c3k

I disagree. Drivers were TRAINED to offset the hull from the enemy. Was it done every time? Shrug. Ken

We'll need screenshots and AAR's from all the battles!

The zimmerit was about as useful as all those sandbags on Shermans. I will give this to the sandbags, however: despite the official testing which showed ad hoc field mods to the Sherman would usually make it MORE vulnerable to German armor piercing rounds, I'm willing to be the sandbags reduced a lot of bullets from ricocheting around.

As hinted at, it was a concrete layer added ontop of the armor to prevent magnetic mines from being attached to the tank. The Germans used magnetic mines, especially in the period when they were caught by surprise by the how good Soviet tanks were. (This is relative: obviously the conditions to place a magnetic mine against an enemy tank were such that not many could survive doing it.) The Germans reasoned that their enemies would use the magnetic anti-tank mines, as well. The layer of concrete kept the magnets far enough away from the steel that they could not hold a mine in position. I do not think the Western allies even had magnetic anti-tank mines. I think the Soviets had them, but very limited numbers. It ended up being a countermeasure against a technique that was not utilized. Ken

Just to chime in my personal experience. I've used CM on XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Vista64 and Windows7/64 have been nearly problem-free. Windows 7/64 is a VERY good operating system for my uses. (Normal home/gamer user.) The ONLY problem I've run into with W7/64 has been streaming Netflix movies. That was caused by using the 64 bit version of Internet Explorer. (I could've had W7/64 and IE8/32, but I chose IE8/64.) I now use IE8/32 for Netflix and all is good. (You can have both 32 and 64 bit versions of IE loaded and you can run copies of both, simultaneously.) Go for W7/64. That's my summary. Ken

There's an interesting tech thread over in Tomshardware (I think) about using an SSD purely as the cache drive. That indicated there would be some substantial improvements in OS responsiveness with none of the limitations of a small(ish) SSD as the prime drive.

LLF, thank you this! I'm totally bogged down right now, but I will download and play this at some point. Regardless, you have shown how a dedicated player/designer can create an incredible map with the tools in the editor. Thanks, Ken

Good to hear! But, you know the other shoe is about to drop... He's going to TELL you when to multiplay! Twins are sick? Too bad - you OWE time in the game! Bwah-ha-ha! All meant in good humor. Thanks for sharing...and thanks to your benefactor. Ken

I've done both (and earlier, some of the manufacturers who are now defunct or swallowed up). FWIW, I _like_ nvidia, but for your best bang/buck, ATI wins. My two main rigs are split between Intel/Nvidia and AMD/ATI (yeah, I know, AMD/AMD). The 6xxx series from ATI are great for the cost and are low power users, low heat producers for the same framerates as Nvidia. Having said that, a the Asus 560ti CUII is on my short list for a replacement machine for the spousal unit. You really can't go wrong with either brand, as they are right now. However, neither brand is TOTALLY perfect for all games, users, or setups. It's the classic engineer's dilemma: there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you gain somewhere, you lose something. It's up to you to evaluate what YOU want to gain and what YOU can afford to lose. Have fun! Ken

Yes... I've been distracted by other commitments, but overall CMA gives a very different feel from CMSF. The vulnerability of troops to small arms due to lack of body armor is significant. The C&C differences, squad sizes, weapons, etc., all create a challenge. As to the appearance, it is different. I like it. (It grew on me.) The appearance seems like cell shading. This conflict produced a lot of negative emotional response in the former Soviet Union. (Is that understated enough?) In order to sell a product which killed and wounded many of their countrymen, I fully understand the desire to create a little emotional distance by ensuring that the game is seen as a game, not a simulation. The "cartoony" look is part of that. All the above is my opinion. Regardless, the look is well integrated, seemless, and all flows into a cohesive whole. It is a good module. Ken

Oh, this was just SOooooo mean! In a funny kind of way.... Ken

Yeah, what they said. Here's something to think about: I _think_ that flavor objects are placed, not on the tile like terrain or buildings, but based on their relative location to the origin (X,Y=0,0) at the bottom left of the map. Here's an example. Place a lamp at the side of a street intersection. Say it's located 1200m up and 500m over. That means the streetlamp is located at 500,1200. Later, you decide the map is too small. You add 500 meters to the bottom. The street intersection moves up 500 meters, as does all the terrain you see on the map editor. However, that streetlamp is STILL located at 500,1200. You end up with the DESIRED location being at 500,1700 (The original 500,1200+500), but the ACTUAL location stays at 500,1200. The moral of the story? If you add, or THINK you MAY add to the map, BEFORE you do ANYTHING, extend the map to the left and down as MUCH as you can. Then you can subtract off the top or right to reduce it. Then again, everything I just wrote might be wrong. But that's what I remember and that's how I do it. (This is for flavor objects and possibly labels.) Ken

All these pieces of advice, often from experienced professionals, are extremely important to understand and try to port over to your CMSF tactics. Thanks to all those who have chimed in. I have a slightly different experience with CMSF. If I elect to use a full squad to scout up a road, due to expectations of a fire team or more waiting up there and wanting to give my guys a chance at fighting back, I am guaranteed to find a large IED. The squad gets wiped out. Well, instead, I'll outsmart my opponent. Using a single fireteam means they get wiped out by enemy forces who I never spot. Sending a second fireteam results in the same outcome. Using two fireteams, one up front on one side of the road and the second dragging on the opposite side, allows the second team to locate the enemy who just wiped out the first fireteam. Unfortunately, the second team gets wiped out by the minefield/Kornet/mortar strike/RPG ambush which gets unleashed seconds later. This has taught me an infallible battlefield maxim: every time I get curious about "what's over there?", it'll cost me a squad. I'm a naturally curious kind of guy. Sorry, men. In a more serious vein, using the techniques shared above, and TRYING them savegame after savegame, will teach you better than any wordy discourse. Every situation is different. Once you get a feel for what works and why, you'll have the tools available to best approach the next situation. Ken

Absolutely. Did you notice CMBB in PCGamer's list of 100 best games of all time? (#35). Ken

Each "target" order, under the "T" tab, can be assigned to each movement order. So, you can start the unit with a covered arc (a target-type order), QUICK it to point A, pause for 5 seconds, LIGHT TARGET into a building, ASSAULT to point B, in the building, FACE (a target-type order) through the rear, pause for 20 seconds, FAST out the back door to point C, with a covered arc up the street, then finish up at point D with a TARGET at, say, a trench. The orders system is amazingly flexible. The one BIG drawback is that you cannot _reposition_ an already set waypoint. It must be deleted. If it's the second waypoint in a series of 20, well, 19 deletes get you back to where you wanted to change. The movemnent orders associated with each waypoint can be changed, as can the target order associated with each waypoint. (You do NOT need to force a target order for each point. The last target order carries over.) The TacAI does a very good job for most movement actions, including reaction to incoming fire or spotted targets. This game is very detailed. Enjoy! KEn

You guys are thinking too selfishly. What BF.C should do is skip the whole multi-core thing and just go straight to the distributed processing/cloud/folding-at-home route. Everyone who loads the game allows ALL other users to access unused CPU cycles for THEIR game. Imagine every game harnessing the power of 10,000 multi-core, 64 bit computers? Oh, it would need to be done in real time, as well. Ken

Re: the Glider pathing issue. Were the German searchlights on TacAI, or covered arc?

While I'm not liable to be hauled in front of a an ICC tribunal just for playing this game, I find that I do "roleplay" to an extent. I will not fire on town centers "just in case" if I'm Blue. If I'm Red, well, then I'm a bit looser with the big guns. And over in CM:A, if I'm Soviet, the town gets flattened. This is behavior I've noticed in myself, not behavior I planned on. The power of suggestion/propoganda. Ken

urc, Your last point regarding CMx1 vice CMx2 unit positioning fidelity: Just because you could tweak a CMx1 unit by fractions of meters, does NOT mean higher fidelity. Let me explain my reasoning. If my CMx1 icon was repositioned by .5 meter, what does that mean? Sure, you change the unit's stats by whatever terrain/LOS that .5m represents. In CMx2, you see each man. A USMC 13 man squad cannot just shift everyone forward 1/2 a meter. The guy behind the wall? That would put him IN FRONT of the wall. The guy who's crawled into a shellhole? Now he's flat on the pavement. Etc. If you want to adjust just one man, you have some tools in CMx2. Split the squad into the various teams. In some cases you'll end up with one man. The use of trees as cover? Not in CMx1. There the icon stays in a WOODS tile. I'd say that CMx1 offered the ILLUSION of greater PRECISION in unit placement. The unit as a point in space with a vulnerable beaten area around it, versus each individual. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, I'm just sitting here wondering about playing a game which would take 14 hours MINIMUM to complete one battle, most of which was bombardment. I don't think there'd be much of a market for that. Ken

There's got to be a good balance here. The simple CMSF matrix was something I rarely consulted. It was more useful, to me, for the specific case of trying to see light armor side aspect was protected against 12.7mm or not. Otherwise, it didn't do much for me. The CMBO-style was more gamer-friendly. Matching gun penetration to armor was easier to determine. The red through green armor was intuitive, especially if my gun was "yellow". Throw the usual caveats about offset angle, relative slope, behind armor effects, etc. I know some games are meant to be a quick 5 to 10 hour entertainment. I spool up on them rapidly: shortcuts, strategies, hotkeys, etc. That knowledge is gained only due to playtime. It is rapidly lost. I have several games that I REALLY enjoyed when I first got them. I dedicated the time to learn the skills I needed to play them, but that was when I first had them. For example, with a few days of free time at Christmas. Then, months later, when I tried to play again, I found that I'd have to dedicate a day or two regain that knowledge. If I only had a few hours of free time, that game would get put back. Thanks, Ken

Okay, here's how I think it works: It is not possible to have realistic open ground dispersion in this game. If a squad has 10m between men, that's 120m nose to tail for a 13 man USMC squad. Throw a few platoon around. Now you need maps of 4x4km or bigger. That is a sparsely populated field. A lot of extra CPU's. Etc. Not to mention that every man would be in his own action spot. Ow. Tighten up the open ground dispersion, and it all gets workable. Ahh, HE is a problem... Assume a circle of lethality for round x is 25m. If it lands in the middle of a 120m squad, 2 men, first and last may wound to yellow, the next two may wound to red, and the middle 5 will be in the lethality circle (25m radius is 50m diameter). Adjust as you see fit. Now, take that 120m squad, compress them into a line that fits into 3 action spots (you know, there are three teams) and that means they're all in a 24m distance. Hmm, if a 25m HE shell lands in their midst, the furthest man is INSIDE the inner half of the lethality circle. That would be far too destructive. Hence, the nerf. Now, the problem: when men go into a building, they CANNOT stretch out to 120m for 13 men. They are restricted to the size of the building. In that case, a shell landing inside with them should cause much more mayhem than it does in the game. (Usually: wall structure, internal divisions, luck, etc.) That's why it's there. IMHO. Ken

Um, just to make sure we're all reading these numbers, a 23ft lethality radius means the odds are that you can be killed inside 23 feet, NOT that everyone within 23 feet WILL be killed. And, of course, some poor sod well beyond 23 feet will, for sure, be killed. These are probabilities. They need to be judged based on exposure and definitions. But yeah, nerfing sucks. (Unless my guys are the target!) My understanding of this is that men, in game, bunch up FAR more than in real life. Stretching every squad over 100 meters would be a nightmare. This is a pretty good balancing mechanism. Ken

Sawomi, good catch! Yeah, the CMBN guys certainly look, um, better?

Although _you_ may be feeling some pain, you've put a smile on my face. Thanks for the nice pix and writeup. How many men do you plan on losing per minute for the rest of the battle? Ken