Tao Xian

Don't forget that when you double-click the HQ unit you will get *all* the units in command proximity, including heavy weapons he is close to (and they may be out of the camera's field of view depending on your camera position) and if you issue orders without checking you can move units you were moving near, but had no intention of changing their orders. (What'sthedefinitionofarunonsentence?)

You could try to set up victory flags all along the road. Best I can suggest. As far as I know, you need to give the axis troops some tangible objective. You may end up with troops strung out all along the road defending your flags, however, not advancing as a unit up the road.

It does it to me as well. I find I have to enter my name and password the first post of every session. I also cannot get the flags to tell me when a thread/topic has new posts. I did go to the preferences tab and reset my cookies, but I have yet to see any evidence that this has helped. You *do* have cookies enabled, I assume? [This message has been edited by Tao Xian (edited 03-27-2001).]

In a sub-topic of this...when is it good to temporarily pull back? I find that once I take territory, I hang on as if the devil were behind me. It occurrs to me, as I play more, that a more fluid approach might be more beneficial; withdraw, regroup, retake. I have yet to experiment with this. Moreover, on the defence, it seems that staking a forward defensive position, followed by a series of fall backs might also be useful; but again, something I have not experimented in. Any suggestions?

I find that HT's have the same 'egg with a hammer' problem that all AFV have. A few good placed shots from infantry can stop cold the HT you had planned as the lynch pin for your attack. Often these HT's shrug off MG fire with the wonderful sound of ricocheting bullets, but it it no surprise to see one burst from an infantry squad or MG take out the HT. They are certainly not invincible. I will admit that I have not tried using more than 3 HT's in any given scenario, as my most common game is a TCP/IP QB with 500-800 points. A company of infantry is my first pick. This leaves room for only a few mechanized units. This versatility of balance is a strong asset, if find. I am not sure what I would do with an opponent fielding 400 points in HT's. It would be possible to charge across the board in two turns with 10 units and 2,500 rounds of .50 cal ammunition. Unsupported by infantry, they might make easy targets. The combined firepower of 10 or more HMG's might also be overwhelming. To answer your original point, all of the players I go up against would have no problem with 2 or 3 HT's acting in a suppression and scouting role, or even a strong offensive one; especially as part of a balanced force. I think the numbers of HT's involved really depend upon the size of the operation. In the scenario where the Tiger goes on a rampage in Villers-Bocage, there were ten or more HT's lined up and waiting for the next advance. If you were to be playing in an operation of many points with a large amount of mechanized support on both sides, mustering 7 or 10 HT's would be fine. One unopposed tank could make quick work of all of them, however. 400pt's could buy your opponent a Crack King Tiger.

Another quirky display issue. My two story buildings usually display one or two sides being brown/brick, and the other two sided - the white wash. Any hints?

I have a strange <bug?>, that my friend has as well. This was one I notice ever since getting the full copy of the game. No prob in the demo. When I cycle throught the Paths and Targets display choices - <shift>+P - I get TCP, TCP/IP, Paths & Targets, Paths and Targets Off. It should be Paths, Targets, Paths & Targets, Paths and Targets Off. Why the first choices are TCP and TCP/IP, I have no clue. One of my friends has the same indications. I am running a Mac PBG3 400, and he's on an older Mac G3 desktop of some sort. Any hints?

I got it for christmas and my friend had to dive across the room to keep me from snapping mine in half. I had twisted it near into a circle. I am surprised the disc survived.

I have had the same problem with game files that crash one form on another of play, and saving them as another style of game, then resaving back seems to clear up what ever the glitch is in the file.

This may be off the mark but you cannot host a game by "Joining Multiplayer". You must "play" a scenario, and then in a later screen, select the game as a TCP/IP game. If you are trying to host a game and use "Join Multiplayer" and type in your own IP address, it will not find a game there, as you are not currently hosting one. Once you have selected your game as a TCP/IP game, the final screen you come to, where it waits for your opponent to connect, should give you your IP address. This would be the IP address to give to your opponent as long as it's not a LAN address from a local router or hub. If you need to, you can hit "escape" at this point to get to another application to send your IP address to your opponent, then reselect CM. You will still be at the screen waiting for the opponent to connect. [This message has been edited by Tao Xian (edited 03-19-2001).]

This may be off the mark but you cannot host a game by "Joining Multiplayer". You must "play" a scenario, and then in a later screen, select the game as a TCP/IP game. If you are trying to host a game and use "Join Multiplayer" and type in your own IP address, it will not find a game there, as you are not currently hosting one. Once you have selected your game as a TCP/IP game, the final screen you come to, where it waits for your opponent to connect, should give you your IP address. This would be the IP address to give to your opponent as long as it's not a LAN address from a local router or hub. If you need to, you can hit "escape" at this point to get to another application to send your IP address to your opponent, then reselect CM. You will still be at the screen waiting for the opponent to connect. [This message has been edited by Tao Xian (edited 03-19-2001).]

I have been getting spontaneously generating crew in 1.12. The research that I have done shows that this is known, but fixed issue, but I have just started seeing this problem after a reinstall of 1.12. I had not seen this effect earlier. Both incidents were in quick battles. In the first battle I found a crew that had bailed from a FT Halftrack go through mitosis and in the middle of the turn one unit fled into a building and was killed - I couldn't see by whom or if it died spontaneously, the other surrendered. Both had the same name and casualty count. Later, a crew unassociated with any vehicle appeared with a 'sneak' command, as it tried to sneak out of a building I controlled. In the next game I played I noticed several allied (enemy) crew cowering that were unassociated with any kill that I knew I made. I am running CM 1.12 on a Mac PowerBook G3 running system 9.1. The only history I have related to the issue was I installed a number of graphics mods, updated to OpenGL 1.2, then changed my mind about the mods and replaced the original graphic files from a clean back up source. I crashed my first 3 times connecting to a TCP/IP game with an opponent running CM 1.12 on an iMac. I reinstalled the game, and reupdated the patch to 1.12. Though connectivity problems plagued the game and connection was lost several times, the only apparent problem was the spontaneously generating crew. The only permanent unknown change was updating to OpenGL, which I did for no apparent reason.

I will also second the opinion that it'd love to see the pic!

I found this doing research into spontaneously generating crew. I have that same problem, though not with such a massive effect. I usually see one or two extra crew members floating about. Mine have all been in quick battles. Has anyone esle found this?

Using the withdraw command to force folks carrying heavy weapons to discard them could be a good solution - it runs a bit a foul when you think that withdrawing troops might want to take that tank or that weapon with them. A pure "abandon" command would be preferable; and I can admit that I wished I had that one to use. The usual situation I find is the immobile last crew member who refuses to flee his weapon. I would respond positively to an "abandon" command where the crews leave their weapons which are lost in the fog of war. Speaking of which, they are still finding abandoned weapons and ammunition from WWII in the field of France and Germany.