SteveP

More on 110: I confirmed that PC's technique of area firing the trench while advancing, before the MG opens up, does work. I got puzzled by why the MG would suppress under the preemptive area fire but would not suppress under area fire if the MG had already opened up (at least it wouldn't for me)). So I tried the scenario using Hot Seat, so I could observe how the MG reacted to this preemptive fire. However, I ended up discovering something even more interesting when I did that. Others have commented that the MG doesn't open fire until the russians have gotten relatively close to spotting range (under 200 meters say). When using Hot Seat, the MG opens up as soon as it spots any russians -- even on the first turn. Evidently, in single player mode, the AI is holding back fire for some reason, but in Hot Seat only the TacAI is operating, and it fires at much greater ranges (I don't give any orders to the MG, just watch what he does). This Hot Seat approach is a much more difficult problem for the russians, but perhaps one that's a bit more "realistic." With your troops under fire from as far away as 400 meters possibly, your platoon leader has a real job keeping everyone moving forward. Also, you really test your ability to use Jason's famous "eating ammo" approach. If you try this, I recommend changing the scenario length to 30, because you need all the rally time you can get. However, the end game is much different because you don't need a lot of FP to suppress the MG once the MG gets low on ammo. Playing this scenario both ways really teaches you how to manage infantry against either ranged fire or fire that's been held back to a shorter range (or when it shifts between the two the way a human player would do it).

PC, I'm curious about your experience with using area fire in 110. I tried it several times and decided that it was a waste of time and ammo in this situation. Did you spread your platoon's fire along the whole length of the trench, or aim it all at the point where you knew the MG was lurking? If the latter, I could see how that might have close to the same effect as firing after you got the spot.

Another thing I've noticed for the first time in playing 110: the apparent fact that green troops will not fire immediately when the target has been spotted, even when given a covered arc. Don't know what that's all about, but I've seen it happen every time at the distances when the MG is first spotted. The other units simply do not react until I order them to fire. I've come to the conclusion that this is a very important consideration when planning how best to advance, especially with minimal or no cover. It's especially disconcerting when the spot is made at the very beginning of the turn, but most of your units just watch like spectators while one of your squads gets shot to pieces. Anybody else have any thoughts or advice about this?

To fellow trainees: I've discovered what I think is a big virtue of the early scenarios in this training scheme: the fact that they can be played over and over in a minimum amount of time (if you fast forward through the movies). With that in mind, I would like to recommend this approach to learning the lessons of scenario 110. Assuming you've followed Jason's advice on the best way to negotiate the map (i.e., buildings, fence, craters) to get a win, try it over several times, starting from a saved position at around turn 5, 6 or 7. Each time, something different will happen (e.g., a unit will break that didn't break before, or the German MG will take a little longer to suppress, or something else). It's very educational. It's like doing drills in which you are in the position of the platoon commander. I know that doing drills doesn't seem very exciting for something that's supposed to be a game, but it gives you a lot of confidence about how to run a platoon under fire -- even a green platoon. After all, you're a green platoon commander, so doing drills makes sense. Then when you've gotten that down, try an advance over the terrain slightly to the left, where you don't have the fence and the craters. It's hard and won't work much of the time but well worth the "drill" to figure out how to do it. It may be a sort of epiphany for me, but I'm really intrigued by the idea of a "boot camp" in which one practice these things in the manner of "drills" rather than one-off trials. One word of caution, though, if you take up this idea on scenario 110. Several times when I was getting close to taking out the MG, the scenario quit on a forced "cease fire." It took me awhile to figure out what was happening, but I think I know the answer. The scenario is set to be a Probe. As a result, if you panic the MG and get your overall ammo load down below 25% of full loadout, you get an automatic ceasefire. This is very common if you are firing everything you've got at the MG for several turns (as you should be). A little disconcerting when you've got the upper hand and suddenly the game quits! I fixed this is the editor by changing it to an Attack.

To follow up on my previous post about playing 102, I was curious about my ability to kill the StuG on the first turn, so I looked at it in the scenario editor. Perhaps my copy of CMBB is defective, but in the editor, the StuG is positioned so that it is facing roughly northeast -- in a good position and facing to cover likely approaches. The LOS tool also shows that the StuG does not have LOS to any part of the Russian setup zone. However, when the scenario is run things change. The StuG is in the same position but facing due west. I'm guessing from fiddling with the editor that this may have to do with a quirk of how ownership of map sides has been established. Even stranger is that there is now LOS to the lefthand southernmost corner of the Russian setup zone -- so that a T-34 positioned there gets a free shot (actually more than one shot) to the rear of the StuG. I can't guess why LOS would not be possible in the editor but happens when the scenario is run, unless it's that the re-orientation of the StuG toward the west causes the rear end to move a few feet into LOS. Anyway, I thought this worth mentioning as far as possibly tweaking these scenarios in the event of becoming an ongoing training vehicle (which I hope is what happens). Also, a follow-up thought on my quibble about using PZIIILs in 100 and 101. Even though the IIIL certainly ought to be able to stand up to a straight ahead attack from the T-34, in fact it will always cower in such a situation. Don't know why -- maybe just another stupid AI trick. However, the result is that the T-34(s) don't really need to do much work beyond showing up in decent order. For my own entertainment, I did a little experimenting with other panzers in 100. The IVG(late) provided a good (maybe even slightly tough matchup) without the cowering behavior. It's interesting to note though that this tank is significantly more expensive than the T-34, while the IIIL was priced about the same, and that in itself may be a good lesson about the T-34, Anyway, I understand that the 100 series scenarios are not intended to be especially difficult challenges, so perhaps the cowering behavior by the IIILs is not something worth changing the scenarios for. So I'll leave my quibble at that.

Jason: What a wonderful idea! It would be great to see something like this for other nationalities. Some thoughts on 100-102. I'm wondering about the choice of German tank in 100 and 101. I found it difficult to lose, almost no matter what I did. I played 100 six or seven times and lost only once when my T-34 had it's gun disabled (and that was when i just cruised over the hill alongside the flag, not even trying to protect myself). At least in my experience the PZIII doesn't seem able to go toe-to-toe with a T-34. I also easily won 101 twice, using a spread out formation (not what you recommend) both times. The first time it was easy; the second time, I had one of my T-34's routed, but the others finished the job with no problem. I won 102 twice, first on turn 3, the second time on turn 1. The StuG was positioned in such a way that I could hit it in the rear on turn one -- I hadn't realized that until I hit go after setup. The other time, I simply ran the T-34's in a spread formation up to shooting positions and one of them took out the StuG fairly quickly. A funny thing is that the first times I played 101 and 102, I didn't notice the passengers on the T-34s. They just ended up going along for the ride. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the first three scenarios. Looking forward to the next group.

Since we're on a roll here, let me add a related aspect of CM game design that is a bit of a pet peeve. How many times has it happened, particularly in a smaller scenario or QB, where you complete your set up and hit the GO button -- and the next thing you see is a line of wire, or roadblocks, or trenches just where you were planning your advance? The problem for me is not that I suddenly see I have some obstacles to contend with. It's that I'm suddenly seeing stuff that obviously I should have been able to see before I made my plans and did my setup. In short, I'm dealing with a unrealistic fog-of-war situation. Now, I understand that this is a difficult problem to solve in terms of game design and efficient game play, but it does become doubly frustrating in a scenario with short time limits (since I can't redeploy). What do I do? Well, if I'm playing the AI in a scenario, I may just abort the scenario and start over -- but now having the recon info, I lacked before (is this being gamey?). But of course that doesn't work in a QB or when playing someone else. Frankly, I would really like the game design problem solved, since that would make the game more realistic, but don't know if that's possible. I think this may just be a rant, but I couldn't resist bring it up.

I agree that we have to recognize that 20 minutes in CM time is probably equal to 40-60 minutes IRL (or maybe even longer -- I don't know). Also, I agree that IRL there was often an upper limit to the time available to take an objective, or the time that a defender needed to hold an objective, which had nothing to do with ammo or morale. For example, the time it would take to bring up reinforcements from the rear. It is very reasonable that CM game time limits reflect considerations like that. Also, I was trying to say that in a randomly generated QB, a shorter timeframe may be a reasonable concession to give a defender a fair chance, given the shallow defensive position. However, what I find happens with me when confronted with a scenario that has a tight timeframe, is that I end up replaying it solely for the purpose of figuring out just what set of tactics and movement the designer had in mind for winning his scenario in the available time. The scenario actually starts to feel a little like a tutorial, which may not be what's intended. Also, somewhat ironically, I'm taking advantage to some extent of "recon" I've done in previous attempts. While I think this can be interesting as a mental exercise, it still bothers me. I really would like to have time to reconfigure my plans, and redeploy my forces, and work my way towards a win the first time I play the scenario. And if I run out of ammo, or morale, or some reasonable upper limit of time, in the attempt then it's more clearly the result of my tactical shortcomings (which I can readily believe ). The same considerations don't necessarily apply for the defender, of course, but even there I'd rather error on the side of giving the defender more depth of space to defend, then the luxury of a time limit that often feels artificially short. JasonC's point that CM is overly reliant on flag points in battle outcomes also intrigues me a great deal, but I haven't yet come to any tangible conclusions about it. I do think there is something flawed about the fact that when you generate a QB, the game assigns flags and flag points based on battle type and force size, but is completely silent about what would be the appropriate time limit given the other parameters -- not even an adjustable default level. I, for one, would like to have the game give me more guidance on what are appropriate time limits (which we could all then argue about ad nauseum in this forum) and also the ability to adjust flags and flag point parameters when starting a QB.

Some additional thoughts: CM randomly generated QB maps are unrealistically wide and shallow (a point that JasonC has made quite effectively in other threads). That makes things more difficult for the defense. Hence, a tight time frame may make sense as a "balancing" element in that context, since the defense can employ delaying tactics to get a "victory" even when the defense is really losing. In scenarios and operations, however, I'm bothered by the possibility that designers are using short time frames to balance things. If so, then when I extend those timelines I feel a little like it's "cheating". It's different if designers are only doing that in order to get people to play the scenarios in the first place. But in reality, I don't know what the designers are thinking.

This is a question that has bothered me many times, but I don't know what is the best approach. I have used the editor to lengthen the time limits on some scenarios and operations, but I always wonder if that means I've "unbalanced" the scenario in my favor. On the other hand, it seems to me that at the scale of CM a real battle would go on as long as the two sides had sufficient ammo and morale. Even in CM a game will end when one or both sides have lost sufficient morale, or have gotten low on ammo (how low varying by type of battle: probe vs attack, etc.). For that reason, you could set a scenario for 70 turns for example, but it likely will end before that. So why have a time limit at all? And if there is a good reason, why not make the limit fairly generous? Reasons for having a time limit seem to be: 1. Force the players to move to combat in some reasonably expeditious way (which of course is not necessary if you are playing the AI). 2. "Balance" the scenario by giving the defense the ability to win with delaying tactics (which I think is often the reason, but there are better ways to achieve that balance). 3. Getting players to actually play the scenario, since one that looked like it might take a long time to play might not seem desirable. 4. Perhaps to simulate an historical battle in which some objective needed to be gained before reinforcements arrived or some such thing. However, when the time limits are tight, there is limited ability to react to information gained during the battle -- for example, to redeploy after you suddenly see all that wire just where you planned to attack. That is my biggest complaint, but I also have doubts that it's valid to give a victory to the defense for holding the line for 20 minutes, when the attacker still has plenty of ammo and resources at hand (again, unless it's an historical battle which dictates this).

There's something that I've been wanting to ask JasonC many times in the past, and given the heading of this thread, now seems like a good time. Jason, it seems that you make a practice of reorganizing your companies so that, for example, a company commander may end up leading several squads, while a platoon leader ends up delegated to leading heavy weapons or some such thing. It is clear why you do this in CM terms, but did this happen much IRL. I have to believe that doing this IRL would be disruptive to the integrity of the chain of command and indirectly to morale. Of course, CM has simply punted on the business of giving the company (or battalion) commander a meaningful impact on the performance of the overall unit, unless you use him in the way you do. So that might be a rationale for your practice even in the context of a sim. It would be very educational, at least for me though, to know when the tactics you are recommending reflect those the combatants actually used (subject of course to the abstractions built into CM), or not as the case may be.

Ahhhhh ... so it turns out you were only interested in hearing from people who beat it the first time I think someone would have to come equipped with ESP to do that. If like me you assume the description of the battle as an 800 point "German probe" is reasonably accurate, it comes as quite a shock to discover trenches, a bunker, foxholes, minefields, etc. (I know there's a reference to "strongholds" in the briefing, but it's pretty ambiguous). So, once you figure out it's really an assault, you try it again. At some point, perhaps in the second attempt, you discover that the Russians have a force pretty comparable in size to your own, not counting the fortifications In fact, you're the one with 800 points. The Russians have a lot more than that. Oops. Under those circumstances, I'm willing to give myself a mulligan or two. Not that I beat it the third or fourth time either Anyway, I now get at least a major victory every time, just like playing the AI in any other scenario (and for largely the same reasons). It doesn't really require knowing the "precise" locations of everything, although I do take advantage of the fact that I know in advance about the trenches with MGs and Infantry, that there's a bunker next to the church, and a gun in the woods. But hey, I'm commanding a veteran recon force! That has to count for something

AFAIK, you can get an auto ceasefire from either loss of Global morale or from getting low on ammo. The difference is that the threshold for when ammo gets too low varies by type of battle: i.e., for a meeting engagement the auto ceasefire kicks in when you still have a fair amount of ammo left, whereas in an assault, your troops will fight until they run out of ammo. This particular scenario is quirky because the German pretty much has to use up all his ammo to break the Russian defense. Also, I've found that the Russians tend to rush off the map, since the map edge is so close - ergo, rapid loss of Global morale.

Tanks can do recon work, but in force, and you may as well attack rather than pinch a tank platoon here or there into a risky situation just for intel. Attack - and if you run into trouble, back up. I think what everyone, especially me, is trying to avoid is the *shootout at the OK corral* phenomenon (that is, the tanks move and guns start blazing away in all directions from both sides). I guess I need to study Jason's drill more to better understand how he minimizes the likelihood of that happening. Or is *backing up* in fact the specific answer to that situation?

I have only played against the default setting. That's both good and bad. On the one hand, the default setting is formidable. On the other hand, once you played it a couple of times, you know how to organize the attack, which may or may not be *fair*. As an interesting side note: I no longer run out of time when I play this scenario now. What happens is that I get an automatic ceasefire. This puzzled me for awhile, until I figured out that this is happening because the Russian has run out of the Global morale, while I've gotten somewhat low on ammo. For some reason, Andreas set the parameters for this battle as a *Meeting Engagement* which means that you don't have to get down to your last bullet for CM to consider you low on ammo.

This is, I think, close in spirit to what Jason was saying from the beginning, at least as I read his early posts. He can speak for himself, certainly, so this is just my way of interpreting his advice. IMO, Jason was making the observation that players in his campaign were ignoring or under-utilizing an important force multiplier, given the terrain and defensive posture: namely, their armor. He either knew or surmised that this was due to fear of AT weapons, and that the players were unnecessarily chewing up infantry forces in order to avoid putting their armor at any risk. I took it that his view was this was bad thinking, both in CM terms as well as in reference that what RL commanders would do in that situation. Just as he as previously provided us CM trainees with excellent advice on how to attack with infantry across open ground (*eating ammo*, etc.), which I've personally found to be very helpful, he's now also given us some useful advice (i.e., a *Drill*) on how to use armor in this sort of terrain/defense situation, even when there may be AT weapons to deal with. There has been a lot of very interesting material in this thread, but I for one would like to see more comment or thoughts specific to Jason's advice about how to bring up armor in this terrain/defense situation. In particular, I'm still not clear on the best approach to recon, so that you know as soon as possible just what you are facing in the way of AT assets (both type and number). I don't think that armor has the ability to *eat ammo* the way that infantry does (or am I wrong about that?). Or perhaps, Jason is saying that it's OK to use your main AFVs to recon for this (namely to get shot at) at the same time they are doing recon/attacking the trenches.

Actually Andreas, once you figure out that the scenario is really an assault, not a *probe*, and that the attacker is at a points disadvantage, it provides one of the more challenging tactical problems. It's a very good learning experience. In particular, you really have to be very smart about using and allocating the different types of firepower, about conserving ammo, and about segmenting the defense into bite-size pieces. Even having those skills, though, I think you'd need more time (like maybe 30 turns) if you were playing it cold, so you had time to redeploy once you learned more about what you were facing.

I also got interested recently in retrying this scenario again, along with a few others that had given me trouble in the past (like the Omars operation in CMAK). This time I realized there was a way to play it that almost made it certain of getting a major or total victory, depending on when the clock ran out. The tactic does rely on knowing some significant things about the defensive setup, of course, and the German has to be very efficient and frugul with firepower and ammo. It also relies on taking advantage of a quirk in the AI's behavior (yes, another Stupid AI Trick). Finally, you need a reasonable amount of luck - but that goes along with having such a tight timeframe. It appears that we're not too concerned about spoilers in this thread, so I won't worry about it either. The approach I take is to divide my forces into three groups. The first group is a firebase consisting of the ACs, the HT, the IG, the HMGs, the ATR, the two mortars, and the Section Leader to provide command and to spot for the mortars. The job of the firebase is to clear the trenches that are closest to the far right end of the setup zone, using direct fire (not assault by anyone). Their job is also to shoot up any Russians trying to reoccupy those trenches, and to move up and provide supporting fire once you occupy those trenches with your Recon platoons. (The ATR is there to take out the MG bunker when it shows itself, with help as needed from one of the ACs. The prime job of the mortars is to take out the 45mm ATG when it shows itself).. The second group are the Recon platoons. Their job is to occupy the trenches as soon as possible (hopefully starting around turn 7-8), with a full or nearly full load of ammo and minimal losses (smoke from the IG can help cover the advance into the trenches). In short, the Recon platoons don't shoot into the trenches (and thereby use up what little ammo they have). They shoot out of the trenches at the Russians trying to recapture that position. Which is what the AI will try to do, and thereby walks into a trap. The AI will send forces at your Recon platoons from elsewhere along the trench line. You need to hold them off with the help of supporting fire from your firebase units. The AI will also (and this is the Stupid AI Trick) attack the trenches using the units that started in foxholes in the woods north of the cemetary. As soon as the AI has committed these units (the ones from those woods) to the counterattack, you come up behind them with your third group - the pioneers - who have been hiding in the wheat field in the upper right corner of the map. Late in the game (maybe around turn 14-15), they advance across the wheat field toward those vacant foxholes. The Russians trying to retake the trenches get caught in the pinchers between the Recon platoons and the pioneers. Within a relatively short time you can totally destroy the whole northern half of the Russian force. At that point, it becomes a relatively simple matter of safely taking out the 82mm mortars (which have the ability to kill an AC, by the way, so you need to watch out for them), and assaulting the church. After figuring this approach out, the first time I tried it I got a Total Victory in 25 turns. I was even able to safely walk up the flamethrowers who got to do some damage to Russians trying to retake the church. I've since gotten more effficient in using the available time and keeping German casualties down. I don't think you can win this scenario against a human as it stands, though. It might be possible if you changed some aspects of the scenario - in particular allowing setup anywhere on the eastern half of the map, and adding more time.

Hi, Karch: On your question about if OSX would leave your gaming version of OS9 alone: if you are going to use Conflict Catcher, I would recommend that you only have one version of OS9 installed. I think the reason that people often recommend having two versions is because of the limitations of Extensions Manager. Also, CM players worry about the fact that OSX will install/activate Classic Rave whenever it opens OS9 as classic. However, none of that is a problem if you set up Conflict Catcher correctly. CC will activate Classic Rave when OS9 is being used as Classic, and not activate it when you are simply booting OS9 itself.

Didn't mean to overlook the prior reference to Conflict Catcher. It's just that there's a widespread perception that you need to have two version of OS9 on your hard disk and that (in part because of this) you need to partition your hard disk. This feature in CC is tailor made for just the type of situation that you have with CM. I also want to fix in error in my previous post. You want to set up CC so that Classic Rave is included when OS9 is being used from within OSX, and keep it from activating when you are booting OS9. My previous post seemed to indicate that it was the other way around. Also you can use CC to have a very lean version of OS9 open when it is being used as Classic -- that saves time when Classic is being opened and also overhead.

There is a way to do all this which is simpler than what has been suggested so far, and doesn't require partitioning your hard disk (though partitioning has some advantages). It does require purchasing the latest version of Conflict Catcher. CC has a very useful feature, which detects whether or not you are trying to open OS9 from within OSX (i.e., Classic) or trying to boot OS9 separately. All you have to do is have CC activate a full set of extensions (including Classic Rave) when you are booting OS9. You can have it activate a reduced set of extensions when OSX is starting OS9 as Classic. You still have to go through a reboot to OS9 when you want to play CM, and then reboot back to OSX for other things, but you don't have to reboot twice or have two versions of OS9 on your hard drive. Also, be aware that the booting process when you start Classic can take a few seconds longer for CC to do its job. But it works very well for me. Cheers, Steve (Mac fanatic since '84)

Yes, I recall now seeing other threads where it's been pointed out that the graphic files are generally based on 16-bit color. And you are correct that I don't see any handicap to viewing the game in 16-bit (especially with the new Radeon board). That's why the question is more a puzzle than a problem -- why does the game force it back to 16-bit. I'm under the impression that doesn't happen for everyone. I'm a wrong about that?

I've been playing CM for about a year. I have a biege G3, upgraded recently with a G3 500Mhz CPU and a Radeon PCI graphics board (from a Rage II 8MB board). The puzzle is that I've never, under any configuration, been able to get 32-bit color. As soon as CM launches, it swtiches to 16-bit color. It's doesn't matter what resolution I set it for, or what mods (or non-mods) I am using or anything else related to the game (I've trashed the Prefs files, reset PRAM, yadda yadda). I'm assuming that something about my base system configuration causes CM to force this, but I can't figure out what it might be (unless it's the fact that the biege G3 is limited to 33Mhz PCI bus speed). Anybody (especially anyone with a biege GS) have any ideas or possible explanation? Any way to force CM to leave the game in 32-bit color?

Hi again: The key to making this system work is keeping track of the ID numbers (or the BMP numbers if you prefer). You may not have two resources (BMPs) with the same number in the thirteen Graphic files. Therefore, you may not have a Panther G in Graphic 2 and a Panther G in Graphic 5. (Actually you can, but the game will pick the first one it finds, which may not be want you want -- and besides it just uses up file space). You can, of course, have a summer Panther and a winter Panther because the ID numbers are different (the winter ones have the extra "1" in front). And, again, it doesn't matter in the least in what Graphic file you put any of the BMPs -- you could even have half of the Panther in one Graphic file and half in another if you wanted. However, as I pointed out before, that would make it much more complicated for you to keep track of. It would be nice if the Mod Manager programs could keep track of this for you. However, the program would have to do several things: (1) be able to search through all of the Graphic files to find where the existing BMPs are, to be replaced by the new mod; (2) check to see if the mod installation would cause a file size to exceed 15.9Mb (which would be handy); (3) allow you to install the mod into a different Graphic file, while deleting the same old BMPs from whereever they are. Don't know if all that is possible. In any event, you can assume that the 13 Graphic files collectively represent about 200Mb of space (just broken into 16Mb containers). It is more than enough space for all of the Hi-Rez and winter BMPs you want -- at least until the modders start producing more ultra Hi-Rez mods. Hope all that is clear. And, by the way, I do use Stuffit to UnZip the mods. Maybe there is a setting in Stuffit that I should be investigating. Anyone know?

Hi. I've been a lurker here for some time, but I decided to jump in to help you out on this issue -- it's one that keeps coming up on these Boards. I have had no problem with placing the resource IDs (the PICT files or BMPs as they are called on the PCs) in any graphic file that I choose. The game finds them anyway as long as they have the correct ID number. It's possible that it takes a little longer for a scenario to load, but not so I've noticed. There are couple of things you need to know, however, in order to make this work if you download a lot of Hi-Rez mods (which is what I have done). There are some extra steps involved, and also some "paperwork." First, moving resources (I will call them BMPs from now on) from one Graphic file to another: you do that using ResEdit. It's simply a cut-and-paste operation. You open the two graphic files in ResEdit, select the BMPs you want to move, cut and paste them in the other graphic file. There is no restriction on doing that as long as you don't exceed the 16M limit of one of the graphic files ( you want to avoid doing that -- strange things start to happen if you hit the limit) I found, however, that once I started doing much of this, I lost track of where I had put certain BMPs. That is a problem if I wanted to update something that I had moved. So I created an Excel spreadsheet listing all of the BMPs in the game, where they were "supposed to be" and where they were after I moved them if I moved them. I also, by the way, use the spreadsheet to keep track of what mods I have installed (by author usually) which is kind of handy. Now when I download a new mod, I check my spreadheets to see where those BMPs are located ( i.e., whether I've moved them somewhere and if so, where). If, for example, its a mod of an AFV that is originally in Graphic 5 and I've moved it to Graphic 2, I do the following: temporarily rename Graphic 5 to 5a, and rename Graphic 2 to Graphic 5. Then I use one of the Mod managers to install the new mod. Then I rename the Graphic files back to what they were before. It's a couple of extra steps, but it works just fine. Then I update the info in my spreadsheet. Another key: Before I install some mods, particularly if they are Hi-Rez replacements for Low-Rez, or a winter vehicle that I didn't have before, I also check the file sizes of the Graphic files involved to make sure I have enough room -- again, because you don't want to exceed the Graphic file size limit while installing a mod. If I have any doubts, I simply move some BMPs from one Graphic file to another before installing the new mod. Another point: I"ve found it simpler to move and organize the BMPs by number rather than by what the BMPs were displaying. For example, I don't do as others have done: that is, have Allied vehicles in one Graphic file and Axis in another. The game engine doesn't care. I simply try to keep the ID numbers in sequence as much as possible. It keeps the paperwork much simpler. However, it's important not to move half a vehicle from one Graphic file to another. That would make future modding of that vehicle very complicated. I think I got my original BMP listing, that I used to create my spreadsheet, from the Combat MIssions website. I also keep track of the Sound resources (and the mods I used) in the same way, even though there isn't a file size problem with those. I hope this is helpful to all you fellow Mac users. In return, I wonder if any of you can explain a problem I've been having with mods. When I download a new mod and UnZip the file, I get a bunch of files that neither of the mod managers can recognize right away. Instead, I have to use Graphic Converter to "convert" to files to BMP files. The odd thing is that Graphic Converter recognizes the original files as BMP files to begin with. Is it possible that I should be doing something different when I UnZip the files to avoid this extra step? Is it something that causes my Mac to recognize them as BMP files?