Mike D

Both Kevin and C above are correct. The TigerFibel training manual used to train Tiger I crews goes into explicit detail about how to angle one's forward armour off axis with respect to facing directly toward an enemy tank or AT gun in order to maximize armour thickness. The fact that it is mentioned much more than "just as a passing thought", would seem to definitely indicate that this methodology was used in combat by German tank crews. Mike D aka Mikester

I believe Fionn is correct here. Only time that I've witnessed this kind of behavior in moving AFV's is when I'm trying to manuever them near woods and/or through scattered trees. It's rather interesting when it happens because it will go and add all kinds of waypoints to my units movement path that I certainly didn't order the unit to follow. So far, when this occurs I just go and delete all of them during the next orders phase and try to give the unit some simpler orders, like get the heck out / away from the woods a slight distance and then move to where I wanted them to go. This seems to get rid of the "problem". Other than that, I've not had any problems having AFV's follow their ordered movement paths. Mike D aka Mikester

Steve, I realize that it is totally up to you, but please feel ABSOUTELY free to lock this thread up at any time. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 11-05-99).]

Ahhhhh, the issue that just keeps on giving, and giving, and giving, and giving, and giving, and giving, and giving, and giving... And, well, you get the point. Mike D aka Mikester

We take no responsibility for any professional or personal problems CM may cause. Steve, So I assume this is going to be a part of the licensing agreement for the game??? Mike D aka Mikester

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, OH PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE W/ SUGAR ON IT. Or, if not another Beta scenario, could you just go ahead and release the game instead? I'm sure you wouldn't find too many objections to this second course of action. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Yeah, but if you get fired then you can sit at home all day and play the game! Mike D aka Mikester

Simply putting this information deep in the individual unit status screens will not alleviate this problem. Scott, I don't think you understood me. I'm saying put it right the heck out on the main screen where you see the ammo listed for every bloody infantry unit every time you click on one. I.E., you see a number like the 40 ammo level for squads and the 80 starting ammo level for crewed MG's near the bottom left of the main screen. Mike D aka Mikester

What was the actual status of both units? Alerted, Pinned, Cautioius, etc.????????? Might make a big difference on whether they are willing to engage a tank, or not. Although I can infer from your post that they were OK??? If so, then it is difficult to understand why they wouldn't shoot. Mike D aka Mikester

I ran into the same thing. The HT's MG ammo should be displayed out on the main screen just like the ammo levels are for crew manned MG's carried by the foot pounders. Mike D aka Mikester

Here's my 2 cents on the discussion at hand based on my nearly 21 years of wargaming experience. Also, let me state that this is absolutely nothing more than my opinion on the matter. Take it for what it's worth. I have to pretty much agree w/ Mr. Emrys here. I think too much info is not necessarily needed / desireable. In fact I'd say the level of info that BTS is providing in CM is pretty much right on target. That being said, I'd agree that there are probably a couple areas of the interface in terms of how said info is displayed (NOT HOW MUCH INFO BEING DISPLAYED MIND YOU), where BTS could perhaps make things easier for us to access / see the info that we need to make good decisions. These have been commented on extensively now by dozens of folks here on the board and it is up to BTS to think about it and make a decision as to what changes, IF ANY, need to be made to the game. As far as the cries for giving more and more all encompassing information go (THE "I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING CROWD"), I'd say forget about it. Might very well "ruin" the game vs. improving it! Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Phoenix, I'd say yes, it is realistic, so long as none of the rest of your infantry, etc., were shooting at them, then what is to stop them from going after your prized tank? And like Fionn said, they probably had a better chance of taking the tank out in a one on one confrontation under the circumstances you've described than the tank taking them out. Mike D aka Mikester

Fionn, That sounds great! Also, BTW, my dad's computer is now fixed. So I will be trying to get over there to scan the stuff that you and I last talked about a couple of weeks ago sometime this week. Mike D aka Mikester

Moon, I have absolutely no doubt of this. However, I do wonder how many of them will be really well thought out designed scenarios and campaigns and how many of them will, uhhmmm, not be. Mike D aka Mikester

I'm still waiting to get my new computer. In mean time I'm playing on my old one: Pentium 100Mhz CPU 48 MB RAM Diamond 3D2000 Video Card w/ 4 or 8 MB memory 1st Generation VooDoo 3D video card by Orchid Game actually runs amazingly well. Little choppy when I pan around, etc. But even that is not too bad. I've seen much worse on this same system like when I tried playing HalfLife on it! My guess is that you are having troubles because of your drivers. You probably don't have DirectX6.1 or 7 and/or your vidoe cards drivers are not up to date. Take a look at updating these and your problems should largely go away. As far as playing the game goes I'd say your existing system might very well work just fine. You probably just need a new video card. One suggestion would be to get an card based on Nvidia's TNT2 chipset like the Diamond Viper 770. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 11-02-99).]

Yes, I believe the "S" is for smoke, not special ammo. Not sure what the designators for that are, although I know special ammo types are included in the game. Mike D aka Mikester

Royston, The game itself pretty much costs the same for everyone. In fact here in the states I'm having to pay more for the game than you are!!!!!!!!!!!! I get a neato poster for it which they decided wouldn't be easy to ship across the world, but you for all intents and purposes get the game for about $5-$10 US less than I do!!! They did this to help offset the high overseas shipping costs which is really what is causing the game to be costly for you, not the price of the game itself! Also, like John said, exchange rates / Singapore's economy really probably don't matter much to BTS. All I can say is that you are going to be missing out on a really great, quality, product! Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Yes, so go the fortunes of war. While most tank crews were trained to fix thrown / broken tracks, I don't believe I have ever in 2 years here on the board heard mention that they could be fixed during the game. Other than in between games during a campaign that is! Mike D aka Mikester

Scott, I'd pretty much agree with you. It is up to BTS to sort through things and decide what is best. What to put in, what to not, etc. However, it is also up to BTS to determine when to say, "We're done adding new features, etc. to the game. The game configuration is now LOCKED DOWN. There will be no more additions to it. From here to release of the game in XX number of weeks we will simply be working on tweaking the AI, cleaning up the interface, and other minor adjustments prior to release." As far as generating ideas and discussions goes that should go on here ad infinitum. That is what makes this board a great place and as a result of it will also make CM (and CM2, 3, etc.) a great game. But at some point BF has to say we are "done", and stop adding to / changing every last little thing in the game. And I think that time is quickly approaching, if not already just about here, regardless of how many more gems of greatness are proposed here on the board. Also, those ideas that don't make it into the original release can be added in a supplementry patch, or just plain wait for CM2. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 11-02-99).]

Ken, I think Scott is right. If you truly are immobilized for whatever reason it is probably unlikely that you are going to be able to do anything about it. Mike D

BTS, Just a friendly reminder that I'm sure you don't need, but...................... With the release of the demo not even a week ago Pandora's box has been opened in terms of suggestions pouring into this discussion area for changing this, adding that, etc., etc. Please, please, please, try to remain focused on getting the game done. Features / fixes that are deemed truly necessary / worthy should certainly be considered, if not outright implemented. However, the evil temptation to start adding this, that, and the other because they all sound like such great ideas (and some of them certainly will be no doubt!) is going to come to the fore front now. Anyway, just a friendly reminder to you, and a message to all the rest out there that if BTS keeps adding in every little thing that we all come up with that the game will never get released. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Zulu, I've been equally impressed. This game kicks most other wargames b***, and then some. The AI still needs some tweaks here and there to fix a few "problems". Other than that it is terrific!!! Mike D aka Mikester

Approximately a day later from when I orginally posted this and we are within 25 posts of 12,000. Simply amazing!!! At this rate there are going to be so many posts here that nobody can keep up with even reading them all. Mike D aka Mikester

I'd be curious as to how it got immobilized. Was it due to the fact that it was moving through the woods, or did hit get hit by enemy fire? Reason I ask is that I've been wondering how "safe" it is to move vehicles through scattered trees and not have them hit something to throw a track, etc. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 11-02-99).]

John, Yes. It isn't totally realistic in the sense that real WWII battlefield commanders couldn't see the battlefield on a 3D map. But it is a basic functionality of the game as a result of how they are doing things, so I don't really see a problem with it. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 11-02-99).]