Spook

Same here. CMBO gave me lots of play value, and was an outstanding product for its time. But what all has been added to CMBB has rendered CMBO obsolescent to me for all intents. I don't know if this has been paralleled with any significant changes to shell trajectory models, but yes, any improvements on penetration were welcome. I will also note that the added speciality LATW's like molotov's and ATM's seem reasonably modelled, though more play later on will confirm. Yep, great stuff altogether. Even at this tactical scale, artillery is often a critical weapon. (Yelnia Scenario SPOILER STATEMENT: The Yelnia scenario also demonstrates an added potential difference in "flexibility" where the Soviet spotter can't adjust an initially chosen target point.) Geez, Andreas, you've nailed down the other key factor before I could. I will add the following: 4. Modeling of "covered arcs." First off, providing separate arcs, based on "armored target" or "soft target," go some way to help also model a fire "standard operational procedure" or SOP. Second, the player isn't constrained to defining a true arc, but can instead effectively "triangulate" a fire zone. Much more flexible. 5. The added movement commands for infantry. I think their sum value fairly compares with that for the other key features cited earlier. Also, some like "assault" are tied to unit experience. That is not only historically appropriate, but puts an added constraint on CM QB gamers who think that buying lots of conscript or green SMG squads is a good idea. (Some will probably still do so; but the consequence will be more pronounced. )

Ya wanna know what bothers me most about the demo? It's that "Night on Bald Mountain" lead-in track! Is that the best that could be gotten? Hah! Even the lead-in music for the old TalonSoft game "East Front" was better! And those dead bodies laying around where units get "killed." How insensitive of BTS to hint at some horrid nature of war in a game! ( ) Now you've done it, hon. Grog Dorosh, ya crazy Canuck!! You've reeled back in the Spook after a half-year hiatus.

This thread is like one of those Pavlov experiments. See how many drool for how long. It's still great news, though.

A refresher, for those who missed it early last year:

I only played the earlier TFH, but once got to flip through the SWOTL manual. Pity. But AOTP, AOE and EAW all gave me some great sim-play time later on.

I was more surprised of the higher rankings given to "Lemmings" and "Hidden & Dangerous".....

Or as rare as, say, a 14-inch naval gun or a German railway gun? NW's should certainly be tempered by a rarity system, of course. But concerning certain periods and campaigns, rarity is still a relative value. By example of Normandy, NW's made up a significant portion of German corps-level artillery; at least seven battalions' worth, IIRC.

I think that your basic arguments are reasonable, Grisha, in trying to see "night-fighting effects" expanded, even in the tactical scope of CM. But considering also the vast scope of the East Front, the numbers of troops involved, the frontage, variations over the years in experience and tactics, pursuing "night-fighting" as some stock nationality modifier is not likely to carry much traction. Your arguments might serve better to see if something added in scenario editing is possible; if not in CMBB, then perhaps the future CM II engine. After all, CMBB's evolution of "editable qualities" was demonstrated with BTS's earlier disclosure of "fitness" as a new modifying feature for foot troops.

....seems a hint of the Hurtgen. Agreed on the first statement. On the follow-up statement, I concur to a degree that a CM player can never be "forced" to play a "historical" style. However, I don't see it so as "forcing" a player to use his forces in a specific way, rather than applyinig effective "constraints" in the game design as to put the player into more of a "historical setting" on how he chooses his tactical options. By example, a player can't be forced not to attempt a complex maneuver with a conscript force, but some attendant penalties for doing this should be in hand, of course. Now, on the note of night-fighting and how certain troops might recognize some "edge" to it without tying it to nationality, here is a possiblity: add "improved night-fighting experience" as a scenario editor toggle, similar to fanaticism. And if not the case now, also tie in night-fighting effects more closely to troop experience. Right now, I don't think that I see quite so much "negative" effect in CMBO for troops moving around in night; sure, visibility is reduced and ambush probability is heightened, but otherwise, I haven't seen so often that troops moving around at night might get "lost," such as moving in an unplanned direction, or having a movement order nullified. As anyone seen otherwise? Or to Steve, is night-movement something that might be on tap for changes in CMBB?

Yes, it's been discussed before. Within the last ten days, in fact, if you review the following thread: Some Combat Mission Myths If you wish to review other threads, try "bocage" as a keyword in the search utility. And perhaps also try searches in the "archive" forums for earlier years.

Oh, I do use them, and in the ways that you describe. In fact, my typical usage of Co HQ is to gather the company mortars under its "command," put it in a good spotting location, and have it spot for the mortars. MG's & other weapons teams that normally can't keep up with infantry platoons also gravitate to the Co HQ, which I hardly would ever use to lead an advance. And of course, if a higher HQ is highly rated, but a platoon which is needed for a specific task has a "lousy" platoon CO, then the platoon leader is "sent back" and the Co CO takes over. Plenty of uses. Still, IMO, all of that still doesn't equate to representating the likely "command effect" that the higher HQ's really could have, even in the tactical scale of CM. If a Co or Btn HQ got waxed during an attack, then I presently believe that even within an hour's timeframe, that would chainlink to the immediate subordinate troops in some way. Right now in CMBO --- it doesn't.

Following up on James Crowley's post, I too am a bit uncertain about this in CMBO. Leastways, I've never noticed for Co/Btn HQ's in that game to have any noticeable effect on lower HQ's, although either can certainly "grab" out-of-command squads, weapons, and teams. It might be different in CMBB instead, because recalling from an earlier-offered CMBB screenshot, I was seeing squads identified more explicitly as being attached to a specific company. In CMBO, squads are linked only to platoons, and if out-of-command from their immediate platoon CO, then can be taken "in command" by any Co or Btn HQ unit that is close enough to do so. Under such a premise, it's uncertain that a specific company HQ will provide some benefit to specific platoon leaders in CMBO. (It would be a simple matter to check out later, however, through scenario editing & initial deployments.) So perhaps it's that CMBB has indeed provided a bit more scope to higher HQ's after all? True. The bigger issue here, of course, is not about Btn HQ's "passing information" to higher HQ's in the scope of a CM battle, but of how the Co/Btn HQ's might influence the passing of information & orders to lower units when the shooting starts. Let's just say that in the scope of a 1-hour battle, if a company HQ got KO'ed or disrupted, I could see some "inertia" creeping into the subordinate platoons within that same 1-hour timeframe. But then, it gets back to pondering how this "effect" could be properly captured in a CM game. We'll wait to see until then. In fact, based on the initial comments in your earlier post, I think there already might be something different in CMBB that I will be watching for. [ February 01, 2002, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Spook ]

Well, as Enoch has cited me having invoked the "Co/Btn HQ" matter on another thread, I suppose that I should add some commentary here. First off, in regards to the future treatment of Co/Btn HQ's in the CM series, I am not such after any specific command mechanics to be applied, rather than that I think that some expanded command effects should be allowed for in the utility of Co/Btn HQ's. (Did that sound sufficiently arbitrary & confusing? ) By example, consider Berlichtingen's counter-replies on adjustments to command radii and adjustments to orders delays. I don't inherently agree with Berli's stance --- but neither do I disagree. Because I don't know yet as to what specific new "command" method, if any, should be implemented in the future of the CM series. All that I do know is that in the present system, "every platoon leader carries a marshal's baton in his backpack" (deriving from some Napoleonic-era quote). Meaning that regardless to the location or state of higher HQ's in a game, a platoon CO unit is uneffected either positively or negatively. But the obviously biggest positive is that they are never "out of command" per se; even in battalion-level games, every platoon leader will always adjust (based on its experience) to the battalion-level master plan, no matter how often that plan changes or evolves during the battle. And in historical terms, that was something that could never be expected on a regular basis. As far as the present CMBO is concerned, the battalion HQ's could just as well be replaced by big-point objective flags. That actually might be more realistic in a way, because taking and holding such an objective (even allowing that the HQ could've evacuated) would provide an award for causing "command disruption" to the other side. Now, here's one possible way of how I think that a Co/Btn HQ could help provide "command effect": A system of "command points," available to these HQ units. Each turn (or even a group of turns), such a HQ has an allotment of points to expend on providing some command bonus to subordinate units. Such a system is an abstraction, but could sufficiently represent the "higher guidance" provided by higher HQ's in the time-scope of a CM scenario. And what of the case of Co/Btn HQ's being lost, or put in a state of panic/rout? Well, in that case, a possibility could be that subordinate leader units would have their command modifier reduced by one (a +2 going to +1, or even a 0 going to a theoretical "-1"). The other leader qualities -- morale, combat, and stealth --- are ones that needn't be affected, as these are more "local" in application to the squads. But that command modifier is one that should be regarded to be more linked to higher levels, and thus should be allowed to be affected in an abstract way. Take note. These examples above are given only as that --- examples. Because I'm sure that these have might have their own pitfalls with added review. The point again is that for Co/Btn HQ's, their ability to have more "command effect" in an abstract way, than is the present case, should be desired. But this shouldn't be done by adding overt complexities and details, which the AI would probably barf on anyway in trying to handle it. Anyway, Steve of BTS has indicated that for the future CM II, he & Charles do seem amenable to expanding the scope of Co/Btn HQ's. And that is encouraging enough for me. I'm certainly not going to beat over this on CMBB, given that so many other new odds & sods, like optics and artillery control options, are being grappled with in that game first. [ January 31, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

It would be situation-dependent, of course, but for the moment, let's assume, as per your example, that moving a unit to some desired final location requires about six turns, and that interim locations (e.g., those that provide cover along the way) further make it that you define five unique "waypoints" before the final endpoint. If plotting it all as a single movement path, then yes, it would take slower for the unit to get moving in the first turn. But once that the unit is moving, it pays no further delay penalties; it continues moving, from turn to turn, until reaching its final destination (unless shot at or shaken up in some way). If, instead, you plotted only to reach an "interim" point for one turn, then yes, your unit would get moving sooner. But for the next turn, you have to plot a new movement to the next interim point. And thus, you have to pay the "start-up delay" penalty all over again, the length of this delay based on unit experience. And you'll pay this time penalty five times before reaching the destination that is about six turns' distance away. Odds are that the sum of the "start-up delays" will add up to make the second unit slower overall in reaching the final destination. But again, it'll probably be situation-dependent, based on unit experience, distance, command benefit, etc. In the case of a conscript unit, I would choose the latter method, given that a lot can happen within six turns, and only plotting to reach "interim points" allows me some more flexibility to get the conscripts to respond to a new situation. But I recognize that doing this will make the conscripts slower overall if I want them to move to some faraway point. Which, I believe, is the design intent; improved short-term "flexibility" for poor-quality troops comes at a cost in long-term "maneuverability."

It's a "role-playing" CM campaign game. Tales of the Magenta Onion

E-mail Mannheim Tanker, commander of the "Blue" side. We could use an added field commander, as one of our earlier players was compelled to resign. E-mail is crocker@bellsouth.net

Well, you're right, and a bit wrong, IMO. It is true that the CM series must remain focused as a tactical warfare system first & foremost. But even in a tactical game, "command" is a key factor, and beyond just for the squad & platoon leaders. The future trick desired is to capture "command effect," rather than add overt amounts of command complexity to the game model. Regarding my earlier comment on company & battalion HQ's, I have to note that I haven't yet resolved in my mind as to what the future effects and capabilities of Co/Btn HQ's should be. The fact remains, however, that these units are allowed in CM, and therefore, even in the tactical setting they are used in, their historically anticipated "effect" on the battle needs to be better accounted for in some way. I hope to see live team play someday too. But for single-player, if the CM series allows a battalion HQ to show in some scenarios, then the utility of these need to be expanded than is the present case. Again, however, I regard all of this to be more of a future CM II issue.

EXACTLY the kind of thing I was wanting to hear about. Thanks. However, for future CM iterations, like CM II, I still hold an added opinion in that the company & battalion HQ's will need to play a bigger role, or have a bigger C&C effect (both positive & negative), than is the case in CMBO. But that can be taken up in a later topic someday.

Ah yes, Joe Kussey's article. It kicked up some contention when it published last year, but it's still very compelling to read. And from I recall of Joe from days past, he tries to do his homework on military historical issues.

As always, Steve, your input is appreciated and illuminating. However, for me, I still regard myself to be a little "in the dark" on how command delays will be fundamentally revised or improved upon from CMBO. Would you, or a beta tester, be willing to lay out an more explicit case of a 1941 scenario setting between a German infantry company and its Soviet counterpart, relating some of the relative delays and command options between the two sides? Understandably, you might feel a bit reserved to provide such info here, while CMBB still is in development. (Although dontcha feel that most of us still here are like family now!!! ) Regardless, my curiosity compells this posting.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Coming out of Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, anyone travelling home to Calgary turns onto a 100 km stretch of road running into Wetaskiwin. The road is perfectly straight - not a single turn on it. After spending a weekend in the bush with little sleep, and then sitting at the wheel of a 2 - 1/2 ton truck with no radio and a top speed of 90 kph (with the wind), the throbbing of the diesel - you can imagine how hard it would be to stay awake on said stretch of road.<hr></blockquote> Next time, sing "Beer Run" to help pass the time.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky: Does anyone still use the old bright grass textures like Richard's Velvet Grass? I never grew tired of those like I did with some of the duller mods. For me it just gets boring to look at them after a bit. <hr></blockquote> I still use that grass set (doesn't hit the vidcard so hard), but modded it in my own turn and turned the brightness down a bit. Works good as "summer grass" to me.

Immmmmmmmmmmmpressive!!! I swear, Tom, those pics you've posted also seem to give an added impression of seeing a model diorama of an Ardennes battle. A good blend --- not easy to accomplish.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: When enough losses had been piled on the manpower reserves of a given power, its army lost effectiveness and if not supported by allies and restricted to defensive action, it came apart. There was nothing "indecisive" about attrition - that is the point. It destroyed the four massive empires of central and eastern europe, and if that isn't "decision" nothing is.<hr></blockquote> I will agree, Jason, that the losses of WW1 caused a "shakeup" of the imperialist power balance which stood priorhand. But otherwise, this paragraph has potential fallacies to it. First off, the "attrition" that you are citing as breaking down the European empires was more of an end result, rather than a predetermined strategy envisioned by any of the protagonists in 1914. No one, and I mean NO ONE, anticipated for that war to go on as long as it did. Further, if the Germans of 1914 had guided to a genuine full-up attritional strategy at war´s start, then why did it hazard the kind of odds as it did against the Russians at that very time? The attritional formula as defined only on odds would say, "The Russians march into Berlin, game over." Instead, at Tannenburg........ Favorable odds by themselves, and guiding a war strategy only on maintaining favorable odds, does not equate to "decision." Rather, favorable odds used in a PRACTICAL manner as to force the outnumbered opponent to fight a "long-term" war will give a better chance for attrition to be decisive. But still no guarantees.

Sure, Doug, if the Mattster doesn´t mind. This isn´t a CM-related subject, so I didn´t want to impose too much.