Pak40

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dog6880: My problem is why must tehre always be a time limit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because this is a game, it's not real life. I wonder if some of you forget that sometimes. We, the armchair batallion commanders, don't have all day to play one lousy game. Also, don't forget that many units were on a timetable when they attacked. They had to attack at a certain time and had a limited amount of time to get the job done. They had to keep this timetable otherwise other friendly attacking units might have an exposed flank. The time limit is in the game to simulate this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ghost of the 90th: 5 I got to find some opponents who is as bad as me Then I maybe I will learn to win with Allies. Till, then anyone know anygood essays for HOW TO WIN w/ALLIES I am sick of getting spanked. Maybe I should try Germans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He he... I love the guys that think that switching to the Germans will improve their chances of winning. The fact is that CM is extremely balanced when it comes to unit point values. In other words, you can get a equally deadly force with the allies as with the axis. The key to victory is knowing the strengths and weaknesses of both the allied and axis units and using this knowledge with the best tactics as possible... and a little luck.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LimShady: Where is the Beta 1.1. I have a few scenarios that I'd like to try, but won't run under 1.05. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't have the URL of the beta, but if you do a search on the CM forum with Beta as your keyword and set the search to 10 or 30 days, it should give you the thread which has the URL.

Hi Rett, Hi Rett, I'll try and answer your questions to the Son Op and CM Ops in general. I'm the designer of the Son Op (unless you've downloaded one that someone else has made) so I can share some info I learned from the testing of the CM Operation system. First, let me say that the CM operation design system is not object oriented. Designers cannot place victory flags on the map like we can in the single battle scenarios. Therefore the computer AI does not know to attack or defend an important geographical location such as a bridge, building or crossroads. This is unfortunate because this make many operations almost pointless to play vs the AI. The computer units wander aimlessly, only seeking the opposite side of the map. Any object oriented campaign will suffer this problem. My other campaign, Arnhem, suffers from this also. In reply to the two questions that MERC has asked you: 1. I highly recommend that you download the BETA 1.1, it operates separately from the 1.05 executable so you can have shortcuts to both versions simultaneously. The BETA version fixed a bug that didn't allow the white setup zone to be used between battles. This, however, may not fix the problem completely. I designed the operation with the idea that the first two battles should be a "dash for the bridge" type action. In other words the allies need to get as close to the bridge as possible with as many units as possible in order to capture it. I have tested this and it works well, I am consistantly able to get many units to the bride (and several units across it) while taking out most axis forces. 2. I did set the "no man's land" setting to zero. You can double check this in the designer if you like and change it if it is wrong for some reason. Despite all the things I mentioned above I still witness some strange behavior in the campaigne system. I sometimes see the defender pushed back hundreds of meters in one setup but none in the next setup. There is definite room for improvement here. I think and pray BTS will work on this for CM2. [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 12-29-2000).]

Hi Rett,

Hi Rett,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: To educate you people in soccer, Argentina is over Brazil in the eliminatory league for 2002. The best striker on the world, playing in Italy, is Argentine: Batistuta. Our team is considered the best national team of the world at this moment, in all the countries, but Argentina (we are such derrotist ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yeah, I forgot to post this score. Thanks for reminding me 06/13/1999 USA 1 Argentina 0

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by medlinke: Bottom Line: America...Developing Country... Also....What did this thread start off regarding anyway?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. The U.S. is still developing soccer. That's no surprise considering there's a lot of our own sports to distract us (football, baseball, and basketball). But you have to admidt that the U.S. has made great strides in the past 15 years. Wins against national powerhouse teams such as Brazil and Germany proves that. I think the title of the thread is referring to the soccer match that was played one Christmas day during WWI. The English and the Germans both put down their guns for a few hours and played a soccer match in the middle of no man's land.

First of all, Lalas is hardly the "hero" of American Soccer. The media has had him in the spotlight because he's got a marketable image and the fact that the Italians hired him proves that they fell for the "image" and not the "player". "Two World Wars and One World Cup, Do Da Do Da." You've got to be kidding! The only reason England was on the winning side of those wars is because of help from other countries like France, the U.S., and the others that are too many to name. So claiming it as your own victory is outright ridiculous. Oh, and when was the World Cup victory? 1491?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: If you're playing soccer, why do you have Americans involved? Last time I saw the World Cup they were beaten 12,943 to Nil by the Inner Patagonia Reserve B team. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know that remark is in jest but being a soccer, uh, football fan, I can't help but reply 02/06/1999 USA 3 Germany 0 07/30/1999 USA 2 Germany 0 02/10/1998 USA 1 Brasil 0

I've got a valid question about this and other similar situations. Suppose the KT isn't positivly idenified as a KT. Will the sherman still use his tungsten knowing that he may be wasting it on a lesser tank? Is this factored in CM?

1. Don't know the exact answer to this one but it seems impractical. Typically, in the HQ you'd have the CO, second in command(seargent), and two runners. An MG42 would need one man firing the gun and another feeding it. 2. Everying I've read says three, but then soldiers often scrounged or stole as much firepower as they could, even German Panzerfausts. Maybe they're accounting for the scrounging factor. 3. True, I don't know why CM models pistols for the commanding officers. The pistol was usually only a secondary weapon.

I too experienced the "Gun Hit" phenom.

yea, but those halftracks die a lot easier than a leg .50 cal. You must baby them, running them away from any armored vehicle other than the 250/1 or 251/1.

It would probably be easier, as far as coding is conserned, to flash the exact same "battle parameters" screen that the originator of the game has used. Only difference is all of the fields would be disabled.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: If the two sides agree on what force type (infantry, armor, etc) and the creator changes it, it will probably become quickly apparent to the second party. There's a big difference between being attacked by an infantry force and being attacked by an armored force. DjB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doug, I have to disagree that you you would know quickly. Many players are conservative when it comes to armor and they may not show what they have until halfway into a game. You could waste even an hour of your time to a cheater.

Phoenix, "So WHAT are people doing to "cheat" you Apoc??? I just don't understand it." I know this question was directed at APOC, but I'll answer it anyway: It's very easy to "cheat" someone when telling them the QB paramters. If your opponent tells you the weather is clear but you discover it is dark and foggy after you have already picked your forces, then you have been cheated. You will have picked forces that can take advantage of a clear sunny day (tanks, artillery, At guns, etc.) but he in his trickery is picking forces that can take advantage of foggy nights (Infantry with automatic weapons). This can happen with type of terrain also: He may tell you that the ground is flat with few trees but you get into the battle and it's rolling hills with dense trees. Those above are very obvious ways of cheating and you obviously know them already but there is another more subtle way to cheat: lying about your force mix. He may tell you it's a 1000 point game and that he has mixed forces. But when the battle starts he's got 600 or 800 points worth of armor. You may not notice it right away because you may not see all of his forces until halfway into the battle. So then you've wasted valuable gaming time on a cheater. Understand? I believe Apoc when he says he's been cheated because I've been playing internet games since 1995 and have run across a lot of cheaters. Cheaters will always be on the internet. Fortunately I have only run across one who tried to pull a fast one on me. [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 12-19-2000).]

Apoc, I havn't had much of a problem with cheaters of this sort and I have yet to hear of it (untill this post). If I were you, I'd simply would refuse the map if the player lied about the conditions, then tell him you will only play him if you do the setup. It's that simple. This should even be legal in a ladder match. Both sides have to agree to the conditions, right? Anyway, I agree that there should be a preview of the battle paramters by both sides, at any time during the force choosing or play, just like the battle briefings. It would make life that much easier.

Hi Rob, I'm in CMC2. I'll take whatever is left. Jeff R.

Ditto to what Mord said above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flix: I'm kind of weary about how Spielberg and Hanks will portray this whole thing. They have a tendency to degrade patriotism and portray the Americans of WWII as little more than willing to protect our country. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just curious, but why on earth do you say this?

Remembering my grandfather's division, the 99th Infantry holding the northern shoulder of the bulge.

It's unfortunate that BTS ran out of time. I wish they could add the M16 in a patch. As was often the case in late WWII, the allies AA were used for infantry support because they had very few aircraft to worry about. The Germans on the other hand needed their AA for common use against air threats and therefore deployed them more in that role. (also they AA men were used to restock the infantry, but that's another topic) Since CM greatly deals more with ground combat than air, I really hope BTS considers adding it in a patch. But, I realize there is only so much they can do before moving on to CM2. [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 12-15-2000).]

What about a hull down hamster?

You're correct, I've seen that with mortars. But, as I said above the clock ticks twice as slow. If the clock says 50 seconds and your FO doesn't have LOS to the target, then it will actually take 100 seconds (appoximately). Read the rule book if you don't believe me.