76mm

Moon, thanks for the response, and sorry if I'm confused about Vista. So CMBB will work on Vista except with the 8800 video cards?

You might be right; I've read the thread in the CMBB forum, and it sounded more complicated than that...is it only one video card that doesn't work with CMBB under Vista? I thought it was a broader problem than that?

There seems to be a fair amount of interest in CMC, and I for one have been interested for a long time. I still play CMBB very frequently but it's come to the point where I need to replace my computer, and more likely than not it will be Vista, which sadly would mean no more CMBB. I would guess that a lot of existing XP machines are going to be replaced in the near future with Vista boxes. If CMBB doesn't work in Vista, doesn't that severely limit the size of the potential market for CMC? This isn't a bash, I'm just curious if the developers intend to launch this project w/o addressing CMBB's Vista incompatibility? On the other hand, an exclusive Vista-upgrade bundled with CMC would probably do quite a bit to bump sales.

Just curious why you feel so strongly about this issue? I certainly like having a bound hard copy of the manual rather than pdf printout, but other than that I think I prefer downloaded games--just more convenient, at least for me.

Doh, all this time playing CMBB and I've always thought that pre-planned barrages had to arrive on the first turn...

I don't think CMx1 has this feature, does it? If so, please tell me how to do it, because I've been missing the boat for the last six years! AI arty in CMx1 has certainly stung me a couple of times.

You make it sound like we should be glad that BFC included Syrian armor at all...

I agree, although the availability of thermal sights, these drones, etc. does mean that entrenchments are easier to spot with modern tech than by using the Mark I eyeball. But I really don't care what they do with fortifications in CMSF, since I don't play it. I do, however, hope and expect that BFC will figure out a solution prior to bringing out the WWII titles. Combatinfman, thanks for the info!

Steve, Two more fortif questions: 1) Will things like roadblocks also always be visible, or only entrenchments? The whole fun of roadblocks is surprising someone as they come around a corner. 2) Regarding 3D entrenchments--forgive me if this is a ridiculous idea, but what about capping the 3d entrenchments with a 2D "lid" that would camoflage them (think camo nets or placed foliage)? There could be several lids, one for each base terrain type in which trenches could be placed, so that they would blend in better. The lids could be placed automatically during scenario set up, or better yet have a scenario setting for "camo'd" or "uncammo'd" entrenchments. Not sure if these could be made to look like anything better than the proverbial dog poo, or how hard it would be in general, but thought I would toss it out in the ring.

Combatinfman, Thanks for the links. The one link says that they've been deployed with army units for "convoy protection and base defense". Have they also been adopted for general use by combat troops? They sound pretty handy, but curious how far adoption has spread.

I'm not familiar with these new-fangled devices...how well do these things work? Are they thermal? Can they pretty much detect *all* defensive positions, or just the "obvious" ones? And is the info then transmitted to, and displayed in, each individual tank/squad, or disseminated by briefings, etc. prior to an attack? Clearly these things make a difference for the Blue forces in CMSF, but I should point out that a concern for WWII settings is behind all of my comments. Yeah, but you have to take care to make the position look real, I mean otherwise you'd be mounting bullseye billboards or giant red arrows above the dummy positions.

Uh, no, I'm not kidding. I much prefer a system that works to one that doesn't, even if it is "ugly". As to "very much a grog-type request" and having "an element of realism to it"...puh-leeze! I think that having entrenchments that aren't visible all the way across the map is pretty much key to realism, or even a fun game. Not to mention the fact that a good part of the fun is deciding yourself where to position entrenchments rather than having the scenario designer decide for you; I find that setting up a successful defense is much more satisfying and fun than just blasting away from whatever positions the scenario designer decides that I should have. I guess (haven't tried) I can go into the scenario editor to reposition entrenchments, so maybe that's an effective work-around for the placement issue. As to your assertion that it is realistic to have occupied trenches spotted all the way across the map because units should also employ dummy positions--I can't follow your argument. First, note the first part of your quote: "The attacker must be delayed and confused by the defensive layout." Please explain how that is accomplished by putting all of your occupied entrenchments in plain view?! Sure, *if* units have time to create convincing dummy positions, they'll create some to draw enemy fire. But even dummy positions shouldn't be broadcast to the enemy; as it is in the game, I would need to litter the battlefield with entrenchments--mostly empty--for the empty ones to offset the artificial disadvantage of having all of my occupied entrenchments fully visible. And sadly, based on Steve's feedback, I recognize that there is apparently no chance of fixing this problem. That doesn't mean it's not a significant issue.

Put down my vote to go back to a 2D solution that works better (spotting, player-deployable). Also, what about roadblocks? I think these would fit into CMSF's premise? [ April 30, 2008, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

Heh, you're right that I'm not sure what the CM loaders should be doing; I mainly posted in response to posts that said something to the effect of "the loader's job is to load the main gun, so that's all he should do". This thread started with the question about why the TCs don't reload the 50 cal automatically. I think they should--as someone pointed out, if they 're using the ammo, they obviously want to use the weapon and would want to reload. If you don't want them to reload because of small arms fire, etc., a "button up" button should mean that they won't unbutton (or reload) until that order is rescinded. Isn't that how it worked in CMx1? As to the argument that you don't need to reload the 50 cal because you've got the main gun, I don't think that makes sense if you're in an infantry-heavy fight. But back to the loader, let's look at some facts: --the loader was generally the least experienced crew member, --loaders received virtually zero training on the loader's MG (at least in my day), --the sights & fire control on the loader's MG are rudimentary (again, at least in my day), and --the loader's MG only features a single box of ammo before needing to reload. In my opinion, this is not a weapon system that you would generally use with much hope of hitting targets. I would use it in two circumstances: 1) loader sees immediate threat to flank or rear and wants to make them put their heads down; or 2) if the tank is in overwatch/suppress mode against an infantry target and is not under signficant small arms threat itself. In this second circumstance the loader's MG wouldn't add much to the coax and M2, but it wouldn't hurt either. The only way to deal with loaders in CM would be to have a separate command "Loader Up" or some such, but I don't know if it would be worth it. But I think the TC M2 reload issue should be fixed. These comments are all based on my experience with the M1A1 in the first Gulf War, based on the training we received in Germany. Would be curious to know whether changes to equipment or tactics mean that things are done differently now.

M1A1TC, Yup, I saw you, but you were focused on the models rather than the question which seems to have become the focus of this thread, which I'll paraphrase as "Who cares about the MGs on the M1 when you have the main gun?" Whaddya think about this question? There have been a couple of others in this thread with M1 experience, but I'm sure tons more are lurking...

I was an M1A1 tank company XO in the First Gulf War and in Germany prior to that. A couple of comments, for what they are worth: 1) In my unit, loaders were exclusively the least experienced member of the crew, because they could perform their main function (loading) with little training or experience. For drivers and gunners you wanted someone with more experience. 2) I generally agree with C3k and Exel. Once the main gun was loaded, and until it needed to be loaded again (signified by a loud "boom") he's not serving any purpose whatsoever sitting down in the hole. Sure, if you're expecting to engage, or are engaged with, an armor-heavy force, you'd keep him down there so that he can reload as quickly as possible. Likewise, if you're under intense small-arms fire, you'd keep him down so he doesn't get killed. Otherwise, he's up top, looking around. This was certainly the case in a defensive situation, where'd he'd be watching the rear and flanks while the TC and gunner focused on the front. Also, "reloading the coax" was not something you did while engaged--there was a massive ammo capacity for the coax (thousands of rounds), and to reload it you would have to have the loader leave his hatch to get more ammo from the rear rack (although I don't think we even carried enough there to refill the coax bin). The loader would have to help unjam the coax every now and then, but he didn't have to sit and wait for that to happen. [EDIT] I wanted to add that when you are engaged with an infantry-heavy force, the M1 IS basically a giant mobile MG pillbox. Yeah, HEAT rounds would be useful against bunkers or buildings, but the amount of MG fire from a single tank (coax, loader, M2) is pretty awesome and I would argue has much greater suppressive effect than a couple main gun rounds per minute. And when you have a platoon of tanks instead of a single tank, the amount of MG firepower that you can put downrange is just scary. If you have cannister rounds for the main gun (we didn't), it might be different, but without cannister I would much rather have use of the MGs against infantry than the main gun. [END EDIT] I don't know how doctrine might have changed, but that's how I remember it. I'm surprised more current TCs or crewmen haven't jumped into this thread. [ April 22, 2008, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

Dear John, Thank you very much for taking the time to read the book and provide your detailed comments. I've responded IN CAPS below:

They're adding horses, they're adding horses!

Would love to know this as well, but given the rampant piracy over there, I doubt they sold many legitimate copies at all. Would be pleasantly surprised to learn otherwise.

Welcome back after 8 years! CMBB is the best game ever. Still playing it weekly. Matrix is soon to release a game called Panzer Command: Kharkov which is also a 3d tactical East Front game. After looking at it, it looks worse than CMBB along just about every parameter despite being released 8 years later. Amazing...

I lived in Moscow from 94-99. When I lived there, it was also against the law to sell the HSU medal; I knew a guy who looked into getting one, and he dropped the idea when the whole process turned cloak-and-dagger. As to whether it is right or wrong--the fact is that many Russian WWII vets and their descendants are destitute. The value of the pensions they receive are pathetic. I think that if the family thinks that they'd be better off with the cash rather than a piece of metal, that should be their call. Hopefully most families would choose otherwise, but in dire circumstances many people would probably rather have bread on the table.

They could just start with deep, unfordable water, so you wouldn't have to worry about these issues unless they introduce frogmen. For this to be worthwhile, they'd also probably need to introduce a couple of types of bridges. And assault boats. And arty smoke. And SEAL frogmen WOULD be cool...

Sounds like a cost-effective approach...in general, what kind of tweaks were requested for CMAK?

Frankly, I'm tired of the whining about the "whining". Aren't we all entitled to express our opinions about the game? The day this turns from a discussion forum to a fanboi club is the day I stop visiting.