markshot

So, I am most familiar with CMBB/CMAK and now on the learning curve the CMx2v3 WWII engine. All the stuff I watch seems to give me tons of reasons to use teams. Then, is there ever any reason not to use teams? Aside: granted they are useful, but doesn't kind of up the micro-management factor by 2-3X? Thanks.

Does hiding your troops make them recover fatigue faster? (as per CMx1 behavior) Thanks!

CMx1 ... they are great games. Sometimes I wonder if better "games"; not saying more realistic. I find the scenarios in CMx2 where done too hard. (Yes, they do have replay value.) But I feel they are hard to be beat on the first play as "dead is dead". I think this due to the lack of EXPERIENCE and FORCE difficulty factors which required them to be designed for the best players as opposed to the average. --- 1830PC: Yes. It is a DOS program. I have mine installed with DOSBOX in the game directory; all of my DOS games like this. Why? I use a windowing manager (returns the remembered custom windows of WinXP which later version of Windows failed to implement). By having unique DOSBOX installs as opposed to just one with INI files, the windowing manager sees each as its own separate program which can be individually customized. If you you do it like this, then moving to a new machine is simply copying a directory and creating a shortcut.

Thanks!

(see subject) Thanks!

SLIM, That is some fantastic stuff there! Chapter 1!!!! Where can I get the rest of the book? Thanks.

Thank you!

Special Relativity as per Battlefront Thanks for all the useful tips!

Yes, that is the ACG (Armchair General) series. I have watched them twice. I am always amazed what you learn by watching others play. Like I never knew that you could navigate the chain of command by clicking the panel at the bottom. I was always clicking on the map and using +, -. (old school CMx1 player)

I have CMBN/CMFI/CMRT/CMFB ... you can learn a lot from watching others play (especially while walking bored on a treadmill). I have already watched the ACG training series. Does anyone have some good CMx2 WWII videos to recommend? Thanks!

I have this most amazing video of difference of intent (mine vs AI). I send this single soldier to the side of a house with HUNT to see if he hears anything. He does. Next turn, rather than staying put and letting his buds shoot it out with the enemy, he stands up all straight and erect with a bolt action rifle. He rounds the corner. Begins to fire and advance, fire and advance upon a group of four enemy very close shooting out a window. This continues for 20 seconds without a shred of fear until, they return fire and down he goes. It was amazing!

I read this thread from many years ago ... a discussion of modeling for simulation or modeling for effect? A fascinating discussion ... As here, I would say one of the problem of modeling for simulation is that the real world is highly variable ... the possibilities ... the cases ... it's hard to get it down to the last muscle twitch.

Good point about concussion.

When you see them go fettle and cower that's not the profile equivalent of HIDE?

I am going to be hit by a wide arty barrage 82mm in the first two turns. It seems to me everyone in sandbags or a buildings should get down (HIDE) to minimize casualties. I realize that there are such things as air bursts. But it would still seem that reduced profile and sandbags/walls should provide additional protection. Fact or fiction? (as I know this game is modeling for simulation and not outcome) Thanks.

When out numbered, one can rebalance the fire power ratio by staying away from windows (not shooting it out) and forcing the attacker to enter. The door way changes the ratio of shooters. In the CMx1 games, it was easy to position troops in the back of a room. You simply put them there and faced them. In the CMx2 games, they head for the windows. The best I have found is to start with a covered arc pointing the wrong way. They when they have gravitated to the far wall, lifting the arc. Comments? Thanks.

MOS:96B2P, Interesting. Thanks!

Interesting. I usually use covered arcs on HQs (very tight). I want them up and looking. Also, I find that they command better not hiding. But I don't want them drawing attention to themselves by firing.

Thanks for the tips. Actually I used to combined MOVE-TO-CONTACT and ADVANCE in CMBB/CMAK. Mainly before leaving cover; they would halt in cover. I am thinking the ability to now set covered arcs on a waypoint basis might come in handy. However, as far as I can tell, there is no way to clear a standing order on waypoint, only modify it. Like you could not cancel a covered arc or would a FACING do that?

Bil (and others), Okay, it is highly recommended to send out scout teams using the HUNT command with waypoints and pauses. However, they halt and cancel HUNT as soon an enemy is known anywhere to them. In CMBB/CMAK, there was an ADVANCE-TO-CONTACT. Is this the same thing? Do I need to give them a covered arc so that they ignore distant contacts and keep HUNTing? Thanks! PS: Right now, I am just having the scouts go QUICK in short hops.

Well, you still would think that some of those rounds might have gone through a door or the windshield or into the engine block. Why build tanks when a kubelwagon can stand up to that? Just put an 88 with a turret on it and you have won the war!

AKD_Sound_Mod_v2.zip background day combat.rar background_night_combat.rar

I love the irony of games. The constant chatter by your soldiers in CM or GTOS when you are making a stealthy move. Or in Ghost Recon I am creeping through the brush with my sniper rifle and my spotter/security teammate shouts: RIGHT BEHIND YOU. Fortunately, the OPFOR AI is probably hard of hearing. Games can be funny!

I suppose what they taught us in HS Drivers Ed was true. Bad things happen when you unbuckle your seat belt.

Yes. That was it. No spoilers please. I am still plodding my way through it. Thanks.