aka_tom_w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: And please ensure that you and your opponent are talking about the same thing - eg if player 1 should happen to request that, oh, say "guns must have towin afv's provided" - make sure that you both undestand what an afv is (or any other technical term or abreviaton!)!! I found myself as half of this dispute. the other guy thought htat an "afv" was anything out of hte "vehicle list", and bought trucks, per the usual CAL rules. To me an AFV is at least an a/c or h/track (although it's argumable that htey aren't either...but in this context that's what I used), and that he wanted a change to hte usual rules. To which I agreed. Perusing the b/field after losing I found 3 trucks, and no h/tracks. Words were spoken. I do not believe my opponent deliberately set out to mislead or in any way cheat - IE I accept it as an honest error, but it doesn't help things <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Somehow it just seemed appropriate to quote the CAL section regarding towed guns: "Guns Towed guns will be limited to no more then 3 per side up to 1000 points spent. 1 gun per 1000 points spent thereafter. (Example 2,000-point game up to 4 guns allowed per side, 5,000-point game up to 7 guns per side). This includes all guns from the “support” category of CMBO. The Attacking player and both players in Meeting Engagements will purchase halftracks or trucks capable of towing each gun purchased. (This makes the increased costs of guns something to consider and sometimes will add the missing Halftracks back into the force mix). Jeeps and Kulbewagon type vehicles will not count towards this total." So it would seem there was some misunderstanding as one player was trying to revise or edit the CAL rules and disqualify trucks as legit gun towing vehicles. Interesting proposition.... sorry it did not work out so well -tom w

This is the thread for the First CAL Cash tourney WITH the wine from WineCape included right? Many many thanks to WineCape for his Generous donation. Are there ANY games underway yet, I have only begun pre-game negotiations for two games so far. -tom w [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

GREAT Reply Steve! All the rest of you can either consider that I'm just sucking up (which BTW I'm not) or that most of us here know that Steve and Charles and BTS have designed the BEST wargame (PERIOD!) we have ever played and some of us have a great deal of faith that they KNOW what they are doing, sans CM2 screen shots here and all. I'm sure we will all see them soon enough! Lets all just enjoy CMBO and let them build their next delight (CM2) in peace -tom w

WHAT!? how did this GREAT thread slip off the front page? -tom w [ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"4) Some gamey tactics fall into a gray area that reasonable people can disagree on. They are difficult, if not impossible to arbitrate; therefore, perceived gamey tactics complaints will not be entertained by the "Court of Disputes". " PERFECT!! I like this one BEST! GREAT rules, thanks for the time and effort put into the Dispute Resolution Post VERY good Work! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: CGW is normally sealed because of the inclusion of a demo disc. Make of that what you will And no, I'm not going to scan and post someone's copyrighted pictures. There's only one new pic anyway. The article is a little more informative, though: BTS is, it says, "creating new building architecture" for urban battles (yea!) and "reconstructing part of Stalingrad's sewer system to depict the underground fighting that took place there." It also mentions revised C&C, unit availability/rarity, and a new minimum resolution of 800x600 (and the dropping of support for Voodoo 1 cards). Just a short one-pager, but still interesting, of course, for us CM nuts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW the Sewer System will be WAY COOL! that is IMHO, a very large breakthrough! Sounds GREAT! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: GCLEMENT is in at slot 8! Tom, I think the idea is a bit too ambitious. If players wish to use custom maps they can and I will be happy to place their forces on the map and tournament save the scenario. I don't want to require all 10 players to make a map however. There will be many more than 9 games going on anyway. I think it works out to about 45 different player matchups. I'm not sure about that though. Treeburst155 out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK Just a thought and yes I guess it was a little too ambitious, I'm sure you are correct. I am keen to play in this one! I have never played Kiwi Joe so I'm looking forward to that encounter under CAL rules! -tom w [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi All Thanks to Treeburst for being open minded and adopting my 9 games TOTAL points suggestion, I fully support the structure that says all games are 25 turns and all games must have a variable random ending turn -/+ 4 turns 21-29 sounds PERFECT. So I've been thinking..... How about this, if I'm not mistaken we only need 9 scenario's. NOW I know every one like to do their own "buying" or selecting of units, but, just hear me out on this one What if all 10 participants designed just ONE scenario, complete with reinforcements and set to 25 turns on a small or medium map with up to 1500 pts. Then each player could tournement save the file and send it to Treeburst. Heres the best part under the CAL rules either player has the option to decline the map. If it does not work then you just go on to a QB and buy forces like usual. I suggest this because I would like to see Rivers and Bridges and reinforcements and forces in a scenario allocated by the designer WITHIN the CAL rule guidelines, AND Hell, NO one ever uses the tournement save function and this is the PERFECT opportunity if each player would choose to design one map with reinforcements, the SAME entry turn or chance of entry turn for both sides, then Treeburst could "jury" them and makes sure no on used a Map they made, so with 10 maps to choose from and 9 games all going at the same time you would never see the map you made. AND if it is not to your liking you would lose out on the "human touch" design quality of the map and op for a computer generated map and go back to the old way of buying your own units. ITS just an suggestion pending Treeburst's consideration. -tom w [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Would people prefer a $50 cash prize instead of a trophy? It would be much easier for me and there would be no shipping involved. The winner could take his wife/girlfriend or husband/boyfriend out on the town with his/her winnings. This could cause your significant other to look more favorably on all the time you spend with CM. I'm willing to set aside $50 of my hard earned money for the winner. Feedback wanted please. Treeburst155 out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW thats pretty generous ! I'm happy either way. The $50.00 bucks does sound easier to send than a trophy thats for sure. And, $50.00 U.S is like $75.00 Cnd Up here in the great white north, so I have NO problem with that! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agua: I'm in. TCP/IP only. agua@bellsouth.net<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Agua I prefer the immediacy of TCP/IP myself but its not hard to find the desire to want to continue a game in PBEM once you start in TCP/IP and then run out of time to finish in an evening. Again I would prefer to start and finish all my games in TCP/IP but I also enjoy playing against players from other time zones in different parts of the world so there is a trade off. -tom w

heaven help us of Abbott choose to particpate ! he kicked my BUTT big time in my first CAL ladder game! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Treeburst, if you're making up your own point totals for this tournament, then these games cannot count towards the CAL ladder. If you get more points for a tourney win than a regular CAL game, that wouldn't be fair to those who don't participate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HI Perhaps I am mistaken but I "think" he is suggesting that you could play against other cal ladder players AND make the game count equally toward the CAL ladder and the tourney. Say I play 9 games and 7 of them are against Cal ladder participants. If all of those 7 players agree that our tourney game be registered as a CAL ladder game then its no big deal as the rules are the same for both and the results just go to different record keeping places, one on the CAL ladder, as it was agreed to be a cal ladder game anyway and the result would also be recorded with Treeburst for the 9 game CAL Trophy Tourney? -tom w [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I suspect you will have 10 by the end of this evening! Count me in I would like to play with the variable end turn software but I'm on a Mac so I woudl be interested in a "secure" way to do this that both Mac's and PC's could use 1500 pt CAL Rules Battles Times Nine sounds Great! I particularily like this part: "REMEMBER: CAL Rules, 1,500 pts. max, 25 turns max (+/- 4 with randomizer). SERIOUS ONLY!!!! Think before you apply. Can you play nine games in 90 days?" could one other rule say that after 90 days if you have not finished all nine games then you can only count the ones that are finished? WITH a screen shoot to prove the ending. How will you weight draws minor victories and major victories? Edited because I'm a dolt and did not read the orignal post carefully enough the first time ! Will the rules allow players to play only one side throughout? I would prefer the Allies, Some others might prefer to play ALL Germans? -tom w [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

is this, or will this end game randomizer be secure enough to be used in the proposed CAL tourney being set up by Treeburst 155? And again it means MAC users can't use the end game randomizer in the tourney. Just curious? I hope yobobo at TH is working on a secure WEB based version of this concept. -tom w

This may sound somewhat less than postive or enthusiatic BUT, I have come to not use the menu anymore. Sure I'm annoyed when it does drop down and get in the way of my view of the battlefield, but I never use it as I can issue ANY order or command with a hotkey. I use the hotkeys ALL the time and thanks BTS and STEVE and CHARLES (Who are MAC users) for the hot key short cuts, they make issueing orders painless. BUT it is still a cool idea to have it transparent as you have shown us. Great Idea, maybe DeanCo can whip up a proto-type of one like it for CM2? -tom w

Me TOO!! Thanks again -tom w

Whats wrong with 1 minute turns? AND simultaneous combat resolution This system Works GREAT Maybe it actually is RTS with a pause every minute, its all just a matter of perspective. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucero1148: Good idea, but will this work on Mac's. If it can how does one install it? Thanks Patrick :confused: :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand the no form of ANY .exe file will run on a mac. I suspect the Mac will have to run Windoze emulation software to run this .exe file. I'm hoping that it will not be that hard to port the file to a java based web page so ANYONE with a web browser can use it. Yobobo/Rob at TH might do it, as he has done some other VERY sophisticated web programing. (Just a friendly HINT ) That's all. -tom w [ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: It's no use pzwfr42, he's bound to find out eventually. Tom, BTS sent out free beta CDs of CM2 to everyone who asked for them before Monday. Sorry you missed out. Mine's been a blast. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> VERY funny ! thanks for the chuckle this morning. -tom w

VERY nice work Thanks -tom w

WOW Cool I mean this is a REALLY cool and great Idea. But I'm afraid I may have to be the first MAC user to point out that .exe files aren't executable on a Mac. So I was a little dissapointed to realize it was a PC only tool and not really a cross platform solution. Its a Great Idea and perhaps it could work (somehow) as a web page with some java code behind it so ANYONE with a web browser (MAC or PC) could try out the variable ending. It REALLY is an issue that should be addessed in CM2! Great effort, thanks it would make ladder games WAY more interesting and realistic! Thanks -tom w

Don't forget its NOT just Regs vs Vets. There are six experience levels Conscript Green Reg Vet Crack Elite If you choose to play with HIGH experience set up in the unit selection then the Vets are the cheapest units you can get. If you play with medium then you can only buy Vets and Reg and Reg is the cheapest. In Tank duals Vets are absolutely a little more accurate than Regs and you absolutely have a better chance of a first shot hit.I agree with the suggestion to buy Tank hunter/killer tanks (like the Allied M18 Hellcat) with the highest experience level available. In the case of the Hellcat is it VERY lightly armoured and MUST hit and Kill first to survive. I usually play the Allies and I usually prefer MORE experience and fewer units over more units with less experience. Try to play a few games, even just a against the AI with HIGH experience level troops and tanks, Pick a few of each from Vet, Crack and ELite and watch how they do, the Elite tanks ALMOST never miss, which means MORE first shot hits and more first shot kills which is a BIG factor in tank duals. Tank crews with more experience are absolutely, positively, shoot more accurately when they fire their main weapon, they also benifit from a higher Rate Of Fire. -tom w [ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Besides this server crashing? I have been away for 5 days fishing and playing CM if that makes any sense. What CMBO or CM2 news did I miss in the past 5 days? Thanks -tom w

sure it should be a FOW option like "extreme" or "IronMan" one step up from the "Full" option currently offered.. AND just think of the role of your RECON units which is still my favorite aspect of the game! -tom w