Blutzeit

Found this link on how to run OS9 on intel macs: http://www.uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/08/7352/

Well, I think there are emulators out there that run OS9 (or at least OS8 im sure) on intel macs. But not sure about 3D support in this scenario though. Anyone?

Cedega is not an option for Mac, got the following reply from transgaming: This means BF is required to port CMx1 themselves using Cider, which seems unlikely. Well, well, we have to stick with BootCamp until Parallels version 3 is released.

Yup, I can confirm that no version of Wine work (Crossover 6.0, Wine 0.9.30, Darwine 0.9.12). Is there a really a Mac version of Cedega? If you visit Transgaming, they refer you to their Cider product. http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=36&meid=#8

Grass is no good as cover, try using a very-big-hill instead And get yourself a T-72 instead, and use the blade to get yourself properly dug in before the enemy hits you. I once managed to achive a perfect hull-down poition up on a hill. I must have took over a dozen hits on my tank, not getting more than a mere scratch on the paint. And I still had perfect view on the oncoming platoon of enemy tanks, picking them of one by one. [ January 25, 2007, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Blutzeit ]

Bah, too bad, I bet my new mac would run faster in full screen software emulation mode than my old pc would. But thanks for the info anyways. A related Q: Now that it's limited to 640x480, can CMBO be made to run in a window instead of "full screen"?

I'm running CMx1 (CMBO demo so far) in Paralells on my MacBook Pro and it works pretty much ok. Only problem is that it insist on running it in a 640x480 window. It's not possible to switch this from inside the application because there's no Direct3D available. I tried to modify the preference file by replacing the numbers 640 and 480 (0280 01E0) with 1280 and 1024 (0500 0400), but I can't get it to accept that. Does anyone know if there's a workaround to get it working with a larger screen?

Speaking of joysticks, what's the best joystick for a tank sim like T-72? Seems most of them are rather flight sim oriented.

Arrgh, i've tried a number of combinations, follow road, column formation, but the supporting vehicles still behave like total noobs. I once got the tank moving across the bridge, it was almost across only to take a turn left and make a nose dive straight into the water. The strategic map command UI is a litle vague (to say the least), is the follow road icon a toggle button or command button? Should I click follow road before movement or after?

Google and ye shall find. http://www.tanksim.com/

No need to hit F7. I've noticed that your own tank crew will obey map orders, so I prefer to stay in driver mode before hittin F11 to prevent the AI driver from start moving. AFAIK there's no way give separate orders to different units. (Pity - it would be way cool to be able to command several companies of infantry and tanks Combat Mission-style in the map mode!). But anyone know how to command supporting vehicles to cross a bridge? I'm currently playing the Assault mission (awesome mission btw). When ordering my group to move accross the river, the "#@! stupid AI drivers go drown themselves instead of driving along the road across the broad and perfectly intact undefended bridge.

Q for the history buffs here. I've noticed that scenarios seems to be graded between historical and fictional. What scenarios out there fall in the more extreme historical category? I mean in terms of map accuracy, order of battle, and other fighting conditions that recreates a documented event from the war.

Well, as the edges become a problem only when the player goes there, the obvious solution is to play on a larger map. I personally prefer QBs, and can't always expect to talk sense to my map designer [doesn't even pass the turing test ]. The problems (and proposed solutions) are, what happens when the player flank or bypass the engaged enemy far enough to bump into other segments of the enemy front? I've seen bones about a new and more realistic system for victory conditions, that aim to take into account the wider scope of the war. Isn't this the way do solve the problem? E.g. your battalion has orders to attack position X. Say an extended flanking move might be tactical sound for your battalion, but as such a manouvre would interfere with the objectives of another battalion, it would reduce your larger scope victory points.

I guess the part of purpose is to abstractly simulate an extended front. But if those flank units are close enough or strong enough, why abstract them? Anyone have historical figures (distances and strengths) of what these units would have looked like in a typical CM scenario?

"I've never seen a scenario where attacking up the middle was a good idea". Isn't the edge problem intimately related to mission objectives and victory conditions. Maps are usually designed around the mission objective (doh!), and there's a limit how far the attacker can wander away from it without loosing it. I have no idea what the new victory system will look like, maybe it will partially solve this. But another idea, expanding on the Danger Zone, is to have a Twilight Zone. Units that go too far out on the flank risk loosing control, and will go missing. Either permanently, or temporaily, and in that case it may have taken damage. My thinking is, if the enemy flank units are abstracted (and "invisible"), so should their fire. Another thing, these zones should not be rectangular, but rather triangular or half-circle shaped.

I've not tested this myself, but I've heard rumors that you can improve performance by connecting to Virtual PC with Remote Desktop. Not sure that it would work with games though, but it's worth checking out.

It isn't any fun for 10 people to sit twiddling their thumbs for 10 minutes waiting for the last guy to finish up his finely crafted and meticulously choreographed orders. That's exactly why multi player should be combined with real real-time. IMHO one without the other is only a half measure. You need a good matching service so that you can quickly join a game with other players of similar skill level and preference, and then play for about 30-60 minutes (real time *and* game time). Dropping players can be dealt with by transferring control to the remaining ones. I know, i know, it gives an entierly different focus on the game. You have no time to do those extensive LOS checks, or make the perfectly executed manouvres, or even give attention to other parts of the battlefield than your own. From the player perspective, I don't see any major changes to the game (either cmx1 or cmx2). The user interface would be exactly the same, simultaniously support both the We-Go system and real-real-time. But I am a programmer, and I know there are some really really hairy network and simulation problems to solve in order to do it.

It isn't any fun for 10 people to sit twiddling their thumbs for 10 minutes waiting for the last guy to finish up his finely crafted and meticulously choreographed orders. That's exactly why multi player should be combined with real real-time. IMHO one without the other is only a half measure. You need a good matching service so that you can quickly join a game with other players of similar skill level and preference, and then play for about 30-60 minutes (real time *and* game time). Dropping players can be dealt with by transferring control to the remaining ones. I know, i know, it gives an entierly different focus on the game. You have no time to do those extensive LOS checks, or make the perfectly executed manouvres, or even give attention to other parts of the battlefield than your own. From the player perspective, I don't see any major changes to the game (either cmx1 or cmx2). The user interface would be exactly the same, simultaniously support both the We-Go system and real-real-time. But I am a programmer, and I know there are some really really hairy network and simulation problems to solve in order to do it.

Hi Zemke! Yup, massive-multiplayer real-time realistic and good-looking tactical simulation is exactly my kind of game. I hope some day somewhere someone will make it.

Hi Zemke! Yup, massive-multiplayer real-time realistic and good-looking tactical simulation is exactly my kind of game. I hope some day somewhere someone will make it.

The level and scope of CM's combat environment requires many commanders in order to be more realistic than it is right now. But players by and large don't want this. WHAT?!!! It's the top 1 missing feature on my list. In CMx1 this is only possible (but cumbersome) in PBEMS. But it would be most advantagous in TCP play, having a team of 3 or 4 or more players controlling a company each, you would be able to play fairly large battles running at the fast pace only seen now in smaller battles.

Being fairly new to the game myself, this is how I practice. 1) Learn to crawl (Massing fire): play small QB vs AI and pick just 1 type of units. E.g. all small-arms infantry, or HT, or tanks, or AT, or arty, and so on. Getting an idea who and how to engage each type of unit. 2) Then walk (Combined ams): Same, but combine 2 types of units, eg inf + HTs, inf + tanks, etc. And then combine 3 or more types. The trick is to win the rock-paper-scissor game. 3) Up to running speed: Larger QBs or scenarios. Combinations of units not only in space but in time as well. Attacking in waves (i.e. first attack enemy ATs, then MGs, and last remaining inf), and proper use of reserves.

OK, thanks, will try that. In this scenario, there are 3 AT-guns located on a hill 1400-1500 meters away. Plus some artillery spotters (and then some SP guns / tanks as reinforcements). I don't initially have any mortars, but get some (1 mortar and 3 spotters) on turn 5.

I'm struggling with the training scenario "Fire & Maneuver". I've tried no fog-of-war but still find it hard. I've succecfully managed to wipe out one or two pockets, but soon enough my tanks are wasted. I would appreciate some advice on how to tackle this scenario. - what weapon and what range is best for taking out those AT guns on that hill? Engaging them with tanks early on hasn't proved good. If it's the best way, I clearly must improve my timing and precision of tank movement. - same Q with those damn artillery spotters? Their combinations with the guns, their can be a real pain in the neck. But I guess that that's the whole point - And in full fog-of-war, how to spot those things in the first place?

I only use the realistic size + bases. So most of the time squads shows as three black pixels on the screen. Too bad there's no option to show all men in a squad. :-( I'm sure my brand new graphics card would manage the extra 8 black pixels per squad.