citizen

Perhaps resupply percentage is reduced the further into enemy territory you go. Or at least I hope is how they will simulate it, barring actual supply lines.

I should have been more clear and mentioned that if both juggernauts are fumbling around looking for each other, the battle would be a meeting engagement. And I was just mentioning that this is what has happened in past games that try this. I just thought of way the programmers could include some incentive to go with a non-juggernaut strategy. Have Division and Regimental Artillery spotters not travel with particular ME's. Have them on call at the start of a battle. Assign them where you want them, based on the opposition. During actual battle, even non-spotters could often call back for the heavy stuff. Of course, in CMBB a spotter appears if you assign it to the battle. So at the start of a round of tactical combat, you assign the spotters from each of your batteries where you want them. Or save them and let the battery stock up on ammo/rest/relocate. Always hated the low ammo levels of the batteries in CMBB.

Yes, I know concentration of forces is a good thing, but I've seen past games allow such concentration that there was never any need for a campaign map. If both sides do the One Big ME strategy, there is no line integrity to maintain. There's just two juggernauts fumbling around until they meet, one battle takes place, and the victor wins the campaign. The reason I ask is that I'm worried about the lack of a supply system, as Hunter has mentioned. If that one huge ME can't be cut off from supply by someone who controls every road junction with a Coy of Engineers, I find that to be a problem, as that too is a realistic strategy.

Since everyone is so key on creating the largest ME possible, what penalties will that player suffer during the game? Will there be strategic points on the operational map that a player who uses Coy sized ME's will be able to control and rack up points? I'd hate for the game to encourage players to just roll across the map with one giant ME, crushing the smaller ME's one by one with no penalty. Will the fatigue rules be harsh enough to discourage this? If a 2 BN ME fights one Coy, will it gain just as much operational fatigue as it would fighting an even matchup?

Can you exit the other side of the map during a tactical battle and have that unit move to the next operational square on the big map?

The single platoon doesn't want to engage, because if it can just survive, the attacking force will have to retreat off the map. This happened in the game "Shogun." A single unit could hold a map by hiding in deep woods. The huge attacking army would be forced to retreat as they did not defeat the defenders. I just read that there will be flags on the maps, so it seems that hiding in the corner won't hold a map. Indeed there is an "auto-resolve" feature in the game to play out lopsided battles. There's no hiding in an auto-resolved battle. [ October 19, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: citizen ]

1. Can units get cut off on the operational map and not get resupplied? 2. What happens if my battalion is up against a single platoon, and my opponent hides his platoon in the corner of the map and I never manage to engage him? This trick/problem has appeared in several 'operational map to tactical battle' games I've played. Thanks, citizen

Winecape, Are you related to Charlize Theron?

Changes 1. Pushing bogged vehicles increases odds of unbogging. 2. Persistent smoke screens 3. Thin skinned AFV's not so resistent to AP ammo 4. More arty options and realism. Can on-board mortars fire where they can't see yet? They would certainly be inaccurate and the unobserved ground detonations would not be seen by the player. 5. Most important... Convoy vehicles command (with "stay on road" option.) Keep 1. Huge maps 2. PBEM 3. AI Player 4. WEGO 5. WWII

I for one wouldn't mind seeing the option for "AI Cheating" When you click on AI opponent, you can also dictate the percentage level of cheating, just like giving a force bonus. 0% = AI does not cheat 25% = AI gets very good intel on spotted units and knows if the unit is under command. It gets readings on other units near the spotted unit by way of sound contacts (not precise locations, but can judge troop density). 50% = AI gains full intel on spotted units. If the unit is under command, it sees the other squads and HQ of the platoon and gets full intel on them. 75% = When the AI spots an enemy unit, it spots each other nearby enemy unit, regardless of command structure and gets full intel on all of them. 100% = AI gets to play with "No Fog of War" (but you don't, naturally).

Another FOW consideration: When a unit leaves positive sighting, it leaves behind a marker. That's fine. What's not fine is that when that unit shows itself 17 minutes later to a different unit 1000m away, the old marker automatically disappears, so your your opponent knows with absolute, 100% infallible certainty that it's the same unit. There should be a 10% chance of a marker staying on the field, even when that unit has been re-sighted.

I'm still hoping for a "Campaign FOW" setting that mega-campaign GMs can turn on that doesn't give away whether the battle is a meeting engagement or standard attacker/defender. I want that entire lower left-hand box gone. I don't want to see flags. I don't want to see arrows showing who is attacking and who is dug in. I don't want to see the score. I kinda don't want to see Morale, as players should know when they are getting creamed. Right now campaign players are given way too much free information in that little box. -citizen

Here's my simplistic approach to programming the game to go anti-borg with regards to targeting. Targeting lines do not "connect" to enemy units. Meaning, when you tell your troops to target an enemy, you don't get the confirmation of having a nice shiny line from your troops to their troops. Sure you can use the LOS tool to see what and where a particular unit can see, but you don't get any sort of connection to enemy units. Currently, when you drag your targeting or LOS line near an enemy unit, it suddenly jumps onto the unit and gives you some info about that unit. There would be two types of shooting orders: Opportunity and Area Opportunity fire is ordering your troops to fire when they think they see something or are getting a good enough noise/flash reading to start shooting. But you don't get any confirmation as to what sort of cover they have or even that you have absolute sight of the enemy. Area fire is ordering your troops to just start firing at a certain spot. This is already in the game with the gold targeting line with no connection to an enemy at the other end. With this idea you could drop the ability to click on opposing units, though that may be too radical for some. This method works either way. Figure out their exposure % from your LOS tool and terrain knowledge. Since the troops are 1:1 in CMx2, you won't need to click to see how many men are there anymore. To order fire on an enemy unit, select either Opportunity or Area fire. You get a targeting line just like now, but when you click your mouse at the destination of the line you don't get a connection to the enemy unit. If the enemy is on the move, Opportunity fire will track the enemy as it does now. An alternate method of ordering fire is to drop a "dot" on the place you want the fire. Once the dot is dropped you can expand the zone of coverage around that dot similar to how we currently set up cover arcs. This makes Area fire able to suppress a larger area than it does now. So you could essentially set up a cover arc in and around the dot, then order an Area fire mission into that arc. Yes, a beaten zone. That's my 2 cents. citizen

When I play the AI it's using Franko's combat rules. I find that I'm rarely moving very many units each turn, so the large battles are easy. Too dangerous to move more than a few at a time! Setup can take a while, however. citizen

Yup, this is the problem I'd most like to see fixed. What we need is automatic adjustment of all strikes towards the aiming point (based on spotter experience and LOS to impacts) or an "Adjust" command that creates a short delay as the gunners replot onto the target... without moving the targeting line. Having to cancel an off-target order and incurring a 3 minute delay to redesignate the orignally desired target is not good. citizen

I've got all three. I still play CMBO, as I'm in a multiplayer St. Lo campaign at the Band of Brothers club. I play CMBB PBEM Operations with a pal back in Seattle. I just installed CMAK last night. citizen

I'd like to see an option for scenario designers and especially campaign GMs that allows you to turn off the score and attacker/defender information panel. It totally sucks when you can look at that little box on the screen and know with 100% certainty whether your opponent is dug in or not. I'd also like to have a scenario option for both sides to be dug in at the start of the scenario. In general, make Extreme Fog of War actually extreme. citizen

When I create a scenario, especially for a campaign, I really hate that one side knows with 100% certainty whether or not the other side is dug in. The "Attacker -> [- Defender" tag gives away too much info in campaigns. I also don't like the running score tally, even if it isn't always showing the actual score. Everything down there in the scorebox is bad for campaigns and many scenarios as well. Give campaigns the ability to have some actual fog of war. Have an option in the Parameters section that invites designers to check the box marked: [] Turn Off Scorebox? citizen

It's happened to me as well. Until it can be fixed... Have each smoke round last 20% longer to make up for it. citizen [ December 23, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: citizen ]

The problem with the Siberian Devils Operation is that the map is set up so the attack comes diagonally from NE to SW instead of the normal east-west or north-south. After the first battle, the computer draws the setup zones for the next battle, but it has no idea that the map is set up for a diagonal attack. So it draws the line straight across the map, suddenly turning the entire Operation into a north-south fight. Doing so gets the Russians into the town "for free" at the start of battle 2, even if they are nowhere near the town at the end of battle 1. It's a shame that none of the playtesters mentioned this problem (assuming it was playtested), cuz it ruined the Op for me and a buddy who've been PBEMing it for the past 3 weeks. Note also that the Russian troops retreat due north and the Germans due south, despite the map's orientation. Leads to massive slaughter when men exit their cover to advance and don't return to said cover when they rout. Instead they move perpendicular to the fire and get butchered. The Op was set by the original designer to 0 meter No Man's Land, but that it not the problem. The problem is in the line drawing. Scenario designers take note! Until BTS fixes this or gets rid of lines, don't make Ops with diagonal maps. And you might want to avoid making battles with diagonal maps on account of the retreat pathing. citizen

Just today I survived yet another round of layoffs at work and now this. Too much good news in one day! My order is in... citizen

I started up the tutorial as my first foray into CMBB and, since I was playing against the AI, I gave the AI a +1/+25% bonus. Bad idea. That coupled with extreme fog of war had the Germans handing me my ass. Nice job BTS. citizen

Excellent! Good timing on my part as I just preordered yesterday... citizen

OK, actual question for when you return: Are we seeing some smoking buildings that aren't on fire, but instead, are just quietly smoldering? Can you enter a smoldering building? Great pics! :eek: citizen

A month after CMBBs release, bundle CMBO and CMBB for $75! What newbie could resist and what old-timer wouldn't pick up a 2nd copy of CMBO for a friend? citizen