KingMikeH

Biltong and gang, No questions this time, just an update from the first battle of a 2-player BCR campaign: (I'm playing the Allieds with whatever I get and a -10% handicap) Hauptmann Forrest led his company into an assault with a task force of 2 recon platoons, a half dozen psw222 recon vehicles, and a few stugs/panzerIII's. The enemy position was in a heavily forested area, with mines and trenches, and several AT guns. (I had low quality, 30% casualties, and 60% ammo) After flanking the Russian trench line, the Germans rolled up the unprepared defenders on the way to a major victory. The nasty part is he took 60%+ casualties to his battle group company, and has now been ordered into an immediate assault with just a platoon left, 3 mortars, 2 mg's, and minus the pII from his armor. For some reason he expended favor to move the immediate assault to a night turn from dusk (this could be funny), and will be supported by an Hungarian armor unit. Wish him luck! PS: Thanks Biltong and gang, this BCR idea has reinvigorated an old tcp/ip rivalry. (Like viagra for old marriages I guess! :eek: ) [ March 04, 2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: KingMikeH ]

Roger that, thanks guys!

Warning: Stupid BCR newbie question below! Ok, I can't seem to find anywhere what rarity is off-limits during purchasing. I know it's there, but I can't find it, I'm a fool. Can someone with his head out of his nether region help me out? Thanks. :confused:

Biltong & Apache, thanks for the replies! I think we're going play the standard game, where I as the Allieds won't have any continuity of units, and take a 20% reduction in strength to start with. We'll see how it plays out. Apache, the soviet set sounds exciting, good luck in getting to it before CM 4 comes out.

First Off: Hats off to Biltong and gang...first rate job on the BCR! Second: Along the same lines as HerrFlicks/BigAlMoho's comments, I'm discussing playing the Allied opponents against my regular tcp/ip opponent (a rehash of our CC2 campaign, 52 battles long) using BCR and am wondering if Biltong/Apache/Super etc. have any thoughts on handicaps that might be necessary to make it playable. And sorry, but you KNEW someone was going to come out and try and make multiplayer your system designed to bring more "meat" to the single player experience, right? [ February 25, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: KingMikeH ]

It's funny this comes up one day after I read something that flew in the face of my perception and what I had heard on this subject. In the Osprey books Campaign series, the Lorraine '44 issue, it clearly states that skirts were initially deployed on the Eastern front to defeat Russian anti-tank rifles AND made the HEAT warheads of zooks more lethal against armor plate because they would detonate in a standoff manner. I don't have the book in front of me, but I will tomorrow, and will have a better quote. Mike

I don't have a saved file yet, but when it happens again I'll save it. It only seems to happen if the fire starts right at the end of the playback, last couple of seconds. Mike

Just want to let all the big guys upstairs know about a little cheat I found, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.... If troops under an artillery barrage have their building catch on fire during the movie, if you go back and replay enough times you will eventually get a movie where there is no fire started, thereby allowing you to continue to occupy the building and not run out in a panic to be shot in the streets. It seems maybe some of the results data is being determined on the fly during "playback". I hate to complain about the best computer wargame ever, but I know Steve and Charles would want to know. Cheers, Mike

Tiger, Your right that PE was basically unplayable out of the box. My friend and I purchased it really only for the MP, and that part of the game was a total disaster: crashes, unimplemented features (coop play), and lockups galore. But Rommell22 is right that with just a couple mods the game became playable again and with new tanks to drive to boot. Also there are graphics mods available that include new buildings and trees, etc. much like the mods for CM. Another consideration is the speed of your computer and what graphics card you have. I started playing it on a PII 350 with a 12meg Voodoo 2 and it looked OK. But now I'm on a Celeron 700 with a 32meg TNT2 card and the game is absolutely beautiful at 1024x768 with no slowdowns. Also, I did not envision Steve or Charles taking any time from CM2, but some kind of partnership that brings BTS's experience in publishing indie together with PE's original team to realize it's full potential. Just a thought. By the way Rommel22, my first thought was that you would exit entirely from one game, then import a data file with the map info, then start the other game. I think on-the-fly switching would be too much too ask, even from BTS. Just dreaming.. Mike

OK, I'm off on a flight of fancy here...but what if Steve and Charles could acquire the rights to Panzer Elite, or maybe form a partnership or development agreement, or something, with the guys from Wings Simulations and bring to fruition the promise that was PE? Here's why I thought the idea worthy of throwing out here: PE as a game had tremendous potential, but due to their ties to a major publisher (who subsequently went south after the game was released) I think they had to release under less than optimal conditions. They were rushed and the product quality showed it. Tuet and the boys over at Wings showed a very similar approach to customer service and feedback on their forum that BTS has pursued on this board. I think the two fit well together. BTS has shown what it takes to bring a completed and bug-free product to market: time, commitment, time, independence, and time. The trail has been blazed and PE2 could benefit immeasurably from that formula. It may never see the light of day any other way. (Who is JoWood anyway?) And for the fanciful: What if there was some inter-connectivity between the two? Something as simple (hehe, yea right) as a common map system would allow a player to play a scenario created in CM2 from two perspectives: field commander and tank commander. Not at the same time of course, but with the same ground to fight on and the same forces fighting around him. I'm sure there are dozens of variations on this theme and will wait and see if others seem at all inspired by the thought. My real motivation for bringing this up is a desire to see the potential of the PE system realized, and an arrangement with BTS seems a natural fit. I had actually given up on PE because of the bugs in MP, but watching my tanks in CM from view level 1 made me reinstall and seek out user mods. I await the verdict of the esteemed members of the forum. Mike

Reading the threads pertaining to IF for IG's over the course of the last year has brought a couple points to mind: 1) In the Time/Life series of WWII books there is a series of pictures from the siege of Sevastopol showing the Germans pushing their 75mm IG's into position to be able to fire directly onto the Russian forts that ringed the city. In the caption this is remarked upon as if this was the exception not the rule. 2) A portion of the "argument" between IF and no-IF advocates seems to stem from a desire for the weapon to be more effective, ala give it the IF capability of mortars and it will be a more survivable asset. But at CM's scale, the simple fact that the crew is exposed to even small arms fire during operation means it is not going to be a very effective means of delivering HE ordnance in a DF role ("not a Sturmgeschutz"). Also, as referenced by the aforementioned book, weren't these units organized at the regimental level, thereby falling perfectly into the 75mm or 150mm OBA spotter slot. Is it possible all this discussion derives from an over-representation (by scenario designers or QB purchase) of the weapon system at the closer, tactical ranges of most CM battles? Kind of like the Puma appearing constantly in it's recon role and the presence of many of the heavier tanks too often. Perhaps it just needs to be stressed that while the IG was used in the DF role at ranges less than 1km, it was not the most common use and should be reserved for intentionally designed situations i.e.: rear area penetrations, paradrops, raids, and pounding fortified positions when the danger of direct mg fire has been drastically reduced. Thoughts? Mike

Steve, Thank you very much for the reply and reassurance that tcp/ip is progressing. The wait will be interminable, but I know you guys won't let it out the door until it's ready to go. All is once again right with the world... LONG LIVE BTS!! Mike

Oops.

That's the big question, shep: when can we expect it. Not an exact date of course, but just an update on whether this looks like a one month or a six month thing. I have had an uneasy feeling about when to expect it based on the "cone of silence" that has surrounded it. I know it's been brought up several times since the release and I've never seen an official response from Steve or Charles.(Mind you, I may be wrong on that, but I've been watching those threads closely.) Anyway, I agree, great game and I'll preorder CM2 now if you let me. Mike [This message has been edited by KingMikeH (edited 09-02-2000).]

Daveman, Actually, it's just we two and one employee, so we are the admins :}. I know your right about email being wego inside the game, and not being too big a deal to play, (look at the Cesspool!)this was purely a request for an update on my personal most anticipated feature. Right now we distract ourselves by designing battles and operations for the other to playtest, and then have the defense reset by the player and played by the designer to refine our understanding of force balance, pacing, map size, operation parameters, etc. I'm not here to try and justify tcp/ip as a feature, except as it applies to me personally, but just to see if there is any light Steve or Charles can shed on the progress of the promised feature. Mike

Phoenix, I understand what your saying about the technical ability to play on a lan, but my ideal is still sitting at two computers doing our orders phase at the same time, for the same turn, and watching the movie, etc. And again I think the turn timers will be a great addition to the system with tcp/ip enabled, even for the internet gamers. I realize not everyone has access to an opponent in the same location, but there have been many people talk about friends and family they have introduced CM to, and with homeLAN kits at less than $100 it makes for a great oppurtunity for a little face-to-face action in less time than the workarounds, which are all variants on the email system. My personal feelings only, of course.. Mike

Daveman, Not a silly question at all, but not our idea of the perfect solution because it defeats the wego nature of the system and turns it into ugo/igo. I know that that is not entirely true because the turns are processed simultaniously (?), but for me a big part of wego is the time saved per turn for parallel order giving and movie watching, and the anticipated turn timers. Mike

Pham I can't speak for everyone, but my personal interest in it is for the LAN play. My main opponent (and business partner) and I have access to a network in the office all day and we've played all the demo battles hotseat but found it to be a little disjointed by the pauses between turns when you have to go do something else while the other guy goes. (like work :]) The wego system is perfect for the kind of game this is as you talk trash back and forth and can stay involved in the game as the stress ramps up, without the breaks in the action. And the discussion on turn timers, in a variety of forms, suggests that there will be a way to keep the action going and the stress high as you have a finite amount of time to react to the ever-changing battlefield situation. Plus the pleasure of seeing the look on his face across the room when a hidden AT gun takes out his most prized AFV, hehe. Mike

At the risk of annoying the two most talented game designers ever ... Can you please give an update on progress or lack thereof on the tcp/ip implementation. For me personally, this is more eagerly anticipated than anything else, I check Combat Mission HQ twice a day for the announcement. Thanks for your dedication to a great product. Mike

So here I am, playing a 300pt QB as the US on a small map with random time and weather, right? I get some engineers and 3 HT's, 2 Jeeps, and an M10; and it's night with heavy fog, right? So I rush, blitzkrieg style, the objective building, with all the vehicles and the engineers along for the ride, right? Well, as the vehicles pull up outside the building, there is a flurry of machine gun fire, mostly Ma Deuce, right? To make a long story short, at the end of that turn, every one of my vehicles was abandoned except for one HT knocked out. And at the end of the battle, EVERY VEHICLE HAD CREDIT FOR ONE UNIDENTIFIED VEHICLE KILL!!! It took me a second to realize that in the dark, 2 jeeps..3 HTs...and an M10 had all machine gunned themselves into oblivion. It was not glorious, but I stand in awe of the fog of war. Good job BTS!! Just my tale of woe, KingMikeH

Tank, I think what some are missing here is the network gaming potential of tcp/ip. I agree that online play would be greatly sped up but also it would provide a far better option than hotseat for those in the same location. Fortunately for me my business partner is also my lifelong ASL opponent and we are collectively dying to get this patch. I played quite alot of CC2 online and it was fun, but, it never had the tension and continuity that playing the grand campaign in CC2 had played head to head on a network. (It went 50 battles to a german victory) That kind of personal, extended engagement is why we haven't played any battles multiplayer since the demo. We're saving all that play for tcp/ip. (Please let it show soon!) I sincerely hope Steve and Charles don't get the idea that it isn't necessary, as I don't think my heart could take it! Just my 2 cents.... KingMikeH

Just wanted to throw up a little comment about the balance discussion and VoT. Remember that these scenarios only maitain their integrity thru one playing, when the US player has no idea about the German infantry strength, no report on the presence of the IG, no idea where the German MLR begins due to setup limitations, and plays 20 turns of the game with nary a tank in sight then gets to tangle with a Panther. To play against a human opponent multiple times is an interesting exercise, but one of the major factors in playing an attacker is how you deal with the initial ignorance of force structure and placement. Too cautious and you run out of time, too aggressive and you lose men unnecesarily. Just two cents. KingMike

Fionn, sorry to have to contact you here, but I tried to email an app for the meta-campaign and it wouldn't go thru...some kind of error with the server. Anyway is there any other way, like this post perhaps, to apply? Thank you and my apologies to BTS for using the board for this purpose. KingMikeH

Ok, I've been reading 90% of the posts on this board for 6 months and this is the first time I have had anything constructive to add that might not get me flamed..so here goes: I recently downloaded the bleeding edge version of DirectX, 7.0a, and now when I run my beloved CM demo I get the dreaded "black screen of death". And of course I can't go back and just install the original DirectX 7.0 because of the new version. Just wanted those game making deities at BTS to know and possibly hear of a workaround short of format and reinstall. Thanks to all who help. Mike

A question/request for BTS: Will CM support network play in addition to pbem and hotseat play? Please say yes as nothing would be cooler than to be entering orders simultaneously and then watching the results together, either in seperate rooms or with the computers back to back and one player screaming and the other cheering when the Tiger gets popped by an ATG or craftily hidden 'zooka team. Please Santa, make this the best Christmas ever......... KingMikeH