Enfors

Allowing more different elevation change levels (apart from the 2.5m and 5m) we have now is probably very easy to code. They already have the code that multiplies the height coordinate with the elevation change level (2.5m or 5m), so all they'd have to do is allow us to set that variable to several other different values. Unless, ofcourse, the game's code is more complex than that, but that seems unlikely to me. But one can never be sure. -Enfors-

Thanks, Steve. Altough that WAS the answer I was hoping for, now you've made me START wondering again! Argh! -Enfors-

I don't remember of all sides of a mine field are of equal length, but if they aren't, then rotating the minefield 90 degrees might help? -Enfors-

Thanks, Steve. Although that's not the answer I was hoping for, I'm glad I got an answer at all, so I can stop wondering.

Are you saying woods provide better cover and concealment than buildings? If there are patches of wood in the outskirts of the village I'm defending, should I put my infantry there? -Enfors-

I've considered that point, Coralsaw, and I agree for the most part that assaulting is meant for capturing important ground, not for killing enemy units. But ponder this scenario: You're playing a small-scale scenario defending a town with infantry. All your 'zooks are either dead or out of ammo, and the enemy still has a halftrack / light tank / jeep inside the town. Then wouldn't it make sense to assault that vehichle with a platoon, with the aim of ending up close enough for grenade attack? In this case the aim of the assault is NOT to capture key terrain. I really do want to kill the vehicle - I don't want it to leave the town and attack my platoon from long range. In this case, a "close assault" command would be very useful. And no, my units won't end up chasing the vechile all the way to Berlin unless I want them to, I can always cancel the assault during the next orders phase. -Enfors- [This message has been edited by Enfors (edited 01-23-2001).]

Just like Mika stated above, this command could also be used against infantry. I've often ordered my infantry to charge a lone squad, only to discover that the squad moves 20 metres sideways over the crest of a hill, leaving my charging infantry sitting exposed in an empty spot for the remainder of the turn. With the proposed "close assault" command, the assaulting infantry would simply follow the target over the crest. This would seem perfectly realistic to me. The current behaviour on the other hand, seems very unrealistic. -Enfors-

I think this has been discussed to some extent before, but I don't think there's ever been any official BTS response to it (atleast I couldn't find one). The only thing I really miss in CM is a close assault command, which causes your troops to advance on their target, and to FOLLOW the target if it moves. Last night I assaulted a StuGIII with a platoon of infantry from 200m. When my infantry reached the StuGIII it reversed away for obvious reasons. So in the next turn I again ordered my platoon to "Run" towards the StuGIII's new position. The only problem was that as soon as my platoon started moving towards the StuGIII it moved off to the side about 100m, which resulted in my infantry assaulting an empty spot. This continued for another 10 (!) rounds before I finally managed to surround it and get a track hit which immobilized it (all I had was ordinary grenades, no rifle grenades or anti-tank weapons). Now I know I should have used troops better suited to the task of assaulting a AFV. But the point remains: no matter what kind of unit I want to assault with, and no matter what kind of unit is the target of the assault, I still want the assaulting unit(s) to FOLLOW the target if it moves. That is what I want a "close assault" command for. Being a programmer myself, I realise this might not be as easy to implement as it seems, considering the new order would have a destination waypoint that _moved_ during the turn, something which currently does not exist in CM AFAIK. You also have to consider the possibility that the target of the close assault command moves into its friendlies' kill zone, and thereby "luring" the assaulting units to follow it to certain death. But I'd appreciate some kind of official word on this matter. Thanks in advance. -Enfors-

I see, very clever. I'll try it when I get home, thanks. Is this how most of you do it? -Enfors-

When I'm defending a village, there's one think that always makes me hesitate. Should I place my infantry inside the buildings, or in front of them? Putting them inside the buildings gives the best cover and concealment (I think), but then my opponent will probably shell the building, causing it to collapse on top of my infantry. But putting the infantry in front of the building doesn't sound too attractive either, since they will be more exposed there. So, where should I put my infantry? In the buildings, or in front of them? I know, I know, you're all going to say "it depends on the situation". Well then, in which situations would you place them in the buildings, and in which situations would you put them outside? I'm guessing terrain is a key factor here. -Enfors-

Regarding the holocaust: The figure "6 million killed" is WRONG. The TRUE figure is 11 or 13 (I don't remember, and don't have a book to look it up in right now). The figure 6 million really refers to JEWS. 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust, plus an additional 5 or 7 million (again, don't remember) homosexuals, percieved enemies of the nazi party, handicapped people, people of "lesser races", etc. Let's not forget about them. -Enfors-

I've seen this too (in beta 24). I had 3 US 60mm mortars within command range of their HQ, who had LOS to stationary targets. The mortars would each fire one round only. The next turn I would have to give them the same target again, and they'd just fire one round each again. -Enfors-

I agree, it's a FANTASTIC resource! I can't wait for more additions! But even with the new larger font, I'm still having difficulties reading it in Netscape under Solaris -Enfors-

Oh man, don't even get me started on Robosport! I played the Amiga version, and it's one of the most brilliantly designed games I've ever played. The flexibility of the game setup, networking, etc was just incredible. If someone made a Robosport 2... I hear someone made a similar game inspired for the Mac a few years back, if I had a Mac I'd be sure to get that one. Anybody know of a more recent version or similar game? Or where I can get hold of the original for PC? "Welcome to the Robot Network! Coming up next... Robosport! Sponsored by: The Maxis Foundation/Killham weapon systems!" -Enfors-

You know it's bad when you see your cat and think "man, my cat looks big, I must have accidentally set unit scale to +2!" True story, I swear. Scary, isn't it? -Enfors-