Paul AU

I’ve played Squad leader. Two cents: Ammo re-supply vehicles/squads, yes please. A ‘tactical supply chain’ would add a level of possibility to scenarios. I just mean supply squads or trucks. I mean, all it takes is two bags/cases of ammo to re-invigorate an attack, and this did happen in real life. (Note that the Yankee’s higher fire-power in Squad Leader was attributed purely to their assumed greater supply of ammunition). AFV “overrun” of some sort should be added. A 45 ton tank rolling towards you shouldn’t elicit, “oh, good, now I can use my grenade bundle”; it should illicit, “holy, shi… get me outta here!’ (I was never keen on “capturing weapons”, BTW. Not In The Heat, anyway). I think that’s the pick of GJK’s (nostalgia-inducing) list. But I like the idea that the “rubbling” of buildings be predictable. It’s gamey but it’s good. “Oops, it appears that a rather well-placed AT-Rifle shot has collapsed the three-story Hotel Shutzenplatz. Your entire 2nd Platoon, will not be checking out. Or, rather, they will.” “An AT Rifle!? What’s the chance of that?” “Very very small… but it’s realistic.” Another two cents: In another thread, someone said that ASL’s use of “leaders” was “simplistic” and therefore “crude” I thought at the time, and I’ll say it now, No…. ASL’s modelling of the effects of leaders was simplistic, and elegant. Simple mechanics resulting in (generally) profound and “true” game-play.

I bought the game (CM:BB, in my case), and for reasons unknown, I can't access the manual on the CD. Hard drive just goes into mobius when I try. No, I don't understand how the game can be installed and run fine, and yet trying to look at the game-disk in any other way results in a certain amount of swearing and a re-boot. (Nor can I use any other program, like Windows (file) Explorer, as long as the CM CD is in the CD drive. I have to pop the CD if I want to do anything else, or the system crashes.) No doubt, the result of peculiarities of my system. I suppose. But, I did pay for the bugger. Even if it did not come with the second mods-CD as the 'special edition' box advertised. (No, it's too late to 'take it back' to the store). I'm just saying... I've asked a few questions in these forums, and every time I did, I have had to wonder "Gee, is this covered in the manual?". (And apparently, none of my questions have been. Yet).

It’s impressive and reassuring to see central issues like this being given such intelligent consideration. I’d like to break the trend, AND be off topic. (But I can’t help sticking one of my niggles under Battlefront.com’s nose when I see it). About these crews we’re not singling out for special LOS/Command-treatment; why are they in the game at all? I realise it’s ‘realistic’ to have them in the game – but to my mind this is far-outweighed by game-play negatives. They have no chance of re-manning their gun/tank, and so they just become either points-values to be preserved/killed, or irresistibly - subjects for the ultra-unrealistic jeep-type recon (sans jeep), or Flag-warmers, or equally unlikely missions, (besides their undoubted ‘Borg’ value). And they clutter up my field of targets, being lowest-priority targets I have to sort through. “Wait, what’s that? Oh, it’s just that tank crew. Again.” I recall reading that BFC didn’t think that horses and motorcycles were worth the headache of including in the game (and I quite agree), so I don’t understand why crews are included? They just become player-admin. burdens, with all their tactical implications being negative to game-play, IMO. I reckon there’s two options for CMx2: either take crews completely out of the game - which would be fine with me. OR (my preferred option) give them some remote chance to (eventually) re-crew their weapon. That’d provide an increased incentive to keep them alive and near their gun/tank. (Although… crews of “knocked out” weapons would obviously have no chance to re-crew – the weapon itself is dead. Which again leaves us with a useless crew. Hmm). I don’t know, but I imagine that in real-life, crews, especially tank crews, play no active part in battle once their weapon is disabled, and would react less than enthusiastically to suggestions such as: “Boys, now that you’ve irrevocably decided that your AT gun is too much of a bullet-magnet, I have a much more dangerous mission for you. What I want you to do, see, is sneak over that hill, around that wood, and…” Dunno why, but the ‘Borg’ spotting effect annoys me less than just having the somewhat cute but wholly annoying crews wandering around the map trying to find a gamey way to be useful, while having a large “shoot me, I’m worth a couple of points” sign slung around their neck. [ February 04, 2005, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

Oh. Thanks Mike. (I've only glanced into the CMAK forum once). And yes, 'Yankee' ...you should be able to plan an airstrike on a town or an entire hill, but not a specific cluster of buildings, or small patch of trees sounds good to me. Another illustration of the slippery subjective balance between enjoyable 'gameyness' and enjoyable realism.

Yes, in CMBB air strikes are such a blunt and random instrument, that I don’t use them. I’d like to see more control over them in CMx2, even if it is less realistic. Is there any place where one can go to hector/beg/suggest what we’d like to see in CMx2? One central wish list-thread, or forum for CMx2 would at least create a venting-place. Or would that not be a good thing?

1) Surviving AFV/gun crews: what’s the point? Either give them some chance to re-man their vehicle/gun, or list them as ‘alive’ - but take them off the map. It’s annoying to have ‘crews’ on the map when they have no further (realistic) use. That bugs me. (I use them for all kinds of silly purposes (see below) - that bugs me). 2) Regarding the “Borg Spotting” problem; on the other hand - a really “fuzzy”, “realistic” system would (and has, in other games), leave one with no confidence in what the AI can, and is, doing. If that tank seems to come out of nowhere…. There will always be the possibility that it literally did. In other games, I’ve ‘seen’ (deduced) massively impossible AI events masked under ‘fog of war’. I don’t like that. The ‘Borg’ effect, while unrealistic, gives one some confidence about what’s happening with the AI. In a two-player games, I’m all for increased FoW. ( I think) If a game was truly realistic, at say the Company or Battalion level, it would basically be a role-playing game. You give a few orders, and then wait to see what happens. The unrealistic level of knowledge and control makes it a game.

‘Peter, “Glider’s” (and others) previous posts have anticipated everything you’ve said, and to my mind remain an effective indictment on a ‘tactic’ that adds nothing but tedium in a way the game-designers never intended. And adds nothing to the game-experience. Apparently, They, are working on CM "2nd-Generation". I wonder if someone who has contact with Them, can point Them to this thread. So we won’t see this discussion again for CM-2nd. Lieutenant: ”We’re going to split the squad into two small units.” Corporal: "Small units sir?”*waves at his squad*”...ain’t this small enough?” (From ‘How Sleep the Brave’ (it’s a movie - I’m not making this up)).

Well, I learned a bit more here. But, seeing as we’re repeating ourselves: I had said to Glider (back on page one of this thread): “I think you'll be using a lot of half-squads from now on.” Glider’d replied: “I don't intend to.” stikkypixie affirmed: “You had better not.” But, Glider had also originally said: …very soon I will be fighting my current opponent and 11 like him in a club-to-club challenge and I will be forced to use halfsquad-army tactics In other words… Glider will be using a lot of half-squads from now on. (I wasn’t going to mention it, but seeing as it’s been quoted again….) Anyway. I’d also said on page one: “But if someone with a 94% win-ratio thinks the half-squad gimmick is worthwhile - it probably is.” To my mind, Glider and Treeburst155 have comprehensively and repeatedly shown that mass squad-splitting is “as gamey as a jeep recon”, and is “almost absurdly unrealistic.” The game-designers missed this one, and, as I said (on yes, page one), "it's a pity". - - - - - - - - - - - - “I’m just saying, sir, that world opinion isn’t really behind us, sir.” “You can shove ‘world opinion’, private. Why, the last time we bowed to world opinion was at Suez, and ain’t even started paying for that screw-up yet!” - Capt. “Hawk” Hanson, in “How Sleep the Brave”

Hmm... ok. Thanks for the info, chaps. Appreciated. (And yes, a trench behind a wall does challenge the imagination).

I just lost an entire platoon of T34/85s to a Henschel 123. Really? My Henschels only seem to be a threat to large empty fields of wheat.

Newbie alert: forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere. (Just point me there). This is another one of those “How does this really work”? I can easily see (in the game) how walls (and hedges/fences) slow down units trying to cross them. But can’t see (yet) if or how they provide cover from fire. You’d think that a stone wall would be dandy cover, but some of my game-experiences suggest that they have no protective effect. If my infantry (say) wants to “get behind a wall”, where do I place them? “On” the wall, or just behind it? I can’t see much difference, either way. For an extreme example, a squad 2 metres behind a stone wall (or, as close as I could get) which was “sneaking” was shot up (by distant MGs) , pretty much the same as other units all around it, which were at various distances from the wall, and in various states of movement. (This is just an example, not the only case). And in a slightly related vein, how can I be sure that I am setting up my troops "in" a Trench. I'm never quite sure, the "place"-arrow thingy just shows them as being in "open ground" (if that's where the trench is).

I'd just like to report my love of the 150mm Inf. gun, in defensive scenarios. Put them in-cover that gives them line-of-fire cross the enemy's likely advance (and no-where else) ... and it's very satisifying. Especially because ammo tends not to be a problem, so you can pot-shot all you like. (I just like the size of the boom, really, and it's supressive effect) Also, on the chance that the 150 does get a go against armour... it's not so bad.

If it makes you feel any better, Glider, yes, what you describe seems extremely "tedious and gamey". And the game-designers should be having a look at this. But if someone with a 94% win-ratio thinks the half-squad gimmick is worthwhile - it probably is. I think that's the price you pay for stepping into the ring with such, er, 'good' players - do-or-die, gloves-off, (not to say monomaniacal) people to whom nothing is too tedious or gamey if it gives them a 1% advantage… I think you'll be using a lot of half-squads from now on. A pity, really. "You've got to get down in the sh!t with Charlie. 'Cause that's the only way to win!" - Capt. "Hawk" Hanson, in How Sleep the Brave.

Excellent.

Thanks, chaps, that's all pretty much as I'd guessed. Bone_Vulture, Grenade bundles and magnetic mines? Haven't seen any of my guys get a chance to do that yet. (In fact, being assigned to a tank-hunter team in my unit is practically a death-warrant. ) Could you give a more specific example of your own armor and the tanks you're currently facing? - Well it was quite a general question, about what seems to be a recurring issue for me. I think it's the same problem whether you've got Russian early armoured cars/MG carriers vs German never-miss 20mm armoured cars vs, early MkIIIs vs scary T34s, T34's vs a Tiger. (I have had the reverse situation, where I had the fat Tiger on a hill, lording it over anything that moved, which was briefly fun, but not interesting after the first kill or two.). And, in case it matters, I generally alternate between playing as the Germans and Russians, and perhaps unusually, have no preference for either side, emotionally. (Although I have to admit, I'd never heard of some of these early-war Russian tanks). Para, …try to ambush/outnumber with tanks/AT inf or AT guns … well yes, I try…. That's another thing… AT guns don't last long, do they? Even when I "hide" them until they get a good close shot. I think the program should make AT guns harder to spot, even after having fired. no_one - archived posts - ok, will have a look. Bonxa, Go down to view level one or two and really check out that terrain. Yes, I know. That's where my inferior tanks spend the game hiding - in small folds in the ground. (Which is kind of appropriate, once they're killed there). But, yes, gotta do the "level one" survey - first thing, every game. That's a big difference between this computer game, and the 6mm table-top games or board games like Squad Leader I've played in the past - on the table, changes in elevation are 100% obvious, and defined precisely, and determining Line Of Sight is simple. In CM, it's (sometimes) mysterious, tricky, and sometimes tedious, checking all those angles. (Yes, realism, I know). That's on the wish-list for the next CM - a "press this button to have all the tiles in this unit's LOS highlighted" - rather than having to check using the LOS tool. Moon, yes, I actually prefer smaller games (so far). Large games seem to just be multiplying the situation of a small game, just increasing the time taken to play, without adding much to the "situation" in the scenario.

I'm a beginner. But, in the all-too-frequent scenarios where I (seem) to have inferior tanks to my (A.I.) opponent, it's hard... Do I really have to spend the whole game trying to sneak my crap-tanks around for a rear shot? (Fat chance, really. Not that there's time). Really, what do you guys do, in this case? I mean... they see me, *boom* I'm dead. So, I... slink uselessly about?

Well of course, if *I'd* just escaped with my life from a shot-out AFV (or gun), I'd consider myself well-out of it. Just a bit annoying, in that case, that AFV crews hang around in the game. If they are not going to re-crew they should not be (showing) in the game. What's the point?

Can people swap user-made scenarios? How, where? (I enjoy the "not knowing what's out there factor", in scenarios).

Dozens of hours later: yes, in case the next guy asks, this Sis chipset works well. Good reliable graphics quality, weather effects at max, max horizon, etc. Good.

Do gun/tank crews who've abanonded/bailed out, ever go back to their gun/tank? How?

(oops... see below) [ January 11, 2005, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

Guess what? It worked. All systems are apparently go. I just finished a test - running some 3D halftracks amongst some ground-huggin' Ruski, and gee it looked good. (Well to me it did, probably not to the Ruski...) Now all I have to do is learn to play the game properly. But, that will be fun. Not sure how to thank youse all for your help. Thanks. Danke schön. Спасибо. I'd especially like to pin a medal on Corporal Cranky's lapel - for service above and beyond the call of duty, and without whos help the battle would probably have been lost... cybercross, firstclass, with INF-file cluster. *Salutes*

86smopuim, I've got one normal 15-pin video socket (and yes, one 9-pin serial plug). But there is another 15-pin socket, but larger (not the usual video size), and er, it's orange. Schrullenhaft, thanks for the e-mail. All recieved and unzipped, ok. I've looked at the instructions which accompanied them, and think I can I see all the files you mentioned pretty much where you said they'd be. Just lemme check one thing... Add/Remove Programs control panel > select >the SiS video drivers entry and click "remove". This should >uninstall your video drivers and their control panels... There are two possibly relevent files there: Sis 900 PCI ethernet fast adapter driver (0.04meg) Sis VGA Utilities (14 meg) I should remove both? (I ask because I fear re-booting with no video at *all*, should something go wrong)

This is great, thanks guys. Interim answers: I said "ATI 9200 Chipset 3D" only because that's what the specs sheet (as in, a piece of paper) for my store-bought new PC says, not 'cause I've seen it anywhere in-system. The PC is as-bought and never been fiddled-with. How do I check if I have “an APG card installed” and if it’s APG or PCI? I’ll check with the store. Redwolf, When I right-click on the Desktop, and select Properties >>Settings, it just says: Display: plug and play monitor on Sis 661FX_750_741… Selecting the Advanced tab, as I said, doesn't give any more info, "adapter, Sis 661FX..", (etc). I don't see any evidence that there's an ATI card actually there. (But I see the comment about it possibly being disabled or without drivers). I haven't D/L any drivers myself. Yet. Hold my horse, I will check with the store and grill them (again) as to what is actually on-board my machine. Now I understand that the Sis-thing is a chipset on the motherboard, and the ATI 9200 is a plug-in card. (I didn't know that). (A card which may, or may not, actually be present...) The SiS chipset will give you all of the effects of CM… (Good news!) "If your email system can take a multi-megabyte attachments I can send you some files and instructions on getting your videochipset running with CM.” That sounds promising. I presume that, if I wanted to, I can forget the ATI 9200 (for now), and just go with the Sis chipset? If so, and if you'd be so kind, yes, e-mail me. I think the new Hotmail takes large attachments, so I have: pauls__h@hotmail.com (note the *two* underscores) (If not, I have a 'real' address too, which I'm reluctant to show in public) First I should probably grill the store, to confirm stuff. Tomorrow. I may be as thick as a whale omelette, but I appreciate your help. These are the sort of games for which all this is worthwhile. One hopes. Cheers.

Hello. I don’t know much about computers, especially with regard to video issues, so you’d better talk to me as though I’m four years old. The problem: 3D graphics fail to load, “loading 3D graphics", then nothing more. The other, "flat" graphics, such as the control panel, scenario screens, etc, are fine. Battlefront’s website troubleshooting section suggests I turn off anti-aliasing. The problem is, no such option appears in the appropriate Control Panel section. (Er, as far as I can see). “Windows Control Panel, then select Display, then select Settings from the tab at the top, then click the Advanced button. Next click the ATI 3D tab, and click the custom button.” …but in the said “Advanced” screen there’s no ATI tab, and in the “Adapter” tab, my graphics “card” is apparently: Sis 661FX_750_741… (etc) I’m guessing this is because I have an “ATI 9200 Chipset 3D”, and not a card, as such? Is this correct? Have I missed something? Can this chipset run CCBB? Where’s the anti-aliasing option? Apparently, the ATI cards are not so good in general, as far as CC goes. What is an inexpensive graphics card that will run CCBB well? More info: XP Home with SP2 Pentium 4, 3 GHz Prescott DirectX 9.0b (The system is new) My verison of CCBB is the latest one, no software patches required.