Coffin 'Enry

"Like i said in my post if you read it, ur SPs blast away and infantry mop up the remains then SPs move up." You have been playing the AI again. Please try to remember that playing human opponents, particularly those who have been round the block a few times, is a different ball game. May I therefore respectfully suggest that the tactics you propound at the beginning of this thread may not be wholly successful in all circumstances. Indeed the actual combat results attained when using the force-mix and tactics you put forward may, very probably, when playing a human opponent, be such as to lead an independent observer to conclude that your propounded theories place upon the semantic and logical facilities of the English language a greater burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear. Cheers

Pulls up chair & pops tin of beer..... We are going to see progress reports on the game aren't we?

ichadwick, So, so true.... Cheers

That Saddam 'had' something can be found in the reports of the UN Inspectors. I would specifically draw your attention to their final report after they were kicked out in, what was it, 1998. Fionn has made some very good points about the difference between capability and intent and how it is possible (my interpretation) that the US and UK governments are currently trying to manipulate the public perception of the two. However, I really must take issue with this idea that possession of Iraqi oil is behind the present crisis though. Due to UN sanctions imposed with the intention to ensure Iraq complied with the terms of the ceasefire after the last Gulf War very little, in the great scheme of things, Iraqi oil has actually been traded for the last decade. Therefore the world has got used to its absence and adjusted accordingly. I find the idea that the US will go to war, and therefore spend billions, in order to get access to Iraqi oil, so as to oil drive the oil price down, well, frankly, silly – the sums just do not work. That oil is important for governments in considering their attitude to the Middle East is, I take it, a matter of common agreement (Fionn’s non-articulated, but almost certainly valid criticisms of western energy policy not withstanding). No western power would have lifted a finger for Kuwait if it had not been sitting on vast oil reserves. Morality is not generally the business of governments, though the politicians that form them will usually pretend otherwise. On the subject of which, Fionn, I would very much like to explore your views on the Gulf states in greater depth, but this is not the place. Perhaps you would drop me an email at your leisure? Cheers

I have followed this thread with keen interest, a first class debate, and perhaps I could chime in with my two pennyworth. I would take gentle issue with Fionn’s statement that there are British puppet states in the Gulf. The days when such things existed are, I would suggest, thankfully and rightly over. What are now known as the United Arab Emirates may once have suffered from or enjoyed (depending on your point of view) British protection – they were once known as the Trucial States – but I think the real world means that the US now has far more influence than Britain. The only possible exception to that would be the Sultanate of Oman which still has, I believe, close military and political ties with the UK. The present ruler Sultan QUABOOS was formerly a serving officer in the British army and was put on the throne in a British engineered coup some thirty years ago. UK forces fought for the Sultan against the Yemani inspired insurgents for many years (which to take to take PAK_43’s point above could, arguably, be the second successful counter insurgency operation by regular troops), and as late as 1997 the head of Omani Special forces was a serving British SAS officer on secondment – might still be for all I know. As a fine point of interest in the late 90s I had a conversation with a senior representative of a US agency who was bemoaning the difficulty he had in trying to gain access to High Ups in the Omani security organisation. When I asked such an Omani why this was he told me that the country was very wary of accepting US aid because of all the strings that went with it. In a nutshell, his view was that the US wanted to tell them how to run their country whereas the Brits were seen as trusted people who would provide advice and assistance when asked for it but otherwise kept out of the way. Only one man’s view and maybe he was unrepresentative but he held a senior post and seemed genuine so perhaps there are lessons there. However I digress. Fionn’s last post provides, I would suggest, all the reason needed to remove by any means any regime which has an antipathy to the west, a biological weapons programme and a ruler who is immune to normal standards of diplomacy and civil society. If there is plausible evidence that Sadam’s Iraq has biological capability then his proven links with fanatical groups (yes such links do exist and are in the public domain though not directly with Al’Queda) then the scenario posed by Fionn is, I would argue, justification enough regardless of, in my view, the more debatable issues of oil. Cheers

I don't know about hiding armour but I am playing a game at the moment where my opponent's two Stukas have spotted and attacked infantry hiding in foxholes situated in the middle of some woods and infantry hiding in rubble. In all cases the infantry have not moved since they were hidden at set up and therefore have the camouflage bonus. Damn Stukas must have infra-red sights or something.

Just to add my two pennyworth. When I first saw CMBO I said, "Thats squd leader". It wasn't of course, it is, for the reasons described above, so much better than SL ever could be. CMBO and now CMBB are the games that I have waited twenty years to be able to play on a home computer. PBEM just takes the whole thing to a new and higher plane. In my view, for what thats worth, CMBB is the best bang for your wargaming dollar than you have ever had offered to you. Cheers

Is that King Solomon you're talking about? Wasn't he a rich bastard who lived in big palace with a hareem of top notch crumpet dedicated to satisfying his every need? A man who in his entire life wanted for no material or sensual pleasure? Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Sorry, I know I shouldn't post in this thread but I couldn't resist it. I am now buggering off before any of the denizens, taking offence at my presence feels the need to put finger to keyboard to tell me to sod off. Cheers

The suicidal HQ situation has been discussed here more than a little. So much so that I lost track of the outcome and simply regard it as an undocumented feature of the game. Be that as it may the answer to your question probably lies in the use of covered arcs. Set them small enough, and overlapping, and you should not have a problem. Of course covered arcs bring their own issues (e.g if the target moves 1 meter outside the covered arc your unit will stop firing on it), but in life everything is a compromise. Cheers

I'd say so. A lot of the content, at least from a first skim through, is about developing solid tactics in both offense and defense. Therefore it is just applicable to the Western Front in 1944/45 as it is to the Eastern 1941/45. Cheers

Thanks for that, Moon. I ordered on the day the announcement of the book's availability so maybe I'll be lucky. Thanks again.

Damn, I ordered it as a christmas present for my son too. There is going to be one very disappointed little bear on christmas morning - fortunately my son didn't know he was getting it so he won't mind. Disappointed of London

Gents, Thanks for you advice. I have looked in the event logs - nothing apparently connected. Temperature is a possible but unlikley - the machine sits swicthed on 24/7 and I have not had this problem with any other program. Something went screwy twice in close succession. As a trial I spent four hours playing CMBB on Sunday ("No, Dear, I am not playing that stupid game again. I am trying recreate a problem on the computer") without any problems and my son has been playing CMBB every waking moment when herself has not forced him to do other things, like eat, also without trouble. So I'll write it off as a mystery pending anyone else reporting a similar issue. Thanks again, Chaps.

This size of this patch is a bugger for those who are bandwidth challenged. However if any UK player really has a problem getting it maybe I can help. If you drop me an email (the address is in the profile - note the spelling mistake, I don't teach English) I will send you a copy on CD. BFC I presume this is OK with you. Cheers

Nah, I didn't need to think at all. I am so bloody useless at this game I need all the help I can get. What does cause me to stop and think is that when I placed the order the message was that a confirmatory email would be sent shortly. Well 24 hours later and it hasn't arrived. Maybe they are nor being sent till the 13th for UK players maybe my order got lost. I'll just sit and worry, maybe more Laphroaig would help. Worried of London

Had this one twice today, never seen it before. In a small CMBB game I was trying to scroll quickly accross the map in view 3 by moving the mouse to the top of the screen. The scroll started then after a very few seconds everything locked solid. The only way out was to hit the reset button. No other programs running: system windows XP Pro on Athalon 1.0ghz machine, 512 mb ram and using NVIDIA GeGorce2 graphics card. Recently installed the 1.01 patch and today was the first time I tried to play a game with it, though my son has been playing this week and has not reported any problems. Reported in case anyone else experiences something similar more than in the hope of a solution. Cheers

I think its a lot more complex than that. G.M. FRASER's recollections in "Quartered Safe Out Here" contain some very interesting examples of infantry behaviour under fire. OK its a different campaign and a different army but human nature does not change that much. Cheers

Can't say my infantry have ever done that to me. I agree with your earlier post however that infantry should form an important part of the game. That is why I hope that BFC have not gone too far and turned them back to the "supermen" of cmbo. Unfortuantely, given Agua's post above about storming an MG position and Manchildstien's post comparing the results of the same scenario played before and after the patch (and that, it must be accepted, is a powerful piece of evidence) I fear my hope is forlorn. Which would be a pity.

Silvio, Your suggestions are certainly plausible but don't cover my experience in the Cemetery Hill scenario. When the machine gun in a bunker was firing the world and his wife could see it; it stops firing and, poof!, its gone, disappeared like a magicians dove. Given that the german troops in that game are veteran, the poor troops + dawn argument doesn't hold. On reading the manual again I see no reason why pill boxes and bunkers should not receive the camo bonus, but once spotted surely they should stay spotted as long as they remain within the LOS of a unit that has them under continuous observation. Cheers

I am not sure how small that minority is if indeed it exists. There were certainly a fair number of people posting that they could not cope with the new infantry model and making a lot of noise in the process. However it is far from clear, as this thread is showing, that those not coping out-numbered those of us who preferred the new infantry. I can only echo the hope that BFC have not gone too far. Cheers

Sorry, I didn't read the thread carefully enough before I posted. Please ignore. [ November 26, 2002, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Coffin 'Enry ]

I have seent he pillbox effcet as well the last time was playing Cemetery Hill. Same symptoms as described above. I think this may be a genuine problem for BFC to look at. As regards the breaking under fire whilst in a trench it does seem odd but what would someone do who has completley lost their reason because they were getting hammered by artillery, especially when their unit has been reduced to just two or three men and the commander is not on the spot? At that stage a man is not thinking rationally; to get away from the certain death which will be theirs if they stay where they are may be all that fills their minds. WWI history, and not a few Brit court martial records, contains many examples of such behaviour by individuals. Is it to much of a leap to suggest that the two or three equally terrified companions of the first man to break to this extent might follow his example? I would hestitate to nail my trousers to the mast on this one, but I suggest that perhaps there is historical evidence to suggest that the behaviour may not be completely unreasonable in certain circumstances.

I thought poking lions with sticks had gone out of fashion, having been replaced with creeping up close behind them and then singing the song "Born Free".

I agree this is an excellent scenario; congratulations Rune on a first class creation. The only downside is that with Mike and Rebus thrashing the AI first time through, and Demoss getting an honourable draw, I now feel that I am even worse player than I thought - it took me four/five goes plus hints from the designer before I beat the bloody machine. I must try harder.

After rather a lot of the Laphroaig it occurs to me that the incidence of hamsters on this board has declined dramatically in recent times. When I started lurking here the things were popping up all over the place, indeed “Blood Hamster Feuds” were not uncommon. Yet it is now many months since I last spotted a bulging cheeked rodent. Can anyone offer an explanation? I am inclined to think that, like the Bengal tiger, their decline in numbers is due to their natural habitat being destroyed, but I am not sure that theory would stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Cheers