von Nev

Hey 666th, If a neutered dog can get testicular implants, I'm sure they can fix you up with a pair. Sizes probably vary, but I would go for the ones that they use on great danes. http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html

Looks like the problem is an ATI Radeon graphics card specific issue. Over in tech support there is a link to some replacement BMP files that correct the issue. Thanks all, Marty

I reinstalled CMBB after my computer hard drive crashed. I installed some mods from CMMODs using CMB Mod Manager and when I play now there is a white space around words like the number of turns, victory progress, "Knocked out" or "Immobile" and such. I uninstalled all the mods and reinstalled CMBB and still have the issue. Is this a graphics card issue? I updated my graphics card with a new ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro graphics card. DOes this have anything to do with the initial graphics selection when one first starts CMBB and it asks for some sort of DirectX test? Thanks for the help. Marty Marty

I noticed too that the posts have slowed down a lot. Sadly, many of the new posts ask about things like when is this going to be fixed or what should I look for in the next patch. Over on the Blitz.org gaming club, last month there were over 500 CMx1 games between players logged while CMSF had less than 10, I think it was 6. Yikes. That is a shock considering the hype around this game when it launched.

These are histerical! And sad . . . what a mess.

This is very exciting news indeed! Besides HPS's Moscow 41 game this is the best gaming news I have heard all year. I look forward to hearing more details about this. It sounds like a great combination of Strategic Command and CMBB. If it works like Total War then I am a buyer. v. Nev

It is also my understanding that although there is a question whether PBEM is in but playing TCP/IP is in. From my perspective (and I understand the file size issue) not having PBEM will be a big minus for me and unless the game is very compelling on a stand alone basis that includes a dramatically improved AI I probably will not buy it. First, I find that I really like the challenge of playing another human (or space lobster). I find the play is more challenging and the game experience more rewarding. Secondly, my life is not flexible enough to be able to sit down and play a even a small scenario by linking computers. CMx1 is really very time management friendly as I can download the latest turn, watch the turn for a minute or two (including replays), make a couple of order changes and send the file back. From start to finish it is really quick maybe just 5 minutes. Having to set asides hours at a time too potentially to play a scenario from start to finish (or even a couple of turns) is just not a luxury I have. Regards, v. Nev

I am disappointed in the setting although I will reserve the final view on the game until I try the demo. My "problem" is I have 15 years (ending in late 2003) of service in the US Marine Corps. I have conducted joint training with with both Arab (Egyptian mainly) and former Soviet military personnel. There is just no real comparison between the two and the modern US military. With a modern hypothetical settings one has the real problem with how does "model" what are known truths today about balance and realism. In the latest couple of "modern" wars where the US was involved they completely overwelmed and destroyed their opponents MILITARILY. There were battles in the first and second Gulf Wars were entire Iraqi regiments and divisions were annilated in HOURS! Regardless of one's political view the US modern military today can only be effectively countered in training and equipment by its Western allies or perhaps the Russians states or the Chinese. I would be VERY disappointed if the thesis of the game will be that the modern US military with all of its state of the art military assets (M1A2's, arty, CAS, helos) is fighting on "equal" footing with Syrian forces. It just would not happen at anything larger than small units. If it did happen with large units the battles would be in minutes with the outcome predetermined. The Gulf wars and in the war in Afghanistan showed that small forces (as little at 4 man Spec Ops teams) were able to call in ENORMOUS amounts of firepower (arty, CAS, etc) and wipe out whatever they faced however big it was. Are the Syrians suppose to have an effective airforce? What would be the engagement criteria? The US forces stumble unprepared into a Syrian regiment dug-in? Would it be Syrian regiment versus a US infantry company to make it an "balanced" fight considering US ability to call for massive fire within minutes? The basis for any theoretical engagement would be key. My view is that unless it stays small unit/small map where there is more "balance" because it is infantry-on-infantry and there would be less time to the US to "shape the battlefield" then the "realism" police will start sniffing around and poking holes in the game mechanics. Anyway, that is my two cents. Fire away. Marty

I had two positive experiences with the "Follow Vehicle" command. The first was I sent a German tank hunter team after a Russian BA-64 armored car. The tank hunter team was in the woods about 30 meters adjacent to the vehicle. They started to attack the vehicle when the vehicle was hit by a Marder 75mm round. The vehicle was not knocked out but was "shocked." It immediately retreated behind some woods. Unfortunately for the tank hunter team it continued to retreat . . and retreat . . and retreat! The tank hunter team chased the armored car 100 meters all the while throwing grenades. The armored car finally stopped but by that point the tank hunter team was out of grenades and totally exhausted! They stood facing eachother doing nothing until the Marder showed back up and destroyed it. The other story was a crack T-34 rushed forward across open ground about 300 meters and caught my Marder turning and knocked it out. I had a veteran German infantry squad about 50 meters away in the woods. I "ran" them to within 20 meters of the tank, therefore still in the woods, then had them "follow vehicle" to destroy it. The next turn they got within 10 meters and threw a grenade bundle and with one hit destroyed the tank. I have had luck with the command but only when there is a covered and/or concealled route to get within 10 meteres.

Hands down the WORST was General Arthur Percival the commander of British forces in Singapore. He was soundly crushed in a humiliating defest by a smaller Japanese army that was short on supply and far from their bases. In fact the Japanese survived by living off of the abandoned British supplies. On 25th January 1942, General Arthur Percival gave orders for a general retreat across the Johore Strait to the island of Singapore. The island was difficult to defend and on 8th February, 13,000 Japanese troops landed on the northwest corner of the island. The next day another 17,000 arrived in the west. Percival, moved his soldiers to the southern tip of the island but on 15th February he admitted defeat and surrendered his 138,000 soldiers to the Japanese.

This is a great thread. I love dispelling myths with fact. I still am amazed at the rhetoric arounds stats (kills/losses, etc) that "prove" the Germans won Kursk. The Germans tactically "won" numerous engagements and really did destroy huge amounts of Russian equipment and men but strategicly and operationally it was a huge loss and one that solidly placed the initiative in the Soviet camp for the remainder of the war. One has to step back and look at the overall situation on July 14, 1943, and assess which side achieved their goals. If the German strategic and operational goal was to pinch off Kursk it was VERY far from the goal. In pure land terms they had to go roughly 200 km's to achieve their goal. They ended up 15% to 20% of the way to their goal. The northern attack was stopped cold within a week and the southern attack created a road to nowhere. In fact at the pace of the attack in the south they would have had to advance all the way to Orel to close the salient since the northern front was being threatened with encirclement and was withdrawing. Could they have continued to attack in the south? Sure, but at what cost and to achieve what? Let's assume they get to Kursk. What then? They still had a road to nowhere. For those that believe the German goal was to destroy a lot of Russian forces to "balance" the front they failed here too. The losses the Russians incurred were not enough and the fact the Russians launched major counter offenses DURING the German attack (north towards Orel) and shortly after the calling off of the southern attack supports that claim that whatever losses the Russians took it did little to disrupt their counteroffensive timetables. If the Russian goal was to absorb the offensive and grind it to a halt therefore maintaining the salient into the German lines and then launching a counteroffensive into the stalled German forces (especially in the flanks) I submit it achieved its goal. They probably lost more troops then they expected but they had no illusion as to the power of the attack that was expected. They did assemble 3 Fronts for the purpose of stopping the attack and dug extensive defensive belts deep into their rear. They had learned much from their defeats during the summer of 1942. In grand strategic terms just the fact that the Russians occupied the entire Kursk battlefield (including the German starting points) and then some within a month is a glaring fact supporting the failure of the German attack. The Germans were expecting to be celebrating a great victory in the streets of Kursk by this point. It must have been a rude awakening for the "victorious" German soldiers that by August 23rd they were celebrating their victory fighting desperate defensive battles far west of Orel and south of Kharkov.

Ditto the comments on the incredible work. Simply amazing. von Nev

The most fun I had (not actually playing anyone) was with I believe a scenario called "Fun with Firepower". Somebody created it just to see how much damage could be done by a single shot. So they created a valley map and packed something like 1000 troops into the valley. On the top of the hill was a lone German Sturmtiger with its 38cm rocket launcher/mortar. When the turn started the troops started to run in all directions trying to get the hell out of the way. The tank slowly moved its gun almost like it was trying to find the best place to get the most casualties. It fired one shot into the packed troops and killed everyone of them in a TREMENDOUS explosion. I laughed so hard on that one I think my stomach hurt. (Boy I am a sick freak) von Nev

This is just a note to potentially help alleviate any problems that you experience after your had already successfully loaded CM** on your computer. The other day for whatever reason I experienced an error while trying to launch CMBB. I was getting the error that it could not find the "Openplay.dll" file and recommended that I reinstall the game again to fix the problem. I panic for a couple of minutes desperately trying to fix it without reinstalling the entire game and all the updates. I just played the game. What gives!?! I went to this forum trying to figure out what was going on and my eyes started to roll when it was recommended that I start searching the CD for the files . . . . So, remembering that it worked last week Wednesday I used the function available on Microsoft Windows XP (I also have the Media Version) that allowed me to go back to a system configuration version from a couple of days ago. Using this function I simply went back to a version from a week ago (when I knew the game worked) and *Poof* the game worked!! Very cool function. Now I understand that this does not solve why the problem happened in the first place, but it now works! This function is typically found under: Start/Programs/Accessories/System Tools. Hope this helps you as much as it helped me. von Nev

Downloaded this MOD manager for the first time. Great job. I do not know how I got along without it! von Nev

I'm glad that compression fixed (right?) the full disk problems during install from the CMBB original disks. I nearly lost it after waiting for CMBB to finally come and then had problems installing it. It is fixed right!?! Pleaaasee say it is! von Nev [ December 03, 2003, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: von Nev ]

Nils, I know I have been away for a while with my Marine Corps annual reserve training, but wanted to get back into the swing of things. These screen shots looks great by the way. I look forward to assisting you with this great project. Send me an e-mail with what you need me to do. von Nev

I agree that some sort of limits should be put on recrewing a heavy weapon, but I like the idea of it being an option. For example, heavy weapons like MG and AT guns were the cornerstone of a defense usually. Barring them being physically damaged or destroyed, if the crew was killed or was routed, they were the first weapons I assume the commander would want to recrew at the earliest opportunity with anybody. I would trade anyday half a sqaud employing rifles for a MG team with some limits. The firepower difference is considerable. There are numerous historical examples of one or two soldiers crewing captured or organic MG and AT guns and saving the day. My two cents. v. Nev

COG, Thanks for all your hard work with this. Since I use the site and would like to download some of the larger mods that I experienced bandwidth issues with I will contribute. Thanks for letting us know your situation. von Nev HA HA HA!!! Do you work as a commedian? Seriously, I recieved about $200 in donations last year. With that, I purchased a used UPS backup (which has been invaluable this year...thanks loyal members!!!). I'm probably gonna go begging for $$ again as the server's HD is getting filled up. I'm paying ~$65/month for the connection, then there's the server itself, my time, my wife's complaints (Very expensive! )...etc, etc, etc. So no, I'm not going to retire off of this little project, if that's what you're asking. Most people donate something to the CM community. CM dedicated websites, active participation on the BB, creating mods, giving historical ballistic info, providing unit TO&E.... the list is endless. My contribution is to maintain the cmmods.com website. I've got the resources and skills, so why not give a little something back. Now if I could just find some time to play the game! COG </font>

Andreas, Pardon if I don't cede the military resume high-ground to you. I have a funny feeling that my real military resume will pretty much make yours look a "little" sparse. Ordering countless CMBB pixel soldiers around doesn't count. Let's be clear on the 17.5% losses. What it really means is that of the total Russian forces involved, the losses among the combat units on average reached 50% (using your numbers). Or more pointed, 50% of the combat power was destroyed. Pretty incredible losses. von Nev

Wow. Looks like there are some sensitive people out there. A couple of points. First, I never proclaimed that the Russians had a doctrine to put forces into battle less than fully prepared as best they could at the time. It is a well know fact that the desperate measures of 1941 and 1942 included marching units straight to the front with little to no training and little to no weapons and support. That said, it does not hide the fact that it still happened. Also, regarding Soviet tactics, it was generally brute force attrition warfare even up to the end of the war although their use of manuever tactics improved dramatically during the war. Russian doctrine very much looked at force ratios before any attack. Why? Because their tactics and their training was inferior and only raw power could tip the scales. For a modern day look at Soviet tactics, look at their recent experience in Chechnya. Against a rebel force of 6,000 - 10,000 they destroyed the entire city of Grozny, a city of 350,000. Their losses have not been disclosed. When they were kicked out the first time they lost a whole armored regiment to the last man in an ambush in the city. Regarding the lack of small arms for the Germans I did not know that they did this. You pointed something out that I admitted I did not know and I appreciate you helping me out. My point was a question not a statement. I will take your word that is correct. Thanks. Regarding politics and Berlin, Konev had success in the south in the advance on Berlin (great tactics). This frustrated the heck out of Zhukov and he pushed his armor into the Seelow mess when, if he was truly trying to have less casualties, he could have instead reinforced this success and done a spoiling attack instead. Finally, as a current officer in the Marine Corps, I still find it interesting that you think a unit (up to an including whole Armies) that takes nearly 20% casualties (nearly all of their combat effectiveness) is a big deal to some and not others. That's like saying Iraq's 30,000 loss to the US's 200 is no big deal for the Iraqis but huge for the US. Interesting perspective on that. Are you in politics? What level is out-of-line casualties even in "final" battles even during that time period? Overall, not sure where we disagree. I submit 17.5% (irregardless of number wounded. Ever been wounded before?) is pretty terrible numbers final battle or not. I still would not want 17.5% on my resume. von Nev [ July 21, 2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: von Nev ]

The latest I heard of Russians throwing men into the lines without weapons were the opening stages of Stalingrad in Autumn 1942. Never heard the Germans didn't issues weapons. It was my understanding that even the Volkstrum had small arms including prolific amounts of Panzerfausts. Ammo may be another story. Although I thought it was more on the larger caliber not small arms (<7.62mm). von Nev

Your point is valid about the Russians stacking units. They were more of the brute force army as is basic Soviet doctrine. Their command structure would only allow that type of doctrine. They figured you would run out of bullets before they ran out of troops. I have read reports that the Soviets used the "win at all cost" model up until 1944 when they literally began to run low on reinforcements and official orders to units began to state that "losses should be minimized." My numbers on the Russian ratios of front line troops (even within front line divisions) were more based on their later war forces where they had more Army and Front support units and deeper support structures built out within divisions than they had in the leaner mid-years when they expected to lose huge percentages through their basic attrition doctrine and did not build out the units to include support elements. Heck, they didn't give rifles to everyone! You were expected to pick that and ammo up from those that fell in front of you. Still, whether it was 55% or 70% of "trigger-pullers" it is pretty incredible losses. Granted at that point is was generals trying to make history. The human costs were irrelevant to them just prestige. Look at Zhukov at the Seelow Heights. Talk about slaughter. Zhukov also lost huge during Operation Mars but Stalin liked him because he "was a fighter." Problem was he only fought with markers on a big map. When those markers just disappear or were removed there was not a second thought on the "human" impact. One final point of if 17.5% is bad. How many battles can you do that and still have an army? Less than six times before you have to rebuild and retrain and entire force, every man. The US stopped day-light bombing over Europe and reassessed their strategy when they reached a 10% mission lost rate. Remember that is 10% of "trigger-pullers" not 10% of the total Air force. If you include that number it is probably less than 2%. I still believe the Battle of Berlin was horrible in terms of human life and military losses. von Nev

I would still consider 17% a very high number which from a historical perspective is why it was played down. Germans historically had 2 support personnel for every 1 man on the line (which is why they were able to field so many divisions even as a small country relative to the US and USSR). The Russians were 3 to 1 (25% front line) and the US was 4 to 1 (20% frontline). Therefore, a 17% number represents 70% (17.5%/25%) of all Russian front line forces ended up as casualties. Pretty horrific casualties to me. A point to remember. It is very difficult to wipe out units to the last man. From a tactical perspective it was generally not required. A unit generally becomes combat ineffective when it reaches 30% casualties. Ever tried to service the wounded and continue an attack with 30% of your COMBAT forces laying around dead or wounded? Consider a platoon of 25 trying to keep going with 17 unhurt and 8 dead or wounded are moaning or dead and more than likely part of the 8 was the platoon leadership. Also, modern tactics (post WWI) generally work in 3's. You have two up and one in reserve/reinforce. You avoid having three on the line with no reserves. This is why you have 3 squads per platoon, 3 platoons per company (excluding heavy weapons), 3 companies per battalion, etc. When you lose 30% you lose effectively that third unit and effectiveness goes down dramatically as you have no reserves to plug the holes or reinforce success. I would not want 17.5% total force casualties on my resume. von Nev [ July 21, 2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: von Nev ]