Dar

Vetch: I think I've posted in about three different threads already that it seems possible to do a turn in two emails and <u>still</u> maintain the security that is already in place. However, it probably won't change--if it ever will change--before CM 2, based on Fionn's response. Check out the thread "Ignorant (I hope!) PBEM Question". Dar

The way I'd change both scenarios is to randomize both the forces and the turn the reinforcements come in! It's not any fun anymore knowing what both sides have and when they'll get reinforcements. I mean, what fun is it knowing that you have to storm the town in Last Defense before the Hellcats show up on turn 10, or that you can swing to the right under the hill in Riesburg and completely avoid the 88 stuck on the left. Grr! I need some surprises! Dar

Cool beans! Thank you, gentlemen. Dar

Rob, 30-06 in an M1? Are you sure about that? That seems a lot more powerful than the plain .30 round I assumed they used. Still better than that 9mm short round, but the 30-06 seems to be a bit too much. Dar

Are there some specific conditions that need to be in place for the Withdraw order to work? It only seems to work occasionally for me, even though it shows up on the pop-up menu. I select the order for a unit, plot a line away from the enemy, and then click the mouse button, but no order is generated?! Dar

Lokesa: I've been clamoring for this "two emails/turn" feature myself, but I also don't want to wait any longer for the release of CM and would be happy to wait for a patch or CM 2 to implement it. ScottK: The "two emails/turn" method would still have the same cheating prevention that the current three emails/turn system has. When Player A generates a film file, he still can't see it until Player B has seen it--like the current system requires. However, Player B doesn't just return the film file but appends his orders for the next turn--unlike the current system. Guachi, Fast-forwarding the film and sending it back 0.01 seconds after you get it doesn't do much good if you're playing someone 8 time zones away. That's why I'd really like to see this "two emails/turn" method implemented. It currently takes half again as many emails to resolve a game as is really necessary. Dar

One easy modification that I would like to see is, instead of consistently generating "PBEM.TXT" (on PC platforms), generating a filename that's a little more informative like "Turn1.TXT", or "Allied1.TXT". Appending an "R" or "F" suffix for "results" or "film" would be a boon, too, to separate orders and film files. Unless this is just the way the Beta demo does it, and the release will be more friendly and capable in that department? Dar

LOL--That's another thing I found really appealing about this game, too, was that I actually felt sorry for an enemy squad getting pounded by tanks and artillery. Watching the poor little suckers wince and recoil with each blast is a lot more personal than watching some unfeeling, distant square counter just sit there and eventually disappear. The personification of these little guys really works for me! Dar

I found a great listing of US Army field manuals from the '46-'49 era at: http://www.lib.uidaho.edu/bsir/doc_no.html However, this is more or less like a bibliographical listing. Does anyone know of a site, business, or other resource that might have these FMs, whether original surplus or reproductions? Thanks! Dar

One more thing-- Please tell me the AI will buy a balanced force and not <u>all tanks</u> like CC3 when it has points to spend! Dar

One of the coolest things I've seen so far is just in the last couple of turns in my current PBEM game (sorry, Mattias!). I've seen on several occasions already where a mortar might get a direct hit on an armored vehicle and knock it out, but usually you get the label floating over it saying, "Top Hit Penetration" or something like that. Well, in this Last Defense scenario as the Americans, one of my 60mm mortars took out a German halftrack in scattered tree with a treeburst. I replayed this several times to make sure, and there it was: almost directly over the track a treeburst blossomed and the next thing you know, that track was abandoned and the survivors were scrambling! I think it's fantastic that these open-topped vehicles are being simulated so well. I can just imagine the hail of metal and wood fragments whirling in through that open vehicle and maiming the crew and passengers. Too brutal! But, in the game, too cool! Dar

I still don't understand how you're having problems getting your troops to disembark? I haven't had to give the vehicles any sort of stop or pause orders at all--they naturally slow down and let the guys off when they near the disembarkation point. What you might want to try doing is ensure that the first waypoint of the passenger unit is relatively close (< 20m) to the movement path of the transport vehicle. I've been very impressed that the vehicles knew when to slow down and stop--on their own--so that the infantry teams could jump off and go their way. Then the vehicles take right off back on their own paths. You can be hundreds of meters away from that disembarkation point when you give the orders (as long as the unit is already a passenger). Just ensure that the disembarkation point is near the vehicle's own charted path. Again, this is from my own experience with the Beta demo. Dar

Sage, Unless I misunderstood what you're suggesting, I've asked for the same scheme where each player needs to email the other only once per turn under the thread "Ignorant (I hope) PBEM Question". This would still maintain the security and preventions against cheating, however. Basically, it's very similar to the current method CM uses with three emails per turn, except that when the Player B watches the film that Player A generated (but could not view), he does not simply return the film file but returns the film with his orders for the next turn appended. Fionn stated that it's too late to change this, but I'm hoping they'll do it for CM II or for CM I as a patch. Dar

Fionn, Can you post that picture of the Tiger and the Soviet infantry? I'd be very interested in seeing that! Dar

Yeah, I agree, Lokesa. It'd be cool to stick each player with a fixed part of their force, so you can know that you're definitely facing, say, a company of veteran '44 Infantry with some assorted support elements, which may consist of a Tiger, or a couple of PzIVHs, or some mortars and heavy weapons, but you're not sure. You and your opponent only know what core forces you're facing. That'd be pretty slick in my opinion. Dar

Hee, hee, hee! I'm right there with you, Sage! Quit flaunting that you have the full Beta and we don't (but keep posting AARs so we know just how cool it is 'cause we're gluttons for punishment)! Dar

Cool! I didn't know I could put a squad <u>and</u> an HQ/MG/AT team on the same vehicle! That will open up some possibilities! Dar [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 11-04-99).]

From my trial-and-error experimenting, it appears that you can load either <u>one</u> squad, or <u>two</u> team units (HQ, MG, AT, FO--crew?). Squad size appears to range from 8-12, and teams appear to range from 2-6 men. Dar

So this means that the leader imparts these bonuses (or, in some cases, penalties?) to any unit within its command and control radius, i.e., any unit connected to it with a brown line? Dar

Steve, Okay, I think I've got it. Pre-made scenarios will have fixed OOBs, but I can generate a scenario (using a random map or a pre-existing one) and both I and my opponent (whether another human or the AI) can buy units. Right? That's all that I want to know--as long as I can generate battles and won't know what I'm facing, it will keep the challenge fresh. Dar

I believe BTS stated before, in the thread "Points System", that there would be a points system with which players could buy the units they want in a scenario. Is this still going to be implemented? The reason I'm asking is because these two scenarios in the Beta demo would be much more enjoyable and replayable for me if I didn't know both sides OOBs like the back of my hand already. I certainly would not be charging the town as carelessly in the "Last Defense" with those tracks and tanks if I didn't know the Amis have no long distance AT defense. Even the possibility of a 57mm AT gun there somewhere would make me a bit more cautious, but there's no variety in the demo. Will the points system be implemented in the real deal? Dar

Perhaps you and a few friends could get together and order four or more copies and split the shipping costs? They don't charge US$18 for each copy in one shipment, do they? Please don't attempt to justify piracy by saying you can't afford not to! That is very insulting. Dar

Hey! Watch the Nancy Kerrigan jokes! Dar

Just curious if you BTS folks are going to be doing much advertising as the release date nears--I understand and respect your decision to keep distribution and sales in-house to keep costs down and retain more of those hard-earned dollars. However, I also would like to see CM get the exposure that it deserves as one of the best wargames to date, in my opinion. Are you planning to do much Web or print advertising? Or is it going to be exclusively word-of-mouth and links to your Web site? Do we CM supporters need to get T-shirts printed that say "Ask me about Combat Mission!" on the front and "www.battlefront.com" on the back? I do hope you'll be doing some advertising to get the word out beyond the Web site and the handful of on-line game review Web sites so a broader base will hear about this game and buy it to help finance CM II, III, IV, etc. As long as you don't resort to spamming, that is! Dar

Madmatt: Would that be the Acme Mark I Ambush Marker™? You don't see those much anymore... Dar [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 11-02-99).]