Ultradave

Hopefully not for long. It's being worked on. Dave

No. It's something else, because it wasn't an issue with CW. Dave

That won't work. You'll need the patch. I sympathize as a fellow Mac user but we'll have to wait. Charles is working on it. Dave

I couldn't figure out why those two were cranky about it and the other titles weren't, but at least they eventually all worked. Glad you got them going. Dave

Yes. It works fine. There is at least one thread on here of reports. I don't have one myself but others, both users and beta testers have them. Dave

See here:

When I was working in the UK, there were a group of us helping BAE with the next submarine design (there are parts in common between the US and UK SSBNs this time). The BAE engineers were discussing a new extension to an existing building into an area fenced and walled off next to a road. "Well, the first thing we'll have to do is get the Royal Engineers in here to do a survey for unexploded bombs" We (US contingent) all looked at each other. I said "Now there's a sentence you would never hear in the US" This was in Barrow-in-Furness, now BAE Submarine Solutions, formerly Vickers Shipbuilding. As you can imagine, it was heavily bombed during WW2. A different perspective. Dave

Ok, RT works now. I wish I knew why, however, what worked was starting it (right click "Open" to bypass the Mac OS security), let it "run" for about 30 minutes with nothing happening, Force Quit it, started it from the menu bar again and it started right up. So, all good, with some fiddling. I did not test SF2, since I don't currently have it installed. I would expect it to be the same as the rest. I did reinstall RT as part of this (that wasn't the problem though) and there was no change from the latest Mac OS rigmarole of right clicking, Open, Open anyway, etc. Dave

In the Activity Monitor it shows cmrt process running at about 15% CPU, so I'm just letting it run, and run, and run, hoping that it will eventually decide to finish starting up. No idea why RT is being finicky compared to all the rest (well, more finicky - the rest took 2 or 3 restarts to get going, but RT is just obstinate). Can't think of any logical reason for it. Dave

I used to be that way when I was at NC State because I used it for research (Linux apps), and for teaching. I don't think it's iCloud because nothing CM related has anything to do with iCloud. But, hey, sometimes weird things show up. BUT, retired now, so nothing better to do than run tests on myself Dave

I took the plunge and updated to OS X 13.0 (Ventura). Good news - CM *mostly* works fine, eventually. Bad news - you'll have to be patient. I had to force quit and restart each CM title several times before they started up. The first couple of times they hung up, and showed "not responding" in the CMD-OPTION-ESC quit box. I don't know why this is. EXCEPT, so far I can't get RT to start at all. It just hangs up. The first couple of times with a not responding message, and since then it just doesn't ever start up. I'll be doing some investigating to see if I can find any error messages in system logs. Good news - Once they did start up, they ran just fine, and continued the PBEM game in FB with no problems. I'll post here if/when I figure more out. Keep in mind this is just one hour of playing with Ventura, but figured I'd give a heads up so people don't just throw up their hands. Dave

Never really played with it that much but I did just now. Annoying really. It seems to default to 1440x900. (MacBook Pro). If I set the resolution to 1680x1050, and then set the options to Desktop, that file changes to 1680x1050. Restart CMBN and it's running higher resolution. Unfortunately the options doesn't stay set at Desktop and will revert back to 1440x900, even if my desktop setting stays at 1680x1050 and not Desktop. I seldom use the higher resolutions on mine as my eyes get really tired. 1440x900 is fine for me so I haven't played much with this. Dave

The "display size.txt" file is located here: <userid>/Library/Application Support/CMBN/display size.txt For other games replace CMBN with CMBS, CMCW, CMFB, CMFI, CMRT, CMSF2 Dave

To expand on this a little, all training I was exposed to as the "victim" or the trainer put a lot of emphasis on the unexpected. In field training, we were constantly bombarded with trainers throwing wrenches in the works, just like the old saying that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. All of us, from officers to riflemen were trained to be flexible, to modify the plan, to listen to each other and take suggestions. So while we had an excellent foundation in combined arms operations, we also had no problem shifting gears. And one more thing I was thinking of. I had no hesitancy in asking my team sergeant for his opinion and recommendation. Every one that I had working for me were smart, had about 10 years experience, and a lot of valuable input. Good officers will take advantage of that. Sure we had some "know it alls" who's attitude was that they were the officer. As an Asst S3 (as a Captain), our S3 (a Major) actively solicited our advise and planning input too. I don't think any of this is present in the Russian army of today, or in the Cold War period. Dave

Interesting that it's definitely a SSBN and not one of the 4 SSGNs. Having an SSGN nearby would be a signal to Iran, not necessarily Russia. Disclosing a boomer location (not really disclosing mind you as the Arabian Sea is vast and you can't find an OHIO class) is a signal to Russia for sure. We're not going to nuke Iran. Dave

Right. It doesn't NEED to be anywhere near that close to do it's job, other than as a reminder. There are several more scattered about somewhere too. Dave

There were fewer bogs overall. What I was trying to convey there was that when they did bog, they recovered more quickly and had less tendency to become immobilized after bogging.

I disagree with this. Your vehicles didn't just beam in to the battlefield Star Trek style from a factory. They've been on the move, so there is some bogging probability function in effect on every turn/minute. Now, from asking around, I've got this: 1. During Final Blitzkrieg development (and associated CM wide patches) Charles increased the probability of bogging on *all* terrain types, but not by the same amount. Greater increase in probability the worse the ground. This was to make FB mud more of a problem than it was, which was felt not to be enough to simulate really ugly terrain. Also stated was that previously there was almost zero chance of any vehicle bogging on clear dry terrain so the probability was upped very slightly. 2. Page 47 of the Engine 4 manual states that crew quality matters: "All vehicles are rated for Offroad performance. To some degree better quality crews lessen the chance of bogging. However, if you order a non-tracked personnel carrier to move across a muddy field the best crew in the world won’t likely help you out much." So, put those two together and there you have your results. I really don't consider 1-4 vehicles bogging out of the 3 companies of armored cars to be much of an issue with Conscript crews, dry grass or not. The dry grass isn't representing a football field but countryside terrain. Maybe you want your vehicle crews to be one level up from Conscript, since the description says a Consrcipt has almost no training and no experience. The driver at least must have had SOME training. Dave

No, not that I'm aware of. The editor is very nice. That's probably all I can say. Dave

Veterans did better in mine. Elite even better. There were several bogs along the way on each but except for one were momentary and the one recovered in less than a minute. Also slowing down to "Move" rather than "Quick" the conscripts did much better. Only two bogs and they recovered in two minutes, where on "Quick" there were 4 bogs in one test and 2 became Immobilized. Another Conscript test on "Quick" though only had one bog. It was eventually immobilized. I don't know how these affect the chances, other than what is in the Engine 4 manual. I *could* see bogging becoming more often for conscripts just from the description of them being raw, lack of training, no experience. Just how good are they at driving? And no ground is perfectly table flat like a football field. Even grass in dry conditions will have local undulations, ruts, a dry dusty soft spot. There is always going to be some non-zero chance. I'll ask about the troop quality and bogging. I'm not convinced this is a problem or a feature of having a unit/crews full of conscripts. The price you pay, so to speak. Dave

Cool. Got it.

What happens when you change them to say, veteran - all of them? Or something in between? Do you get better results? Or post that save, so I know I'm not creating something that doesn't match what you are doing. Dave

I'm a beta tester for the new FC, Southern Storm. I've always liked the original FC, and while obviously I can't really say anything, Southern Storm is a big upgrade/enhancement to the previous Red Storm/Fulda Gap. Same idea and course of play, but better with more info and more flexibility available to the player. Very enjoyable. Dave

Yeah, I always kind of micromanage waypoints near holes in bocage, or else troops might look for the long way around instead of going through the gap you wanted. Is this a bug? No, I don't think so. Is it fiddly. Sure. But to me it's the equivalent of the platoon leader telling a squad, "Look, see that small gap right over there. I want you to go through that and then follow the left side of the next field to the next hedgerow, and scout for a gap there." Instead of just saying "Go to the next hedgerow" First one gets the real troops and the CM troops to do what you actually intended (or at least attempt to given morale, enemy fire, etc - applies to real and CM). Dave

I see those 2. I also did what you said, and made a scenario with grass and a whole slew of conscript German armored cars and then a whole bunch of M3 scout cars. Nobody bogged or was immobilized in 5 minutes. Dave