Agua

Yeah, the sound is outstanding. Madmatt deserves an separate thank you thread for his work. I'm very, very pleased.

Hehhh. Thanks.

Yeah, I hit it this morning. Finished probably about ten minutes ago. That was a fun little quickie.

Hmmm... I just looked in the section concerning arty targetting in the CMBB manual and it was pretty ambiguous. There was this list of changes which was published initially prior to the release of CMBB, and it states: CMBB changes I wanted to agree with you that inaccurate barrages to LOS targets was an intentional implementation in CMBB, but for the life of me, I'm not seeing that documented anywhere. I definitely remember (because I experienced it) there was bug which was pretty rare but definitely would not allow adjustments to innaccurate barrages. Now that I'm thinking on it a little more, it seems there was also a dispute concerning whether an in-LOS targeted barrage could come in wildly off target. If you're feeling ambititious, look for some posts by Bullethead back shortly after release of CMBB. He and I went back and forth IIRC, saying it was not possible. Thinking further, even, it seems that Treeburst looked into this as well previously. Am I getting confused here? Seems there was discussion concerning the language in the manual being ambiguous. Hell, here's the pertinent portions of the manual concerning targetting and adjustments (that I could find anyway): This is just by implication under "Delays" (p. 131) (Emphasis added). Sort of ambiguous there. You'd have to imply a chance for a barrage to miss a target that was in LOS at the time targetting commenced if "the chance for missing ... rises dramatically". Then again, on the following page, still under "Delays" (p. 134): Okay, so that's sort of ambiguous as to whether the spotting round must be seen or not, but the relevant phrase here speaks in terms of absolutes: Accuracy for the main strike is considerably better if the spotter has a line of sight to the target ...". (Emphasis added). And not to get sidetracked here, but it's not clear *from the manual* whether the spotting round sighting is necessary - only that an in sight target is more accurate. (shrug). If you'll note in the text linked to Battlefront's list of changes made in CMBB, it does note that targets shift randomly under certain circumstances, one of them being "when there are no spotting rounds", then the text specifically identifies "rockets", as having no spotting round. But, that's another question. Okay, on to "Accuracy" (p.133): I couldn't find any documentation where it was stated that off-target barrages called on targets in LOS was a new feature, though, there may be some ambiguity in the language of the manual in some places where it might be implied. However, there's also language which seems to state in absolute terms that if you've got LOS, it's going to be accurate. Maybe it was stated somewhere here in the forum. I know there was an adjustment bug, but the more I think on it, I think the discussion Bullethead, I and a few others were involved in also concerned wildly off-target barrages when the target was in LOS. He was denying it even occurred, iirc, going so far as to create an arty test map and he said he couldn't reproduce it. [Edited to include the following:] Ahh... here's a couple of threads dealing with it: Something's wrong ...... possibly a bug? Artillery bug? So it appears that Treeburst was involved in the original question, and that there were two lines of thought, namely: (a) wildly off target barrages do not occur when the spotter has initial LOS to the target; or ( it was a bug. [Edited a second time to include the following:] Damned. Now after reading that first thread I linked to, I'm more confused thatn I was initially. Apparently, I was under the impression back at the time that the language from the manual quoted above concerning "Accuracy" at p.133 indicated a purposeful design to implement off-target artillery even when the spotter had LOS to the target. Now, looking at all the various crap that I've posted, I can't tell. Hehehh... great job, huh? [Edited a third time to include the following:] Ahhh... Steve finally chimes in on page 5 of the first discussion thread I linked to. From Steve's comments, it appears that he was under the impression that in-los targeting should not result in off target barrages. [Yes, arty grogs, it's not called a "barrage", but rather a "concentration" or "fire plot" or something or other]. [ December 06, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Agua ]

Damned Moon!! You ruined it. I was looking forward to reading the analytic gymnastics of the sycophants in generating a rationalization for it.

Yes. It just so happened that I decided to approach the scenarios in chrono as well. I found out quite rudely what those little square things which appear to be comprised of sandbags were. I didn't like the idea of splitting the forces so I consolidated all forces on one of the "ends" so to speak. Infantry hid wihle armour moved past kicking up a cover of dust for their advance. I was able to completely avoid the rows of AT mines, by sheer luck of choosing to narrow my front. One Matty II became immobilzed right at a spot overlooking the apparent reinforcement location where the flood of M11/39s come on the map. That one Matty took out 9 of the little boogers alone and never lost morale. Guess the crew knew what they were up against and not especially worried. Yes, it was playing against the ai. Only an experience bonus (no force bonus). It was like one long mop up operation.

Tobruk and Anzio are sitting up in my attic. Actually pulled Anzio out a year or so ago to play with the wife (at her request, believe it or not). After hunting for about 15 minutes for the fourth counter of "X" type, I was reminded why I prefer puter wargames and put the thing back where it sits to this day. You can't get the deep understanding of the mechanics that come from knowing how all the numbers and rules interrelate from playing CM, but those old boardgames were just crude attempts to simulate that which CM does so much more believably and effortlessly.

Made it to the Mississippi Gulf Coast!

That is the bug regarding adjustments that I remembered in CMBB, which is something different from what is being described here.

WOOHOO!! Should be here by the Weekend!

I'll echo Jack Carr's reccommendation. I have an old Ti4600 128mb card and it ran CMBO & BB flawlessly. You can probably pick one up pretty cheaply too.

P4 3.0c Canterwood 2 GB DDR400 Corsair Twin X Asus P475C Deluxe Dual 80 GB Seagate Baracuda SATA (RAID "0") Audigy Gamer 5.1 surround FX5900 Ultra (256mb DDR) Enermax 460W PS Surprisingly, it runs very smoothly.

Active imagination then.

Heh... Mine did a great job routing a few enemy inf squads right before a one of my platoons was about to assault their dug in positions. Couldn't have been happier.

Matt, Was I imagining this or is there now the sound of reinforcements at the end of the turn immediately prior to their arrival?

I paid heavily for not making that assumption..... </font>

Line of Defense rather reminiscent of VoT. [ November 19, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Agua ]

I predict the answer will be ..........................................Yes.

SCORED!!!!!!

Might I suggest the "members who will receive CMAK before Seanapoo list"? That worked so well for CMBB.

Two games in one (or nearly) </font>

Hey CA! I'll give it a try.

No, I'm not tiring of good WWII games. I hope BFC stays with the WWII setting in future games.

True, but that was the case long before CMAK was even a sparkle in BFC's collective eye.

Damned, beat me to it.