Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/30/2015 in all areas

  1. probably a good time to wrap this one up. Either a rational explanation has changed Daz's perspective or it hasn't. Either way there is no place for this to go but down. The longer these threads go on, the greater the chance of it devolving into negative stuff.
    2 points
  2. I did some more experimenting. I used green, regular and veteran tank crews. In regards to tank riders Move and Fast seem to work the same. Both Move and Fast traveled at Move speed. When tanks on Move or on Fast spotted the OpFor none of them stopped. They all continued traveling to their assigned waypoints. Tanks traveling at both Move and Fast fired on the OpFor while traveling. Tanks traveling at both Move and Fast ignored the OpFor when the tanks had area fire orders. Again area firing while traveling. Also gave the riders area fire orders. Looked pretty cool with the tanks blasting away and the riders shooting. This was also done with MOVE order. With the new information I made some changes to my tank rider assault TACSOP. 1. Synchronize with an artillery barrage and have an over-watch force. 2. Give riders area Target orders. 3. Give riders Hunt waypoint on objective. (If tank stops riders will take cover.) 4. Give riders large 360 degree target arc at their Hunt waypoint to cancel previous area Target orders. 5. Plot Fast waypoints for the tanks. (Will actually travel at Move speed) 6. Give suppression tanks Target & Target Light orders from different waypoints. 7. Have suppression tanks button. (They will not be acquiring targets) 8. Give Open Up order to a few tanks and no area targets. (This is for targets of opportunity) Any additional helpful suggestions are welcome.
    2 points
  3. Bootie

    Having to pay for bug fix!

    Yes initially the games are expensive to purchase but its a game that lasts a lifetime... its not like you complete it and put it on eBay. I have clocked thousands of hours playing the CM games and in my opinion money well spent and well worth supporting the company financially if need be.
    2 points
  4. waclaw

    HQS 2.0 CMBN.CMRT.CMFI

    I have the pleasure to present you HQS 2.0 - huge modification for CM Battle for Normandy/ CM Red Thunder/ CM Fortress Italy - adds or replaces almost all the sounds in the game. That's more than 2,100 sounds, a lot of improvements and modifications really improve immersion in the game. Changelog 2.0 1187 additional sounds - Italian voice - Americans voice - Russian voice - improved Poland voice - new air support - new background - new explosion - improved soldier movement - new incoming artillery - new bullets and shells/impact/penetrations/ricochets/zips - new air weapons and of course lots of other fixes and improvements http://cmmods.greena...ds/5486/details
    1 point
  5. Boy, that makes zero sense. So far BFC has been pretty consistent if they call it a patch it just has bug fixes. If they call it an upgrade it just adds features that were not in the game before. I don't see why you guys insist on wilfully ignoring the evidence and making yourselves unhappy.
    1 point
  6. Sgt Joch

    Soviet SMGs II

    yes PPSH and PPS43.
    1 point
  7. sburke

    Soldier's leg too long?

    My pixeltruppen have begun grumbling. Seems the leg checks instituted have caused some concern and feelings of harassment. I have a meeting scheduled with HR tomorrow to discuss "inappropriate behavior". Man you guys suck for getting me in trouble.
    1 point
  8. This is a continuation of a conversation from Bud B's AAR thread. I didn't want to distract to far from the AAR so I moved the conversation to this location. Tank speed when transporting riders. This is a bit confusing since you can give a tank with riders any move command including Fast and Quick but in practice the tanks will not move at Fast or Quick if they have riders. This is explained in Engine Manual v3.01 page 45. I did a quick experiment and took a few screenshots below. The highest speed a tank with tank riders can travel at is Move. Depending on terrain the tank may drop down to Slow until that terrain is passed. (Hunt went the same speed as Move but of course in a shooting game Hunt would be more likely to stop movement all together.) Engine Manual v3.01 page 45: Quick Restrictions - same as for Move, but fitness and fatigue play a bigger role. Additionally, vehicle with soldiers riding on top of them (such as tank riders) cannot move at Quick speed. Vehicles given a Quick order will instead move at a slower speed. Fast Restrictions - Fast has the same availability restrictions as Move (immobilization, fatigue, etc.), and, additionally, might be unavailable when certain components of a vehicle are damaged (even if not fully destroyed), or for infantry units, when combat/equipment loads are excessive. Additionally, vehicle with soldiers riding on top of them (such as tank riders) cannot move at Fast speed. Vehicles given a Fast order will instead move at a slower speed. A tank with riders and Move orders traveled the same distance in one minute as a tank with riders and Fast orders. In a TACSOP with tank riders the speed/movement orders that the AI will actually implement are Hunt, Slow and Move. Generally speaking which is the best choice between the three?
    1 point
  9. 0715 TO 0720 HOURS – TURNS 15-20 SPOILERS FOLLOW***************** CONTACT! Date Time Group: 250716Jun44. Location of contact: Grid 155224. Location of observer: Grid 156223. Target description: 1-2 x Enemy infantry in foxhole assessed as scout team. Action by target: Preparing to engage friendly forces. Action by own forces: Have pushed to a firing position and will suppress. Situation as at 250716Jun44 (End Turn 16) 1 MG Team dismounted and returned to Grid 154200 to engage Enemy IVO Obj FRITZ. 2 Zug scouts at Grids 158223, 157222 AND 156223. 2 x 2 Zug half-tracks have moved south and are short of a small copse at Grid 159222. Half-tracks are suppressing this feature and embarked sections are dismounting with the intent of clearing this feature. Remaining 2 Zug half-tracks are at Grid 156220, 1 x half-track is engaging enemy ATR team in Grid 155223 and other half-track is engaging suspected position Grid 157224. 1 Zug is now moving south to pass through 2 Zug, centre of mass is Grid 157220. 4 Zug Sdkfz 251/17 firm at Grid 154220 Mortars firm at Grid 153220 and setting up. Situation as at 250720Jun44 (End Turn 20) 1 MG Team at 154200 to engage Enemy IVO Obj FRITZ. 2 Zug scouts at Grids 157223 and 158223. 2 x 2 Zug half-tracks continued suppressing the small copse at Grid 159222 to cover the clearance of the feature by the two embarked sections. Both sections are now on this feature having discovered no enemy located there. The remaining 2 Zug half-tracks remain at Grid 156220 engaging the enemy ATR team in Grid 155223 and a templated position at Grid 157224. 1 Zug is firm in dead ground with the centre of mass at Grid 157220. 4 Zug Sdkfz 251/17 firm at Grid 154220 Mortars firm at Grid 153220 and preparing to fire a fire mission called in at 250718Jun44. This is a linear fire mission intent on suppressing/destroying the identified anti-tank rifle team and assessed scout team IVO Obj FRITZ at Grids 155223 and 155224. So my thoughts on the above … I now realise it has been a mistake to send Blind Pew as my lead scout – they still persistently refuse to see anything. However they continue to make good progress and although still suffering from being prone to tiring/tired they are at least still moving and they are all still alive. I am pleased that there was nothing in the small copse at Grid 159222 as it is one less thing to fight for and one less potential threat to my flanking manoeuvre to worry about. Now … onto the flanking manoeuvre. It is now H+20 and I know from my Synchronisation Matrix and Decision Support Overlay that I need to make a decision. This graphic is the DSO overlaid onto the Situation Map and the thing we are interested in is Decision Line 1 (the line between the two stars numbered 1). For those that don’t recall, these are the decision criteria for either continuing with the original plan or launching Branch Plan 1: So how it will work is that at H+20 if any or all of the following conditions have been met: I have less than a platoon across Decision Line 1 (I have 2/3rds of a platoon across DL 1). I have lost three half tracks before crossing Decision Line 1 (I have lost no half-tracks). I have dropped to 75% Combat Effectiveness (75% CE) before crossing Decision Line 1 (I am at 100% CE). So strictly speaking I should can the plan and go with the Branch Plan. I’m not going to for a number of reasons: 1. I think you’d feel cheated if I executed anything other than the plan I meticulously put together and it would blow a hole in my assertion that planning is generally a good thing. 2. I have only just failed to get a platoon across DL 1 and I know that within the next few minutes that criteria will be met. 3. I still have confidence in my plan and think I can still defeat the enemy despite falling slightly behind my timeline (and I am aware of it because I have a Synchronisation Matrix). 4. Just because there is a Decision Line, it is ultimately the Commander who makes the decision and so this is a reminder to him with a recommended course of action/decision to make. Bottom line though is that I really need to get my skates on with this outflanking manoeuvre. So, what about the Sdkfz 251/17 and its 20mm rapid firing love? Some of you are probably wondering why I haven’t committed it yet. I am asking myself the same question and this boils down to my sense of caution and wanting to make sure it is available for brassing up Objs DIETER, OTTO and HERMANN later on in the mission. I have decided that it will not cross the potential engagement areas in Grids 156220, 157220 and 1568220 until I am reassured that some Red Army comedian with an anti-tank rifle won’t whack it … or if I just need to crack on move. As discussed previously – I am employing a single mortar to suppress the identified enemy in Obj FRITZ, in terms of synchronisation my plan is that as soon as the rounds are on target, I will lift the MG fire from the half-tracks and scoot along Axis ROT. Likewise MG Team 1 will up sticks and embark on a truck. The Sdkfz 251/17 will either move to a fire position to suppress any remaining enemy on Obj FRITZ or will just crack on and I will take the chance that over 15 minutes of MG fire and mortar fire will have sorted out the enemy there. Finally – some enemy and battle tracking matters. First up the enemy – the contact report of 0716 hours doesn’t change anything for me. While the location of the enemy is not exactly where I had it templated, it is still within Obj FRITZ where overall for enemy COA 1, I was expecting groupings to include an anti-tank rifle team (seen), a scout team (seen) and an LMG team (not seen). As a reminder that was identified in the initial event matrix here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/#entry1626428 So this is the updated tracker: That's it until next time ...
    1 point
  10. Very useful, like all your tests, my friend. Thanks for doing that and coming up with a SOP to use with the information gathered.
    1 point
  11. Usually 100 meters, but they're pretty iffy at that range. If they're emplaced in a prepared position or waiting in ambush I'll do 75 meters. We'll see what happens, but I like that attitude! Welcome to the thread dellie! I think it's gonna be a party in here, especially with Doug hanging around!
    1 point
  12. Right. I was told by my Russian sources (who are by no means an ultimate authority on this, but do happen to have more inside information than any of us) that there are around 100 Russian active duty KIAs from that conflict. However, that number does not account for Russian volunteers (i.e. not active duty) that had traveled to Donbas either independently or as part of Russian voluntary training/deployment system. There is also an ambiguous category of Russian volunteers and advisors that were recruited from active duty personnel, but deployed to Donbas as either PMCs or volunteers independently of their organic units. Those numbers are likely to be much higher, and I am not even sure that they are fully accounted for.
    1 point
  13. Ya know, I was in agreement with the original poster of this thread at first, but paid attention to what others had to say and for good reasons. Have seen good games "die" from simply going broke cause they did all the patches/expansions for free (somebody had to spend the time to do programing), however when I read about an expansion and how an expansion is explained here by some, really gave me room for thought, especially where the expansion is so inexpensive $10.00, compared to other games Often in the $30.00 neighborhood. Yes, if you bought a new game this week only to find out an expansion was released the next week for an unexpected cost, I might freak-out then, but if has been awhile between game release and an expansion and I like the game, it certainly would be easier to dig up some dough to pay for it.
    1 point
  14. For what it is worth, I think most folks would complain about paying for a patch. In this case I think it is mostly a matter of information and a misunderstanding about what 3.0 is..
    1 point
  15. Daz, as you can probably tell by now, this type of whine isn't going to get you far here on these forums.
    1 point
  16. waclaw

    HQS 2.0 CMBN.CMRT.CMFI

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/78g7kqyenwbyyn8/g43.rar?dl=0 g43, and new rain https://www.dropbox.com/s/77b6vmerx9co0hk/rain.rar?dl=0
    1 point
  17. waclaw

    HQS 2.0 CMBN.CMRT.CMFI

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ottnjmwuf79k2q7/mg42.rar?dl=0 optional sound for MG42 - It seems to me that much better https://www.dropbox.com/s/huxplxeuuyws2lt/gun%20mp40.rar?dl=0 improved sound for MP40 - was too loud
    1 point
  18. I had some thoughts in another website forum to answer in my opinion the questions or comments quoted below: Here are my thoughts in response to those type questions copied from that other website: I have participated in 2 and organized 3 CMPzC Operations that combined JTS Panzer Campaigns with a CM title. Matt does have an opportunity to create a better way than CMPzC. Even without the BFC direct link, there is potential that his Combat Operations game could be written to include several key features that would make it much better versus using John Tiller. 1. CO should include a simple internal headcount tracker to allow a single place to enter the post-CM battle results. (JTS requires external software or ol' pencil and paper). 2. The CO operational map will reflect actual dimensions that can go towards developing or adhoc selecting a CM battle map. It can export an overlay cropped specifically to support the CM map editing. 2 adjoining CM maps being produced will have excellent to perfect match up at the edges. (JTS has the hex system derived from the actual terrain and development of the CM battle map is then a liberal process with limitations on tactics and continuity across hexes). EDIT: To clarify, the JTS hexes are those typical generic types: Forest hex, village in open hex, clear hex, rough hex. Difficult to then cross over to a CM map. An entire 1km x 1km hex made generic but in a way to make the overall Panzer Campaign maps somewhat pleasing to the eye and run THAT game's engine. Like a boardgame map I suppose... 2.a. CO Maps are editable and any WW2 battle area could be created in detail. (JTS maps are not editable. You can only crop out from what they have already made. I had to substitute an area of Crete to be Ortona in Italy!) 3. The specific CM OOB's can be optionally used in the CO scenarios so no adjustments are needed in initial creation or to apply losses. (JTS requires some creative assumptions to create the unit to match CM and when you apply losses.) 4. CO could use the same air power or artillery combinations that CM uses. (JTS air power and artillery strength must be edited to match typical presence in a CM battle.) 5. CO tactical battle objectives could be available to match the CM objectives. Exit? Occupy? Destroy enemy units? (JTS has an assault system which does not match well to the creation of a CM battle.) 6. CO could have an internal AAR system to produce a battle report that could be available on the Buckeyebg.com website or posted elsewhere. (JTS is a lash up. Bubblegum and baling wire. The AAR is something that falls through the cracks right away because it DOES take effort. But if folks do not see the fun, then they are not inclined to participate and the popularity of this genre of "OP+Tac" doesn't go upwards....) 7. CO must have editable saved game files. (JTS does have great capability here but not perfect.) Bottomline, I am pretty sure right now I am the most experienced person out there combining CM and JTS PzC and I see that there is definite potential here that CO COULD make the process better/easier/simpler for me or I would not back it up. Then if someday BFC can provide a direct link to create a battle...whoa Nelly! Anyway, these criticisms or doubts are very natural and understandable. 2 years ago I shot some of the same general distrust or disbelief at Matt and only recently after 2 years of actually hands on using the CMPzC lash up with JTS Panzer Campaigns in great detail as the organizer handling all the aspects of the operation do I see the opportunity that exists here if the community supports the development of CO via kickstarter.
    1 point
  19. This is simply untrue. LOS is reciprocal, yes: as soon as you might see the enemy, they might see you. If they're both the same number of high quality troops in poor concealment, then there's a high chance that the two elements will see each other at the same time. But there are many occasions when one side or the other has a spotting advantage and will succeed their "roll to acquire" sooner (on average) than their reciprocate. An obvious example is a two man Elite sniper team with binos in a church tower at 600m from a green rifle team with no binos in an open field: the poor grunts will get picked off one by one without ever seeing the sniper. In the last campaign turn I played, an element of mine stumbled upon a lone straggler and it was a good quarter minute before they were spotted back, and they were Quicking across an open field (it's KG Engel, and the player Germans are quality troops, against piss poor Amis). If the AI always spots you at the same moment you spot them, then you need to work on your cover exploitation. If it's not "always" then what's the problem? It's plain to see that "sometimes" two units will spot each other simultaneously. Then you need to work on your movement drills and understanding of how concealment works. It is entirely possible to generate lopsided spotting situations where you can see and spot the enemy well before they see and spot you. The AI sometimes even manages to reverse the tables. But you have to generate them, they won't just happen. Both sides use exactly the same LOS and spotting algorithms; there's no "AI spot you when you spot them" rule (I know that for sure, because I constantly get situations where my troops shoot first, against the AI). So, some advice to help you get on the right side of the spotting algorithms (in no particular order): Small teams are harder to spot (because there's less of them to spot, and they fit more easily behind concealing terrain features What's between the target and the spotter (every metre of it) matters more than what terrain the target is in. Example: Light Woods tiles give a concealment advantage; if you are in the "last" tile before open ground, your element has an average of 4m (anywhere from 0-8m, depending on where the individual troopers position themselves in their AS) of "Light Woods tile level concealment", whereas if you're in the next row back into the Light Woods patch, you'll still be able to see out, but you will have, on average 12m (a guaranteed 8m, for the complete AS, plus the 0-8 for the AS the unit is in) worth of Light Woods between you and the observer, or three times the concealment advantage. Often, you'll be able to be even further back and still see out. Tree models do not give a good indication of the concealment they provide. The tree trunks block LOS, but if they're planted in "short grass", the concealment offered versus eyes on the same level by being underneath them will be minimal; if the canopy is high enough, so that the foliage doesn't preclude spotting, fire can completely ignore a "well-kept orchard" if it's aimed down the rows. Shooting teams are much easier to spot than teams which hold their fire. If your intention is "looking, not reaching out to touch", give your unit a short Target Arc, either circular or oriented the way you want them to bias their cover and shooting opportunity seeking. That way, they won't open fire the instant they see an enemy inside their effective range, giving away their position and attracting attention, causing an instant recipro-spot and return fire. If you're coming up to the "last piece of cover" between you and potential eyes (a bocage line, or clump of bushes at a crest, say) use Slow to move the last AS or two into the cover. This will minimise the chance of your arriving team being spotted by the observing enemy on the other side, because you're moving slowly and keeping low. If you want to spot without being spotted, give the moving unit a short covered arc as above so your scout team doesn't instantly engage the platoon they spot forming up in the field they just got eyes onto. Barns are poor concealment (and negligible cover, but that's a different issue). If you're moving about inside a building the enemy can see, you'll be spotted unless you Slow (or maybe Hunt). If you take this advice in consideration, you might find that you can ambush the enemy a little bit* more than 2-5% of the time. * If there's such a thing as hypobole, this is an example of it...
    1 point
  20. That's an approach I've suggested before. Experience affects the chances of infantry being spotted (Elite being "one with their terrain", Conscript being "sore thumbs"), so simply allowing the "Experience" of a fortification to have a similar effect on concealment, and maybe even "terrain saves", to represent better siting (at a lesser cost factor; the pill box's experience won't affect its weapon skills, spotting ability and the other things that experience would modify for an infantry element) seems like it might be a step in the right direction.
    1 point
  21. waclaw

    HQS 2.0 CMBN.CMRT.CMFI

    just working on this, but it may take some time)
    1 point
  22. Hi I brought the game when it first came out and it had a lot of bugs in it, battle front did upgrades for the bug fix and they where free. I tried to play a game the other day vs a mate, but he was using 3.0 upgrade and we could not play, so i went on to the BATTLE FRONT site as i have done in the past and upgraded to 2.11 at no cost. Now they want you to pay for 3.0 upgrade!
    0 points
  23. Again, whats the point of "Constructive feedback" if BFC seems to ignore this forum and has left many things the players complained about unfixed in nearly 8 years ?
    -1 points
  24. sburke

    Having to pay for bug fix!

    As others have noted daz, 3.0 is not a patch. It is an upgrade, an important distinction. You did not patch from 1.0 to 2.0, you upgraded. 2.11 was a patch. The fact that you didn't have to pay had more to do with BF adapting. As to the difference between 1.0 to 2.0 etc. BF had long ago stated how they would handle versions. They would not support older ones so 1.0 would never get another patch. In the process they are trying to figure out how best to handle this for their customers. You may notice that there is now a new configuration. When you buy 3.0 it has ALL the modules. If you buy just CMBN, they are all still there. When you buy MG afterwards, you are just buying a license and do not have to now download the game. It is a process that again is adapting. BF has always been clear about the difference between patches and upgrades and costs. It is on you the buyer to inform yourself about what to expect on your purchase. The 3.0 upgrade was a lot of work and added a lot of new stuff. if it were just fixing bugs, it would have been free. Your complaints are a bit mis directed. Below are just some of the new features that 3.0 includes Graphics Hit impacts to vehicles and bunkers now shown graphically ("hit decals") Water animates for fording units Improved shaders Gameplay Ground units are now able to fire at attacking aircraft Ammo Dumps allow platoons to have reserve ammo stored separately on map (automatically distributed for certain Skill Levels) WeGo TCP/IP with the ability to save but not the ability to replay combat action Spotters restricted to directing only one Mission at a time. Assets can now be group fired. More realistic/varied RoF of automatic weapons. Improved load time for scenarios, especially larger ones with complex terrain User Interface Three different sets of camera controls; Standard (traditional), First Person Shooter, and Real Time Strategy Optional graphical Command and Control link tracing KIAs are shown in the Soldier/Crew Panels to track soldiers lost during the game Option to disable music separate from other game sounds Editor Ability to create AI Triggers that execute actions based on other units or interaction with Objectives (existing battles do not have this, but it can be added by authors if they wish) Maximum map size increased Improved responsiveness of 2D editing, especially for large maps Improved load time for 3D Preview, especially large maps Customized "Mod Tags" for most graphics. This allows for multiple mods for the same item without the need to move items in/out of Data folder Ability to specify specific mods be used for a specific Scenario. If CM fails to find the specified mod it will use the default
    -1 points
  25. VladimirTarasov, CM has quite a history of strange projectile behavior. There was one on CMBN where, ISTR, a Panther fired clear through two Shermans, killing them, possibly penetrating, sans through and through, a third thereafter and knocking it out, though I wouldn't swear to that. How that's possible, given my understanding of AP shell penetration behavior, is beyond me. IMO, this becomes even more problematic with long rod KE, which per what I've read, bites into the armor and "J"s as it does. If the shot hits the glacis and does that, then I can see no way in which the M829A4 can then go on to skewer the tank behind the first victim. Against BMPs, that seems reasonable, since the projectile so overmatches the armor on them. Maybe I'm missing something here, would hardly be the first time, but what happened to you seems wildly unlikely to me, especially for a hit on the frontal armor. I can see how something like that might happen in a side shot, again because of overmatch issues, presuming the ERA didn't stop the penetration or at least badly degrade it. Regards, John Kettler
    -1 points
  26. In a recent controversy over on CMBS, one of the major bones of contention had to do with some requirement I never heard of before, and I've been playing CM in various forms since January 2000, playing hundreds of QBs, regarding notifying your opposite number in a QB that you have LOS to said foe's setup area. To my knowledge, the only time I've ever sounded off about the map in the context of the game was in a tournament in which we were supposed to be playing on a fully mirrored map, but we weren't, and this conferred a real military advantage on my foe. Other than that, my basic attitude is and has long been the map is the map. Dominating terrain is called that for a reason, and the colloquial expression of an "uphill fight" reflects this reality. And the side which has the high ground consequently enjoys the LOS and LOF advantages associated therewith. The ground is the ground. Nor is this for me some abstract intellectual exercise, for I have been on the receiving end myself, and quite recently. Not long ago, BadgerDog was my QB gaming partner. In a fit of what was forthrightly characterized by him as wargaming insanity (You're nuts"), I opted to attack with the Ukrainians in a computer picks Armored engagement. In order, I thought, to hamper Russian thermals, I attacked at dawn in driving rain. My force consisted of two OPLOTs, 2 or 3 BTR-4E, a bunch of BTR-70s and 4 BRDM-2s. The map was of the same size range and of broadly similar layout as the item of contention, but it had no village or housing development as did the one featured in the recent brouhaha. Much of my force was behind a couple of tree lines. I started to deploy my recon screen, but things started blowing up at and near the start line. Though I never got an actual spot on it, BD had a tank on a tall hill to my extreme deep front left, and it was going to town on my guys. I was also catching it from a later determined to be BMP-3 to my pretty deep center. Nothing happened to the OPLOTs, because the tree line completely screened them, nor to one of the BTR-4Es next to the OPLOTs, all situated to my far left. But my blind, therefore militarily useless, BTR-70s to my right and center were getting marked down: a BTR-4E went up, as did a BRDM-2. It certainly didn't help, either, that I was severely ignorant of what my BTR-4E's had in terms of armament and thermals, but the reality was this: full of myself and seeking to prove something, I'd brought a knife to a gunfight. And I paid accordingly. While I did get a couple of BRDM-2s forward some, they couldn't see anything, for their sensors were effectively nil. Doubtless I was to some degree paralyzed by the deadly fire which tore apart my force, but not once did I ever think BD was cheating in any way, shape or form. Never crossed my mind, in fact. I offered a ceasefire, but it wasn't accepted, and as yet more of my force became part of a flaming datum and acting, I believe, as a good CO would, I surrendered. BadgerDog won a crushing victory. In another encounter, it went the other way, but that came later. This QB's aftermath? I felt no animus toward and took no umbrage regarding BadgerDog and his tromping of me. Other than a mutual discussion of my numerous errors, the only communication immediately thereafter was a decision to fight a daylight QB--Red on Red to make it interesting. Nor was anything said by me on the Forums in the least impugning him or his reputation. Why not? To me, A CM fight represents the stage in which the CO may well have argued for a change of mission, a delay, an attack someplace else, perhaps by another unit, but has now been told. "You have your orders, now do your job!" Part of those orders specify, at least to some degree, where you will attack. That's where the map is, and it comes with no assurances of adequate concealment, still less cover; no guarantees of favorable geometry, parity in sensors and weapons, etc. Such is War. Military history is replete with stories of units sent to accomplish missions which will result in terrible casualties. The online book about the Hallamshires I've cited a bunch of times talks about the terrible drubbing the unit took attacking over open ground in Normandy because, in the face of determined German resistance, key terrain had to be captured and timely as the FUP for a much larger offensive. That is one of myriad examples which I could present, but to me, it all boils down to this: In a QB, or in this instance, a CMBS QB, subject to whatever rules are mutually agreed, you play the cards as dealt, win, lose or draw. If afterwards you believe there's something wrong with the map, you know how to find the man who made all the CMBS QB maps, MarkEzra, who, after hearing you out, may elect to make the changes you request. If, for whatever reason or reasons, you didn't enjoy playing against that foe, no one is forcing you to do so again. I think, though, that maybe we players really need is some overarching and mutually accepted canon when it comes to QBs; some baseline which will inform the way we all play them. It is painfully evident from the recent excitement that we are not all on the same page and that discord and rancor are the results. Equally, it is apparent that there are others here who absolutely don't share my philosophy when it comes to QBs, which is why I asked the question which forms the title of this post: When is the map the map? Considering that each player has always had the ability to fly across the map and look at things from the opponent's POV during setup, what responsibility does that player bear for objecting then and there? What should happen if no objection is raised, though the opportunity was clearly there to speak up, but military disaster subsequently ensues for the player with exposed forces? What then? Is there, in fact, as some evidently believe and have so stated, an affirmative duty on the part of the player with a LOS/LOF advantage allowing partial or full view of the foe's setup zone to notify at all, given the above? Who, exactly, is responsible to whom and for what? I believe these issues need to be thoroughly discussed and clarified, so that we have no further avoidable QB controversies. Thoughts? Regards, John Kettler
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...