Runyan99

I certainly hope I don't have to wait for CM4 to get some Finnish/Russian scenarios. Bring on the '39-'40 Winter War! ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

I agree that more tiles are badly needed. I will start a list. I tried to find previous suggestions. Here is what I have so far: 1. Train track Bridge 2. Train-Road crossing 3. Cemetary 4. Orchard (looks different than scattered trees, with fruit trees and less undergrowth and concealment) 5. Gully 6. Ditch/Trench 7. Vineyard 8. Wood bridge (the small bridge is paved) 9. Streams 10. Wood fence? 11. Runway 12. Pontoon Bridge 13. Wood chruch 14. More varied housing, city structures Anything else?

Does anybody else feel that CM's 20X20 tileset for creating maps is a bit too large? Creating detailed maps with things like segmented buildings, ditches, small streams, winding roads, etc can all be difficult or impossible using such a broad building block. Sometimes it is like trying to paint a portrait using a paintbrush for a house. I would especially like to have the ability to create more detail in places like towns and villages. Is there any chance of reducing this in the future to a 10X10 or even 5x5 tileset (along with a macro-tool for placing larger blocks of terrain at a time), or is this something that is too harwired into the code to be changed? I can see where it might be a problem converting scenarios already created using a 20X20 set. At any rate, I encourage BTS to work towards more detail and variety in the maps, and to give the scenario designers more flexibility in creating maps. ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

Just wanted to say that I too am interested in seeing the ASL scenarios converted. I've only got Beyond Valor, but I want to play the Yanks! and Paratrooper scenarios using CM. I hope that they are good (i.e. balanced)for PBEM play as well. Now, would somebody hurry up and post some good conversions please? ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

Do we know what 1.02 is going to include? ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

The preview is at http://www.cdmag.com/ and it sounds like they are impressed. I expect a good review from these fellows in a week or so. ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

I've been playing Axis & Allies Europe (a new game) over the internet via PBEM. It is a lot more interesting than the original game, and the Germans have a very good chance to win this one. Sure it's simple and unrealistic (unlike CM!) but it is a fun game to play and think about. ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

I never have posted any gushing before (everyone else does such a good job) but these explosions look really incredible. Kudos again. I continue to recommend this game, both on and off the internet, whenever I get a chance. ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

I thought that you guys had cleaned the BBS in preparation for the release of the game. That seems like a pretty good idea, don't you think? Once the game is released, how helpful are 50,000 pre-release posts going to be? ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

While playing VoT as the Germans I had a number of infantry squads get captured by charging American infantry. Then, to my astonishment they disappeared after maybe 5 minutes of captivity, leaving no marker or indication of where they left the map. If the victor is going to take a unit captive, shouldn't they be responsible for guarding that unit for the rest of the game? Making them disappear seems too easy. Does this simulate the disarmament of the unit? What is going on? ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

Ever since the old days when I played Victory Games' Ambush! I've been looking for a realistic WW2 game that let's me control individual soldiers. The thing is though, now that I have CM, I don't want that individual-soldier game anymore. I'm more interested in combat on the company/battalion level because if you want to simulate WW2, CM's scale (squad level units) is where the action is at. Given the ranges involved, in addition to things like artillery and tank fire, a game which simulated individual men might have to be somewhat unrealistic in order to be any fun to play. ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

Am I correct in assuming that in the Gold code, a crew which abandons it's weapon (tank or artillery piece) can never be rejoined or recrew that weapon? If not, I wish they could. It is reasonable for a crew to abandon a piece when enemy fire is hot, but when things quiet down, it is also reasonable for them to return and service their weapon. If they are abandoning the weapon because it is damaged, alright, but I am not getting that information. If the weapon is damaged, it should indicate that it is destroyed, rather than merely abandoned. ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

I'm a little bit unclear. For purposes of cover, is it better for me to position a squad in clear terrain behind a wall, or should I actually place the squad *on* the wall terrain (presumably to simulate hugging the wall). Which actually gives a better cover modifier? ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45

Also what about roadblocks? and Is it possible to have buildings fortified?

As a scenario designer, I feel that what distinguishes a great scenario from an okay scenario is a great map. A detailed map helps give the sense that "you are there", and also makes the action on the scenario much more interesting. What makes a great map is attention to detail. A big green field with a house in the middle is probably *not* going to be an interesting scenario. (Unless of course it is snowing, and the scenario features Finnish Ski troops, and it is winter 1940 in northern Russia, and the scenario depicts a night raid on a frozen Russian outpost or something.......but I digress...) Anyway, point is that there are some terrain types I would like to see implemented in the game. Some for "color" and some for important tactical reasons. For Mr. CoolColJ, I wonder if some of the textures could just be tweaked to create some of these terrain types. The list of stuff that I haven't seen or heard about follows. 1) Sunken and raised roads - both very important features in France. The area south of the Normandy beaches had raised roads crossing marshes, and the hedgerows were crisscrossed with sunken roads. 2) Orchard and vineyard - Mainly a decorative difference. Light Trees looks different than an orderly orchard, a Wheat Field looks different (and might have different LOS characteristics) than a vineyard. 3) Ditches or gullies - Real important! A ditch on a battlefield is major cover. I haven't ever seen a screenshot that featured a ditch. Best would be a narrow addition to a map tile, just like the walls are implemented now. 4) Cemetary - To spuce up a village. A lot like a rubble area for combat purposes, but again, looks different. 5) Multi-tile buildings - I want some big ass cathedrals (e.g. Aachen) municipal buildings apartment buildings or rowhouses. Of course big factories can wait. Yes, I know buildings have been discussed many times before, I'm just saying I want a few big ones. What are we going to get in the final game? How many different terrain types are there? Is it possible that any new terrain features will be added after the release? ------------------ "Never mind what Clausewitz thought! What do YOU think?" Erwin Rommel as a young instructor at the Potsdam school of infantry.

Boy, CM really punishes infantry for being in a collapsing building! When faced by tanks or artillery, infantry defending a town is going to take high casualties from HE shells and collapsing buildings. The question is then "Are buildings deathtraps?" Should my infantry be somewhere else? But then where else can they be when defending a town or village. I'm starting to try and keep squads out of buildings and COMPLETELY out of second storeys. Is this a realistic tactical result of the simulation? Are other players starting to do the same, particularly against PBEM opponents? I find that if I deploy my infantry towards the front of the town, they take heavy casualties from direct tank fire (e.g. Reisburg) BUT I have also found that if infantry and MGs are not deployed somewhat forward to make life difficult for advancing infantry, then the attackers can easily enter the town and then concentrate infantry squads at the point of attack and overwhelm more isolated defenders. If I use only MGs as a forward defense (usually on the second floor of a building for maximum LOS) they can be dealt with in short order by the attacking armor. None of this is going to be a problem in a pure infantry fight of course. So what do you think? What is the best defense of a town against a combined infantry and armor assault? ------------------ "Never mind what Clausewitz thought! What do YOU think?" Erwin Rommel as a young instructor at the Potsdam school of infantry.

Patton wrote a book after the war called "War as I knew it". I recommend you look at it, as it gives *his* viewpoint on what was going on. ------------------ "Never mind what Clausewitz thought! What do YOU think?" Erwin Rommel as a young instructor at the Potsdam school of infantry.

Hmmmm. I seem to be recieving other email normally, but I haven't gotten a turn from any of my PBEM games since early this morning. I'll look into it. Hopefully (as computer problems sometimes do) it will simply go away after a while.

Okay CE is full up now, but I'll still take 2 games of RB, one as German and one as US. Any takers? Send a file. Opponents are first come first serve! Step up and get schooled!

Thanks! No more games of LD are necessary. If you want to play CE or RB go ahead and drop me a line. Choose sides and send a file.

Looking for somebody to play LD. You choose sides and send me a setup. Offers for any other scenarios will of course be fielded as well. Tks. ------------------ "Never mind what Clausewitz thought! What do YOU think?" Erwin Rommel as a young instructor at the Potsdam school of infantry.

Oh yeah, a couple more things. 9) How detailed are the victory conditions going to be? Can I create scenarios that award points for exiting units? Can I adjust the number of points awarded for casualties from scenario to scenario? 10) Last I heard was no motorcycle or bicycle units, right? 11) It would be nice if somewhere you could display the unit designations for each unit (9th Infantry Regiment, Elements of 21st Panzer, etc) when the unit is selected. This info is only in the scenario briefing, right? How about putting it on the unit info page? This is mostly extra information, but in a situation where I might have elements of two different battalions intermixed, it might be nice. I think it would add a little bit of flavor.

Questions and comments 1) Is it going to be possible in the final version to put infantry teams (snipers, observers, mg's etc.) into church steeples? I searched but didn't come up with the answer. 2) Last I heard two-storey buildings were as tall as buildings were planned to be. Any change on this? 3) I don't really need detailed casualty information, but I *would* like to know when I lose casualties as a result of panic or shellshock. When under an artillery barrage for example, I need to know if a squad is cracking under the strain or just losing men to shrapnel, especially when the unit is Green or Conscript. I can't tell in the beta. 4) Are there graphics for the French vineyards in the game? I haven't seen any yet. 5) Are dud tank and artillery rounds modeled? 6) There was some discussion earlier on White Phosphorous. I was reading a unit history of the US 70th tank battalion and according to them WP use was restriced on both sides as the Germans thought it a chemical agent and therefore banned under the Geneva convention. In the whole time the unit was in the ETO I didn't find one account of WP shells. 7) Saw the new smoke graphics in some screenshots. Looks pretty good! 8) How do you adjust a fire mission without cancelling the target and then designating a new one? I then have to wait 60-180 seconds for the new barrage. Am I doing something wrong? All for now. This is gonna be a great game! ------------------ "Never mind what Clausewitz thought! What do YOU think?" Erwin Rommel as a young instructor at the Potsdam school of infantry.

This has been discussed before to some extent, but I guess I'm looking for a little bit more feedback from the peanut gallery. I spent some of my time today at work looking over the Beyond Valor scenarios. I only have ASL and Beyond Valor, and I would love to convert those scenarios to CM2. Guess I'll have to wait. Till then, I was just was wondering who out there was planning on doing direct ports of the scenarios from Yanks! and Pegasus Bridge and any other modules I am forgetting to CM. While ASL may not be the absolute tops in realism, the scenarios are carefully designed to make an interesting GAME, which I think would make for some fun PBEM battles. Besides, this project started out as Computer Squad Leader, right? Anyway, if you're planning on working on some scenarios, sound off and let us know which ones. P.S. Designers and Programmers that tell ignorant customers to kiss their ass? This IS the company for the grognard by the grognard! ------------------ "Never mind what Clausewitz thought! What do YOU think?" Erwin Rommel as a young instructor at the Potsdam school of infantry.

This is my first post on this board. I wanted to make a quick comment on Talonsoft. As a former playtester and scenario designer for a few of their games (BGG,EF) I have to say that this break away from wargames is not much of a surprise to me. Almost two years ago, when we were working on the EF expansion, they were already losing focus on wargames. TS and Jim Rose started to look for other projects to boost the bottom line for TS. They released some kind of goofy post-apocalyptic biker game or some thing. Anyway, I was constantly pressing the guys at TS to tweak the EF/WF games to correct some of the numerous fudges and innacuracies in that series of games. Ultimately I was frustrated (and pressed for time) so I left just as playtesting was starting on WF. Let me say though that I am very impressed with CM. It is the historical combat *simulation* I was trying to squeeze out of TS. I expect to be floating around this discussion board for quite a while to come. Let's hope that BTS does not lose it's focus, or its core of dedicated hard-core wargaming personnel anythime soon. ------------------ "Never mind what Clausewitz thought! What do YOU think?" Erwin Rommel as a young instructor at the Potsdam school of infantry.