Joachim
-
Posts
1,548 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Joachim
-
-
Wide maps are a problem for ops vs the AI. It can't defend well on them. The AI needs flags. But for H2H, wide ops maps should be better for certain mission types.
But only if you have long battles (30+ or more) - otherwise you loose the info about weak points in the defense too often. This leads to gigantic ops which I probably never will finish H2H... at least not in the next 2 years.
Edited to add that this means I'd prefer them for single battles.
Gruß
Joachim
-
If the CD is directly from BFC (as opposed to via a distributor like CDV for Europe), contact them via email and ask for a replacement. Rumor has it that they ask you to send in the broken disc and you'll get a new one.
Gruß
Joachim
-
I like wider ones. More space to maneuver. More flank shots.
Gruß
Joachim
-
There is that idea of random scens or random reinforcement scens. The basic idea is to create a scen and have several reinforcement slots at low percentages for the AI. This way you can set up a scen but still don't know when and what the AI has.
You can buy your own troops in a scen, save it and then load the map as a QB. CM asks whether you want to import the troops. You are allowed to buy more troops for the QB, but you don't need to. Your troops fromt he editor should show up in the unit list and you can delete them - but not get the same ones back.
If there are setup zones in the cen, the QB will use them, else it will place them as appropriate for the map size and mission type. Same with (static) flags.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Better HMGs.
Better LMGs.
Worse mortars (less ammo).
Better squad AT capability.
German squads seem to loose their SMGs quicker - especially if there is only one per squad.
The Soviets suffer from having the command delay of one experience level down until '43 or sumfink.
German squads should be better at 100-150m while the Soviets want a fight at 40-60m. Really close the hand grenades even it out. Satchel charges are more common with German squads (if the Soviets have them at all) so the Germans should have a bonus here.
Gruß
Joachim
-
"These are four of fellow Der Kessel designer Cory Runyan's scenarios. If you have any of his published scenarios, please send them to me for hosting."
And "South of Kharkov" is no longer "huge". It is just 60+ turns... IMHO this kills it. I want the 120 turns back. The long approach march takes lots of time and now the player is forced to rush his troops. I'd at least add a black setup zone for the first wave.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Borg spotting is the biggest problem. There is no borg spotting during a turn. So micromanaging firing orders through covered arcs does not help against this.
Your rules usually improve performance of the TacAI and a good player will use many of them. So many aren't restrictions.
TacAI usually picks the best targets for inf anyway.
Many other rules IMHO have no significant effect
What I don't like:
- Area fire by MGs is a standard procedure for me. I see no "reality" problem with this. Either by Inf MG or vehicle MGs. Sometimes "recce by fire", sometimes just suppression on suspicious areas or vanished icons.
- Double clicking on units saves remembering all those specs - or just have it printed out on your desk.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Bogging is more likely on low ground. So avoid valleys if you want to reduce bogging.
Warning: Incoming might be a problem when travelling on high ground.
Gruß
Joachim
-
A very good dedicated AI with a mixed strategy and lots of computational power might actually do the trick. After all CM is just a more complex form of chess with FOW added. It is possible to have an AI that offers a challenge - but my guess is you need a supercomputer for that.
Some tricks I play to get a challenge out of the AI:
AI Attack/ME:
Amount of turns depends on the size (depth!) of the map and the amount of flags. Long battles ensure the AI has lots of time to attack ...slowly, as usual.
Few flags that are close together so the AI knows where to go or the flags are on the Axis of attack. The flags should not be in the best defensive ground ("valuable ground has VLs") but on a route where a human attacker would attack because it is the best route considering the terrain. Of course there is the risk of scripting the battle for the AI.
In a ME: AI can reach all flags quicker than the human player to offset "grab all flags problem".
Lots of bonusses for the AI to make up for its stupidity wasting units.
Reduced ammo for the human player.
Invincible units for the AI (KV in '41, Big Cats)
Dynamic flags.
AI Defense:
Lots of cheap units to wear out the human attacker.
Flags deep inside AI zone. Flags spread so the attacker can't reach them one after the other.
Defensive units that don't move. Some of them with AP capability
"Deep" and wide maps where the human attacker has to guard his flanks. The map size doesn't just depend on the amount of troops on them but on the effective range of them.
Gruß
Joachim
-
IMHO the AI doesn't go after flags. It goes after your Pixeltruppen. The flags are just a hint for the AI where it should look for the enemy.
Standard procedure (there are only a few exceptions in my memory):
The AI goes for the nearest flag (initially based on its own friendly edge). It captures this flag, then decides for the next - usually again the nearest. The AI usually abandons the first flag leaving but a few stragglers.
The AI tactics are worst if you hide your own units. The flags are just there to help the AI find you - it expects you to defend the flags. So if the AI can't find you, it goes for the flags.
It can happen that the AI sets up on the left and goes for a flag on the right wasting lots of turns for lateral movement. Flags in the AS setup zone can irritate the AI - it sets up somewhere else, then goes for the flag it already owns.
Two-pronged attacks happen if you trick the AI in using different columns - each column one reinforcement slot. Make sure there are flags to act as waypoints.
Another of my favourites is dynamic flags - it helps the AI as it has only one target.
I fear CMBB battles with flags set in the center of the quadrants will severely weaken the AI... OTOH... if in each battle each side initially controls 2 flags the AI hasn't too many objectives and might act somewhat "intelligent" - except for abandoning his flags. The AI needs some slow movers to guard it's rear flags.
CMC needs some good rules about winning battles and holding ground to get the AI to do something intelligent.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Hi JoachimOriginally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:
Given that even one of Andreas scens was classed as "Nazi fanboy" proves to me that the guidelines for deciding whether a scen is a "Nazi fanboy scen" are broken.
While I don't disagree with your point, Jason did not actually accuse me or the authors of the other scenarios of that.
At least that is how I read his preface (which I discovered on second reading of his post - it was disguised by excessive verbiageOriginally posted by JasonC:I'll comment on a couple of other scenarios. (Note, all this is spoiler stuff). These are not the worst, they are the first in my directory. The problems they have are not all caused by the cause above, let alone by actual pro German sympathy, let alone by such sympathy motivated by active support for Nazi politics.
).All the best
Andreas </font>
-
That freedom thing means you have to think about the others values. You don't judge him with your fixed standards. You have to find out what he wants. Then you either meet somewhere in the middle - or you have to resort to violence (in absence of an unbiased court that rules the thing). Forcing you to think also means weighing your loss if you let the other invade your sphere to the gains and losses of both parties if you won't give up your freedom.Originally posted by JasonC:As for your understanding of freedom, if you think that way then you are morally obligated to treat others so, according them a sphere of personal freedom into which you do not encroach.
They aren't morally obligated to treat you that way, however. Not as reciprocity, not due to your transcendent wisdom or any legislative authority you have over them, since you don't have any. They are the judges of how they ought to treat you.
If the other crosses a threshold that is widely accepted in both cultures - the resulting war is usually considered as "just" by "related" cultures.
If cultures are different, it is much more complicated. But it helps to declare one side as subhuman, animal, barbarian or whatever to ensure you are the one setting the standards from moral higher ground.
@Billy:
Sorry for hijacking your thread. Welcome aboard.
I partly blame the uproar here on the title of your threat. Calling somebody a Nazi is probably the worst thing you can do over here. Given that even one of Andreas scens was classed as "Nazi fanboy" proves to me that the guidelines for deciding whether a scen is a "Nazi fanboy scen" are broken. Cause if a scen author made a Nazi fanboy scen, he is a Nazi fanboy - or a Nazi. Trying to apply the rules automatically leads to personal attacks.
Maybe you could try with a different threat title. More like "Scens that appear absolutely unbalanced in favor of the Axis".
Gruß
Joachim
-
I can imagine that. Europeans would have enjoyed welcoming the Indians in Europe, turning the Europeans into hunter gatherers. Scores of Europeans perish? Nevermind. A few of them will survive and the remnants are alowed to live with the Indians. Some of them inside their tribes, melting together, others forming their own tribes.Originally posted by JasonC:Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Or a bit more drastic: If I'd like to get f***ed by somebody I f*** her.
Yes, sure. That's why all cultures coexist in perfect harmony.Not a mystery. Morality is real, objective, accessible to all men at all times, and so well known it is utterly commonplace.
I prefer "Freedom ends where the freedom of somebody else starts." over "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
The trouble with my line is that it is hard to decide where the borderline is. Your line completely lacks the opinion of the other guy on the matter and draws the borderline in your favor.
-
Yet they did! Because for the settlers as a whole, acting like the Borg, it might have been enough to conquer the west in tidal waves. Just moving thru the Indians. But individual settlers wanted to be there first - to get he biggest and best chunk of the land. And it was neccessary for them to incite violence to speed up things - before all the other "settlers" were on the same starting line when the land rush was opened. Your land was much more valuable when the Indians were far away. The "felt" security was bigger when the Indians were far away. So support the call for the cavalry if there is a reason. Look away if somebody "creates" that reason.Originally posted by JasonC:The settlers did not need to take the initiative in wrongdoing or violence.
You might argue about settlers needing land to produce grain as they need to support a population. But if you have a few tons more gold is not that important for the mere survival of a society. It is important for the wealth of a society. If you have only half the gold - double the value and the currency system will still be intact. So no justification to conquer the Black hills. Yet the gold diggers entered. None of them waited a few years till the Indians might be assimilated. The gold diggers carried weapons.
-
Here is yours:
You define immoral. You judge about immoral. Who gives you the right to define? Who gives you the right to judge? Do you simply accept what your culture tells you? Or are you any form of god?Originally posted by JasonC:Anyone who simply accepts whatever his culture tells him is right, as right, is an immoral human being.
Anyone who accepts on any authority, actions like those of the Nazis, is an immoral human being. Whether he performs them or excuses them.
And immoral human beings are inferior to moral ones. Moral behavior is choiceworthy, morals are a principle of preference and rejection. Morals cannot govern men's conduct if they do not accept some behaviors and reject others. And instead trying to reject morality or condemnation, does not make all equal. It simply excuses the concrete injustices of Nazis et al.
-
Agree on the Germans, disagree about Indian nations. Many of them are gone. They are not all the same. And it's not that genocide starts when you get them all.Originally posted by JasonC:Did they exterminate the Germans? Nope, still there. Did they exterminate the natives? Nope, still here.
Nope. No need to find out if the Natives deserved it. It's pretty clear to me they did not.Beat both, exterminated neither. Somewhere Joachim is reaching for the argument that the Nazis deserved it but the natives didn't, but he hasn't found it yet.
Yes, definitely no interest in guard duty in Siberia.That the citizens of Germany are better off with the Nazi regime destroy, I trust he understands only too well.
Why he can't even entertain the parallel proposition about the natives is a mystery.
Perhaps because the Germans were mostly left a pure race in charge of their country, while the much less numerous natives were assimilated into a democracy a hundred times their size. And horror of horrors, people of a different race are actually allowed to live right next to them! Shudder.
or 
Jason, you know nothing about here...pure race? Bwahahahaha. "Different race actually allowed to live right next to them?" ROFL. Ever been to Berlin? Frankfurt? Ruhr area? Some projections state that Germans will become a minority in Germany in 2060. And the assumptions of those calculations are just "nothing changes".
The natives were assimilated after being decimated, herded in prison camps until the democracy around them was large enough - so the minority would not be a danger. Using some Indians to guard other Indians was a nice tactic, too. Asylum seekers over here have better housing than available in reservations
Read the following from wikipedia again: "The Trail of Tears resulted from the enforcement of the Treaty of New Echota, an agreement signed under the provisions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which exchanged Native American land in the East for lands west of the Mississippi River, but was never accepted by the elected tribal leadership Chief John Ross, or majority of the Cherokee people."... "The Treaty of New Echota was signed by a small faction of prominent Cherokees, Major Ridge, Elias Boudinot (Buck Watie), and Stan Watie, and their followers willingly left Georgia for Oklahoma Prior to the forced removal. The signing of the Treaty entailed accepting payment from the government for their land in Georgia and relocating to Oklahoma."
a) the Cherokee democratically elected leaders (what? this "inferior society" could vote? these "lawless natives" had laws and rules???)
the US first decides on an "Indian Removal Act". Then they give money to a small part of the Indians and sign a treaty with them regarding land. Democratic authorization of the signature? Well... Those making profits wanted the deal. And the President supporting them was elected... and that President had a large army. Surround all Indians. Take weapons away from those opposing the deal. Leave Indians alone. Don't care about that signature. Just ensure there is no court available to check it. Please tell me which society was superior here and why.Scratch on the surface and you see it ain't black and white.
PS: Don't blame it on me if you can't find irony in some of the questions above.
[ April 13, 2006, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
I was hoping some one was going to bring this up. You see the Indians did the same thing. The Indians “invaded” the North American continent as well. They used the Bering Strait to come to North American from Asia. So really the whole invasion thing is a bad point for you to bring up. Peoples move, whether it is the Indians from Asia or whites from Europe. </font>Originally posted by zmoney:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:
And the whole thing started with an invasions across the sea.
-
Oh - it's just that. That's why I asked for the sentence and the context. Please get sober and read the context again. It is on page 3. My statement is that zmoney uses phrases the Nazis could use to defend themselves and now you try to turn them against me. Nice try.Originally posted by JasonC:Joachim - oh yes, you do. You have repeatedly argued that the only reason the Nazis are condemned in they lost, the hypocrisy of victors. Which is nonsense start to finish and you know it is.
Originally posted by Joachim:
Please cite the relevant sentence and the context.
Originally posted by JasonC:
Joachim - sure, you said
What would you say if the Nazis won? Would you support them? What would be your best come back? Doing as the winners do?c) Vae victis. But you can't really win if you act that way - except if you exterminate or oppress the losers. Removing any history written from their point of view helps, too.
Much easier now as they didn't win.
this would be a nice statement a Nazi could use if the Nazis had won
And I joke about your "Nazis p*** off" statement. It is easy to be brave from a distance.
[ April 13, 2006, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
From wikipedia: "The Trail of Tears resulted from the enforcement of the Treaty of New Echota, an agreement signed under the provisions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which exchanged Native American land in the East for lands west of the Mississippi River, but was never accepted by the elected tribal leadership Chief John Ross, or majority of the Cherokee people. "Originally posted by JasonC:Joachim - no problem. Read "Trail of tears". You will find the wars in Florida before the displacement were all occasioned by local hotheads who personally decided they would go on the warpath, defying their chiefs and their past treaties with the settlers. If you read any detailed history of the cause of any indian war, you will find the same. The young braves simply do what they please, and what they please, like as not, is a raid.
From amazon.com:
"Editorial Reviews From Library Journal:
One of the many ironies of U.S. government policy toward Indians in the early 1800s is that it persisted in removing to the West those who had most successfully adapted to European values. As whites encroached on Cherokee land, many Native leaders responded by educating their children, learning English, and developing plantations. Such a leader was Ridge, who had fought with Andrew Jackson against the British. As he and other Cherokee leaders grappled with the issue of moving, the land-hungry Georgia legislatiors, with the aid of Jackson, succeeded in ousting the Cherokee from their land, forcing them to make the arduous journey West on the infamous "Trail of Tears." Popular history for public libraries. Mary B. Davis, Museum of American Indian Lib., New York
Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc. "
Seems more like somebody was looking for excuses to relocate the Cherokee.
Are gold diggers waging war on the Indians in the Black Hills a reason for the Indians going to war? This is what I read about those times. And it were American authors. If I look at those wars, there might have been Indian young braves wanting to raid - stealing horses was a sport for them. But there where definitely reasons for the settlers wanting the war, too. And of course looking for excuses. It is easier to call the cavalry when you blame the Indians for starting the war. There were wars started by Indians - but not 99%. 50% sounds more reasonable. And the whole thing started with an invasions across the sea.
-
Do the alleged injustices of some terrorists justify a cruise missile on a village somewhere in Asia?Originally posted by JasonC:Joachim on relative and absolute guilt - the objective evil of the Nazis fully justified brutal war against them to destroy so evil a state. Do the alleged injustices of the US justify present murderers waging war against the US? I presume no. So what exactly is the equivalence, again?
There isn't any.
If you hit only terrorists and no innocents standing by that know nothing about world politics - IMHO yes.
If you hit terrorists and innocents - tough decision.
If you did a crappy job, hit only innocents and did not care about that when you sent the missile on the mere rumor of a terrorist being there you are a terrorist yourself. No difference. Both sides believe there morale is superior to the other side and justifies their deeds.
-
Please cite the relevant sentence and the context.Originally posted by JasonC:Joachim - oh yes, you do. You have repeatedly argued that the only reason the Nazis are condemned in they lost, the hypocrisy of victors. Which is nonsense start to finish and you know it is.
-
a) Please tell me an example of one Indian nations/societies whatever that qualifies for your statement above.Originally posted by JasonC:Yes a society without a state or law, in which any angry man can murder anyone he likes with the active assistance of others is morally inferior.
Please prove that the majority of the Indian nations/societies whatever qualify for your statement above.Joachim
-
Much easier now as they didn't win.Originally posted by JasonC:What would you say if the Nazis won?
What I already say - Nazi Punks, **** Off.
Try to read what those arguing against you write. I can't find anybody stating that in this thread.The only thing wrong with the Nazis is they lost, is an argument in favor of Nazism and against all morality. And it is not the argument I am making, it is the argument being made by those arguing against me.
What I do find is this:
IMO this would be a nice statement a Nazi could use if the Nazis had won - or for a Nazi committing crimes in occupied territories (or vs the Jews).My point is; war is war and the weaker side loses. Jason and myself are just telling facts and if your best come back is to say that we are racist then you are foolish. (zmoney)
Nonsense. Condemnation of a nation does not excuse deeds done by another nation. The "relative" guilt might change, but the "absolute" guilt stays the same. IMO it is the absolute guilt that counts. Thus no condemnation of anybody will excuse the Nazis. The existence of another villain does not excuse being a villain.People who see no moral difference but only a difference in relative success, between the US and the Nazis, do not thereby condemn the US. They thereby excuse the Nazis.
If you are targetting me with the sentence above: I see a moral difference between the US during WW2 and the Nazis during WW2. I am not so sure this moral difference exists between _all_ citizens of the US and the Nazis. Read: There do exist US citizens that are as disgusting/morally corrupted (... insert whatever you wish here) as the Nazis were. Same holds for most nations, any time.
Trying to make yourself a victim? Hey, you were on the winning side in the wars mentioned in this thread. Don't try to evade into war on terrorism, Islamism or anything - you are no more on the target set in this war than me.There is a moral difference, and they refuse to acknowledge it, because there are men in the modern world who will do anything and say anything rather than admit there are real moral differences.
If the problem with the Nazis is that they were Americans, then war to the death against Americans is the duty of every human being. Anyone care to stand up for that proposition? Cause we always want new additions to the target set.
Joachim
-
Kill everybody inside first.
If you can't achieve this - make sure nobody gets at you while you are without cover and enter with attacker odds but spread out far enough. Pinning could work. Closely following a massive barrage might work.
If you can't achieve either of these - be ready for massive losses
A third variant is bypassing the factory, encircling it and then starving the defenders. Leningrad tactics vs. Stalingrad tactics.
Gruß
Joachim
the US first decides on an "Indian Removal Act". Then they give money to a small part of the Indians and sign a treaty with them regarding land. Democratic authorization of the signature? Well... Those making profits wanted the deal. And the President supporting them was elected... and that President had a large army. Surround all Indians. Take weapons away from those opposing the deal. Leave Indians alone. Don't care about that signature. Just ensure there is no court available to check it. Please tell me which society was superior here and why.
Failure to Fire
in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks
Posted
It's even better to target a 150mm sIG on the 2nd story of a house (no LOS to ground level as planned) when there are trenches around the building. Would have been better if the gun survived a little bit longer.
on topic:
If the target is just az the edge of LOS and a little bit of dirt or smoke is kicked up early in the turn blocking LOS then the tank won't shoot as
Gruß
Joachim