RockinHarry

Already did a net search dor these drivers, but where do you find "old" drivers nowadays? :eek: I still have an old 3dFX card. Might try that just for the purpose of making some maps...and then change back to my NVidia card. We´ll see. :eek:

Anybody out there who can create 2x2km height maps (or greater) for me in Mapping Mission? :eek: I´m still unable to create larger maps.

Scenario designers should take that into consideration (some do) and IMO should at least offer am alternative scenario version that has the starting forces well sorted, instead of having them put into place where the scenario designer intended! (BFC should consider that option for next game versions too and avoid the long string at map edge, providing a more useful initial setup) This way you get a much faster overview about your available forces and have them out of the way for your own terrain evaluations and plans. If the scenario maker intends or demands a particular starting setup, then it would help to provide a command map that shows you the force setup in better overview (Terrain+Contours+Forces as military Icons+boundary lines+other clues you can think of). A well made briefing oftentimes does the same purpose if you logically structure it and avoid putting too much (unecessary) info into it. IE I find it of little use if a scenario maker tells you in detail, what a particular infantry Cpy. all includes! It would be sufficient to tell the infantry Cpy. is available (maybe with a (+) or ( - ), telling you that it´s either reinforced or lacking a detached component) and what its attack/defend/move sector would be. Example (german designation, assuming higher echelon formation would be infantry regiment 12): 1./ JR12 in Village X (1st company of 12th infantry regiment) 2./ JR12 in woods X 3. (-)/ JR12 in reserve at location X. (3rd company of ... less one Plt.) ect. instead of: 1 Infantry company: 3x Infantry Plt. 1XHMG squad 1 FO ect. and not telling where it is currently located on the map. That is the most frequently encountered situation when starting a scenario and this in fact differs little from starting a QB. At last you still have to sort out all available forces on the map and waste lots of time while doing so. I imagine this to be a situation similar to where a commander is freshly sent from the "Etappe" (base?), without that he has any chance to contact his staff members where he usually would be informed about the most important things concerning the unit he has just taken over. So a halfway "useful" briefing should mention in the "Own forces:" section only about the maneuvre forces (companies in a Btl. sized game usually) and their general locations on the map (see example further above). In "historical" scenarios this shouldn´t be much of a problem since there are usually many known landmarks/terrain features that can be used for the purpose. In a "Wilderness" like scenario one can make use of "christening" particular map/terrain parts. Example: "Horse shoe wood" for an abviously horse shoe like shaped wood. Or use code names if terrain features lack distinct shapes (irregularly shaped woods that remind you of nothing). Examples: "Alpha-, Beta-, Paul, ..." or more fanciful stuff. Unit positions now can be designated relative to these known land marks like... 1./ JR12 in sector northwards of "Heinrich-Woods". 2./ JR12 in sector between 1./IR12 and Hill 65 (or point 65). 3. (-)/ JR12 on backslope of Hill 65. ect. If you know a standard full strength infantry Cpy. in defense would be assumed to hold a sector about 200-400m wide at average (depends upon mission and defense sector of superior force command), you could already roughly imagine from the briefing how your forces are positioned on the map. If you leave the units at these locations is another questions, but at least you´ll find them a lil more quickly. Off course newbies would probably have a harder time at first (but maybe not) if they don´t know about compositions of standard units and designations yet. Not to forget...matter of preference. Hollywood style or something more educational is both in order. One can go to the extremes in both ways. Map text (designating unit positions or sectors) could be used as well for play vs. the AI, but obviously makes little sense for any play vs a human opponent (spoiler!). That would be another suggestion for CM2x: Store map text for each player side in the file seperately! (...+ possibility to add map text during game play and not just in the editor!)

Official confirmation from german native speaker. "Watch out! Stay down." would be the most appropiate translation. "Attention!" as said is normally used as order to demand attention (to wait for a command) or salute the CO ect. "Achtung!" in the above case (and in the context with "Unten bleiben") means pointing your comrades to a possible danger (approaching enemy, incoming fire ect.) Interestingly enough, I checked my german training regulations and found the "official" command for the mentioned case would rather be "Volle Deckung" which means "(take) full cover"! Another alternative would be "Hinlegen!" (lay down). Officially there is no "Unten bleiben!" (Stay down) in german squad command language as it is assumed that after "Hinlegen!" and "Volle Deckung!" the german Landser would "Stay down" anyway, UNLESS given another command to do an action like "Stellung! Feuer frei" (prepare for shooting and engage designated target) or any move command. However the game has alternative files for the sound clues and "Achtung! Unten bleiben!" alternates with above mentioned "Volle Deckung!" anyway. To cease fire a "Stopfen!" command ( file 00031400.wav) is given, followed by a "Volle Deckung!" (file 00031707.wav) (see above) normally. That´s just a few examples out of "Heeresdruckvorschrift 130/2a" (the basic training regulation/manual for the german infantryman). Now the main point in Combat mission is that the various sound files are rather meant as game clue, to tell you about what the unit is doing at the moment (or what it intends to do), as well as about unit state changes! So while the above "Achtung! Unten bleiben! command did not exist in reality, it is rather meant to tell you that the state of the unit just changed to the worse. Same goes for most of the other Hollywood style stuff like "Die bringen uns alle um!" (they kill us all), when a unit is panicking ect. The alternative sound stuff is just to provide variety and to provide some more human touches. One really should learn all these game clues, which isn´t all that difficult since every audio clue in the game has its counterpart in the other nations files. "Achtung! Unten bleiben!" starts with file 00032000.wav and the alternatives end with 00032011.wav. For italians the same files would be 00062000.wav to 00062005.wav For russkies files 00082000.wav to 00082007.wav Though I don´t understand russian language, I appear to "Hear" something like "Watch out" and "Take cover" or something. I checked my original german landser dictionary (german-russian) and found "Hinlegen!" (take cover/lay down) to be"lashissj" German language files 00032900.wav to 00032909.wav all include demands the enemy to surrender (Waffen fallen lassen=lay arms down, Hände hoch=hands up, ect.) If you check the corresponding russian language files (00082900.wav to 00082908.wav) you´ll find the infamous (to germans) "ruki w_wjärch". Some technical issue with various speech sound files is that there´s many that have more of that "indoor" sound touch, caused by not using a correct recording environment (damping of rooms!) during speech recording. Apparently the different speakers recorded in different environments. Most files are ok though and with full sound=on in the game, you probably won´t notice the indoor effects at all.

Anybody in Euro Land to burn the stuff on CD and send to me? I can´t down- or upload stuff larger than 2-3 MB here in internet cafe. For the same reason I can not publish my CMAK NWE Mods which I would offer to include with CMETO. This unpleasant situation already lasts for two years now.

Doh! I did not think of the obvious! ...just checking the CD that came packaged with my graphics card. Installed that again (version 28.32), but the problem remained. As soon as I try to transfer larger maps greater than 1x1km, the map gets corrupted in CMBB and MM simply hangs. Setting export speed (slower or faster) to different vlaues does not matter either Heeeelp! :eek:

Hello, something I did not figure from my sources, is about distance between the forward trench lines on static type WW2 frontlines (Leningrad/Volchov area 42-43 ect.). Not regarding listening posts, standing patrols ect. I would simply assume that the closest possible distance would be the minimum security range of friendly artillery, which would be at least about 100-200 for smaller calibers and 200-400 for the big stuff! Terrain plays another role off course and flat open terrain surely requires the frontlines to be a bit more seperated, than close and broken terrain with lots of cover terrain types (woods in particular). Another issue could be importance of a particular section of the frontline and whether it´s contested or not. Any of you have some examples from your sources?

Thank you very much Jim! File received.

Can´t tell what the internal 3D format data is. Need to check the docs of the application again. However, it lets me see digital maps in various formats including "contour only" and that stuff. Here´s a link to the german website selling the program (sorry, german only): http://www.lverma.nrw.de/produkte/topographische_karten/cd_rom/top50_v4/Top50_v4.htm I use 5m gradients since my map is very hilly and height difference is close to 100m between lowest and highest map point, so 5m gives me just what I need. I have to edit the final contour map so the "CM 0-19" height mode works smoothly (all values go from RGB 0,0,0 to RGB 19,19,19). You can see the final scenario soon. I´m currently doing the usual test works, balancing ect.

Hm..it wasn´t on the CDV CD I have!? :confused: Can you email it to me please?

Thanks! Now to the categories wth the roman numbers? :confused:

I successfully translated a 1x1km height map (just the contours, no terrain) in Mapping Mission and send the stuff over to CMBB. However, larger maps don´t work and it appears to be the known NVidia drivers problem (me is using a NVidia GeForce4 MX 440 card with driver version 40.72). Would an older driver version for my graphics card enable me to create at least 2x2km maps (or larger)? :confused: Problem: Where to get an old driver? Just checked the web without success. Finally converting the CMBB map to CMAK with "Map Converter 1.29" went smoothly. For the future that means I´ll produce some CMAK (NWE) scenarios with highly realistic terrain data, made from my digital topo maps. Btw, I found that the "CM level mode: 0-19" in Options menu of Mapping Mission works best for my purposes. Also I´ve not yet worked with the "Load terrain from bitmap file" (beside "...elevations from bitmap file"), but will do for my next map projects in sequence. Conclusion so far: Need a map made in Mapping Mission to be available in CMAK too, use Map Converter. Big thanks to Mr.Tankersley and also the creator of Map Converter!

I successfully translated a 1x1km height map (just the contours, no terrain) in Mapping Mission and send the stuff over to CMBB. However, larger maps don´t work and it appears to be the known NVidia drivers problem (me is using a NVidia GeForce4 MX 440 card with driver version 40.72). Would an older driver version for my graphics card enable me to create at least 2x2km maps (or larger)? Finally converting the CMBB map to CMAK with "Map Converter 1.29" went smoothly. For the future that means I´ll produce some CMAK (NWE) scenarios with highly realistic terrain data, made from my digital topo maps. Btw, I found that the "CM level mode: 0-19" in Options menu of Mapping Mission works best for my purposes. Also I´ve not yet worked with the "Load terrain from bitmap file" (beside "...elevations from bitmap file"), but will do for my next map projects in sequence. Conclusion so far: Need a map made in Mapping Mission to be available in CMAK too, use Map Converter. Big thanks to Mr.Tankersley and also the creator of Map Converter!

I appeared to have missed this one! Is that still available for downlaod somewhere? ..or can any of my PBEM buddies send it to my email? Would like to give this an analysis.

When reading german Divisional ect. histories, oftentimes you can read about "weekly reports" about unit strengths to superior command (corps, army, AG or OKW). Usually the forces/troops are categorized and assigned roman figures like "I", "II",...ect. What do these categories mean in detail? In example a Division of category "IV" is in what particular shape and why does "IV" apply? So far I know that units are roughly classified as "angriffsfähig/capable to attack", "verteidigungsfähig/capable to defend", "beschränkt verteidigungsfähig/ limited capability to defend",..ect. and thus are assigned to the various categories. At smaller scale (Rgt., Btl.) terms are used like "stark/strong", "durchschnittlich/average", "schwach/weak", "abgekämpft/exhausted", "zersprengt/shattered" ect. When are these terms used and when does a unit apply to these small scale categories? Do you know about certain regulations (Merkblatt, Verordnung, Dienstvorschrift, ect.) that set and explain the various categories, as well as giving a good overview? Thanks in advance

Double post - please delete [ November 23, 2005, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: RockinHarry ]

Well it was known the Germans always thought the landings would most likely come at Pas de Calais..Thus the strong fortifications in that area... example The Bunkers at Waldam and then The Sie Kommen Bunker... so it was a nice fit with the 'What If' concept... also the movie 'The Longest Day' which I have been watchin since I was a kid probably influenced me somehow... I hope you enjoy playing it... That is all... -Fredrocker </font>

The friendly trenches actually wouldn´t be really necessary anymore if the player just has a look at the included (in the ZIP= file) TBP No3 Command Map.gif and TBP No3 Sketch Command Map.gif files. :eek: These pics give all necessary info that would be actually available to a Commander given that particular combat task. For pinpointing accurately recconed enemy positions, adding some more simple map text would supplement the command maps. Something like "T" for AT guns, (or alternatively "Y") ".I." for machine guns, (or alternatively "%") "+" for mine fields "<>" for tanks (or alternatively "/_/") "[_]" for infantry ect. Fortunately disturbing map text can be switched off in the game. I found it to be useful to combine both maps in Paintshop Pro, so the sketch layer can be switched on/off while placed on top. Needed to convert the command map to 24 Bit color and then simply copy-pasted the 256 color sketch map on top "as new layer". I´m now using that one for my play vs. he AI. There´s a similar training situation in my original german tank training manual "Panzerkampfwagenbuch" from 1941. I would not be surprised if the example in the Nafziger book would have originate from it. What is the "fortification bug"? Going to make a forum search now... :confused:

It´s a good idea to make yourself aqquainted with the various gun sounds in the game! If you see a Tiger?, but "hear" a 75mm (instead of 88mm) then YOU really know what it is! A 75mm has a shorter and sharper sound, while an 88 a more volumous one. Same goes other way. A Pz-II? shooting with a heavy gun single shot sound surely is not a Pz-II! Also check rate of fire of an enemy gun! It tells you about crew quality as well. An experienced player knowing to distinguish gun sounds surely can´t be fooled much by wrong visiual sightings of his troops. Sometimes it´s a good idea not to use the gun if the vehicle MG does the purpose as well. Oh..and counts for small/light weapons as well. Generally the game sound clues are of great importance if you understand the language. :eek:

Since I´ve started to collect those german tactical handbooks and field regulations early this year, I´m now more and more employing those various combat principles for the various combat styles (attack, defend, reccon, terrain evaluation ect.) in my games. This now goes the way like, making a command map first (CM map screenshot + contour map), then doing the whole terrain evaluation process with great care, deciding for the "Schwerpunkt" (point of main effort), distributing troops according to the Schwerpunkt, assigning support weapons, trying to plan ahead with regard to when to reach objectives (including intermediate objectives) for the various combat groups and deciding for particular reccon measures (if game/scenario is long enough) as well as reserves. All that stuff is entered on my command map on various layers and then I try to let the battle unfold as far as the enemy lets me do. On dense maps I take great care on recconing those map spots ideally suited for support weapons. That could mostly be those battles where I have yet to fight for the final jump off point (Bereitstellung) and where possible fields of fire are yet to be found. That would be the task for the support weapon HQ units. All in all the set up phase could take me 30 to 60 minutes (incl. making the command map) and I rarely take the unit set up as given by the scenario maker. I usually redeploy units in company sized patterned groups. Same goes for support weapons, before I reattach them to any possible battle group. Once all plans and evaluations are finished (see above), I put all units to their final starting positions and hit "Go". I would say the more time and care is invested in the setup phase, the quicker you can play the rest of the game! Winning the game is not guaranteed though.

What would be a realistic number of TRP´s for the russkies (Btl.-Rgtl. force size in defence)? :confused:

The Ortona battle was a good example about what you can do with damaging buildings in an urban fight. :eek: Unfortunately "mouse holing" ain´t modeled in the game, but you can try Dorosh´s "Little Stalingrad". Don´t know where it´s currently available for download. :confused:

Guderian wrote a book (finished by Oskar Munzel after Guderians death in 1954) named "Panzer Marsch!". Don´t know whether this had ever been translated and published in english (or other) language since, but it fits Combat Mission scale just right! Have mine from ebay and beside Jentz Panzertruppen is the best "Tank combat tactics" stuff I have! :cool: Just arrived from online purchase: "Panzerkampfwagenbuch" (armored fighting vehicle book), an original german tank training manual from 1941 that deals mainly with single tank and tank platoon tactics and general combat tactics. Experiences from Poland and France campaign are already assimilated into this precious little book (93 pages). Great stuff! :cool: During the late 30ies Rommel wrote a little training book named "Aufgaben für Zug und Kompanie" (exercises for platoon and company), but that deals with infantry stuff only. Still looking for that one. Free online stuff that is of good use to improve ones CM skills, would be "Handbook on german forces TM 30-410" available here (downlaod all 3): http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm That ebook contains lots of stuff translated from original german tactics books and field regulations (some that I owe in original). Also to recommend, the "Combat Lessons Pamphlets" from same website, this time from US army point of view. The great thing about the Combat Mission game is that the real world tactics explained in those books really work most of the time (fire and movement, proper use of terrain, proper employment of support weapons ect.) Too bad the AI knows little about all that.

Expenditure reports in Fritz Hahn´s book "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945" (weapons and secret weapons of the german army...) indicate that 299.300 "Gewehrpanzergranaten" (rifle AT grenades) were expended in 1942. That should include possibly the mentioned PPG40, the small "30" and the "Grosse" altogether. In 1943 about 2.934.700 rifle AT grenades were expended. (and 5.354.200 of the HE version) In 1944 about 6.195.900 rifle AT grenades were expended. (and 9.526.400 of the HE version) In 1945 yet 629.500 rifle grenades were expended. (and 1.495.600 of the HE version) Assuming that "expenditure" includes everything from "shot at enemy", "captured by enemy", "thrown away while retreating" ect., the used numbers alone tell me the rifle AT thingies were good for something at last! From 1943 onwards the most common target surely was the T-34 and Sherman tank and the used rifle AT grenade surely was the most common "Grosse" (Large) version that penetrates 70-80mm vertical armor. Would be interesting to know how many tanks fell prey to the german RG´s at last! :eek: Does Combat Mission actually models single fire RG´s (unlike hand grenades)? If yes then the allocated ammo in CM appears to be a little low. Assuming a single soldier per squad to operate the cup launcher, then he actually had about 30 pieces (2 bags containing 15) to carry according to this website: http://www.inert-ord.net/ger03a/gerrg2/becher/index.html

Very good info indeed. I assume that most tank combat in woods still took place along the mentioned rides and fire breaks and that crashing straight through was the rare exception and Combat Mission models just that to simplify things. Surely would be interesting to see a game model that takes the above mentioned issues of "pushing" and possible resulting tank damage into consideration. As mentioned there would be varied ways of tank damage, including tracks, gun, turret traverse...tank commanders head ..and not to forget..simple bogging. I know the Reichswald and Hochwald (Xanten) forests from personal inspection and seeing the tracks made from woodworkers tractors outside the fire breaks, it´s obvious the forest ground is very soft at most places. Can´t hardly imagine that a ~40 ton tank (Churchill) gets trough, even if the spacing between trees would theoretically allow this. The "Hochwald" gap was another of those tankers nightmares. :eek: