undead reindeer cavalry

German operational command did their best to make Allies look good. it doesn't make Allies good. what comes to amazing mobile ops around Minsk, it's curious the Soviets found them amazing enough to sack the commander behind them. comparing to Normandy, Soviets faced thin air in Bagration. on the other hand in Bagration Germans were only made to wait to get pocketed, while in Normandy they were made to move deeper into the pocket, so perhaps that evens it out. German operational command is mostly senseless. if they don't dare to confront Hitler and OKH then they should not complain about impossible or retarded orders. acknowledging the retarded nature of affairs in diaries etc is of no help if one doesn't do something about it. doing stupid stuff is even more stupid when one is aware of how stupid it is.

wow, that's a great idea! perhaps i should start a 1941-1945 campaign in War in the East and play one turn per week. then each week choose at least one battle in WITE and play a part of it in CMBB. of course there would be no way to make the CMBB battle have any effect in WITE, but it would hardly matter as the scale of WITE is about 5 steps above that of CMBB. perhaps i should play WITE as five separate yearly scenarios, instead of a single 41-45 scenario, so that the end result doesn't get too far from historical in case i manage to really screw up in WITE.

in a not so distant galaxy, not so far far away, 70 years ago... i, for one, will be playing some CMBB battles dealing with the frontier battles of june 22. any recommendations for good scenarios?

i gave in to the temptation. after playing some of the small scenarios i decided to give the full 1941-45 a go, thinking it couldn't be so different. argh, what a sick game! :eek: i can feel it sucking the life away from my body. the "just one more turn" element has never felt so masochistic before in any game i have played. it's almost suicidal. can't help thinking that guys who go past 1942 must be making "sanity rolls" of Call of Cthulhu RPG for every turn they make. what kind of crazy evil person makes games like these? :eek:

shadows are usable for cues only in some cases (there are large enough shadows, shadows are cast on right direction, you are viewing from right angle, you are close enough to be able to spot the difference easily). the men sure know where they are. i would know as well if i was there. but it's just a game and it's just one battle out of many going on. the search for the actual location of the gap you know to be there is just an annoyance, especially if one's playstyle is not to zoom in at low altitude. yes, it can be solved by scenario designers.

that's not the right attitude. if you get through the initial problems (we all had them), you will be rewarded by the great depth of the game for years to come. i might guide you through, but i can't take screenshots from the game (it's some kind of graphics driver issue i think). but please post questions and i see if i can give some advice. if your men are being fired by a machinegun (for example), you don't need to fire the smoke on the machinegun. it's enough if you fire the smoke on some place between the machinegun and your men, so that the machinegun can't see your men. it helps if you don't advance with your men until you have that smoke-firing-unit in a position where from it can fire smoke if the needed arises. try to think ahead of events in this way. plan before you move. if you can't figure out a plan yet, perhaps because you don't have enough information yet, then don't move at all or only with something like a single scout team. if possible try to have other units see the area the scount team is moving towards, so that they can support the scout team with their fire if enemy opens fire at them. don't move the scout team too fast. only move short distances at a time (for example 20 meters per minute, using hunt or quick), so that you get some time to spot enemy units and you don't advance too deep into possible trouble. try to find a path that is covered (there is terrain between the radio unit and the enemy, so that the enemy can not see the radio unit), so that the radio unit does not get shot up. if it can't be done, avoid moving your men into places where it's hard to support them with other units. sounds like using smoke is not a useful tactic in that situation. you may need to try a different tactic. it would help if i knew what the actual situation is. have you won the tutorial mission yet? it would be good if you could play the tutorial mission again and again until you can win it easily. you can move your men across that large open field on the left.

i get quite a lot (relatively speaking) of events that are strange in that way. someone getting hit with fire that misses by wide margin or someone taking multiple "hits" to the chest in the open without any effect. or first someone's shots are off the target by about 10 degrees for multiple shots, and then caboom a shot right to the chest, then again off by 10 degress.* since i use WEGO i suppose it can be shrugged off by the "graphical representation in WEGO is not accurate" line. often, like you with these two videos of yours, i don't even notice the anomaly at first -- i usually only accidentally notice it when i am replaying the turn. i would miss 99% of the anomalies if i played in RT. i think it has something to do with how brains automatically "explain" things so that they appear to follow some sort of logic. and of course it works the other way around as well -- brains make one think that there are more anomalies than there really are (in relative to the number of nonanomalous events). i'm sure it's only in my head, but nonetheless it can be somehow annoying, as the whole point of detailed graphical representation becomes a bit moot. * if you think about something like managing to hit someone in Red Orchestra (a reference to another case of line-to-object 3D intersection collision detection with similar ballistics and target object qualities), even when you are pointing your gun straight at the target (instead of missing something like 10 degress) it's damn hard to actually hit anyone. now imagine if your aim accuracy varies so much that shots are off by 10 degrees... you should never hit anything except at point blank. so what i am saying is that i find it odd that there aren't more near misses (in relation to the number of wide misses), from the perspective of line-to-mesh collision detection.

yeah, nice graphics. i wish they would make even a Team Yankee style game with this level of graphical sweetness. M1 Tank Platoon 3 would be perfect.

extremely good. thanks for sharing!

the problem is that drug abuse really does create all sorts of problems. it's not just ODs or rehab. the effect on society is very detrimental. it's more economical to fix problems before they even become problems. going by "natural selection" is extremely uneconomical. populations (in nature, what ever the species -- be it bacteria or social mammals) do not choose natural selection as long as there are other options left. legalizing the rest of the drugs does not really solve the problem, as we can see from the use of the drugs that are currently legal. it would remove some of the negative effects, but not nearly all. still, i think the rational path is the one that begins with legalization. what follows after decades is another matter.

i get your point and i agree, so what follows is not really related to your point -- i am just abusing it. :/ one really damning thing about drug use is that in the end the mentality of drug use founded the human civilization as we know it. our civilization is in the end (or beginning) based on the founding of agriculture. everything that followed was more or less just a consequence of agriculture. without agriculture we would all still be "hunter gatherers". the thing about the founding of agriculture is that it did not begin as a way to create food, but as a way to create alcohol. the use as a source of food came later. of course it's just a coincidence, but it's nonetheless a funny / depressing fact.

how do others feel about this? so far it (the morale bonus for units in command) does not seem very big or important in my experience.

silly things are often the best things. they keep stuff interesting. you are of course 100% right that there's no difference at all what comes to the terrain type on any given point with similar terrain type. but it has a significant, even extreme, impact on LOS calculations. much of advanced / experienced CMx1 gameplay, especially regarding infantry, is based on these types of LOS calculations -- many of the tactics do not work if one isn't aware of these LOS effects. just a couple of examples of the LOS effects so that you get what i am after: - differences in terrain height (elevation) within a 20x20m tile - differences in LOS regarding to stuff in other tiles (e.g. you want a LOS thru the open space between two buildings -- because of the way the tiles are layed out you need to be in a specific position within the 20x20m tile in order to get the angle that gives LOS thru the space in between the buildings) - differences in cumulative LOS -- each meter (or cm or whatever) thru a blocking terrain type reduces LOS, so that when you have "collected" enough blocking terrain through different tiles the LOS is finally blocked -- so you need to consider your position within a 20x20m tile to be in or out of LOS towards an area on other tiles - special cases, a bit related to the cumulative stuff (e.g. how to make a SMG squad be able to fire from within a building out to the street, but at the same time be out of LOS to the building across the street) reminder: these were examples of how the ability to choose position within one 20x20m tile has significant impact on the results, even if the whole 20x20m tile would have only one and same terrain type. they only way it is superior is in the ability to position a unit exactly where it's wanted. of course i don't think it's superior to have a whole squad in a 10 square centimeter area. what i am thinkinking of are MGs, bazookas, AT guns and such. with them it's sometimes crucial to have the weapon in a specific spot within a 8x8m (or 20x20m) tile in order to have the wanted LOS/LOF. please note that i am not saying the CMx1 positioning system is superior in general. in most cases CMx2 system is clearly superior and no doubt will get even better in future.

i totally agree about tweaking burst levels and suppression. a third in-game feature related to the subject is buddy aid. in real world there was a lot more buddy aid going and it would take a lot longer to give it and it would lead to some rout-like behaviour (soldiers giving buddy aid moving back). much of the almost exponential loss of attacker's firepower in relation to taken losses is explained by "buddy aid" behaviour and explains to large extent how a unit can have 70% losses in battle but regain 90% of it immediately after the battle is over.

lol. something along those lines, yes.

i probably get what you are aiming at regarding CMx2 (e.g. any given point within a tile can have multiple types of terrain -- in style of one top of another ---, whereas in CMx1 any given point within a tile can have only a single type of terrain... and so forth). what i haven't been able to get has been the stuff implied in the context (for example that one CMx1 tile could only have one type of terrain or that LOS would only be tracked on "tile level" instead of being calculated also within a tile). i have never said the action spot system of CMx2, as a whole, would be inferior to CMx1. i have only commented about some aspects of it in comparison to CMx1 and reacted to statements regarding how CMx1 works. in my eyes CMx2 is Close Combat in 3D. both systems are "hex based" under the hood, while units appear to move freely in the environment, are represented 1:1 and take hits from fired shots. i like Close Combat and i do like CMx2 games. what comes to my personal preferences, at the moment i think CMBN is superior to CMx1 games, if one really wants to compare them in this way (as they are quite different), but it's a bit early to say. at least CMBN has huge potential of becoming the number 1 tactical computer wargame of all time. it has a lot more potential than CMx1 had.

my rhetorical question to the other member implied that i think you do not actually remember how CMx1 worked on these parts. it's not a question of having intellectual capacity. the subject is extremely simple and extremely simple to test. the statement that in CMx1 area fire "was always targeted to the center of the 20x20m action spot. Its the graphical representation that made it looked as though you were targeting a precise point." is simply counterfactual. it's not a question of opinion. there is no way to "explain" such statements to somehow be true. i find it extremely strange how people defend this utter and complete nonsense again and again. seriously, what's the purpose? CMSF and CMBN are great wargames that do not need absurd counterfactual CMx1 bashing to excel. just suck it up and move on

so you are saying they are lying purposefully? it's so sad that this stuff is not trolling. please go make some tests in CMx1. for example fire some MG fire into a group of infantry. the effect is actually based on radius, not tiles. for example have a building that is 99% blocked by other buildings and throw some direct HE at the visible corner of the building. the targetting is for the particular spot, not the center of "action spot" (do not exist in CMx1). etc etc blah blah blah.

i seriously don't know why they (even Steve of BFC) keep saying it again and again. i have argued about this (how LOS/LOF, targetting and unit position works in CMx1) numerous times since CMSF came out. what they say is frankly total nonsense as everyone can see if they do some simple tests in CMx1. why they keep saying it i can only guess. perhaps they just have forgotten, but i guess they just want to rise by blood pressure until i poop blood. anyway it's freaking annoying as i need to do extra laundry.

i still honestly do not understand this comparison that keeps surfacing year after year. in CMx1 area target (or unit positioning or LOS/LOF calculations or whatever) is not bound by or stickied to the tiles. in CMx1 the unit can be positioned in any position within a tile and a area target can be chosen for any position within a tile. the effect of the area fire or LOS/LOF calculations are not bound by the tiles, but by radius or cumulative type of specific types of terrain within the LOS line. it's not an impression -- it's how it works.

i still occasionally (1-2 times per year) play that game on a Apple II emulator. people should play games of this era before they complain about an UI being unintutive. (though War in Russia has great UI for a game of its era and theme -- definitely in top 1% what comes to usability).

it would be great if you could run two additional tests: - plt + 2 HMG in open - plt in foxholes (no HMGs) this way we could make sure that the effect is not coming from the foxholes.

naturally, but we could as well be talking about SMGs here. not very relevant for HMGs. of course, but the "hold fire till 100 meters" is about opting for an ever better result -- that of breaking the attacking force. if you are just going for pinning, you are better off the further away you pin the attacking force. yeah but the coy vs plt scenario is not very relevant for HMGs. the attacking coy will establish a fire superiority at under 300 meters (suppress & fix) and then will either flank or assult with elements and rout the platoon (or call support). if the defending platoon is "hidden", it makes sense to hold fire until 100 meters (very effective small arms range against upright targets) so that the attacking formation can be broken before it can establish the fire superiority and maneuver into the def positions (it also makes support calls meaningless as the coy wont be able to break into the def positions effectively any more).

it would be cool if in future we could get a command that simulates what "advance" did in CMx1, i.e. guys advancing in dash & duck leaps. i guess "assault" is supposed to do it, but the leaps are far too long and done with whole teams at a time (and of course applies only to squads). currenly i "have to" advance the individual teams with a gazillion of tiny movement orders and it's "a bit" tedious when i am advancing with multiple platoons. though i admit that in game terms i could just go "quick" with 50-100 meter leaps, but my eyes bleed whenever i do it (so i just roleplay and go with the gazillion of tiny orders approach).

do you want a better game or more realistic battles?