Conscript Bagger

The hell you say! Acknowledged. I just wonder if having intensity be the determining factor would give more flexibility to designers and more interesting decision points for players, particularly in operations. Then again, CMx2 ops might be Totally Different. It does work well enough not to be called "broken" by any means, but I'm glad to hear you're looking at improvements. To the extent that I've followed recent discussions, I realize there are no sacred cows in CM.

"What the #@$%# is that?!" "It's me Bren gun!"

This got me thinking about scenario length again. For the above to work (and I think it's the simplest/best solution), it assumes a turn limit that won't allow the attacker to execute a 2000-meter right hook and still reach the objective before time runs out. Of course, that brings up the gamey end-rush thing, and "if only I'd had another turn" and so on. What I would like to see (and it's probably been mentioned before like everything else) is the turn limit being replaced with an "intensity gauge" whereby the game measures how much progress the attacker is making, how much shooting is going on, the proximity of the two sides, and how firmly the defender is standing his ground. It's sort of like a chess clock, although it would be adjustable based on the type of battle being represented. If the attacker's rate of fire/advance falls below the specified level for more than X number of turns, the battle ends and he probably loses because he's short of his objectives. If he keeps up the pressure, the battle continues. If either side's firepower is reduced through casualties and/or ammo use to the point where the minimum "combat intensity" can't be sustained, the battle ends (i.e., the attacker retires or the defender retreats/surrenders). Since both sides know the game won't end as long as there's significant fighting going on, the defender's choice of how long to stand and fight depends on whether he's supposed to hold the objective at all costs, or delay the enemy with a fighting withdrawal. The length of each battle, then, would be limited by the amount of ammunition available, reinforcments, and the balance of forces on each side, not a turn count. Obviously, different engagement types would require different thresholds for intensity, so a probe wouldn't require much fighting to continue, while a set-piece assault would. I hope this isn't too off-topic; like I said, I believe it is relevant to the edge-hugging issue, even if it doesn't address the "active edge" idea. Now everyone please tell me why it's been considered and rejected before.

One notable exception would be Brest-Litovsk, which the Germans had garrisoned for a while during/after WWI, I think. Not that it seems to have helped much after the initial assault into the fortress...

armor cover arc?

Never mind. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. ...

I want a tactical game where [nation X]'s units use [nation X]'s formations and tactics as well as weapons and language. I want to be able to play on a huge map using huge forces with the option to actually command only a part of them, including a different part or parts each turn. I want my side to attempt to complete its objectives without my intervening at all, if the mood strikes me to watch a battle rather than fight one. I want to LOSE, painfully and quickly, if I use tactics that wouldn't have worked in real life. I want a reason to conserve my men and materiel as carefully as real commanders must, and I want to know that my opponent(s) must do the same. That's a start. How BFC does it isn't my concern. Perhaps they can build me my perfect house through cunning use of hamster wheels, gas jets, and dumbwaiters. On the other hand, maybe it'll have a fusion reactor in the closet and broadcast power covering the entire property. Whatever, just so the game's fun.

Yup, you're probably right. Sheesh.

I read about such an incident in a U.S. division's training. A Sherman driver (or assistant, I suppose) got pinned against his hatch cover when the turret swiveled unexpectedly. Broken ribs, etc.; don't remember if he died.

Well, the "wounded" troops in the first drawing look more like they're taking a smoke break to me...

Sign me up for impropriety, then! I actually prefer the PS2 controller (have been playing Medal of Honor and Star Wars Battlefront). And since I sit in front of a computer at work all day, using a different controller for games at home helps stave off repetitive stress injury a little longer, I like to think.

When you get another disc, burn yourself a backup to play with and keep the original safe & warm at home (creating such a copy is allowed by the EULA as I understand it). Currently -20C here in Wisconsin; perfect tanning weather compared to you!

Might the 88 crews have been suppressed?

It's been a while since I read that part of the manual, but isn't the timing of air support always somewhat random? I think specifying turn 10 only means it won't come in before then, but it may very well come later.

Are you sure about that.? What about Eben Emael. </font>

Maybe they just hook it up with one of these? Safety first, and all that.

Does it come with outriggers too?!

Wow, cool, I didn't know that. Glad you found it useful!

Stratos, if you're interested in the Bulge, I humbly suggest you try my "Pruemerberg 12-44" map from the CMBO Maps section at Scenario Depot. Someday I will convert it to CMAK too... Like every map, it looks great with Tom's terrain--you can view some screenshots here.

So the gun was also hiding, and the mission was not meeting engagement? (The gun had the camouflage bonus)? </font>

Are you saying that the AA gun used the same round as the tank gun? Michael </font>

This might help. Interesting that the standard dimensions of a "block" of German mines was about 26 x 35 yards, or two CM minefields abreast.

It's okay--the display stays the same, but the AI troops' performance does increase.

My experience reading American Bulge accounts is that 57mm are referred to as "anti-tank" (in infantry units as John said), while towed 76mm and SP of any type (M10, M18, M36) are called "tank destroyers." Towed 76mm might sometimes be called "guns," but I don't recall ever seeing a 57mm called a TD. John: I didn't know TD battalions ever fought with a mix of towed and SP. Could they have been in the midst of an upgrade? Does your source say how many of each type the 823d was using?

Well, as it turned out, we had a few more people and only one of them tried CMAK. His comments: "I wish you could speed up the scrolling." (Fair enough.) "Too slow." "How come it only shows three men when there should be ten?" "When was this made?" "I don't think I'll play this after all." A lost cause. The night as a whole was something of a waste anyway, since I tired of Axis & Allies very quickly (only the second game in my life, and I don't feel I've missed out) and spent most of the time watching other people play with my laptop. Serves me right for sharing. :mad: