Private Bluebottle

I just installed a new NVIDIA GeForce FX5500 in my PC and I can't play CM. All I get is a constant rolling, at high speed image on the screen when I start the game in order to set the screen resolution. Its unreadable. Any suggestions?

About the C^4 stuff. I recently attended a conference where the point was made that its marvellous at telling you what your own troops are doing but patently useless at telling you what the enemy is doing. The speaker made the point that the US division commanders in the advance into Iraq in OIF, based themselves not to the rear, where all the computer stuff was but right at the front, exactly in the style that Guderian and others had advocated in WWII, purely because they didn't want to be swamped by information. I've also read reports from the users of all this stuff in the US Army that its about as reliable as a PC running an early version of Windows.

The American centric nature of both games means that I won't be as interested as I was in CMx1.

Why is it American centric? I was under the impression the UN consisted of a great many more nations than just the US. Then there are the obvious problems of the US once more returning to the UN "fold", so to speak. I assume that one of the key assumptions is that there is a change of US presidency and a Democrat has been elected?

How about clearing mines? Surely the creation of mine lanes will be important. The use of mechanical and explosive means to clear mines, needs to be modelled as well.

I have only one major, great wish for CMx2 - that it come out for the Linux operating system. After that, all others are comparatively minor.

That may be the case for the American side of the Pacific War but in New Guinea and Burma, combined arms was the norm, even if the actual actions were mainly short, little, vicious firefights at close range. Artillery, Armour, Infantry and other supporting arms, all played their part, even if Infantry was the queen of the battlefield.

If anything, the Pacific is far better as a theatre if CM is to be considered only suitable for company sized actions. Afterall, it was primarily an infantry war but there was in most theatres significant use of armour, albeit in smaller numbers than in Europe. In Burma, Malaya, Borneo, New Guinea, Java, the Pacific islands, tanks were utilised. I suspect the real reason why we won't see a game about the Pacific War because battlefront aren't interested in it, rather than because its necessarily a theatre where CM scaled actions didn't occur.

I've read about Mapping Mission and its utility. I managed to download verion 1.15. Is there a later version which works with CM:AK as I have been unable to make it work with that game?

S.M.E.A.C. Situation Mission Execution Admin and Log. Command and Sigs. Situation - A brief description of the current situation, providing background as to what has occurred up to this point. It should also talk about intelligence on friendly and unfriendly forces. Known and suspected intentions. Mission - stated in plain, no-nonsence language what the objective is of the operation. Execution - How the objective is to be attained. Again in plain, no-nonsence language, detailing the tactics to be used. Admin and Log. - Details of forces, attached units, logistics and resupply, etc. Command and Sigs. - Commanders, authority, line of succession, etc. Signals - signals arrangements. Just about covers it for me. Not bad for over 20 years since I last used it. Thats what is needed, how to achieve it best is another matter. I don't want or need flashy "movies". I do want to have the ability to add maps, pictures (non-moving) and other types of information that will make me more aware of the situation, rather than some generic movie about some bloke nonchalantly driving a jeep up a hill, jumping out, seeing some enemy forces, swearing and jumping back in his jeep. [ September 19, 2005, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

Its a common method utilised by most GIS applications. Its been around for at least 20+ years that I know of. Again, something that most GIS can accomplish without too much difficulty. Might need a lot of programming behind it, for all I know but Arc/Info, etc. can do it already.

1) You owe me a turn. 2) Artillery can, if fired in sufficient quantity, build up effective concentrations of most WWI and WWII agents, for local effect. In WWI, artillery fired concentrations primarily for flank protection and counter-battery work. Its problem was that it took too long a time to build up the concentration when other, quicker methods such as the Livens Projector was available. The problem was that most of those quicker methods, were much shorter ranged than artillery, which is why quite sensibly, it was primarily used on the longer-ranged tasks mentioned. There are examples written about in a book I have on WWI chemical warfare where artillery though, was very effective in producing quick, localised concentrations when fired to counter counter-attacks. 3) In a WWII game, I'd expect to see chemical warfare limited to scenarios in China - where the Japanese did utilise chemical weapons. However, they were primarily short-ranged, tactical weapons, such as grenades, grenade-launchers, etc., which would make them ideally suited to CM. The results tended to be more moral than physical though, again, because it was difficult to produce large concentrations using such methods. Invariably only a few casualties would result and the rest of the defenders would flee.

Thank you, Michael. Of course I am. Modern warfare's speed couldn't be maintained without adequate maps. Modern armies (ie 20th century+ ones) maintain Ordnance Surveys, who's responsibility is the planning, preparation and production of maps of their own and other nation's terrain. One of the biggest lessons that came out of the Boer War was the need for better navigation skills, first among officers and then, later among the other ranks. Armies today devote hundreds of hours to teaching navigation down to the commonest soldier. How to read maps, how to use navigation instruments, how to relate maps to ground and so on and so on. In WWII, the British Army alone produced several hundred hours of training films for the use of troops to teach navigation (I know 'cause I've sat through about 20 hours of them and bugger me, they're boring. Invariably the narrator suggests, "Look around for a tall object, such as a church steeple..." when discussing resections - not much use in outback Australia, I can assure you!). The ability of the scenario designer to increase the "immersion" of the players and to provide them with necessary information to allow them to plan their battle would be of particular value I feel. I'll add one other variable which I think would be useful - time. If the scenario planner could limit the amount of time available to a player to read and understand the briefing notes, it would add somewhat to the urgency of the matter. Perhaps a small clock in one corner, counting down the minutes. After that, only the text section of the notes would be available to be reviewed, to represent the problem of taking away maps/panoramic views from the briefing. I like the idea you mentioned in the other thread of the use of overlays. That would be useful as well. Like you, I'm not sure what Philippe thinks what happens during training in the Army but it appears he believes soldiers don't get taught navigation.

A unit "footprint" would be determined not by an arbitrary value but the terrain and the cover available to that unit.

I've been wargaming for about 30 years now. I've seen/read a great deal of what has been written by and about wargames. I don't easily get confused about reality and wargames. I suspect you're wrong. Armies cannot function without maps. The Soviets were a great deal less worried in WWII about "security" than they were about combat effectiveness. Most of the bull**** that grew up in the Cold War about maps and the fUSSR's military, came because of the reverse situation coming about. As to what information is provided in a briefing in WWII, it depends upon the level at which it occurrs, how much preparation time is available and the amount of intel available to the commander, at the time. Same thing happens today. One thing though, that the subcommanders do know is the general lay of the land and that is what I'd like to know, as well, when I'm being briefed for a scenario. The easiest and best way is to provide a map to accompany the briefing. You've never been taught how to navigate, have you, with a map and a compass? You don't need road signs. As long as a reasonable topographic survey has been undertaken and you have a compass, you can discover your location with a resection. As for not speaking the local lingo, its amazing how much information some cigarettes, nylons and chocolate can discover, through negotiation. The ability of a scenario designer to add maps, pictures and other information to his briefing would be invaluable to the players. How much he adds or omits, should be though, up to him. An ability to load a html page into the game for scenario briefings would be IMO an invaluable addition to the game.

As long as you don't actively prevent it, I'll be happy. My fears were that you were intending to actively limit the scope of the game and actually prevent the deployment of units above a coy in strength on the map.

It is not lack of imagination, nor lack of familarity with the "genre". I spent 10 years in the army doing this stuff for real. Every briefing I attended or gave, had maps and/or aerial reconniassance photos when available. Its trying to figure out where the hell town XXXX is, road YYYY is and so on.

I'll name one immediately - Combat Mission, your own game. It is capable of simulation actions from section through to battalion, quite adequately, as it stands now. It appears to me though, that we may be speaking at cross purposes. Tell me - will it be possible to have multiple companies of infantry/troops of tanks on the map, at the same time? Will it be possible to co-ordinate their movement/fire? If the answer is yes, then you're not doing IMHO a "company sized game" but rather a battalion sized game.

I had, when I made my original comment. I still stand by it.

I'd hope that there may be something new in the way briefings are presented in CMx2. At the present moment, they are a slab of text, which are in my opinion hard to follow. In real life, briefings are invariably given with reference to maps and/or aerial reconniassance photos. Ideally, what I'd like to see is an option for the scenario designer to include a simplified map of the battle area beside the briefing notes. The map should include the various reference labels which are present on the game map. The designer should be able to edit this simplified map, if they desire and remove labels/features. This would enable players to read the briefing notes and refer to the map while doing so. I find it annoying and disconcerting to say the least to be thrown into a scenario without much in the way of, for want of a better term, "situational awareness".

Battalion sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a regimental action. It's a slippery slope. Anybody can draw a line in one place or another and say "this is it" and, provided the rest of the sim is geared towards it, make a decent case for the scale being correct. Close Combat, which was more or less a platoon level game, did a pretty good job of simulating things realistically. Small maps, detailed terrain, small units. Unfortunately, vehicles were more difficult to squeeze into that environment since their intended use was not supposed to be up close and personal. The denser urban maps balanced this out fine, but the more open ones bordered on a bad joke sometimes In general, I think the optimal organization is 3 levels of command and one that is more or less a paper-pusher. For example: Squad Platoon Company [battalion] Platoon Company Battalion [Regiment] Division Corps Army [Army Group] The more levels of command that are maintained, the less realistic and the more difficult the play. Especially the latter. Few CMers, as a %, want to play monster Regimental games. Yes, it can be done and some people only want to play that way, but I'd be shocked if this were more than a few % points of our total audience. With the game as it is we get those few people and the rest. If we prevert the game design philosophy to favor monster battles the % will change because the overall number of people interested in the game will drop off dramatically. Hence the reason for keeping CMx2 the same as CMx1. Steve </font>

Quite. What do you mean by "optimized". If you read over this entire thread, you'll see that a battalion commaner has a much different perspective than a company commander. See my proposal for a Battalion Command game in another thread that I started and just bumped. </font>

My point is that that it nearly impossible to "stalk" tanks because it is too easy IMHO for the stalkers to be spotted and thence annilated before they can bring their weapons into play. In particular, I'd like to to be much harder to work out what each subunit is armed with, so that AT units don't specifically get targetted in the manner they presently do.

I decided to email the RAC Museum at Bovington about the matter and received this reply: It appears I was incorrect, it wasn't HESH, per se but rather simply a bloody big HE charge. I apologise, in that regard.

Actually, Nigel makes the point that HESH wasn't developed for the 25 Pdr, until after WWII. He doesn't say that British didn't have HESH or that it wasn't developed until after WWII.