Jump to content

Cranky

Members
  • Posts

    127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cranky

  1. Oh, and a big shout-out to Mark Gallear (whose name I just remembered) for 'Ghosts Of Napoleon' - great operation: 20 battles Highly recommended to anyone who wants to play an early Barbarossa scenario where the Soviets get at least one of every obsolete vehicle in the 1941 Red Army, and the 20mm cannon in German armored cars rules!!! But thank god, no combat at night
  2. And may I also say that I understand people's concerns about MUHS (Massive Unplayable Huge Scenarios). There is definitely an upper limit to what is actually playably fun Hey, I've played my way through "Ghosts of Napoleon" for CMBB and Emar's Normandy scenarios for CMAK, both of which are at that upper limit, IMHO. My proposed battle has the advantage of being played on terrain that is almost entirely flat (having been levelled for said airfield) so that using view level 1 constantly for every unit to check folds in the ground won't be necessary cheers, Matt
  3. Thanks Kingfish- Number of units is of course CLASSIFIED to maintain FOW, and 'Battalions' is quite possibly an exaggeration Or maybe not Like any map with a lot of fortifications, it naturally describes itself as 'HUGE' As far as Player C goes, the idea is that Players A & B may request Naval Gunfire (represented by FO's at the far map edge and beyond LOS due to heavy smoke screen/fog) but Player C is gonna roll the dice to see if requests or granted or if they land on the right TRP. The actual island being fought over is quite small, really. Really just an airfield and some shore defences. Player C also controls two destroyers, which are on-map and mobile My question was really aimed towards whether a multi-sided PBEM battle is even possible, within the constraints of how CMBB works... I've been testing a bit this morning, and so far so good... cheers, Matt
  4. Hello Folks- I've been working on a fairly large battle that recreates an amphibious landing, followed by capture of an airfield. Attacking Forces add up to [CLASSIFIED] number of battalions of Marine Infantry with vehicles, plus Naval Gunfire support from a battleship, some cruisers and destroyers, as well as barrages from Rocketships and a heavy smokescreen. It has occurred to me that it would play very well if TWO players commanded the landing forces - half each. Another player would command the defenders, and yet another player (in this case, me) would act as umpire and control the naval assets. The two attacking players will have to request Naval Gunfire support from turn to turn - TRP's will allow hopefully accurate and timely arrival of shells, once requests are granted . To distinguish between the two Combat Commands, units belonging to one will simply have an asterisk in front of their name: e.g *MAJ Magon. In theory, turns would work like this: (1)PLAYER A: Moves his forces, SAVES. Sends SAVEGAME to Player B, AND A copy to Player C (Umpire), together with any requests for Naval Gunfire Support. (2)PLAYER B: Moves his forces, SAVES, sends SAVEGAME to Player C Umpire), together with any requests for Naval Gunfire. (3)PLAYER C (Umpire): adjudicates Naval Gunfire Requests- those that are granted are acted upon by targetting the appropriate TRP. He then finishes the turn by pressing GO, and sends it to Player D. (4)PLAYER D (Defender): moves his forces, presses GO, sends turn to Player A, and a copy to Player C. Now, I haven't tested this, and I'm probably missing something very obvious- If anyone out there would like to tell me what it is, I'd be grateful. Tanks in advance, Matt
  5. Hello Folks- I've been working on a fairly large battle that recreates an amphibious landing, followed by capture of an airfield. Attacking Forces add up a [CLASSIFIED] number of battalions of Marine Infantry with vehicles, plus Naval Gunfire support from a battleship, some cruisers and destroyers, as well as barrages from Rocketships and a heavy smokescreen. It has occurred to me that it would play very well if TWO players commanded the landing forces - half each. Another player would command the defenders, and yet another player (in this case, me) would act as umpire and control the naval assets. The two attacking players will have to request Naval Gunfire support from turn to turn - TRP's will allow hopefully accurate and timely arrival of shells, once requests are granted . To distinguish between the two Combat Commands, units belonging to one will simply have an asterisk in front of their name: e.g *MAJ Magon. In theory, turns would work like this: (1)PLAYER A: Moves his forces, SAVES. Sends SAVEGAME to Player B, AND A copy to Player C (Umpire), together with any requests for Naval Gunfire Support. (2)PLAYER B: Moves his forces, SAVES, sends SAVEGAME to Player C Umpire), together with any requests for Naval Gunfire. (3)PLAYER C (Umpire): adjudicates Naval Gunfire Requests- those that are granted are acted upon by targetting the appropriate TRP. He then finishes the turn-pressing by pressing GO, and sends it to Player D. (4)PLAYER D (Defender): moves his forces, presses GO, sends turn to Player A, and a copy to Player C. Now, I haven't tested this, and I'm probably missing something very obvious- If anyone out there would like to tell me what it is, I'd be grateful. Tanks in advance, Matt
  6. Thanks DT, I didn't actually know that... Fortunately I have a powerful Spam filter! [delete] cheers
  7. Ooops...minor typo: should read ant2man@iinet.net.au one 't' too many
  8. Hello there- I don't actually know where you might currently download Pyewacket's Map Converter from, but I do still have it on my comp, and can email it to you if you want. Its 83 kb, zipped. My email is: ant2man@iintet.net.au cheers, Matt
  9. Previous experimental results clearly showed the cause-and-effect relationship between overlapping trenches and Shrinking Trench Syndrome (STS). Further experiments also show an absolute cause-and-effect relationship between trench-in-rough and STS. In fact, the quickest and most dramatic outbreak of STS can be observed when the experimenter creates many tiles that are trench-in-rough. Quickest, in the sense that STS will appear in the very first turn of a playtest, and most dramatic in the sense that at least half of all trenches will be 'broken'. Additionally, experiments have revealed that while most Overlapping-Related STS takes a few turns to appear (as little as 4, or as many as 10) the lateral fine lines discussed earlier will appear first; and are in fact a reliable indicator of future trench breakup. Research continues.
  10. I am willing to playtest such an operation, and so are my descendants.
  11. I eliminated that possibility early, Lieutenant- there is no sand in CMBB It IS possible that the Syndrome is caused by tectonic movement of the Ukraine-Byelorussian Continental Plate, but I'm unsure as to whether that is in fact simulated in the game...
  12. For the sake of posterity (and anyone else who might be interested): After re-arranging some, but not all of my overlapping trenches and three playtests, I'm fairly confident that one can get away with a little overlapping, but not a lot. There also seem to be degrees of Shrinking Trench Syndrome, ranging from fine lines laterally across the trench - which do not change it's ability to provide trench-grade cover - right up to fully broken trenches, where the different broken pieces are separated by areas of non-trench that provide no cover. Research continues into this troubling disease.
  13. Sergei- I've checked out your CMBB Operation 'JR 48 at Kuuterselkä', and I see what you mean: there is minimal overlap (if any at all) of trenches. Now I've just got to re-arrange the trenches in my scenario. All of them Just when it was about finished and ready to go to The Proving Grounds... Ah well, it's all a labor of love, isn't it??? Thanks again.
  14. Thank you, Sergei. Evidence suggests that you're right: I've eliminated the other possible causes one by one, and still have the problem, AND it's true that the problem got worse as I added more and more overlapping trenches. I'll check out your operation, and get a few trench tips Thanks again.
  15. Hi Folks, Just wondering if anyone can tell me why the trenches in the scenario I'm trying to design keep breaking into chunks? They are fine when I'm placing them in the Editor, but during playtesting they start to develop problems after a few turns: spaces start to appear between them, creating areas that are NOT trench, and have no cover....I'm trying to create a continuous trench line with other trenches feeding into it... While making the map in the Editor, I've used a little cheat familiar to most of you; placing a trench in the Preview 3D map, then switching to the terrain editor to place rubble or rough or another type of terrain prohibited to trenches over that spot, so one has the combination in the final map; e.g trench-in-rubble. After I noticed Shrinking Trench Syndrome, I went back and changed all that, so that no trench occupies terrain prohibited to it. I still have the problem. There is much overlap of trenches on the map, which I've done to get a realistic look. I still have several bunkers sitting dead on top of trenches, but this is allowable placing, or so I think. BFC member 'demoss' had the same problem in 2003 and posted a query, without getting a satisfactory answer... Any advance in 2010? Grateful for any assistance. Thanks.
  16. Well, I di find a thread devoted to this very question: 'Incredible Shrinking Trenches', posted by Demoss in 2003, but no answers... I'm going to do the right thing and ask the question in the appropriate forum: Scenario Talk. Cheers,
  17. A resort, it's not, but a development? Now that kinda makes sense...a lot of building going on around the hospital and the station at the moment... You know Clive James? Slightly rotund chatty fellah seen on British TV delivering Bon Mots? He's from the island... So is Rugby League great Reg Gasnier. GO THE MIGHTY DRAGONS!!! I'm not too far from the airfield...just a few miles south, past Rockdale Plains. On-topic bit: Please, John, can you (or the other 0.3 people reading this) tell me why the trenches in the scenario I'm trying to design keep breaking into chunks? They are fine when I'm placing them in the Editor, but during playtesting they start to develop problems, until spaces start to appear between them, creating areas that are NOT trench, and have no cover....I'm trying to create a continuous trench line with other trenches feeding into it... I'm going to search the forum for this topic now, but there's undoubtedly some simple explantion that everyone knows but me. Thanks, if you can shed light.
  18. Scenario: 'Lunch Counter Lunch - Poland; Germans try to stop half-hearted Soviet thrust at Warsaw... Armand's pick ...neither of us have played it... No spoilers please 1944...means the kind of tanks that scare me...I'm an early-war man, myself...I like a tank to have a tiny pop-gun that makes a silly liitle noise, and armor no more than 12mm....pistol- and sword-resistant, that's all you need...
  19. John, we are drifting hopelessly off-topic here, with rocks to our leeward, but before they pull the plug and the ship goes down, did you see in PRAVDA the other day a little story headlined 'Lamb Born With Human Face" ? I thought to myself, now there's a future identity crisis....especially when it comes time for a roast dinner... Cheers, Antman
  20. John, I prefer the term 'Insectile-American' Thank you.
  21. Well, another Battlefront miracle... I'm still playing this damned game after all these years, AND reading the forum... I used to be Antman...but these days I'm Cranky......(I got older). Thanks John K for your efforts....that CM Ant guy may not be the real Antman, but he does bear an astonishing resemblance to the young Johnny Cash...great hair Email dispatched to Jordan...time for PBEM!
  22. Ardem: "I am hoping we just looking at polish now" Skinnedpuppy: "Polish are added as well!" Yes, I too am hungary for CMC, and hope that soon it will be finnish....
×
×
  • Create New...