Dandelion

- That you check your facts. And that you do not go around comparing the criticism of silly posts > You appear to forget that I didn't find it silly, and You are possibly forgetting that Your post was abusive and far from anything that would pass under the label "criticism" in a learned environment. Well, at least at the University I attended. I certainly do not feel You are justified in categorically stating that it was "silly", nor Your flattening of Reinald doing it. You asked me, now I ask You - Who are You? Why would Your opinion be of greater public interest than anyone elses? Like that of Reinalds, for example. Why would it be up to You to inform people how insufficient and inadequate they and their opinions are in Your eyes? Why do You take the liberty of using abusive language to people? Had Reinald insulted You? Said of You that You lacked concepts? I know I never told You to shut up, never called Your texts baloney - or Bologna - regardless of how I felt about them. - If you think that is amusing, you'll get into the troll shelf, as far as I am concerned. Not that this will bother you in the least, I am sure. > It might had I known what the Troll shelf was. But seeing as I am already here, I won't need directions. Meaning, I do understand this is probably just another insult, so don't bother clarifying, I get Your message anyway. - To now claim it is a joke > The smiley placed at the beginning would appear to be an indicator for joke wouldn't You agree? Reading further, the "Seriously though" might indicate to the receptive reader that I am changing from a joking to a serious text. It is not "now" claimning it was a joke, it was always a joke, but of course a joke with an edge pointing at a problem I feel exist, which I then went over to discuss. - The 'facts' of pricing are in this thread by the way. > I noticed. Think how constructive this might have been, if we could have just concluded that the BFC agreed fullpricing was not warranted, and that mine and Reinalds fears of them intending to do it anyway were uncalled for. But we can't now can we. We can't even agree upon what we disagree about at this point. - Enjoy this phase of your life Dandelion. > I see it as a Rit de Passage, and am hoping for something more and better at the other end. Greetings Dandelion

- Can you please direct me to the CMAK demo? I must have missed it. > I am sorry but I can't. There isn't any, to my knowledge. Of course, I am not following news on the topic very closely and I fear the risk of my missing the release is infinitely greater than You doing the same. - Your feeling does not change the facts. > Games, demos and pricetags are all speculative as they have yet to materialise. The only detectable fact present in this debate is that the engine is the same for all games. A fact that You declare irrelevant below in view of Your feelings, in this case about the differences in Your experiences of CMBO and CMBB if I am not misreading You. Obviously the fact is not felt irrelevant by all, and not all men share Your feelings on this. Oh Boy. Do you actually check on something you write before you do so? > Generally only occasionally. But my questioned claimed fact in this debate - that volounteer mods are sold sans compensation to concerned modder - does not warrant research nor proof, as nobody is denying it. Nor do You, I note. - I am one of the people who happily gives up his private time for no reward to help BFC. > I know. - BFC always asked for my agreement before providing my scenarios as part of their new ways of distributing their product. Do you have any proof that they did not do the same with the modders and other scenario designers? If so, please put up, or shut up, on this issue. > Andreas, my claim - as You will note when rereading my post - was that they charged people for the products of volounteer modding. How is that challenged by Your information? I did not claim it was done without permission. - Foolishly - more like it. If you want to be taken seriously, it really does help to get your facts right. > Why would it be desirable to be taken seriously on the Forum? I find it perilous. Look what it is doing to You. > Strikingly unhelpful is to make bold claims that are completely untrue. - Again declaring which subjective experiences are true and which are false. Correct line should read "I disagree, the debating climate does not strike me as unhelpful". This should be put before Your "shut up" and "baloney" comments to reinforce Your point. - To claim that pulling Reinald up on a very silly mistake that gives the completely wrong impression about BFC's product policy is Talibanesque is immature. > Well, again, You obviously feel it is, while I instead feel the harbouring of an attitude of believing oneself justified in 'taking people up' in this manner is in itself in want of more than a trifle reflection. Having said that, I might reveal I was rather pondering the poo-poo post than Yours when writing the taliban joke. Though not entirely made clear, a lead to this my intent might be found in the fact that it is posted well below the post adressed to You. - I know a number of people who no longer touch CMBO. I de-installed it a long time ago. Whether it is the same basic engine or not is completely irrelevant. > Correct line should read "I feel it completely irrelevant". Others, quite apparently, do not. - To all intents and purposes, it is a different, much improved game. > Quite apparently, not to quite all intents and purpouses. - Are you sure you are not Lt. Hortlund? > I'm in a phase in life where I am seriously pondering my personal identity and character quite generally, and their content. Though I have no idea of who this person is, I couldn't tell You for sure. - I agree that there is a very problematic climate in this forum when people like you feel they can just throw out random claims without checking their facts first. > I couldn't help noticing your position on this topic. Can't say I'm the only human noticing either. These last months have seen some puzzling posts from you. I'm not sure where all this rage and agressiveness is coming from. I suppose it will pass. - To then try to hide the boo-boo behind some balooney about Taliban is just plain stupid. > You are not giving Yourself enough credit Andreas. You would never spend this amount of rage on something stupid now would You? Because that would be really stupid You know. - I had thought a bit more of you Dandelion. Oh well, goes to show I am not the greatest judge of character. > I find it intriguing to ponder what on earth you were expecting of me Andreas. That I'd write abusive posts on the Forum like you do? Telling people to shut up? Telling people that they have crap ideas? Telling people that they lack concepts? Telling them that they post baloney? That their subjective experiences are wrong and mine are right? Like you do? Tell me, I am dying to know. What did you expect of me? Greetings Dandelion

...ah yes, another thing I recalled, a mistake I learned from - don't start fire on the enemy before he hits your mines. If you do, many of his men will drop and start crawling, increasing drastically his chances of detecting the mines before stepping on them. Cheerio Dandelion

I'll have a go on the mines issue then. If a guy steps on a mine everyone around him will normally freeze. If its your men exploding, you will notice that your move command is most probably ignored after the detonation. At least if your move order leads the men into the minefield. Not just the squad actually hit, but any squad of the opinion that it too is endangered by the mines, will simply stop. The men of course do not know exactly where the rest of your mines are, and will be generally cautious. But somehow they do seem to know that its impossible to place any field smaller than the CMBO size, and will thus stay clear of the area the unfortunates trampled into. The AI will try and trace a path past the danger, ever desiring to fulfil your every movement order, but chances are it will either fail or choose an absurdly stupid path. If its the enemy stepping into mines, the assault force (the typical mine trampling unit) will halt, and generally accidentally crowd in front of your minefield. This is exactly the point where you open up with direct or indirect support (see posts on cannon above). A minefield is never a permanent block to enemy movement, nor is it really a killer of men. If the field is left unsupported by suitable weaponry it is also never anything but area denial and delay. In fact the Germans themselves had a doctrine to never lay any mine that couldn't be reached by supportive fire, as they weren't much into operational area denial. The enemy will be temporarily slowed down by such an 'abandoned' field, possibly unable to use a specific piece of ground unless he removes the field with engineers. Of course, both area denial and delay are often quite valuable in a CMBO scenario. However, if the mines are to be part of a tactical defence, you may want to see them as fly tapes. You know the altmodish kind that hung from roofs, collecting flies that got stuck to them. For a brief moment in time, the enemy will - surprised, hopefully - be halted in mid-assault, stop and crowd helplessly at a point where you really, really want him. And not only is he crowding under your barrels, he is shook up too, far more susceptible to ideas of departure as a valid option once your fire begin. (a routed attack and a mowed down attack often have the same end effect in CMBO scenarios, when fighting over flags). Barbed wire will help keep him there for a longer period of time. Especially if he simply has to pass and will send up sapper parties to clear the mines. Engineers clear mines if placed next to them and remain static for 2-3 minutes. If they still have demo charges left. Generally, I feel it advisable to count on a 2-3 minute fire spree before his smokescreens start popping up. Whatever one has to deliver, it has to be delivered before that. As it is extremely difficult to detect mines with moving units, it is advisable to place the fields where you believe the enemy will be making a run for it, preferably in the open. This is typically the assault stretch in front of your positions. If placed in woods or the like, a slowly advancing or crawling enemy has far greater chance of detecting and avoiding the field altogether. Cheerio Dandelion

Hey, I resent that Pavlov, we've looked every bit as good as Americans for centuries. Just look at... well... well... well anyway, I still feel that pigpink skin, beerbellies and thin strawyellow hair shouldn't be discriminated against! Seriously though, aren't these in CMBB format? Or am I doing something wrong here? Cheerio Dandelion

Well Cabron, are you not struck by the sudden feeling of walking amidst a band of frenzied taliban, when suddenly it strikes you - and all the rest of the jolly crew - that you shaved this morning? In fact reading your post, I felt a compulsive urge to point my finger at yourself, opening my mouth to give off that horrid sound that Mr Southerland gives in the closing scene of Body Snatchers. :eek: Seriously though, we have a strikingly immature and unhelpful debating climate in the forum whenever critical opinion on the game or the company policies are aired. Few award any eloquence, humble or less humble, the attention it demands, as is quite evident from the above Reinald-stomping excercise. It was not always thus, I recall that the capital lettering-nonsensical-incomprehensible-chant anagrams were once delivered primarily by the "every single detail about this game is complete crap" lobby. As indeed was most of the abusing, stomping and swamping of dissidents. Tides turn, evidently. Now, run for it, I'll cover you from over here Cheerfully Dandelion

I don't see what's ludicrous about comparing Atomic with BFC. The BFC have themselves never claimed anything but the fact that the CMAK uses the same engine as CMBO and CMBB. Au contraire, Martin clearly states that the engines are the same in a recent thread. So I think we can safely assume that CMAK will indeed be using the same engine as the others. Reinald writes exactly this, and that he finds it problematic in view of the insistence on charging full price. Playing the Demo cannot reasonably reveal any other fact than that which he has already pointed out - that the engine is the same. Thus has no bearing on his simple and clear cut argument. I feel he has a valid point. It will amount to nothing, because the BFC will still release the CMAK using the same engine and same full price, but at least Reinald has given some critical opinion a bit of air in here. Atomic was a skilled team. Ultimately, it was a commercial company turning a profit (or failing to). They used some less honourable methods doing that. But I can't see it as being morally more revolting than the BFC making a buck out of volounteer unpaid modding the way they did, nor do I see what the difference is between their expansion modules and those of the BFC. It all seems pretty much the same to me. Irreverently Dandelion

Good link there, thanks. Though I beg to differ in opinion still. The idea of fully tracked and more or less enclosed armoured vehicles carrying infantry was as I understand it born in WWI, with the need to get across badly mauled and barbed-wired terrain, preferrably protected from machinegun fire and shrapnel. I've seen a number of prototype APC from this time and from between the wars, but have looked at them because they look so spectacular and bizarre, rather than out of any research motive. So I don't know that much about them. Maybe someone else can help here? The French were, as far as I know, the only ones to make real the idea, in spite of their heavy leaning towards wheeled lighter AFV. As I understand it, they ordered the Lorraine APCs as a stopgap measure, as they were developing a more modern design, the prototype of which looks conspicously much like the 15 year younger AMX VCI, which is probably a coincidence I guess. At any rate, the Lorraines equipped the mechanised infantry (BCP) of the armour divisions (DCR), and were thus exclusively used in a dedicated APC role just like the Kangaroos. French BCP platoons were also strikingly modern in organisation by 1940. The Lorraine chassis was used for many other types of vehicles, as is normal for any such design. A comparison is not fair really, as much had happened in the 7 years between the Lorraine and Kangaroo designs. The Kangaroo had more than twice the space inside and almost triple the armour (frontally). Thus considerably more fit for a modern battlefield. Speed was comparable though. The French made the very first halftracks too, in 1910. I remember, because it was a relative of this Kegresse that inspired the Americans to develop their own WWII halftrack series, which is very similar in appearance, but infinitely more modern in performance. The French never used halftracks for troops transport to my knowledge though, only as prime movers and tractors. According to a German source, they dropped the halftrack concept in the thirties and moved along to wheeled (6 and 8 wheels) vehicles instead, but the artillery arm hung on to their halftracks, apparently liking them much. Regrads Dandelion

Fine work of art Lucky, again. Its almost a problem that the Panther now looks so real it sort of cartoonises much of the surrounding. It struck me, what building mod are you using? The one visible in the background of the Panther pics? Regards Dandelion

YD, Seems you're right in appreciating their firepower more than I do. Did some testruns. Snipers get regular crews to duck on shot 1 or 2 (usually 1), hit or miss. Some get up quick, but most stay down more than one minute. The snipers fire 2-3 "shots" per minute, depending on the target stance. standing or sitting targets seemed to take about 10 seconds to aim at before discharge, hiding took longer, maybe 15-20 seconds. The to hit ratio of a Regular Sharpshooter seemed to be at about 45-55% (as in enemy casualty per ammo point). Regular Crews tended to abandon their weapon after taking casualties only, but one or two could suffice. All this at ranges from 360-560 meters. Obviously we can safely conclude they are more accurate shots than their fellow riflemen, and that they utilise their superior range if ordered to. A problem was of course that at such ranges, one rarely could tell the Hq or crews from other infantry units. Another problem is of course that human enemies tend to keep their hq units well out of harms way if they can. Still, I'm impressed. I'm now convinced one could create an interesting scenario with sharpshooters as the theme. Though ya know points count in scenarios too. A dead sniper is worth six dead riflemen when counting VPs. I'll stick to scouting with halfsquads, but I will definately pay more attention to the potential of my marksmen as force multipliers futurewise. Regards Dandelion

Michael, You Monde Noveau heathen you, you are forgetting ze Frrrench. Unforgivabul. The Lorraine 37L series must arguably be counted as the first enclosed and tracked APC to be used in larger quantities in the role. Sorry, I mean used in the rôle. Although quite bizarre in all models and shapes, even more so after they mount the trailer onto the chassis, it worked. Well, sort of worked anyway. I had great fun cruising the maps in ASL in these thingies, pointing fingers at the footslogging Germans, shouting "Panzergrenadier?" and giggling. Cheerio Dandelion

About the e-mail; I have that same fear of spams, and thus use the "e-mail me through my profile" function here. It works fine and no spams yet. On snipers. I'm not convinced these units are meant to be snipers as such. Rather, I believe they represent the sharpshooters present in most regular line units, normally at platoon or company level, with scopes of limited powers. The 600 meter range limit echoes the (failed) German Zf4 scope, but could really indicate any commercial such in use. I can't find these sharpshooters within the units they are supposed to be in, so I gather they had to be portrayed as separate units. Line sharpshooters were integral parts of the combat units, not normally meant to operate very independently. A sort of line rifleman with increased ability of selective targeting. I could be wrong of course, but that's how I understand them. That said, I agree they are of very limited use. Enemy AI targeting guarantees their immediate demise in any contact, even if squeezed in between squads. Its impossible to tell if they are any more accurate than their fellow riflemen when firing, and I'm not convinced they make use of the extra 100 meter range. Targeting would be the thing of value remaining. But in a infantry contact, targeting seems not to work. Key weapons personell may be taken out, but one never can tell as the AI will scrounge dropped key weapons. The effects of taking out squadleaders seems not to be caluclated in the engine, and it appears that taking down officers is like taking down key weapons. The officer appears to be the last to go down in the command squad, so to speak. In which case one might as well use real firepower. While its true the sharpshooter can take down buttoned up armoured personell, I agree with the above poster, that so can anyone else with a gun, including units more versatile than sharpshooters. For scouting, I find the sharpshooter of very limited value also. In spite of Borg effects. The sharpshooter is worth about 6 times as much as the ordinary rifleman, speaking VP's. Out on his own, he is extremely vulnerable even to stray encounters, such as support weapon crews and other typical rear area units easily overcome by proper recon patrols. On the move, he is just as easy to spot as a halfsquad, without the latters capacity of shooting their way out of a bad situation. There goes another 2 ½ cents Regards Dandelion

Could this be the culprit then? I see no bayonet attachements but it is presented as the rare 1903 carbine (and sold for 40 000 dollars! That Australian soldier might have been a bit more grateful). Regards Dandelion

I say, that must be a record in fast-answer-to-an-extremely-obscure-question. Many thanks. I didn't know about the bad rep of the Chauchat either. Had to look it up to understand what you meant. It said the Chauchat is regarded as one of the major engineering failures of history. Reminds me of the German counterpart: the "08/15", so famed for never working properly that the number combination is still usable for anything hopelessly misconstructed. The author in the Cretan document has a cool style, I'm not sure if its underlying humour of if he simply has refined manners. I particularly like the formulation "after the failure of the uprising the Cretans were asked to return their weapons to the authorities". Apparently some regretfully declined. I can just picture the scene Thanks again; Paco, I'm working my way through Beevors book on Crete and I always get annoyed when he leaves loose threads hanging like that. I couldn't help but peaking into your profile there, I'm afraid, and thus am kind of hoping you'd be able to help me out on another Beevor book, that on the Spanish civil. If you feel this topic is uncomfortable, I'll not insist. But I am looking for a qualitative OOB and TOE for the forces involved, and I have such a vague notion of uniforms and personal equipment of either side that any such source, even a less qualitative one, would be very valuable. Do you know of any good ones on the net? Regards Dandelion [ August 19, 2003, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Dandelion ]

Ok, anybody know what model the US Carbines were that reputedly were sent to Crete in 41? Beevor claims that 3500 American carbines arrives to Crete as armament for the Crete reserve division being raised there after the defeat on mainland Greece. There could be no British arms sent due to German bombingraids in Midlands having knocked out small arms production, it says. I've tried to let it go, but I can't sleep. What carbines were these? Creten reservists with M1's? Yours Dandelion

Ah-hah! I had been wondering about that as well in fact. There is a tank destroyer variant of the M3, or possibly M5, halftrack, normally called T-something. Its not represented in CMBO. The T is there for the same reasons then? Regards Dandelion

...because the Kangaroos were primarily made from Canadian RAM tanks. Though some 80 or so were converted from Priests too, and used by the 3rd Canadian Div as early as july 44. These are not always called 'Kangaroos' in accounts. ("Unfrocked Priests") In NWE, Kangaroos were eventually pooled to 79th 'funnies' Armoured Division, serving in the 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment and UK 49th APC Regiment respectively. They were deployed to divisions as needed. For most of 1945, 49th served with XII Corps. Not sure where the Canadians were at. The game piece would probably also be intended to depict the "normal" deturreted Sherman, a field workshop creation used primarily as towing vehicle for 17pdr guns in some armoured units. Regards Dandelion

Indeed Pat, I agree. The text has many virtues. It is the very manifesto of the old Viking wisdom, that even the imbecille can appear to be wise, if only he stays absolutely silent. Perhaps I should have written that using capital lettering. After all, this is not a dance, this is war. If the revolting language does not bother you, I wouldn't feel inhibited by any extreme curiosity. Simply enjoy the classy literature above and the many, many gold nuggets of maturest wisdom and CM secrets woven into it, quite beyond the reach of bellyaching sourbelly impotents like myself. Cheerio Dandelion

Yup. With the stroke of a key, one can turn a great simulation into a 3D version of Close Combat IV. But actually we're natural born omnivore scavengers, with no evidence to suggest we were ever adapted to hunting live prey. In fact, we have had access to tools capable of felling big game for the last microsecond of our history only. Try attacking a bull with a flintrock. Indeed, check your eyesight, teeth, hearing, smell, speed - anything you like really, and ask yourself; am in any respect at all even remotely comparable with, or vaguely resembling, any given predator on earth, including insects, living on land, in the air or at sea? Face it, we're walking pigs with guns. So don't excuse ignorance with instincts, Cats would read manuals had they been able to grasp the basic concept of reflection. It would enable them to open their own cans of catfood now wouldn't it. Chop chop Dandelion

Omi, Sadly, machineguns are not portrayed as such in CMBO. There are no firelanes, no sustained fire effects, nor any comparative firepower reflection. Thus you cannot really use them in a accurately realistic manner. What you do have however is long range firepower. Realistically, the German attack typically deployed machineguns on the flanks, cutting the path of counterattacks and suppressing mutually supportive positions. Deployed on both flanks of an attack, the effect was a little akin to a drill. In case things went awry, the mg's switched to crossing firelanes in front of the retreating assault force to cover their retreat. I've met opponents who've found mg's so pointless in CMBO that they use them for scouting and mine-trampling. It seems to be a ladder gamer thing. Personally I hold them in higher regard than that. If the scenario time limit will allow it, I always bring them along. Its not necessarily a long wait. Routes of advance need be scouted and secured, and that usually takes some time anyway. Also, one won't normally want ones troops exhausted before reaching jumping off point, so most of the guys will be marching rather than running, making it easier for the support to keep up. But for sure, some scenarios are designed in a way that makes it patently impossible to make any use of support, simply because one is forced to run from turn one, due to time shortages. Machineguns are highly useful for tying enemy troops down, denying him freedom of movement (especially with thinskin vehicles) and of course to suppress enemy infantry in objective areas. They're also useful for protecting flanks, and in general for defending recently taken terrain. As for panzerfausts, the men will fire them at very close range targets, but in my experience they need to be in pretty good shape in order to do it, and I'm not sure I've ever seen any Green troops fire fausts. I think the men uses them against non-armoured targets too, such as enemy squads. At any rate, don't count on them. Their prime use is that the enemy has to stay clear of them. Regards Dandelion

No solid info to offer, but thechnically its possible that the Poles might have faced a few paras in August, on the Mace. The paratroops deployed to Normandy were divisions 2, 3 and 5. All deployed to Bretagne. Part of 2nd fought at Carentan (against US), the rest at Brest (against US). 3 and 5 were part of II.Airborne Corps and fought at St Lo and in the Vire valley (against US), and were subsequently caught in the Falaise pocket in mid August. Remnants broke out through the Chambois-Argentan gap. Someplace, somehow. By then more than 70% of both divisions had been lost, so we are speaking scattered remnants. Who knows, some of them might have been present in the Hill 262 battles of August 19-22. Never saw any report on it, but Falaise was such a chaotic mess, anything is possible, and I've read no real good accounts on these events myself. There were no paratroopers taking part in the battles for Caen though. Regards Dandelion

Not only did it create a platform for play, it united a vast mass of previously isolated, often lonely players all over the world who thought they were the only people on earth with a fanatical devotion to wargames. And we're all here. And here yet another saved soul. Hop right in. Cheerio Dandelion

Hi again Tom, First off I have to agree with your analysis. Too much in a hurry and too little recon (I presume, as we get no information of enemy movements until they trample your positions in the AAR). But also on the positive note. I think you're doing quite well. I seem to spot a strong affinity for high ground. Personally, I find high ground rarely warranting deployment. Although the denial of enemy deployment there might of course a prime concern. Deploying on summits, crestlines or forward slopes makes it possible for your enemy to concentrate all his direct and indirect fire on your positions. Positions quite easily scouted too. The u friendly units deploying thus also usually end up with a field of fire too vast to control, meaning all enemy units can target them but they themselves having limited possibilities of answering back (i.e. one at a time). If you deploy on the reverse slope (i.e. the side facing away from the enemy) of the hills, you of course lose ability to engage the enemy over long ranges. But if it had been a good idea to engage him in this manner - i.e. if you had stronger ranged firepower - he would probably not be attacking in the first place. Typically, an attacker will have superior firepower and so typically, the defender is wise to keep a low profile and seek to acquire short combat ranges. Especially when British and Germans are engaging, as the Germans have more generous amounts of submachineguns (which will help you only at ranges 75 meters or less really). Positions on reverse slopes are very difficult for your enemy to scout and map, probably impoissible to observe directly for artillery spotters and quite impossible to soften up with any direct fire. In addition, the reverse slope presents a smaller target for the enemy artillery to hit, especially firing blindly. It has to do with angles. Artillery comes in at an angle from the enemy side. Its the same principle that makes it so hard to get that tennis ball landing on the opponent side of the tennis court. As the enemy advance on you, it is then he who is forced to cross the crestline, exposed to your close range defensive fire. The more difficult targetting is especially useful, as the enemy spotters are very unlikely to be able to directly observe any of your units on a reverse slope. If you deploy close enough to the crest/summit (not too close), the enemy will find it quite impossible to make any use of it himself. Reverse slopes, gullies, the heart of forested spots, midpoint of houses. Stay in cover, keep your head down and make sure your field of fire is narrow enough for you to dominate it. As attacker, your opponent does not have that luxury. Of course, recon teams and observers can always deploy wherever they like. The enemy won't find them anyway if they lie still. Deploy at depth when facing armoured units, meaning usually two up one rear (platoons, squads, companies). Deploy with interlocking fields of fire between units, and mutually supporting positions (i.e. guys in one position can fire at the area around another friendly position to help defend it). Flanking fire is ideal. Thats easiest achieved by having a LOS block in the direction of the enemy, and fields of fire at 45 degree angle left and right. This way you'll always get flank shots, and once firing, he won't be able to lead in direct fire support on you. Allow enemy lead elements to pass ambush positions before opening up (only possible if you have veteran units or better). The detaching of a reserve was quite veteran-ish I think. Reserves are extremely useful, but must of course be provided with a covered approach to their intended insertion points. A variant of reserves is the positioning of part of a force in a defensive position slightly rear of the others. If their firepower is desperately needed, you can always move them forward. If not, you will find the swift counterattack one of the most lethal infantrykillers available. Make it a flank attack and make it extremely immediate, while the enemy is still on the move. When facing enemies with overwhelming armoured support, its often a good idea to have alternate positions. One retreats there after a few rounds of combat (i.e. to just about when his armour rolls up). Ideally, covered retreat lanes are provided, and why not set a trap or ambush while departing. Well that's about what an old useless knowitall can think of at this late hour. Keep at it Dandelion

Sorry Tac, I don't get it. I click the link but I don't see no map, crummy or other. Its just the proving grounds entry. Am I missing something? Or do you mean you want comment on the Flakbuster setup? Regards Dandelion [ August 12, 2003, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Dandelion ]

Extending Panzertruppes answer: 1. One might suggest here the CMMOS mod manager. I don't use it myself, as I'm the monogamous typeoguy and stick with the mods I choose, but I do appreciate that the CMMOS is an extremely swift and expedient tool for those with high demands on accurate modding for every scenario. All my opponents use it. All can be found at this place. For the complete collection, do a search on the forum using 'Mods' as searchword, you'll find endless amounts of threads with links, tips and opinions. 2. Sometimes, but not always. Most work fine, but there are several that don't so you'll have to check if the mod package contains an identical set of BMP files to those already existing in your BMP folder. You can easily check. Download the Mod and open it. It will contain a set of BMP files with numbers. Then open your CMBO/BMP folder, check the numbers of the Mod files and see if they exist in the CMBO BMP folder. If they do, and look about the same, it generally works fine. A mistake here is no disaster, it won't crash your system. But it will look funny in-game and might be difficult to trace and replace. 3. Your CMBO folder contains a folder called "BMP", for standard Windows Bitmapp files. All Mods (except sound Mods) are packages of BMP files. Just insert them in any way you feel practical into your BMP folder. Personally I use copy paste. However, with the CMMOS things are slightly different, but here there is a special manual to be downloaded, at places mentioned above. Sound Mods are packages of standard Windows Wav files. You put those in the CMBO folder, subfolder "Wav". Its all extremely user friendly really. 4. Gameplay is not Mod-able, and sound Mods are scarce, sadly. Mods are normally BMP files altering appearance of terrain and 3D models such as terrain and units (normally by using higher resolution). There are no musts in my opinion, just your personal taste. Many players use non-published Mods. Dandelion