sbg2112

....please change their color!!! The gray just gets lost in the map, particularly if you like to play at the realistic scale and you're fighting in the snow. Haven't played the other countries that much, but the Americans have bright green and I think I've seen light blue and red colored bases. So pick a color, any color, just something besides gray. (Or let me pick the color myself.)

No question this will be one busy topic. I still haven't made up my mind yet, but here's two quick points.... First, this is not a throwback to hexes. The difference is that CM is still 3-d -- don't the tiles only represent the smallest "unit" of terrain? If I'm right then the point is that hexes are also the smallest unit of movement. It may be reminiscent of hexes, but it ain't the same thing..... Second, I believe it would look even better if the color of the grid lines were blended a little better with the terrain. Since our optics are sorta engineered for detecting lines, I'm thinking it wouldn't take much contrast for the lines to be seen.... Oh, and as for this being some kinda cheat -- I don't get it. There are other checks that prevent this from being abused, esp. the checks that BTS put in to avoid gamey movement planning. I guess I see it as being a necessary evil given the limitations of the presentation -- i.e., a monitor. Since CM doesn't bundle VR gear, things like this will inevitably find their place. Hmmm, guess I made up my mind after all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have to be really careful when retargeting stuff - once you cancel that order from the previous turns it's history and you have to start from scratch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, that may be the way it works, but I don't think it's working-as-intended, i.e., it's a bug. After targeting point B, when I was in the process of re-targeting near point A, the targeting line was green. This indicates that CM knew I was trying to shift fire relative to point A; however, the delay was always 2 minutes. As I said, re-loading the PBEM file corrected this.

This is with 1.01.... Mortar FO firing at point A; at first, I decide I want to target somewhere else (with the resulting 2 min delay). Then, I realize I'd be better off shifting my fire over a little bit -- however no matter where I shift it (relative to point A), the delay comes out at 2 minutes even tho' it's showing the green targeting line. On a hunch, I re-loaded the scenario and was indeed able to shift my fire with the expected delays (i.e., 16 seconds, etc.) I think I have the PBEM file, but my guess is this is easily reproducible.

C'mon, people -- it's obviously a fake. Everybody knows color film wasn't that advanced back in World Wa--- What's that ya say??? Oh, I see. Impressive!! (Here, Pengy, Pengy!)

My CM buddy and I decided to start our first PBEM with the gold version, and something came up that I don't think I've seen mentioned anywhere. We chose one of the gold scenarios and I sent him my setup file. However, what would've prevented me from cranking up the editor, adding 40 artillery FOs and sending that to him as my setup for that gold scenario? I suppose there's little to nothing that BTS could do to address this (at least not inexpensively), and that perhaps the most effective way to deal with this is to let people choose whether they want to play with known cheaters.... One thing that might help would be an additional message displayed during setup; this message would display either the point values for both forces (factoring in any bonuses / handicaps) or the ratio of those numbers. Of course, you could still do what I described above, but your opponent would have a sense from the outset as to whether he was in for a fair fight....

Not really on topic, but I thought I'd point out that you can still control the facing / orientation of pad-locked units. This is esp. useful for bunkers, etc. I realize it's there on the menu, but I tend to stick to the keyboard so I never see the menu....

Since I realize it's hard to formulate a query that would get you the search results that would answer #3: I've seen BTS say that this is on "the list" and is one of the most requested things. If you do a search for a thread titled "playback", you'll see where I was requesting a variation on the full-movie feature; namely, the ability to annotate these movies. I wanted to take this opportunity to mention that again.... Oh, and as for #1, there was an interesting thread where people were discussing the potential merits of having turn timers, etc. You may want to track that thread down.... It would be interesting to know whether BTS has done any design work for either of these, just to see how these would work....

I didn't think I'd spend any time on the editor (at least not any time soon), but I accidentally started on this map that I can't put down.... One of the things that would be very useful would be for the ability to select an area in the editor, and then use the AutoGenerate feature to fill in that area based on whatever parms. Probly a bit of work to implement, but it would help those of us who want to do maps but aren't experts on the layouts of villages in Western Europe. The implementation costs could probly be kept down by supporting cut-n-pasting from portions of existing maps. So you could generate a quick-battle map for say a village, and then snag pieces of that for the map being built in the editor...

yep, we're neighbors -- practically right next door. I'll try to send you e-mail. By the way, my CM buddy says we got our copies today, so CM has finally arrived in Apex. Of course, I won't see him until Monday at work....oh well.

i'm also in apex (well, technically Cary, but my mailing address is Apex), and my CM buddy is in Cary. We haven't gotten it yet either (see my Ambush Fatigue thread), but we are eagerly expecting it today. Hmmm. I almost used the word "anticipation". You don't think we're susceptible to this, do you?

Sitting here day after day (a week now since the card was charged) with an ambush marker set on my mailbox makes me wonder whether CM models ambush fatigue. Okay, I'm not serious, but I know I'm tired of staring at the mailbox waiting for CM to appear, to the extent that somebody could sneak up on it and ..... Okay, I'm back. CM's still not there. As I was saying, does CM take into account how long a unit has been targeting an ambush marker, and somehow degrade their reaction times when something wonders by? Man, a childhood of Christmases didn't prepare me for this kinda wait.

Still no joy in Apex/Cary.... And MrPeng still hasn't shown up. Lemme try again. Here Pengy. Here Pengy Pengy

Just wanted to show my support for CoolColJ's list, especially "UltraFOW".

Ah, grasshopper, because if it had been in stores, then it would not have been awesome.

For me, I do care about TCP/IP because it will add (yet) another flavor to the game. Anyway, this was all discussed recently, but here's the gist of it as I understand it. First of all, head-to-head games can go faster -- a scenario that takes a week to PBEM might only take an hour head-to-head. But perhaps more importantly is the added degree of realism -- if turn timers make it into the implementation. No more doing all that stuff you talk about doing -- you're a battlefield commander and you've got to be able to think on your feet. You have to assess the situation quickly and react quickly with your orders. Anyway, do a search to get the rest of the discussion.....

Apex / Cary: Another day, another disappointment. Just thought of a way to pass the time. Here Pengy..... Here Pengy Pengy.

Apex / Cary, NC -- charged on the 16th but still no joy....

Apologies to BTS cause I know they don't want any more noise on this, but I just have to say.... Nothin' worse than wargamers warrin' over games. It's a shame there's not a way to "settle" this -- some sort of CC vs. CM tournament. Somebody needs to engineer a "wargames ladder" so the people that care about which is "better" can keep themselves distracted rather than distracting everybody else with their war of words.

Yeah -- that's what I was asking about, and thanks for the quick answer. Maybe BTS could consider this for a future patch or release. Just thought of something: You can edit a DYO scenario after it's generated, right? So if you particularly liked something that was generated, you can spice it up with reinforcements or whatever other edits?

Will the computer-generated scenarios allow for reinforcements? If so, are there any parameters for this, such as whether they are allowed, or when they are allowed? What about parameters influencing the type of reinforcements?

I agree -- how great can CM be if it doesn't have the little tanks. We gotta get 'em in. I guess the process starts with Fionn weighing in with production numbers, etc.... Can't believe the new-fangled 'splosions made it in(to the 1.01 patch) before the Goliath. Geez, talk about priorities.

Oh man -- adding pictures of the CM version of the field was a brilliant idea. Um, oh yeah, does that make me a narcissistic sycophant?

Great start. As othes have said, the pictures are cool -- wouldn't it also be great if you had a screen-capture of the CM version of the battlefield? The idea is that there's soon gonna be a ton of scenarios, and people like me who are already trading sleep for CM will have to be selective....(I find CM's realism goes way up when you find yourself fighting an engagement having slept four of the last 24 hours.) Is there a way you could have these pix without jeopardizing FOW; like, does the editor let you look at the field without the units?

Okay, my memory's kinda "groggy" on this one, but since you admit you're too lazy to search for the answer, maybe you'd like to read a book on the subject. I believe it's called "Death Traps" and it's by a guy who was responsible for repairing Shermans to put 'em back into action. There's a section where he talks about how the U.S. could've had a tank that might've been better (Pershing, if I recall correctly) but didn't for various reasons discussed by the author. But in the end, it probly comes down to this: given the sheer numbers of Shermans the U.S. was able to field, plus the maintenance infrastructure, the Shermans were "good enough" in the grand scheme of things. Of course, many tankers paid dearly for that, which is why the book has the title it does.... Also, there are some articles at CMHQ that cover the Sherman's development. I'd post the link, but then MadMatt would, well, get mad. Just start with combathq.thegamers.net