c3k

Help!!! I've got home network, but can't play CMBB on it. I'm using a Linksys 2008 Gigabit switch, hooked up to a separate router and cable modem. I'm able to use my Windows XP networking to swap files from one machine to another, no problem. Comp1---| .............|-Switch--Router--cable modem---internet Comp2---| The only problem I have is with CMBB. Both games are updated to v1.03. I'm trying to hook up to my other machine using an IP address in CMBB of 192.168.1.101 That machine is at the "Choose Game Type" screen with "TCP/IP" selected with "no time limit" in the drop down menu. My machine keeps giving a "cannot connect to specified IP address" error. Windows is set to allow an exception for CMBB on both machines. I'm stumped. With a connection through a switch, do I need some other IP address? I'd appreciate any help I could get. I've read the just-posted Tcp/ip thread, but I couldn't use it to help myself in my situation. Thanks! Ken

Good. Now, get back to work!

Crap. It's obvious from what's just been posted that all our CM:SF battles will be restricted to one of two possible battlegrounds: EDBAC Hill or Squaretop Mountain. BF.C, please fix or somefink!!! Thanks for the info. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, Will users be able to write what they'd like to on the signs? Or are we always to be consigned to traveling on the road to Damascus? If user-modifiable, I'm sure you'll include an English to Arabic (Syrian dialect?) translation executable. Then, additional support for whatever other countries have native language included. I also want deer crossing signs with red-dots on their noses, and buckshot patterns. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, I'd choose option 2. It seems that the Syrian HQ can only use 2 maneuver elements or itself. Splitting the CC and 2ic out, then using 3 squads, as stated in option 1, would be a grosser distortion than option 2. (Option 2's extra maneuver element is the RPG team - a much lighter unit than a 7 man squad. I can see a Platoon Commander specifically positioning an RPG team at will, but not breaking SOP's to create a third squad.) Regards, Ken

Bigduke6, Ahhhhh. Well done. Ken

BF.C, As much as rudel.dietrich's information is obviously very appreciated, what checks are you performing to verify the authenticity of the information? I'm certainly not trying to cast aspersions here; quite the contrary, I think rudel.dietrich is performing a great service. However, I would think our little community would be quite chagrined to find out if there were mistakes being propagated throughout the game because sources were not being double-checked. Now, I certainly do NOT want to have this done publicly. I am just hoping that you're not creating a major element of the game based on information being posted in a forum. On a final note, I again would like to applaud rudel.dietrich for the work he's doing. Thank you, Ken

Bigduke6, Oh, absolutely - I understand you're comparing the utility of weapon with regards to its resource consumption. Here's my example: I can kill with a rock. They're plentiful, indigenous to many areas, and quite effective when used against a skull. Pretty much the lowest resource consumption per kill. (Except for renewable clubs: grow some trees and harvest clubs as needed. Hmmm, or buckets of water? Force your opponent's head into the bucket, wait 5 minutes, reuse the bucket of water. Or drink it.) Now, I'll let you create a force with as many rocks as you'd like. I'll sit on the hill with a resource hog Abrams. Eventually, I will die. I will run out of ammo, and fuel. Given enough rock-wielding true-believers, I will be overmatched. One of me in exchange for hundreds to thousands. All your rocks will, of course, be reused. What cost in resources do you give to the human? Is it the same for both sides? So, the obvious point here is that the cost of the weapon must be balanced by its effectiveness - for that particular purpose you're examining. How good would a T-34 be in a future orbital batttle? Regards, Ken

BF.C, Thanks for the preview. Grass is good. Trees suck. Okay, the tree thing: just like everyone says - having identical leaf sprites rotating DETRACTS from any immersive qualities. I first thought the trees were Ent royalty, waving like Queen Elizabeth... Since I was asked to actually LOOK at a tree blowing in the wind, I will. WOW! The damn things bend. To simulate the motion I saw in the video, I tried to rotate the various boughs, but only succeeded in killing several young oaks. (Anyone need some green kindling?) (I won't even mention the lack of leaves being torn off and blown away. Nope, I'll bite my tongue on that particular gripe...) Since it's easy to criticize, please take these complaints as a backhanded compliment for how high our expectations are from your company. Regards, Ken

Bigduke6, While I do not want to get into a debate with you regarding your cost/benefit analysis of a homicide bomber, I do think your comparison of such to a GMLRS is flawed. If a tactical unit is under fire from an enemy in a structure, a U.S. "launched" homicide bomber would be inappropriate and most likely unable to kill the enemy. On the other hand, a GMLRS round should do nicely. Likewise, an insurgent "launched" homicide bomber could probably not be stopped by a GMLRS round. In fact, the vast majority of insurgent homicide bombers target civilian - soft - targets. Not hardened tactical combat units. The two weapons systems are not meant to either perform the same mission or to fight each other. (Comparing a T-72 to an Abrams would be appropriate at some levels, as would comparing the cost of an RPG-7 to a Bradley.) So, as accurate (or not) as your analysis may be, it is not an agument that can be used effectively with regards to the GMLRS system. Regards, Ken

Only if we first put to rest the great "lay" versus "lie" question....

Hmmm, Left feed; disintegrating belt pieces out the right, brass casings straight down. Of course, for the game, flinging the brass in an arc to the right looks good. Especially if it glints in the sun. Artistic license and all.... Ken

No, no, no... By saying 7.62 has 25% more effect it means 4 wounds from 7.62 has the same effect as 5 wounds from 5.56. Now, do we have any volunteers?

Hmmm, Regarding the WIA U.S. being shown with a large Red Cross symbol: will the Syrians be shown with a large Red _Crescent_ symbol? Modeling fidelity and all, you know... Oh, nice pics. Thanks, Ken

Gents, I totally agree about the importance of this subject. So much so, that I've started several threads on it over the years. I can only hope that realistic small arms ballistic modelling has made it into the game. Regards, Ken

Gents, As a former AF guy myself, I've got a few operational buddies left. One is currently flying Predators. If it'd help, I can ask him about procedures for attacking baddies. Of course, it'd only be non-classified stuff, and it'd be regarding the OIF theater. This would be the anti-insurgency style as opposed to a conventional attack. Regards, Ken

JasonC, Thanks for the quick response. You say, "None of the problems you have alleged are actual problems for a fixed map size for each campaign, ..." Yes, there is a problem. Using your Stalingrad example, and the map size choices for a Stalingrad campaign, you would limit the CMBB map to 500x500 meters. Admittedly, much of the Stalingrad fighting and manuevering took place under MUCH tighter distances. However, limiting a map of Stalingrad to 500 meters MAXIMUM dimension completely eliminates longer range overwatch. Are my guns to be limited? Why can't I set up a tank at an intersection and interdict a boulevard? You would limit EVERY battle of the campaign to a range less than the tactically effective range of many of the weapons. That is not an "alleged" problem, it is a real problem. (Inasmuch as anything being discussed about a piece of software, released or not, can be called "real".) You don't like the long-range "to-hit" modelling in CMBB. That bias seems to pervade all your map-sizing criteria. You have NEVER suggested that 2x2 km is too SMALL of a size. As far as "watering matches with fools", I am unfamiliar with that phrase. Is that an insult? Are you my intellectual superior? Please clarify so we can continue an open discussion of your "solutions". If your "solutions" are flawed, then simply continue to hold yourself above explanations. Thank you, Ken

JasonC, I have shown that there are problems with the ideas you've put forward, yet you ignore those postings. I don't know of anyone who has said the 2x2 km maps are perfect. Sure, you can take the extremes - Stalingrad is certainly such - and show that the scale of CMC may have issues. Yet, your solutions bring just as many intractable problems. You're not SOLVING anything - you're substituting one problem for another. So, WHAT is the RIGHT map size? If you'd like to be as thorough as you present yourself to be, I invite you to look through this thread and the "Piling in one battle map" thread for the specific objections I've raised to your preferred solutions. I will not re-pose all the issues I've raised, as they're documented in the threads I've listed. If you don't wish to answer, then you're just as guilty of waging a "regularly scheduled spin campaign" of your own. Regards, Ken

PSY, You have concisely stated why I resurrected this thread. I've noticed the same trends. I'm about to purchase parts to build a new PC. A 21" widescreen LCD is part of the list. 16x10 resolution. Ken

I'm certainly NOT trying to dismiss JasonC's map/force ideas out of hand. I AM trying to point out that any attempt to graft an operational layer on top of CMBB will be prone to problems. If the CMBB map size is left to the CMC scenario designer, I forsee the SAME problem that JasonC has with a fixed 2km x 2km map. The only difference will be the size. Or, is it being posited that the CMC scenario designer will somehow step in for every CMBB generated battle? (That is not my understanding.) If there is a cropping feature, then my questions, above, still stand. Adding the operational layer to CMBB creates problems. These, some at least, can be solved. I look at CMC as creating the ability to have variable forces in a CMBB game. That creates potential problems - as JasonC is stating. His solution is variable map sizes. I see that as destabilizing a solution. If it's hard to solve an equation with one variable, it will be harder to solve it with two variables. Having changing map sizes for every CMBB battle is introducing a variable to the game design. I'm not convinced of his argument that CMC will be broken due to the ability to concentrate large forces. He may be correct: I am not convinced BECAUSE CMC has not yet been released. I foresee easy solutions to prevent ahistoric force concentrations: Roadnet delays, command problems, degrading roadnet, rapid supply depletion, easy targeting, mass casualties due to air/artillery, encirclement, etc. Massing is a different, though related, problem than map sizing. I am still trying to see how autocropping will work with forces like the one I mentioned. If all it will do is change one set of problems for another, why continue to argue for it? Regards, Ken

Hmmm, Extrapolating further, why stop the map sizing at 500m x 500m? Why not 250m x 250m? Or, for quicker, lower density battles, 10m x 10m? Obviously there's a lower limit. What is it? Why is that particular size a limit? What is the upper limit? Why is that the upper limit? If I have a single SMG squad, does that force the map size limit lower, to more accurately represent my tactical level of control? If I have single Tiger II, do I have a larger limit map, again to more accurately represent the range at which I can exercise a tactical influence? I see far more problems finding a solution with variable maps than with fixed maps. If anyone wants to explore the questions I've raised and post reasoned answers, I'd love to read them. I think the 2km x 2km map grid is a reasonable compromise to deal with operational game issues. Regards, Ken

Steve, Thanks for the answer. I've no idea about the technical details involved for your side of the equation. For my side, I understand I'll need to open up the credit card a bit wider.... I hope native widescreen can be introduced. Some widescreen gaming workaroun/fix links: http://www.widescreengamer.com/widescreen_games_database/ http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/ These sites provide hacks for many popular games with non-native widescreen formats. Perhaps browsing some of these techniques will reveal possible approaches to enable widescreen for the CMx2 engine. Thanks, Ken

BF.C, Resurrecting this thread to expressly ask: will CM:SF have native widescreen support? Thanks, Ken

Thermopylae, Thanks. Instead of a single, high-explosive hit, what do you regard as the effect of several large caliber HMG hits on the open face of the doghouse? Thanks, Ken

Steve, Thanks; both for the bone and for including wego. Regards, Ken