Childress

Yeah, I had to do a cold reboot as well. Task Manager didn't suffice. Oops, BFC.

Same here [susp]. I got a suspected threat notification.

Check anyway. It's in the Options screen.

Do you have the ATI left-click compatibility option on?

You're absolutely correct. It's not the tile properties, it's the placement. Some of the earlier scenario offerings are guilty of this. (Last Defense, I'm looking at you. )

Wittmann's tank was the first destroyed. He requisitioned another evicting the crew. A shame that piquant event can't be reproduced. Truck and halftrack drivers are currently fungible.

Your troops wouldn't want to enter an enemy bunker once it's been hosed. Yecch! And the firing ports face the wrong way.

The film will feature the last surviving working Tiger tank (Tiger 131) belonging to Bovington Tank Museum. This will be the first time that this tank has been used on a film set. (Wiki)

Very atmospheric map and not too big. Thumbs up. To render it suitable for H2h you'd need to incorporate a setup zone for the Brits- who are, iirc, fixed in place. The Germ player know exactly where to land his arty.

It took 4 minutes to load on my laptop. Impressive map aided by the graphics rendering punch up in 2.11. As the Germans I did find the victory conditions, reinforcement schedules and goals rather murky. We're supposed to do what? We're supposed to go where? But I only read the briefing through once.

That's not correct. AT guns that have not moved benefit from a concealment bonus that is abstracted. A benefit that should be conferred on AFVs that are in cover and haven't moved. Along with the abolition of the preposterous Vehicle Hide command.

Take your time. Something else is bound to turn up. It's the will of Allah.

Watch the German team manhandle this Pak 36:

That's because the AT teams 'Walk' when pushing their piece. Walk, in the game, is a fatigue-free mode of travel. For all units, even uphill. Evidently a design decision. The quote was 'When the hostile tank attack is repulsed, the antitank guns move to alternate positions. ' This may refer to the conclusion of the battle. Or not.

Assuredly so. But a Meeting Engagement as depicted in CM, an artificial construct in which force values are precisely equal and both players know that, bears the same relationship to an actual battle as a unicorn does to a cow. I know, I used to play dozens of 'em PBEM. 'Show me an ankle and I'll show you some leg'. Fun, but, er.... That said a valid argument can be made that AT crews should be able to 'bail out' and re-man their guns. Like tank crews. They're both treated as vehicles, right? And why can't they reverse? The counter argument that the enemy gains control of the piece and turns it around seems improbable given the heat of battle and the foreign equipment. On the other hand deserting one's gun intact was a strict no-no in every army. Who knows? Might be interesting to have three speed options, based on mass, for pushing a gun: quick, normal and slow. The latter not a crawl but a very fatiguing walk. Edit: German flashless powder may, as far as we know, already be simulated. If not, it should be. No daunting coding challenge there.

Interesting stuff from a web site on German ATG tactics: Antitank Guns: German antitank guns are disposed in depth, with some well forward. They often are dug in and carefully concealed to prevent the enemy from discovering the location and strength of the antitank defenses prior to attack. In emplacing antitank guns, the Germans prefer positions in enfilade or on reverse slopes. They normally employ two to three antitank guns in each position, protecting them from infantry attacks with light machine guns. Ranges at which the Germans open fire upon hostile tanks vary according to the caliber of the gun and it's position. Although single antitank guns sometimes engage enemy tanks at ranges up to 1,000 yards, main antitank defenses usually hold their fire until the range is reduced to about 150 to 300 yards. The employment of close-combat antitank teams supplements the antitank defense. When the hostile tank attack is repulsed, the antitank guns move to alternate positions. The Germans emphasize that the use of smoke can be of great assistance in defeating enemy tank attacks. Smoke shells are fired into the attacking formation about one-third the distance back from the leading echelon. Thus the Germans avoid blinding their own antitank gunners, and leading hostile tanks not only are left without adequate support but are silhouetted against the smoke. The Germans also rely on the smoke being sucked into the tanks and forcing the crews to dismount. Also, Armored Tactics during Citadel http://www.isegoria.net/2011/07/armored-tactics-during-citadel/

That actually happened?

How often did AT guns function as mobile platforms in midst of battle? They used prepared positions and were generally carefully camouflaged in situ . Unlike their typical usage by CM players, ATGs operated at least in pairs that formed interlocking fields of fire. There were severe penalties for abandoning one's gun unspiked.

Or move backwards in time to the Tunisian theater then NA'42 then NA'41. Far more compelling than the Gothic Line and the final months of the Italian campaign that had become a sideshow. If they take that route one hopes they'll make vehicular dust visible to the enemy side.

Payware mods are not uncommon with racing and flight sims. If they meet a need that is being ignored by free modders/mod teams then that on it's own is a reason to support the concept.

Speaking of trade offs.... In-game performance in CMFI seemed a lot zippier, or more fluid, than CMBN, at least prior to the latest patch. Yet I find that, even now, given equivalent size a battle in the latter game- with its generally denser foliage- loads considerably faster. Is there a connection?

Another name from the past occurred to me: Titan, a Kiwi I recall. Toughest opponent I ever encountered. In the words of the late NFL coach, Bum Phillips, he could 'take hizzun and beat your'un then take your'un and beat hizzun'. Don't believe he hangs out here anymore.

Speaking of frame rates, how crucial is it really to achieve a kick-a** FPS score in the CM games? For aficionados of auto racing and flight sims, yeah, getting decent rates is practically mandatory. But I can scarcely discern a quality difference on a laptop with an 'okay' ATI card and an unused desktop pc with a much more powerful nVidia card. Maybe going Real Time is another story?

CM2 is, imho, hard. The battles require patience and unremitting concentration. They can prove unexpectedly punitive. As someone who used to do a lot PBEM* with CMBB/AK- and held my own- I judge my skills inadequate to embark on MP. When you struggle to win scenarios in single player, sometimes even those you had tried before and had a general idea of enemy positions, that's a bad sign. I'm not nostalgic for the earlier games- CM2 is superior to those- but the new series requires a different mind set. Is it because the scenarios on offer aspire to be excessively challenging? Maybe, I dunno. Age? Could be. I suspect I'm not alone. *Probably with some current forum members. But I don't even remember my own nick from 10 years ago. I do recall Treeburst155.

That didn't work. It only increased load times by 5X. Here's a screenshot from the stock scenario NEDforce, rated 'Large'. A vast improvement. Draw distance is acceptable, notice the grain textures: image search Wittmann's demise, also 'Large', no improvement: capture screen