Tarkus

Exactly. Experienced players that share their methods is generally a good read. I'd be interested in the way you guys plan your battles and recce ahead in meeting. At any rate, be sure to let us know if you go ahead. Cheers.

Ooops. Sorry my bad. You were perfectly clear Philippe, it's late, I have been gazing at my screen for too long (semester end) and did not read properly. Sorry about that. Cheers.

EDIT: It's late, I can no longer read properly, so I delete an inapropriate comment. But: CMBO runs just fine on XP (pro, no SP). ...still stands. Cheers. [ December 17, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Note the turquoise grin from frost. Hey Junk, its cool outside and warm inside. The place isn't bad right now. We'll talk about that in february. As for Wodin, I see what you mean. It sure is a quantum leap from SP, but that can only enhance the experience. When I made the switch (boy, that is a looong time ago) I could not ever get back to that old serie. It was good while it lasted though.

Not to worry Wodin, the QB tool is still there, mods are plentyfull (and gooood ) and even though you are not into desert warfare, there are many interesting things to be done with CMAK. You may want to check the CMAK companion to fire up your interest. Best [ December 18, 2004, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Obvioulsy the consequence of aforementionned lost suitcase full of LSD.

The day I will uninstall any CM is a very remote contingency. I now happily navigate through them in various PBEM with friends who haven't seen the light yet and stick to CMBO. Perhaps they like charging MG nests and *survive* ? And as Panther Commander rightly state, CMAK italian theatre fills the ETO bills quite well. Only wish there was more winter mods for those Bulge scenarios. Cheers Note: Pssst ! Namekev! should you read this, I am still waiting for a QB setup !

I sure hope it does. I wonder if the modding phenomenon can be translated in dollars somehow, i.e. by keeping the game going longer since one can completely change its look and feel, therefore lasting longer on hard drives. Many people say they don't give a damn about graphics, perhaps most players, but I honestly confess this is one added value I like immensely. I recall the day I first installed MDMP, Tom's Ardennes mod, Magua Normandy mod, Bergman and Fernando's AFVs among others... It was a new game, plain and simple, almost "tastier" Of course it is an understatement to say these where badly needed for CMBO back then, but when I look at it, I am almost equally thrilled when you (and many, many others) come up with new textures. The latest Normandy small buildings from Tanks a Lot for example. So all in all, I'd say moddable CM was a nice -and "cheap" assets, since it allows high quality imput at no cost unless there is a part of the equation I don't see. I sure hope BFC keep going on the user end input. The community have proven time and again that it can produces very high quality stuff, both on scenarios and mods. I'd even extend this wish to an idea already expressed in the CMx2 wishlist: that a way to import 3d objects, be it only building and landscapes, within certain realistic parameters, would even extend this and quite possibly benefit BFC. Though I have no idea of both the technical feasability of such a feature and the integral security of the source code, something BFC is understandably concerned with. My two canadian cents.

Funny you bring that question up, I decided about two days ago to play a desert QB against the Italians in eastern Africa. Got CS tanks that carry 40 smoke shells only, A10 that sports useless but cool looking secondary turrets and mech companies on unicarriers that leaves nifty dust trails on unsusually bumby grounds. I like that ! Then I got back to CMBO's Rhineland pack for a taste of the past and bad, wet weather regalia Had to have them three ! Cheers

Downloaded & installed. From what I am looking at right now, this is one mod every one will want. Already a classic as it come out ! Thanks Tanks ! Yay !

Wow ! Talk about stylish rendering. Notice that even back then, Panthers ruled the battlefield already.

Yeah maybe you're right. Or tips and tricks ?

Found while surfing around. I though it might be useful wisdom to list here. * * * Murphy's Laws of Combat: </font> 1.You are not a superman.</font>2.If it's stupid but works, it isn't stupid.</font>3.Don't look conspicious - It draws fire.</font>4.When in doubt, empty magazine.</font>5.Never share a foxhole with anyone braver then you are.</font>6.Never forget that your weapon were made by the lowest bidders.</font>7.If your attack is going really ok it's an ambush.</font>8.No plan survives contact.</font>9.All 5 seconds grenade fuses will burn down in 3 seconds.</font>10.Try to look unimportant because the enemy may be low on ammo.</font>11.If you're forward of your position the artillery will fall short.</font>12.The enemy diversion you are ignoring is the main attack.</font>13.The important things are always simple.</font>14.The simple things are always hard.</font>15.The easy way is always mined.</font>16.If you're short of everything except enemies: you're in combat.</font>17.When you've secured an area, don't forget to tell the enemy.</font>18.Incoming fire has the right of way.</font>19.Friendly fire - isn't.</font>20.If the enemy is in range - so are you.</font>21.No combat ready unit has ever passed inspection.</font>22.Beer math is: 2 beers times 37 men = 49 cases.</font>23.Body count math is: 2 guerillas plus one portable plus two pigs = 37 enemies killed in action.</font>24.Things that must be together to work usually can't be shipped together.</font>25.Radios will fail as soon as you need fire support desperately.</font>26.Anything you do can get you shot - including doing nothing.</font>27.Tracers work both ways.</font>28.The only thing that's more accurate then incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.</font>29.Make it tough for the enemy to get in and you can't get out.</font>30.If you take more then you're fair share of objects you will have more then you're fair share of objects to take.</font>31.When both sides are convinced they are about to loose they are both right.</font>32.Professional soldiers are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs.</font>33.Murphy was a grunt.</font>Found here. * * * Cheers.

There are some nice pics there. Look at this one and imagine being the forward element of an allied recce patrol . Not good a place to be. Chill down my spine. Thanks for the link.

I, too, wonder if this topic would not be better off in the general forum. Michael, I may well have been unclear, and perhaps I misunderstood Poppys' initial statement. I did not meant to draw the debate on Japan strategical and political stance after Pearl Harbor depending on its assessed results, nor on possible variations on its conduct and outcome, which I realize now Poppys' statement is all about. Your own statement is plausible and does not poses the kind of problems I see in Poppys' first post. My point was only that Pearl Harbor was a crucial part of Japan grand strategy in the Pacific and that if one suppose it didn't happen, than all assumptions on following events are not sustainable because of the intricate nature of historic causality. (Some may counter this by stating that this is a belief, but then it becomes an entirely different debate). I brought it up because of Poppys' initial statement that Pearl Harbor served a subsequent purpose (ie. saving lives) and linked it to future occurences (Solomon battle), basing his reasonning along the assumption that the absence of Pearl Harbour would have lead to an event of even more disastrous proportions (naval battle in open sea with obsolete ships) and then judging its instrumentality out of this assumption. To me, this isn't valid logic. But then I realize that it can also mean that Pearl Harbor might have gone a different way. If that is what was meant in the first place, I lay all doubt aside and will cheerfully read all supositions while remaining quiet. Ahem. Ain't sure this qualify as a clarification, but still... Cheers nonetheless.

Mmmm. I am not sure to follow your reasonning on this. Pearl Harbor was an integral part of a grand strategy, the main goal of which was to tilt the balance of power in the Pacific in such an overwhelming way as to force the US to ask for peace on Japanese terms. Yamamoto, who planned the Pearl Harbor raid, threatened to resign if the raid wasn't carried out, on the ground that only by annihilating the US fleet could Japan hope for enough time to both extend its sphere of influence while preparing for the inevitable blow the US would throw back at them. It follows that one can reasonnably conclude that the japanese aggression was conditional to Pearl Harbor. But then again, what if Yamamoto did not get his way and resigned ? What would have happened at Midway ? Would its successor modify the original plan ? Would have Nagumo decided to launch yet another wave, or perhaps search for the american carriers ? No one knows, of course. All this to say that I firmly hold to my point: you cannot draw conclusion on history on the ground of contingencies. Cheers

What if... I venture to suggest that had the pacific battle fleet not been destroyed and/or incapacitated in Pearl Harbor, the japanese government would most likely have assumed an entirely different stance, therefore making the subsequent occurence of any naval engagement in the area quite a remote contingency. My point is, you simply cannot change (let alone remove it altogether) the outcome history and assume anything about following events. My two cents

FYI: FWIW. Cheers

Pssst ! look. :cool:

Philippe, You can do plenty of test via MCMMM. Simply zip your work, install it and scrutinize it. Not happy ? MCMMM will remove and replace in a matter of seconds. Cheers.

I am digging this one out for it seems to be relevant still, somehow. Also because I had an idea that belong to this thread. Here it goes. Do you guys use the "import" map feature a lot ? I didn't but I am getting into a long 5 battles QB thanks to this feature, which I think has been a bit overseen. The possibilities with this thing are amazing ! You can grab the best looking map there is, edit it as a scenario, play it, then move on to a follow up QB with new forces and really try to occupy the terrain for an overall superiority. You must think in terms of maintaining yourself on the ground you gained, and also secure it properly for following battles. That means you must try to know what your opponent is up to and try to prepare for his blow in future battles. Reserves get their full meaning in this context. Of course, to make things right one have to carefully think about setup zones and victory flags, but it really enable some pretty realistic battles that include plausible recce scenarios. Anyway, my point is that this is a feature that could be expanded somehow to allow some long term campagning without falling into the not-CM-scope problem. For example, one problem of the import map and OBs feature is that players can see the final screen in all its details. That, in turn, prevent or discourage players to keep reserves for following QBs since the exact composition of your current forces are then known to your opponent. What is called for is some sort of double password locking device to enable QBs to be used as the realistic start for following ones. To prevent the final turn to be shown, and maybe even to restrict acces to the score. When players are done with a QB cycle, they can share their password to "unlock" their game and closely look at it in all its details. You may see it as some sort of "quick operation", but there are considerable differences. Importing QBs allow you to buy other forces. This allow for really challenging play with a context where contact has been made, troops are still on the line, and you bring in reinforcements tied to the setup zones. Another point is that this import feature could benefit from some customization, like restricting (or not) the type of forces available for purchase in following battles, padlocking or redrawing following battle setup zones, setting the amount of supply on-map units get between battle (like operations, but choosen by the players), which could also be tied to the map somehow, depending on the terrain (some positions are easier to supply then others?). Anyway, I do not know how big this feature is for you, but now that I actually discover it, it seems to me it is the best multiplayer experience CM can provide. Hence this looong post. Cheers

Bah. There is nothing to worry about. We are all clueless as to what is actually going on at BFC for CMx2. That is a fact. So the point in having all those discussions about what the next game should be is just like playing lotery. You know you wont win, but it is plain fun to suppose for a brief moment that you possess those millions. Beside, apart from certain posts, most of those who contributed did it really only for the fun of sharing some thoughts about what they think would be cool additions. Nothing more IMO. Of course, the "patch incident" kind of put this in perspective.

Hehehe, I definitely agree with that. ...not mentionning MikeD hires stuff, Tom incoming Greece mod, the Sealion project, Bergman stuff here and there, Dey winterized everything, Panzerman and the CSDT bunch scenarios (to mention but a few), mcmmm, CMMOS... ...repeat and multiply with CMBB, CMBO, books and those other games that are surely interesting but that I cannot realistically expect to try because one must sex, sleep, eat, drink dream to quote not so famous people. ... on top of that, add that [WARNING: Shameless plug ahead] other unknown guy interface for CMAK coming soon, and you get a pretty niffty picture of what's in store for us all until the big revamp . It'll be a short year to wait. So let's all chug a huge double pint of your favorite beverage*, and think about how cool it is to be granted the opportunity to even have this discussion. * I hesitate. Newcastle or Guinness ? Nah. Let's make it boréale. Cheers. You may now resume you argument. [ November 24, 2004, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Good luck Aris. You made some real nice contributions to our community. The good side of it all is that you will finally get the chance to play the game. You'll see, it's fun too. Cheers !

Had a question about that recently. What actually happens is that a bailed out crew is worth more points than an average infantryman. So you are right when you say they worth something, but this something is a lot less than an AFV prize. HTH