[MyIS] Buffpuff

Man that was quick Michael! That's what I was thinking of doing but figured I'd ask before I loaded the demo again. Not knocking the demo but the full version is so much better!!

I'm sure this question has been asked before but rather than scoll through all the Cheery waffle threads(and that's a joke by the way) I figured I'd ask it anyway. Can you play TCP/IP or PBEM with the full version versus someone who only has the demo version? Obviously I'm only referring to the scenarios that came with the demo but I've got a friend who I'm trying to hook on this thing and he only has the demo version so far. Thanks in advance!

If you know that you'll be fired upon or strongly suspect that you'll be fired upon then I would say "advance" is a more appropriate command as this is a compromise between running and walking and your infantry may suffer less casualties. Not a guarantee by any means but the premise behind "advance" is that your infantry squad is moving from cover to cover even when technically advancing over open ground. The problem with running is your units tire more quickly, your units are less likely to spot a unit firing upon it, and in my experience are quicker to be panicked when running. About the only time I use run when I think I'll have contact is to run away from an artillery barage where the risks of being panicked by running outweigh the risks of staying put and eating an artillery round.

Yeah that makes sense. I guess my big problem has been trying to have LOS to those guns and losing tanks in the process. I don't know why I didn't think about indirect fire. I've done a fairly descent job of avoiding the tank duels with the King Tiger. I found out the hard way that even though the ISU has very good AP penetration values you still don't want to go frontal with a King Tiger. Side flank shots are definitely the way to go there. Thanks for the ideas guys. Oh and Jason have you ever considered writing a book on tactics? I think I like reading your tactics better than I did the CMBB strategy guide!

Yeah I had been reading and practicing those type of tactics lately but unfortunately this particularly scenario lacks all of those units with the exception of squads. So I've got half-squads pretty dispersed but dragging along support weapons is counter-productive to recon speed. If I wait for a Maxim MG to continously cover my recon units it'll take me 15-20 turns to scout a good portion of the map. No mortars to take out those guns. No sharpshooters or tank hunter teams to draw fire. When I've encountered enemy units and pinned them with infantry units I have ordered 1 or 2 tanks up to a support position to spread a little HE to those units dug in foxholes. I'm keeping several tanks back to provide cover fire in case my tanks get a surprise but more often than not one of those well sighted guns pops 1 or 2 of my tanks before the others see it...Maybe bad luck or maybe I'm not moving my cover units up far enough to see what's shooting at my assaulting tanks. Or maybe I just suck playing this game...LOL!! But thanks for the advice

Well considering I'm at turn 20 of 30+ right now with my opponent I don't think there's anyway I'm going to come back to beat him. So this question is for all you tactics grogs out there. In your opinion what is the best way to assault in this scenario? Unfortunately I can't describe my plans since I'm sure he trolls the forums as I do. I've done some recent searching on the forums for tactics and such. I've especially been impressed with JasonC's posts along with countless others who obviously have a better grasp on how to play this game than I do. I used to lead with tanks. I found out the hard way that's an easy way to end up with an infantry only battle without armor support. Then I graduated to sending infantry with minimal support to recon. When locations were identified I would move armor up to pound them. This leads to unforseen AT guns knocking out my tanks. I think my biggest problem is trying to avoid any type of loss which results in a very over-cautious assault. Losing infantry recon squads I know is part of the game but I guess I find it hard to throw them in the meat grinder so to speak. Some helpful suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Man I thought for sure someone would take a nibble out of saying I got CMAK2...Ya'll are being slow this morning or ignoring that snide remark or both. My pre-order arrived this morning. Though my wife has delivered the news that she's going to wrap it up as a XMAS gift since "Your 5 month old son has more gifts to open than you". Is this a lame excuse? Should I demand an early XMAS present? Should I wait till she goes to work one day, burn a copy of CMAK, re-wrap it, and then act surprised on XMAS morning?? Anyone have a suggestion? I'm getting tired of walloping the AI on Fruelingswind!

Well it seems you were correct in this matter(not that I doubted it but had to try anyway). ATI is 100 percent against this issue(thanks Madmatt for endulging my inquiries) so for those who have ATI cards there will never be fog unless the next engine supports their vertex fog. For me, ATI has lost a customer as I never received a reply to any of the emails that I sent to them regarding this issue. I knew I kept that GeForce4 card for a reason!

What the hell?? I just received "CMAK2" in the mail. Looks pretty good with the new engine and graphics and a ton of other features. Was I supposed to receive this?

I had the same feeling in the months that I dealt with Cox Communications in regards to latency issues. High speed internet was a joke in that I was getting quicker downloads off of a 56K modem versus their screwed up routing tables and clogged up network. One person griping I didn't think could change things. Persistance sometimes pays off. I appreciate the link. I'll test the waters and see what kind of response I get.

As a gamer who's been basically breast-fed on NVIDIA cards for the past few years I just made the leap to the ATI Radeon path. For all my other games I've seen some improvements. For CMBO and CMBB one thing is missing. Yup it's that fog. Now granted I don't play a whole lot of fog missions but it's still nice to pick random weather and be met with a beautiful thick fogged dawn after you've purchased 88 Flak guns, 155mm Arty spotters and such that are useless in such weather. My question isn't will ATI ever support fog emulation tables. I've done enough searching on the forums that I've seen this topic over and over and over and over and over(I sensed a recurring pattern in reading them). My question is how can I, the average paying customer, contact ATI and ask them why they don't support fog emulation tables for CMBO/CMBB? I don't know about the technicalities involved in this and some people will say one person is not going to change their minds but after browsing the forums it seems to me there's a substantial number of Radeon users out there who don't have their fog. One voice probably will not create waves but if I can get Cox Communications to fix my damn internet connection by calling their headquarters in Atlanta then being a thorn in ATI's side sounds right up my alley. Is there anyone out there who's challenged ATI to support us??

I just recently switched from a GeForce4 Ti4200 to a Radeon 9600. All I can say is I do miss the fog. In fact it's such an annoyance to me not to be able to play in fog that I'm still contemplating switching to a more powerful GeForce4. A hard dilemma for me since it's not like I play fogged missions on a regular basis. To keep or not to keep? Personal preferrence I guess but I can say it sucks not having that fog. And I'm sure this question has been asked a million times but what's it going to take for ATI to support fog emulation tables for their Radeon cards? It still amazes me that a technical issue like this has not been addressed in the years that CMBO and CMBB have been out.

First of all I'd like to congratulate Biltong and Robert for all their hard work in giving us the campaigns we never had. I can only imagine the amount of hours it took to develop all these ideas and then put it in writing. I know this has been a horse that's been beat to death but after trying out Biltong's campaign(talk about time intensive and at times confusing and frustrating) and getting ready to try Robert's campaign I for one will be glad when CM includes a campaign. Again this is not a knock against their work and I can only imagine the time it would take to actually include a campaign in-game. So until then I'll continue to learn, to enjoy, and to occasionally bang my head against the wall! [ October 31, 2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: WKA Buffpuff ]

With all the talk about graphics and old engines I figured I'd throw my small 2 cents in. Anyone ever hear of Counter-Strike? Before you flame me for being a FPS bastard(and I am...CMBB/CMBO gives me a nice change of pace) I only mention it because CS is a game based on the 7 year old Half-life game engine. Yes the visuals are pretty bland compared to what's out there today but the gameplay is what makes it what it is. I personally have never played CMBO/CMBB and thought to myself "Man these graphics suck!". They are by no-means cutting edge but they get the job done IMO. [ September 01, 2003, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: WKA Buffpuff ]

Got it the other day Snowbart. Some of the things I was already doing. Some other things I was not so I found it to be helpful. I've come to the realization that I just plain suck at this game no matter what book I read!

You bastage Snowbart! I haven't gotten mine yet. Postal service is slow in North Carolina so I blame the Post Office!

Hey Snowbart I ordered my edition in January as well. I'll let ya know if I get it!

I think I figured out my problem. I never rolled for my task force. Man talk about giving yourself a handicap!!! No wonder I kept getting cease fires and draws!

First off great job on the depth of this campaign you've created Biltong. I've been playing CMBO for almost 2 years and finally starting to wean myself off of it and started playing CMBB. The campaign looks great but there are some points that I'm confused about. The rules say you start off with 653 purchase points and no attached units. My question is how do you setup your 1st battle to play with those 653 points? I set up a QB with the force size set at 500 points. The AI got a 10 percent bonus so they got 550 purchase points. When the dust settled I had suffered minor casualties but was unable to take the victory flag locations due to almost a company sized russian force that hadn't even fired an earnest shot yet at my troops. Had I tried to assault that force with my forces I think I would have been lucky if I had any survivors. Being on the attack I don't expect to just run over my opponent(even if it is the AI) with superior numbers but this assault match seemed almost more like a meeting engagement with the disadvantage to me because of dug-in defenders. But getting to the point of my question is what force size do you choose for your first battle? From reading the player guide and the rules everyone starts with the same force at the beginning. Assaulting a 550pt Infantry based force with a 653 pt Combined Arm force(even with 3 tanks) was tough as hell. Maybe I just suck as a player(all these years wasted..sniff sniff) but I get the feeling I don't have a full understanding of how to start this thing. Thanks in advance for helping a noob!

Not to stick up for some of the people that work at my local EB store(The day Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell was released for the PC the clerk said it wasn't supposed to be released until 2004. I came in 4 hours later and bought a copy from the same clerk of the "2004 release") but some of them are avid gamers. And though I would agree most are console whores(grin) some are quite knowledgeable on the wargames front. I actually talked with an employee who knew what CMBO and CMBB were and we arranged a PBEM. But maybe this was just an isolated event!