Dar

Of course, there's a small chance it might still arrive in the next couple of hours... and, coincidentally, I'm playing softball tonight, too, but I could suddenly develop a migraine/dizzy spell/pseudo-family emergency if I had to! Dar

Ditto for me:

Dammit! Another recent pre-order gets it before I do! Argh! I pre-ordered this so long ago I can't remember--but then in the meantime my card expired and I had to re-order per Steve's email last week. I hope that's the reason (or because of the extra time for the poster) all these newbies are getting it before me. Ugh! The humanity! The injustice! Dar

If you look at the excerpts from the <a href ="http://tiger1e.com/fibel/index.html"><u>Tiger Fibel</u></a>, specifically the <a href = URL=http://www.esatclear.ie/~godot/ShermanChart.jpg>Tiger vs. Sherman chart<a/>, you'll see that the Tiger was nearly impervious to Shermans from the front (I assume the 8/8/43 at the top is the date). However, the Tiger could reach out and pick off the Sherman frontally from 750m. Given that CM's scale takes place in mid-'44 and later, the Tiger is not as dominant anymore as the Western Allies fielded better tanks. However, it was still very dangerous and had justifiably earned its reputation as a tank killer. Dar [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 06-19-2000).]

This may not be applicable to the 155mm, but one thing the Russians/Soviets do is assign a different diameter to a weapon and ammo if it conflicts with a pre-existing weapon and ammo. I can't think of any real examples right now (I'm at work--no access to my library!), but if they had a 120mm gun, mortar, and rocket, they would actually call them, for example, the 120mm gun, the 122mm mortar, and the 124mm rocket. In this way, a commander doesn't have to worry about specifying what type of ammo he needs. He just states "122mm" and he know he'll get mortar rounds--even though they're actually 120mm. Dar

"Private military companies"? Is that today's politically correct term for "mercenaries"? Dar

They just have their panties in a knot because, unlike CC, CM is based too much on reality. Dar

Seems to me we'll notice when people start getting it when they mysteriously disappear from the forum for days on end! I don't imagine too many of those lucky folks will be posting to torment the other, less fortunate among us, since they'll be too busy blowing s--t up. Dar

Joe Shaw: Regarding your post about using crews, AT teams, FOs, and the like, I say go for it! In CM, those units are are pretty fragile and will get shot up easily, costing you points, so it's your option. Crews, especially, are usually even more fragile than the other units if they've been forced to abandon their vehicle or weapon (they have the little red "!" next to their status, which indicates they will be unrecoverable if they rout in the scenario as I understand). As I understand, FOs cost a lot of points, so they're one of the last things I'd throw into a meat grinder. Dar

I have to agree with the bulk of the guys here: 1.) Gamey 2.) Gamey 3.) Not gamey. Regarding 1. and 2., nearly every scenario I ever design is going to allow multiple reinforcements to come in at multiple locations, each with a 10% or so chance of appearing beginning on an early turn. Therefore, neither side will know if a force is coming in at all, much less where. Regarding 3., hey, you only have so much space to use, use it as you wish. Concentrating too many forces on one flank means you're weak on the rest of the board, so it's a trade off either way. Dar

That's cool! I have a tin sign reproduction of a Missouri Pacific RR calendar from '44 on one of my walls. I didn't even pay any attention to see that it's "current"! Dar

robertpat1: Yeah, I agree. I'm hoping that BTS will, down the line, release an upgrade for CM1 that will include some of the British "funnies" and various engineering vehicles. The mine rollers, DD Shermans, flail tanks, dozer tanks, AVREs, and the bridge layers would all be great add-ons that I'd gladly pay additional $$$ for. Can you imagine trying to take out a dozer with a front shot? That'd be great to take out an MG bunker with a dozer tank by plowing into it! Dar

All I know is I'm dying to use something with quad anything to chew up some infantry! I don't care if it's a U.S. M16(or is that M13?) with quad .50s or a German Wirbelwind or SdKfz7 with quad 20mm's, I want to see the blood spatter! Dar

I just recall some of the old Squad Leader river crossing scenarios, and I'd really like to do some of those with CM. I think placing a couple of bridge tiles between battles would be a good abstract way of handling that and make for some real tooth-and-nail, no-holds-barred operations! Dar

Cool! Like the catastrophic explosions. LOVE the rotating camera around a point and not a disc! That's something I've been wanting since day 1 of the Beta demo! Woo hoo! Charles, you rock! Dar

One more thing I was mulling over: In doing river crossing operations, it would very, very cool (in my opinion) to simulate a bridge construction from battle to battle within the operation (as I understand operations to be). In other words, bridges would be constructed piecemeal from battle to battle, several tiles at a time, as the time to build the bridges generally takes longer than the battles at CM's scale. For example, the first part of a the operation would consist of seizing a bridgehead on the far-side of the river using your assault boats, DUKWs, DD tanks, or whatever other means you have to ferry your units across. Having secured a bridgehead by the end of the first battle, you are given the option in the Setup phase of the next battle to begin building a bridge across the river. Say, two tiles worth of bridge or so. In the next battle, you want to expand your bridgehead and, naturally, protect your bridge under construction. The enemy will be shelling the bridge, trying to knock it out (much like shellfire reduces houses to rubble in CM now). You'll want to expand your bridgehead and clear the enemy out so he can't shoot at your engineers or spot for arty. Having survived that battle with your bridgehead intact, you may get another two tiles in the setup of the next battle, and so on until your bridge spans across and you can drive the big stuff over to continue the advance. Just a thought... What do you all think? Dar

Panzerleader: As I understand it, it's not possible to get the bigger buildings in CM1. My beta tester friends have tried building a "Monte Cassino"-type monastery on a hill by clustering several two-story buildings together, and while they do form one consecutive wall for all outside appearances, they are not treated as one building. Rather, your units must exit one building and enter the adjoining one much like rowhouses. That's why I'd like to have that ability to make a building in any shape and dimension I want, and let the game engine wrap walls around it and cap a roof on it. I could make L-, X-, and U-shaped buildings to my evil heart's content! Somebody mentioned trenches, and that was another thing I was mulling over today. You could perhaps simulate them using water, but they'd be barriers to both vehicles *and* infantry. (Maybe a row of fords would be a workaround?) However, it'd be nice to have an anti-tank trench terrain tile that could conceivably be breached. I believe other people have mentioned in other threads the desire to see Molotov cocktails and ski units. I sure hope handheld AT magnetic mines are included, too. Regardless, these are just musings for the future versions. I want to get my mitts on CM1 ASAP! Dar [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 06-13-2000).]

I was contemplating last night what great fun it would be to have CM2 (after I've worn out my copy of CM1, of course) to recreate some great slugfests on the Eastern Front. One of the things that came to mind were the battles in the sewer systems in Stalingrad. I was thinking how neat it would be to have a split-level battlefield in which the ground-level and above would remain roughly the same in appearance as in CM1. Then some hot key combination would reveal the underground sewer system portion, much as the buildings and roofs are stripped away in the current version. Something similar to the layered battlegrounds in X-Com, I guess, would be what it'd look like. Additionally, I thought that the Russian player, as the home turf defender, would initially be the only one to view the entire system. Naturally, he would only see Axis units that were in LOS, but he would be aware of the entire sewer layout. The Axis player would only be familiar with the sewer system in his startup zone, for the most part. By moving units through the unexplored tunnels, he would reveal the rest of the system (and have a good chance of stumbling across Soviet units in the sewers, too). Of course, just like in the old Squad Leader scenarios, the idea would be to move into the sewers and pop up behind the enemy in some unexpected location. Only, unlike SL, you could actually fight underground and have a true 3-D battleground. Another thing I hope to see in the next CM is much larger buildings. I'd like to recreate some of the battles in Stalingrad for the tractor factory and the like. It'd be great simply to be able to lay out a building tile by tile and let the game engine wrap a wall around it, meaning it could be any dimension I choose and not of some stock size. I'd like to able to specify type of building (stone, mortar/brick, wood, metal--e.g., corrugated metal warehouse/storage) and number of floors. In this fashion I could lay out a long, narrow building housing an assembly line, or a U-shaped, stone, monolithic government building. It'd be nice to have the ability to create multiple stories within a building, too, so one could create something like a cathedral or university building that would be mostly one height except for a tower in the center or turrets on the ends. Anyway, these were things I was mulling over and thought I'd post here for feedback from the board. Dar

I have to agree with you, Commissar. With Market Garden, it was all or nothing. Either all the bridges were seized and XXX Corps linked up with the airborne troops, or it was all for naught. Anything less was a failure, and, unfortunately, that's what it turned out to be. Back to the original question, though: Can I get my copy by next Friday, too?! Please? Pretty please? Dar

Love that one of the Sturmtiger firing! It looks like it's belching a comet or a giant dustbin. Too cool (except if you're on the receiving end)! Dar

Yeah, I don't get it either. "Diablo" was interesting the first few hours I played it, but then it was "click on everything and destroy it". It just seemed like a click-fest. Dar

Great name, Pfalz XII! Kind of makes me want to change my name to "Fokker D.VII". Dar

Killmore: A few things to keep in mind regarding those guns: 1.) Those guns basically are stuck for the duration wherever you place them. 2.) They are soft targets vulnerable to all kinds of fire. 3.) Their AT and HE capabilities make them high-priority targets. 4.) The more they can see, the more they can be seen. Try to position them where they have narrow fields of fire on areas you expect the enemy to traverse. Don't expose them on a hill where your opponent can hit them with everything he's got. If they can stay out of sight of the bulk of the enemy's forces, they may get off several shots at units that cross their LOS piecemeal. Then, when your opponent does find the gun, he only has a narrow front to engage it frontally. And if he decides to flank it, well, hopefully your other gun is covering that route! Dar

Argh! Not the infamous SS Mothers Brigade! Run away! Seriously, though, I've had no problem sneaking up on the enemy before. You just have to get down low to that level 1 view, plot your movement to take advantage of dips in the ground and cover, and Sneak/Crawl through concealment. It helps, too, if you've got someone else setting up a base of fire to keep the enemy preoccupied. One thing I noticed, though, is how much noise the game generates when you give units "Move" or "Fast" orders. Too often you hear NCOs yelling at guys to move out, and I wonder if there are actual game impacts from this? I use Sneak and Crawl as much as possible when getting close to the enemy partly because I fear some fool yelling "Marsch!" is going to attract some unwanted attention. Call me paranoid... I don't want to generate another "Hey, BTS! Answer my question!" post. I am curious, though, if a unit's movement stance makes it more or less likely to announce its presence audibly, and if a unit engaged in a firefight is less able to spot? Dar

Lorak: Oh, yeah! Thanks--that's a good point that the tank will start switching ammo. David: Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of: 1. Move into exposed position near end of turn. Maybe get a round or two off. 2. (Next turn) Reverse back down out of sight, using a "Pause" or two if you want to do a little more shooting. Of course, if there's a threatening situation, I'll reverse right away and hope that the tank manages to survive those (typically) 8 seconds before it responds! But I think the key here is to get your guy into firing position near the end of the turn so you can shoot-n-scoot right away in the next turn if necessary. Dar