Quintus

>For that reason and that alone I am willing >to "accept" their involvment with our beloved >game. Actually, that's a pretty valid point. A fairly pants (according to some) European partner is better than no European partner at all. (Yes, I know one could use that truism to make a political joke... make your own punchlines up folks, I know you want to!) To paraphrase the UK comedian Mark Lamarr "I say 'accept' their involvement, I mean to say 'tolerate'... Actually, when I say 'tolerate' I mean 'resist the urge to pull their fingernails out with pliars whilst beating them over the head with a printed copy of the manual whilst screaming about the shortcomings of pdf format documentation'" It's a great game, I'm glad I was able to get hold of a copy so quickly and I've only had minor compatibilty problems in PBEM (which may or may not be CDV's fault). Being able to take potshots at infantry with ATR's is one lovely plus of the patch

>All this begs the question: Assuming something's >changed, was there something seriously wrong >with the first version of the CDV patch and if >we downloaded it, do we now need to get >the "new" one? Now I have gotten over my initial idiocy with the patching issue, the version I downloaded earlier this week seems to work okay and my PBEM with a US player who has run the US 1.01 patch seems to be going okay. There was a post from Battlefront that mentioned something about CDV doing some website work so I suppose it COULD be that they just forgot to re-link to the patch. If I'm feeling masochistic, I'll download the 'new' version and compare two files but at 65 meg, that's a real appetite for pain.

The CDV 1.01 patch appears to be back on their website : http://www.combatmission.de/ (Redwolf - I've sent a PBEM turn to the email addy listed in your profile) I'll go back to my corner now...

Rockets are Corps level assets so the Command delay is a pain. Where I think they come into their own is in Attack vs Defense games for either side... Buy a couple of 82mm spotters and aim them at the area you expect the enemy to be deployed in... stagger the arrival times using the hotkey and let rip. At the very least, the enemy infantry will spend a fair old while regretting getting out of bed that morning and it'll disrupt the hell out of an enemy advance or allow you to advance closer while the defender regains his composure.

Problem solved. It's a copy protection issue with the CDV version of the game and windows 2000. I shall now stand in the corner with a big 'dunces' cap on my head! I had been using a copy of the CDV 1.0 version of the game on my 2000 machine, whilst leaving the original CD all nice and safe in its' case so as not to risk damaging it (Only ever using it on my 98 machine, which is not that often). (I believe that an 'on site' backup is a kosher thing to do, as I own the game and want to avoid damaging the original) It would appear that whatever copy protection CDV used on the 1.0 game doesn't work on windows 2000, so my 2000 box quite merrily ran the game... Until I installed the patch... It only occurred to me last night to try the original CD in the 2000 box after reading someones' concerns about Virtual-CD and the CDV copy protection system. So... Mea Culpa Mea Culpa Mea Maxima Culpa I'll be over here... in the corner... feeling stupid...

Stupidly, I deleted my old PBEM directory that held my abortive attempts to set up a PBEM with a US player running the BFC version of the game. If it recurs with a future opponent, I'll make a point of sending it in.

>Unfortunately it's not even an option, unless >you know a kind-hearted American player who will >do it for you... Thankfully, I know one or two

If you want to try and download the patch (Still mysteriously absent from the www.combatmission.de site) for the CDV version of the game, try sticking "CMBB_v1_01_Patch" into 'google' and trying some of the links. (Yes, I know... I've said this elsewhere - Sorry) If it's of the order of 65 meg, it's the right one!

Another related thread mentioned that the SS runes "re-appear" under the 1.01 patch. Now, given that CDV are based in Germany, I wonder if they've yanked the patch for that reason? (IIRC they have some strict laws about Nazi symbolism in Germany). But yeah, next time... I'm going to wait the extra time for shipping and get a copy of the US version posted to me. Prompt support, larger playerbase and no bizarre compatibility problems. (The PBEM CDV vs BFC thing seems to be more than a myth) Bah and indeed, humbug.

>Since this is a CDV version and patch issue you >will need to pursue this issue with CDV's Tech >Support. >Madmatt So far, I haven't had anything but an automated response to the web-based submission form I sent in to report the problem. Still, early days eh? One can hope... However, if anyone else DOES have a similar problem and manages to solve it... lemme know? Please... (Mental note to self : Buy the US copy of the game next time...)

Yup, I have the full sized (64.9 meg or thereabouts) patch and the game, patch and direct X were installed by a user with full admin rights to the machine. For an experiment I also logged on as the machine's own administrator account and tried it. Same problem. The patch seems to work okay on my 98 machine (after I deleted the 'Combat Mission BB Prefs' file to force a re-query of screen resolution and re-installed direct-x) so that at least re-assures me that the patch is not corrupted.

As of this morning : The English, French and German pages of www.combatmission.de don't (so far as I can see) have links to the patch. The french link appeared to be plain old broken, the others only list the demo. Mutter mutter... Can't get it to work on 2k mutter... I looked on gamesweb.com (where CDV point you for downloads) and I could only find the demo on there as well (although my German is excrable so I could be mistaken).

Yeah, I noticed CDV had yanked their version of the patch... (After I downloaded it luckily) Doing a google search for cmbb_v1_01_patch.exe led me to a few sites that had it available for download. However, as my thread on the Tech-Support forum indicates, the CDV patch and my windows 2000 machine(s) do not seem to agree with one another.

As a post-script to the above, I thought I'd detail the "Things I have tried so far to fix this". *) Installed a fresh copy of Direct-X *) Deleted the 'Combat Mission BB prefs' file *) Re-applied the patch In all cases, the patched version of the game crashes in the manner mentioned previously BUT the unpatched copy of the .exe file runs perfectly. This makes me suspect the patched .exe of being a little 'iffy'. Anyone got any fresh ideas for me to try?

Having downloaded CMBB_v1_01_Patch.exe from the CDV site, I took the precaution of copying the unpatched combatmission2.exe, turning off my virus checker and closing down all my background programs. I applied the patch which appeared to run successfully but when I came to run the game, I got the CDV splash screen which then vanished and instead of the game options screen one would expect I got : "Combatmission2.exe has generated errors and will be closed by windows. You will need to restart the program. An error log is being created." The Unpatched .exe still works just fine. I poked about for an error log and located an entry in drwatson.log ----------- Application exception occurred: App: (pid=1216) When: 11/25/2002 @ 11:20:51.355 Exception number: c0000005 (access violation) ---------- PID 1216 is the process number for Combatmission2.exe on the occasion I ran it with the task monitor running. Has anyone else encountered a similar problem and/or can someone suggest a remedy? Miffed, Quintus

I'm with Bab on this one... Just? If well placed and unleashed at the right moment they can chew the bejazus out of an attacker. I remember one fine drubbing in CMBO inflicted on me by someone who'd done a good job siting just two of those beauties. I can't believe they're too different now. (Note to self... get some pupp's next game)

Whilst they may not kill the later tanks they come up against, they are (as mentioned) very much the thing to deter the enemy from pushing forwards with thin armoured assets like HT's, A/C's and some assault guns. On rare occasion, they can score a track or gun hit on a more thickly armoured vehicle. When the patch comes along to allow them to engage other targets, I shall be even happier. They keep tanks buttoned up, seem to be hard to locate and do (as also mentioned) make a nice happy P'ting noise to comfort you when under heavy tank pressure.

On an interesting side note : In the history of the Japanese Bio-Weapons unit in Manchuria, there is a footnote that in the closing days of the war someone proposed loading some biological weapons onto a submarine and sending it over to the American mainland to try an attack on a major city. (Some of the large floatplane carrying subs were probably still around, so an airborne delivery system could have been used). The story goes that the leadership decided against it on the grounds that it would only harden the American resolve to extract revenge and achieve very little military benefit. (I'll dig out my copy of the book at some point, it's got some really harrowing depositions by former members of the unit about what they got up to). The crushing irony here for me is that shortly afterwards, someone goes and drops two rather dirty atomic devices on their cities anyway. Makes you wonder if Tojo turned to a subordinate and said "See? Imagine what they'd've done if we REALLY upset them!?"

>I also don't think the gases availbale in WWII >were toxic enough to be used effectively in a >non-trench warfare scenario. That has all >changed now of course I think the organo-phosphorus based agents developed by Germany were plenty good enough : Sarin, Tabun, Tobun. There was enough gas in German hands to wipe out London at least once and the V2 did have a chemical warhead designed for it, although never used.

A hard one to call this ... Personally, I think that, quite apart from personal revulsion for gas on Hitler's part, there was a general fear of gas weapons as the agents of a global apocalypse around in the 1930's. A good example of this can be found in H.G. Welles' "Things to Come". When Germany was winning the war, she didn't need gas and when she began to lose it, the fear of retaliation in kind probably played it's part. I cannot imagine Air Marshall Arthur Harris shying away from implementing any order to drop mustard gas in with the high explosive during the area bombing campaign had Germany used chemicals first. What was his quote ...? "The blood of a dozen Hamburgs are not worth the bones of one single British Grenedier"

When I field a soviet 85mm A.A. gun and I am not the defending player in an attack-v-defense game, I buy a truck to represent the tow, even though the truck cannot actually pull the darned gun (limber and re-setup time for a gun that large render it practically worthless for most purposes if you move it anyway). I do tend toward the 'no tow = a tad naughty' school of thought myself, but then I came to CMBO via 1/300th scale lead miniature wargaming ('firefly'). One thing I have noticed is traverse time - 25mm cannon seem able to track a passing ground attack aircraft without effort, pouring on the lead during the plane's entire run, whereas the siting of anything heavier determines if you can get a decent shot off.

I've been wondering what the general opinion on A.A. weapons is. I play a lot of QB's (both against the AI and humans via PBEM) and when the weather allows aircraft, I sometimes buy them. Even if I don't I always buy an A.A. gun or two. Thing is - Whilst I appreciate that you can never really have too many, how many do people think is 'enough' to at least deter too much fly-boy attention. E.g. In a Soviet 1000 point QB - What would most people think a sensible level of A.A. to buy? A couple of 20mm (plus tows, being the virtuous sort, I always field a tow for a gun) or more?

Irony? That's like Goldy and Brassy but you can make tanks out of it right? It's bad form to post stuff so amusing as to make people splutter tea over their keyboards.

Are talking about the 'conventional' 88 a/t gun or the A.A. mount on the cruciform base? IIRC the A.A. mount took ages to set up. If you've ever watched the Royal Horse Artillery at the Edinburgh tattoo, they can get their little popgun into action pretty fast but I'd wager that it'd be a rare field unit that could man-handle an 88 into action in under 'a few' minutes.

I'm using the European (CDV) release of CM:BB and I have just started a PBEM with an a player on the other side of the atlantic (Hello Engy!). Engy set the game up and sent it to me via my Hotmail account. So far, things're going okay - Although my method of transferring the file is a little unorthodox : Hotmail opens the attachment by default, so I CTRL-A and CTRL-C (select all and copy) and then CTRL-V (Paste) into a blank .TXT file in my PBEM directory and load that file into CM:BB I have found in the past that some web-based email clients really $crew with your PBEM turns even if they allow you to save the attachment as a TXT file (In CM:BO and CM:BB) Maybe the above method could help some people who are stuck?