Search found 20 matches

Are you sure? I have installed my patches directly from this site, and I have been giving the other players the link directly to the download section of this website. I have had connection issues due to patches in the past. The error message was different. Like I said, I have played regularly with Kawasaky, and by my estimation, he has all of the correct patches.

When playing cc2 on gameranger, I have run into an interesting problem. As GR tries to connect myself and the other player (in the cc2 lobby), I am met with an error message, which says: Incompatible retail versions of A Bridge Too Far. Host: 2.2 version. Client: 2.0 version.

What causes this? It is important to note that I have been playing regularly against Kawasaky(sp?) with no problems (lag excluded).

Interestingly, the only two times this has happened to me, the other player had to go install his game and then the relevant patches. I also tried letting one of them host, and I am met with the same issue (with the versions reversed).

Does anyone have any advice?

thank you

I found the correct folders and it now works. I can see 3.4 in all the unit names. Smile

Thanks!

I manually copied the folders but I still do not see 3.4. Maybe i installed it but I can't see it for some reason? Is there another way to test if the mod implemented? I am going to check unit costs.

To help clarify, I click the autoinstaller for 3.4, and a window pops up, after which a loading bar quickly jumps to 100%. I then recieve a message that 7 files have been unzipped successfully. I am given no more options, so I assumed (incorrectly) that the patch installed. Later, I noticed I did not have the readme which downloads after 3.4 has been successfully initiated...

I wish I knew how to mod. I guess maybe i'll try it out instead of complaining...

It isn't too difficult to program. CC2 and 3 did it perfectly. And I have already gone back to those games before some tells me to "go play those instead."

If I sound like I am whining, it is because no one has bothered to answer any of my tough questions, instead choosing to take the easy routes in attacking my examples. In logic, this is the fallacy of the Straw Man, where a person attacks the weakest part of someone's argument (it is easier to knock down a straw man man a real one). It also bothers me that many of these posts are assuming I have never played before. I know how to suppress and do all of that. My issue is with troops very close not being able to target the enemy. Like a sniper. Enemy troops cease to be concealed after they start firing, at least in cc2 and 3.

Wow. Please don't insult my intelligence. I realize that the green and red lines are not tracers but are game mechanics. Please. When appealing to realism, think about what might have really happened. The game mechanics are sloppy because my troops less than fifty meters away cannot spot the enemy. A sniper set to defend 50 meters from a building with enemy troops is unable to spot them, even after they start shooting. A sniper. How is this realistic? What about an entire platoon of paras unable to spot shooting from a bell tower which I have meticulously surrounded?

Ugh I am so tired of these weak historical answers. I can see the bullets spraying, I just can't target them. For instance, a platoon of paras comes under fire from a bell tower. They can see the bullets coming from the bell tower, they just cant target it. It is a sloppy game mechanic. So these troops, when put on defend, will sit around and do nothing, even knowing where from they are receiving fire.

History buffs can nitpick and attack the straw man all they want, but acknowledge that the inability to retreat is a serious flaw. I would like to point out that it is historically possible to retreat. All of the strange tactics I described are unrealistic... like avoiding killing enemy troops so as not to scare them. Yes, market garden may have actually been sluggish, but why would I be playing a game if I thought it would turn out exactly like history?

I have a question about LSA. How come I cannot see enemy teams? I have been playing online recently, and I can see bullets spraying from buildings, but my men can never see the enemy unless they are very close up. Why is this? I am forced to manually target everything.

I have cc2. I know LSA isn't totally balanced but house rules can fix many of the issues. I would be fine with cc2 however. That game is truly superb.

I am seeking an online opponent for LSA. Anyone interested? I haven't had the opportunity to play online yet and it is killing me.

I have no private messages....

I have been testing out the GC lately and I have been disappointed at the strategic level. The mechanics of the game have made it impossible to rapidly advance across territory. As XXX corps, I get stalled on the first map because axis morale dips too low, forcing ME to stop attacking..... I disagree with this compassion my troops exhibit. This has led to strange tactics in which I ignore the enemy for fear of killing too many of them. Is there a mod out there that fixes this grievous issue? It also makes it impossible to take Arnhem bridge on the first day, because the Brits would rather chill and drink tea when the Germans gets too tired of fighting. What is the deal?

I am in desperate need of a human challenger, as the AI has proven itself incompetent time and time again. Where can I find CC2 players, if they still exist? I have looked on gameranger and no one seems to be playing. Am I looking in the wrong place?

I want to change my username. How do I do this?

Anyone want to play the Son Bridge operation? This will be my first online game. The AI just didn't cut it.


	Login or Register	Home · Downloads · Forums · Combat Camera · Help