Fred

As this is a vote,I say leave it the way it is. I like some feedback from the game engine. For those that don't like it, switch the option to OFF. It is already implemented, so no need to change the code. For PBEM, just agree before what options to use and what not. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

The computation of the turn results needs rough processor power, so the only way to shorten the time is a faster cpu. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Hope it will not kill the forum server... We are quite a chatty bunch Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

What would you think about an option(!) for game length variance of, say 10%? This would result in a game from 27-33 turns (if designed for 30 turns). Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

How far away is the enemy squad? Is it approaching? Does some other of your units fired at it? My "normal" infantry squads killed quite a lot of tanks in close combat while approaching them from the rear. I guess that you would have blamed the AI too, if the tank would NOT have turned to meet the infantry threat and the grunts had toasted your tank... Send some infantry with your tanks; they will engage the enemy infantry and the tank can concentrate on enemy tanks. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Thanks Pak, I will try this one. BTW, you mismatched the North/South alignment on the map (minor issue). Thanks again for your efforts and you are right; for "objective-heavy" ops like the Arnhem bridge, objective flags to lead the AI would be very nice. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

When creating an operation of the "Destroy" type, does the setting "Attacker" and "Attacker comes from" in the parameters menu has any meaning? Thanks. Fred

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: It's a known fact, albeit some refuse to accept it, that the Germans by 1944 had depleted their best soldiers, and the US, who did not deplete their talent pool, were just better. That's why they got ashore, pushed them back, ran across France, and crossed the Rhine. Thoughts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mr. Brian, please do at least SOME historical research, before posting such nonsense on a credited board like this. It was not the "talent pool" that failed but it was, once again, the former private named Hitler and the OKW. Do you know about operation "Fortitude"? Do you know about a Montgomery look-alike named Lt. C.James? Ever heard about the FUSAG? I doubt it. These generalized statements of you don't even show me that you have done any research on the topics you are talking about. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Well, Dr. Brain, I think it is funny. I even think it is better then all your attacks against board members here. But, I guess, our opinions differ ... Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: In fact, we all know AI is impossible (at least today).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite true... In fact, some could be of the opinion, that YOU are the perfect example that Artificial Intelligence really exists... Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

If the AI has to attack, I always give it a +1 modifier; if on the defense no modifier. This seems to be a good "average" value. I do never give the AI more forces. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Quenaelin, to enhance your chances with such an ambush, first use the AMBUSH option from the tanks menu and put the marker near the point where the enemy tank will appear. Second, TARGET the enemy tank, even if it is out of sight at the moment. This is kind of a pre-designation of the target and it was stated somewhere else, that your tank will engage this target, when it comes in view. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Back to old style, Lusername...? Sometimes this little part-time Troll HAS entertaining value ("touched-it-move it" suggestion et. al.)... Thankfully, no one on this board listens to his strange "proposals" and next-to-useless posts. There is hope Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Some people here are really obsessed with crews. And more then once they stated that they can't play the Villers-Bocage scenario the way they want it. Rediculous. I play the game nearly every day, and never ran into problems with tanks targetting crews all the time. IMO 1.04 just did it right. Removing all elements of the game that some (and only some and always the same ) people do not like is certainly not the way to go. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: You are a little clueless about how armor works.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where can we download a beta version of your program? I'm ready for a good laugh... Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Le Lorey- A hard stand Sar de Bruyeres Wiltz Elsdorf Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Has anyone seen an offboard HE bombardment in 1.04, or does the AI fires smoke ALL the time with ALL tubes?? Guess, I start a test run tonite. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: ... The given addititive "length" of RUN/MOVE commands given for a side cannot exceed a certain TOTAL length. That is, all the commanded RUN/MOVE commands are limited to some additive total depending on how long they are. Also depending on the overall troop status/command quality/other factors, it varies. This linear limiting abstraction attempts to simulate the command and control of one side being an "attacker" and one a defender (or a turkey attacker). This could be adjusted during a scenario when reinforcements arrive and that sides total would go up. I envision a "pie chart" non-numerical indicator of "used" length, so as to simulate a rough guessing approach a player has to adopt. Also the game could have the chess "you touched it /you move it" option to further the fun/tension. Perhaps further abstractions like penalties for RUN/MOVE commands by units out of C&C or LOS of HQs could wreak havoc on a players "budget". It could be a variable cost. A conservative player would then realistically use units that are close to his own HQs as manuver elements. Maybe RUN commands could be expensive?[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-20-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After reading the suggestions and thinking about it (run length limit, pie charts, "touched it -move it" nonsense, etc.), I come to the conclusion that I do not want to play CM this style. So a thumbs down and a NO from me for these "enhancements". Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Yes, may it rest in peace together with the Maus and E-100. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Shatter, combined arms is the way to go. If you let your infantry stroll to far away from your tanks, enemy HE assets will rip your troops apart. If you lead with tanks (we are talking attack here), your fighting machines will be toast if the enemy had put up a decent defense. The very first thing you want to do if you are on the move is recon. Depending on the terrain and time limits, use infantry and move them from cover to cover in the general direction of the enemy. Through cover terrain, use SNEAK or MOVE, while crossing strips of open terrain with a RUN command. Remember, if you have a large area to cover for recon purposes, you can spilt your squads. If you have in a platoon in a position to advance on a suspected enemy position, do not rush the whole platoon at once. Use 1 or 2 squads, so that the other squads could give you covering fire if the enemy opens up (overwatch move). This works even better with 2 platoons, where one of them provides covering fire for the other. When the first platoon is in position, they change their roles; squad #1 now stays and #2 crosses the field (bounding overwatch). If time is of the essence, or in order to give your scouting infantry some punch, use your recon vehicles (if available) to gather information. Move them fast from cover to cover position stay there for a minute and then change the position. During this phase your tanks should slowly follow your infantry (depending on terrain, say with a 50-100 m distance). If your force is supplied with Halftracks (like German Panzergrenadiers), I prefer to let them (with embarked troops) follow the tanks in another 50 m gap (as a "third line"). When it comes to contact, suppress the enemy infantry, before trying to assault their positions. Use your tanks to destroy enemy tanks, look for a weak spot in the enemy defenses. If you found it, taxi your troops in the Halftracks as close as possible to this site, debark them and, in cooperation with the tanks, exploit the enemy weak spot. Well, possibilities are nearly endless. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission [This message has been edited by Fred (edited 08-21-2000).]

Andreas, just mail me and feel yourself invited for one (or maybe even two) beers And a cheers to our fav marine! Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

I see your point, but please consider that there are only 2 guys programming CM. Should they really waste their time for such chrome? What most people miss is, that CM is a solid wargame...programmed by wargamers for wargamers. Animations are time consuming and add nothing to the underlying mathematical combat model. But I see your point, even if our opinions differ. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission [This message has been edited by Fred (edited 08-18-2000).]

Andreas, Ich trinke Bier... Wenn du mal nach Hamburg kommst... If you ever come to Hamburg... Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission [This message has been edited by Fred (edited 08-18-2000).]

Panzer man, welcome to the community! And Wiltz is just the beginning... Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Sitting duck, there will be no flying men, no gore and no blood fountains. This is not a FPS, but a wargame. Ever spoiled blood on an ASL gameboard when a squad was DX? I guess not. The way BTS balanced the underlying model and the graphical representation is right on target. I do not want, that Charles even spend one single minute for a "flying man". I suggest "Commandos" or "Behind Enemy Lines"...nice games AND flying men Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission