Lt. Smash

To be fair, the quality of the document is on par with most documents like this. The type face is clear and readable...which is what you want when you buy an electronic book. I do not think it is a scan of a fax. I think it is a scan of the proof pages or a fair-quality conversion from the original electronic document. I dislike the Direct2Drive download service. I dislike their customer service...basically, there is nothing I like about Direct2Drive. What I dislike most is their licensing scheme. They license the software to you but you may only use it on one computer. I have multiple computers at home and I have a laptop for work. When I travel for work, I like to play games like CM series because you can get a couple of turns in on a flight or in the hotel. When I am at home, I may play in my office or downstairs while the kids are coloring or watching television. With less restrictive licensing, I can do this just fine. With a disk, I can move the CD from computer to computer; however, with Direct2Drive, I am licensed to only use the software on one computer. Because I was just buying a "book" and it was "only" $15, I was willing to put my displeasure behind me, and I am happy with my purchase. I just hope that Battlefront continues to provide disk-based version of their software. If Battlefront decides to go to a ESD-only model, I hope they choose another or alternate provider. If they only use Direct2Drive, I will probably not buy any more of their software...which is a shame because they are so good...how often do you play games that are 4+ years old regularly? Bob

Bah! Shows what you know. The dreaded Right Coasters call it soda. We cornfed, apple-cheeked hillbillies call it pop. </font>

Oh, now I'll want to go back and play it using the historical British setup. Thanks for mentioning this.

I guess I should say... *** SPOILER WARNING **** Boy, this thread has given me a little CMAK confidence. First, as a noob, I always am not sure if my tactics are sound. Second, I like to play scenarios in chronological order....as it seems other do, too. Third, I was surprised by the default British setup, too: all infantry on the East and tanks on the West?!? Fourth, I, too used the TRPs to target the sandbags that were near my attack. I should say before I get too deep into this is that I have not yet finished this scenario. I am about 1/3 of the way through. So, the tide may turn but this thread caught my eye and I thought I throw in my two cents. Given the bizarre initial deployment, I moved the infantry and tanks behind the western ridges. I split my units into three task forces with plans to send a third of my forces to the main gate, a third of my forces to the Central Entrance, and a third in reserve to help exploit a hole as it appeared. As I already mentioned, I put my TRPs on sandbags. Since I was attacking from the west, I put the TRPs along the western edge of the fort. I let loose with my 25 pounders on the fortifications around the main gate and turned my 3in mortars on the central entrance. In retrospect, this was a mistake. I should have conducted a little recon and launched more intelligent fire missions. As it was, I dropped a lot of lead with little visible effect. As the scenario began, I crested ridges with two platoons of Matildas to do some preliminary recon and found more M11/39s sitting in the open than I ever imagined! My gunners opened fire as I brought more tanks and ATRs to the ridge to engage the enemy. The opening turns were like shooting fish in a barrel. My Matilda's took out around a dozen (yes, 12) M11/39s without a single loss. Very quickly the M11s started retreating (I assume breaking) and many took several hits before being knocked out. As the number of moving M11s disapated, my tankers began taking shots at trucks moving around the fort with some success. Very quickly the fort became still and very little movement was noticed. Those crews that survived and squads on the outside of the fort began surrendering. Given the desert setting, I could not help but think that the Italians looked like the Iraqis in the first Gulf War. With some success under my belt, I made my second mistake. Rather than bring my tanks forward followed by my infantry, I sent the infantry forward with my tanks as overwatch. Without HE ammo, the Matilda's could do little when machine guns or infantry began firing at my infantry moving in the open. As my infantry took tremendous losses (~40-50% in the two exposed platoons) and dove for cover, I figured out that my tanks could take care of the miscellaneous guns and distract the Italian infantry and began advancing the tanks ahead of the infantry. I was surprised when a platoon of reinforcements showed up on the east side of the map. This was a little disappointing since I had moved everyone over to the west side of the map earlier. Needless to say, this lone platoon has not done much on its own. It has only performed a little recon which simply confirmed that I was happy not to advance from the east. Today, my tanks are entering the main gate and central entrance and my infantry is hiding behind ridges and in brush waiting to advance into building in the fort. I'll post an update as I complete the scenario in the next few days.

I agree. It could be very interesting to play as the Italians....or very frustrating. Based on my attack on Nibeiwa, the Italians looked more like the Iraqi in the first Gulf War. If you can keep the Italians together, it might be fun.