Bone_Vulture

My old Geforce 2 MX didn't have the black screen bug with vintage drivers. And it was nearly as fast as my current card with all the glitches.

I think it was a question of production costs. It was thought that a unit only needs an X amount of Bazookas; after that only the actual munitions would have to be supplied. Perhaps the Germans noticed that an average infantryman rarely had a chance to take an another shot with a portable AT weapon: also, it was likely a bitch to attempt running away, lugging a rocket launcher on your back instead of just tossing the fuser part away. A single-shot weapon was also more module-like, requiring less maintenance than a reloadable launcher, and was also less prone to technical malfunctions. And obviously, a dent in Bazooka might render the weapon and it's munitions useless, while a busted 'Faust was only a fraction of a German squad's AT potential.

I have a ATI Radeon 9200 with 128 mb DDR memory, running on a 1,8 gig Athlon. Still, I suffer from insane choppiness when selecting an infantry unit (squad or mg team). Other types of units are seemingly unaffected. Also, extreme slowdown is experienced when the unit info box is open. I know that this topic has been discussed before (did search), and I tried to deactivate the Zmask thingy: no help. Has there been any development on creating a solution to these problems? Also, is there any way to prevent the "black screen bug" when switching from CM to an another program with alt+tab?

Eh... I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I fell for a really cheap one. Earlier this week, I reinstalled WinXP due to component upgrade, and forgot to disable the OS firewall afterwards. This could be the reason behind connection problems, I cannot confirm it to onw way or the other 'til I get in touch with my opponents tomorrow.

I just miss killing Hellcats with the tiny 37mm flak.

I think they are using the official version. Today, I was unable to host a game with an old opponent of mine: I have the CDV version, while he has the US release. He later reported the same phenomena occuring with other CDV version owners, too, and that he had no problems connecting to people with the US version. Time for the patch 1.031! :mad:

Unless you've got a mod that turns the CM:BO super soldiers back to mortal men, I'm pretty much sunk.

I bet there are a lot of people (including me) yearning to return to the holiday spots of the western front. The biggest problem is that the CM:BO engine is antiquated: I was thinking, how difficult would it be to plaster the old unit/map data on a CM:BB engine? The thought of the fighting the Brittons and Yanks with the aid of cover arcs, assault commands and realistic infantry durability is like a dream come true!

I noticed that I began suffering from this "invisible buttons" bug when I installed the latest Nvidia drivers: the problem disappeared once I rolled back to 30.82 .

I agree that there should be some way to search for unexposed mines. Sometimes a map has tight chokepoints between patches of forest, and you just know that these bottlenecks are mined. But instead of being able to call engineers to secure the area, you must first sacrifice a vehicle before being able to get rid of the mines. Gah!

It would seem that the best aim results in a firing slit penetration, which will KO a bunker almost immediately. Small caliber autocannons that have a both high ROF and base accuracy (for firing salvos) "zero in" on the bunker most easily, and thus gain firing slit penetrations fast.

It was the sweetest news ever when I heard that Finland had lost the match, since I knew that'd shut up the annoying, drunken, minimum wage losers upstairs. [ May 22, 2003, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Bone_Vulture ]

And look what happened! Den glider in!

I was thinking of a way to add continuity to the otherwise separate quick battles: what if the computer could generate a new strip of terrain, depending on the outcome of the last battle? Example: players pick their sides, and choose the amount of points, terrain, the type of the initial battle and the number of battles total. In this case it'd be a meeting engagement in a village, with three battles tops. The first match ends to a cease fire, with Soviets holding all the flags. The Axis player would be given the choice to concede, or try a counter-attack. Then, either the axis player or computer would decide the type of the next battle, let's say a probe. The map would be shifted a bit towards the axis side, so that the flags that were initially in the middle of the map would now be clearly on the Soviet side, with all the original buildings and damage remaining: new terrain would seamlessly be generated to fill the Axis side. Depending on pre-determined settings, the players could purchase a certain amount of reinforcements, or repair/replace some of their existing forces. The outcome of this battle would again affect the type of the final battle: a succesful Axis probe might force the Soviets to counter-attack, or another Axis defeat would lead to a final Axis assault effort. The winner of this set of battles would be determined by the total amount of casualties, and amount of land/flags controlled. I think this'd be a great way to make quick battles more campaign-like, allowing the player who suffers the initial defeat to make a comeback.

I've mentioned this once earlier... I once saw a KV-1 bog on grass in very dry conditions. So either there's always a tiny percentual chance of bogging, or the engine calculates a vehicle-based breakdown probability.

I dunno, I ain't playing CM2 'til CDV 1.03 comes out.

Ok, let's see what happens. *Installs drivers*

I've noticed that the IS-2's, although otherwise more or less cumbersome, seem to be sometimes amazingly resilient against penetration damage in the worst possible situations. I remember one match where my opponent went for a wild IS-2 rush for the only victory flag in the field: my valiant Panzershreck team score two side armor penetrations... The damn tank suffered a single crew casualty, and kept rolling forward. :mad:

You're just having a bad day... If the ammo capacity of a single 81mm mortar isn't enough to knock out a field gun, then fortune is really playing you for a fool.

Since it takes several seconds for troops to aim at new targets, using run to cross short open spaces can been a lot less hazardous than using slower movement commands. The "run" command should be combined with a pause delay, so your other forces have time to lay down heavy fire for some half a minute, in order to suppress the enemies before your troops dash out.

I don't agree with this: I've noticed that the cover field guns receive from trenches is quite pathetic, and not noticeably better than that given by foxholes. There's a possibility to avoid this: give your tank a very thin cover arc that spans over the area right next to the targeted gun. Now, area fire inside this arc: the chances that your tanks will break the arc to retarget the gun are meager.

You're kidding, right? Using artillery that heavy against mere field guns is sheer overkill! :eek:

On-board mortars. That's all that needs to be said. :cool:

I think the Katjusha's were the give-away: I couldn't believe a front line tank with otherwise pretty short-range weapons would have exposed rockets strapped in the back. (And don't start with the Sherman / Calliope connection )

Oh, you mean the mines that function roughly on one occasion out of three? the same mines that are mowed by enemy pioneers as soon as you lose LOF to the minefield?