Le Tondu

I'm with you too Michael, but hey, he can certainly dream. Can't we? The general idea of CM is such a terrific idea that I am shocked that I haven't seen more of it. Matrix Games is doing a "we-go" version of "Empires in Arms/ Empires in Harm" and they should certainly be applauded for it. On their discussion board, their comments about COMBAT MISSION are filled only with praise.

I like it early too. 1792 to 1815. Is that early enough?

Well, I'm certain that this sort of thing wouldn't happen at all if BTS would only give us good power ups.

Yes, but not until the 15th level where you will find a power up that looks like a pair of ripe bing cherries inside the golden King Tiger with a death ray instead of a gun.

Thanks Moon. [ June 09, 2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

This is absolutely silly. Why should this ever be changed? It isn't something that is broken. The bonus, IMO represents the training this HQ has given his men. The men won't forget this important training just because the HQ is hiding. It also should represent the experience that the HQ and his men has recieved over time in regards to hiding. Keep the bonus.

That's it! There better be better power ups in 1.04 or I won't buy CMAK.

Power ups! We need better power ups! The ones in 1.03 were no better than the ones in 1.02.

If the patch is to be released simultaneously with the Euro's patch, I wonder where is the US version is? I bet that we see it soon. [ June 05, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

Gpig, Yes, I was aware of the camera adjusting that can be done. It won't let you pan around as you move with the view locked after you zoom in and it really isn't a tank commander's view. Another problem is having to do all of that every time that one wants to have this cool perspective. My idea is a locked view that follows the unit along as it goes just like the other settings. Select the unit and hit a hit is all that should be necessary. Rick

I've seen that this has been posted before, but never was there any answer. So, everyone grab your tin cup and start banging it against the bars. I think that it would be absolutely cool to have a locked view that is the tank commander's view. Riding behind is ok, but there really needs to be a locked tank commander's view. I think that it should be in addition to the views already established and not necessarily replace any.

Oh, that was so much better than the worn out cliche "It'll be out when it is done!" WOW! Thank you Madmatt. Hope is renewed!

I agree with you Ant. Yes, it would be nice to know how things are going.

How about having our QB force purchasing to be exactly the same as it is in the Scenario Design area of CM? Let us change the ammo or reduce the size of a tank platoon and face the consequences in points when we buy for a QB. This might alleviate the need to add Shadow 1st Hussar's idea to the QB parameter page.

I've seen this with CMBO for years as well. Hit shift-C to see what unit scale you are at. If it is above realistic, the base might be less visible. It has always been something strange, but I always ignored it. Too bad BFC has too. I am only guessing here, but I would bet dollars to donuts that this and a bunch of other stuff will be taken care of with the new engine when it is written. (It will be a real sad comment if they aren't taken care of.)

My dear colonel, It MAY something to do with the fact that Germans have never been known to count correctly. [ May 22, 2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

Nevermind. [ May 18, 2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

Apache, Go to DeanCo's site and find out: http://mapage.cybercable.fr/deanco/

That is to say the least. I sure wish that it would get fixed.

I understand the challenge aspect that PeterX illustrates in his #1 example, but I have seen things to be far more out of balance than that. Its just that it is really tough in a "Pure Armor" setting 1250 pt. QB when you have absolutely no AT weapons (just stinking flampanzers and SP artillery) against against a Russian opponent with AT weapons (tanks with turrets). The force selection really does need some minor tweaking, IMHO. I have seen SP artillery & flampanzer types be picked far too many times in Pure Armor QBs. I say all this because when I see "Pure Armor" for a QB, I think "Great! tanks vs. tanks. Cool!" But it seems to be not entirely that way. Afterall, this is supposed to be a game. Isn't it?

Well for some mysterious reason the 1.03 patch thread has reappeared! Well my title is still true. It is the sticky aspect of that thread that is surely missing. Don't say that I didn't look for it cause I did. Oh well, we can now go back to thinking that it will NEVER be released. [ April 28, 2003, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

I won't say what it was, but I believe that it had somefink to do with some numbers or some silly such. Could it be nearer than we think?

No problem. Thanks. It was just something that I never encountered before I installed version 1.03c. I just wanted to contribute. That's all. Yet, if that website can find my IP address, is it logical to believe that a future CM would? [ April 26, 2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

Subject: wrong TCP/IP address. Subsequent tests show that CMBB displays the same IP address as "172.16.1.10" each time I attempt to host a TCP/IP game. This happens even after I've turned off my computer for an hour or two.

One thing that I have noticed is that when I set up a TCP/IP game, CMBB gives me an incorrect IP address for my opponent to connect into. I just ended up waiting and waiting for him to connect. He even tried connecting to what CMBB gave me while still on the phone with me and it wouldn't connect. I got the correct IP address by connecting here: http://lawrencegoetz.com/programs/ipinfo/ When I supplied what that website gave me, it worked. I won't trust CMBB anymore. (For now.) I will say one thing and that is when I had a dial-up 56K connection the IP address given by CMBB was always correct. This was my first attempt with a TCP/IP game since I got DSL. I just noticed this about a half hour ago. I hope that it helps. [ April 26, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]