Bud Backer

Just stopped for the day during a REFORGER exercise...

I run the CM games on my 2012 MacBookPro without issue. I’m still on MacOS 10.10. My friend runs it in his 27” iMac using MacOS 10.11 without a problem. There is a delay the first time one runs it after installation as the OS does some sort of scan of the application. This can sometimes take a few minutes but if allowed to complete then subsequent running of the app is instant.

I’ve been waiting for these little guys for ages. I played around with it a fair bit to make that shot different from the conventional front or side shot.

Ah, Balance. I agree, we need to have balance in a competitive game. And that is made all the harder because the war it is trying to simulate was never balanced. The more the game balances things the more it is removed from the realism that many die-hards would like to see. Personally, I don’t feel I need an excuse to be able to use certain vehicles. You mentioned the Cromwell and other Commonwealth vehicles and it’s an interesting example. Are they overpriced? Do their costs not reflect their quality, as you put it? I actually don’t know. Even if their cost was adjusted, would rarity not come into play and make them still problematic to purchase compared to the ubiquitous Sherman? I don’t expect an answer, it’s more an illustration of how this isn’t actually an issue that cost adjustments will automatically correct; more a “can we all buy something other than the same 10 units” frustration. Which I can relate to. To turn the argument around, I am fairly certain that were units priced for balance, many would complain that Unit X is nowhere near as good as Unit Y, so how can their costs be so close? In a realism focused game balance might require some mental effort and collaboration between players, sometimes. I get it; that can be a hassle and source of argument. NONE of what we’ve talked about should imply that I agree with the prices of all units. I DO wonder why the StuG is so pricey. I’m less concerned with the PzIV than you but I can see a reasonable person could think they are overpriced and I’m inclined to agree. There are other examples. So I while I may take a different viewpoint on HOW to price things, I think getting the costs right is very very important. ps: I enjoyed this discussion. You brought up ideas and approaches that were outside my focus and it’s good to have that mental challenge of having one’s approach to a problem challenged in a positive way.

This caught my eye after I wrote the above and wanted to address it because it is an important assumption. I emphasized one part because I think this is key. This is very much an assumption of the cost factor. It appears to imply that in this discussion, the Sherman is the natural match-up for the Panzer IV. I think this might be a easy conclusion to make, however, let's challenge that for a moment. It is a likely matchup? Sure. So is Sherman-Panther. Or Sherman-SdKfz 251. Or Sherman-infantry. I say this not be be silly but rather to draw one's attention that the kind of matchups they are likely to get into is a highly variable, theatre- and situation-dependent comparison. And I think potentially risky to use as a cost-factor. A unit has to have a value - for game purposes - based on its capabilities and limitations, and not compared to another unit. Only then will one have a true value for a unit. Naturally the unit does not exist in a vacuum, and naturally we would compare that unit to another, and their relative costs. That's useful information to have and to compare. But to base a cost on "how well it fares against its presumptive enemy" is making a comparison on a sliding scale where the Sherman or PzIV will change value based on what it faces, or how what it faces is improved over time. I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but I am explaining a design logic here. To carry that further then, I do not think we can use the kind of matchups they are likely to get into as a cost factor. What if the Sherman was constantly running into Panthers? It should still cost the same. Is a Sherman less pricey if it has to face Infantry most of the time (which in fact it would). I think while it is natural to make the comparison between medium tanks the value of those medium tanks it faces is not the sole factor. What about anti-infantry capability? I don't just mean weapons, how well can each spot infantry? How close? How about ammo supplies for various tasks. And so on. These are entirely unrelated to a presumptive match-up. I re-requoted your statement several times because it was the easiest way to discuss it, not to make it sound ridiculous. I hope it did not come across as the latter

Good. I know you are a thoughtful fellow, so don't accept the bait and drop the level of discussion I know you are capable of holding. It just doesn't go anywhere and encourages more nonsense. There was a reason the Germans were trying to use and improve the Panther, and I think you are essentially confirming that here. And Tommy-Lighters or Ronsons or Shermans, call them what one will, there are reasons for those monikers, unfortunately the moniker sticks long after the reasons it was granted are corrected. Neither here nor there, in terms of the cost discussion, but nice anecdotes to be sure. As I said before, the Panzer IV's price could be tweaked, sure. How much is the penultimate discussion. The ultimate discussion is whether the costs factor in something we may not be aware of. After so long and so many game versions, I think it's going to be difficult to gain traction to undertake a rather time consuming review of unit costs (because let's face it, it won't end with just the handful of units we've chatted about here). One can't just look at a pair of units in isolation. The fortunate thing is that the cost is not 150% or some exorbitant higher than it should be, at least in my view. That would become painful indeed. And I think you know, I am exclusively a QB player, so I appreciate it being a functional, robust system because it's vital for my enjoyment of these simulations. These are interesting arguments, and I see the value in things working the way you suggest, however, let me take my beta tester certificate off the wall and speak from the designer's perspective on this: some games do exactly the approach you suggest. It encourages a breadth of unit choices over those that are the most cost effective and efficient. However, it is my understanding (I emphasize that word as I have not had BFC speak directly on their process) that unit costs are based on unit capabilities and limitations. Rarity, as we know, factors in how available something is. But the unit cost is not meant to promote some sort of meta-game where the use of some units that are otherwise not the best choice are tacitly encouraged by making them attractive from a cost standpoint. As a simulation that tries hard to be fairly realistic (within limitations that can be debated ad-nauseam) it would not make sense (in my opinion, no disrespect to yours) to do what you suggest. The fact is that if I want Cromwells (to use your example), I will happily buy them because that is the situation I am trying to create. I want to have a reasonable assurance that they are priced using the same standards as everything else. I think that it might be overstating things to say that QB cannot be interesting and challenging for both parties unless one limits one's purchases to a very narrow group of exceptionally cost-effective choices. It's not been my experience. Of course, one can take things to extremes to prove you're right, one can really go crazy with min-maxing but I think we are both trying to be reasonable and not make arguments based on unusual situations.

Interesting. That is so completely opposite from my own experience. My regular QB partner almost always uses strafing aircraft and I consider them to be even less than a nuisance. In fact, I like that he wastes points on them.

Let’s stop the hyperbole train because it really just derails any serious discussion, ok? I agree that that pricing of some units feels off, including the StuG and the Panzer IV. I also think the Abrams is too cheap in CMBS. But I don’t think you can argue that the PZIv is too expensive because it can be killed with an M8’s 37mm. So can a Panther or JagdPanther. Shall we suggest then that they should cost perhaps the same as a Sherman? Or perhaps that the panzerfaust, since it can take out a Jumbo, should cost 400 points? I think few would find that sensible. Is the Panzer IV most costly because it has better long range capabilities? I don’t know. Balancing these costs is very tricky, as there can be many arguments for shifting that purchase price up or down and they would be quite reasonable propositions, depending on specific circumstances. And it’s those circumstances that have to be gauged and weighed for probability of occurring. Yes, the M8 can take out a Panther. How often does that happen if people of reasonable competence are playing both sides? Should the M8 be bumped up to cost 300, 400 points on that basis? I think not. Certainly the Panther user could present an argument to do so. But I think if we genuinely try to be fair we can see that it’s not a truly comfortable argument to make. Regarding strafing aircraft, they (I believe) are fairly inexpensive because they are simply not incredibly effective. I’m sure we have all lost a few men to them, but a strafer causing serious harm on a regular basis? I remain unconvinced that that is true.

Hmmm. Snipped this part imgur.com/a/4LIFK6H copied the URL of the image itself which I can put in as an image here

I play pretty much exclusively QB. And lately it’s been my thing to set much of the settings on random. So I’ll know the year/month, and the two sides as the person I play against has his preferences as to nation and force type as do I. But the rest is usually random. We approach this from the perspective that each of us has a superior officer who told us to go to this location (the map) and do what is appropriate (attack/defend depending on the random result) the objectives. We pick our own forces. Sometimes we introduce some “house rules” for that battle alone - like - no substitution, buy whole formations, or no adjustment of quality, etc. It leads to a great degree of variation as with hundreds of maps per game it really has vast replayability. The key is having someone to play with.

NVM

I worked with him in the 90s on Steel Panthers after SSI stopped. He was a force of nature, seemingly unstoppable, but irrepressibly good humoured and enthusiastic. A positive individual and I am sad to hear of his passing.

I find doing a decision matrix is the easiest and most successful way to make a decision, as all games have small to huge battles possible. I think the key thing is to decide what period ( WW2 or Modern) interests you the most. if Modern, then CMSF2 or CMBS are your options. CMSF2 has more nations and more variety of equipment, but is focused more on a counter-insurgency/asymmetric sort of warfare where one side typically has a lot poorer equipment than the other, but has more numbers and has to use different tactics than a stand up fight. There are no seasons here, it’s basically dry and hot. CMBS has more direct head to head combat, with forces that still have to adjust for each other’s advantages but would be largely conventional combat and tactics. There are no seasons here, it’s basically midsummer. If you prefer WW2, then the choices are going to first be broken down by front - East or West If East, then CMRT is your only option, covering June 1944-May1945 (once the latest module releases). Once the module releases you will have all four seasons here. If West, then CMBN, CMFB, CMFI are your options. CMBN runs from June 1944 to Sept 1944. If Normandy, Cobra and Market Garden are your thing, this is your game. No winter here. CMFB Runs from October 1944 to January 1945 (eventually to be extended to May 1945). Winter is possible here as is autumn and eventually spring. If Bulge, Aachen, and eventually pushing into the Ruhr etc are what interests you, this is your game. CMFI runs from July 1943 to May 1945. Thus it has the largest variation in time period. It has a huge variety of forces and terrain possibilities, all four seasons can be played here. If Western front stuff is your thing, but you’re undecided what place and period, I’d seriously look at CMFI.

Just a further clarification on this: without an AI plan, you can’t use the map against an AI opponent as the AI units will not Advance, and be an effective enemy. They just sit in their starting positions. But against a human opponent no AI plans are needed in a QB map. I’ve made many such maps and they all worked fine in QB against a human opponent.

If you haven’t played any Combat Mission games then it may help to know that there are four types of battles you can have: 1. Premade battles (“scenarios”) that allow you to pick one or any side and have forces pre-selected. You read the conditions, forces available and objectives and attempt to fulfill the latter to win. They can range in size from a few squads to a regiment. 2. Campaigns - these are an interconnected series of what is mentioned above in 1 with outcomes of each battle determining various things for the upcoming battle. 3. Battles you create using the scenario editor - these are like 1 above, but you are making it. 4. Quick Battles - these are battles where you can choose the purchase points for each side and then either specifically set all the conditions or let them be random, including map choice. Here you can still set battle size (or let it be random) so once more you can have battles involving a platoon and a few tanks, to something much much bigger, wIth two battalions or more per side. There are a fair number of customization options so that you can decide the experience, morale, equipment supply for each side, etc. This is my favourite mode, I rarely play anything else. Thousands of hours of fun and still haven’t exhausted all the possibilities.

Have you checked the saved games folder?

What blue stuff? I just see text in a box. kidding...

Thanks. Debug note to self: CMBN

Dang. Sometimes things are surprisingly easy to find or recall, and other times... If you stumble across is please post here. It helps.

Would you by any chance know where he posted about it?

Up front is a great game. Nicely made and presented cards, rules that are sophisticated enough to make it quite serious, and a small unit feel as it’s really squad - sized, with supporting elements.

They’re pretty useful when I’ve used them.

QA report filed for each of these.

QA report filed for this.

It’s not a flight simulator. It’s a turn based tactical air combat game. One would think it might be hard to make flight on a turn by turn basis fun but it actually was fun, challenging and detailed. It was the computer version of JDW’s Air Superiority board game. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3613/air-superiority