Ph0r3vEr

Ahem, my 5 pence is that if you know where the enemy is (or strongly suppose that you know) you can use area fire to smoke him out. The German LMGs have a phenomenal rate of fire that will easily deplete their ammo stores while doing so thus making them ill suited for such use. The scout infantry on the other hand is well suited for such a role. Thus if the map is small and I suspect that the enemy is close I designate my support machine guns, infantry guns and whatnot with area fire targets in the woods (about as deep inside the woods as they can see) I'm about to close in. As the troopers start to reach the area it is wise to cancel the area targets... If they consider themselves under fire the usual enemy response is to fire back from their hiding places thus revealing their positions. This tactic is best to employ in small maps where the enemy is likely to know where you are coming from anyway. I sometimes use it on bigger scens as well. Few shots along a long line make the field of combat seem a bit hectic and might even serve to distract the enemy. -4eva [Edited to make my English teacher a bit more content] [ June 30, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Ph0r3vEr ]

Neva seen anything quite like that. Time to write a bug report. -4eva

It's an age old trick to make people united under a banner of hatred. By revealing (or making up) an enemy large masses can be by far more easily controlled. Modern leader for example could wage war against a third world country just to distract his people from the poor situation of internal economy (and unemployment) and become a popular hero by protecting "the interests of his people". Hitler needed an enemy he could blame on the German failure of WW I and the difficulties in economy. He chose something he could reach early on (German Jews) without any need for conquest (which was only planned at that time). It is quite obvious he (at least later on) became seriously mentally ill which led to the well-known genocidal act. Napoleon had managed to become a worshipped and respected military leader and a statesman. His troops committed things that would now be considered atrocities but his view of the world was quite different from ours. The stuff done by an invading army during the early nineteenth century (and practically always before that) to any land they went and occupied could be considered as an atrocity today. Thus ordering people killed due to rebellion or whatnot was more or less a trend back then (people died, it happened - war, invaders and mass killings were considered sort of a natural catastrophy by the people). I'm not saying it was the right thing to do but a Sovereign Head of State back then was in his position "due to God's will" thus justifying all his decisions. Napoleon was an emperor of his people and his colours are still carried by the French. Hitler was a military dictator of a foreign country (some claim he disliked the Germans altogether) and his colours are today a symbol of evil and wickedness. I rest my case. -4eva

The interesting idea provided by mr. Salt was experienced during the pre-PC boardgaming era. The system (called Fog of War) was implemented on a series of napoleonic battle games. Here the commander had to plan for action which the troops then executed. If they failed to do as ordered the leader of the unit "made a decision" (rolled from a table - best result was that you could give the unit new orders by yourself) which was modified by his personality ("aggressive", "cautious", "reckless" etc.). There was also loads of random events (troops were moved to a different location - due to misinterpretation of the orders or became idle due to no obvious reason for example) but people complained that the game "played itself" after the initial orders phase and the cumbersome mechanics only served to burden the players. I think such a game engine would be a brilliant choice for a napoleonic game (or perhaps battles of the age of reason could be depicted by such as well) but the second world war squad leaders were sometimes very independent and able. To build such an AI that could react on his own (or to decide when a task has become impossible) is by far beyond being cost effective. The tac AI of CM:BB should be one of the best designed yet it mostly reacts to enemy fire and to that alone. The "rush for the flags" or "concentrate power against known enemy" tac Engine is simply not good enough to work long periods on it's own. Today that is... -4eva

So it means I'll have to redo the whole map. Was hoping it wouldn't come to that

Who could possibly be interested about this thread :confused: ... Q3/ Urban Terror HL/ Day of Defeat ASL (yes, over a board against a present fleshy opponent...) Hannibal (as above) -4eva

I played a lan TCP/IP game against a friend of mine who played the soviets in 1941. To simulate the sloggish chain of command and incompetent officers he gave orders for 2-4 turns in a row and only issued new movement orders when the former ones were completed by the troops. Needles to say it was a massacre but to think how Jerries managed to smash KVs and T-34s in 1941 it truly simulated the situation well. Russian vehicles lacked communication equipment and attempted breakthroughs sometimes leaving them pointlessly roaming behind enemy lines. IMHO the use of green troops as Soviet infy in 1941 should be replaced with 120 sec turn for the Russian and 60 sec turn for the German (who would thus give orders twice in one Russian turn). Those guys had balls but were often led by untrained fanatics who could spill only the blood of their own troops. -4eva

Do I sound stupid if I ask how a map from an operation (made using the CMBB map editor) could be reused in a scenario? The readme of CMMC editor gave me the idea that it can only export maps TO CMBB but not import any FROM it. -4eva