Cpt Kernow

Sheesh I relax by being sarcastic.

At least you could have waited till someone didnt get the humour of that post before locking it. All the the other posters had replied in good humour and no one seemed upset. Ive seen posts with much more outright slurs (directed at me. e.g. you are either blind or a liar) go unlocked. Is there no room on this forum for a good dose of provocative english outright sarcasm. Hmm Maybe it a yank thing? I remember all the fights (I won them all easily) with Frat boys I got into in my exchange year. They all had a major sarcasm bypass.

Ivan and Karlov kept an ever vigilent watch for the german commando that had cheekily shaved off there eyebrows whilst they lay sleeping off there vodka the night before.

Yes, but I gave it a "poor" score speicificaly for AI play. I think this is fair. I still think it recieved an ok score anyway coz i scored the map and breifing highly.

All sides and especially the fins.

Have updated to v1.01 and find that once my troops goto "eliminated" status they still go entirely prone and refuse to let me even give them orders. They can be out of LOS of any enemy and recieving no fire yet still this happens. They also stubornly refuse to go into command of any nearby HQ units. I can replicate this anytime if BFC would like to see the saved game files. Perhaps this has something to do with the units not having a memory thing and is something to be changed in the the engine re write. I was dissapointed to find that this was the same in CMBB as it was in CMBO. I find it extremely frustrating that dead troops refuse to fight and will be refusing to play the CM series until this is fixed. And battlefront dont dare to say that I am experiencing the dead troop auto prone effects more than other players due to faulty tactics as this is a cop out answer in which you are just trying to shield the inadequacy of your game engine. Grrr.

Just a slight comment. I think sometimes it is ok to have reviewers say a scenario was bad as long as they refer explicitly to the way they played it. So if someone goes: played this PBEM it was totally unbalanced and much more suited towards vAI. This now gived me an idea as to how to play this scenario, as often (though this is improving) the scenario desighner leaves out what way a scenario is best played. Also a scenario may accidentaly skew itself to a certain play type in a way that was not intended by the desighner. I recently played an OP that the desighner said was best vAI seeing that I won in 4 out of 8 battles with a TACVIC I thought he had got the balance wrong. However It had in my opinion a great map and would make for great PBEM. So in that review it got a relatively bad score (Still in no way an awfull score)though I made sure I contextualised my scoring in the text that accompanies the numerical scores. I allways go more on the text portion of a review anyway as I find the scores vary to much due to subjectivity and the relativity of each reviewers scoring system.

Perhaps the tanks commander had only spoted the crews firing the gun? Perhaps the crew has only spoted the muzzle flash of the gun and therfore if it stops firing it losses spotting for it. Perhaps the game models crews pulling the gun back slightly in to cover. Perhaps you have a point though. If the tank crew has spoted the GUN itself, then the behaviour of the crew manning it is irrelevant. Guns often appear and disapear in and out of spotting., this has not been changed in 1.01 as I have not upgraded yet and I often observe it.

i liked this quote. Don't let the great sounds and graphics fool you into thinking that this is an arcade game, or simply an RTS dressed in WWII clothing.

The only problem I find with ladder ME's (In CMBO)is that they are a test of a very particular skill set. 1.Who can gain the most utiity from there purchase points. (I think half the battle is in choice of units) 2.Who can most skillfully place there INF and AT guns. (If all else is equal better placement of these particular assets can win the game, esp if flak weapons have been allowed) I prefer to play scenarios merely because I think one has to be more flexible to towards them tacticaly, I think Ladder ME's often come down to a competition of process. E.g. this is my process for playing ME's I will test it against yours. With scenarios players may have to overcome tactical situations they have never faced before and this is why I prefer them.

What are the auto rules and when can I het them. (still not posted yet) I dont have enough time to generate loads od dice rolls and fill in loads of paper but this auto thing sounds like it will enable me to try this campaighn thing out.

At what looks like a reputable german website http://gamesweb.com/pc/downloads/patches/detail.php?item_id=29252 You can download what they claim to be the CM patch v1.o1. In a post not to far from this MAT said that patch was not out. Im very confused as if you goto this sight it really looks like it is. Think theres been a comunication breakdown somewhere. What I want to no is: Is this patch official, do BFC approve of it (I dont care what CDV think about it, and I suspect they have released it.) Is it safe to download or should we wait? Sorry aslo for satarting a new thread that is very similar to one below but Matt had allrewady posted in that and his anwser left things still ambiguos. We (I) need to get BFC's official word on this patch at this specific website. [ November 21, 2002, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

Any change yet? Are the auto dice excel sheets likely to appear soon? I Dont have any dice.

Are the excel sheets that do the dice rolling for you going to get posted on a site anywhere as they sound cool.

I noticed the bug after I had recombined the crack recon squad that starts the op split. Perhaps you could try doing that and see if anything happens.

I have win xp and cant fine the commands you refer to. Right click on game folder/ properties just gives me three tabs. 1. read arcchive etc. 2. sharing] 3.what do you want folders to look like.

DoodleBug. Said: OK. Understood that. But what happens when you run out of clumps? It's the advance across the open I have trouble with. What when the next cover is a full turn (or more) away? And no, I won't accept the supression, suppression, suppression line. I normally have 50-75% of my troops doing that when the lead elements advance. I normally wait till the troops are rested before going. What am I missing? Doodlebug. If I encounterd this tactical problem this is what I would attempt to do. Im not saying its the answer or anything like that Im just stating what I would do in that position and you can take from it what you like and leave what you dont. 1.Ok, I have reached the end of cover and now must advance over open ground with no smoke assets. This a real hard tactical problem in this game as in real life. 2.OK must not think that I must advance straight away on the next turn, I will advance when I am ready and I have all supporting elements in place. 3.Ok. Must locate fire bases of the enemy that I must supress. How to do this? A:Recon by fire, HE likely areas for enemy emplacements, HE sound contacts, HE unit markers. B:(Optional)Send forward split sacrificial squad to make enemy commit his fire bases and thus reveal them.C:Advance vehicles as far as possible towarsds enemy lines. Vehicles make the best recon, even if you lose some to AT guns/Enemy AFV etc IF you neutralize these then recon just got a lot easier. If you are attacking it is likely you have superiority in AFV, vehicles. 4.Ok have revealed enemy positions.Must have patience . If I am attacking is likely that I have fire superiority in my avenue of advance.Grind down enemy fire bases, look at the turn counter, estimate how long you can stay in cover, stay there for as long as possible, win the firefight. 5.OK time is short I must advance now. Not all enemy positions are neutralized but hopefully I have reduced them. All support/suppresion weapons are in place,MG's mortars etc. Now this is where we part ways as I suspect you have probably done all of the above.You say you use 50-75% of your troops for suppresion whilst the rest advance. In my opinion (This is just my opinion) that is to many. The 25% of troops you are advancing just became bullet magnets for what remains of the enemy fire base. I would when I deem time is pressing advance at least 75% of my men with (aprox) 15% of this a feinted advance towards different cover to draw fire from my main thrust. Thats what I would attempt to do and getting all that together is what comprises alot of my enjoyment of this game. There are no gaurentees this will work, could and does end in total disaster sometimes. I would judge success as being: Whole squad with leader arrives in advanced to cover: WOW! 2/3 Squad arrives with leader:Great. 1/3 Squad arrives with leader:Acceptable. Of course multiply this accros your entire advancing force. Of course what arrives in cover must immediatly go into suppresing the enemy to give those men caught in the open a chance to recover and (sneak maybe) those vital last few yards. What will realy fxxk you up is if the enemy controls the ground you are advncing into and has managed to keep men concealed there which promptly spring up as your men approach cover and well things get pretty ugly prety quickly. OK, so thats what I would attempt to do. Some advances will fail. I find the hardest advances are those at long range from the enemy as he is able to fire on you without being spotted. In my opinion it is the change in spotting mixed with harder MG's that has made life harder for infantry not some mistake in the panicked sneak scripting for the TACAI. Again thats only my opinion and is no more valid or less valid than anyone elses. [ November 20, 2002, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

No reply to this as yet. So Bump. Its quite important, I was three battles in and now I cant play from my saved position. Dont want to start again as the first few battles where a bit of a grind. (Long advance over snow not alot of cover etc) Is a good operation so would like to see what the problem is.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE everyone read the post MY OPINIONS ON THIS GAME THE PREQUAL Make your own judgements. There can be only one conclusion. P.S. Moon what follows are not personal insults. (Mine have been tame compared to his) Schroener. I talked about tactics because that was what the post was about. Why should i start talking about something different just because you post. If you go through that thread you will notice that I was in lenghty dialogue with someone called doodlebug, my posts were often in repsonse to his. A thread is not a sattelite that revolves around your post at the expense ao all others. You even extend this criticsm to steve, who again was having a discusion with all the posters in that thread, try to comprehend that when someone posts they may be replying to any number of posts in that thread not just yours. Your posts are no more or no less importnat than anyone elses. [ November 19, 2002, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

I have allready posted this in tech support forum but thought worth repeating here. I have had the game running on my rig (Athlon 1ghz, 384mb Gforce2MX) for some time now. Everything was running fine no problems. However I downloaded the stalingrad scenario pack and have been playing The Bitter End Now when trying to load saved games the system crashes. Games I saved earlier on in the operation wont load either even though they did previously. What is strange is that I actually saved the game at a certian juncture and named that particular save "BUG" this is because I noticed that one the unit info for members can casualties (You know where the helmet and the red cross is) was reading 56 for alive and 23 for dead (Or combat ineffective etc etc)I saved this so I could send to the relevant authorities.

Above is why the topic I started got closed. Schroener you accusing people of flaming is perhaps the most gargantuan act of hypocrisay I have ever seen. You flame and insult like no one else on this board and allways claim in total arrogance that your victim "deserves it". You are so so aggresive . Cant believe I am still having to say things like this to you. Cant you reply to my posts some wit or repost. I dont think you can. Go on rather than ranting in response to this and making more completly unfounded accusations and insults and flames try something a little more subtle like humour. Also please demonstrate how I was hiding behind steve. If he decided to enter a discusion by posting a post that supports my arguements I cant help that can I. It merely suggests that my points had some merit.

I have had the game running on my rig (Athlon 1ghz, 384mb Gforce2MX) for some time now. Everything fine no problems. However I downloaded the stalingrad scenario pack and have been playing The Bitter End Now when trying to load saved games the system crashes. Games I saved earlier on in the operation wont load either even though they did previously. What is strange is that I actually saved the game at a certian juncture and named that particular save "BUG" this is because I noticed that one the unit info for members can casualties (You know where the helmet and the red cross is) was reading 56 for alive and 23 for dead (Or combat ineffective etc etc)I saved this so I could send to the relevant authorities. Anyway theres my problem.

Yo doodle bug. Cant confirm panicked troops crawling forward.Can confirm panicked troops crawling to nearest cover (sideways).

akdavis Wow! what assumptions you make. In the post that was closed I was refered to as a usefull idiot for BFC because I was supporting it. I was accused of diverting attention away from the flaws of CMBB. I was attempting to draw humour from this (see my post from P.S) by sarcasticaly attempting to infer that I had some secret contract with Steve (Battlefront) to do just that. As part of this I infered in a totally humourous manner that the beta testa's didnt exist. My other post was shut down due to the posts of others over which I obvioulsy have no controll. Are you German or Welsh? See ya. [ November 19, 2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

Doodlebug I have quite often seen troops sneak forward into cover. I am self employed. I work from home. I sit in front of my computer for 8 hours a day doing stuff (cant say what or id have to kill you) After that 8 hours I conduct my true hobbies of wresteling grizzly bears and translating Hegels "Phenomonolgy of Logic" from saskrit to binary code. Whilst at "work" I perhaps play CMBB more often than I should. I have seen this sneak behaviour that some are having problems with but just not very often, hardly ever in fact. I think it must happen under certain conditions (maybe dependent on tactics, maybe not) and it would be good if we could isolate these conditions and then we could know who to blame, the engine or the tactic fxxkwits. I should perhaps count myself out of the scientific investigation into determining the conditions that bring about the sneak of fools effect. I would be biased towards results showing it to be the fault of the tactic fxxckwits because this would mean that I by counter definiton am not a tactic fxxckwit but in fact the tactical ALPHA and OMEGA whom all shall obey whilst advancing into cover and tremble. Or at least panic and break. P.s. Just because I sit in front of the computer allday dont make the mistake of thinking Im not actually quite hard.