aka_tom_w

Please read the whole post I did and search and found these results but I'm wondering now that the game is shipping what the most current info and answers are now or if they have changed. I understand (I think) that the maximum troop strength you can set up a DYO scenario for is a reinforced battalion. So I'm curious as to what (say for the British or American side) that actually consists of? (see Fion's break down below) And can you make a DYO scenario of an encounter (Like Chance Encounter) where each side (say British and German) has a reinforced battalion size force that both advance toward each other to try to capture a neutral objective in the middle of the map. Yes I understand a very large map will be needed as well. Did I read Moon's map size answer. I'll repeat it here: "Maximum size for scenarios is 8 square kilometers. However, no map side can be longer than 4000m. Maximum size for operations is 15 square kilometers. However, no map side can be longer then 5000m. You will usually play only on a smaller portion of the operational map during a battle, and only that portion will be visible. (I say usually because there can be operations which use the whole map.) " and Fion Posts this: (but I don't really know, so I'm assuming there are 3 companies in a Battalion.) Fionn Member posted 09-23-1999 1 company = 3 infantry platoons + some support units. 1 infantry platoon = HQ unit ( 1 figure) 3 squads (9 figures total) Thus each company = 30 figures (for platoons + at least 5 more for support units) A battalion thus equals 105 figures PLUS battalion-level support. (? 30 x 3{companies} + 3 x 5 {support} = 105?) Battalion level support = at least another 30 figures for all the heavy weapons and command units. 105 + 30 = 135? So a battalion = roughly 150 figures ( assuming they have a few vehicles and FOs to help out). 135 - 150 = 20 to 25 tanks? and some 3-5 FO's (Me thinks they don't have enough AFV's and armour support from my liking ! ) And where's the troop transport trucks? how many of those? Multiply by 3 = 450 units PLUS regiment-level support assest.. Say.. 50 units. Thus 1 regiment CAN dispose 500 figures. Multiply by 2 to represent the other side and you end up with 1,000 figures onscreen at the same time. Its amazing how quickly it builds up isn't it?" End quote But what is a reinforced Battalion? (more AFV's? Please say yes ) AND I don't understand how to factor AFV's into this? How many tanks and half tracks and trucks and jeeps and scout cars can a reinforced battalion have. Sorry I don't really understand how to relate all those infantry break down lists in a battalion with how vehicles and AFV's are combined or attached to that battalion sized force as defined by Fion. and to answer my first question Hawk posts this: "I have done some search on this topic and here is what I believe is the final verdict Maximum mapsize is 3 x 5 km. No limit on force size, BUT having more than 1.5 battalion (200+ units) on each side is going to requre some serious hardware. Hawk Off all the above posts what is the most current information? Just curious? I (like EVERYONE here) can't wait to get my hands on the DYO scenario designer and see what it can do for me. I might even have more fun with the scenario designer than playing the actaul game Thanks again. Here's hoping my cd is in on the way! -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Steve and Charles! I don't know when you find time to sleep Seems like all the big events like new forums, posting the new v1.01 patch and the realse of the gold Demo, are all night opps for you guys. Thanks for everything. this is GREAT! -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-16-2000).]

Ben that is a great idea..... Why aren't Pillboxes and ko'd (non-burning) AFVs treated as VERY short walls, providing just a bit more cover. right now a bunker or Pillbox provides (from my experience shooting right through the things) absolutely no cover for ANY unit other than the crew inside the structure that came with when it was deployed, after it has been abandoned enemy units can walk right through it and shoot right through it as though it was not even there. Why not just code it as a very shot square cube like wall?, same for Ko'd AFVs, maybe they could have transparnent (to us, BUT LOS blocking ) smoke coming out of them, or they could be coded to also be Like small cubic walls for the purpose of cover. -tom w I Still CAN'T wait to get my game and Play lots of Double Blind PBEM games with all you folks here..... ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still curious what does this really say? or mean -tom

If you were planning on using abandoned concrete pillboxes for cover, forget it. In VoT once those pillboxes are abandoned you can crawl all over them and the game treats them as if they are not even there. Yes that means any unit can trace LOS and LOF straight through a bunker. Even before the bunker was abandoned German infantry units crawling behind the bunker could be targeted straight through the bunker. Other than the fact it shoots out the front, the structure its self offered no cover or LOF block. So like AFV's, hideing behind bunkers and pillboxes for cover is not a good idea. Again, every one should know this because those structures appear on the map and they sure look like they might provide cover but LOS and LOF goes straight through them. Check it out for your self if you don't believe me. -tom w (Feel free to ignore this post as I'm just another whiner who is planning to buy the game and play it to death ) ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buddy: Whatever it takes to get the job done...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With respect to the use of FO's and out of ammo zook and schrek teams I think there is something to said for the above statement. Try to win at all costs, if not then do what ever it takes to squeeze out a draw. I suspect after I post this I perhaps some people here might not want to PBEM with me. But, I have references I've played SS PanzerLeader and COG and Pacestick, I suspect none of them will tell you I used any gamey tactics. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

good question? are there any walls or cliffs to scale? I would like to design a scenario with cliffs in it can you do that? just curious but sniperscope raises an interesting question. I have not seen any thing that looked like walls or cliffs in any POTD's has anyone else? -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I post from work all day long! (sadly I've been a littel too busy at work lately) should slow down next week and then when I get home I post as well, sometimes. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that #1 will be a non issue in a double blind game. Otherwise I think that it is not really cheating and I would use it and expect my opponent to use if he could. #2 Since Arty takes some time to arrive and since reinforcements don't always come in on the same turn I think this is just a gamble and IMHO it is a perfectly legititmate tactic. And i doubt it would be an issue in a double blind match. #3 I understand there is some risk to this one, as your panic or routed or broken units may choose to flee off the edge of the map never to return, so there is a trade off to that one too and I would say, again IMHO, that hugging the edge of the map in an outflanking move is a perfectly legit tactic. I'm sure some others might feel differently but those are my opinions. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: After playing many pbem games, certain issues continue to arise which I wonder about. I have the following examples in mind: 1 - Setting up ambushes at the enemy's reinforcement entry point and waiting for them to arrive. 2 - Calling in artillery to bombard enemy reinforcements the moment they arrive. 3 - Hugging the map edge with your forces in a 'flanking' maneuver. My own feeling regarding these examples is they're gamey as hell. I'm not seeking justification or confirmation but am curious what other people's take on this is. Namely what constitutes good, fair play versus gamey play? Thanks, Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-14-2000).]

If I might add one more thing on this one. As the commander you DO get a VERY accurate distance to target when using the targeting tool and at that time you get a chance to hit value if I'm not mistaken. My point here is that those zook or shreck teams in WW II did not have laser range finders and in all of the myriad of conditions which this game has coded variables for, you has the player/commander just have to learn by experience what works and what doesn't and when it comes to real world tactics I think this aspect of learning things the hard way is modeled extremely well. (But don't get me started on LOS thru AFV's ) Jeff, I for one would be interested in a PBEM game with you, preferably double blind when the release version arrives. Many here might disagree with you because we have become "converted" by the CM mind control algorythyms and given enough time and playing enough games of CM (more fun against challenging human opponents) we hope you too will see the light of the designed intention of the way the game gives up its secrets to those who play it to death. (Its really just a clever ploy to make you play the game MORE and MORE as it is very clear to me that the more times you play both sides of EVERY available scenario the more you will get a good feel for the game and zooks and schrecks in particular) (that Mind Control thing is of course all in jest, but this game really does make me want to play it MORE and MORE and PBEM human opponents are the MOST fun). Thanks for all the posts to everyone. Now let's all be commrades and start PBEM games against each other -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: If nothing else, I am certainly done posting on this subject. Sorry to imply that CM was anything other than perfection incarnate. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-14-2000).]

I think I hear the forest echoing again.... shhh..... I think it hear saying things like, "you have to learn that by experience..." and "Play against the AI it is a good teacher, but not the best opponent" and.... shh "the game was designed that way to inspire you to play MORE to learn how it work in different conditions" what else is the forest echoing? -tom w P.S this post is a reference to an earlier thread about some now long forgotten heavy machine gun mobile transport class issue, thingy.... ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know this as I have not tested it myself BUT if, as suggested in this thread, Pillboxes don't block LOS or LOF I think there is a problem there. I'm with you Panzerleader and now we are whiners.... But that's ok the game will be here soon and we can all get down to playing it for "real" and then we'll all see you is the BIGGEST whiner and the most celebrated Combat Mission Double Blind Victor! I plan to play the hell out of this game, (while I continue my education campaign to make sure all who are new to this game KNOW all about the LOS through Live AFV's issue) I will play for fun and Play in the ladders and I will read the manual inside and out and I WILL enjoy EVERY minute of designing new scenario's and yes I will still post about LOS through KO'd vehciles. Although I have to admit Charles DOES indeed bring up a VERY good point about how 88s' could and did shoot right through KO'd AFV's to nail the one on the other side. I must admit I did not think of that issue. AND above all else I should just be quiet because I just can't wait to BLOW something up with that New COOL castrophic secondary explosion! For now I'm just reduced to being addicted to this board and waiting, waiting, and waiting for that damn package with my game in it to arrive. Thanks for putting up with all of us BTS! Its a Great Game and it does get better every time I read up on the new changes in the 1.01 patch. Great work Charles! BUT remember EVERYONE should know exactly how LOS and LOF works through Live vehciles or LEARN the Hard way.... Well that is certainly keeping with the theme, intention and spirit of this game. Some of these things can only be learned the HARD way and I think that is one of the BEST things about this game is it almost Demands that you must learn it by playing it and by experience! (some times that means a loss the HARD way) Nice Work BTS! Thanks also for all the posts on this topic Steve and Charles. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-14-2000).]

Still curious about the targeting question the "magical" radio and who knows what amongst friendly units? -tom w P.S. for the record I think I have now become known as one of the whiners around here ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-14-2000).]

OH Yeah! Thats Hilliarious! -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ACTOR: I can't wait! My wife is sick of hearing me talk about this game...she's really going to be pissed when it gets here!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has this targeting issue been covered elsewhere or is it reasonable to hope that we might get some insight into what our friendly units can "know" about enemy units they can't see (no LOS to it) but have been spotted by other friendly units? -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrD: Also, I seem to recall that Steve said in an interview that he would like ONE DAY to include true individual LOS in future titles. However, due to the preference of units to target enemies they have LOS to over ones they don't and a preference to target units more toward the front (less rotation required) they often ACT like they're unaware of units out of LOS. Any clarification would be appreciated, BTS?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes good point Dr.D I too still do not really understand exactly how this works. I have been asumming that every unit on the battle fields "knows" via the "magical" radio about the location and type of every enemy that ANY one friendly unit knows about (has spotted). To have it any other way would imply "relative spotting" which is not available at this time, if I undertand that correctly. This does not mean that every friendly unit can "see" every other enemy unit, as LOS and LOF are still a large factor. But the concept is that my friendly units that are out of LOS to an enemy unit which has been spotted by another friendly unit, will know where to "look" for them and where to expect them, via info shared by ALL friendly units over the "magical" radio. I''m the one that stated earlier I played the game assuming EVERY one of my units was in clear and open, state of the art, (by tomorrow's standards), radio communication with every other friendly unit because they could all know about and have the SAME info about the type and location of all other enemy units that have been spotted by any friendly the SAME way I as the commander have the info. This is not exactly realistic but it seems to work quite well as the concept of relative spotting has been discuseed by Steve and he has determined it to be a REAL nightmare to code up. That makes sense to me. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, Just trying to understand your position here. Are you suggesting that when you hit the return key to get unit info, there is not enough facts and figures and info weapon capibility properties there, or are you suggesting that you don't like to have to hit the return key to get that info? unclear? -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I am thinking of nothing more than a conpletely static display showing the properties of the weapon. This would surely be known by the combatants using them. \ Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Jeff, Three Words Here: Fog Of War I like the idea that every little detail or fact or figure is not exactly available. I think that if you are in position to fire your weapon and then you target something there should be even LESS info available to the player than there is now. I would like to see a range of numbers say fire power 78 + or - 15% or like this 78 +/- 15 and on the chance to hit or chance to kill I think a range of percentages should be given, thus making the game "feel" more organic and less of just a numbers game (which I know that behind all the eyecandy thats exactly what it is, a VERY elaborate numbers game). My point is that I think the game is the way it is because the user interfance was designed (I don't speak for BTS here, as this JUST my own opinion) to try to get away from just calculating out all the odds and numbers in your head and memorizing Combat result tables to minimize or maximize the odds any one particular result. I still think they have not gone far enough to simulate the fog of war, one thing this game really encourages (it's part of their mind control algorythym protocol ) is MORE play, as a commander/player you require experience to get a feel for what different weapons can do, I like the fact that with experience useing all these weapons and unit types I can get a feel for what they are likely to hit and what they are likely to miss. I think the game is designed this way with the intention that hard facts and figures are somewhat elusive, for instance you as a commander cannot know (without expereince) how far that tank, at top speed, will go down that road in the next minute. I think this is well done. I really enjoy the fact that all these kinds of little details are things you have to figure out by playing the game. I like the user interface just the way it is. And as I mentioned I would like the game to model more fog of war and greater level of uncertainty when firepower and chance to hit or chance to kill are shown by the targeting tool. I'm suggesting that the uncertainty is already there in the "hit or miss" algorythym and it works well the way it is so there is no need in my opinion to change that, I'm just suggesting that less accurate targeting info should be available to the commander or the player to simulate the fact that when you aim your weapon and target something the exact percent or odds of a hit do not show up in your scope or range finder. Sure the accurate distance is important, I know there were no laser range finders in WW II but giveing the targeting tool an accurate range finding ability does not provide exact odds of a hit or a miss. And it works fairly well the way it is. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Is this addressed to me? If so, are you seriously suggesting that the accuracy of a weapon has no relevance to the game? If not, then ignore this post... Jeff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-13-2000).]

OK I'd buy a CM t-shirt if it was black and it looked cool because it had, oh let me think, say a really BIG tank on it showing one of those BIG spectacular catastrophic secondary explosions and the BTS logo on it -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesreidau: Just a thought, how many of you would be interested to see CM T-shirts, mouse mats etc? This may help to solve the marketing problem for Charles and Steve, what with a coupla thousand rampant CM fans proudly swanning about showing off their BTS logos and CM caps etc! What do you think guys? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Charles REALLY! Now I feel bad for all the posting and bitching I have done about the LOS though live AVF's I think I should now just shut up and play the game and wait for those spectacular Catastrophic Explosions. I mean that is really COOL! and that they happen rather infrequently is even better, (I think they are coded like that as part of the patented CM mind Control Algorythyms) so that you will have to Play MORE and MORE and Longer and Harder with even bigger weapons to see one and you can bet your asses all of us out here are playing the game to see BIGGER and more destructive explosions. Just read the "Tanks in the Basement" thread over again to KNOW that's exactly what we did as kids to our model tanks!! YES! more explosions are always a good thing and HUGE catastrophic secondary explosions the BLOW up tanks are the BEST kind. I love it! After I saw the screen shots at MadMatt's web site I must appologize for all the Bitching about that now seemingly "irrelevant" LOS through live AFV problem. Now I say SCREW it, anything like that the INCREASES the chances of me seeing a BIG BOOM when I hit a tank should not be sullied with. (the logic here... SIMPLE I figure there will be more AFV's getting hit more often due to LOS and LOF through AFV's so there is a greater chance of seeing MORE catastrophic Secondary explosions). At this point it would probably be Fun to watch one of your OWN go up for the first time just to see that BIG BOOM. Yes the CM Mind control Algorythyms have been crafted by the best and I'm now totally ready to sign up to pre-order whatever ever eye-candy/mindcontrol game they come up with next! Thanks again Charles for those brilliant Secondary explosions! (Fun and somewhat realistic as well, I understand) -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Now, are you saying that if the tank I tried to use for cover had been fully 'brewed up', I would have gained some cover due to the smoke?" Simple answer YES! Everyone needs to know this. If it is a vehicle and it is NOT smokeing it does not provide ANY cover! Every person who plays this game to win will really need to know this to play competitivly against anyone who knows this already. So Can I target my own ko'd vehicles to brew them up and make them smoke so I can use them (when they are smoking) to hide behind? Great Idea you say , well NO, that sounds "gamey" to me and I tried it already and you cannot traget your own KO'd vehicles to shoot at them to brew them up, so you can hide behind them. It is the Biggest single thing that is NOT like real world military tactics. I think that it is not at all unreasonable for Gaff to have "expected" that his sherm would have had the benifit of cover by pulling up behind his own KO'd sherm, but no, LOS and LOF goes right through anything that is not smoking and his second Sherm bites the dust. So I would suggest or propose that at the very least non-moving ko'd vehicles that are not smoking could be "tweaked" to provide LOS and LOF cover, could the LOS check not be "fooled" into beleiving that these stationary non-burning KO'd vehicles are smoking, (maybe just use, invisible smoke for all KO'd vehciles, or smoke with transparency at 1% or all ko'd vehicles to simulate block LOS?). Again I love this game and I'm sure by now Steve and Charles have had enough of me posting about this one single issue. As they already know, I think it is a problem. oh well, Like Everyone else I can't wait to get my hands on that scenario designer! -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gaffertape: Question: In the case of the PBEM I'm currently playing, I rolled my 76 Sherman up behind and to the right of a dead (but not burning) 75 Sherman for cover. What you all have described illustrates to me why my 76 Sherman now has a neat 75 hole in its mantlett courtesy of a Panther. Now, are you saying that if the tank I tried to use for cover had been fully 'brewed up', I would have gained some cover due to the smoke? GAFF<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a VERY good thread (see below), you should read it in its entirety before posting further to this thread. At that time before the most recent server crash I was "major_tom" (still the same tom w) and strongly advocated the Large 300/350 meg file download of the final version with a credit card. BUT in reading Steve's posts/replies it became clear to me that BTS has no intention of facilitating this kind of technology or delivery of their game. I respect their decision and it seems pretty clear to me that it is final. Oh well, I preordered and I'll wait like everyone else to get mine in the mail. Please read this thread, it contains all the relevant info on the Full Version Downloadable issue. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti: www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003782.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-13-2000).]

YES! I agree with that whole heartedly. I do hope everyone will read that post and respect its intent. Thanks Andreas -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry to those who are new here but this one as been covered to death. I too was a strong advocate of a 300 meg download. And Yes SPW@W is a HUGE 300 meg file download and the statistics regarding how many times that file has been downloaded (in the Thousands by now I'm sure) is a testament to the fact that there are many many internet users out there with cable modems. BUT it must be pointed out that Matrix chose to GIVE that one away for free so no security or credit card authentication on a secure web server was needed. This is a large undertaking and Steve and BTS have concluded that it is not worth the risk or expense to set up a secure server for those of us with cable modems. So that puts us all on even footing (in the same boat) waiting for a cd shipped via the mail. I understand their position in that we are all going to buy this delightful game anyway, so why bother to go to the expense and risk (of piracy) of setting up a secure server, as no one will base their decision to buy this game based on whether or not it can be downloaded with a credit card. I'm sure similiar words to this effect can be read in Steve's posts ok? -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed No burning from my original CD -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>