Jump to content

76mm

Members
  • Posts

    1,366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by 76mm

  1. Hi. I'm working on some data tables for CMAK similar to those in the CMBB strategy guide. Before I get too far along, I wanted to see if people on the forum had suggestions about what kind of data should be included in CMAK data tables or how it should be formatted. For instance, the CMBB data tables didn't have any unit cost data or availability dates. Would people be interested in that kind of data, or just basic armor and armament data, like in the CMBB tables? Any other thoughts?
  2. Dear Jean Lafitte: I can't say that I found a single really good book that covered the entire North African Campaign, but some suggestions for particular campaigns are: 1) the Official New Zealand Histories--these are excellent works covering particular campaigns with a focus on New Zealand's role. In the US they are hard to find in hard copy, but check www.nzetc.org for e-text. Highly recommended! 2) Both of the Alamein books used in the companion (by Latimer and Bierman & Smith) are good, but focus on the Alamein campaign. 3) Rick Atkinson's book ARMY AT DAWN, not included in the companion, is good coverage of the campaign in NW Africa. 4) Desert War by Alan Moorehead is a great account of the early days in the desert, including descriptions of fighting with the Italians in East Africa, etc. But it is more a journalist's account than a formal history of particular campaigns. Probably no other book I read gave a better sense of what it must have been like to participate in the desert war--fascinating read. That's it--good luck! Tom
  3. Thanks for your feedback. The points on the maps are well taken--I would have liked to include more maps covering the tactical engagements described in the excerpts, but very few of the source materials included this type of map. And while the strategic maps that were included turned out to be fuzzier than I had hoped, I found them to be readable (with difficulty) and better than the alternative (no maps at all). I should add that one reason I didn't go with other/more maps is that I found it very difficult to track down the rightsholders for many of the books I wanted to use--many publishers have folded, merged, etc. over the last half-century, and tracking down individual authors (of books written 20-30-40 years ago) generally took many months, and sometimes proved impossible. Moreover, the copyrights to the maps were often held by someone other than the author, so tracking down these people to obtain their permission to use the maps would have been even more difficult. In retrospect, I would have spent less time trying to track down rightsholders and more time trying to find exxcellent public domain maps... Regarding HeinzBaby's comment about a SNAFU with quality control--I think you're saying that you didn't like the use of the Courier font instead of Times Roman? The use of Courier was in fact a conscious (albeit somewhat controversial) decision which was intended to help convey the notion that you were reading after-action reports banged out on a field typewriter. Again, in retrospect, maybe I would have decided differently, but that was the idea at the time. So if you don't like the Courier font, please chalk it up to poor editorial judgement on my part rather than a quality-control issue. Tom
  4. I'm the author/editor of the CMAK Companion. Battlefront would like to add a "Reviews" page to the CMAK Companion section of the website, so I thought I'd ask those of you who have purchased the book if you could post some comments/reviews in this thread. Thanks, Tom Reiter
  5. Berlichtingen is correct that they were given short deadlines for preparing the scenarios, and I think that they did excellent work given their time constraints. I'll take responsibility for setting the short deadline, as the aim was to release the scenarios at the same time as the book. This is one of the reasons I wanted some feedback on the scenarios. Tom
  6. Hi, I am the author/editor of the CMAK companion. I liked Battlefront's idea to create some scenarios based on excerpts in the book, and I was just curious how people liked these scenarios--any comments? Thanks, Tom Reiter
  7. The CMAK Companion has several good accounts of NZ night fighting, including Chapters #19, #46, #55, #78 & 129, most of which are from the New Zealand Official Histories. Good luck! Tom
  8. Does anyone have any idea if SC2 will allow the import/export of unit data from/to a database? Tom
  9. Dear dw: There are eight maps in the companion, one for each of the theaters covered in the book: --Italian Africa (6/40-2/41), --Rommel's Africa (2/41-4/41, --Crete (5/41) --Rommel's Africa, Cont'd (6/41-11/42), --Northwest Africa (11/42-5/43), --Sicily (7/43-8/43), --Southern Italy (10/43-5/44), and --Northern Italy (6/44-4/45). Tom Reiter
  10. Dear Goofystance: I am the author (or more accurately, the editor) of the CMAK companion; I'm glad that you're enjoying it so far. I'd also like to respond to your question about the orientation of the title on the spine: rest assured that this decision was not based on any economic rationale, or any particular rationale at all. While I agree that the other way is more common, at least in the US, I'm not sure that there is a "right way" or a "wrong way" to orient the title. I know that my bookshelf at home has books with both formats. In any event, accept my apology if the unconventional layout has lessened your enjoyment of the book, and in closing, let me encourage you and other readers "not to judge the book by its cover" (I couldn't resist). Cheers, Tom Reiter
  11. Dear Jens: Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, but I have been out of town on business for quite a while. Please give me an e-mail address (didn't see one in your profile) and I can send you my draft project, but you'll need Access to use it (it is in Access VBA and can be made a self-executing file when and if I finish it). 76mm
  12. Dear Jens: Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, but I have been out of town on business for quite a while. Please give me an e-mail address (didn't see one in your profile) and I can send you my draft project, but you'll need Access to use it (it is in Access VBA and can be made a self-executing file when and if I finish it). 76mm
  13. Hi, I am the author, or more accurately, the editor of the CMAK Companion. Flammenwerfer asked for more information about the author, so I thought that I would post some basic information about myself. First, I should probably make clear that although I am an avid reader of all types of military history, I do not consider myself a grog. I served as a US Army armor officer with the First Armored Division in Germany and Desert Storm and graduated from Georgetown University and University of Michigan Law School. After finishing law school, I lived in Moscow, Russia for several years and currently live in Washington, DC. This is my first publication of this type; I hope that you enjoy it and welcome your comments. Tom Reiter
  14. I'll check this out too; I've been working on a similar project. tmr
  15. TBlaster, how do you like Aide-de-Camp II. I was checking it out for the same purpose, but it seems kind of dated and pretty pricey. What are your likes/dislikes? Thanks, Tom
  16. I just wanted to put in my two cents as well--I think it would be great to have an import/export feature for unit data to allow players to create their own campaigns! 76mm
  17. I'd like a copy in pdf format, please. Please send it to me at treiter@mctcorp.net Thanks! 76mm
  18. what's the difference between putting Jumbos & KTs along the Gothic line and putting Imperial Stormtroopers along the Gothic line? I think MikeyD misses the point: the point is not to put Jumbos & KTs on the Gothic line but to use the CMAK engine to create battles in other theaters. While I understand the argument that extra vehicles shouldn't be included if it would stretch BFC's resources too much, the argument that inclusion of these vehicles to be "ahistorical" overlooks the obvious fact that it depends on what you're trying to recreate. And if you're really worried about historical accuracy, why not allow people to create CMBO scenarios with the more "realistic" engine to be utilized in CMAK? Is that so wrong?
  19. I don't see the downside to including all of the vehicles. If you consider them gamey, don't use 'em. Until we know what theaters the new engine will cover (and when), why not get to play with the full set of vehicles in the meantime? 76mm
  20. Yes, or at least it would be good to have them in a seperate forum. 76mm
  21. I'd like to respond to a couple of points made by Sailor Malan and other posters on this forum who have argued against a campaign mode. First, I thnk that everyone agrees that BFC doesn't seem likely to do a campaign/operational layer--developing a campaign/operational application would be a huge distraction, and BFC doesn't seem to have the resources to continue developing the CMX games AND add a whole new campaign/operational application. However, we are only asking that BFC provide the limited tools necessary to allow player/programmers to develop campaign/operational applications, such as being able to save, modify and/or export/import unit files. This is orders of magnitude easier than developing a whole campaign/operational layer and would add enormously to the attractiveness of the game to many people. If developing the game engine should have top priority, BFC should not have included the scenario editor in the game because it took time away from their modelling of this or that, and the editor allows players to roll-their-own scenarios, even if they are, god forbid, "unrealistic" (see below). I suspect that it has taken BFC much longer to research and model many of the obscure and historically insignificant vehicles included in the game than the time it would take to provide unit export/import/edit saves capability that will allow for the development of a campaign/operational layer. This game is incomplete without a campaign game for several reasons discussed below, but first it is necessary to distinguish between a CMX "campaign" application and a CMX "operational" application--people generally use them interchangeably in discussions on this forum. You can have a campaign application without an operational level application (ala Biltong's rules, etc.), the main purpose of which is simply to utilize the same core units over time and thus help ensure that players give proper regard to casualties and avoid flag rushes and other gamey tactics common to isolated scenarios without any context. As long as the units do not accrue experience points/levels too quickly, and players don't get in the habit of restarting battles because their favorite unit got plastered, I don't see how this can be regarded as unrealistic. This "campaign" mode is only a half solution however, because basically the battles themselves are still randomly generated and thus do not have any operational-level, or any other, signifigance. In other words, "campaign" applications give more significance to unit casualties, but not to the battles themselves. An "operational" application is much more involved than a "campaign" application, because it is essentially an entirely seperate game which is integrated with CMX. With operational level maneuver, the battles themselves finally acquire context and significance, and scenarios become much more interesting, with a greater likelihood of mis-matched forces, flank attacks, fighting retreats, last-stand defenses, rear-area raids, supply considerations, direct or indirect impact on future operations, etc. I actually think it will be very difficult to create an "operational" application that is anything close to realistic but think that the CMX battles generated by such an application will much more realistic, and fifty times more interesting, than your average QB. I've basically lost interest in QBs because it's pretty tough to get too excited about the isolated and meaningless battles that they represent, even when the AI puts up a good fight (which is rare enough). I often literally don't care whether or not I win, or whether that platoon in the advanced position which is almost out of ammo can make it back before they're overcome by the attacking hordes. While I understand (but don't fully agree with) people who argue that developing a campaign/operational application because it will take BFC's time from other things, I don't understand people who argue against a campaign/operational element because it is "unrealistic", and even mock people ("wrong game, go and RTS or something") who ask for a campaign/operational layer. Let's face it, any game, even one as advanced as CMX, is riddled with unrealisitic features, ranging from force balance, fudges introduced by limitations of the game engine (borg spotting, etc.,), excessive use of vehicles rarely seen on the field of battle (Sturmtigers, JS-IIIs), flag rushes, etc. Why single out a campaign/operational layer as an unpardonable "unrealistic" element? On the contrary, I consider the introduction of a campaign/operational layer to be a means of increasing the realism of the battles in CMX. Finally, regardless of whether a campaign/operational application can be considered "realisitic", many people on this forum have stated that this layer would greatly increase their interest in the game. The sporting analogy made earlier on this thread was good--creating CMX without allowing for the creation of a campaign/operational element is equivalent to creating a football simulation that only allows you to play individual games rather than a whole season. The individual games are technical exercises almost entirely devoid of emotion--you've got a set of resources and you need to command them against the other players resources, and if you win, well, you win and that's it. Ultimately, I don't consider this is either realistic or fun. 76mm
  22. Lt Bull is correct that BFC is thinly staffed, and that they've got to pick their programming and other priorities carefully. That said, I think they'd get huge bang for the buck by simply providing a means for importing/exporting unit data from CMX. Once they do that, player/programmers can take over and create the type of campaign applications for which there seems to be huge demand. Until and unless BFC allows for import/export of unit data, however, it is much more difficult to create any sort of campaign application that does not involve massive manual data entry at some point, which makes any campaign mode much less attractive (because you spend most of your time entering data rather than playing the game). 76mm
  23. I am very also interested in a campaign aspect to CMX, and agree with Caesar and Aaron that all we need is for BFC to allow for the export/import of game save info (or edit game save files). From the many posts on this thread, it is obvious that there is huge interest in some kind of campaign element, but also that almost every player has their own ideas about what a "campaign game" should look like. For that reason, I don't think it is realistic for BFC to come up with an operational/campaign layer--it is too much work, and it is not clear that there is critical mass for a campaign game with any particular feature set. That said, as pointed out over and over again on this thread, there are many players out there with the skills and interest to develop a their own campaign overlays if BFC would simply provide some basic tools, particularly an export/import features for troops and, ideally, maps. I really hope that this makes it into the game sooner rather than later. 76mm
×
×
  • Create New...