Fred

Software Support Engineer for a major US company.

Welcome Thomas! There is another discussion on this board regarding the Hide commad for bunkers; the good news is, it will be implemented (either it's in the final version or in a patch). Fred

Steve, I never thought that I would say this, but could you, as the admin of this board, ban Mr. Lewis? This person not only attacks board members, but his unproductive postings are the most annoying thing I saw in the last time on any forum. I'm a fan of free speech and I listen to anyone who has a point, but Mr. Lewis (username) is obviously here for the sheer fun of harassing people. Now he attacks Mr. Keating (no, I do not think that this is funny, Mr. Lewis!). So Steve, please consider to ban this guy, even if it's not an easy decision. Fred

Well said indeed, Zamo! We are a difficult audience and I also appreciate the way Steve and Charles handle it. Fred

Hello Roger, it's a pleasure to meet you! Looks like interesting discussions will start soon. Fred

I tend to agree with pcelt; getting 15 Bazooka teams as reinforcements is not very realistic, given that the designers used real world OOBs to set up the initial forces. But Steve has his point too; usually the scenarios are balanced. I checked it in VoT and found out, that a +25% increase is all you need (in my game it made the US side win). With only 25% increase, the "fantasy factor" of the troop mix is not this high. But BTS knows about it and its on the list. And Steve and Charles are well known for their responsiveness for customer proposals. I'm sure that this will not change in the future. Fred [This message has been edited by Fred (edited 05-18-2000).]

That's good news Fionn! Thank you! Fred

Andreas, i tried it, but it does not work; as soon as the pillboxes have a valid LOS they fire away and don't care for the ambush marker. Fred

well, if "hiding" sounds strange for a pillbox make it "hold fire" Steve once made a statement about how to judge proposals: A: Does it add to the game? It certainly does; The "Hide" command is one of the most used orders when on the defensive. B: Is it realistic? It is. If a CO orders the crew of the pillbox to "hold fire until ordered or a direct threat appears" (like the hide order for tanks/infantry), the soldiers usually obey. And a well camouflaged pillbox is not always instantly spotted at long range IF if does not fire (and no recon was done before). C: Is it a major effort to implement it? No, the "hide" routines are already there; just assign them to the pillbox units. Just a proposal... Fred

...Hill 198...a cemetary hill. Obergefreiter Engelmann was assigned to cover this possible approach route to Plomville with his MG42 sMG team. Lt. Plöbsch and his platoon had the order to defend the other houses near the stone wall, that rises gently, following the hill contour. And then they came! Propaganda said that these Amis are all cowards, but ask any Landser, they know better...the americans assaulted valiantly down the hill, right into Engelmanns fire cone. It was a bloodbath... Meanwhile our right flank was crushed by a well planned advance under covering fire from dozens of Sherman tanks (at least we thought it were dozens). Lt. Hansgens men had no chance...shell after shell hit the doomed 3. platoon and we never found even their dog tags... Then Götterdämmerung starts, as the Amis used their artillery to convert this strip of land from a once fertile and green valley to a graveyard... They promised us a Panther, they promised us a whole platoon...where are they ?! Promises... And once again, maybe for the last time in this war, I have to say to my men...MOVE OUT! (from "A soldiers memories" found as a handwritten expose near Plomville, August 1944...) Steve, Charles...thanks for the most intense wargame I ever saw in my 20 yrs of wargaming! Fred

Thanks Oddball, but what was the reason that this view was taken out of the game (my most fav camera position)? Technical reason, design decision? Steve? Fred

What is the reason that this view was taken out of the game? Can we have it back with a patch? Steve? Fred

I see your point Fionn, but in germany we have an old saying: "Was stört es die stolze Eiche, wenn sich ein Wildschwein daran reibt." "It does not trouble a proud oak, if a wild boar rubs its fur on it." Fred

Charles, Steve... thank you for a wargamers dream come true... thank you for the Game of the Year... Like once H.G. Wells did with "Little Wars" you did in the new millennium with CM. Not only a milestone in wargaming, but a milestone in dedication to the customers... A salute to you and all the people who made it real...Fionn, Madmatt, Moon, the beta testers and all others that contributed... Deeply impressed Fred

OB&G, right on target! Fred

Hi SG, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Super Grunt: No, I'm not a troll, and if this thread gets deleted, so be it! Go on steve, delete it. Delete this thread cause it's the truth and it's going to start trouble. But, I know damn near %99 percent of the gamers buying CM want to see some blood on the battle field. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> first of all, you are a troll. Second, no true blue wargamer ever needed blood on the battlefield. Wargames are a challenge for the mind (you know this word?), and not a Texas chainsaw massacre. Anyway, startup da good ole' Doom and have some fun, but leave us adults alone... All IMHO. Fred

Well, if they use the Soldiers at War game engine, this game is doomed. SaW has a clumsy user interface, the most rediculous LOS algorithm I ever saw in any game, and the AI was a AS...Artificial Stupidity... Hasbro...take a look what they have done to Avalon Hill...MegaCorps...I do not like them. All IMHO. Fred

Steve, I agree with you; there is no need for shrouded terrain or (even worser) blackened terrain. At this tactical level, it is irrelevant, if a tree is 10 feet to the left or right. What matters is, where this enemy sharpshooter hides, and this is already build in. And not to forget, CM is not a simulation of being a CO in WW2, like a role playing game. It is, after all, a wargame, with a player in front of the screen. Maybe a captain does not have all the information, but I don't impersonate a captain, I play a wargame So, IMHO, no need for shrouded terrain. Fred [This message has been edited by Fred (edited 04-22-2000).]

davedial, nuts. Bigtime, take your time to finish the game. This will give you 50 more sales every day I'm in marketing for some 97 years now, believe me... Fred

Berlichtingen, full agree...and I can not help, but I'm getting very angry with these "hey, you all steal, because WE do it.." people here. Fred

Crispy, I think it should stay the way it is. There are some things one should keep in mind: 1. The player is not a company commander, nor an NCO on the battlefield; he is, well, just a player in front of the computer. This is about the balance of realism vs. playability. Sure, I have access to 4 or 5 books about the technical specifications of tanks. But do I really want to flip through pages while playing? Definitely not! I have a computer for all the numbers, so I want them there, just one mouseclick away. 2. Non experienced players should have an idea, what "Tiger vs. Sherman" means, without studying books. Once again, this is not a game about "role-playing" an CO. I say, BTS, let the access of data and identification routines as they are, right there in the game, with all stats available, IF a unit is identified (or misidentified). Fred

60 second turns play and "feel" right, so leave it this way Fred

I vote NO Fred

Steve, I said it before and I say it again: I'm very impressed how you handle customer feedback. Richard will be happy with this solution, and I just hit "H" to hide my guys (to wait for a real good shot)... Fred

Scott, thanks alot. For some time I thought I was alone with my opinion that this is a very good feature. Fred