Shep

Add to scenario booklist (especially pertinent to this scenario you're building). Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo, and Schmidt. By Charles B. MacDonald and Sidney T. Matthews. It's published by the Center for Military History, and comes with topo maps and aerial photos. A truly wonderful resource. Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

That's not exactly my question. I'm guessing that CM2 will show up in 12-18 months, and that CM1 will be back-crafted to include all the new features. What I'm asking is when will our intrepid game design team begin working exclusively on CM2 and leave the CM1 patchwork behind. I know that we'll probably see a few new vehicles before CM2, and maybe an AI tweak or two, along with bug-squashing and the TCP/IP. Just curious about the cutoff date between the two. Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

I'm curious if the powers that be have considered a cutoff date between patches and features that will be included in version 2. I know the major patch will be the one with tcp/ip play, but will there be patches after then? I also know that we can expect our heroes to continue squashing bugs on CM1, but what about new features to be included in patches? Will there be any (other than TCP/IP) new features in CM1? Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

There was one very famous ASL DYO in our gaming circle in Houston that was one of the all time gamey tactics I've ever seen. One of the players bought nothing but motorcycles and demo charges. Lots of motorcyclists lost their lives that day, I can tell you. But eventually the other guy ran out of residual firepower and rate of fire shots, and there enough demo charge wielding motocross dudes to obliterate him. Yeah it could get real gamey alright. It was fun and funny. But gamey as can be. Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

Intelweenie: I second the motion. Your idea was also a part of my original meanderings on this topic, and I do like it. Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

Steve, Charles... Thanks for seeing the spirit of my original post, or at least in some way cutting through all the debate and seeing the real issue. I'm 100% behind you in reducing the gamey elements of CM, and I do agree with you about the gamey recon potential of crews. To those who have been on the other side of the debate, thanks also, an awful lot. Your insight into the inner workings of this game, history, and gaming philosophy has really helped to define the issue and brought out many aspects that I never would have considered. Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

I'm not sure of the historical grounding of crews fighting often as infantry. I'm sure that some over the course of the war did just that. Hey, at Bastogne even the cooks fought, and from what I've read gave a fair account of themselves. I was both a 19E (gives away my age... I even manned M60A1s) and a 19D. Thinking back it's hard to say whether we would have tried to fight on the ground after losing our vehicle, because losing the vehicle was something you didn't think about too much. As scouts, we were trained to fight every way we could once engaged, but mostly the point was to avoid decisive engagements. Perhaps upping the point value of vehicle crews could be a good thing, so that any infantry function would have to be on a desperation basis. Make them so valuable so that a player would only use them as a very desperate measure. But that still doesn't talk to the recon gathered, even by crews moving to the rear like they should, and that was my purpose for the thread. Why not just turn off spotting feedback for crews? Is this a hard thing to do? Just make it so that the spotting info is not displayed, period. One Marine on this board suggested the honor system, and to a certain extent I agree. I have direct control over my opponents most of the time, so I just play against those trustworthy guys as my choice, and no problem. But that approach can't be applied in a tournament. Instead of coming up with house rules about crews, and trying to enforce them through examination of replay movies, why not just turn it off? Then it's no hassle for all of us, and no one's tempted to be gamey in the first place. I realize that there will be some who will always be gamey and look for the (unreal) edge, regardless of how well the game is programmed against such tactics. But if it's a simple thing to fix, why not do it? BTS? It may be that I'm missing the point about one thing. That there are so few instances of crew abuse occur that it's not worth the effort. But I have the impression from reading this thread that this has at least moderate significance. Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

venbede... I'm glad to see you share Gen. Krulak's emphasis on ethics. I hope you saw that I totally agree with your take on the honesty side of this as my personal preference. Again, I don't have a problem just going with the honor system here. Does it need to be dealt with? Still a good question, but I have the strong impression that BTS has coded out quite a few elements of this game that might be taken advantage of in a gamey sense. In fact, in the opening of the game manual they talk about the simultaneous resolution method as a way to get rid of gamey elements, so arguably the very best features of this game follows my question. Part of my motivation for bringing up the issue was to discuss whether it should be (could be) handled with code, or by a house rule. I'm very glad to see a guy like you taking the high road. I don't lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do... either. Semper, Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

Sergei, Jgdpzr... You both have the gist of what I was talking about. Relative spotting/universal (borg) recon is not something that is going to get fixed anytime soon. However, the crew problem is something that might be within the range of what is realistically fixable. Jgdpzr, I think your suggestions are worth consideration. Mark

Tom W. I read your posts about "relative spotting," and what I'm suggesting is nothing so complicated. I would just 'turn off' the recon info for crews, so that the player could not see it. The magic radio deal doesn't work for me. I don't have a problem with going to an honor system in the meantime, and just running crews back to the rear. However from what I've read here, the spirit of Combat Mission seems to tend toward realism, and this is a realism issue that might be fixed with not too much pain. I just happen to be ignorant about what it would take code-wise to do what I've suggested. If it's a huge deal, then no way, of course. If not so huge, then hopefully it will get done. Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

In a Quick Battle yesterday, I was attacking a village. As one of my halftracks approached, it was hit by some unknown AT device. The crew survived and headed for the nearest buildings. Here's the gamey part: I proceeded to sneak and crawl and run that crew from house to house and tree to tree, gathering valuable recon (the old Cav Scout in me was coming out). The gamey part is that I used an element in an ahistorical fashion (mea culpa, mea culpa). I thought about how that intrepid crew was getting that recon info back to the other elements involved, and came to the conclusion that there was no way for it to happen. Which leads to a suggestion. That spotting information gathered by crews should not be made available to the player, unless that crew is in command link with an HQ. The crew can be fired upon, and even return fire on its own without giving away any enemy location information. There should be other units to which this applies, but I haven't thought of a specific list. Thoughts on this? Is it worth the trouble to code in future updates/versions? Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

Thanks, got it. ------------------ Scouts Out!

I've been experimenting with the editor, and I haven't been able to get the victory flags placed where I want them. I've tried manipulating the zones, both neutral and Axis/Allied, but still they just stay down with the attacker. It seems to me like the victory flags should be where the defender is defending, but no go so far. Anyone with some insight on this? Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!

Mikester, I'm just south of the Parkway, about midway between Broadway and University. Sounds like we're not but 3-4 miles apart. This is the life ain't it? I've sent you an email with my name and phone number. Mark

I received mine here in Highlands Ranch on Monday - a nice surprise since I ordered about six weeks ago. I was one of the lucky mistakes.

It seems to me that software distributors offer two advantages: money up front, and a distribution network. But in exchange they want control over various aspects of development, and a hefty chunk of the profits. There is a fair amount of danger there. I am so glad that BTS had the resources to develop CM on their own. I have an appreciation for BTS because of my own professional path. I'm a pastor in a small non-denominational Bible church here in Colorado. Many years ago, when I was just starting out in the ministry, I made the choice to stay away from denominations for the very reason that BTS chose to go their path. Denominations want money from your local congregation, and they demand a certain amount of control over what you say and how you worship. Those things were and are intolerable to me, so here I am. There is another similarity between the two that is worth noting. When you're on your own, it comes down to the quality of your product. The money involved with software distributors (and denominations) keeps afloat a certain number of entities that are crummy; and they also down the quality of many of the good ones through their meddling. Being on your own puts your product in the public forum to live or die according to its quality, and in the case of BTS that's a really good thing. It makes me happy to see the success of BTS with CM. They deserve it completely! --- Mark ------------------ Scouts Out!