoretically possible. However, a hit to the fuel which causes a fire destroys the tank, and if it burns long enough, eventually the ammo "cooks off" as well. If a tank burns, its gone. If I recall from the aforementioned book "Death Traps" by Sgt. Cooper, the reason for this is the heat of a fire effects the metalurgical properties of the armor. Even if you could take a burnt out tank and restore it, its armor wouldn't be worth anything. Secondly, restoring such a tank would be more trouble then just getting a replacement. In short, diesel tanks are less inclined to burn in the event of a hit on the fuel, and that can be the difference between a recoverable tank, and a hulk.

There were Shermans that were utterly devistated...but they were far fewer than the T-34s. I can only recall seeing 2 pictures of Shermans with a turret blown off, other than that, yes, its just a hole in the armor and blackened paint if it burned. "I've got the feeling the late HVSS 76mm gun Sherman was actually one of the best tanks of WWII (gasp!). They certainly beat the pants off the T34-85 in Korea." Everyone always says that the Sherman was a rotten tank...but they base that on how German high velocity guns performed against the Shermans. The German tanks were sort of apples compared to the rest of the world's oranges. They were big, expensive, complex gas hogs that were designed to give 'n take a licking and keep on ticking. The rest of the world just had a different philosophy...not one that disregarded crew safety, but one that ment that they weren't going to build ubertanks like the Germans. As a result, the Sherman is considerd awful. Well, compared to the Panther, it was fairly inferior...so were most tanks of WW2. The fact is that the late war M4A3E8/76(w) tanks WERE some of the best in the war. Thick and fairly well shaped frontal armor, high velocity gun, wide tracks and a good suspension system, and outstanding reliability. Tank vs tank, the Panther may have been superior, but which was the better tank for an army to field? I'd say the late Shermans. I do admit, however, that sending early mark Shermans with the short 75 against Tigers was a bad skew of the odds.

Yup, seems I'm the one thats wrong (and my source too.) Onwar.com has the PzKw IV using petrol too.

From MBI Publishing's Illustrated Directory of Tanks of the Word from World War I to the Present Day, by David Miller. PzKw IV- Maybach HL 120 TRM V-12 inline diesel (boy I can't spell) developing 300hp at 3,000rpm. However, I must admit I was gravely mistaken...all other enteries including the Panther and Tiger used petrol engines according to the source. Still, there are different levels of combustability for different fuels.

You're joking? Ok, I'll dig out some sources.

TuffGI, I'm a WW2OLer. The games are completely different. CM is not a game of reflexes or first person simulation, its a simulation in command. WW2OL is the best "first person" war sim out there, and CM is the best 3rd person command sim out there. Try the demo, then get the game...have fun Iron...I feel for you, I've been suffering from the same problem myself the past few days. I got my papers done though... What classes are you taking? That effects how much you can blow off.

Nope, but thank you for playing. The Germans used deseil engines in their panzers, while all front line American tanks used regular petrol. The gasoline in American tanks was much more combustable than deseil fuel and was the main reason the Sherman burned so easily. Ammo storage, on the other hand doesn't cause much of a fire, but really more of a tremendous BOOM. Its not that Sherman crews put rounds everywhere they could fit them, there were not loose rounds rolling around on the turret floor. The problem was that the ammo boxes located in the hull were fairly easily pierced which lead to the aforementioned BOOM. Later Shermans worked to fix this problem by introducing "wet storage." In the event that an ammo box was hit, it would flood with antifreeze, thus hopefully preventing an explosive combustion. In lieu of this, many Shermans had applique armor welded to their hull sides. You can see these in many pictures of wartime Shermans. Recap: Gasoline made many tanks more inclined to burn than their deseil powered cousins. Ammunition storage was a very touchy thing (which is why there WEREN'T rounds rolling around on the floor, unless the crews wanted trouble.) and a penetration of an ammunition box could lead to a catastrophic explosion. As for the location of Sherman ammo storage..it was about the same layout as in the German Tiger...just thinner armor keeping rounds OUT to begin with.

In all seriousness, I am 99.9% sure that a chase cam for ammo is impossible in the existing game engine. I didn't make the game, so I can't be totally sure, but I'd bet just about anything on it.

That is one tough nut to crack...but I am sure that it can be done. The trick, I'm sure, is to concentrate ALL of your offensive resources on a narrow front where the fewest defenders can fire, while supressing them. I saw some folks griping about the difficulty of this scenario, and I thought...Yea! sure. My skill and luck will give me victory quickly...it always seems to. Well, I almost got my ass handed to me, but after I lost about 1/4 the effective strength of my infantry and saw how weary and thin the rest were spread, I simply pulled out. (that is, aborted the scenario to try at a later time...there was studying that I needed to do). spoilers... . . . . If you attack frontally...you will die. If you attack at sort of a 45 degree angle where the russian left flank starts to curve...you will die. I think the secret is to get ALL of your resources into that wheat field, use the mechanized forces to duke it out with any gun in LOS (which may be costly) and then supress the forces in the woods with mortars and any remaining vehicles while ALL of your infantry leap frogs and penetrates the wood. After that, its straight into the church FIRST, and use that as a firing position on the trenches. I don't have the time to try this out. No matter what you do, the attack will be difficult and costly. One thing I am sure of, you MUST focus your attack. Usual rules of "fix n' flank" are out due to the compactness of the Russian force...you cannot "fix" anyone really, so it is best to avoid where the Russians are strongest, that is the trench line and building area. I look forward to being able to test this.

Yea, I have similar wishful thoughts. That would be real dramatic, thats for sure. Maybe in the rewrite. I can just imagine a shell-cam on the L71 88mm gun. If you blink, you miss the flight...

The difference in practical terms is that some craters just aren't big enough for use as cover. An 81mm mortar's crater is not going to be big enough to cover a squad, for instance. Grahically, many shell impacts leave craters. However, some are only "decals" that go on the terrain for esthetics only. The darker (and generally bigger) craters are the ones you can use for cover.

Ahh, I think I am beginning to see. You need the elevation to plot a more strategic usage of movement, but at that useful level you begin to lose grasp of your units. At first thought, I'd suggest experience. Now obviously you've been at CMBB as long as anyone, and I bet you've been at BO longer than me, so this is not a suggestion that "you're a n00b." Rather, I think it might have to do with getting used to the new game, and its new look. For one, in CMBO you probably had it MODed just so. Now in CMBB, you have very few MODs yet, and vehicles may tend to look alike, and for sure you are getting used to new looks for them. I think time is the only cure for this. Time on the short term...the longer you play a battle, the more farmilliar you will become with who is where, ect. And time in the long term...the more unique your graphics look, the more you'll "feel" with the game. That will likely play a part. I suppose I have the same "problem" as you if you will, but I just never thought of it as a problem. From height, I just remember who is what. Infantry squads have bigger bases than support or command units, they're easy to tell apart, and then the "little" infantry bases I just start to remember which is which based on placement as the battle goes on. As I advance, I guess I just sort of have a cateloug of "where that MG is going" and so forth. The same is true for vehicles, especially. I just keep a tally of which is where, and that settles any confusion I might have. If there is any doubt, its put to rest when I click on the unit to give its orders and I get its status. I guess it doesn't bug me, but I do now see where you're comming from. In your case, i guess the best thing to do would be to always play with bases on (as it sounds like you do) and when you're giving orders, switch your unit scale every so often momentarily. Finally, relating to how this problem is CMBB specific...see if the problem doesn't fade as time goes by. And thanks for the heads up about the rules! I think I'll try that if I ever have the chance.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "ID." To me, ID means you just have to be able to see enough of the unit to click it. In this regard, CMBB is unchanged from BO. If you mean some other type of identification (tank types by sight only) then you have a different matter. Agreed on looking at the map on level 1 too, in addition to giving you the best appreciation for a particular piece of land, its also very historical. I'd like to see a battle where you get a "command post" at the top of a hill that overlooks the entire field, and you have to use level one combined with use of magnification and level change to give your units their orders and observe the battle. Want to move your perspective, gotta move your "unit" (an HQ unit in a jeep, perhaps.) I know CM isn't ment to simulate this specifically, and trying to do so really wouldn't be accurate to life, but it would still be a lot of fun.

With a test like that, I'm not suprised. Even if you balance out the tests more (like, oh, say, even numerical odds ) I think the T-34s are still going to win..the 85mm gun will get the Hetzer every time, but the reverse might not be true. However, if the Hetzer is used in an ambush role with a narrow LOS, the Hetzer's small size will keep it deadly. The Hetzer would get whooped in the steppes, no doubt. But just try to come into a wooded village and not crapping your pants when one pops out of seemingly no where.

Don't rely on seeing the enemy unit in detail. Crank up your scale if you like. I personally only play with historical scale. But I do play with bases on at all times, unless I want to just watch a particularly jucy part of the replay as "realistically" as possible. Also, remember that you can replay the turn time after time. Watch it from the enemy lines a few times and you'll get a feel for what's over there. I personally never do this. In addition to it being ahistorical, I don't have the patience. I usually watch each movie once from "altitude" and replay only small sections time in only the most confused of places. At the end of a turn, before pressing done, I might get straight down view and just highlight the field. With bases on, this shows where all of my units are, and places a highlight around active (non-routed) units. This serves as a great indication of where my lines are. With targeting/move lines on, you also see where your firepower is directed, and where your movement is cycling. In general though, once the battle is joined I get a blood lust and I want to win. 30 turns=30 minutes of movies if you only watch them once, and then you add on your ordering time...CM is a time consuming game. A mission in "Close Combat" might last 10 minutes if you prolong it, but in CM most people probably take at least an hour and a half for just your average game. Not me personally. I like to fight it fast, and try to win it fast. To me, this is most accurate (what commander in real life gets to pause the battle every minuite, replay the last one over and over in his head before taking his time in finetuning precice orders...) and also squeezes in the most CM in the smallest time. (and with my life, time can be brief for games.) Now whether I "appreciate" CM as much as others is debatable. The eyecandy and drama certianly isn't lost on me, though, thats for sure. I love making myself a combat photographer in CM...THAT is what the replay really rocks for!

Agreed, useful to tightly packed heavy weapons or tanks too. You will NOT get the most effective coverage out of it, but sometimes it doesn't matter and you would like the time saver.

Molotov cocktails are hard coded, I'd imagine bazooka rounds, mortar shells and the like will be as well.

Speaking from a Mac perspecive, the mod potential has increased almost expodentially. In CMBO, Mac were limited to 15 graphics files of the "ResEdit" type that could be no larger than aprox. 15 megs in size. To install mods the easy way, a Mod program would take the BMPs and automatically replace pictures for new pictures. This worked well...unless you started getting lots of high resolution Mods. Then, files would start filling up. Once "Graphics file 1" was full up to its 15 megs, no more could be squeezed on. So, if you wanted to add more Mods of stuff that was in "Graphics file 1," you would have to squeeze in the BMPs into other graphic files. To do this, you would have to copy/paste individual BMPs into the files manually with ResEdit, being careful to delete old pics, ect. Before you knew it, you had a labyranth of BMPs in your graphics files, and one mistake or missing BMP might cause CM to crash. Now the Mac BMP archives work just like the PC, and all is good in Mac land!

I am glad to see that all the models are complete! I hope we do get to see all of the vehicles filled out yet, I know there's release priorities (makes sense) but I am hoping that ALL vehicles are going to be addressed.

Hello all, just got my game up and running last night, and I fooled around a bit with the BT series of tanks, and I noticed the top speed listed in the game window is aprox. 30 Mph. Every source I have ever seen has always listed the top speeds of the entire BT series to about 50 MPH. Now, Every BT tank until after the 5 could run on wheels instead of tracks for fast road movement, that COULD be part of my error. However, the BT series was directly evolved from Walter Christie's series of fast torsion bar tanks, the version that became the BT-1 actually had a top speed (on road, on wheels) of 70 MPH. (40+ on tracks) Now the BTs in the game are plenty fast, the scenario I took out last night showed me that. But they're slower than I expected them to be. Am I somehow confusing some roadwheel speed data for track speed data? Opinions? (note: The BT-7 did not have the ability to move on its wheels, it was tracked only, and I have one small pocket book that lists its top speed at aprox. 50 MPH. This could be just plain wrong.)

Extreme, unless I'm tooling around with a self-made test type battle, then I'll use none just to see what is doing what, ect.

Longview, Texas. Got mine today. Thanks BTS!