Schoerner

Oh, sorry. How could i forget the even poorer life of Dorosh?

Well, he should thank you for giving the braggart once more the chance to bring some excitement into his poorly life, by writing endless posts about only a game. [ January 18, 2004, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Runyan, i think i understand what you mean, but honestly see only one possibility to bring the real pace of a battle into CM: complex simulation of communication between units. And i have no clue, if such a game would still be fun, because a lot of micromanagement could appear. You advance with a platoon and discover strong resistance or that the route of advance is suddenly blocked by MG-fire. Now the god-player gives immediately orders to the apropriate support weapons and in the next minute they have their orders: either they are immediately on the move or they even open fire within the next minute. In reality they wouldn't, because they can't smell what the problem of platoon X is. They even don't know, that platoon X has a problem. So communication takes place and often one man had to be sent back to request support, in case the company support weapons were not sufficient (think of a MG bunker that can't be taken out with mortars). In the meanwhile the company disengages or only keeps a small pressure on the enemy. Like Michael Dorosh already said: a multi-multiplayer game (some time ago there was an interesting suggestion with almost unlimited players) with true-combat rules would already slow down the pace, due to the communication and orientation problems, but i see no possibility to slow the pace of CM down to a realistic pace, without making a completely insipid game. Why insidpid? Imagine your company X for task Y advances over 10 minutes into it's position and then you have to wait 15 turns, until the mortar in the back receives his orders. After 20 minutes the MG finally is quiet, the company advances and discovers a minefield. Now pioneers are needed. But they are hundreds of meters away and communication is realistically modelled... I think it is simply impossible to simulate realistic battlefield communication and to make a thrilling and interesting game. And i think it's not necessary: although CM offers a much higher pace due to the absolutely perfect god-like communication, it's not unrealistically. It shows much less chaos and the actions that take place are way better synchronized, but in the overall it gives quite a good impression how tactical problems were/could/should be solved without the long insipid fire-pauses. I understand your wish for more realism and less tactical predictability, but the scenario designers have enough possibilities, if they only would use them: At the moment i'm playing CMAK's Ambush! (Hinterhalt) as a PBEM SPOILER ALERT! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * and it's really ridiculous and frustrating if you expect some realism, to have almost one dozen tanks and a company of infantry in a sand-storm and the battle has a time limit of 18 minutes...

http://www.tvmovie.de/tv-programm/sendung.html?SendungID=3422259

Jason C, i asked you something!

www.tvmovie.de/tv-programm/sendung.html?SendungID=3419488 Sorry for posting in the wrong forum, but it's only 1 hour left and here most people have the chance to read it.

http://www.gamesecke1.de/html/combat_mission_3__afrika_korps.html

Excellent Caid! Since i made the Ufz-patches for CMBB, i was really wondering, why no one was making at least a spanish or other localized versions. Fantastico.

Excellent Caid! Since i made the Ufz-patches for CMBB, i was really wondering, why no one was making at least a spanish or other localized versions. Fantastico.

Excellent Caid! Since i made the Ufz-patches for CMBB, i was really wondering, why no one was making at least a spanish or other localized versions. Fantastico.

If time is a critical factor, you often simply don't have the time to bring support-weapons or enough firepower into position. Then assault could even become the only way to solve the problem. BTW: Jason C, are you interested in a PBEM?

When i saw my first pics of WC half a year ago, i was really fascinated. But after some months, i looked much more critically at the pics. 1. There's a reason, why they hide their trees in the smog... - Emrys is right 2. Haze and lighning effects add a lot to the atmosphere - subtract it and you land even behind CMBO - or imagine CMBB/CMAK with some haze and dynamic lightning effects (shadows on vehicles) and it would easily take the lead 3. I can't describe it, but somehow the WC graphics are losing their attraction quite fast - while CM - in a magical way - keeps it. We only can hope, the new engine will have that magic touch, too. 4. Taking a critcal look at the demo-pics of WC, shows it's not a sim with as much as possible historical accuracy - again tank duels within a few meters; i'm really sick of that childish games. Too many games look fantastic at the first sight, but the longer you play, the more they lose. CM does not. But i have no clue why. btw: and i'm in no way interested in the pacific-theater or post WWII warfare

New version (v1.1) with blue shoulder-markings instead of black ones for Luftwaffe-units is up.

New version (v1.1) with blue shoulder-markings for Luftwaffe-units is up.

But every single example without any exception supports what i said. LW field and HG are exceptions. I.e. Hermann Göring Pz.-div.: Panzer units: after 1943 completely white collar-marking, but shoulder-marking with weapon-color. Not, if he belongs to a LW field-division, what he does in this example. IMO they are correct. http://wdienstgrade.tripod.com/luwa-farb.htm [ January 03, 2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

The green IS waffenfarbe, though. FlaK units wore red collar markings, airborne wore yellow collar markings, etc. Only the Jäger troops wore green collar markings - pioneer, panzer, artillery, supply, etc., all wore their waffenfarbe on the collar. You have shown this in the airborne ones, with matching shoulder and collar colour. Green is not independent from weapon-colour. </font>

I would change the shoulder markings to match; this would be more correct than mixed waffenfarben in the same bmp. </font>

Ofcourse! Thanks for that. With piping you mean the border-color i guess. I didn't include green bordered LW shoulder-markings. Only green colored collar-markings (LW field divisions). The yellow bordered shoulder markings for the Falschirmjäger (airborne) should be correct: it is the color of the flying units. http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Soldat/Luftwaffe/Luftwaffe.htm Are you sure? The sources i used are all stating that Pink was the color of Panzer and Panzerjäger troops. I thought Infantry was just using the color of their weapon type, no matter if mechanized or not (i.e. Infantry white, Pioneers black). But CM doesn't allow for that and uses it's own structure (mechanized, Cavalry). Your suggestion to use the brightly-green color for CM's 'mechanized infantry' is interesting but there's a problem: CM's 'mechanized' units and cavalry are sharing the same pictures. The color of Cavalry was yellow-orange like from the paratroopers. Using brightly-green for CM's so called 'mechanized infantry' would be a compromise to live with, but it would also mean giving Cavalry units brightly-gree as color, too. Therefore i decided to leave it neutral. No. This is the usual shoulder marking, just without the weapon color of each unit. I decided to leave the weapon-color out (like for Heer units) because CM doesn't have enough unit-pics. This was simply a design decision. IMO the important thing is, to see the correct shoulder marking, have a decent contrast to the background and it looks good, too. That would be way to much labor for me. Isn't the difference between the collar-marking of non-officers with the dark stripe in the middle and officers without it, clearly visible? If you or anyone else has a quite simple, but nevertheless somehow historically correct idea, to give CM's 'Infantry mechanized' and 'Cavalry' units' pics (they both are sharing the same pics, but have different pics from 'Infantry') a different look to normal 'Infantry' i'd be glad to hear it! (same guilty for 'SS mechanized' units). [ January 03, 2004, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Danke Sven. Answer posted in the CMAK-forum. [ January 03, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Thanks for the laurels. Yes, the unit pictures are identical for CMBB and CMAK (as far as i found out). The full compatibility is mentioned in the readme.

You can get it here: www.cmmods.com

You can get it at: www.cmmods.com

Hey Head Mahone, when will you send your next turn?

GreyHunter, thanks for the laurels.

ROTFL