Mika

I noticed that also, however it still gives 'broken' graphics if you switch to some other program while playing. However, I have been planning to get new graphics card anyway. Most likely the ATI's Radeon with 64MB DDR. It's pretty affordable and should offer good performance for the money. Well, hopefully I get to play my CM without any annoying problems in near future -- MS. --

I never noticed these little glitches with the Voodoo 5 before, funny thing is that my old system (before HD crash) was a complete chaos when it comes to updated drivers. Now I've gone through 3 or 4 different set of drivers including the beta ones and only problems this far are with Combat Mission Well, the single chip system works (kinda, seems horribly slow for one??) almost. Im just going to keep beating it until it works -- MS. --

Hiya. I did search on the articles and noticed that some people have had the same problem than I have. Voodoo 5 card, when I start the game my mouse leaves annoying 'blotches' on the screen. If my FSAA is set to Best Performance the text has white background and is unreadable. If I goto other screen the whole command panel turns to unreadable with lines here and there. IF I set FSAA to 2x or 4x it fixes the white text in white background problem, however I still can't switch to other screen without command panel becoming garbled. Everything works out with Single Chip set on FSAA, but.. It's just annoying. Because I know it worked before my HD crashed just fine. I went through all the drivers, updated to DirectX8a and tried to change about everything I could imagine. If there are Voodoo 5 owners here who had similar problems and got rid of them, let me know what settings you use for your card, what drivers version (my OS is Win98) or anything else you can think of. -- MS. --

Ah, I was thinking if this had been discussed before. But still, I must say that I'd love the idea of having bit more vague length of the battle There is of course alternative for the timelimit (not saying that timelimit is bad, it's not and about every strategy game has it ) Since the CM2 is (much waited) improvement to CMBO wouldn't it make a sense to add more 'Win conditions'? Like I proposed before, if enemy suffers some percentage of losses. Or perhaps if the enemy looses a set amount of it's infantry, of armor, of anything? I do realize that this brings up some problems, especially if we are talking about amount of losses as the games could drag on forever and forever. There could (should?) always be some sort of timelimit as well. So, if for example we'd have a battle where you'd need to scrap 20 percent of the enemy tanks you'd be given about 30 minutes to do it. If you do it faster, good. If you wont. Well, too bad for you Blah, I could go on and on for how it should/could be improved. I love the damn game anyway, now I just wait to get to play Finns and kick some Russians into arse -- MS. --

Personally I'd like something even more vague. Like not showing actual turns but the length of battle. Short, Medium, Long or something like that. Short could be something from 5 to 15 turns. Medium anything from 16 to 25 etc. Or it could be something else than time too. When some percentage of enemy force is destroyed, when you have taken some percentage of the map etc. -- MS. --

And not only during WWII, I remember one occasion during larger military exercise where we accidentally engaged a friendly squad. On positive side, we only had blanks and not live ammo Darkness is confusing even when you have those nice nightvision binoculars with you. And when you have squad of people walking right into your face in middle of the woods, near supposed enemy positions, it's time to start shooting at them. I think it's a nice feature too and very realistic, though it sucks when your own MG starts firing your bazooka -- MS. --

After quick glance down to formulas how to calculate right size of charges we used it would seem that those are quite heavy loads? I mean the biggest amount (1200kg's), thats about 4 times the amount one pioneer platoon has with it during the wartime. On the other hand, noting the year the book you are referring to was printed methods might have not been all that sophisticated Also the required manpower seems to be bit high like the amount of time used? Of course, I must agree on one thing atleast. It's complete destruction -- MS. --

Well, being combat engineer myself I'd like to think I know something about how to build those things. Of course there might be some differences in how it's done in different countries but let me explain how we did it. Barbed wire is not something you just spread out and leave it there, a monkey could remove that in 30 seconds If you wish to make it stay there, you'll pin it down into ground with long wooden or metal stakes in short distances from one another. Sure you can cut small holes into it, but removing it completely is way different. Thus I have always liked to think that when units in CM move through that obstacle slowly, they do exactly that. Now, roadblocks are my all time favourites. Roadblock is not some trees cut down on the road, it's a piece of road (how long piece of road, depends how much you have time to build it). More the better naturally, it's not something you can blow away (or you can, if you have unlimited amount of explosives) When you build one properly, removing it can be pain. It's more often than not booby-trapped and it's always nice to place some AT and AP mines there too. I do feel bit like repeating myself, but think it like this. If it would be easy to remove, you think it would stop a tank in Combat Mission? My word is not a word of God however, I am sure there are other combat engineers who have different opinions and they are quite entitled to have them -- MS. --

But realistic command would be "Lieutenant, take your platoon and take out that Stug over there." If it runs to Berlin, it's atleast out of combat Also, that could be useful against other targets too, like machineguns which sometimes manage to crawl into cover even if you charge at them. Also I've noticed that in some occasions the infantry seems to choose it's own path and run right past the enemy only to stop and slowly rotate towards it. While the enemy of course keeps shooting them -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaws: Since I've installed CM 1.1 it seems that the enemy is not attacking anymore. I've played at least 4 operations and the enemy is not aggressive as it use to be?? Anyone else noticed this?? Jaws<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the computer has always been bit too 'soft'. It could be the way some (most?) of the scenarios are created too, but it's not very aggressive IMO. That's the reason why I prefer playing attacker myself most of the time. Perhaps I should try against human opponents in PBEM every once in a while -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shipmonkey: Engineers seem to be pretty quick with mine removal, but think of it like this. They're not clearing the entire field, they're using devices like Banglors to clear paths through the mine fields and then tagging the paths for the following infantry. this seems reasonable within the couple minute span of game time it takes to "clear" the fields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very much true, though this only works for AP minefields. For game reasons it's nice that they can do that same thing to AT mines too, otherwise they would be rendered rather useless. Going through AP minefield doesn't take very long, you stick the pipe through, wait it to explode and run like hell through that path it makes (it is very narrow, that's why the two men who follow squad leader usually have reel of red cord or something highly visible they use to mark the both sides of the path). Nobody wants to step outside from the clear route, that's for sure. There really is no way to find a quick and realistic way through AT minefield (except those specially designed mine clearing vehicles, which however are not present in Combat Mission). But then again I've always been into engineer military branch and I'm still waiting for that one game that does them justice. Might have something to do with the fact that I have combat engineer training myself Perhaps when we get into modern day combat in some future version of Combat Mission I'll have my dreams come true -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leonidas: I also find it strange that engineers can't cut barbed wire. I don't think they can clear roadblocks, either. And they don't seem very good at assaulting tanks. I'm not sure what they're good for, unless you really need to clear a minefield instead of going around it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've said it before but I can say it again. Engineer units are not going to be very useful while in combat themselves. Now, only way to use engineering units like they should be used is to add two more 'phases' into combat. Before and after action, that's when engineers do their thing. And I am somewhat doubtful we'll be seeing that addition in any version Sure there are also combat situations where engineers can be used, but these are mainly to sit in dug-in positions and fire oncoming infantry or blow holes in minefields. In modern combat this is bit different (atleast in Finnish armed forces) as engineer squads are almost as heavily armed as any other infantry squads/platoons. Barbed wire, when placed properly is not something you can blow away just like that. Unless you have loads of explosives that is, but like someone said everything can be blown to bits if there's enough of that stuff that goes boom. Also roadblocks are exactly that, you cut down some trees, you tie them together with some heavy duty iron wire, you take huge boulders, you dig large holes, break the road and toss everything you can into road. When these are done like they are supposed to be done they are about as slow or even slower to be removed than real minefields. And you always put in some AP mines and traps so when someone goes to remove it, it can go off into their faces. To answer to original post, setting up quick mine fields and wire obstacles would be definately in the game time scale. It's always easy to put them into ground, it's the taking off that is slow and hard work. -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bebbetufs: I'm not trying to degrade these questions, I enjoy reading it as well. Just wondering how you people justify for yourselves ordering a squad to certain death....in the game, and actually LIKING it? [This message has been edited by bebbetufs (edited 01-18-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because it's just that, a game. I dont get all upset either if I sacrifice a soldier in a game of chess. -- MS. --

Just a thought that occurred to me, is there a way to set up armies of same side (ie. Allied) to fight against each other? I'd personally like to see US forces fighting against US forces. Or German units against German units. -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo: If anyone is interested, a truly great and yet subtle WW II movie is called "Truce". It's the true story of a guy who was liberated from Auschwitz by the Russians and it tells of his epic journey just to return to Italy and a normal life. BTW, he was a partisan fighting the fascists in Italy and not even a Jew. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I really wouldn't consider Russians to be much more heroes, we shouldn't forget that Stalin was behind Holocaust too. Even greater one than Hitlers. Too bad no one remembers that, thanks to his Allied friends who made him look like angel compared to Adolf. -- MS. --