Skorpion

You're right - I forgot about the datalink. However, in its absence I'm pretty sure ROE would require a visual instead of trusting the radar (assuming you've turned the radar on, because you don't really want to warn the enemy you're there do you?). Anyway, that doesn't change my desire for the helos to be on-map assets. It would make for much more interesting play to be able to hide you apaches behind one hill, your abrams behind the other and teast the enemy into the kill zone with your cavalry assets. Boom - all dead! ------------------ Skorpion Think you've got me? Watch out for the sting in my tail!

This is a dead thread. Mods - Delete it please Anyone else - Go write something stupid in the peng one [This message has been edited by Skorpion (edited 03-19-2001).]

Edit. Pls ignore [This message has been edited by Skorpion (edited 03-19-2001).]

Miaoow! Getting a bit tetchy there aren't we? <font size=5 color=red>Just don't reply if you've got nothing good to say</font>

No no no! Helicopters have to be ON-MAP. Direct control for helicopters is a must in today's combined arms warfare. You are right about the distance though. Even attacking with the MMW Hellfires can only be done if you can identify the target as hostile so most helicopter engagements occur at about 1500-3000m ranges, which would be fine I think, in my vision of much larger maps.

But that misses the point We want MBTs and IFVs, we want to be able to ambush with ON-MAP helicopters, see troops running out of their APCs and deploying ATGMs and SAMs. In short, I want M1 Tank Platoon 2 without the action elements. Is that too much to ask?

Thanks for that link - well worth the read even though it was slightly indecisive. Of course, the hint that smoke could form a major part of CM2 might just persuade me to actually get this one, as I'm currently wavering on the differences between the two games.

Anyone know why not? Most other games I've played, especially Steel Panthers, has the infantry loaded with smoke grenades and the like. Skorp

To put things into perspective for the original poster, I'm running the following system and get full graphical effects at 1280x1024: Celeron 450 224MB RAM Win2K Nvidia TNT (the 32MB original one) So basically as long as you get a decent video card (Geforce MX's are very cheap now) you shouldn't have any problems playing at any resolution. Oh, and don't spare on the RAM, go for 192MB minimum (it's so cheap these days anyway). Skorp

Well, in that case they are still in control of the bridge, but I was referring to the earlier mentioned case where a unit would infiltrate your lines, touch the flag to turn it to them, and then run off. I personally think that a flag should remain under the control of the last side to occupy it *as long as they have a valid LOS to the flag*, until it is *physically* occupied by the enemy. Oh, and I'm glad you liked my 'capture and hold' and 'destroy' flag ideas. I've always wanted to play missions like this instead of the simple 'move your troops here' missions. Skorpion

Well, I'm getting a DNS error on home.worldnet.att.net so I can't access the page. Could you send me a copy to skorpion@warzone2100.free-online.co.uk Cheers, Skorp

Sounds like a great program, but I can't download it as there seems to be something wrong with the link (or the server?). Anyone else got a link for it? Skorpion

Who or what is a Peng?

Okay then, here's my take on the Defend mission problem: 1) All flags in the defending sides setup area should start under the control of the defender. 2) They should remain under the control of the defender until the attacker has occupied them. [so far so good] 3) If an attacker leaves a flag it should become neutral. From now on it acts as a normal flag - occupy or lose. My reasoning is this - (taking Seahawk's bridge example) the objective is to capture the bridge, presumably so the enemy can't destroy it or bring up reserves. Standing on the bridge for ten seconds then leaving does not mean that the attacker is able to prevent this Any objective in an assault mission should be occupied by the attacker or the objective simply hasn't been met. However, if you use the Colonel's abstraction theory, and say that the objective is, say, a POL depot, then the attacker could easily occupy it, destroy it, and then move on having achieved it's objective. That is the problem. Are the objectives terrain to secure or installations to destroy? I come down on the side of terrain, although it would be interesting to have an objective that simply stated "destroy bunker x" or "neutralise enemy anti-tank assets". I think we may have to wait for CMII for that one though. ----------- Skorpion

Anyone care to post a screenshot? Love Dad's Army btw. Skorpion

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGHHHH!!!! So that's why my tanks never achieve proper hull down positions. DOH! Skorp

Thanks for the replies everyone. Seems I might have to wait awhile to see some apaches flying around in CM, but never mind. I love the current game, and while the thought of the eastern front doesn't inspire me much, I'm looking forward to playing as Monty in North Africa (Can't you tell I prefer tanks). Skorp

Okay, I'm a newbie and have probably missed discussions on this before, but... What is the future for CM? I've heard that there will be a CM2 on the Eastern Front and rumours about a CMII with improved engine. What I want to know is: Will the CM(II) engine be used for modern day warfare? Just imagine seeing all your little men spew out of bradleys as atgms fly across the landscape and helos fly close support. As much as I love the WW2 battles, I can't help but imagine what this would be like for modern day weaponry. So, anyone know if this is going to happen/want this to happen? Skorp

Except you can't use hunt when there is no target, but you want to set up a hull down defensive position. And that's what a lot of people are finding most annoying, IMHO. Skorp

I think you're missing the point here slightly. The hull down command as I would like to see it would basically take three parts: i) Drive the tank parallel to the ridge you which to go hull down to. ii) Turn towards the ridge so that you are facing the direction you wish to be hull down in. iii) Issue 'move until hull down' command. The driver then slowly moves up the hill until the gunner says 'I can see over the hill now'. Thus your tank is hull-down to the area that you want it to be. Simple. And much easier than rotating through every angle under the sun and using a myriad of move/reverse orders just ot ensure that one tank is hull down to a particular region from a particular hill. Using my definition of the command this will never happen, as the 'hull down' command can only be given while the vehicle is in defilade and facing a ridge line. Thus the tank will stop when it is hull down to the nearest crest. As I said above, the player still has to decide where to go hull down. All the new command would do is make sure that the tank actually *is* hull down, and not showing its underbelly because you couldn't click accurately enough/can't see from the gunner's position properly. Personally, I think a hull down command is *essential* for tank ambushes to work properly. Skorpion