Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker: Personally, I hate using those things. Anyone that can urinate can destroy one of those things, IMHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, a wet sneeze and they are abandoned or knocked out, usually by Rifle or MG fire. Though more than likely direct HE should be looked at from the many comments here, but a high survival rate it doesn't have lol. Ron [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: Ron ]

Check out the Chat at Combat Mission HQ You should find someone fairly quick. Ron

Quick! Run! Get outta here! Your life is in mortal danger! FASTER!

Yep the key descriptive word for the Vickers is "slow", slow in moving, slow in firing and slow in changing targets. Oh I almost forgot, another characteristic is "dies a lot", but that could be a result of its other traits, not really sure yet. Avoid it... Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CptSwampy: I have a question: What are the best OPERATIONS to play PBEM games with. Looking for balance and fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not an expert, having only played 8 operations pbem (they take a looong time), but I have found every one to be fun and enjoyable challenges. They aren't without their own peculiarities however, namely the way the game handles the startlines between battles. There's nothing more frustrating as the defender on occasion than to be "pushed back" from defensible terrain into an empty wasteland simply because the attacker butted up next to you. Reducing the size of No-man's land helps, though YMMV. It's something I hope BTS looks into in the future, however with QBs being the fan favourite it seems, I'm not sure how much attention operations will receive. That said, the "Destroy" type operations are probably the most fluid regards startlines. "Team DeSobry" and "Herrisheim" being two that readily come to mind, they are both evenly matched and very enjoyable. "Carentan" and "McKinley's Battalion" aren't "Destroy" operations but are unique and fun as well. Hope that helps... Ron

Yeah having HQs affecting an FO's ability to call in fire, accuracy etc sounds reasonable but in CM it doesn't happen at all. The HQs relationsip to an FO is like any other, ie movement order delay, stealth, morale under fire. FO's call in fire, with some variability, the same regardless if they are in C&C or not. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: Dunee, Well not quite. The game pits the two schools of thought against each other in a Bde setting. On side will ise the philosophy of aufstrastaktic while another Befelstakic(sp?). The control methodology and mentality of the two sides will drive the tactics used. Now for everybody else, here is what has happened. The one and only Fionn Kelly had volunteered to command the Manouevre Bde while humble ol me commanded the Attritionists. We developed a system of rules and got players and GMs. We played 2 turns in which we caressed recce elements but no fights. Then Fionn disappeared. I had no note as to why, after repeated attempts to contact him. I can't decide if he is being rude or something serious happened, either way once the other Bde lost their Comd, they kinda sat around like sheep. People started to lose interest. Eventually the GMs were ready to call us winners by default. Needless to say we were all a little disappointed and pissed that Fionn after much interest would disappear. If anybody is in contact with him please pass on to him that he should have at least dropped me a line. Unless of course it was something truly devastating then I can understand. Fionn was very interested and active, so his dropping out was a little mysterious...he owes me a game too. Anyway, the Manouvre Bde is planning to appoint another Comd and drum up another player. My Bde is short two people for Bn CO positions, so if anybody is interested (we're Axis) I am taking names. I hope we can get this thing going as it showed real promise at the start and could be a lot of fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't help you with Fionn Kelly though I saw he was posting on the CGO forums a couple days ago. Thanks for the information, hope you find some new players... Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Adam Lloyd: Still in motion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any possibility of relating how things have gone thus far, any suprising developments etc without revealing FOW issues? Just curious, the advocates of "Maneuver vs Attrition" have been quite, let's say, vocal and I am wondering how things have played on the virtual battlefield. Ron

This sounds very interesting, I'm curious in learning how this one played out. Was there an AAR posted somewhere? Thanks in advance for any info... Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: A (reg) sherman 75mm fires 6 x 39 blast HE per turn which = 234. A (reg) Panther G late or Panzer 4 fires 7 x 34 blast HE per turn which = 238. So Shermans really arnt any better at anti- infantry work. They do get a lot of rounds and the flex .50 cal... but the german tanks are almost as good vs infantry. Plus they usually live longer to carry out the job. You are much better off with 2x M8 HMCs which work out cheaper. Unless of course you buy a Jumbo 75mm and go AT gun hunting [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: KiwiJoe ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Panther and Sherman both roughly have the same ROF, ie 6 shots per minute, sometimes they will get off more. The 3 MGs for the Sherman does make a big difference. And pure numbers aside, from my experience there's no question the Sherman is better at anti-infantry work then the Panther, squads and guns stand up better and longer to the Panther's fire than the Shermans. Agreed, anything that lives longer is usually more effective but having the "best" armour doesn't guarantee a longer life Agree also with the M8 HMCs for QBs because in competitive QBs cheap = more = better. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott: I agree BB. there is nothing like the Sherman when it comes to anti-infantry firepower. A post above said it very well "Dispatch the Axis armor and Shermans rule the battlefield". Most of the losses I have suffered while playing the US troops I have come to believe is from lack of fire support. It is difficult to dig the Axis infantry out of a village without it. Either direct HE fire from Shermans or heavy artillery fire seems to be needed every time. I have captured many villages with axis infantry, even using rifle squads. The US infantry is just a bit underpowered to do so. Is it the same (US) with the British troops? If so what is the best infantry support tanks (without the 150mm armored heavy Churchill). I imagine it would be the 95mm armed Churchill? Is there a British tank that works as well in a dual role as the Sherman? British fire support artillery. What is the best (cost effective) caliber for fire support? If you have to dig Axis infantry from a town or village? Thanks to all the above posters as well, every post has been read. [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand you are looking for the most cost-effective force for a QB? If that's your preference then IMO you have more flexibility selecting a British force. Some of their strengths: 1 - Cheap Infantry Coys including supporting Piats and 2" mortars. 2 - Cheap MG vehicles with the White Scout Car, Humber, and MMG Carrier. 3 - Reasonably cheap and very effective armour for both AT and Anti-infantry work with the Challenger/Firefly, Daimler and 95mm Cromwell. 4 - An excellent and effective AT gun with the 6pnder. 5 - Cheap and deadly Mortar FOs with the 3" and 4.2". I have played the Brits a lot and such a combined arms force is very effective against the Germans, whether they are fielding Panthers, JgPzs, VG SMG/Sturmgruppe Coys or what have you. What the Germans have really doesn't matter in the end, you just have to play with your (Brit) stengths and limitations in mind and adjust your style of play accordingly. The British squad by itself has poor firepower and can't stand toe-to-toe with anyone, supplement them with the MG vehicles and Mortar FOs, think "volume" of firepower instead of "total". The 2" mortar seems superfluous but it will keep up with the platoon and suppress a squad or MG, very handy. I like being mobile so I usually avoid the Vickers MG and stick with MG vehicles. For the same reason I like the 3" and 4.2" FOs, they have lots of ammo and are good for a fluid situation, roughly equivalent to the German 81/120mm. The 95mm Cromwell VI is an excellent infantry support tank. With weak armour protection you need speed and at 40mph it is the fastest(IIRC) "tank" out there, I avoid the Churchill because when I see German armour outmaneuvering me then... The Cromwell usually has HC as well though the Challenger/Firefly with the 17pnder gun can and will do the AT work. My preference is the Challenger, even being a larger target and having less ammo than the Firefly, simply because it's a little faster and a little cheaper, YMMV. The Daimler's pop gun can be fun sometimes The real ace for the Brits though is the 6pnder AT gun, its regular AP can deal with most 'regular' German armour while with tungsten it can perforate the larger cats. Now only if they had a vehicle mounted version... The Brits have other toys in their kit as well such as the Croc, Wasp, 25pnder/4.5" Arty, Archer or 40mm Bofors that can all be very effective in certain situations and/or depending on your style of play. The key, as with playing any side, is to use combined arms tactics, arty/mortars, direct fire and MGs to suppress then the infantry to mop up. Hope that helps... Ron [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Ron ]

Should have eaten your Wheaties...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: Thank you Ron. I'm glad we are in agreement that the interface should be aesthetically pleasing. But you know what, I'm a little bit worried after reading your post. Now I'm worried I'm spending TOO MUCH TIME working on the interface. Of course Steve and Charles are looking at everything I do, and this is consuming their time. Time that could be spent doing historical research and what have you. They have to answer my emails, clarify, etc etc. So Ron, what I'm asking is this : how much time is too much time, in your opinion? Lemme put it another way. Let's say I'm working on the interface, and it's looking 'not bad'. Should I stop, or should I work on it some more, until I get it to look 'good'? Or maybe should I put even more work in, until it looks 'great'? And of course, I COULD go all out and try to make it look 'perfect'. But hey...is that really necessary? For the lousy interface? Let's say that an equal amount of work is required to go from 'level' to 'level'. Ron, where should I stop working? When does it become counterproductive from a 'taking resources away from gameplay issues' aspect? Should I take a bit less 'pride in my work' to insure that other valuable time resources are not being wasted? Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol ok Listen deanco, for the low price of $2.99(US) a minute I can answer ALL of your questions and concerns. I have had hundreds of satisfied clients, time is of no concern as I take pride in my work. My email is in my Profile, write to arrange a meeting. And no, thank you... Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: Sorry for the multiple posts but this really peeves me. Because lemme tell you what my philosophy is behind the interfaces I made. It's, "Eye candy, yes. But in the service of gameplay". There are 2 reasons why I color some labels differently than others. It adds color, and it alerts the player to a situation that he might like to be aware of. It looks cool, and it's useful at the same time. But now it's like you're saying, 'don't think about eye candy, just gameplay is important'. So what's the point of being creative then? As long as I make the labels big enough so you can easily read them, is that all you care about? So, If I make a black letters on white background interface for CM2, with no frills at all, just the labels, y'all won't mind one bit? Is this what you're saying? I'm interested in your answer, this is like research.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think we're talking at cross purposes here. The interface, what I would call 'functional' graphics, and how it is perceived/used by the gamer is important. I have never said otherwise. Eye candy is just that IMO, it doesn't add to the gameplay at all. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've read the Manifesto, though I for one don't treat it as the sacred writ some seem to. It's fine as mission statement, no doubt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sacred writ? I would hazard a guess and say Steve and Charles, being two intelligent guys, wrote and posted that piece for fundamental reasons other than to grab attention or elicit a *cult* following. Then again one fellow insisted on referring to BTS as "High Priests" so who knows another's interpretations. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, though, it would appear that many of us believe that gameplay and graphics aren't two separate issues and/or that graphics are an integral or at least very important part of CM. Certainly, all things being equal, improved graphics would improve the game. I of course realize that BTS is a tiny indie developer with very little manpower, and they need to set realistic priorities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed, the graphics are there to serve the gameplay, CM wouldn't be the same game otherwise but what purpose does rotating wheels, or wheels that 'stick out', or better 'explosions', to use examples used here, serve other than to *look* good and provide a momentary thrill? No one has said the graphics should stay as they are, and BTS has said repeatedly they will advance the graphics. The question then is what graphics improvements BTS considers necessary to move CM forward. Are non-functional bells and whistles necessary? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Part of BTS's success, it would seem, stems from its willingness to listen to and serve its customer base. Well, part of that base is very much interested in graphics. The fact that thread after thread about the matter has arisen on this forum helps illustrate that. At the same time, I rather doubt anyone who plays CM is primarily or exclusively interested in the graphics of the game. Then again, if they are, that's their prerogrative, and there's no reason to dismiss their interests any more than dismissing the interests of someone arguing over the metallurgical properties a certain tank model's armor. And it's unfortunately clear that a vocal group, perhaps even a vocal minority, has often risen to stridently dismiss the interests of those seeking graphics improvements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would imagine BTS is designing wargames because that is where their passion lays, else they would be doing RTS or FPSs. I don't know what direction they plan on taking or what 'audience' they want to cater to, but you can't be all things to all people. A wargamer usually has a strong interest in history and at its heart a wargame, a niche product, is an intellectual challenge, not a visceral thrill or pretty picture. So with that in mind, what do you think is more applicable? The metallurgical properties of a certain tank model's armour or your TC flashing his brilliant pearly whites after scoring a kill? Ron

Probe: 1.35/1 Attack: 1.5/1 Assault: 1.75/1

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: Wo ho ho!! Go get 'em, Barleyman! Evidently, what WAS a tiny minority that could be safely ignored, is now a FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH, and becoming more and more vociferous with each passing day! I'm talking about the "we want the best graphics possible with our wargame, thank you" crowd, of course... Go get 'em!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well some of us could care less about the latest gee-whiz gimmicks, it's the gameplay that counts. Yes the graphics are tied to that but not to the extent bandied about here. I want the best possible graphics as well but not at the expense of substance, and that's what it really comes down to because BTS isn't a large team, their resources are limited. Time spent on bump maping, T&L, dynamic lighting etc. is probably time not spent on core gameplay issues. I'm not arrogant enough to claim I'm speaking for anyone other than myself, and perhaps a few other like-minded individuals, but reading the Battlefront Manifesto, BTS clearly sees the long-term importance of substance over the latest *cool* graphical features. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stacheldraht wrote: Those would improve the game experience for anyone with a decent machine (CM's graphics were dated when it came out, so by now, most players should hopefully be able to support something more, which in fairness, BTS has said they'll do, though all the details aren't clear), and also help sell the game. I know many people who saw the CM home page after I mentioned CM to them, or even tried the demo, and thought the graphics were pathetic, frankly. Now, it's too bad they're going to judge a book by its cover, but visuals have nearly always been important in games. Gamers, game developers, the gaming press, game publishers, and hardware manufacturers wouldn't all be so interested in them if that weren't the case. Admittedly, part of that is just about marketing hype and selling new hardware, but a lot of it is because while good graphics don't make the game, they can dramatically improve it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *CM's graphics were dated when it came out* - well they will be dated in the years to come but you can bet your bottom dollar I will still be playing it while you will have *moved* on. ...I will quote a few passages from the above link in case you weren't aware... Battlefront.com’s goal is to create and distribute serious, compelling, strategy and military history software in order to serve the needs of the thousands of wargamers who have nearly been abandoned by The Industry. Are you the sort of person who prefers reading Stephen Ambrose to John Grisham? Would you rather see Saving Private Ryan or Cross of Iron twice rather than Titanic even once? Do you find yourself glued to documentary programs on the History Channel while everyone else is watching Ally McBeal?... We can do this because we don’t have to to sell hundreds of thousands of units each and every 6 months just to stay in business. Therefore, we don’t have to produce games that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Battlefront.com is about enjoyable, intelligent gaming, not Hollywood budgets, hype, and mass-market insanity... We will only offer games and other products that wargamers want, not what some bean-counter at the local superstore thinks will sell the quickest. Substance over Hype. This is what Battlefront.com is all about. So long as you support us, we will be here for you.... Compelling thoughts no? Ron Edit: ooops [ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Ron ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barleyman: Why not HIRE some of the better modders? Good GFX people are hard to come by, you know. And textures are what every reviewer sees first.. How about CM scripting language like in FPS games? Someone with no life could create a TC of british football rabble vs french police =)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They did, he goes by the name of KwazyDog, you can see his work in the Maddog packs. Ron

Higher velocity guns will result in higher accuracy, other factors affecting accuracy are the size of the target, hulldown or not, crew experience, facing and whether the firer/target are moving/stationary to name a few. So yes on average the German guns will be more accurate, but many of the better German tanks are Large and are easily hit as well. The US 76mm is about on par with the German 75L/48, the US 75 is not. Optics are not modelled in CM. You can get this info from the details screen in-game and get a better feel for the relationships affecting accuracy. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: Ah, it's been a while since we had one of these charming threads where the CM faithful can gather and assure themselves that all is right in their little world where CM is king of the hill. For those who don't know, Mircosoft published the first three Close Combat games. SSI published the last two. For those who can't comprehend how someone could prefer CC over CM I offer the following points to ponder: CC has a better, more detailed infantry model which where the strength of the game lies. It appeals to those who appreciate the smaller tactical scale. The "real-time" engine gives a good feel of the flow of tactical combat which has its appeal to those who find a turn structure disjointed and not conducive to immersive gameplay.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol, what's stopping you or anyone else from playing CC or any other game you choose? It's ok, go ahead and play, no one's judging you! You are playing it aren't you? Or are you just wearing it on your sleeve? Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: "challenge" and "bloody nuisance" I agree. Keep it simple stupid is not just for combat orders, it is also for game design. .... I'd suggest something like this. When the added CC is used (by scenario, say), then a side is given a certain number of "command points" for use every trun. This is not a giant budget, but an integer, like "2" or "3". 1 command point equals one HQ able to operate normally that turn. An HQ is assigned a command point by clicking on it; all units under its command (red bars) are then able to receive new orders normally that turn. The orders can be anything, same as now, any length etc. Units under other HQs may still receive orders, but they are restricted as follows. They can chose #1 a *group move*, in which all units under the HQ move (no other speed allowed), on station with one another, in the direction selected for the HQ. If a group move is used, the command delay is normal. Or, they can choose #2 independent moves, in which case they get orders the same as now, not other changes. But the command delay times are *doubled*. Lose of the highest-level HQ on a side will permanently reduce that side's command points by 1. Panic or worse morale for that HQ, will reduce command points by 1 until it recovers to pinned or better. As for vehicles, it might be best to have them not be effected by any of this. Unless new vehicle platoons and vehicle platoon commanders are going to be standard in CM2, which I doubt. The main result would thus he a reduction in *flexibility*, for a side with few command points. All the units could be given whatever orders you please, but fast reactions to new developments would be limited to sub-units at a time. Units could maintain good coordination if they move together at a walking pace. Commanders are still able to order their units to do whatever they like, but HQs without command points to spend, giving more detailed orders, will have longer response times. I think this idea is in the spirit of Lewis' suggestion. And I think it is a way to do something along the lines he suggested without a big hit to playability, or telling the players what they can and can't do. In quick battles, command points might come with HQs, or more properly, higher level formations bought. They could vary with the unit type, side, nationality, and experience level. In some cases a side might have only 1 command point, and would need to cycle through his HQs over several minutes to coordinate a set of complicated moves, or tolerate greater command delays, etc. Comments welcome, from Lewis and others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is an elegant idea for command and control, I like it. I take it you have a boardgaming background? Just sounding off here but as a possible example: Conscript Coy : 0-1 CPs Green Coy : 0-2 CPs Regular Coy : 0-3 CPs Veteran Coy : 1-3 CPs Crack Coy : 2-3 CPs Elite Coy : 3 CPs You could have National Modifiers scale that up or down as well, even perhaps work in the HQ Command bonus somehow. It would take some testing but I really like it as a basis for simulating C&C. It is simple and unobtrusive, would affect play but not playability. ... Not singling you out MrSpkr but remember CM is a historical game first and foremost. Reading threads on unbalanced Attack/Assaults, or such and such unit is too powerful, or what constitutes "fair play" or balanced Ladder play so *I* can win makes me wonder where the "historical" part is or the importance it plays. A more developed C&C will make CM a better historical game period and if done well won't affect perceived complexity or playability. Ron

Wow, what a failure in communication and understanding... Esperanto anyone?

Well, you seem to have gotten as far as realizing the limitations of the TacAI in certain situations, which is pretty good overall IMO, so an obvious next step and solution, since humans are much more intelligent than the AI, is to simply avoid those circumstances where the TacAI falls apart. Not always possible you say? True, but those occurances will become rare enough that you won't be pulling your hair out or crying foul at the dumb AI when they do happen. I'm not a programmer, but from what BTS has said the AI requires a lot of work for minimal gain. BTS has tried to address and tweak TacAI behaviour in the patches, but it doesn't always make everyone happy all the time, witness the hull rotation changes. I am sure BTS will continue to improve the TacAI behaviour but in the end I realize it will never be perfect all the time so I am content to compensate for it in my play when it isn't. In your particular example, which has seemed to vex so many people, a solution is to narrow the Tiger's focus so it will only have targets 'in front' of it, which means taking things slowly and not rushing into the fray. Hope that helps... Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: My record is 3 loses, 1 draw, 52 wins. All 3 loses are threw bad luck... (luck plays quite a role in these samll 1500 point battles). Ive yet to see a player any where near my skill level. NEVER have I been out played. Yeah Yeah... Im an arogant son of a bitch... true... but Im a damn good player.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 56 games and you think you're hot stuff?! Geez, kids these days Come back when you have 300 games under your belt and perhaps we can talk Ron

Oh No! The Great Graphics Debate, err Manifesto, Part XXX! Encapsulated into ... We the Gamers, being of sound mind and sound body, demand the whole cake and nothing but the cake, along with the icing; to be eaten whenever we want, as often as we want. In addition, we reject anything leading to the loss of our svelte shapes. Our creed will be 'Tastes great and less filling!'. Firmly TIC... Ron