Elmar Bijlsma

Nah, it's even simpler. ROW fills a ROW shaped hole in the schedule but after a few weeks that hole is filled. You can have too much of a good thing. ROW is like being locked in with five hot women of dubious virtue, you'll go into a frenzy of activity but after a while exhaustion sets in.

Anyone waiting on a turn from me shouldn't be, all turns are sent. Drop me a line if you haven't received it or I haven't gotten yours. Malame 061 St.Edouard 099 Highlanders 007 Moltke 032 Triangle 074 Thanks. [ March 19, 2005, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

Yup, came as a bit of a surprise to me too. Frankly it's a bit much to me. A TC(or any other crewman) shouldn't be worth 1/5 of the Tiger. Perhaps this will be reviewed with 1:1 modelling where CMx2 would no doubt be better at keeping track of crewmen so probably could deal better with their worth when lost too.

Yup, came as a bit of a surprise to me too. Frankly it's a bit much to me. A TC(or any other crewman) shouldn't be worth 1/5 of the Tiger. Perhaps this will be reviewed with 1:1 modelling where CMx2 would no doubt be better at keeping track of crewmen so probably could deal better with their worth when lost too.

Vehicles wouldn't show up on the scorecard unless KO-ed. I just tested it on elite Tigers and by killing 1 TC and wounding 4 I got 349 points and no Tigers showing up on the scorecard. So it's most likely from a fairly expensive vehicle or gun. But what exactly is near impossible to figure out, too many possibilities.

Vehicles wouldn't show up on the scorecard unless KO-ed. I just tested it on elite Tigers and by killing 1 TC and wounding 4 I got 349 points and no Tigers showing up on the scorecard. So it's most likely from a fairly expensive vehicle or gun. But what exactly is near impossible to figure out, too many possibilities.

Look again YD, no 344 men, just 10. Your confused with victory points. It's got to be a high value support weapon like HMGs etc. No crewed weapons though, as you could knock out a mortar/cannon with sharpshooters. Crews aren't worth enough I think, so no scragging of TCs I'd think. Hmmmm. *dammit FK* :mad: Edited again to ask: Does killing of TCs get awarded with the victory points of a crew unit or does it take a % from the value of the vehicle as victory points? [ March 18, 2005, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

Look again YD, no 344 men, just 10. Your confused with victory points. It's got to be a high value support weapon like HMGs etc. No crewed weapons though, as you could knock out a mortar/cannon with sharpshooters. Crews aren't worth enough I think, so no scragging of TCs I'd think. Hmmmm. *dammit FK* :mad: Edited again to ask: Does killing of TCs get awarded with the victory points of a crew unit or does it take a % from the value of the vehicle as victory points? [ March 18, 2005, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

You've been shooting Elite flamethrowers, haven't you?

You've been shooting Elite flamethrowers, haven't you?

high quality sharpshooters, hiding whenever anyone gets remotely close?

high quality sharpshooters, hiding whenever anyone gets remotely close?

I will not be buying CMx2. Krayt dragons will be abstracted by displaying a shadow of them flying over when providing CAS. *plonk* :mad:

Even more final report for ROW IV!!! Allies (Me)30% v Axis (Nestor)70% The armour gap was to large for me to bridge. With them having cupolas and bow MGs driving my TCs down it was difficult enough to spot them first. Killing them was as difficult. Having penetrated one MKIII 7 times+2 partials you'd think it was that tank that died, not the Valentines that surrounded it on all sides. After that it was just a question of massing armour near my trenches for the automatic surrender of it's occupants. Atleast the 25pdrs gave him a bloody nose. And worthy of note was that most prisoners Nestor took got freed by AFVs fleeing the ever smaller defenses of mine. Too bad that my forces auto-surrendered after I sent the orders for the last turn with all my remaing units atleast 1 minute away from harm... I really thought I made it to the end. Not the most fun I've ever had with CM.

I'm still not sold on the idea that keeping it as it is now is better. I just can't believe that the 'dropping of the edge of the earth'/'bullet proof' map edge concept is the best BFC can come up with. Oh, I don't know, maybe it's not worthwhile for BFC bolting on such a feature as proposed. But please, please, do not say it's better the way it's now. I've played numerous games saying it is not.

Actually Alsatian that's a pretty nice idea. If I understand it CMx2 will sooner or later be multi-player. If one could arrange for two human players to battle it it out in the manner you desribe above and let two AI do the flank forces you'd be able to get a score between the players without the flank forces skewing the points score too much but still influencing the outcome. Provided BFC make a decent way of keeping track of individual scoring in multiplayer (which IMO is important to implement anyway) it could work pretty well.

Woohoo! That sounds wonderful. So, this would also open up the possibility of voluntary bail outs for scouting purposes? Anyway, totally great news, finally a good reason to put a few extra rounds in an abandoned tank in a single scenario.

I do hope that a tank that has it's driver eat tungsten won't remain driverless for the duration. Others should take over his station in a minute or so. I'd be really lame to be unable to move or shoot a perfectly OK tank just because a vital crewman got done in. CM already fakes this by the shocked state which not only portrays panic but also abstractly simulates crewman being hauled from their station and replaced. Oh joy for the day when a sole surviving crewman continually moves stations to operate the tank.

What you desribe would be even more ideal. More tools to the designer without overly complicated mechanics behind the scene. I like it... a lot. *I replied to Yankee Dogs post. I can't believe it took me more then 3 minutes writing and rephrasing two and a half sentences. Aaagh*

I envision pretty much the same system for dealing with flanking units as you but only disagree on where the values for firepower inflicted should come from. The reason I favour a specific link to on map capability over a rather nebulous generic value of a 'typical' force is that the if the scenario is all infantry for the defender it'd be odd and contrary to the scenario designers intentions if off map there are tanks and ATG aplenty killing off a flanker. Turning the ability to flank off would seem a bit too rigid in countering this. Having the flank defenders resemble the map defenders would keep the nature of the battle much better.

I don't think a 'typical force' for the defending country would do it. I'm thinking more on the lines that the off map defenses would only consist of defending units that were deployed on map or maybe just those defending units remaining to reflect the tide of battle affecting the whole front. For example if the defender has an all sharpshoter force then the flanking units should expect to lose their TCs but nothing else. If including capable AT guns then losses should mount up quickly. Further expanding on this the neutral zone could be swept by ATG fire but defending off map infantry would only get to use their AT capabilities in the Enemy flank zone. If an algorithm could be made to make the latter's AT effectiveness reliant on the closeness of tanks to terrain that be even sweeter. Say a MkIV is passing within 60 meter of light woods in '41 would be fairly safe but same MkIV passing within 40 metres of dense wood in '44 would stand a good chance of going WOOSH because of the heavier cover more likely to contain a unit, better AT devices and at that range more options for infantry to engage that tank. SAme tank staying 200 meters of any reasonble cover should thus remai safe from infantry, as you would expect IRL. Boy this is complicated. Do you think we've stumpled upon the reason why map edges have remained for so long?

If an attacker is taking casualties for flanking of the 'proper' battle map, it should be realistic. If I'm marching Matildas through a map edge while facing Italians I would hate for the matildas to start dropping like flies. Make the 'firepower' of the defending flank reflective of the firepower of the defending forces on the map. And ofcourse option to turn it off, with aditional options to weaken or worsen the flanking casualty rate.

for Christ's sake cheer it up then!!! :mad:

CM doesn't deal at all well with combat in limited visibilty conditions. I can only hope dynamic lighting fixes some of that but I fear more needs to be done. How I hate being fired upon from visibilty+1 and not being able to return effective fire. Or that new marvel dust. Sure it looks nice but it's effectively broken. Antitank gun fires on target. Round falls short, kicks up dust, tank dissappears. Dust settles, gun fires round, falls short, loses target, etc ad infinitum. And this happens with low caliber guns aswell. I just can't picture it. A 6pdr round kicks up so much dust that it loses all data it has on it's target? It's not even getting the data of that first round falling short, it engages a 'new' target with every round falling short. Realism? Pull the other one. I hope that the increased 'memory' of units in CMx2 helps with this because it so seriously nerfs the anti tank gun that the victim has ample time to retreat into it's own dust cloud. Which is another curious tactic that shouldn't work as well as it does. How about allowing one 'blind' shot at anyone pulling that sort of stuff. Similarly that solution might work on anyone backing off into the night. Everyone know where it is and the night/dust shouldn't be a bullet proof barrier. It's too I/O in CM an I hope it can become a bit more vague in CMx2. Similarly combat in woods being too much a stop start affair because one unit get's supressed and goes to ground, thus becoming virtually invisible. What would I do if I have an enemy going to ground? I'd fire a few rounds extra for good measure. Not sit there scratching my head as to what next to do, because that unit will become unsupressed and will return the favour. In massed infantry combat it is less annoying but with just a few units fighting in woods it's just frustrating to watch. Again, I hope the 'memory' that is supposedly increased in CMx2 accounts for this. Allow a unit that engaged another in the previous round to spot that unit more easily next round, from greater range. This would also fix the insane hiding ability of guns somewhat. Many are the times I had various infantry+hq in good condition 100m or so from a large gun and not spot it. That's suprising in the first place but maybe they are really that good at camouflage though I had hoped a guy with binoculars would spot a big sucker like that. The gun fires. It becomes visible to my troops. It dissapears again. Huh? Did my troopers just lose track of that big a gun, please tell me they didn't! Are they assuming the crew shoulderd the gun and ran off with it? Did the crew put a box over the gun and told it it was a Schrodinger cat? Have they borrowed a Klingon cloaking device? I know it's there, everyone knows it's there. Except the dudes 100m away overlooking it. I can try era fire but otherwise I can't efectively engage it unless it fires again or I'm right on top of it. When this sort of stuff happens with 150mm guns you know something is wrong.

Never point out embarrassing mistakes until the two minute grace period is over, Sergei. Amateur.