Little_Black_Devil

Thanks for the input Guys, I guess it remains to be seen what the final / official answer is. Naturally, I for one am hoping that the use of one projectile type won't be to the determiment of any of the others as I just can't see the logic in that. As a former Artilleryman, every time I ever put an HE round down range - a corresponding smoke round in our ammo hooch didn't just miraculously disapear for reasons unknown as well. If the intent is to abstract other units drawing upon indirect fire assets, I suppose I can wrap my head around that - but one would think ammunition availability should be variable if that's the case and not a hard wired formula where you're more or less making a decision to use one type or ammunition or the other but not really both. (Yes I realize under the existing system if you fire your smoke first you will still have whats left of your HE to then fire - but this also assumes I have need for my smoke before I need my HE). However, even if the count for precision munitions are separated from the slurry of HE/Smoke rounds then that would still be a step up, though still not ideal. If however, they're part of the combined count then one will certainly have to agonize over what projectiles to call upon and in what order so as not to inadvertently deplete their other projectile types. Naturally, this would further be complicated by the rough rates of fire available as mechanisms to control just how much ammunition is used. Meaning, if I have those 160 HE rounds, 24 Smoke Rounds and say 8 Precision rounds - and I need to call down HE first, then at what point will a short mission, medium mission or a long mission start start nipping into my supply of smoke or Precision rounds? My guess is trial and error will tell which I guess is the crux of my frustration with the existing combined ammunition count system as real fire missions don't work that way. Anyhow, I've eagerly gobbled up every CM title since the begining and my copy of Black Sea was long since pre-ordered so this isn't pivotal for me by any stretch of the imagination. I saw something in one of ChrisND's videos that just prompted the question is all. Thanks again for the input!!

Hey Guys!! I've got a quick question about Artillery ammunition counts. I have searched and gone through the advance copy of the manual but couldn't find the answer to this - so my apoologies if this has already been covered elsewhere. In all previous Combat Mission titles - indirect fire assets such as an off board mortar or howitzer would be depicted as having a set ammunition count showing the different types of ammunition available. However, using one type of ammunition was always to the detrmient of the other. So for instance, if I had a mortar that had 160 HE rounds and 24 Smoke Rounds and if I fired all of my HE rounds in an opening salvo at the start of the scenario - that Gun would then show as "empty" for the remainder of the scenario despite the fact it should still have 24 smoke rounds which hadn't been used yet. Now, being an old Gunner myself, I know full well High Explosive and Smoke projectiles are not interchangeable so it's always sort of mystified me as to how using all of my HE rounds somehow meant all of my smoke rounds were inherently used up too, even though they were never fired. Likewise, I could never figure out what this might be abstracting if it wasn't just a game limitation. In any event - what I'm wondering is with the introduction of precision munitions in Black Sea, which are going to be inaddition to the HE and smoke rounds they may be stocked with, is whether artillery ammunition is counted/used the same way as seen in previous CM Titles ~or~ whether all rounds are now individually tracked? Meaning - I have 50 HE Rounds, 10 Smoke Rounds and 5 Precision Rounds - If I use all 50 of my HE rounds, will my guns still show as empty ~or~ will they now correctly show that I have only used up my 50 HE rounds and that I still have my 10 Smoke Rounds and 5 Precision Rounds left to use? Thanks!!

LOL! - well, that certainly seems to have worked. The why's and hows blow my mind, but yep - updating my video drivers suddenly made it possible to select units by clicking on them. What a refreshing change!! Thanks Kadeen!!

The game looks and sounds great. However, the manual says I can select a unit by left or right clicking on it. However, this doesn't seem to work for me. I have tried left clicking and right clicking on the unit its self, as well as the icon above it. I have tried double left and double right clicking on the unit as well - no joy. I have even tried using my third mouse button (pressing the mousewheel as opposed to scrolling it front or back) and none of these allow me to select a unit. The only way I have found to select a unit, is to press shift and draw a box around it by pressing my left mouse button - and holding it. When I'm done giving it orders, I then have to double left click on an empty space on the map so I can then select another unit. Otherwise - I'm locked onto that one unit, and all I do is continue to issue orders to the same unit. Drawing a box around a different unit does not chose the new unit as the one I am giving orders to. I have to click on an empty space - "zero" what I have selected, before I can select another unit. There also does not appear to be any way to select a group of units. I can draw a box around my entire force, but only one icon illuminates and only that unit appears to respond to my orders. Is this just some bizzare bug on my system alone, or a misunderstanding on my part of how the controls are supposed to work or what? I'd like to get into the game, but selecting units takes forever this way and I can't believe this is "THE" way to do it, or the only way to do it - especially as the manual says you should be able to select units just by left clicking on them. LOL!! Please help!

Bah - so what if the Stukas seemed to have their infamous dive sirens off, or that a Sherman got flipped over like it was made of papermache. I'm sure we all watch a game's opening trailer what once - maybe twice? After that, the novelty has worn off and it's a scramble to hit your "escape" key, or anything else that gets the intro movie and other advertisements to go away, just so we can get in the game already!! I think the only game I've ever conciously let the opening movie play out, was for Silent Hunter III. And even that was no more than a dozen times at best. Who cares if the opening movie doesn't win an oscar - it's the game its self we care about!

Crap Ahh well - twas worth a shot! Cheers!

Well...I admit, its'a backhanded way to ask whats the status of the game, but I'm partially serious. The cheap Scottsman in me figures 30% off CMC would be kinda cool though. Cheers!

Thanks for the update Hunter.

Well - I'm glad they're taking the time to put out a quality product if thats the case. I just wish there was more to chew on between now and the actual release.

I lost a good friend when his Bison rolled over on him in 1996. He was riding in the crew commanders hatch on the way to rescue some Brits trapped in a minefield near Behac, Bosnia. En-route, the driver had to swerve to avoid an accident with one of the locals and the Bison got a little too close to the side of the road where it apparently gave way and tumbled into a ravine. Sufficed to say, the recent accident in Afghanistan was hauntingly familliar. It would be interesting indeed if there actually is any data relating to the Styker's spaced armour slats and any effect they may have in preventing or minimizing a roll over. I don't imagine they would do much, as they look kind of flimsy insofar as their ability to support any significant weight but you never know.

So what. If two players is indeed some hard limitation that can't be circumvented for some reason,it doesn't matter as "2 Player TCP/IP" is still a reasonable feature to support. At least when you would be playing in "two player mode", you wouldn't have your game constantly interuppted when you wanted to have a multi-player (or in this hypothetical case - two player) game. But thats all senseless speculation. Certainly the technology - even TCP/IP - is capeable of handling many more than two players simultaneously, so I can't in all seriousness see "two player" as some sort of hard limit. As for the quality of CC4 - heh - it was never one of my favourites, but it served as an effective analogy to illustrate how gameplay should be consistent and uninterrupted. CC4 Sure has to be one of the best of examples of poor AI pathfinding though - yowza! :eek:

Well - I don't consider turns or any transition from CMBB to CMC and back an interruption at all. Once merged both elements are just part of the same game, and were it continuous (which it currently is not) then there wouldn't be an issue. The problem is - having to drop out to play with PBEM breaks that continuity. The idea is to remain in-game the whole time, and not be forced to have to get out or even alt-tab out to access other programs (email) to obtain turns, or have to wait for unecessary delays in the transmission of turn data. I'm sure many of you out there can remember back to the old glory days of "Close Combat 4", which incorporated both a strategic layer and tactical layer to the game. The transition from moving battlegroups on the main map, to fighting tactical battles and then back to the main map was not dissruptive at all. On the contrary, it made a continuous gaming experience which is exactly what TCP/IP support for the new merged CMC/CMBB would do. Cheers

I wouldn't say as "simple as that" - but "as awkward as that" by virtue of the clumbsiness of the steps required to piece it alltogether - which inherently disrupts the gameplay experience. Perhaps my attention span is too short for these kinds of interruptions. It seems to me far more rational to offer both TCP/IP and PBEM as is currently available in CMBB so that players have the choice to accomodate their preference. We're just transmitting packets of data here are we not...? I don't think you can go too wrong with making everbody happy by adding that support, whereas restricting players to the PBEM - TCP/IP hybrid is sure to cause some consternation and frustration. I presume that the reason TCP/IP support won't make it in the initial release is that to set it up has an inherent resource and or time cost associated. I'm a lamen - so I admit that I'm wondering just how hard it can really be - especially when it seems half the battle is already won (CMBB's already existing TCP/IP support). Perhaps there is something FAR too technologically advanced for my unevolved mind to grasp that prevents this alltogether... I just want to know is there at least any measure of hope that TCP/IP support for CMC will be added in a subsequent patch? Cheers

I'm not saying that the simple cordoning off of a group of enemy troops unto its self should insta-poof that body of troops under the guise of a "mass surrender". That = gamey. The Germans took hundreds of thousands of Soviet Prisoners in 1941 and 42 - and these prisoners on the whole, were not a collection of "hold or die" survivors taken into captivity by ones and twos. They also were not always the subjects of protracted siege warfare encirclements - but in many cases worn out from a long running battle where they were constantly attrited. Their positions become untenable. They had little food, little ammunition, short on fuel, sparse communication and were subject to superior enemy attack almost at will - which further demoralized them. Many times they had little transporation left availble to get them out of harms way. As many would successfully flee on foot - many more would not be so successful. Thus - when these preassures were too much, they surrendered en masse rather than fight to the last man, because further resistance was futile. Inevitably, some larger formations simply broke under the preassure - and mass surrendering was the result, either by broken will to fight or direct orders from the ranking officer(s). This happened countless times in pretty much every theatre in WWII from Tunisia, to Smolensk to Hong Kong. I simply believe there should be a way to simulate this in game - and that players should not have to fight every little skirmish accross the whole of the Eastern Front against troops who would have realistically - surrendered. Troops do surrender, and sometimes lots of them surrender. Some means to simulate this should be made available. The real question is - how is it to be done? It should not be an easy or worse yet - a "gamey" tactic one could readily execute with forgone results every time. But it should at the very least - be possible, and to some extent - subject to some degree of influence so as to facilitate its possibility. So provided that it is possible - but neither easy or even predictable per-se - I don't see what the problem is.

Yep - I understand all of that. What I'm getting at though, is that it should be possible - over time - to see an affect of having cut off large bodies of enemy troops. Obviously, cutting them off from communication and resupply and keeping them that way for a duration should have an effect. So much so - that at some point, some of them would concieveably surrender......eventually. Sure - in some cases, this might be more akin to Lenningrad - but in others, I believe it would have happened more quickly, such as the large numbers of prisoners taken in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa. I agree though - that such a possibility should not be as simple as cordoning off a circle around enemy troops on (CMC) turn one, and by (CMC) turn two the enemy has surrendered. Yes - its more complicated and involved thah that. But in the end - I do believe there should be some provision for accounting for the encirclement and mass surrendering of troops.

I hope something like that kicks in, otherwise purposely cutting off large numbers of enemy troops becomes pretty much pointless. Many of the gains made by either side throughout the conflict were dependent upon this kind of strategy. I for one would love to be able to at least try and cut off the enemy, and avoid fighting every last troop in his inventory. Cutting off the enemy in this manor - provided he is unable to break out and rescue his trapped forces, would concieveably score me a rather big victory...and some bragging rights.

1) Any chance TCP/IP will make it in a patch, as it appears that it won't be available in the initial release. 2) Which ever way you slice it - the information sent in PBEM is surely fully capeable of being sent via TCP/IP - after all, its just data. Whether you are assuming there are just two players, or more - doesn't matter. The functionality should be there to accomodate choice, and to facilite a more ergonomic and continuous style of gameplay. Whether you use TCP/IP - or don't - should be up to you. Those that choose NOT to use TCP/IP - lose nothing, they can still use PBEM. Those that choose to use TCP/IP - are not denied its benefits. Ideally, the choice should be there. That way everybody's happy.

My concern is - if I encircle an enemy unit - regardless of its size, and cut it off from supply (not sure if communications will have any affect/be modeled) - if the enemy unit in question will suffer any reprocussions as a result of that loss of supply? Moreover, will there be any good reason to encircle an enemy, if you can't effectively cut off his supply? Will I still have to fight every remaining enemy soldier in that "pocket" to the last man in smaller and smaller CMBB battles? Cheers

I'm wondering if there is some sort of strategic element in CMC that would account for eincirclements and mass surrendering, as seen in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa. If you had a body of enemy troops physically encircled and cut off from both supply and communications in CMC - would you always have to fight them to the last man in CMBB? In a sense - I guess I'm wondering if there will be a "surrender" option in CMC, and moreover - if the AI will use it when applicable. Thanks

So - any chance TCP/IP might make it in a future patch at least - or should be abandon all hope?

Cool - thanks Sergei

Sorry if I've missed it, but I can't seem to find one if there is. I'm just looking for a singular pack that contains grid mods for all of the different terrain tiles for CMBB and CMAK. Thanks in advance for any assistance.

But you don't seem to give enough consideration to that the play of CMC would be continously interrupted by the tactical battles. Maybe not every turn all of the time, but still, quite often. This can still work in a 1 on 1 game, but add more players, and it doesn't work. Therefore I do consider that TCP/IP would be a "nice but impractical" type of feature for CMC, and as adding network code to a game is not just a trivial workload (let's not forget how long it took to add in CMBO), I'd much prefer the precious programming resources to be spent on the game itself. </font>

Hmmh? "Okay guys, let's get together online for 10 minutes to play this one turn, then log out to play the battles through e-mail!" </font>

Sorry I missed this thread. Indeed CMC turns are conducted PBEM, not TCP/IP. Each turn requires significant thought, and if there are battles, several hours of gaming to play them out. The Multiplayer host system uses EM to manage the incoming and outgoing files. For battles that emerge from the campaign, they can be played PBEM, or TCP/IP. As discussed, some people want to play IP so that they can speed the whole thing up. Hunter </font>