JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... +- a small amount.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, ok, I'll buy that as long as the 'small' here was noticeably smaller than giving them individual orders.

Slap, yes, but the other change 'needed' would be for them all to have the same delay, where otehrwise they wouldn't. Actually, having only one waypoint might be a better way of doing it. Wheeling a platoon around in a co-ordinated way is hard work, so forcing players to go back to the platoon on a regular basis to change direction or whatever isn't so bad.

Out of curiosity, just what do they mean floatation mean in this context? Is it the smooth ride of a good suspesion system (eg "It just seems to float along over rough ground") Or is it literally 'floatation,' as in the vehicle seems to float on water (or at least on muddy/boggy ground) where others sink. I think it might be another of those cultural things [ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

I think there would need to be more to it than that though (for the pn stepping off together that is). Hmm, I'm free-forming again, so bear with me. At the moment, you know that 'x' experience means a delay of 'y' seconds. When co-ordinating movement one can use this to ensure that all units move together, especially if they are all the same experience. But, if all delays were variable about experience level set-points, then in the specific (but not rare) case of trying to move a platoon together, one would need ... another order maybe? One way to do it could be to group-select via the leader, with that implying - to the AI - that one wants all units selected to start moving together. Currently we are limited to a single way point with group moves, which may or may not be too much of a limitation. [ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

I'd like to see a bell curve thrown around pretty much everything in the game. Movement rates, order delays, ROF, etc, you name it. One caveat though - one should still be able to co-ordinate some actions. Eg a platoon stepping off to advance across a field: they should all start moving at the same time (if they are in command and not taking cover or pinned etc), even though the delay to when they all start moving is itself variable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: only if you can convince it to come within range of the battleships. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here kitty kitty kitty, come play with nice Mr Sherman. Come on kitty kitty kitty. BAD KITTY, now you get to play with Mr 14" :mad:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ...Here I would have a vehicle have to work on an obstacle for a set number of turns...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ... with a certain random fuzzy-ness thrown in of course :cool: Can't have things too predictable

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ...many road blocks would fall to a tank but not a truck, while a tank would fall to a prepared road block, but not a dozer working for 15 minutes, while even a dozer is defeated by a cement poured road block without hours of engineering time added to the mix. Again -- this data has to be gathered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, not really gathered I would say - merely stipulated within the game (or whatever). Currently there are 4 (?) types of bunker, persumably one could envisage 4 or more types of road-block. Actually, we already have two in CM, but you need to use your imagination A roadblock defeats all vehicles, while wire is no obstacle to fully tracked AFVs but fully defeats all other vehicles (wheeled and 1/2 tracked). The only problem is that - as has been noticed - the first vehicle through the "wire roadblock" doesn't clear a passage for those following. [ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... a M4 Dozer, but how fast does it work on how large of an obstruction, was it a major tasks or something that just took a minute or two, and how many dozer blades were put on M4s. Here you need a wide range of data, collated, and given a good interpretation ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The data you refer to could probably be sourced from current equipment (civil or military) of approximately the same size. Doctrine and SOP, of course, are a seperate matter. Another data point required is just what the rubble/roadblocks are supposed to represent. I know its more than a couple of farm carts and a rubbish bin, but is it as much as dragoons teeth (ie specially prepared, steel reinforced, formed concrete)? Without knowing that we end up in circles again. Regards JonS P.S. When you "reply with quote" could you please cut out the extraneous stuff - I've already read the post once so I don't need to see it all again, but having the specific bit you are replying to there is handy. Thanks

JasonC, two categories for the 'lost' shells could be "used in training", and "lost in the supply chain". The second should be taken to mean both destroyed by enemy action, as well as being held at various levels of depot. Eg. a divisional PaK abeitelung(sp?) has, say, 20 guns. Each gun tractor holds say, 50 rounds (=1000 rounds so far), and the abeitelung(sp?) holds say 500 as an immediate reserve. The division has a fump of another 500 shells, and the korps has a dump of, oh, say 1500 (for 3 divs). Now there are 6000 shells being held by the korps in total. Three korps to an armee gives 18-20000 shells, which is an order of magnitude larger than what is at the coal face, so to speak, and we're only up to armee level Now, my numbers are plucked, but the point is that very large numbers of product (any product) can be tied up in the supply chain. Remember this was in the days before JIT and all the other fancy business management acronyms. Sure, the reason for having a supply chain is to keep the guns fed, but at any given point in time many more shells will be in the chain than at the end of it, and making things worse is that the German supply chain supposedly wasn't the most efficient of beasts. Regards JonS [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Louie and c3k, what you're talking about was the inspiration for the CMMC. It got rather involved and detailed by necessity rather than desire - and its getting more complicated as the campaign progesses. Players are discovering that they want to do things that hadn't been considered, and rules and procedures are being hashed out on the fly, as it were. Fighting the tactical battles presents no problems - we have CM for that. Its all the behind the scenes stuff in a realistic fashion that gets tricky: When do reinforcements arrive? Which road do they enter on? How much ammo does this battery have? Is the battery even within range? How are my forces deployed on the field? What will they do if they get ambshed, or shelled, while on the move? How will we know if there are any enemy forces around? And of course ... how are the results of tactical battles fed back into the 'game' (remembering that CMMC is the Game - the tactical CM battles generated from it are used as a way of 'rolling the dice'*) And these are only some of the questions that have to be considered. As it isn't a PC based sim/game, all the bookeeping and planning has to be done by hand. Given the scale (a full Corps/Korps on either side) its working remarkably well really There are other 'higher level' campaigns on-going also: JasonC started one recently, as did ScoutPL (IIRC), and I'm fairly sure there are at least two or three others. I seem to recall one being based on HPSs' "Panzer Campaigns: Normandy '44", but don't know if it got off the ground. Regards Jon *This isn't to diminish the importance of those battles. Another way of looking at it is that the CMMC gives a very large number of CM battles an overall context. [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

On the subject of being kept in the dark ... I've noticed that the mailings between my opponents and I have been rather ... spartan. No-one wants to give anything away through an inadvertent comment or quip

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... but believe me, nothing works perfect in the field...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Spoken like a true vet. Which service were you in Slapper? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Sergeants deployed squads and directed squad fire. Lieutenants gathered and moved platoons, Captians coordinated the actions of several platoons. A Colonel could and did say "move that damn position to the next set of trees" ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As has been pointed out, several times, the Commonwealth forces used a different rank structure. So, while the above may be true for the US it isn't for the CW.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: Any indication on my part that the great one...aka Madmatt, could or WOULD ever make a mistake is my fault alone and I will bear the burdon of that for all time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> QUICK! Get out the kodak - the madbaldone just made a mistake and admitted it. This moment must be preserved for posterity - something we can reminisce with to our grandchildren p.s. ignore the part below about Madmatt editing this post, thats also MY mistake [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

try here ... 1st SSF [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: JonS because he likes playing with the pretty buttons] [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Michael - it wasn't locked (well, ok it was locked here...), merely moved to the General Forum. [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: [/qb] Missed any ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup - The drops associated with Wacht Am Rhein. I think the four Steve referred to were Overlord, Market Garden, Varsity, and Wacht Am Rhein. IIRC, there was a smallish drop (one bde (UK) and one regt (US)) associated with Dragoon, so that would give a total of five in the period covered by CM. Given that CM models both airborne (glider) and para squads, I think the distinction between ops involving only one, or both is moot. Regards JonS P.S. Si - where's me damn turn? Bleedin' loafing dingos...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: The "Snake" was one of those fabric tubes filled with explosives they used to clear paths in minefields, ala aerial bangalore torpedo?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The snake was rigid pipe sections (similar to bangalores), while the conger was a fabric pipe deployed empty, then filled with explosive liquid, hten fired.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Oh, it is a perfectly fair question. The answer appears to be on the order of 25-50 medium artillery shells or 1000-2000 bullets fired, to inflict one battle casualty...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I bet it took more to kill a Finn. And you better hope you killed him, 'cos otherwise he's just going to be grumpy. IIRC, the Finns didn't bother with medics and hospitals, either they were good to go, or they were dead. Nothing in between. Eh, Tero?

I think you missed the point of the story Slap. Besides, I would hardly call chatting to ones father as "interviewing a vet".

Slap, Ok, so we are talking about the smae vehicle. From your description it sounded like you were off on another tangent [ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

But with the new scoring system we won't know anyway, until all the games for that scen are finished since its based on relative - not absolute - performance. At least, I think that's how it goes :confused:

TB155, giving teh double blind nature of this tourney you might want to consider not revealing which scen the players of the completed games were fighting. Its not much info, but knowing how others went in the same scen could affect the play of participants who have yet to complete (or start) that scen - especially in light of the new scoring system. Regards Jon

Brian True, but did the Russians have decent-to-poor tanks and decent doctrine to round out the rest of your analogy? Regards Jon

Wild Bill and the Scenario Design Team, One observation for future scenarios that will require AARs. Could you include lots more named features on the maps, so we can reference them. I'm having a little trouble describing the action just in terms of N-S-W-E locations. Some of the maps are fine, but others could use a little more naming. As a minimum I would suggest naming each victory location. Other useful spotnames would be villages, crossroads and main roads or linear features (rivers, treelines), and of course major hills and forested areas. Also any isolated buildings/farms. Hmm, that's quite a list - but only some will be relevant to any given map, and it certainly would make the job of writing it up clearer and easier Thanks heaps Jon