Couple of questions, need some help.

[nodlew]

Hey there. Just got TOW: KOREA, and it is the first time I've ever got a TOW game to run half-decently on my computer. Don't know if it's the extra Ram or an improved game engine, but anyway, I still have a few difficulties/questions.

First, I have finished the stock US campaign on Veteran, and found it to be pretty easy. The enemy is easy to defeat then I just chase them, never allowing them to resupply until they are out of fuel or surrounded and can't retreat and scratch one battle group--next. Rinse repeat. So I would like to generate my own campaign to make things more challenging, perhaps fighting the Soviets at a numerical disadvantage. But I would like to at least have the use of the M46 Patton tanks in my Battle Groups, since the Soviets seem to have access to Stalin 3s and worse. But when I go into the Order of Battle screen to select my units I see Shermans, Chaffees, and Jacksons, but no Pattons. ? I made sure to make my campaign start date late enough that M46s would be available. Any one know what I'm doing wrong?

Second, I am having some trouble with game crashes. If anyone knows some tweaks to make the game run more stably, please point me to them. System is:

Windows Vista™ Ultimate (6.0, Build 6002) Service Pack 2 (6002.vistasp2_gdr.101014-0432)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
System Model: Inspiron 530s
BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4600 @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.4GHz
Memory: 3326MB RAM
Page File: 1389MB used, 5876MB available
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT

General Gripes:

Why can't I load a machine gun or a mortar on a truck, or a helicopter?

Why can't tanks and recon armored cars tow artillery, or carry a few infantry on the hull?

Why are rifles and submachine guns destroying my half-tracks, not to mention my Tank Destroyers?

Why can't I see the AT gun that is right in front of my tank after carefully inching up to it using the terrain for cover?

Why can't my infantry see the AT gun that is right in front of them after carefully crawling five hundred yards to a position overlooking the damn thing?

Why do 45mm Russian pea-shooter AT guns shoot holes in the frontal armor of my Shermans like they are made of cardboard?

Why did the AT gun blast my tank after I used mortars to create a giant smoke-screen to prevent just that from happening?

When I think of more, I'll add them. Fun game, but some of the stupid shit can really make ya wanna throw something.

[nodlew]

Ok, so my M8s can tow artillery pieces. My mistake.

This is not the friendliest or liveliest of forums is it?

[Sneaksie]

Hello. Usually you can get your answer here:) If you don't get an answer that doesn't mean that people are unfriendly, they just don't know.

While in battle, press F4 key to see detailed damage info and hit vectors. This way you can understand what's happened in most cases, i.e. why halftrack was destroyed by rifle fire or why this silly AT gun just knocked out your fancy tank.

Why can't I see the AT gun that is right in front of my tank after carefully inching up to it using the terrain for cover?
This depends on situation as there are many factors influencing that. After all, it's much harder to overlook a moving big tank than an AT gun behind some foliage. You can use LOS line to understand where you can see and where you can't (click on the, say, ground attack order button and survey the area looking at the line being shown from the selected unit to mouse cursor). Green is an area close to unit where it ignores foliage and can see through it, red is normal LOS and black means there your unit can't see.

45mm AT guns have some APCR ammo if i'm not mistaken, at close ranges this would be enough for a Sherman front plate. Use F4 key to clarify this.

Units can see through a foliage or smoke if they are close to its edge, while an enemy far away won't be able to see them. This makes ambushes possible (i.e. hiding an AT gun directly behind a bush). Becouse of this, lay a smokescreen between your and enemy units and not directly on top of enemy units or close (several meters) to them.

To summarize, yeah, stupid things can happen and make you want to smash something fragile and completely unrelated to the game itself, like monitor, but in general this is a fun game when you get into it.

[nodlew]

Sneaksie,

I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post. I had just about given up hope that anyone was ever going to.

Having played the game some more I'm beginning to appreciate some of the finer points. Some of my frustrations were the result of my not being aware of some physical realities being modeled in the game. Once aware that it is being modeled, and in what way, I can learn to work with it. For instance, the severe effect that skill levels have on the performance of my units. Bad drivers are really something to watch in action. I like it though, it gives me more details to obsess over, like switching out crew members to get the best possible crew in a tank that has an especially dangerous and important task to accomplish.

I'm beginning to get the hang of how the unit icons are reflecting how well a targeting unit can see the target, etc.

I still don't like it when I am looking dead at an AT gun that I've been stalking for 45 minutes and I'm finally in perfect position, just peeking out of cover to blow it away and it literally vanishes into thin air, then reappears. I know it's an attempt to make things realistic and challenging, but...anyway. It has forced me to make better use of my infantry so that I have a low-silhouetted target under observation from multiple vantage points before I move in to kill it. Those AT guns and SU 76s are really just plain deadly--difficult to hit, and they reload much faster than my tanks do.

edit--I think I understand why the Devs implemented "disappearing enemy". In game I am looking at not what I can see, but what my units can see. Units that duck, turn, scratch their testicles, etc. might suddenly lose sight of the enemy unit and if no one has it in view at that moment it "disappears" so that I cannot see it either. I actually like this now that I understand it, although when it happens to you for the first time it seems very strange, almost like a bug in the game. The effect of this is that I as the commander can only make tactical decisions based on real time info on the battlefield. If a tank is lost sight of by my units, I might think I know exactly where it is and make decisions based on that, but there is a possibility I could be wrong--it might move. As I sneak up on it, I might find it sneaking up on me. So that's fog of war, its good for gameplay.

I still cannot use the Campaign Generator to create a campaign that starts later than 1950. The date selection button lists only 1950, so I still cannot play a campaign that allows me to use M46 Patton tanks. I'm good with the Shermans, etc. I've won a campaign against the Russians on Veteran Difficulty without too much, trouble, but, damn it, the Pershing series of tanks is my favorite kind of tank and I want to play a campaign with them. Anyone else had this problem? Anyway, with Historical Units Off, I should be able to choose from all of the US units, shouldn't I? Is this a bug or what?

I've Googled this, but not found any references to the issue as yet.

After reading, I've learned that the Shermans were quite vulnerable to the 45mm AT guns. Still, they seem a little TOO vulnerable.

I placed the smoke screen between the AT gun and the path my tank followed. I used multiple smoke rounds, the gun should have been blinded. Anyway, I'll have to experiment.

[nodlew]

The following posts are gleaned from another thread, in edited form. They detail some things I have learned about the game and include questions and comments and bug reports that I have made that are intended for the Devs in particular.

I want to say first, that no one should get the wrong impression. I like this game very much and have been playing it avidly for days. The more I master its finer points the more I appreciate the work and care that has gone into making it, and I recommend it highly to anyone who enjoys military RTS games that require tactical knowledge and skill, patience, forethought, and creativity. It is a very good game. But, in my opinion, to make it a great one, it requires some fixing, and perhaps some addition and expansion.

The following comments began with me trying to figure out how to introduce M46 tanks into my campaigns:

1
Quote (from Sneaksie):Run it Editor.exe (it is located in MissionEditor fodler), left-click Templates menu and then Load Army Template, choose an XML file from Generator\CAMPAIGNS\USA folder (or PRK folder). Edit army pool using the list on the right as you see fit (placement of these units on the empty map doesn't mean anything in case of Army template). Make sure to use Save Army Template command to save your changes.




Thank you for providing this information. Now I can play campaigns pitting heavy US tanks vs. the Soviet heavies. Much appreciated--this issue was driving me crazy. And I'm already crazy.

2
Spoke too soon. I created a user campaign, USA vs. USSR using the Campaign Generator. I then edited the USA_infantry_template_m46.xml file to add the M46 Patton as a Reserve Unit. When I loaded the campaign, the Patton tanks were available in the Order Of Battle list. Then I launched the campaign and moved my Battle Groups into engagement with the enemy. After starting the battle, when I went into the Order of Battle menu to choose my units, the M46 tanks were gone, and it was the same old Shermans, Chaffees, and Jacksons.

Frustrating.

Can you suggest what I might be doing wrong? Please?

3
Default Found a Work Around, plus a Bug
In order for the extra units to be available, I have to move my units into engagement, then save the game, exit, open the Mission Editor, and then save the .XML file into the campaign folder. I have saved a copy of the edited .XML file under a different name. It is then only necessary to open the file, save as...and save it as the file I want to replace. This is tiresome, but it is the only way I have found to get the tanks I want available in game.

To cap off my troubles, the Patton is bugged in the game. The Patton is armed, in game, with two .30 cal brownings, coaxial and bow machine guns. This is correct, I suppose. Although it is a shame that none of the tanks sport working heavy AA machine guns, which were (are) indispensable to their armament. However, the Patton, less its MA Deuce, is even worse off. None of its machine guns work because the Patton is carrying five boxes of .50 cal ammo and no .30 cal ammo, and I haven't yet figured out how to fix the issue. It doesn't seem to be possible to make the change using the Mission Editor, so I suppose it will have to be done by directly editing the .XML file. Any suggestions are welcome.

How do these things get by quality control? Don't they play the game before they put it on the market?

3
Using the Mission Editor it is possible to change the amount of a certain type of ammunition a tank, or other unit, will carry. For instance, I could change the tank to carry ten more APCR rounds at the expense of ten other shells of other types.

Apparently, it is not possible to change the Type of ammunition. So I couldn't load my M4 with 90mm ammo (which I wouldn't want to do anyway). Neither can I fix my M46 so that it has functional machine guns. The XML files are links to the data files that store that kind of stuff--the available loadouts for different units. In the case of the M46, the info I need to change is located at data/items/magazines/12_7mm_browning_m2_hmg and I would need to change that last line to be /7_62mm_browning_m1919a4. And I could change it also to have some armor piercing ammo...if I could change it. Which I can't, because I believe the file in question is located within the Data.SFS file--and I believe these files are encrypted to prevent the game from being hacked, as well as to prevent users like me from taking it upon themselves to fix the damn game for themselves rather than wait weeks or months for a patch.:-x

And before I leave off and give it a rest, can anyone tell me why Shermans are not armed with M2 HB mgs? They are one of the primary features that made the Sherman an exceptional infantry support tank, in spite of its draw-backs in main gun fire power and armor protection. And beyond that, is it possible to make tank commanders use the AA mgs on the tanks that have them? Surely they are not just for show? If Men of War can manage to do this brilliantly, surely it is not beyond the abilities of the coders of TOW: Korea, the game touted as the "most realistic wargame ever made".

So will this too be included in a patch?

EDIT
I'm going to continue to list what I perceive to be bugs in the game in the hopes that the Devs will take notice and fix them in a patch. Hopefully soon.

New bug: .30 cal Browning teams will not move out with their guns. They act like fixed gun emplacements. Strange--I decided to try to use them since I figured they would be more mobile than the .50s. Quite the opposite. The .50s at least will pick up their guns and go places.

This has got to be a bug as well--US 75mm Recoilless Rifle teams will not move with their weapons either. It's a defensive weapon, sure, but it's man portable by design for Christ's sake. Total weight 114 lbs. Between two soldiers, that's extremely portable.

Summary of bugs so far:

I should just delete this first thing in brackets, but what the heck, someone else might not have fully read the manual either. Anyway, OK, I get it that the CANCEL command is not only stop, but Cease Fire.

{Units (notably field guns and mortars, but also tanks, probably everything...) do not respond to the Hold Fire command. To make them cease fire it is necessary to give them a movement order, wait until they start to move, and then order them to halt. This is not good for game immersion.}

Patton has no coax or bow machine gun ammo.

Browning .30 cal immovable.

US 75mm RR immovable.

No working .50 cals (any heavy mgs on any tanks?) on US tanks--notably Patton and Jackson/Slugger which both have the guns modeled.

Sherman has no .50 cal, although this may be due to the fact that it was only usable when the gunner was standing on the rear deck of the tank and so introduces complications with animations, etc.

Should be able to carry mortars, and all other man portable heavy weapons on trucks, half-tracks, and helicopters, although the Devs may have done this by design to increase challenge at the expense of realism. Note--the challenge can always be increased by increasing the enemy's strength, morale, quality, etc. without introducing artificial limitations on the player's tactical options that stifle creativity and pragmatism on his part.

Will continue to update.

[Sneaksie]

I suggest playing as North Korea or USSR, i think you'll find 45mm AT guns to be nearly useless:) Enemy weaponry always seems to be more deadly than yours, there is even a name for this effect, but i can't recall it right now.

I'll try to ask developers about adding M46 to a campaign and other your questions on Monday.

[nodlew]

Thanks for all of your help, Sneaksie. Didn't think anyone else was in here right now, as it is 4:01am on the East Coast, USA. Provincial thinking--I forget sometimes it is a different time of day in some other part of the world. You could be in Russia for all I know.

Thank you for mentioning the campaign thing to the Devs. Please take a look at my Bug Report and mention at least the obvious glitches like no MG ammo, and {Hold Fire being broken}--not broken as noted above, Cancel command doubles as Cease Fire.

:)

I will have to try out the Soviets. The Russians I have grown very fond of since the end of antagonism between us. I've killed lots of pretend Germans as the Russians. Guess I'll have to kill some pretend Americans, though it might pain me to do so.

I am having trouble making the campaigns more challenging. The last one I tried I was US vs. Soviets. I gave the Sovs all of their available battle groups and took only three myself. I attacked the Sov tank brigade and expected a tough fight, but they didn't even have a single tank, nothing but AT guns, infantry, artillery, etc. I, of course, had every big gun available. The Sov Battle Groups, once defeated, are essentially wiped out and absorbed by their remaining Battle Groups. The only things that hurt me are mortars and those RPG-2s. Especially the mortars, they seem to have an endless supply of ammunition. One Russian mortar seems to fire an entire barrage with every shot. The whole game becomes "Survive the mortars" until they are destroyed or out of ammo, then just destroy them piece by piece until they are all gone. The AI, in the defense at least, does not behave intelligently. They sit and wait to be destroyed. At the most, they send out artillery spotters who are easily identified and neutralized once you know what's up. They don't counter attack. I never lose, and usually my casualties are very light. Maybe I need to learn how to set up the campaigns better, maybe I'm not giving them experienced troops or something.

AT guns are no longer much of a problem. I was being too rash in my attacks. I can send out one Scout/Sniper, spot the guns and weaken or destroy them with mortar fire, or snipe them with tanks. Actually I'm not even using all of my assets. I could use helicopters to scout the enemy, but that is way too easy, seems like cheating. I use them for ferrying troops and evacuating wounded.

Anyway, talk at ya later.

[Sneaksie]

Yes, we're Russian company after all:)
So Hold Fire command works normally for you?
I think tank brigade uses all of it's assets while on the offensive, so you can wait a turn if and give them a chance to attack if you find the game too easy. By the way, what level of difficulty you are choosing?

[nodlew]

Hey there.

Hold Fire works fine. All of the Unit Commands in the console seem to work fine, although I would prefer it if, after selecting a particular formation for my tanks or infantry, those units would maintain the formation I chose for them rather than defaulting to a Line formation which strings them out in a thin line. The Formation command should be like the Stance command, it should remain in effect until changed by the player.

Unable to get the campaigns up to a challenging difficulty playing the Americans, I broke down and am now playing the Leap of the Tiger campaign on Veteran Difficulty--I have never played the game on anything but the hardest setting. Why would I? As the PRK I have fought four battles now, attacking US forces in prepared defensive positions and have had about as easy a time of it as before--have not lost a battle, take light casualties. Half the time I do not require air support and almost never, unless fighting a very large force, do I need reinforcements. I have had a couple of surprises that could have turned out very badly for me, but luck seems to be on my side consistently. I was ambushed by two 57mm AT guns while engaging a Patton tank to my front. I lost one t-34, but destroyed the Patton and was able to withdraw my other tanks out of the AT guns' line of fire. Then it was a simple, if time-consuming, task to destroy them. The Koreans seem almost impervious to mortar fire, where the US and Russians seem to be very vulnerable to it. The Korean mortars are much more responsive than those of the US, and they seem more accurate.

Perhaps I am fighting green and demoralized troops--they are, as a general rule in rout from a previous battle. Half the time when I run into enemy tanks I am looking through my gun sights at their engine compartments as them mill around in circles. They stand no chance against my tanks which are creeping forward, using the terrain, crewed by veterans. As the Koreans, I am losing all respect for the M46 tank. I have been surprised by them several times, but even my SU 76mm SPGs knock out the Patton turrets with a couple of shots--these turrets seem particularly weak. And, of course, the fact that they have no machine gun ammo does not help matters for them. The T-34 85 in game seems like the ideal medium tank. Better armored than any of the competition, even the Patton, given the vulnerable turret, much faster and more maneuverable than the American tanks, with a gun that knocks them out with one or two shots.

The campaign is fun, but I have a very hard time believing that I will ever be seriously challenged. One mission worried me a little bit--I had to defend against an American armored assault and I had no tanks available. But by clever placement of my infantry and anti-tank guns I destroyed the attacking force and took insignificant casualties, not even losing a single AT gun. The Americans just blundered into my trap like a bunch of lemmings running off of a cliff. I am sure the AI is using tactics, but I hope I am not seeing the best tactics it is capable of, or the only truly daunting campaigns will have to be scripted, one shot deals.

Keep in mind, I cut my teeth on Men of War, where the game expects you to defeat an entire Company with tanks, emplaced defenses--the works--with a five man recon team. I prefer this of course, it is much more allied with reality. But it is proving just a tad too easy.

As a final note, I understand why you edited my post. This is an Official Forum and I suppose you cannot be seen to take sides in political things. However, to correct your word usage, what I said re North Korea does not qualify as Propaganda. An individual expressing his views purely as such is not Propagandizing. Propaganda is public speech or dissemination of media by an individual or a group which is patently biased and intended to sway opinion at large in a particular manner to achieve the ends of that individual or group. My opinions may be biased, as all are to some degree, but not patently so, and I have no ends, political or otherwise, to be served by them other than self-expression.

Here in the US, propaganda is an evil word, not to be used lightly, being associated as it is with regimes and groups that demonstrate a complete lack of scruple in their activities, and a total disregard for the truth. Regimes, as it happens, like North Korea. :cool:

[nodlew]

One final thing before I forget. I think it would improve the game if it were possible for the player to Toggle Icons On/Off while playing a mission. Turning off the icons in settings results, for me anyway, in my troops becoming virtually invisible. Even during the Deployment Phase with all of my units bunched together in a small village, I can hardly see a tank in order to position it, much less a rifle squad. Even zoomed in right on top of the units, selecting them with the mouse cursor is problematic (difficult). The result is not an increase in realism from a commander's point of view, but rather to put the progress of the mission completely in the hands of the AI, as the enemy is essentially invisible to the player along with his own forces.

So, at least on my computer with my 17" monitor at 1440 x 900, turning off the icons completely is not an option. It would be very nice, however, at various times to be able to turn the icons off and watch the action on screen without all of the blue and red balloons. This would be very nice for screen shots as well. Or is this another section of the manual that I failed to take note of?

[Sneaksie]

You can turn icons on and off simply by pressing F1 if i'm not mistaken.

Did you try F4 damage info overlay, do you find it useful?

Are you sure that recoiless rifle is immobile, devs say you can move it?

{Units (notably field guns and mortars, but also tanks, probably everything...) do not respond to the Hold Fire command. To make them cease fire it is necessary to give them a movement order, wait until they start to move, and then order them to halt. This is not good for game immersion.}
- Just give them Hold Fire and the Stop, they won't start firing again until you remove Hold Fire.

[nodlew]

Thank you, Speaksie, again for your responses.

I have read most of the manual, but, like many, I skip over parts and skim through to the stuff I'm worried about at the moment. I'm very glad to hear that I can toggle the icons off, thank you for informing me.

I know the .30 cals don't move. I don't use the RRifles much, but in one particular mission I know I couldn't get it to move. When I had the trouble with the .30 cals, I remembered I couldn't move the Rifles, so I assumed the same bug was affecting both units. It could have been a momentary glitch, or caused by something else. I'll try the Recoiless Rifles again.

Since learning how to use the CANCEL button, I have no trouble with the HOLD FIRE command. As you said, I use it in combination with the CANCEL button-- CANCEL then HOLD FIRE, or the opposite would work. Works great. The trouble I was having was that I was confused about what the HOLD FIRE command and the CANCEL ORDERS commands were for. I thought that the CANCEL ORDERS command was merely a command to order moving troops to halt--the result of the hand symbol which I interpreted to mean simply "Stop". And I thought that the HOLD FIRE command was a CEASE FIRE command--as in most games a HOLD FIRE order doubles as a CEASE FIRE order. Not a problem, just an eccentricity of this game I needed to become aware of.

Also, the game is much more pleasing to play since I tried using the CLASSIC SELECTION MODE. The default selection mode makes it very hard to reorganize units after they've taken casualties, or to combine different units. I almost posted a long complaint about that--glad I tried the other mode first. I don't like wasting people's time. More than that, I don't like being wrong. Who does?

A further note on the turret armor of the M46 which I said was very weak--I just played a mission in which a group of American tanks moved into my area trying to link up with the units defending the village I was assaulting. My tanks were stationary, in decent defensive position and shot up the Shermans and Chaffees, but at that range, the M46, though apparently immobilized (anyway, it stopped), was impervious to to all of my guns and I had to order my tanks to cease fire to prevent wasting AP ammo. I was able to close on the Patton using the terrain for cover in a SU76, and fired on it from quite close range just behind a little ridge. The SU76 scored multiple direct hits on the M46's frontal turret armor and gun mantlet with every available armor piercing ammunition type, including APCR and HEAT, without noticeable effect. The turret continued to function and the tank continued to fire on me, though my SU76 expended all of its AP rounds, as I said, hitting the Patton over and over again. I couldn't destroy the Patton until I had it decoyed to engage the SU76 and shot it at very close range through the side of its turret with an ambushing T-34.

So maybe not all that weak at all, is what I mean. I think what was happening to my Pattons when I was playing them is that they were getting hit at ranges where just about any gun is effective against any tank. At a stand-off range, the Patton looks like a very tough nut to crack.

They still need machine gun ammo though.

I'm having a ball playing this game, I have to say. Some really interesting, surprising, and even hilarious things can happen. One mission I was attacking a village as the US vs. the USSR. I thought I had things well in hand when suddenly my M36 and two M4s were jumped by two Russian tanks. The SPG and one of the Shermans was destroyed, the other Sherman not having been spotted. I had a goodly number of infantry in the village ahead of my tanks and the Soviet armor just went medieval on them, machine gunning them, blasting them, and crushing them beneath their tracks.

The situation was not good. I ordered my remaining Sherman to move up and ambush the enemy tanks, but they rolled forward a short distance, and then bailed out of the perfectly good tank in terror. What do I do now? My infantry was being slaughtered the whole time.

So I ordered the crew of an immobilized Sherman farther back to bail out and run to the abandoned tank in the village, which they did. With that tank we ambushed the Ivans, destroyed the enemy armor, and won the battle, although not unscathed as I had expected.

I haven't had a game give me wonderful little moments like that since CLOSE COMBAT. This game is a real treat and I will do whatever I can to help advertise it.

Oh, and yes, I have tried the damage overlay which is a very nice feature, very much the same as I remember from playing Steel Fury. Same Co, I know. What can I say? I love 1C games--all of the ones I've played--Steel Fury, Soldiers, Heroes of WWII, Men of War, Red Tide, the other more recent Men of War game, the one that was set in Kharkov...probably some others. I have to say, I think this game is a real step in the right direction, especially grapically. It looks so much better than the Kharkov game, which was very dark and ugly, though the gameplay was great. I just wish this game could incorporate some things from the Men of War series--like commanders riding open hatch, using their heavy machine guns. The hatches open--couldn't this be implemented? The infantry models in this game are truly fantastic when you zoom in to take a close look, and the maps/landscapes are beautiful and very fun to fight in. Seems to run much much better than previous TOW games as well. I don't have much problem with slow downs in Campaigns. In Mission Generator missions, with hordes of enemy attacking all at once, my computer can slow down alot until the fighting dies down a bit. But I have accepted that this is due to all of the ballistic calculations, damage calculations, angle calculations, etc that my CPU must process and not a result of graphics detail. The game seems to run as well on the highest graphics settings as it does on the worst. From what I have read, the performance of the game on my system is equal to or better than its performance on some other much better computers with more ram, better cpu's, and better graphics cards. So, like I said, I'm making allowances for some slow downs when the action is very intense.

Game crashes are still a real issue however. I just lost about two hours of progress in my last mission because the game crashed when I tried to call in a mortar bombardment on an enemy tank. I'm getting into the habit of saving the game regularly, especially when it starts to act up. If the graphics start flickering, I have to save, exit and restart to prevent a crash and stop the graphical glitches. Have any idea what causes that?

Cheers.

[Sneaksie]

Yes, CC games are still unsurpassed infantry gameplay-wise (too bad it's damage modeling is too simple to speak about nowdays). Especially CC2 is still unique with it's simulation of the entire Market Garden operation. This is an interesting effect actually - more schematic old 2d games seem more life-like than modern 3d ones.

Why is it so? I'll quote my old post from Battlefront forum about possible cause of this:

Note that making 3D versions of CC (GI combat and another one), transferring all gameplay elements exactly and, AFAIK, having access to CC infantry AI coding resulted in epic fail compared to original games so it's not that easy for some reason. This is an interesting question why. My opinion is that in CC you're really restricted - you can't order individual soldiers around, and you could only guess what's happening in the house where two hostile squads meet. Your imagination portrays what's happening there for you, and no future CPU, AI code or super videocard would be able to compete with your imagination. On the other hand, in ToW, where you can zoom to any soldier's face you see all the AI quirks clearly. Some people reported that playing Kursk in top-down (tactical map mode) they felt that their soldiers act smarter:)

BTW, actually Steel Fury and Kharkov 43 (and T-72 sim) are from the different development team (i heard they're making a T-62 sim now), and games from MoW series were developed by various other teams. For example, there is MoW: Vietnam on the way (by the team that made Red Tide).

I haven't had a game give me wonderful little moments like that since CLOSE COMBAT. This game is a real treat and I will do whatever I can to help advertise it.
Thanks!

[nodlew]

I remember the imagination. I grew up playing RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons, Traveller, Melee, and tactical board games like Panzer Leader. My friends and I would even invent our own role playing, military, and sci-fi games, when we weren't in the woods taking enemy positions with pine-cone grenades and sub-machine guns made from vacuum cleaner parts. When I was a little boy, before personal computers I played with plastic army men and I remember dreaming that one day they might be able to make little robot army men that would bring the game "to life," which is essentially what computer games do, except better, because computer army men are a lot cheaper than hundreds of little robots would be, and they never wear out.

Sound effects were something that you provided yourself--I can still produce dozens of pretty decent weapon and battle field sounds with my voice. It's a skill that you never forget. I wonder if little boys can still do that. Not as well I, would guess.

My favorite CC game was Close Combat III: The Russian Front. Actually it was the first one I bought, and I absolutely loved it. I never played II or I because the graphics of III were much better and it put me off. Battle of the Bulge was good. And of course all of the mods for III really kept the game growing and expanding and kept me playing it literally for years. CCIII was actually a pretty good-looking game, for being 2d--without the necessity of 3d it was possible to make nice looking maps and units, all of which moved and fought in very convincing fashion, and it all ran flawlessly on a computer that didn't have enough HD space to even install a modern game. It was of course a quantum leap beyond Steel Panthers which I also played way back when. The thing about Close Combat that hooked me was the realism. The game literally could not get boring because it was like watching real battles unfold, not like trying to beat a computer. You felt like you were trying to beat, not the computer, but the Germans. I felt some moments of real triumph playing that game, like the time I had a paltry force of Airborne Paratroopers with a few measly AT guns, bazooka teams, etc., maybe a Sherman and an M10 and I had to defeat a landslide of German armor including Panthers and King Tigers. You guessed it, Bastogne. Hitting that Panther with a bazooka and seeing that nice big shower of sparks and smoke was like: Yeah! Take that you Nazi bastards! (not propaganda). Learning to play Close Combat was learning to deploy troops on a battlefield, its lessons would transfer directly to the real world.

And of course the units in Close Combat were somehow imbued with something you never find in computer models: character and personality. Somehow, looking down like God on that poor, wounded and bloody foot soldier as he crawled painfully across the frozen, shell blasted map, panicked and trying to find some place not to be shot at, you felt sympathy for him, and you hoped he would make it.

One other thing about Close Combat. I don't remember once ever while playing that game thinking "Ok, this is stupid. Real troops/tanks/guns/cannons/bullets/explosions/...etc. don't work that way." I remember thinking, or shouting, "Stop! The other way, you idiot!" Or, "Oh, crap, I did not think that was going to happen..." But in its terms, the game was completely believable. If I lost, I scratched my head and re-strategized, but never did I want to contact the game designers. It was, in a word, perfect.

[nodlew]

BTW, actually Steel Fury and Kharkov 43 (and T-72 sim) are from the different development team (i heard they're making a T-62 sim now), and games from MoW series were developed by various other teams. For example, there is MoW: Vietnam on the way (by the team that made Red Tide).


Different development team, Ok. Not really sure how all of that works. Different teams working for the same company on different projects/series of games? Do the teams interact at all? They must. I know that TOW and MOW have very distinctive looks and completely different gameplay styles. But there are similarities as well. I suppose there would have to be, both of them being RTS games centered on conventional ground warfare, mostly in the WWII era.

I am looking forward to the T-64 vs. The M-60 game. I liked Steel Fury very much until the limitations of the AI and the impenetrability of the Mission Editor caused me to lose interest in the game. I hope they can get the infantry sorted out. There were lots of problems with Steel Fury. Anti-tank guns were usually buried in the ground, unable to fire, or cocked at ridiculous angles. Infantry modelling was too crude, and the AI, though deadly accurate, was very mechanical and predictable.

The Mission Editor needs to be simplified, or at least it needs a detailed manual--in English as well as Russian!--explaining how to use it. The longevity of a game is essentially and directly dependent upon its modability by users, both in terms of the campaigns and missions available to play, and also the available units and some of their attributes, such as infantry weapons, ammo load-outs, etc. New expansions and sequels to games will always be in demand because of major improvements to a game that modders are generally not capable of. They will be more in demand, if the games are known to be mod-friendly.

[nodlew]

I finally lost two battles as the North Koreans. I was given two SU76s, two AT guns, 2 mgs, and infantry against a huge US tank company with artillery support. Some of my guys didn't even have rifles. There was no time to prepare defenses, and after killing our own weight and more in the enemy, we were overrun by heavy tanks and massed infantry. It wasn't fair.

But, while the battles took place, we surrounded the "victorious" Yankees. Let the capitalist pigs savor their triumph while they can. Tomorrow belongs to us.

[Sneaksie]

Looks like you're having fun :)

[nodlew]

The capitalist dogs of the American 7th Infantry Division were indeed crushed by the heroic 203rd Tank Regiment of the People's Republic. Our revenge upon them was hard won, but sweet in the achievement of it.

Now only one Yankee, Capitalist, Pig-Dog Imperial Army (now that's propaganda!) remains, and it is utterly surrounded and cut off.

After that? Who knows. Growing in strength, perhaps we shall bring the light of Communism to liberate the enslaved people of Japan from the American Dogs!

One day the whole world will be free to think and do as we do as loyal comrades. And if they are not, we will liberate them until they do.

[dce21b]

If you select your group of soldiers and then assign them a group number cntrl 1 for example. That group will keep selected formation. But you have to select group by its number or it will not work.

[nodlew]

Thanks for that info, dce21b. I didn't know that. As a rule I assign groups to my armor and artillery, and special infantry units like scout/snipers. Guess I'll have to start doing it for infantry squads as well.