MarkEzra

A great pic of opening day of "human season" in Wyoming

Hi Mishga!

This makes more sense to me.

A great CMBO scen that has transferred wonderfully to both CMAK and CM:SF. I'm glad you've enjoyed the latest version.

When playing against the AI...something I do for both testing and pleasure... I use the Ceasefire a large % of the time...I like that it's there, think it has a somewhat gamey Campaign problem and is, of course, an absolutely essential tool in H2H. But if we do not exam these functions from a gamer's view they cannot be improved. Scipios comments have lead to a good discussion on the merits and needs of the Ceasefire function. Normal Dude: Thanks for starting this thread...great food for thought.

Why not such a cease fire lock for human vs computer at all? IMO a cease fire requires a kind of decission that's beyond the abilities a computer. [/QB]

OK Count...Let me show you a picture of my Fiance, then....Doesn't she have a long, lovely neck!

Naming the Objectives with their number and the point value is a very good idea. I have been doing just that with my scen. I am also trying to alert the player of casualties and their values as well. The game offers such a far superior and varied method of scoring compared to CMx1 but it is INTIRELY dependent on the designer to use these feature well and allow the player detailed info prior to starting the engagement.

I couldn't agree more. Designers generally have some idea for their scen or Campaign. Once it's published it really becomes the players. If players want to use "gamey" tactics, cease fire advances or edit the thing to suit their gaming desires or interest than I say knock yourself out. This after all is a GAME. I build 'em the way I like...You play 'em the way you like....Seems like a a good balance to me.

Not a stupid idea. But let me hitchhike on it: How about a cease fire lock in the editor for Campaigns...Simple and does not impact Vic margins. If the Campaign player wants to quit he can choose to save the game and continue later (after cursing the designer, swearing off war games completely, or drinking himself into a stupor ) OR Surrender which should, of course, Always be a player loss.

OK...let's talk about this a bit. First calling an immediate ceasefire is not really a way of testing Victory point status. Second: Real World dictates that Blue forces cannot sustain large number of casualties without being perceived as losing an engagement. Third: Red Forces can sustain any number of casualties with out penalty. I often use a penalty for high Blue force casualties because it reflects a Commanders reality. I do my best to make sure the player is aware that he can capture all his objectives but still lose the game if casualties raise above some %. This and other Victory conditions were not available in old CMx1 and allowed Victory to be claimed by the player with just enough live troops to occupy a Victory Flag...How many games were "won" by Mortar teams, empty arty FO's, or a forlorn jeep jockey? It is vitally important that scen designers Point out Friendly/enemy casualty impact on Victory so players are aware of WHATEVER force preservation needs must be met. Here is an example of how I attempt to do this. I hope that improved Victory conditions display will be considered in future CMx2 titles.

Loved CMBO because it was a 3D wargame for wargamers.. Like playing miniatures without the expense and work. Bought CMBB because it was a Battlefront product that improved the CMx1 engine...I even (yawn) played it...some. Loved CMAK...It offered BOTH desert and NWE. It allowed me to play US NA with Lee's, M3 GMC's and remains my favorite theatre of war. Stopped playing CMx1 CMAK, saved my completely modded version to CD in Sept 2007 and have never looked back. I don't expect my purchase of a wargame keeps the genre alive and well. But I do support Companies that produce wargames that appeal to me in hopes that my small contribution helps. So When CMx2 Ost comes out I'll buy it...Hell, I'll pre-order it direct from BFC (like always)...just don't think I'm gonna LOVE it just because Steve and a bunch East Front FanBoi's have finally gotten their T34's...LOL..

Might wanna call AAA

Really? funny I didn't either....

T-72 TC commander:

WOW...!!!

I agree...troops should be able to move up say 7 or 8 meter differences, Vehicle stay at the current 5... It is important that terrain remaim impassable (a VERY necessarry scen design tool) I just think we can do this a little better.

LOL....Ya got me

I just checked my V1.08 copy of the game. Heavy weapons like ATGM, RR, Javelins and MGs do have min and max ranges.

What I reported to BFC: large increments above 5 meters (like 10) correctly show impassable. Increments of say 6-7 plus meters do not. This is NOT about a stretch of ground 5 or less meters surrounded by steep grade. Here are some pics [ April 05, 2008, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]

I have the 7600 GS...Works fine

Geez... your kid brother and his pal...always Hovering!

That was very uplifting!

"Great Eye Detail" award...excellent LOL My vote goes to Rokossovski as well.