aka_tom_w

Holy CRAP! you have got to see this! http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=jslide1.htm -tom w

ok The CAL ladder is up and running Abbott has posted this response " Abbott Member Member # 2872 posted 05-01-2001 03:06 PM quote: Originally posted by Robert Olesen: Well, yes, it helps. It is a choice and it is a help to know the reason for it. But why not allow pure infantry games? Perhaps that type is seldomly used? Actually CAL was named after its creation. I have never seen a pure infantry battle played nor asked for as a ladder match. That does not mean the option should not exist however. If folks would like to work up an idea for this by all means send it along abbott@tournamenthouse.com " There are still some good questions and concerns... I think this is one of them.. "I also don't see how we can limit forces so that German infantry is as inflexbile as Allied one. We could say, only Panzergrenadiere may be used with heavy tanks and the rest of German Infantry with Marders and the like, but what would you gain from that? It is certainly not a punishment to be forced to play with Panzergrenadiere. " If we all try to remember that the intent and spirit of CAL is to provide a mostly balanced playing field (this will largely help newcomer to the game and newbies on the ladder so they don't get blown off the ladder play battlefield and discouraged by powergamers who use "the system") then with that in mind, maybe we can (in this thread, as a community), propose and adopt guidelines and further rule changes to CAL. I think that we should certianly consider infantry only battles and also the selection of mechanized battles in CAL as the Mech force selection is virtually identical to the "Recon Rules". If we keep in mind the goal of leveling the playing field in such a way that even new comers to the game who don't select forces well won't be overly disadvantaged by the force selection requirements then I think we can all proceed to agree on some additional add on rules to the CAL. I hope to disccuss all of this with Abbott. I would like to comment on the suggestion that computer selection of forces be allowed. I have looked closely at the rules and no where does it say that you cannot use computer selection of the forces, EXCEPT that the computer chosen forces does not know or recongize Fionn's rules about the short 75, so no one can play short 75 rules and have computer selected forces. The ONLY way computer selected forces works if you choose heavy armour and then WHY would you let the computer pick for both sides in a Ladder game if you want heavy armour? Unfortunatlely because the play and gaming is now of BOTH a historical AND competitive nature the chance the one player (the host) might cheat and select his own units and then use the comptuer selection for the other player, and that other player would never really know if it was a PBEM, means that to protect those new to the game who do not know about this trick that computer selected forces for PBEM should be banned. In TCP/IP play there is a timing factor where if the host takes too long (I'm not sure how long TOO long is but anyway..) there is the factor of time that indicates the host could be cherry picking units while the other player is asigned them by the computer. New players to the ladder might not know this. If we consider the rules we have so far as a good foundation or starting point I hope we can add some more that will make it more balanced. I hope to work with Abbott on some of the wording of additional rules. First off do we all agree that the spirit and intent of the Rules for CAL is to provide a "largely level" playing field when it come down to unit selection EVEN for those new to the game so they are not unduely disadvantaged by more experienced players who REALLY know how to cherry pick forces? I thought that was the goal from the get go, AND of course to make those unit and force selections largely historical and balanced for all concerned. Your rule suggstions and proposals are still welcome as far as I can tell. -tom w [ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by labappel: I have joined the CAL. Not sure how it will work in the long run but gonna give it a try. I thought I would give my thougts. 1. I would like to see OOB's available from a pool of choices. Possibly done for each of the different months and point totals, maybe 10 choices for each side. Give the player a list of what they should pick and then maybe a portion of points available to customize a little. This would require some work by someone with knowledge of historical OOB's. 2. Also if mixing Airborne troops with Regular Army in the same nationality is allowed, Why would anyone take the British rifle platoon? It is the same price for more firepower and added gamma bombs. All in all, I think the CAL will be a good thing, especially when everything gets worked out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> " Also IF mixing Airborne troops with Regular Army in the same nationality is allowed, " I believe this rule says that is NOT allowed.. "Force Type Only one force type for German and Allied sides may be chosen. Example: German “Heer” Allied “British”." I'm wondering if this rule is open to interpretation. It sounds to me like this means if you pick British Airborne that ALL you get is British Airborne, no other tanks are vehicles except those that come with British airborne, same deal with the German paratroopers. no? -tom w

Why is it that all I can envision is one lone target (Mr EW) with about 20-30 different yellow targeting lines directed toward him, sort of the way an Anti Tank team attracks fire when they move out of cover? Mr. EW are you an Anti Tank team in disguise because all I can see from you is dozen of yellow targeting lines heading toward your location? how does that make you feel? -tom w [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Now What? Who Let the Riff Raff in?! -tom w

For openers this is not a complaint. Just a little interesting ARR I was playing Rune's scenario, A River Runs Through It, as the Allies against the German AI last night. (if you wish to play A River Runs Through It double blind, you may stop reading now). Anyway it is near the end game and I have crossed the bridge with almost ALL of the Allied force and there are only two tanks left in the game, ONE heroic mighty little Allied Stuart and one big bad evil MONSTER Panther. The AI driven Panther is getting brave and does not understand the Stuart as a threat, it has LOS but is not really concerned as its flanks are protected. We are battling around a few houses and lots of woods. The area to fight in is VERYY tight, woods and houses nd not much open space. My Infantry and piat teams are crawling all over the woods and the Allies have laregely won the infantry battle. With most german infantry routed I pull the Stuart up close into "safe" place in the open beside some woods. Over on my left flank the Panther drives carelessly past a engineer squad (10 m away) in the woods that unloads two demo packs on the lumbering beast with NO effect. That Panther hunts on over toward the house and woods near the Stuart and through the woods they see each other. I see it coming over and order the Stuart in very close quarters to attempt a quick flanking move, close in on the Panther in the orders phase but the two tanks are in woods and buildings and very close to each other. The Panther gets fast move orders toward the woods and the flanking attempt fails. The Stuart is brave and does not run away but stays close to the woods sort of hiding. The Panther and stuart are on opposiite sides of some small woods about 20 -30 meters apart, and the woods are FULL of my infantry units but no anti tank piats are available with LOS to the Panther. So I think there goes the Stuart now I'm done! BUT NO!, the tanks are almost frontal to frontal with each other, sideways a little both have LOS but off center abit, (on opposite sides of a strip of small woods, 20 m) but there is no good flank shot for either tank. So in the first minute of shooting the Panther opens up, first Shot MISS !! (what great luck I think) I'll bet it dies on the next shot for sure! The stuart fires two shots that bounce off the panther. no effect the Panther fires again Hit! ( but only a track hit! the Stuart can't back out now even if it wanted to) the Stuart fires another shot, bounces off then the Panther Fires another Shot HIT! but Again only a track hit Ha! think lucky So FAR! The stuart gets off two more shots both hits, no damage to the panther The Panther Fires again A HIT! turret penetration NO DAMAGE! I think this is my lucky day, Panther Fires four times at point blank range, misses once gets two track hits and on pentration without result! Finally the Stuart fires twice and on the second shot nails the Panther, and YES!, gets a measly little Track hit and imbbolizes it! Then, finally, the Panther WHACKS the Stuart, front hull penetration Ka-BOOM, KO'd! BUT now all my infantry close assualt the beast, no luck, nothing, it just keeps hammering away with the HE into the woods. Finally I have one Piat team with 4 rounds left (but he is about 100 meters away and out of LOS) so I sneak up to about 30 meters from the clearly exposed Panther's flank. The Piat team is wounded and has one man down. It takes FOREVER to load and aim. One whole minute goes by and my infantry in the wooods are getting chewed up with HE and the Piat does not fire. The next minute he aims and about 45 secs later he pulls trigger and AND.............. MISS!!! Damn it! I wait another minute to reload, these guys reload VERY slowly when there is only one of the them, then finally he aims and lets go the second shot, he now only has 2 rounds left ...... The Shot HITS! Flank Penetration Panther KO'd D!!! I can't tell you how GOOD the felt! What a battle, ALL the tanks and vehicles from both sides were KO'd, I held all the vl's at the end but only got minor victory because I had lost so many units in the battle. A River Runs Through It, GREAT sceanrio by Rune! -tom w [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen: I don't undserstand why the CAL is limited to Combined Arms games (apart from the name, which is really makes it an arbitrary decision). I don't see how other force types, with the exception of unrestricted, could be gamey as long as the players agree to the choice. This must have been discussed while the CAL was being formed. Perhaps someone can give me a qualified reason for this choice :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> another Reply... Abbott has been configuring and leading the set up and design of the CAL so we should ask him, but, IMHO it would seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the CAL that Infantry only battles and Mechanized battles (Same as the Recon Rule here, really ) should be considered? Lets see what Abbott says. ok? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen: I don't undserstand why the CAL is limited to Combined Arms games (apart from the name, which is really makes it an arbitrary decision). I don't see how other force types, with the exception of unrestricted, could be gamey as long as the players agree to the choice. This must have been discussed while the CAL was being formed. Perhaps someone can give me a qualified reason for this choice :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I understand it, the theory behind CAL was to form a ladder that was based on historical OOB's and prevent gamey cherry picking force selection that lead to the use of the "system" on the TH ladder that included picking the very finest hevy tanks and the very best infantry. Combined Arms was the choice to make the ladder a place for competion between people who wanted to contend with others that favoured "mostly" historical combined arms forces. Does that help? Abbott might be able to answer the question a little better? -tom w

Wreck Says: "Unless I am quite mistaken, the real wasps did not have the capability to flood entire 20x20m squares with petrol, enough to make such areas permanently uninhabitable. Indeed, given that there was no such thing as little flags stuck in the earth to tell the leaders what to fight over, the very idea that an area of 75m around a point could be as important as it is in CM, would almost never occur to a commander in WWII. If it had, and if they could guarantee that fires would burn indefinitely, they might well have set fires to try to prevent enemy access to those points." OK I see the point here, BUT ANY flame thrower unit not just the WASP can set the WHOLE area on fire around a VL Flag. This in NOT just an issue for the Wasp but is in fact a clearly gamey tactic. Just to recap the gamey tactic is to set a HUGE area perimeter around the flag on fire so that the enemy cannot get to it, I have never seen this done but it sounds like a great idea. The Fire never goes out and burns till the end of the game and nothing can pass through it, so it is the ideal defense. The issue here is that the Wasp is not the only offending unit that can do this. so we now have the next gameing tactic... "The Burning Ring of Fire" around VL's, very creative. How shall we deal with that one? Just say no flame throwers at all in CAL? Thats a tough call! -tom w [ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

YES! I have been requesting that Turret Ring hits be modeled. The turret ring on tank with turrets should be a hit location and be a 1-2% chance of getting hit (or more or less?) if a AP rounds hits and JAMS the Turret ring the turret should not be able to traverse OR if there is penetration, KA BLOOM! and then the turret pops off, ONE KO'd AFV! OH yeah, that would be GREAT eye candy! (and the turret traverse JAM would have GREAT gameplay value as well) -tom w [ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"that said, it is not, and should not be the place of CAL to ban tactics. The idea is to ban certain actions on the setup screens, then let the players do whatever they can in the game itself. That's why I think the wasp, SD7/2s, and VGs should simply be banned. " OK I agree completely with this.. I'm perfectly happy playing either the Allies or the Germans if you ban all these units, I think it is unfortunate that the British wasp is percieved in the same league of gameyness as the VG SMG units and the SD7/2 AA Ht, but I guess thats ok. So lets move on.... Wreck? Are you signed up for the CAL? Ah! I see that you are We must play sometime ! -tom w [ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the German 37 mm AA HT Sdk blah blah... (OOps ! Sorry FFE mentioned the "the Sd Kfz 7/2 Flagwagon" already its the same unit!) that unit is DEADLY HARD to kill with HE, the stuff has NO effect and the burst nature of those 37 mm rounds tears through infantry and Allied armour alike! No,that German 37 mm AA HT is a REAL Bastard unit, I really hate facing them as the allies because they are really unrealistically HARD to Knock Out! -tom w [ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

HERE, Here! YES, Major Congrats on all the success and on selecting the very finest players and participants here to work on CMBB (CM2)! Keep up the GREAT work! Thanks for everything and thanks for putting up with all of us, some are more easy to deal with than others, but thanks for dealing with all the complaits and bitching and whinning and dissent in such a proffesional and respectful way. Wishing you ALL the best of luck on CMBB! -tom w editted for spelling (again) [ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

oops [ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"British Wasps some players have noticed them being used to set terrain on fire intentionally, as a sort of mobile minefield projector. They could be agreed to be excluded as any flame projector vehicles could be. It would be much better to just avoid this type of play." OK There is nothing inherently gamey about this unit. It is NOT unrealistically hard to kill like the, VERY powerful German 37 mm AA HT, that is a gamey unit and a special rule should be agreed upon as a 3 or 4 of those things can really unbalance a scenario. But no the little British wasp, is was designed to be fast and nimble and to set things on fire. and it does that. This is not a gamey unit so much a comment on tactics which are suggested to be "gamey" or ahistorical. I'm not a Proffessional Grog that way some here are, BUT the tactic of set Everything and anything on fire with a few wasps has a "real " name I think and it goes somthing like "opportunity denial to the enemy" I thought the CAL was about dealing with power gamers and cherry picking, the British wasp is not an uberweapon, not like the German 37 mm AA HTs anyway, NO the Wasp is very easy to kill, I know I have used them recently, and suceptible to all kinds of weapons. I am confused about this because I did not think it was in the spirit of CAL to ban certian supposedly objectional TACTICS,but instead to ban cherry picking and the play of power gamers who optimized the unit selection phase to take advantage of the game where possible, the use of the Britsh wasp does not really do that. Sorry for the rant.... you comments? -tom w [ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

more about this later " British Wasps some players have noticed them being used to set terrain on fire intentionally, as a sort of mobile minefield projector. They could be agreed to be excluded as any flame projector vehicles could be. It would be much better to just avoid this type of play. " ?????? I don't think that is a gamey tactic or a gamey unit more later -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nedlam: Two tanks knocking each other out isn't as bad as when my tank, "covering" the advance of another one of my tanks knocks it out while trying to fire over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps you are confusing some other cause friendly tanks in CMBO can and do fire right through each other if you try you cannot even target one or your own tanks perhaps some other unseen unit KO'd that tank? -tom w

I'm in! -tom w

in this game it happens ALL the time, I would say this happens at least once in every two or three games I play. many many, tanks fire at each other simultaneously, if both hit and penetrate and knock each other out that does not really surprise me all that much. -tom w

Please Please please take a look at that Map editor. At the VERY least it coulg have expanding or drop down menu's for all the different types of "roads in the woods" for instance. Hell any 3 yr college grad in interface design can make drop down buttons and expanding menus in Flash. How about in the Map editor a rollover with a drop down menu for ALL tnhe roads. The suggestion is ONE button for roads in the woods, then roll over that and you get a drop down of the all the variations of roads in the woods. Same with ALL other road and rail tiles. I hope they will let you re-work and redesign the map editor and the over all way it works. I feel badly going on and on about this but it is very obvious the Map editor was a quick and dirty interface designed by a programer. Good Luck Deanco! -tom w

yes please tcw@mac.com Thanks!

any new news? -tom w

Mega Congrats!! VERY COOL Deanco's gunmetal interface is the ONLY one I use for CMBO. I REALLY really hope that Steve and Charles will encourage Deanco to work on the interface to the map and scenario editor. Deaco KNOWS good interface design and I would say he is a VERY talented desinger. I LOVE CMBO and am addicted to it but interface the design on the map editor in CMBO is barely one step above a command line interface and could use a MAJOR overhaul. Good Luck Denco Best Wishes, As a Designer stay true to your self and your design and make both functional and aesthetically pleasing! I know we are in good hands in the case for sure! Steve and Charles GREAT Choice for and interface designer, Deanco's Gunmetal interface has just the right amount of little curves and 3D dimensionality that make just the right balance of eye candy and funtionality. He knows colour theory very and and is IMHO a great Designer! GO BTS!!! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott: An updated version of the CAL guidelines is being done and will be available soon. The posts here and the e-mails we have been receiving have been most helpful and encouraging. Many of the ideas have been included in the update.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great thanks -tom w

Martin makes a good point. Lets look at what the issue is or exactly what is the problem we are trying to solve. That problem is cherry picking that leads to the abuse of picking units by following the "The system" of cheap SMG squads and heavy tanks and towed guns, and lots of them. Lets revisit what exactly it is about "the system" of cherry picking that is offensive about it, and deal with that. We should keep in mind that even after all the new CAL rules are written competive players (perhaps even myself) will look for new ways to optimize the buying and cherry picking under the NEW CAL rules to get the best bang for the buck and optimize the unit selection for the purpose of not being out gunned when the battle commences. I am not being critical at all, I think the current proposals go ALONG way to make the game and unit selection (aka cherry picking) alot MORE balanced now. I'm looking forward to CAL ladder games. Starting this weekend maybe? -tom w