Joachim

a) Give the AI a bonus. Experiment with the division type and force mix for the AI: Point allocation is based on force type (inf, mech, CA, armor, PA) AND division type (inf, mech, sec, guards, para, ...). Maybe a foot infantry type division (ie not mech) for an armor battle generates less vehicle points but about the same armor as a CA-battle for a mech division. Gruß Joachim

Don't you think that most replayers didn't make it in the 1st attempt and need a bit more help to finish the battle in the 2nd ? You're certainly right if the battle is played human vs. human. </font>

A general idea might be to set up the maps for a given path of random variables. The problem with that is that the random parameters are affected by the outcome of battles (e.g. decimated, victory level for immediate/counter attacks). But it would be possible to create custom battles for a specific month. Instead of rolling the dice for the first battle in February '42, there would be a scenario "42-02-A" with a given set of parameters, and you would take them instead of rolling your own. Thus it would use a given AI (and support) force. Now a few thoughts (unsorted, just as they appear in my head), conclusions below. Problems: a) if you set up your core in the editor, you could peek at the setup Solution: You can surrender and peek at the setup as well. Nobody complains if you cheat vs the AI. It is up to you. If the AI is set up, how do you manage 0 more buy points for it? Solution: 1) Either give a huge negative bonus and get very few points for the AI, or 2) set up the support force as well (ie no need for the auto-generated battle to select the support troops) and play it as a scenario, where the player has to buy his core+attached units, not using preview (cf a)) c) If the player does not want to fiddle with the editor, using an axis +200% bonus should enable the player to buy a 1000 points core at 333 "provisional" points for the AI. There should be two versions of the scenario. One omitting these buy points, one with them. d) This leads to another problem : setup is not fixed when importing forces in a qb. Always computer setup.... e) You need several versions to play with different player levels. But adding or ommiting a few forces is not such a big problem... Conclusion: a) It is only possible to fix the AI setup if the player uses the editor to buy his force. I guess many people already do this. Anybody who is able to understand BCR will surely be able to learn to use the editor! ToDo 1) Rules needed for appearance of tanks for pre-battle casualties (I use a ten-sided die. If the Casualty parameter is 20%, a 1 or 2 will see the tank/gun off map.) ToDo 2) Small Step-By-Step Intro on how to use the editor to buy exactly the core force for the beginners. The player has to customize his core force for each battle (ammo level...) Exactly what I already do - and I guess many people, too. If you choose not to customize and rather buy a "random" (HQ bonus, names, ...) core force, selection is not that different from qb to scen editor. Except for the ammo level -can't set this in the editor. ToDo 3: check if there is some kind of scripting (ala mapping mission) to record and replay your buying sequence) ToDo 4) The only real problem: Setting up those battles! Hmmm.... this could work.... albeit a lot of work. Maybe a good proving ground for some aspiring scenario designers wanting to try a few "fictionial" scenarios to increase their feel for scenario making. Kind of apprenticeship... with lots of playtesters. An enhancement of the "map packs" ala Kiev. The longer I think about it, the more i like it. Gruß Joachim

IIRC no. You even have less morale afterwards, which might lead to an earlier auto-ending. Gruß Joachim

The British "outpost" line in Waterloo consisted of 4 farms. Given the usual size of these farms in Western Europe, I'd guess a size of 40*40m max. Defended by 1, maybe even 2 companies of infantry. Now what would you do with a cluster of 4 heavy buldings (maybe a factory) containing a company or two in CM? My favourite options: 1.) sIG 15cm (biggest bang for the buck). Factories in rubble for about 60 points - and you will have half of the ammo left. 2.) (I)SU 152, Brummbär, ...anything with a gun of at least 15cm. Keyholing, nothing can stop you. Still a good buy! 3.) Sturmtiger - not cost efficient, but... Louie, where is that Waterloo map??? 4.) Any (non-rocket) FO from 20cm upwards... anybody ever witnessed the impact of 24cm on a factory? Hint: Direct hit not necessary. Gruß Joachim

If you can read the victory percentage fields and there are "unknown" flags, you can guestimate the losses of the enemy. Just calculate the worth of the unknown flags in percent (those percent missing to 100 percent). Now calculate the value of the flags you hold (or think you hold) in percent. What is left on your account is either the percentage of his force lost by the enemy, or its value in victory points in the AAR. (Where the latter is a guestimate for the former...) Have to test this further. How reinforcements affect it, and if you can use it to determine if somebody got reinforcements. If I really get this much info...it would be a gamey exploit. BFC fix it or somfink! Gruß Joachim

Yes, but that is the bombardment on the Soviets, not on Gen. Winter! Gruß Joachim

Great. Alway knowing what's up against you, the big bonus for the AI forces. Nope, I guess that 3 valentines and 10 T34M42 vs my 4 PzIIIj+1 StuG and 5 Italian "tanks" game vs a human would have been over immediately. Maybe somebody should adapt the rules for a 2-pl campaign... Gruß Joachim

I playtested a huge operation (Fridericus, 5km*3km or so) once, and the first thing I did myself was to add 500 yard lines as landmarks on the map edge. Any desinger can do this, any player can do this. A look at the map in the editor (without a look at the preview) is not gamey ...not that I really needed them during battles - with battles at 40+ turns, lots of forces and a broad map, I could usually have some exploiting force reach the map end. But for planning my advance, they were invaluable. Reminds me that I should finally play the final version... Let's see... where can I find some time... Gruß Joachim

Bad luck Wasn't the casualties and ammo settings fixed for the battle? I never calculated what I had total, but those 700 arty came in handy. IIRC inf was spent on a few MGs and 2 20mm FlaK (me gamey bastard) - maneuver element is plentiful. Tanks were a IIIj and two IIc (~200 pts), vehicles were 2 252/1 and 2 A/Cs, so again about 200. That looks like 1300 pts total vs your 480. Better spend lots of favor on a +3 modifier for each component. That would even up some things. I was pretty glad with what I bought, and in the end I had lots of armor and infantry left, but would have needed some more arty, HTs and MGs. During the shuttle phase, however, I needed every AFV I had. From hindsight I can tell you that those 40 favor you pay will not matter afterwards And yet I considered not to cross the bridges - the score in my long range firefight was high, as I exchanged lots of guns and bunkers for an AC zipping across the riverside drive. IIRC I had achieved a draw at that time. Gruß Joachim

The former may be an overkill, as Russian reactive arty is not expected by most players. For a fortified area as Savastopol, it is ok. Yes, would be great. But I'd prefer to have it with some randomness. Replayability suffers without. Gruß Joachim

Three T34 M1942 (out of 9 T34 total) bogged and got immobilized on rocks or a hill in a recent wet QB scenario (2/42). None of my 5 Italian tanks or 4 PzIIIj (short) bogged. v1.03 Gruß Joachim

Could you give some detail about your exact force and calculations? Maybe you have something wrong... Forgot the scenario-specific attachments: IIRC, your core should be about 650 points (plus attached units), the StuG plts should be another 500- and the pioneers at about 500+, the sIGs about 100-, the 4 or 5 81mm Fos another 400 odd(before casualties). I can't see how you only get 1761 as provisional force size if the scenario specific attachments are worth about 1500 pts alone. Plus those things you roll up. Really tough if you only get 1700+ points. I rolled 700 arty That really saved the stormy day. Some tips: I wouldn't go into this battle with to little forces. And remember you don't have to take every flag - crossing one bridge, killing enough and maybe a 2nd flag will win you that battle. So don't rush! Make damn sure nothing big can hit you while your infantry is on the bridges, and don't go with infantry first - it will die. Probe with armor, lure his assets out by showing small portions of your force and hope he opens up. Units keyholing on the bridge usually can only be eliminated from the bridge. Do this, or smoke them off. Pray no wreck blocks the bridge, though a single non-moving wreck should be no problem if you set up a waypoint close to it. Then keyhole on single targets. Only after you killed anything big firing on your armor when on the bridge, load up your StuGs and any HT available with grunts, shell your intended bridgehead and any island near the bridges and race across the bridge. Pray no grunts will disembark on it, as they will block traffic. Avoid traffic jams, plan accordingly: The convoy starts well before the bridge, and it should not have to turn to enter the bridge - there will be a traffic jam (read: target!) at that turn or the convoy will be too strung out. Just before your convoy arrives, the arty should have stopped shelling and your tanks (not Stugs!) should eliminate any survivors on you intended beachhead. Consider some smoke for your drop zone. Once there, expand your bridgehead, but use the StuGs as transport for more infantry. Yes, riding grunts are targets - but they are fast targets, and they don't jump from StuGs at full speed. A cowering squad on the bridge is a major traffic hindrance! Some tips from the Feldjäger department: You have at least 3 Coy HQs. One at your jump-off point if you can't send a complete plt with the transport, one close to the bridge with the biggest command and morale bonus just in case any grunts panic there and block it. One on the beachhead - if any plt HQ did not make it or if the plt advanced and stragglers follow later. Shuttle Service will work better if you can use two separate bridges, one for each direction. Only the first wave might use both in one way. If one is blocked by wrecks, this is the one for the empty shuttles. Read: October bridge is promising... Some more tips: If you ave enough smoke, you might try to move your grunts across in full smoke, ignoring the shullte service. I had strong winds, smoke lasts 30secs. If the enemy ammo slevel is low, it won't fire with MGs or inf on distant tagets. You can try to let enemy guns run out of ammo... Gruß Joachim [ June 30, 2003, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]

For preplanned fire, you don't need LOS - and I bet the AI used all he had on a preplanned mission. There are rumours about a gamey trick setting up a lone but clearly visible target somewhere as bait for the AI to waist all its arty ammo on preplanned arty strikes. Sometimes that AC or PzII dies. Sometimes it is fast enough to run away. Setting up on a road leading to a reverse slope is just fine. That's why I hate scenarios without a covered jump-off point (vs human you need more than one of those or an agreement re turn 1 arty). Gruß Joachim

Besides optimizing inside CM (trees, fog, no mods!), optimize Windows. Don't run any background tasks, stop everything that is in the Autostart-Folder (Realplayer, PlugIns, ...). If anything you turn off says "Hey, I'm gonna run slower after you turned me off" - turn it off, as everything else will probably run slower while it runs faster. My system is P3-400 with 256 MB DDR and some lowly GeForce 16MD Graphics card (the one that does not support VESA and blocks playing SP ) To the Volga runs fine - vs AI. TCP/IP may be a different thing. Gruß Joachim

I doubt that he was the first . Alexander the Great and the Spartans come to my mind... Gruß Joachim

My conclusion on this is, as we've both pointed out, there is a considerable argument as to wether Napoleon was good or bad, we can argue in circles all week. There is no such argument about Hitler. Even in two hundred years time he will still be regarded as a monster of history, other than neo-nazis nobody will defend him. There are still may historians and knowledgeable people who will defend Napoleon's place in history. This is why a comparison between the two men ultimately falls flat. </font>

The problem is not the mod. Just define what is appropriate. Those Hollywood-invented accents are appropriate? Who speaks those accents? Hollywood actors, not Russians or Germans. If you want CM to be the simulation of a 2nd rate war movie, then go ahead, use such a mod. But make sure that any mission where Germans guard some bridge is not winnable for them! A mod doing this helps spread the idea that all foreigners speak Englisch, yet with some strong accent. I do not think that this idea actually helps the US while they try to get more popular in the world - even with the help of some ad agencies. Most people in the world would like to have the US people learn something about them. Even if it is just that they do not speak English in some strange accents. Gruß Joachim

Napoleon's career started in the royal army, and got a boost in the revolutionary army of France, which were both expansionst. Now you tell me the neighborhood in which you grow up does not affect you? The man Napoleon does not start as Emperor of France, there is a history for his person. This history is intertwined with the society around him. Hitler was not repsonsible for WWI - but WWI was responsible for Hitler and his career and as such influenced him and the people who followed him. Well, the breaking of a treaty by trading is really a good reason for war (1812). Is it legal to attack any country which delivered things to Iraq? After all they broke an international agreement. Today this is a very doubtful position. And I doubt the US (or UN) is going to attack France or Russia. Moral values of today see Napoleon as aggresive dictator (who mostly fought other aggressive dictators, but that's another question) Ok, let's judge by moral values of the past: The easy approach on the "napoleonic wars" in general: France had slain its king and wanted to spread its revolutionary ideas. Clearly a reason for war. Attacker = France, as it committed the first "hostile acts" (just revolting, killing king) and had (small) troops cross borders. The easy alternative Attacker = the allies as the big battles were fought inside France. Subsequent wars are guilt of the first attacker, until the matter is finaly settled. An approach regarding only 1804ff: Which hostile acts were committed by Austria and Russia besides forming that alliance (including Sweden and Britain)? Until then, France had considerably expanded its territory. It had a really huge army with huge potential. Would it stop? When in doubt, search for allies! If just forming an alliance is an excuse for war - well, great. Just consider how many wars were justified then. If the allies wanted to attack: Why not inform the king of Prussia, increase the pressure on him and try to get him as an ally ASAP instead of using him as an envoy? Another 50000 men could have changed the outcome of Austerlitz. Conclusion: To me, any action taken by the Allies in 1804ff is a result to the huge threat of Napoleon and his aggressive actions. Any action taken by the allies from 1789 to 1803 is a reaction to the French revolution, which was a threat to them (Expansionist speeches of revolutionaries, killing of nobility). But as stated earier, this really is like the hen and the egg. Did the allied dictators become aggressive because the French dictator (and his predecessors as rulers of France) were aggresive, or vice cersa? Judging who of these rulers was better is a tough question. It is clear that none of them is "good" or "just" in todays standards and they easily qualify as dictators. Gruß Joachim

1870? Who declared the war? Who was the first to start the mobilization of the army? And who "visited" the other country first, though not for very long? Napoleon III., emperor of France. All Bismarck did was to report about an incident between the French ambassodor and Kaiser Willi I. in a way that seemed to insult Napoleon III. (grand-nephew of the former). IMHO not more insulting than what the French ambassador did. There are lots of books. But the problem is the bias mentioned. As it may be a systematic bias, reading more books does not help. Especially as too many historians I know tell me that it happens that somebody claims something that seems logical, others cite him, theories (and careesrs) are built on that, then it is accepted as common knowledge and it is really tough to prove that something is wrong at that stage - even with good evidence. For an admirer of Napoleon these books would be excellent, I guess . But there are some deeds from intelectuals... Firedrich Schiller turned from pro-Nappy to Anti-Nappy. Beethoven renamed one of his symphonies (Eroica IIRC) that was at first devoted to Napoleon. Then something happened to change his mind. A defender of France and a demcorat turning into a ruthless aggressive dictator after his power was established? Seems the contemporaries did not like him so much as you think. Last clarification: I hate French politicians, and emperors are counted as that. I do not hate the French people. Very last clarification: I hate most politicians Gruß Joachim

Seeing US movies where Germans (or Russians or anybody else) speak with some "accent" usually makes me laugh and cry at the same time. That foreign accent is a pure Hollywood idea to a) imediately tell the viewer (err... listener) which country that guys come from. As such, it is a clever idea. It is however, an insult to the intelectual abilities of the other country - hey, they can't even speak properly. c) the audiencc believes it - which in turn shows how interested in world affairs the audience really is and how much it knows of the real world. And I am desparately trying not to use the words "ignorant" and "dumb" - but that's exactly how most people (say those 5.4 out of 6 billions all over the world that don't speak English as their mother tongue) see the US audience regarding this. Especially as US foreign policy seems to be just the same. A better idea: Learn Russian or German, then you might be able to understand what they curse. Andreas reply is shorter, but that may be the only way not to start a flame war on this topic. Gruß Joachim

You are no French politician, so I trust in that. Lots of ruins (Heidelberg castle,...) and lots of palace gardens without a castle (Zweibrücken...) in the Palatinate can't err on 17-19C French expansion plans. No lib necessary. Just some maps. It is tougher to fake them. Thanks I'd prefer another weekend in "der Heimat". Compared with evidence, literature is secondary. Read some books. From several perspectives. And I find too many books just look at some facts, but don't ask "why". Historians should attend courses for policemen. But after a few books, you can start making up a picture. BTW, contemporary GE books usually don't blame the French too much. Too many of the authors seem to believe in French politicians. Never read a line like "Weil der Franzmann der Dr... das Rheinland besetzt hat" (cause the Frenchmen, that ... has occupied the Rhineland) in a book (This is not a line I would support as of now -> Rude word censored! But then, it was valid. Never had problems with the French divison in my hometown). Never read much about the separatists in the palatinate during French occupation in the 30s and how they managed to have rifles in their coup attempt - during strict gun control by the French military! Just a few articles from witnesses that there were enough people with scythes and hayforks to persuade them they better leave the occupied government buildings. And this makes me wonder. If even I hesitate to talk about some things in the past and add an immediate dementi in a "minor" forum, what about any German authors of a book on Napoleon or a general history book. What can he risk to write, how much criticism is allowed without stirring any Anti-French feelings or getting accused of "Revanchionism" by somebody. How much criticism is allowed in school books? There is a blacklist in the US. What about GE? Ever heard any German politican correct Chirac when he (in the 90s!) counted 3 wars Germany started vs France in the last hundred years? Even in the last 150 years, I can only count two! That makes me wonder if there is more than one perspective in the books I found in German libs. You don't find too many English books on that topic in GE libs (with unrestricted access - most universites are public, but not their libraries) BTW: I do listen to politicians. Always "Know thine enemy!" Gruß Joachim [ June 24, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]

Sure, those German students in 1813 never expressed their contemporary feelings. They just voluntarily went to fight him. Gruß Joachim

... they help planning if there is no map ("1.Kp goes to that hill somewhere in the lower left, then takes the road to that village in the valley and joins forces with 2. Kp at the 2nd bridge from the right" vs. "1.Kp takes Hill 128, moves to Zaryzin and then joins with 2.Kp at October bridge") ...and they help writing (and understanding) AARs. A must for any good map with more than 1 hill or village Gruß Joachim

Whoops MikeyD ,very bad boy you are (althought good modder) Don't get misleaded by 19 century propaganda . Then ,if you really want ,try to compare Napoleon with other rulers in his time (I recommend for begining Tzar of Russia ) . </font>