Huron

Indeed, the effect is some strangely haunted and haunting pictures, especially those with dead bodies or the children milling through the streets. I kept waiting for that picture with the lonesome Red Army soldier staring down at the victims of an artillrry barrage or the one where people have dug up the frozen ground and are queing for drinking water. Maybe they couldn't locate the exact spots where those pictures were taken, though. Now I'm just waiting to see who'll make the first comment about those other, ahem, interesting pictures on the Biertijd site... :-)

Hmm, don't know about train rides, Coe, but maybe you're thinking of a quote about it being only a day's march between the western and eastern fronts? It's a comment made by a battalion commander as Wenck's 12th Army sets off eastward from the Elbe river to rescue Busse's 9th Army from the encirclement near Halbe. "In einem Fussmarch von einem Tag von der West- zur Ostfront! Wer hätte daran einmal gedacht? Es sagt alles über unsere Lage!" (from the diary of Peter Rettich in the Reichhelm archive) The quote is found in Antony Beevor's "Berlin - The Downfall 1945". I only have that book in Swedish, so don't quote me on the exact English translation used (hopefully someone can provide it), but the diary entry means: "From the west front to the east front in a day's march! Who would have thought so once? It says everything about our situation!"

[ October 30, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Huron ]

[ October 30, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Huron ]

The HQ's are setting the ambush for the squads. Have the HQ set up one or more ambush markers, and target the marker(s) with the squads under it's command and hide. Ambush markers set very close is also a way to make sure your troops hold their fire. They're less likely to reveal themselves and waste ammo on spotted targets several hundred meters away.

Yes, Cpl Carrot, I'm pretty much of the same cautious nature myself, actually, and racing an armour platoon into the village is easier in hindsight, knowing you had more tanks than Redwolf. I'm still stuck with the demo here in Europe, so don't know much about CMBB yet, but this has got me thinking about using armour more aggressivly than in CMBO. The Yelnia Stare scenario is a point in case in the extreme, but still. The brittleness of infantry will take some re-learning, also in the aggressive use of tanks. [ September 29, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Huron ]

Thanks to both of you for the time and effort of posting pics and AAR. I came to late to follow it live, but always find AAR's interesting. Cpl Carrot, during the set up phase, did you contemplate sending a tank platoon with mounted infantry racing straight for the village? With the rest of a inf company catching up as fast as possible. From the overview pics it looks like the Axis had a better view of the village, and maybe even a shorter distance, so it would have been quite a risk. But having two tank platoons, maybe one could have been worth to gamble with. It's always easy to second-guess when you have the facts ( ) and not playing blind, so I'm just asking, curious of your thoughts on how such a gamble would have paid off. One could assume you'd have a greater chance of securing the large VL than than Redwolf (looks like a better covered approach to it for inf), so messing up the approach to the supposed priamry targets for the Axis (village/small VL's) could have been worthwhile. And yes, I can just feel the agony of ending up face to face with a Pz IV/70 in a T-34, uff. Great series of pics, Redwolf.

Buddy Tool, I'm going to put on Manowar's "Battle Hymns" when I fire up the CMBB demo. Ahh, can't wait... Sound the charge, into glory ride! Huron PS. Oh, right, about pre-order. Yes, yes, I'm pro-pre-order. DS.

Hello there, E-mail sent. I've been away from PBEMing a bit, but a team/cooperative game sounds like great fun. Huron

I just did a quick test with MadMatts method and didn't notice any pause for the vehicle with more waypoints. Only thing was, that it's sometimes hard to get a straight line when using several waypoints, so there was a very small pause for the unit when changing direction a little. Something totally unrelated but funny happened, though. One M8 was bogged down near the map edge at the end of it's movement orders, wile reversing. To my suprise, it continued to roll and finally went off the map all by itself. Huron [This message has been edited by Huron (edited 09-06-2000).]

I'm shamelessly bumping my own question, to do my little bit in helping the board get back on track and bury the Peiper affair deeper down where it belongs. Huron

Thanks for the update, BTS. It made me remember a thing I've meant to ask for a time and now seems lika a good opportunity. Steve said: "I too am looking forward to TCP/IP because I can probably crank out 2-3 turns before one or the other has to wash dishes or something else 'pressing'". Okay, it sounds like you can save the game in progress with TCP/IP. (I thought that would be the case) But what about opening a PBEM file with TCP/IP and vice versa? When you save a game of PBEM (not hitting the Go or Done) and reload the file later, I've noticed that there's the grayed out option of playing it as a TCP/IP game, besides Hotseat and e-mail. It has made me believe the different forms of multiplayer will be interchangable. Can you confirm this, Steve? It would be great to know, for then it wouldn't look so daunting starting one of the longer scenarios or an operation as a PBEM game, if you knew you could continue and finish it in a matter of days over the Internet, eventually. Thanks. Daveman said: "As clumsy as email is, it's great for those who can play for awhile each day w/o making a big commitment." Funny how we look different on things. On my part, I see PBEM as a big commitment, over an extended period of time. TCP/IP would suit me better, I think, because I can find an opponent who's willing to play and finish a scenario in a day or two. Then I can do something else until the multiplayer mood strikes me again. There's no day to day commitment. TCP/IP will be great. Then I can seriously start convincing a few of my fellow gamers that we should take up CM in our LAN parties, even if it's just two-player. They're not wargamers, but are always interested in a good game, so a quick head to head-challange will be the bait to get them hooked. Regards Goran Malm

Ops, sorry about that, had the "respond via e-mail" disabled, which appearantly hides the adress. Thanks, all, I'll get in touch with you right away. Zaffod, I was looking for blind games, so maybe we can play another scenario? Ah, right, an e-mail is coming. Huron

Hi, I finally got my copy a few days ago, and now I'm looking for a couple of opponents for blind PBEM games. I haven't played any of the scenarios yet, except for the training ones, so feel free to pick any one scenario and side that might interest you, but you haven't got around to playing yet. Myself, I'd like to play "Chambois" as the avenging Poles. I hope there's somebody out there wanting to teach them a lesson again. My e-mail adress is in the profile. Until later Huron

33

Great news! I recieved a satisfying reply from Steve within hours after sending another e-mail. Thanks, you guys are simply the best. Once again, BTS customer support shines. Goran Malm

Hello, Pierluca, misery loves company. Funny thing is, I also ordered on the 21st and I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive in Sweden. I too sent an e-mail two weeks ago, trying to get a conformation that the game was shipped, correct adress etc, but got no response. Ah, right, I'm going to try sending a message to both Sales and Steve again tonight. Let's hope we both receive an answer soon. BTW, if Steve was on vacation and nobody else was put in charge of customer service while sales were sky rocketing (note, speculating here), that's not good. Goran Malm

Good luck, guys. I'd like to second Mark IV - please, if you can, make some AAR out of this. It would be good to see how it works out. I know this started in a CM RPG tread, but the interesting thing seems to be how team-work plays out. Huron

Seahawk, that's a great idea. With the "Show movement path" toggle off, at least you wouldn't know what your fellow commanders are planning for the next turn. There could be some people controlling, say, a company each, and another player in charge of the armour, somebody else handling all the artillery and maybe a third person taking care of other support units if it's a large scenario/operation. It would be fun if the company commanders then had to request tank support, artillery, etc via e-mail, and got no definite answer in respons. They just had to wait and see if the tanks or shells actually appeared as promised by the artillery or tank CO. I can just picture the poor soul in charge of artillery, when every company commander and what not request a fire mission and some sort of priority has to be made. Or a good hearted tank commander chasing all over the battlefield trying to give a helping hand to everyone... Would the GM issue the orders about objectives for each group, or maybe there are some discussions betweeen commanders before the battle? Also, there's the question of how much each commander should know of the general picture once the fighting has started. Maybe it's possible to play the battle from the eye perspective of the troops under your command. Anyway, you'd have to get a group of dedicated players together, because I can see just a single scenario taking a very long time, just as it would be quite some times between your own turns. Ah, but what a de-briefing it would be. "Ahrg, I told you I'd spotted some Tigers!" A captain "disussing" things with the tank commander, after having spent the major part of the battle trying to rally his troops. "You tell me, how am I supposed to know you'd already started the assult? We agreed on T+15 minutes..." Exhasperated artillery officer, after a mishap with some friendly fire. "What are you doing on my hill?" One suprised company commander to another. Oh, well, now, if only CM would arrive in the mail. Once it does, count me in on this idea. Huron

Thanks, John. Being the one that sent the e-mail, I think you give me too much credit. I mostly had this notion of pools of commanders for PBEM. But bringing that idea into ladder tournaments is an excellent solution, IMO. I played chess on a competitive level some years ago, both tournaments (single) and matches for my club (teams). I always found the matches most enjoyable and memorable, which may sound odd in such an ego-centered "sport" as chess. There's something about that team-spirit... Anyways, both a team-ladder or John's previous idea of a bridge-system have the benefits of keeping all the FOW and allowing for unbalanced scenarios. These are things that would set it apart from normal, stand-alone or mirrored ladder games - for example, actually getting rewarded for knowing when to cut your losses. "Right, in a perfect world", you could argue, because there's nothing to prevent you from having a look at your opponents forces or worse. Maybe you'd be right, maybe there are ways to make it work, like last-minute scenarios sent to the players, passwords for each side and scenario etc. But in the case of team-ladders, I think the major prevention from cheating is within the system itself. I imagine most cheaters are in it for the ego-boost, to see their name at the top of the ladder. A team-environment isn't going to be as attractive to those people. Sure, whole team of unhonorable players may pop up, but chances are slimmer. I also think there are quite a few players, that want to test their skills against others, but in a not-too-competitive environment. Plain old PBEM will do it, if you find a good opponent, but team-ladders won't look as daunting as single-player ladders. "...play to enjoy the game and help your opponent enjoy it as well." L. Tankersley This is exactly what I hope will be the spirit of a team-ladder. We get the best of both worlds - the competitive touch as in any tournament combined with the thrill of FOW and unbalanced scenarios as when we play against the AI. Huron PS. I saw that Fionn is starting a mailing list for a meta-campaign. Perhaps he/we/someone should get a mailing list about CM tournaments together? So we can see what interest there is, what forms of tournaments we want etc. DS.

You get the 45 sec. delay, if you move the mortar off the tank in the set-up phase and only ten seconds for the machine-gun or other troops. So maybe the "bug" is that you get a heavier delay penalty for re-deploying the mortar crew... Huron [This message has been edited by Huron (edited 12-19-99).]

Just come to think of this text, "A Rape in Cyberspace". It's sort of a long read, but brings up many of the issues in this thread. Hrmm, not when the game will go gold, though... http://www.levity.com/julian/bungle.html Huron

I know chances are slim, but is there anybody that haven't played "Chance Encounters" yet and are up for a blind PBEM as the Allies? I was supposed to play against a friend, so I did the setup for the Germans, but he never got around to start playing. Also, I have to do a home-page as a project, so I'm going to have some fun and do a little AAR on the game. It would be nice if you too wrote down some plans and thoughts, but if not, I'll just do a one-sided AAR. E-mail me at: <A HREF = "mailto:georgeore@hotmail.com"> georgeore@hotmail.com </A> Furthermore, I'm up for some PBEM in LD or Reisberg (not blind or AAR here). We could play a mirrored game, since part of the FOW is gone anyway. Huron [This message has been edited by Huron (edited 12-12-99).]

I can readily attest to how easy it is to misunderstand and get upset on a forum. Since Fionn's post came directly after mine, I thought he was directing Flak at me among others. But knowing I'm no degenerated, pig-headed two-year-old moron (yes, I know, paraphrasing, but I was just a bit surprised by the post, showing up there and then), I re-read it and my thoughts cleared. I also feel this forum to be an achievment, easily the best board I've attended on the net. At heart, I'm a lurker, but the tone and spirit here has made me come forward a bit more than usual from the anonymous void of the net. There's something else I've been thinking of about board environments. Americans have this expression they use from time to time: "That's just one man's opinion". I believe it's a common enough phrase in discussions for you, with no hidden meaning, but the first few times I read this I found it derogative and took it personally. At least here in Sweden, there's few situation where you could use an phrase like that without belitteling the other. Americans (and others?) seem to use it quite frequently and casually. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Now, I find this phrase to be a good motto to keep in mind at forums and boards. That's what a discussion really are, opinions, and even the fact-arguments sometimes comes down to an opinion on what or who to believe. Finally, a comment on the Panzerfaust thread. Philosophically, it's impossible to prove a negative statement. After all, that's what keeps up the hope of all those UFO-people. Try and prove that UFO's doesn't exist... Huron [This message has been edited by Huron (edited 12-09-99).]

I strongly second the idea of CM Ethics. The game itself will probably handle gamey tactics in operations to some extent, but for stand-alone scenarios I feel this could really make PBEM and online more enjoyable. Here's something small for a starter, that has been discussed before (sort of, mostly me and some other guys speculating ): Nr. 1. The charging artillery spotters This could also apply to other support units. Basically, units that have expended their combat effectiveness and are thrown away to draw fire in assults, blowing ambushes etc. My suggestion would be for those units to have a high enough VP value to deter people from using them this way, and if it's possible, a higher value if support units are out of ammo, for example. Otherwise, we have to deal with this by ethics, I think. Note, that this refers to things that have happened in the demo. With all the builds and the game going gold, who knows how things stand now. I'd be more than happy to hear someone say that it's already been taken care of, or that the VP values are high enough as it is. Huron [This message has been edited by Huron (edited 12-09-99).]