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. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: The story is true to life. The battle in the end is dramatized and it did not happen in real life but it is realistic. The love story is an add-on to make it a movie for the couples. In CM terms the use of bicycles is a no-no and sending troops far behind enemy lines in that fashion is deemed gamey recon. Both issues have been debated before on this board. [This message has been edited by tero (edited 01-10-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That movie was also aired in Finnish TV not too long ago (around New Year if I remember correctly). Only thing that actually really bothered me about it was the bombardment before the final attack, what were they shooting there? Gasoline? Another thing that caught my attention was those bicycles. They were exactly the same model we used back in the army! On the other hand, why would have they changed model that works? In good road conditions and if maintained properly they were regular greased lightnings -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: aka_tom_w wrote: I'm not sure how this might work on equipment, as it would not likely freeze up during battle, No, but it would freeze up before the battle. It was very common (even in Finnish army) that when a green unit fought its first winter battle they found out that their automatic weapons (MGs, LMGs, and SMGs) fired only single shots because the lubricating oil had frozen stiff. The survivors then quickly learned to clean their weapons really well. - Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was very common that the weapons froze yes, reminds me of the old veteran that visited us back in the army. He told us somewhat interesting stories, being a LMG man he once had to pee into firing mechanism as it had frozen. And this was while the enemy was attacking, talk about desperate situation There were also quite a few situations were Russian soldiers walked into Finnish fortifications and surrendered themselves just to get into somewhere where it was warm. -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha: Finland fought from its own frontline, and after 1941 quit all offensive operations, so I tend to look at them as a special case. The Continuation war was probably mostly an aerial affair until 1944 when the Soviets began offensive operations against Finland. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There was only short patch of peace from 13th of March 1940 to 25th of June 1941. It ended when Russia launched several air raids into Finnish cities. The Continuation war wasn't that much of aerial affair (due the lack of planes in Finnish army I suppose ) Though I did find some numbers about the subject, during The Continuation war Finnish army destroyed about 2700 enemy planes, 1600 were shot down rest were downed with Flak or destroyed on the ground. Own losses were 389 planes from which 86 was shot down. Rest destroyed by Flak or in the ground. Also Finnish army was very much on the offence to as far as into 8th of December 1941 when Marshal Mannerheim and President Ryti decided not to continue attacking towards White Sea for a political reasons (US threatened to declare war). It was also political reasons that caused Finnish army to stop it's attack near Leningrad 7th of September. -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha: Finland fought from its own frontline, and after 1941 quit all offensive operations, so I tend to look at them as a special case. The Continuation war was probably mostly an aerial affair until 1944 when the Soviets began offensive operations against Finland. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There was only short patch of peace from 13th of March 1940 to 25th of June 1941. It ended when Russia launched several air raids into Finnish cities. The Continuation war wasn't that much of aerial affair (due the lack of planes in Finnish army I suppose ) Though I did find some numbers about the subject, during The Continuation war Finnish army destroyed about 2700 enemy planes, 1600 were shot down rest were downed with Flak or destroyed on the ground. Own losses were 389 planes from which 86 was shot down. Rest destroyed by Flak or in the ground. Also Finnish army was very much on the offence to as far as into 8th of December 1941 when Marshal Mannerheim and President Ryti decided not to continue attacking towards White Sea for a political reasons (US threatened to declare war). It was also political reasons that caused Finnish army to stop it's attack near Leningrad 7th of September. -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Benny Manieri: That's right Cat, big Italian army near Stalingrad. Specifically, if I recall correctly, the Italian 8th Army. I remember someone telling me on this forum, (who is a first generation Italian) That his granparents friends were worried about recieving news from the front, those who were in the Italian 8th Army<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There was also detachment of Italian torpedo boats in Lake Ladoga (which arrived 22. of June in 1942). If I remember correctly their first success in combat was sinking of a russian gunboat in 15th of August that year. -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Benny Manieri: That's right Cat, big Italian army near Stalingrad. Specifically, if I recall correctly, the Italian 8th Army. I remember someone telling me on this forum, (who is a first generation Italian) That his granparents friends were worried about recieving news from the front, those who were in the Italian 8th Army<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There was also detachment of Italian torpedo boats in Lake Ladoga (which arrived 22. of June in 1942). If I remember correctly their first success in combat was sinking of a russian gunboat in 15th of August that year. -- MS. --

Originally posted by kipanderson: should be included in CM. Steve’s view was that removing mines was not within the time scale of CM and therefor should not be. It was very accurate view, removing a minefield is operation that will take hours. If you do it properly. the only way to remove dug-in mines is with explosive changes. For full feature mine Which in CM's timescale is only realistic way to remove them. 1) crawling forward and lifting them, 2) the use of mine rollers, 3) the use of artillery to reduce minefields. Method 1 might seem simple enough, how ever no sane mine will ever enter a minefield, locate mine and then lift it up. There are mainly two reasons for that. 1st, antitank mines are very easy to trap. Ie. placing additional charge of 20kg's of explosive under it (it's sometimes enough to break the better equipment, like vehicles that are build to clear mines). 2nd, it's common and wise practice to place smaller antipersonnel mines around AT minefields. About using artillery, that is not very effective way to clear anything. AT mines (the regular ones, the more advanced models that react to movement and magnetic fields became 'bit' later) dont detonate very easily, thus explosion nearby just might toss it into air but leave it still operational. I know I wouldn't drive into minefield that has been 'cleared' with arty fire. Then there are of course the antipersonnel minefields which are bit different... scale by excluding breaching operations. I feel it is well within the scope of CM to model a 100-turn game in which the first half is spent breaching a minefield and the second assaulting an enemy position. A company of Making a hole into antipersonnel minefield is much easier as the mines are more sensitive. Generally if attacking the hole is punched with special charge that is put together from several long metalpipes that are filled with explosives (I've seen these being used in Private Ryan and I have used them myself in the army, but as english is not my native language I have no idea what they were called). It will take only few minutes for a platoon to punch hole through minefield, go through it and begin attack. -- MS. --

I was just going through "One cold day"-scenario and noticed one detail that would be nice Ability to 'pinpoint' location from map and check LOS from there. I know there is 1st person perspective you can use, but using that in larger maps can sometimes be not only slow but also difficult. AI is good I have to admit that, but still I'd like to see my own people doing their own decisions other than running away when they start panicking. For example, if there is other squad close by and engaged in combat it would be nice if the other squad would move that half of inch so it could provide more firepower. -- MS. --

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesreidau: I just joined your exclusive club today - yep, just got hold of a Voodoo 5500. It installed ok but I have to have 2xFSAA or 4xFSAA enabled to avoid having blanked out text (ie names of areas on the map etc) Has anyone else seen this? Finally, after having CM on for 15-20 mins I`m finding I get severe eye strain (I didn`t before with my TnT2) - I have the correct monitor chosen in adaptor properties, have 85Mhz selected for refresh rate but it still hurts like hell. Anyone else had this too? The drivers i`m using are the latest ones from 3dfx for Direct X 7. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Haven't seen that with mine, though I've had problems with DirectX 7 (nothing similar to that and not with Combat Mission). Though they were fixed when I installed DirectX 8. So my first suggestion would be getting that. Just checked from Advanced properties from my own computers Display Properties and had Direct3D and OpenGL/GLIDE both set to Fastest Performance in 3dfx Anti-Aliasing. And the game seemed to run fine with those and 2X and 4X settings as well. In adapter page my Refresh rate was set to Optimal and it does look very nice (no flickering etc.) Also there are some settings for AGP in BIOS, dont ask me what though.. My memory ain't that good -- MS. --

I was trying to search for an article about this but didn't have much luck. Would it be possible to have some sort of list out of your units during the gameplay? Personally I prefer using 1600x1200 resolution with about realistic size men and vehicle (Is it just me or do those giants look funny in middle of the forest?) and when the action starts I like to watch the show from the 'upper corner' so I can see as much of the battlefield as possible. And when the minute is over, I've noticed that finding the units can sometimes be quite difficult (especially if you have much infantry around and single man units like sharpshooters). So, I thought it would be nice to have list behind a key that would pop up which could look something similar to this perhaps? It'd show the unit, the morale/status and ammo. And of course you could click the unit name and have it selected so you wouldn't need to travel around that huge map filled with smoke etc. and try to find it. Platoon 1: Platoon Leader OK 19 Squad 1 OK LOW Squad 2 OK 22 Squad 3 Panic! 0 Platoon 2: etc. -- MS. --