Andy Brown

Isn't it a bit early to decide whether or not the scenario needs adjusting? Modifying it based on half of one execution seems a little premature, especially while the execution is still ongoing and the people suggesting the adjustments are the players. I'd suggest it's very difficult at the moment for either of you to view this scenario with anything remotely approaching detachment! It seems to me that the only point that holds any water is the one about the US scouts being able to access at least some OS. This point is valid because doctrinally, a scout platoon is (extremely?) unlikely to be deployed without at least something it can call on. Replacing the Khrizantemas with dismounted ATGM teams may also be justified if, as seems to be the case, the game engine does not enable the Khrizantemas to behave realistically. But, IMO, it's way to early to think about varying the overall force balance. Sure, both of you seem to be facing some stiff challenges and the game seems headed in a direction that looks like proving less than comfortable, especially for you, Bil, but I still don't think your defeat is yet inevitable. The rest of the scenario may not be much fun for either of you to play but it's outcome doesn't look like a forgone conclusion to me! (Am I right in saying that in this scenario, victory points are not awarded for casualties?) Andy Brown

pnzrldr Please forget Saving Private Ryan. Captain Charles Hazlett UPHAM, VC and Bar, NZ Infantry, is the only non-medical British and Commonwealth soldier ever to win the Victoria cross twice. Cheers, Andy Brown

Stoffel, Good point. I'll experiment with that while I continue to muck around with the demo. Another newbie question (I'm trying to get a feel for the game's strengths and weaknesses). If a unit is engaged with direct fire, does this fire also affect any units co-located with it or near it (say, within 100 m)? Cheers, Andy

Thanks. I've had a look at the map tool. Seems fairly straightforward. A gameplay question. For LoS and engagement purposes, are, say, 14 tanks combined into a single company icon treated as if they were all at the same spot? Andy

After years of excuses, I finally got around to having a look at the TacOps v4 Demo. Some questions: During game customisation, is it possible to delete or add to forces that begin a scenario off map? With the full version of the game, is it possible to construct entirely new scenarios for solitaire play? Is it possible to "programme" the AI? Cheers, Andy Brown

Ubique only means "everywhere" to the student of latin. Where gunners are concerned, it means "all over the place" which is where the rounds go when they fire them.

As usual, I've got to be different and express a preference for playing the Russians. My reason is exactly the same one that prompted the massive Sov TO&E rewrites during Barbarossa: I like to keep things simple. At CM's level, the Russian artillery superiority is not really relevant, the infantry force mix is usually just rifles and MGs and the armoured steamroller is a style of play that I intuitively dislike and therefore learn the most from. Another force I'm very interested in is 14th Army British in Burma. It's interesting to examine the Brits away from the strong American influence they operated under in the ETO and Med. Andy

Steve, I'm not about to launch into a vigorous defence of the BGS here but I would point out that it WAS created pre Mac/PC. How good would Combat Mission be if you had to develop it on an Apple ][+ ? Cheers, Andy

Steve, I did keep mentioning that I clearly understood I was in a minority when it came to wargame likes and dislikes... In my opinion, SSG's Battlefront Game System is the best operational level wargame system I have ever come across I was bitterly disappointed when they chose not to develop it further but to take the new direction that became TAO. Accepting that I am not going to convert you to my attitude on wargames anytime soon ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any monkey can say "take that hill" and let the AI do it for him. There is no skill or challenge in such a game system<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A tactical problem does not become less challenging because one groups one's forces into a lesser, more manageable, number of manoeuvre elements that realistically correspond to the span of command appropriate to the player's alter ego. Riesberg as the Americans would be just as demanding if, instead of 32 separate units, your forces consisted of a Company's HQ, mortars and machine guns, 5 rifle platoons, 2 tank sections and some artillery. Sending a platoon to "take that hill" is going to cause the monkey a lot of grief if the forces defending the hill are stronger than that platoon can handle. The player may have nothing to do for 10 minutes while the platoon completes its approach (something that I, personally, would prefer to plotting waypoints ) but he had better be on the ball with fire support, reserves and alternative tactical options when that platoon runs into trouble. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> those 10 minutes of interaction with the game system lacks any play value worth mentioning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wrong. In those 10 minutes of interaction, you win or lose the game in exactly the same way you would win or lose any game of CM, but... Because you only took 10 minutes, (because the computer did all the grunt-work - pun intended ) you've got time to play it again! Moon Yes, I saw that. Hope it works better than the "A" key in SP But seriously. Between that and the Tac AI, basic tools to do what I want are already partially in place, natural developments of the CM system. I accept that they may not be developed the way that I, personally, would like them to be but their presence in the game surely suggests that the gap between CM and me is not SO great? CoolColJ It's a wilderness here, mate. It's nice to know I'm not quite alone Cheers, Andy

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It actually moves things around much the way a human would, so its units are micromanaged just as much, and just as unrealistically, as a human's are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great. That's exactly what I want. If it can do it for itself, then it can do it for me!! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And if the AI was to be in charge of moving your units around, what the heck would you do all game long?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd be playing more games, for one thing. Steve, I hate the American opening move in Riesberg. (I use Riesberg because I think that the Americans start the game with the most units in the demo scenarios, although I haven't looked at the CE Germans yet). It takes me about 10 minutes as the company commander to come up with a workable plan. I then spend about an hour plotting waypoints. In this respect, CM is its own worst enemy. Because of CM's level of detail, you have to take care with every order you plot: You mess around with camera one trying to select good fire positions for your units to move to. It's hard because even camera one does not give you an accurate indication of what a unit can see exactly from any given spot. You finally select an endpoint for a unit. You plot a covered route to it. You then check the route from camera one to make sure you're covered from all the places you think the enemy might be. You mess around with the LoS tool, trying to get a feel for distances between various points so you can roughly coordinate the movement of various elements. You replot a couple of times to give you an extra waypoint so the left flank squad can Run some of the way to make up for the woods it has to advance through. You do this 32 times!! You have to take this much care because the enemy is unforgiving if you don't. By his own admission, Fionn's latest replay is a perfect example of what happens when you approach a game in a slap-dash manner. Rightly or wrongly, I doubt I will ever play the battalion-size scenarios promised in the final release. There will simply be too many units for me to be bothered moving. I realise once again that this is just my opinion and that others love the game the way it is but I can't believe I'm completely alone in disliking this micro-management. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the micromanagement shouldn't be there. Someone has to move my squads and support weapons. I just don't want it to be me. What I would like to be able to do is take a platoon, give it a task, say fire support, a location to fire from and a target area to fire into. Then I want to click Go and watch it carry out its orders. That is the kind of thing that battlefield company commanders do. They do not bypass the platoon and section commanders and site each squad and support weapon personally. What would I be doing while this was going on? Fighting the rest of my company battle in about a tenth of the real time it takes me to do so under the present system. When it comes to moving squads and siting weapons, the AI may not do a perfect job but it CAN do it a hell of a lot faster than I can. Cheers, Andy

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point here is that your "ideal" wargame is inherently flawed from a realism standpoint.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not really mate. It just means that I'm prepared to accept a greater degree of abstraction. Some time ago, I clearly remember you commenting that luck is a significant factor in CM (something about some guy concluding Riesberg was heavily German-biased after one playing and getting his clock cleaned by the Americans the second time around). Presumably, both results were realistically achievable but the large difference between them, and the occasional need on this board to justify statistical "outliers", does make me wonder whether the result of all this physical world simulation is, in the end, any more efficient than feedback generated by more abstract methods. Once again, I have to stress that I'm not arguing AGAINST CM's 3D model. I agree completely that it takes wargaming to a new level. I agree that, provided you have correctly translated real world physics into the CM universe , it IS a more creditable way of providing me with feedback than any previous system. I do feel that the 3D environment or lack of it is not the reason for gamey tactics in inferior games. It is the complete bastardisation of the 4th dimension, time, in alternate move systems, the use of "undo" keys and the ability to move one unit step-by-step before committing its fellows that is almost entirely responsible for this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you want to play the role of Battalion commander, the AI would be responsible for moving all your units 98% of the time. Not only is that really boring sounding, but it also is asking more from the AI than can be expected of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But the AI does this now when I'm playing the computer. OK, it doesn't do the job that I would do if I was micro-managing its forces but I'm sure most people reading this board have been pushed by the AI on occasion. Surely, the AI can move my units as well as it can the enemy's?

Steve, I'm not knocking CM or suggesting that the 3D work you guys have done is somehow irrelevant. You have indeed produced a state-of-the-art tactical wargame superior, IMO, to anything yet existing. I was trying to point out that, as I'm sure you know by now , different folks have different strokes when it comes to the perfect wargame. In CM, you have chosen to develop the physical environment side of combat modelling. Players can feel confident that the laws of physics in the CM universe mirror reality far more closely than in any previous tactical wargame. I think this is great but, for me, this is not necessary to generate the feedback I require to make decisions in MY ideal wargame. Steel Panthers, for example, did that just as well. The WEGO simultaneous resolution, on the other hand, has significantly modified my decision cycle as I have been able to dispense with a lot of unrealistic considerations arising from whether or not it's my turn to move. Perhaps it's the old soldier in me but when I'm playing a tactical wargame as a company or battalion commander, that's all I really want to be. I would prefer not to also have to be the platoon and section commanders, the support weapons crew commanders and the individual AFV commanders. I have been a wargamer long enough to know I'm in a very small minority here and that most players prefer absurd amounts of control over their forces. So be it. However, no matter how popular it is, the decision to design CM in this way is clearly NOT realistic. Regards, Andy

Actually, for me, CM's "Great Leap Forward" is the "WeGo" simultaneous execution of plotted orders, not the 3D engine. In fact, to be honest, I find the 3D a bit of a hassle. IMO, (truly subjective, of course ), wargaming at company and battalion level is about the fire and manoeuvre of companies and platoons, not grovelling around in the weeds sighting machine guns and lining up individual tank shots. [To put that in perspective, I had the same criticism about Steel Panthers] I would really like to see a version of CM where orders are given to platoons and the AI handles anything lower. [i wanted that for Steel Panthers as well ] The 3D gives me a bit of a vicarious thrill but is not essential to my enjoyment of the game.

Fionn, This is one of the themes I intend to develop next year, but basically... There is an enormous difference between risking the odd casualty from an impersonal friendly artillery bombardment in order to close with the enemy before he can recover from it and deliberately deploying into an area which you know friendly troops will soon be engaging with direct fire for all they're worth. Additional worry for the infantry commander: How will the tanks know us from them? I await the release of the gold demo to see exactly how CM's blue-on-blue routines work. (This is not a limited visibility situation). Additional worry for the tank commander: Watch out for friendlies near the kill zone. The guys that cause blue-on-blue cas usually feel as bad about it as they guys they shoot. (Especially significant in campaigns/operations/whatever they're called. Guy goes into the next firefight thinking about the friendlies he banjoed in the last one - there's a good chance there for reduced effectiveness) I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm not saying there're not troops somewhere crazy/dedicated enough to do it BUT deploying infantry in this manner immediately places those troops under morale pressure which should be considered. CM, like every other wargame before it, doesn't consider morale until the shooting starts. This is definitely a situation where Major Kelly would be expected to lead by example. Even then, if anyone did follow him, I wouldn't count on them doing anything irrational like not hugging the ground to escape the fire they KNOW is going to be coming their way. Andy

Fionn, Your ambush scheme sounds good, except for the fact that, in real life, your infantry commander is likely to tell you to eff off at the high port. I've made this point before, that on the battlefield, commanders at CM level generally spend more time thinking about how not to shoot their own troops than they do about engaging the enemy. Of course, CM is a game and the player should be able to do any damnfool thing that he wants to. Setting up an ambush such as you describe, with the tanks firing through the enemy into the friendly infantry is clearly possible. It is, however, unlikely to be considered seriously by a battlefield commander unless the terrain was particularly favourable. Troops just don't like being shot at by their own side.

Surprised you had to ask, Bill. Couldn't you have simply taken it for granted that we expect you to have every scenario that you've ever done for SPanything in this theatre/time period converted and ready to go by the time CM is released

A couple of days ago, I questioned whether MG beaten zones and grazing fire were modelled in CM. I think I may have answered my own question. I've just banjoed two halftracks with one burst of .50 cal. One was broadside to the firer, the other was about 40m behind it and slightly offset. The situation was credible, but most unusual. I would be interested, if someone knowledgable has got the time to explain it, in understanding how the .50 cal MG model worked to create this event. Respectfully, Andy

I've seen several posts about this which appear to have been received somewhat doubtfully. I can state, however, that the problem does exist because it just happened to me. I'm playing the Americans in a PBEM game of CE. I received the Turn 5 replay from my opponent and watched it. I was told to send him back the file. I am absolutely positive I did not accidentally skip over the orders phase at this point. The next file I got from my opponent I quite naturally expected to be my orders phase for Turn 6. However, I was taken straight to the Turn 6 replay without any chance to issue commands. I've kept copies of both files if anyone's interested. Respectfully, Andy Brown

Beaten Zones and Grazing Fire?? A major characteristic of MG fire. A primary consideration in siting them. Doesn't appear to be modelled? A further related matter. Penalties for shooting through/over/past friendly units. For battlefield commanders, not shooting your own guys is probably a greater consideration than bringing effective fire down on the enemy. A major consideration in coordinating defensive positions AND assaults. Also does not seem to be modelled? Andy

A dumb question, I know, but my wargaming competence, such as it is, greatly exceeds my computing knowlege. I'm talking Windows95. Thanks for helping, Andy Brown [This message has been edited by Andy Brown (edited 11-21-99).]

I've encountered an interesting graphics problem that is undoubtably due to either: - the fact that my machine's spec (P1 166 MMX)is extremely marginal for CM (although, apart from this cosmetic bug, the game seems to run fine), or - I'm running the game using Japanese Windows 95. Basically, the graphics representation of roads and water terrain is screwed. Icons of the correct type are displayed but not the exact icon of that type appropriate to the tile's immediate surroundings. Thus, diagonal roads do not appear to be continuous but appear as a staircase of horizontal road icons climbing away to the left or right. The lake in the Riesberg scenario is not a continuous body of water but a patchwork of discontinuous icons that do have some water in them. I know this is a computer specific problem because a saved game file displays perfectly well on a mate's higher spec machine. I was just wondering if there was anything I could do to fix it before my planned computer upgrade at Xmas Respectfully, Andy Brown

Voting YES 1. The cheat problem is overstated and can be overcome with good competition management. 2. This game is going to spawn clones from big-name companies with ready markets and resources to burn. Any clone that contains open data is going to be more popular than one that doesn't. 3. Despite all BTS claims to historical accuracy, the time will come when BTS will be wrong. Nothing destroys the atmosphere of a simulation as much as having to deal with something you know to be incorrect. This is subjective, of course, but that's the point.