ColdSober

You can read a bit more about Armor Piercing Ammunition here

RA, I remember having similar problems when I first looked at the Beyond Overlord demo. In fact, I abandoned it and didn't return to the game until nine months later. As you're new to Combat Mission, the Beyond Overlord demo might actually be a better place to start: it's a lot more forgiving than the Barbarossa to Berlin one. The basic commands are fairly simple to master, once you have found them, but any explanation is likely to take a while. I'm not sure that anything exists for the absolute beginner, aside from the manual which comes with the full versions, but if you want to contact me off the forum (details in my profile) I'll do my best to help you out. These are great games. Don't lose nine months like I did!

You're quite right! The point of my original post was to make a distinction between minor irritants, like the odd spelling mistake, grammatical error, or typo, and some of the more serious blunders which could actually lead to confusion. I just couldn't resist responding to Bruno's question. By the way, I'm looking forward to the next installment of your own guide in PC4WAR, Pascal. Envoyez-moi un mél si vous êtes intéressé par un PBEM ou TCP/IP! (Trans: send me an e-mail if you're interested in a PBEM or TCP/IP game )

I've had this problem with on-board artillery, as well as with tanks, notably in the Cemetery Hill battle. It really can be very annoying. I'll have to experiment with a cover arc to see if that makes a difference.

The and is only necessary if the adjectives are used in the predicative position (after the verb) as in "This infantry is well rested, and well led." Note that in the predicative position, the hyphens disappear: they are only needed when the adjectives are used in attributive position (in front of the noun). The and is only essential in attributive position if the adjectives describe different parts of the same object, as in "a red and blue carpet" or "a glass and concrete building". You would not, for example, find it in the sentence, "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." My references are available on request, but I don't think you want to go there .

The verb "to best" meaning "defeat", or "overcome" does actually exist, though whether the author intended this or "beat" is hard to say. It seems a little poetic (archaic?) for a strategy guide, but it's not incorrect. It should, of course, be "well-rested, well-led infantry" None of these things, whilst annoying to someone who has been teaching English as a foreign language to degree level for the last seven years, would prevent me from buying the guide. Paragraphs and sentences in the wrong place, chapters or titles inversed, binding errors, and some of the other things pointed out here and elsewhere, however, will certainly discourage me from doing so any time soon. It's a shame, because I was seriously considering it up until now. For me, a strategy guide is supposed to take some of the frustration OUT of playing the game, not add to it.

Gustav, you don't lose a day to Combat Mission, you devote one to it.

I've downloaded two different versions of the CDV patch, and can assure you that, if installed properly, the "v1.01" does appear on the title screen. It even reminds me that I have the French language version of the game, despite the fact that the CDV patch is the same for all languages. Personally I didn't have to do anything with the exe. file with either patch. I don't pretend to understand the "whys" and "wherefores", I'm just thankful that CDV seem to have got something right, at least.

You're telling me that you could could climb out of a trench wearing full combat gear (including boots and a helmet) carrying a rifle, backpack, and ammunition, and then sprint up a 40° slope at top speed for half a minute without being tired? Not exhausted, not even tired? I'd like to see that.

True about the pics being slow to appear, even with DSL. I still haven't got through them all. I keep having them load in another window whilst I'm doing something else, then popping back to look at the latest awesome offering :eek:

I have the CDV version, with the cut-down paper manual, and have printed out some of the rest from the pdf file on the CD. It all seems to be there, though the choice of what goes on paper, and what goes on disc seems a little odd. For example, the two tutorials are in the pdf format, so you really HAVE to print them off if you want to follow them properly. The alternative of switching back and forth between pdf file and game is a nightmare, at least for me. As to whether or not you really need the manual if you have already played CMBO is a matter of opinion. Yes you can pick up a lot simply by trial and error, and by reading the posts here on the forum. The manual doesn't claim to be exhaustive, and I think Battlefront has already said on this forum that it's not meant to be a strategy guide. Some of it is worth reading once, and some of it is worth printing out and having to hand, at least while you become familiar with the new commands. Have you played the demo with any great success without a copy of the CMBB manual? If the answer is 'yes' then you don't have a problem. If the answer is 'no' then you should try it some (more). If you can't get the hang of it then you'll need to print off the pdf files, or tear the cover off the CDV manual and post it with your (nominal) fee to Battlefront who will send you a genuine US manual. (Quite handy if you want something to read whilst sitting on the bog, I find). The instructions for this are around here somewhere. The lack of a proper manual with the CDV version should NOT, in my opinion, prevent you from purchasing this truly excellent game.

Superb link! Some of the best photos I've seen so far of war on the Eastern Front. Thanks for sharing it with us.

The FIRST Warsaw Uprising doesn't even get a mention in the reference work I usually go by (Edited by John Keegan), so I'm pleased to see anything which makes me even a little less ignorant about it. As a matter of interest, the SECOND uprising, 1-3 August 1944, is described here as a battle fought by "42,500 Home Army troops, plus civilians and the Communist People's Army, with great unity, discipline and enthusiasm" winning "two-thirds of the city in twenty hours on 1 August" before the German counter-attack led by SS Commander Bach-Zelewski, " a specialist in partisan uprisings". The Germans, reinforced by the Goering Panzer Division are said to have lost 10,000 killed, 7000 missing and 9000 wounded, against 15,OOO killed on the Polish side, during the fighting in and around Warsaw. After the armistice signed in October, the Home Army, but significantly "not the People's Army" "were given combatant status (and, therefore, normal POW treatment) and the principle of collective responsibility was not to be applied to civilians." What happened to caputured members of the People's Army is left to our imaginations, and no doubt can be seen as an addition to the undeniable horrors perpetrated on the Polish people in the Warsaw area. However, nothing I've read so far about the two UPRISINGS gives me cause to think that they should be avoided as potential subject matter for a CM scenario. What happened to the Jews in the Warsaw GHETTO is a different matter entirely. I believe that this distinction should be made very clear. We are talking about the difference between armed uprisings (weapons having been airdropped to the partisans), and the massacre of civilians. Without actually seeing this scenario, I can't be sure exactly what is being focused on. For this reason alone I think the scenario should be made available to the public. What surprises me now is that, considering the size of the forces involved in the two UPRISINGS, Polish partisans are not represented in CM. Does BFC have an explanation they'd care to put forward? Just my two eurocentimes' worth.

Are you playing with Extreme Fog of War? Lots of people have commented on 'Borg' spotting on this forum. (If one unit spots an enemy, all the units on that side immediately know about it). You're right, it's not realistic, but you'll have to put up with it until the game engine rewrite. EFOW reduces the amount of info given away about a unit when it's spotted.

That's the "my last graphics card was a Voodoo 3" grass mod

It's not just trees that are abstractions, either. Don't trust ANYTHING you see on the screen without checking LOS. The following happened to me in a game recently. IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII...[ t ] IbuildingII...[ a ].............North IIIIIIIIIIIII...[ n ]...............^ IIIIIIIIIIIII...[ k ]....West <.....> East .............IIIIIIIIIIIII ..........v ....( t )...IIIIIIIIIIIII ........South ....( a )...IbuildingII ....( n )...IIIIIIIIIIIII ....( k )...IIIIIIIIIIIII My own German (tank) was hiding, facing south, covering the approach from south and west. On the screen, there was no gap between the two large, heavy buildings, but suddenly a Russian [tank] rumbled up on the other side of them and pumped a shot into its rear armour, knocking it out. I was not amused. It wasn't until it was too late that I checked the LOS and realised that there was an "invisible" gap between the two buildings. If my Stug had been even 5 metres further south, it would probably have been safe. Anybody else witness this in a game, or am I the only poor sod to get done in this way?

Patched the CDV version myself a couple of days ago, and was surprised to see that some of the SS runes had reappeared, at least in the scenarios list. Haven't checked yet to see if they're in-game, too. Thought this was illegal, not that I'm complaining!

Many thanks for such a prompt reply. I had started doing a little more research myself, and had just come to that conclusion, but wanted to hear it officially from you. You might like to change the wording of your announcement on this site which states that the patch is language specific: that's what confused me.

Further to the above: is the European patch the same for everyone, or is it language specific?

Anyone like to explain to me why, despite all the assurances to the contrary, the French v1.01 patch has not been released by CDV along with the English and German versions? I've just been to their Website, and there is nothing for the French version, except the demo. I'm not interested in opening up the whole CDV can of worms again, but I get the impression that someone is seriously taking the p*** here. Any official comments?

I would have thought that plotting a "move" order whose route takes advantage of the natural cover and concealment of the terrain would cover that one, maybe using a short crawl/sneak command to break contact at the beginning of the movement phase (if the forces have already been spotted), and another one to approach the final position. I think CMBB puts much more emphasis on human responsibility for planning moves, rather than trusting the AI to keep your troops hidden. I'm constantly losing contact with the computer's forces when they go to ground; I don't see why it should be different for a human player.

Battlefront.com doesn't even get a mention. I suppose if you've got some flak to toss around, sending it in CDV's direction ain't such a bad idea. Oh, by the way, the game finally made it to France. Off to get my copy this afternoon. Of course, all the credit will be going to CDV...

Actually, this is incorrect. As most of us are right-handed, it's far easier as a driver in UK to roll down the side window and fire paintball pellets at the oncoming traffic. Here in France, I have to do it left-handed, or else fire sideways, across my chest, which seriously reduces the time I get to take aim.

What civilization? BTW, "trash" is a term we learned from you.

Hooray! Jammy bastages! At least that means that I may yet get my UK version delivered to me here in France before the French version arrives on the shelves on 18th October. Just when I was beginning to think it would be quicker to walk to Germany, and buy a copy there.