Fred

hey, thank you all for your positive comments! Quite a range of different results in the battles so far; from defeat to major victory... I know, this is not the real thing, like e.g. Steel Panters campaigns, but you all know BTS opinion on this feature... Anyway, at the moment I'm a little bit exhausted of scenario making. But this can change Fred [ 05-27-2001: Message edited by: Fred ]

Captain, that sounds like bad luck, losing a StuG to an artillery barrage. In my game tests, it worked best to take the left hill fast, while sending a platoon to probe into the direction of the right hill. If you own the left hill, you can then give supporting fire fron the high ground, or use it as a stage for an assault on the right hill (I guess this was Tom's tactic, and it worked). I designed the scenarios to be a little bit on the challenging side, but all can be won Fred

Lots of PENG nonsense and other wannabee comedians stuff gone...here it? I cry... Fred

Def no! This is neither a FPS nor a simulation. I prefer to play a wargame...so a BIG FAT NO from me... Fred

Who the hell is this BlahBlah anyways??? Fred [ 05-20-2001: Message edited by: Fred ]

... give this campaign a try, and lead a PzGren Company through the war.. available at: Toms CM HQ http://home.germany.net/101-77027/CM/International.html Fred

The 6. SS-Gebirgsdivision was named "Nord". It was given Division status in June 1942 (former only known as "Kampfgruppe Nord") It consisted of the 11. and 12. SS-Gebirgs-Regiment. The 11.SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadierdivision was named "Nordland" It consists out of volunteers from northern countries (Denmark Holland, Norway). It saw first action in November 1943 in Croatia. It included the SS-PzGren-Reg No. 23 ("Norge") and No. 24 ("Danmark"). Source:The german army handbook Fred

A separate forum for something that has nothing to do with CM? Sorry, but I really doubt that you are serious with it. Maybe some of these wannabee comedians think that they are the "heart and soul" of CM,..they are not. Most people are irritated by the childish behaviour of the PENG people. Now, they really think they would rule the whole BB. But I know "...Madmatt likes our humor...". Me not. Fred

Moriarty, thanks for you offer. Try to beat me in my new axis campaign, that will be available soon. Fred

MB agreed. If they can post thread after thread, we have not only the right to counter, but it is our duty. Fred

David, don't feed the Dunnee troll... Fred

David, no chance. They have one argument you can not beat: "Madmatt likes our humor". So we have to live with these nonsense threads (right now I count 3 or 4 PENG threads...) Fred

...after checking some sources, it obviously was simply "Berlin Operation". This is the name used e.g. by the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: "American Perspectives on Eastern Front Operations in World War II" Interesting read, btw...go here: http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/hobbies/history.html Fred

Dalem, agreed. But this was only the opinion of a single man. And I will state my opinion, even if some people do not like to hear it. Anyway, have fun. Fred

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by caralampio: ...What's up with these huge threads that say nothing useful and only slow down the loading of the web page?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dalem, as you see, it was not only a question about 'what is it', but a critical remark. I gave the answer to 'ignore it' and was jumped by hordes of 'poolers'. That is what I call 'thin-skinned'. Fred

Berlichtingen, it all comes down to this: not my kind of humor. I do not like it, and obviously, the poolers are very thin-skinned if someone states a different opinion from theirs. BTW, this 'bandwith' discussion is not from me. But that is exactly what I have expected from this club of people that try to proof to each other how smart they are, without even noticing that they suffer from some kind of hybris. So go your way, I go mine. With all due respect. Fred

...there is one little 'trick' you can use; just raise the rubble tile 1 elevation level, compared to the surrounding tiles. At least, it is not this flat anymore... Fred

Houston, in operations, there are no flags. Flags are only possible and allowed in single scenarios. This issue has been brought to BTS attention, and maybe we have flags in operations in future CM versions. Fred

...and even if it is not in CM2 by default, some nice sound-modders will surely do us the favour Nicht wahr? Fred [ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Fred ]

SenorBeef has a point here. But practically, I never had too much problems with it. I usually keep my spotters out of harms way and, at least since v. 1.12, the AI is MUCH smarter with its own spotters (they don't lead attacks anymore) It's a long way back when I had one of my spotter teams KIA or killed one of the AIs spotter teams. But, AFAIK, we have some real-life arty spotters here on the board, and maybe they like to comment? Fred

Well, BTS has an outstanding record of customer service. My first shipment vanished (and I guess some post chaps have a fine time winning the war) and so I contacted Steve Grammont. Without any delay he just sended me a new copy, that arrived 10 days later. Thats what I call customer service. Fred

Houston, to enable the AI to make a good attack is a hard task. In one of my scenarios, I needed around 30 playtests before the AI advanced in a more or less decent way. Two things come to mind: Flag placement and map layout. The AI usually goes direct for the flags, so separate them (and use at least 3 of 'em). If you like the AI to approach along e.g. two axis, offer it two 'juicy' victory point positions. Sometimes, just shifting a flag 20 meters left or right, makes the difference. The map should be adjusted for the preferred path the AI likes to take. If, for example, you would like the AI to flank a certain hill, 'help' it by placing some scattered trees along the route. But do not make it too obvious, or else future players will know, from where the attack will come. One other thing is it, to change the "Map edge friendly to" settings. If for example the germans are defending east and the AI has to attack from the west, make all map edges friendly to the Allies, except the east map edge. This will give the AI more momentum with the attack. Fred P.S: Stay tuned for my Axis Mini-Campaign, available soon! [ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Fred ]

Icm, it was a design decision from BTS to not implement LOS checks from planned movement positions. There were some discussions about this topic in the past, but most agreed, that it would be to unrealistic (as the LOS tool is always exact and correct). After playing the game for some time, you really don't miss such an option. With some experience (some try-and-error) you get a 'feeling' for ranges and LOS situations, especially when using view 1. Fred

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James: At the moment we have the stratAI & OperationalAI which is a very rough abstracted chain of command with rough abstracted results: mixed up and scattered platoons, ... [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: James ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is one of the main problems when the AI attacks (or even when shifting postions during a defense); the lack of unit cohesion. It is more or less a coincedence, if squads of the same platoon are near each other and/or in command. At least on the platoon level, the AI should handle the squads and HQ as one "tactical unit". This is a case for the "Operational AI", and with some luck it will be better in CM2 Fred

PeterNZ, it looks as if we have different opinions on this topic. So should it be. I now end this fruitless and boring discussion and spend some time with Mr. Stephen King. You can go back and have fun with your "Poolers". Fred