Carl Puppchen

Wow so we definitely know it works on m1? Hmmm I think I may buy an M1 mac now. They are only 999...

Has anyone tried it yet with an M1 mac? Like as a regular app, as it works today? I am not an expert on emulation. I was just about to buy an M1 mac so maybe I am going to be the beta tester...

Thanks very much your tip worked! The screen looks slightly different on the new mac - it basically asked if I wanted to open the package from combat mission and I said yes.

I have been playing CMFI and had a problem that has occurred 4x now. It occurs when I am on defense and I carefully place a gun, generally right behind a wall (not on the wall, behind the wall). Then, when I am playing, all the sudden I have no forward LOS and cannot target any enemies. I can traverse all the way around and shoot behind me, but not forward. Another aspect of this that occurred recently is that my gun and crew were invulnerable - my opponent came right up to me with MG's blazing and I had no casualties (but I couldn't shoot back, either). Eventually a side shot killed my crew which never shot back despite having many targets. I have the turns for this and can post screen shots or send them along if that helps too. I am on the second to last patch for CMFI and have been playing CM products for a long time so I wouldn't post here unless it is a real problem

I did hit the tank and the sherman was immobilized but not sure if it was from the mortar or some proximity HE fire. It was fun!

Hello all. I used to play Combat Mission back in the day and build my own scenarios but stopped playing for a long time (10+ years!). Recently I got back into Combat Mission and started playing CMFI. I have played maybe 6 or so games since the patch was applied. I noticed that the observer for off-board artillery actually adjusted shots! I had an 81mm mortar that was shooting at a Sherman tank and the observer actually moved the fire when the tank switched positions. I hadn't noticed this behavior previously and when my shots were falling away from the target they never seemed to get any closer or adjust. In reading through some of the older posts I saw that people said that they rarely saw AA fire as being effective. I started playing against my usual opponent with "rarity off" and now I'm buying a lot of the AA halftracks in our quick battle scenarios and I had 2 on a small map and I actually shot down and allied strafing attack aircraft! It was the 37mm gun - the 20mm gun (quad) put up a lot more noise but the 37mm was the one who received the "plane destroyed" note. One airplane shot down isn't a large sample size I realize but it was heartening to see that happen.

I am working on a scenario and I keep receiving an "unhandled exception error" that stops me when I try to load the scenario. It must be something in particular with the scenario because I can open all of the other scenarios that I started. I have tried it on 2 of my computers and it doesn't work on either of them. The culprit may be that I have 25 "reinforcement" groups for each of the axis and the allies... it used to open and save until I reached that threshold. Has this happened to anyone else? It isn't a giant map but pretty big about 9000 points on each side. Also a decent amount of fire. update - after reading some other tech support posts I went out and updated to the latest directx drivers and tested them in case it was a graphics error. No improvement. Once again I think it might be something in the application in scenario mode because I can open all of my other scenarios with no problem. I usually have 10-15 reinforcements per side... don't know if there is some kind of trigger that you hit at 50. I was able to open / close it at 40 or so. May be something else... [ July 15, 2006, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Carl Puppchen ]

I hadn't seen the tanks pushing each other. That is a good tip

There is a new Rolling Stone magazine with Keifer Sutherland of "24" fame on the cover. On page 54 they have an article about US basic training called "The Killing Factory". Here is a quote "During WWII an army historying named SLA Marshall decided to study combat behavior... 75% of American soldiers, he claimed, had failed to shoot back when fired upon... the firing rate during the Korean War roes to nearly sixty percent. In Vietnam it was ninety percent, and in the first Gulf War it reached 98%. In Iraq, the number of soldiers who fail to fire is thought to be statistically insignficant. American forces never lost a major engagement in Vietnam, and they have not lost one since." The article is semi-interesting... I like their description of the town where the training occurs and some of the other elements but they make someludicrous comments: "a single, inexperienced modern combat soldier, with full combat support, has as much death at his fingertips as a 300 man company did in WW II" Also "the army's infantry schools graduate nearly 20,000 soldiers a year. No institution in history has come close to training so many people to kill so effectively in such a short time" Sorry I can't seem to find a link to the post or I'd put it in here. Once again not defending their items but find it fascinating that Rolling Stone, a magazine that basically doesn't know squat, quotes Marshall.

This is due to your mail program "determining" that your file is a text file. The best way to solve this is to use PBEM helper or to zip your files or change the way you receive PBEM files.

What is the opinion on Marshall's comments that stragglers from broken units were extremely ineffective relative to cohesive units? I read the book and definitely remember that element seemed to be important to Marshall. That thread generally leads to the point that during Vietnam the rotation system badly hurt small unit cohesion. But since I am not a military guy and have only seen things through books I don't have a lot of confidence in these opinions. What is the opinion of the board on aggressiveness of fire in today's army engaged in combat in Iraq? Also must be matched against the fact that they often face an enemy intentionally blending in with civilians which makes indiscriminate use of firepower and artillery a difficult proposition.

Duh! Sorry I can't believe I said 16" not 18" for Yamato. I must be getting a bit daft

Duh! Sorry I can't believe I said 16" not 18" for Yamato. I must be getting a bit daft

don't forget that Japan broke the rules big time... how about the 16" Yamato class. I don't know where to find it but remember reading somewhere that someone asked the Japanese if they were building any 40,000 or 50,000 ton battleships. They could legitimately say no because... the Yamato class was over 60,000 tons (63,000 tons if my memory serves correctly). A lot of the impetus of the treaties were to avoid the "arms race" that occurred prior to WW1 between Germany and the UK that raised tensions significantly. In the end, that goal wasn't achieved, obviously.

don't forget that Japan broke the rules big time... how about the 16" Yamato class. I don't know where to find it but remember reading somewhere that someone asked the Japanese if they were building any 40,000 or 50,000 ton battleships. They could legitimately say no because... the Yamato class was over 60,000 tons (63,000 tons if my memory serves correctly). A lot of the impetus of the treaties were to avoid the "arms race" that occurred prior to WW1 between Germany and the UK that raised tensions significantly. In the end, that goal wasn't achieved, obviously.