Rokossovski

Perhaps I should jump in here. I am the friend "dugfromthearth" has been referring to. (Unless he has another friend he has been playing wargames with all these years whom he has neglected to tell me about.) The system I use is modified from ones I created years ago to create an operational or strategic system with the tactical battles fought out using board wargames, such as Squad Leader. The strategic level takes place on a map using various movement zones or map hexes, each of which has a tactical map associated with it. Forces are moved on the strategic map, and if hostile troops come into contact, the battle is fought out using the seperate tactical system. (Presently Combat Missions.) Losses are tracked, (as well as whatever other statistics seem relevant) and so are naturally unavailable in the future. Arbi is correct that the lack of actual fog of war is a problem when I play the games solo. This is more true of the "upper" strategic level than at the tactical level, where I let the computer AI choose its own setup. I must stress, however, that the system is not designed really to be a single player game. I used to set up campaigns with multiple players, and usually served as a referee. Because I would process the orders and set out the forces in my capacity as referee, (and two maps would be used, one for each player - remember, this was long before Combat Missions came along) there was suitable fog of war. The modification I use for Combat Missions has not yet been used in a multi-player game. I have been testing the system by myself, and the battles have been played out against the AI, but ideally the game should involve at least three players - Allied Player, Axis Player, and Referee. - Rokossovski

Wow, great spreadsheets! Too bad about the King Tiger and the Persing though. Funny, all this time with CMBO and CMBB and I have never used either vehicle, and yet knowing they won't be available in CMAK makes me want them all the more... It might put a small crimp in some of those late war scenarios from CMBO we all know will be recreated using CMAK. A pity.

Wow, great spreadsheets! Too bad about the King Tiger and the Persing though. Funny, all this time with CMBO and CMBB and I have never used either vehicle, and yet knowing they won't be available in CMAK makes me want them all the more... It might put a small crimp in some of those late war scenarios from CMBO we all know will be recreated using CMAK. A pity.

Wow, great spreadsheets! Too bad about the King Tiger and the Persing though. Funny, all this time with CMBO and CMBB and I have never used either vehicle, and yet knowing they won't be available in CMAK makes me want them all the more... It might put a small crimp in some of those late war scenarios from CMBO we all know will be recreated using CMAK. A pity.

Zoppex suggested that in CMAK the troops tire especially quickly. I am still eagerly awaiting my copy, so I have no idea. Is it player's experience that infantry is more quick to tire in CMAK than in CMBB, or did Zoppex simply mean that the open desert terrain forces him to use more tiring commands (crawl, advance, etc) farther out from the enemy because of the shortage of concealment?

Oh my goodness! I'm a real member now! This and hearing that CMAK is shipping... its all too much! I need a drink...

Really!?

One more you say?

One more you say?

So there.

I really have nothing to contribute, I'm just tired of being a lurking "junior member" and I am attempting to run up my number of posts.

Oh, the suspense is killing me! I feel like a five-year-old waiting for the sun to come up on Christmas morning.

Ah, that's a pity. Thank you though for letting me know. - Rokossovski

I have an older (CDV, pre "special edition") copy of CMBB and a newer "special edition" copy of CMBO. In CMBO, the explosion graphics are somewhat different (and also the graphics for the "flash" of heavy guns and mortars as the shells leave the barrel/tube) than in CMBB v.1.03. The CMBO graphics show a short of "shock wave" effect to the explosions that I find visually appealing. I don't know if this was some older effect that was phased out for CMBB, or if it is some sort of nifty mod added to the special edition of CMBO. Is there a mod that a computer dunce such as myself could add to CMBB to make the explosion graphics match that in my version of CMBO? Thanks, Rokossovski

Thank you for your advice gentlemen. At your recommendation I have purchased and installed a Nvidia GeForce 4, and it is working wonderfully. Again, thank you, - Rokossovski

I have been tearing my hair out trying to fix a display problem with CMBO and CMBB. (The problem cropped up after updating the driver for my Radeon 7200 and adding directx9.0b.) I have tried every possible fix I could think of, and have decided to throw in the towel and buy a new video card in hopes that that will resolve my problem. So, my question: given that running CM properly is my highest priority, what video card should I buy? (My budget tops out at around $100). Thank you for your advice. - Rokossovski

My copy of CMBB, which until today had been working quite nicely, has developed a problem. Vehicle shadows, rather than appearing as shadows, are white and flash rapidly in an unpleasant and distracting fashion. Also, the lower screen, where unit data is displayed also has portions that appear white and flashing. The problem disappears for a few seconds from time to time, but just as suddenly reasserts itself. It is also affected when I move the camera around the battlefield. I have attempted to add a screenshot to this post illustrating the problem, but being a computer dunce I cannot determine how to do so. (I can make a screen shot, but dragging the icon onto this post does not seem to do the trick here. Presumably there is some other technique that eludes my grasp.) I suspect that the problem is the result of having installed new drivers for my Radeon 7200 video card yesterday, or perhaps updating to Direct X 9, which was also yesterday. As I mentioned above, CMBB was working fine before that. What can I do? I hate to sound as if having CMBB running smoothly is more important than life itself, but, of course, it is.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your advice. I did some experimenting with various sorts of ordinance tonight against the AI. I must say I am not convinced of the usefulness of the REALLY heavy stuff, like the 152mm and 203mm guns on indirect fire. When they hit I'm sure they're terribly effective, but with so few shells I would seem to be depending heavily on lucky hits. During my test games the heavy shells seemed to go astray and obliterate various innocent woodland creatures while leaving my cyber opponents untouched. If I had counted on them (the artillery, not the aforementioned woodland creatures) to soften up the enemy before an advance, my units would have paid heavily. The 120mm mortars may be my answer. Of course the responses given went into much greater depth than merely advising me about bore sizes, and I intend to add these tips into my play style (especially the use of "conscript" spotters bringing down pre-plotted fire delayed until shortly before my troops arrive). Thank you. - Rokossovski

I recently began playing CMBB, and am hoping for some advice about the use of off-map artillery assets. In a recent TCP/IP game, it was necessary for me to seize two large clumps of woods on an otherwise rather bare QB map. I held my troops back and hit the woods with 250 or so rounds of 82mm mortar fire. My infantry charged into the woods, but I noticed that my dug-in enemy was rather less distruped than I had hoped, and my infantry crossed the open ground leading to their objective only with difficulty. (Perhaps less difficulty than if there had been no bombardment, but it is hard to say. I had armor support flinging shells in as the infantry advanced, so that was helpful.) Ultimately, the first group of woods were taken. Next, there was a stretch of open terrain to be crossed before reaching the second wooded objective area. I brought down my remaining 82mm mortar fire, about 350 shells worth. I though about mixing in smoke, but ultimately did not, in part because of an impression that it would take some time for the smoke to spread, and I was running out of time. Unlike the earlier assault, this time I did not hold back my troops while the shells were falling, but started them moving right away. (My thinking was that if my infantry arrived very promptly after the bombardment the enemy would not be given a chance to recover from any suppression.) My Soviet infantry began reaching the objective very soon (less than a turn) after the bombardment ceased but were nevertheless dogged by fire coming from the woods I had just peppered with mortar rounds. I had hoped for a greater suppressive effect. My brave sons of the motherland managed to seize the objective area, but I remain troubled by a suspicion that I am using artillery/mortar assets inefficently. How should one use artillery in a set piece assault such as described above? After the battle my opponent suggested upgrading to 120mm mortars, although I would of course have to buy fewer units, or invest more points. (I spent about 20% of my points on the mortars.) Should I be buying 82mm mortars at all, or was my problem the result of the enemy being dug in? Should I use more smoke? Should smoke be brought down right on the units targeted, out ahead of them, or elsewhere? What sort of gun should be purchased for throwing smoke? 82mm, 122mm etc? Should I be using the smoke rounds from my tanks? How much is enough? How long does it take to form a barrier and how long does the effect last? Is there something else I should be doing/not doing? Any comments or advice would be appreciated. Thank you. - Rokossovski

Given the high quality of the products that Battlefront puts out and the extra care they put in (big, thick manuals etc) I'm perfectly happy shoveling money their way any chance I get just to encourage them to keep doing their thing. I'm in awe of both Battlefront's games and the demonstrated integrity of how they do business. - Rokossovski

As much as I agree with everyone's high opinion of CMBO and CMBB, don't give up Empires in Arms! That is a superb game (my very favorite board wargame out of a large number played) and hopefully one that will survive even with the advent of proper computer wargames such as discussed here. - Rokossovski

This is a very small and perhaps obvious point, but I would not be too quick to assume that SS Troops are "elite" in any fashion unless they have been designated as such in the scenario. There is little inherently superior about the Waffen SS (spiffy uniforms aside) unless the scenario designer enhances their quality.

Thank you for pointing this out. I have now suitably modified my profile. Great! -Rokossovski

My own preference is for large MAPS, in order to allow for a decent amount of flanking and maneouver. I am less particular about the size of the FORCES, although roughly battalion or reinforced battalion sized outfits work nicely.

Well, it gave the time of my last post as three hours ahead, so it must be Eastern Time. I suppose I could have simply sent one posting saying only "test", but then you would have been robbed of the pleasure of reading my bumbling text. [ August 13, 2003, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: Rokossovski ]