The Blitzkrieg

HAHA! fixed it!....it was because i har renamed the file...weird.....anyhow...thnx fellas.....im off to play <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Blitzkrieg: I have deleted every Public Beta Version exe. and reinstalled the new version, crating new exe.'s. After opening the new exe. it still says "b22".......? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have deleted every Public Beta Version exe. and reinstalled the new version, crating new exe.'s. After opening the new exe. it still says "b22".......? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfe: The icon on your desktop is likely pointing to the old executable. Change its properties so it points to the new EXE file. - Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did that...belive be...i've tried almost everything at this point...thanx though <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: Do not open the executable in the public beta folder that was created for the 122 patch inside your CMBO folder. Instead open the beta executable inside your CMBO folder. It should have todays date on the executable 12-20. john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem here: After successful extraction I open up the Public Beta exe and is says its still b22 version?...further extractions over and over and still no change....help? Please Help!

More ideas and input from Rockdawg: Send your thoughts Blitz- --------------------------------------------- Sorry I couldn't just reply to all... Can't get Agent to do it easily. If you could broadcast this to your mailing list, I'd appreciate it. >STYLE OF PLAY: >THE RANKS HAVE SPOKEN! > > With the Dawn of TCP/IP, SEAHAWK has presented me with a idea for round-2 and future tourneys that will not only eliminate scenario bias, predictability, and imballance, but will also increase the dependence for a General to be more creative, tactical, and strategic. This of course is achieved through using "Quick Battles," where one may hand pick their units and personalize their resources for battle... >In SEAHAWKS words: > > Concerning future plans: I think a more realistic way of planning our future engagements is to play a blind scenario. I already participated in such multi-player games with CM and believe me: having no idea of what is going to face our forces adds to the suspense and realism. Blind, defiantely. Like the idea of not knowing what's around the corner... but the thought of a QB makes me pause just a bit. We've all played QB's where one player sets parameters in an unbalanced (not even out of malice, but still... small battles with large maps... very long low point games, etc...) way or the odd weird map that just favors one side. Like the more even matchup of a set scenario. blind is good, though I did enjoy discussing Wiltz with others... "What was your setup?" Ideas on midgame... When should the germans show the armor... Allied Arty use... blah blah blah. Was fun partly becasue everyone knew the scenario well, but also becasue we all had a common frame of reference. Hope we could keep that part. A blind set scenario would aid that. > > Master of battles who was preparing the next scenario as we were playing a sort of campaign with each scenario ideally following the results of previous battles: a sort of hand made operation. Sounds intriging if someone can be found. Or maybe just finding a scenario that no one's played from WBW or someone known to make good, balaced games. > >SECOND DIVISION PLAY & THE WILD CARD: > > Many players have requested that a "wild card" should be offered to further enhance second division play. I have no qualms about this idea, in fact, all I have received from other players is support. So, unless I get some strong negative feedback the "wild card" is a go! Here is the idea as presented to me by ROCKDAWG: > > My suggestion (ROCKDAWG), This guy's a genius! > -- Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves. - Eric Hoffer clay.cahill@ intel.com cacahill@pacbell.net

GENERAL BLITZKRIEG FROM THE NCCMAHQ: Gentlemen, The results of the final battle at Wilts has been received. It's confirmed that TROOPER is to be championed with an Allied Major Victory, in his battle with BIGDOG at Wiltz. The After Action Report of this battle will be sent (in short) as a separate document, please review... This latest report will conclude round-1 of play. The following table lists "mach-ups" for round-2 and is separated by divisions of play. Please note the following table: ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________DIVISION ONE______________________________ TROOPER(axis)----------------------VS----------------------TINK (allied) GENERAL BLITZKRIEG(axis)-----------VS---------------------ROMMEL(allied) ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________DIVISION TWO______________________________ SEAHAWK(axis)----------------------VS-------------------ROCKDAWG(allied) GONZOATTACKER(axis)----------------VS--------------------BIGDAWG(allied) ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________END___________________________________ *To ensure fairness, all names were pulled from a hat and a coin flipped to determine forces of play... STYLE OF PLAY: THE RANKS HAVE SPOKEN! With the Dawn of TCP/IP, SEAHAWK has presented me with a idea for round-2 and future tourneys that will not only eliminate scenario bias, predictability, and imbalance, but will also increase the dependence for a General to be more creative, tactical, and strategic. This of course is achieved through using "Quick Battles," where one may hand pick their units and personalize their resources for battle... In SEAHAWK's words: Concerning future plans: I think a more realistic way of planning our future engagements is to play a blind scenario. I already participated in such multi-player games with CM and believe me: having no idea of what is going to face our forces adds to the suspense and realism. I found myself choosing my actions from what I already knew about the scenario and the initial forces setup and the game is forcibly biased. My suggestion for future engagements is to either have a Quick Battle generated by CM with fixed points/forces for both sides at time of encounter or having a brand new scenario each time (this was the way I have been playing in previous experience: we had a Master of battles who was preparing the next scenario as we were playing a sort of campaign with each scenario ideally following the results of previous battles: a sort of hand made operation. Any thoughts on this issue? Seahawk...END *BIGDAWG has also agreed to this idea. I'm in full support of SEAHAWK's idea and am recommending "Quick Battles" are to be used for round-2 and there after. Point information, # of turns, weather, map size, etc., will be fixed. That information will be coming to you soon, but for now grab a partner and practice your skills at Quick Battle...and know your military! SECOND DIVISION PLAY & THE WILD CARD: Many players have requested that a "wild card" should be offered to further enhance second division play. I have no qualms about this idea, in fact, all I have received from other players is support. So, unless I get some strong negative feedback the "wild card" is a go! Here is the idea as presented to me by ROCKDAWG: My suggestion (ROCKDAWG), All round 1 losers play off... mix the 4 losers and have each play one game. The winners of that game will play off to have a round 1 lower div champ. At the end of round two, there will be two losers... the lowest point scorer in round two will play the lower div champ for round 1. Then the winner of that plays the top seeded player of lower div for round two. For round 3, the lower div champ should play the 2nd seed for div 1/round 3. The winner of that game plays the top seed for the championship. That way the top seeded player has to play less games than the either the second seed or the wildcard and risks less. Is that enough steps? Should be shouldn't it for 8 initial play? ROUND-2 LAUNCH: Round-2 will begin after fixed parameters are formulated. I'm going to allow for some "down time" so players can get familiar with their army, Quick Battles, and TCP/IP style of play. Launch will not begin for another week or so. Official launch starts when a list of parameters is received from me via-E mail...In the mean time get out and practice! Questions answered at: x_maximum_x@hotmail.com More to come, General Blitzkrieg

Well, its been three weeks or so since the birth of NCCMA, (Northern California Combat Mission Alliance), and on November 15 NCCMA has officially launched its first Tournament. The first round of the elimination style tournament is taking place using the scenario WILTZ. The tournament's "match ups" of participating NCCMA members for the first round are as follows: -WILTZ- Gen. Blitzkrieg (Allied) ---- Seahawk (Axis) Gonzoattacker (Allied) ----- Rommel22 (Axis) Trooper (Allied) ------------- BigDog (Axis) Tink (Allied) -------------- RockDawg (Axis) It is encouraged that this thread be used for news pertaining to the tournament. Members and non members are free to post questions or comments about tourney #1. Also, the posting of useful information such as, casualty reports, progress reports, etc. could make for a more exciting experience. Good luck to all participants... More to come, Gen. Blitzkrieg

Well I've been working on getting a tournament started up for us for the past week... I thought I'd be democratic about it, even though I'm a conservative bastard...hehe, and let our members vote on or recommend a scenario they'd like to play for the first round of our tourney...! I think it would be best if the scenario used is small to medium in size, as well as evenly balanced... let me know your thoughts generals! Contact me via ICQ or E-mail at the usual spot: nccma_hq@cavalry.com More to come! Thnx all... Blitz

Trooper is right... this is unacceptable and can not be tolerated... to think there is a developing force brewing so close to our borders... Hehe... Sounds like potential for good fun & competition...if this organization truly dose exist please contact the NCCMA at (NCCMA_HQ@CAVALRY.COM) for a possible tourney...or to just let us know your out there...please feel free to post on this thread... over and out, Blitz- <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trooper: OK.. This is war! Look, there's a So-Cal chapter trying to start up. This is intolerable! Seriously, we can have a fair oul fight here. Maybe we can find some way of setting up a league whereby our guys play their guys, and each win gets you two points, each draw one point and so on... See who comes out best? Manic Moran <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The NCCMA (Northern California Combat Mission Alliance) is officially up and running with 5 active members and an additional 5 soon to be members... A web page is currently underway thanks to our generous fellow member and comrade Jagdcarcajou...(current members please thank him for this)... However, we are still looking for more CM advocates in the Northern California area to join our ranks... All you need to join is an account with ICQ...Simply Send me a message Via. ICQ and or E-mail... If you don't have ICQ, but still want to join our ranks simply download your free copy of ICQ from: www.ICQ.com You may E-mail me with questions about NCCMA or the ICQ messaging program at: nccma_hq@cavalry.com Questions may also be answered on this forum, for I will check it periodically... Over and out, Gen. Blitzkrieg- ICQ#: 8052351

Well, looks like this organization (NCCMA: Northern California Combat Mission Alliance) has taken hold... Our friend Jagdcarcajou has offered to start our official web page, he is a professional and will do an awesome job for us, so all current members please give him a pat on the back for his kind gesture... Information will be provided on the page as soon as it's underway... In the mean time we're still looking for more recruits...! So, if your in the Northern California area and would like to join our organization please contact me via. ICQ at the following number: 8052351 To learn more questions can be posted in this forum or e-mailed to me at: NCCMA_HQ@CAVALRY.COM Over and out, Blitz- [This message has been edited by The Blitzkrieg (edited 10-22-2000).] [This message has been edited by The Blitzkrieg (edited 10-22-2000).]

Ok im out of here and off the Forum for today... Looks like with in only three hours of the original post we've accumulated a good amount of heads to start this thing up... those who sent me their ICQ #'s via. e-mail will hear from me soon, those who haven't got ICQ yet don't worry i still have your info and will make note of it... Also, let me know if any of you have any web page making talents or any other skills that might benefit this organization and or help it come to life... Thanks... Blitz- X_maximum_X@hotmail.com

Aye we got troop <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trooper: San Francisco... Live on Treasure Island, work in Redwood City, and wargame in Oakland. (Next game on the 28th, I'll be running a WWIII game on the 4th, if anyone's interested!) NTM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check- <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22: Bigdog!!!!: I live in Castro valley!!!! Where in Castro Valley do you live DOG??!! I'll have to get ICQ when I get home. Blitz I'll e-mail you the info and stuff when I get home and get icq! This kicks ass, I though all people that played CM were from the east cose or England, finally some people from the West and close by! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good... send me an E-mail w/your info... x_maximum_x@hotmail.com <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GonzoAttacker: Hey, I am up in CHICO, count me in!I can Crash in my home town Petaluma. ICQ #67829019 or gonzoattacker on AOL IM Also think A Neighbor here in Red Bluff might be interested too.... MAYBE for us North Valley People we should set up shop in Sacramento?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>