Lt Bull

Måkjager, You have achieved CM Jagdpather Mod God status. That is great work . Its good to see how much you have improved the mod since our first look at it...and the choice! I better also thank all the other modders out there also while Im here (too many to mention). Your work is much appreciated. Hope you continue with the mods! I would be interested in seeing the weathered versions. Lt Bull

Never seen 2 tanks get KOed like that but I have seen an AT gun get KOed by an AP ricochet bouncing off a nearby Churchill. That really sucked but it is fair enough (possible). BTW Gen-x87H, that sharshooter "shot" is not one "bullet". Infantry small arms ammo is not tracked bullet for bullet. Each time a sharpshooter "fires" it doesnt neccessarily mean they fire ONE bullet. Lt Bull

I really like the idea of having fireplans for the heavy arty as you have described. During setup, the attacking player, having been given some "fireplan" artillery assets during the force selection phase, could place TRP-like markers on the map and choose a particular time (turn) for the barrage to commence. Perhaps a random factor could be included that could affect the accuracy and timing of the barrage. Probably too late to include it but a good, seemingly easy to implement idea nevertheless. Lt Bull

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: The usefulness of cease fire is highly dependant on the situation. What do you do if you have 15 turns to go and you are down to your last AFV and most of your infantry squads are shot up ? You are capable of holding current positions against an attack but you can not mount one yourself. If, at the same time, it is quite apparent that your opponent is not willing to risk losing further units, there is no cause for a widrawal and/or is not willing to make the final push needed to decide the outcome of the battle then I usually ask for a cease fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an interesting scenario you have described. I can understand that sometimes, you fight it out so much with your opponent there is little left to fight with. But it is in these situations where it can be shown that REQUESTING a ceasefire can only help your opponent. You generally never really know exactly what your opponent thinks of their own chances of winning. Moreover, you never really know exacty how many casulties his forces have taken. The same can be said for them in relation to you and your own forces. Given this, and the scenario you described above isn't requesting a ceasefire under those circumstances indicating to your opponent: 1) that you have no "fight" left in your troops 2) that you think your opponent has no more "fight" left in their troops So, this is almost "free intel". You just told your opponent that you are "beat" and that you don't think much of their chances of bettering their own situation. They may have overestimated the state of your own troops, thinking that you still had some cards up your sleeve, and had been holding back, perhaps even defensive. It also tells them that you don't think they have much fight left in them. If they do have some reserves left, you have just told them that you have no idea of them. By requesting a ceasefire, you have just revealed to your opponent that "it doesnt get any better for me than this, don't hurt me anymore, lets end it now". This has happened to me in a game where my opponent requested a ceasefire in a closely fought game. His main thrust attack on the VLs had apparently ended and we were exchanging small arms fire. I was planning how to counterattack the VLs he had assaulted with the reserves I had mustered up. I had no clear picture of the real state of his units, but we had both taken heavy casualties (the scenario was August Bank Holiday BTW...awesome battle!). Then he discussed a ceasefire with me saying that there was no point in continuing, the result was close enough to be considered a draw. Speak for yourself! I knew I had some fight left (I had apparently kept that unknown to him) and now I knew that he couldn't do much else with what he had. Free intel on what my opponent had been thinking. I declined the ceasefire, of course, and with a dozen or so turns left in the battle, counterattacked with a confidence in success and execution that hadn't existed prior to having been confronted with the ceasefire request. I think I secured a tactical win out of it (I definitely drove him from all the VLs he had encroached). So, is it worth the risk to even call a ceasefire? You potentially have much to lose. Lt Bull

Ceasefires have always puzzled me. :confused: I think there is a level of psychology in it. What are they for? Under what circumstances do you propose a ceasefire and under what conditions would you accept them? Why do opponents ask for ceasefires, instead of just surrendering or playing the game out to the end? Real life ceasefires are sometimes proposed and accepted for "humanitarian" reasons eg. to clear away the dead, dying and wounded, to celebrate a religious event, or to put the war on hold to allow diplomatic negotiation etc. But why would you offer, or even accept a ceasefire in CM? From what I understand, a ceasefire in CM basically stops the game and bases victory on the immediate current situation. Isn't anyone who requests (or accepts) a ceasefire really saying to their opponent something like "I prefer to end the game now and accept the current victory result"? If so, why would they want that? Because they feel/think that if the game continued the end victory result wouldn't be any different? Or maybe they know they are getting beaten and want to end it here rather than play the game out and face an overwhelming defeat? Would a player who is clearly winning call (or accept) a ceasefire? Perhaps if they are happy accepting the current victory level they may spare their opponent the pain and themselves the time. But how many players confident of a good win would want to end the game short denying them the enjoyment of playing out their victory? How many of you would be happy with ending a game early and accepting the current score rather than playing it out to the end and risking the current victory score? What kind of motives would you have even requesting a ceasefire? An opponent who offers a ceasefire to me is a signal that they are "spent" and have lost the "initiative". Unless I am happy with the current victory level, why should I accept it? :confused: Lt Bull

Here is a page that covers the Bovington Tank Museums efforts to restore a captured Tiger1. Tiger Tank 131 They basically are restoring a Tiger to fully working condition. It has cost them £96,900 initially and a further £28,000 to cover some mechanical difficulties they have run into whilst installng a new engine in it. If you have some lose change, they are looking for donations. Lt Bull

Can't say anything on a Ruskie version of the panzerfaust being developed but I have read somewhere that the panzerschreck was designed after a "shipment" of Lend Lease bazookas destined for the Ruskies feel into German hands. They basically reverse engineered it, improving on it in the process. Anyone else heard this story? Capturing a shipment of bazookas sounds a little more dramatic than capturing one on the battlefield and send it back to "the lab". Lt Bull

I am a "mod slut" and I love the work that some of you modders out there are doing. Where would we be without you? :eek: I also have the same mod-addiction for another game, European Air War, where equally as talented mod-artists have created top notch mods and have created a mod-frenzied culture that has kept that game fresh for a very long time. So much so, that some very good programs have evolved to handle the various mods available for EAW. A vast majority of that game is moddable including the aircraft 3D models, the skins, the aircraft flight characteristics, the weapons, the terrain and the sounds. One program that has recently been released and one I have been impressed with is called Skins n' More (SnM) and you can read about it at Relent's EAW Skins Page. It is a little bit more advanced than a standard mod manager. Apart from standard JPG previews/text descriptions of graphics mods, you are also able to fully create "themes" which encompass whatever mods you like in them. I can already imagine creating a customised "Normandy" theme that would incorporate Maguas fantastic Normandy mods along with any other vehicle mods or sounds etc. which can all be installed AND then uninstalled back to some set "default" setup with just a few clicks. The mod files themselves are kept in a separate SnM directory. Mods for particular aircraft are kept in their own folder within a directory named after that aircraft. Once placed under the correct directory, the mod is then registered and becomes available for easy installation and uninstallation. SnM More "remembers" what it has installed and can unistall the mod from the directory it installed to. This unistallation feature may not immediately sound like a useful thing in CM as ALL BMPs are required in the CM BMP directory (except winter mods), whereas in EAW, if you remove or delete a mod file from the game directory you dont need to replace it, as it automatically defaults to the correcponding file found on the CD. The great thing about SnM is that it is VERY flexible, customisable (is that real word?) and easy to use. Anyway, you don't really need EAW to install the SnM program to run it and see how it works. I would urge any of you that are interested in developing a "standard, one-program-does-it-all CM mod manager program" to download SnM and check it out (its only a few megs). I believe it has several features which would work a treat for CM and its plethora of mods. Yes, I do think having one well designed standard mod manager program that can do it all would be a good thing, but it doesnt necessarily mean that mod makers would have to go out of their way to adhere to some bizarre file naming/mod packaging format. SnM is an example of that! Kepp on modding! :cool: Lt Bull

Thanks Kingfish. This is a monster operation. 16 battles :eek: Lt Bull

Koch-Kalkar Rd operation v1.2 (or latest release) If any of you kind folk know where I can find it, please let me know. Thanks Lt Bull

Yeah, I like this kind of idea. Scenario management can get out of hand at times, particularly becasue there are so many great scenarios/operations out there but so little time to play them all. Most of them stay in a generic CM custom scenario folder in a zipped state waiting for me to one day rediscover why I downloaded them It would be great to organise them within CM(BB) itself in the same way that some CM sites do eg. theatre, date, size etc so you know what you have at a glance. Perhaps even incorporate a scenario filter to help you find particular scenarios. I would suggest another feature that I think would be really useful (probably been suggested before?): The ability to view the map from the scenario selection screen. I find that the map size/design is a big factor in whether I choose to play a scenario. It also lets you jog your memory as to what the scenario is about (the quality of the map judged from screenshots, along with the scenario descriptions, at sites like Manx's COMBAT MISSIONS and Der Kessel are big selling points with me) Lt Bull

I can't vouch for the legitimacy of the story, but if Hilter's "blood relatives" do want to put their hand up and cash in on receiving royalties for MK, then perhaps they too should put their hand up and pay compensation to Poland, Holland, France, Russia, the Jews etc etc for all the death and destruction their "blood relative" masterminded. Perhaps with the royalties they can receive from MK, they can pay for his other great "masterpiece" (of human misery) that he inflicted on the world. Surely that's why they would want the royalties, don't you think? Lt Bull

Melbourne, Australia Lt Bull ---Thought provolking signature---

Teddy Roosevelt...I wouldn't have thought that he had done enough to actually have been listed in that survey Lt Bull

Im not sure about PUBLIC DOMAIN but you can try Tiger Tank And yeah! I would like to see that Signal Corp pic of the JTs. Eamil addy below. Cheers Lt Bull lt.bull@ains.net.au

I experienced the same kind of relevation last week when I installed a SB Live card (128 bit). I am very happy with how it has enhanced my PCs audio capabilities. Somewhere in the SB controls/setup, there was a dialog box which asked you to set the number of WAV files that can be played simultaneously. I know this is relevant to CM becasue all its sounds are WAV files. I bumped it up to about 8 (though I could have choosen more). I was never aware that such a parameter existed for sound cards and wondered what this limit was for my older SB 32AWE card When I booted up CM, it was obvious how limited the audio expereince had been. The game now is much richer in sounds as more WAV files are being played. An immediate indicator that the new sound card allowed a fuller audio playback was the "ding" sound which I now can hear if I incorrectly do something in CM eg. try to place a vehicle movement marker in woods. There is also an option to have the sound card automatically "enhhance" the sounds when particular applications are run. I have yet to play around with it but Im sure there would a setting that would make the sounds from CM sound even better. If anyone has tried this, I would be happy to hear about there experiences with it. Lt Bull

Im a huge fan of the work at Der Kessel. The new look page is great. Looking forward to more quality historically researched ops/scenarios from you guys. Lt Bull

Historical scenarios? Good work! Send em on! Lt Bull

AGHHHHH!!!!! Me too!! I was wondering what the hell had happened to the CM Forum as well!! When I went to my CM Forum bookmark I kept on getting the "Close for maintenance" message. After a few days I started to get the shakes and cold sweats from CM Forum withdrawl symptoms. :eek: Had something tragic happened to the forum? Only now after almost a week have I been able to realise that the "Closed for maintenance" message I was getting was outdated and the Forum had actually reopened at a DIFFERENT URL. :mad: I got several pages of CM Forum catchup reading to do. Lt Bull

Franko, I'm just about to finish August Bank Holiday. I really enjoyed it. Can you send this next mega-offering to me please. Thanks. Lt Bull lt.bull@ains.net.au

Sounds like you are doing something right. You really should reconsider playing vs human opponents as it is the best way to challenge yourself at CM. It's unfortunate that your opponent bailed on you. I can assure you that it's not common for that to happen (never happened to me anyway). If you like I would be happy to take you on in a scenario of your choice. You need to stop "wasting" all of those great custom scenarios by playing against the AI. I know what you mean about never playing the same scenario twice. If you are interested, email me at lt.bull@ains.net.au Lt Bull

Good to see some constructive posts. A comprehensive post Jason. Would like to add a few things. Yes. This is why (and for other points you mention below) I think well thought out custom scenarios are much better than QBs if you are looking to play a game where the terrain layout and objectives makes more "realistic" military sense than the randomness of a QB. QBs can be fun, but they can be silly when you have randomly placed VLs in seemingly meaningless locations dictating the flow of the battle. This can lead to very "unorthodox" unit deployments and tactics. You probably have all seen it where a VL is in the middle of an open field and both sides know that any unit actually occupying the VL will get blasted in the open by units hidden away in cover. A weird standoff ensues and with time running out, the only hope of any player being able to hold the VL at games end is if they assault the VL in the last few turns. Do we blame the player(s) and label them "gamey" or the nature of the scenario for this "undesirable" situation? Would this situation have happened if points could be awarded for holding VLs prior to the end of the game? Or if there were NO VLs at all on the map? Reducing the victory point importance of VLs will also help in reducing the "stand off" situation I have described. But for this discussion, we shouldn't, at any stage, get a fixation on thinking that we are stuck with the way VLs have been defined currently in CM ..."all or nothing points for "control" of areas (always of the same area) determined solely at the end of the last turn"...we are trying to think of better ways to handle them. I wouldn't want to see peoples ideas stifled because they feel they must inherit CM's original "written in stone" VL model (and all the implications associated with it). It's an totally open discussion that has the benefit of our experiences playing CM custom scenarios/ operations and QBs (and any other sources of inspiration). I agree with the first part, but if you want a game to play out like a "realistic" battle (which seems to be what the majority of us all want), then the scenario design (and subsequent gameplay) had better taken into consideration what makes up a "realistic" battle. Absolutely. And what are the chances that a QB is going to result in a "realistic" battlefield situation like any of these? Slim. Hence, VL frustration/"gamey" tactics syndrome. Certainly will result put a new spin on how QB would be played out. No, but only if the designers intent was as you had described above. If the designers intent was just that eg. "No enemy sons-of-bitches anywhere near the VL, not even a filter-feeding goddam crew for that matter", then its OK (this is what CM asks of you EVERY TIME btw). Without any design intent as a reference (as in a QB), you can only assume that grabbing a flag in the last turn and altering it to affect the victory outcome was enough in itself to demonstrate the level of control, as seen and ruled by CM, was not sufficient to award victory points either way. Eventually? So what happens "now" is meaningless in relation to what happens "eventually"? So we shouldn't give credit to Col Frost's men at the Arnhem bridge for holding the bridge for 4 days (denying the Germans free access to send reinforcement down south to Nijmegen) because they EVENTUALLY had to surrender? Was what they did immaterial, irrelevant? Not necessarily, but would still make for an interesting battle. Good point, but again, what's the design intent? I think I understand what you are probably trying to achieve by this and I think it is a good concept, though it wouldn't necessarily have to be done as you described. At the moment, the "all or nothing" nature of CM VLs can lead to very abrupt and massive changes in victory point conditions in a very small amount of time with relatively few units involved. Not entirely bad, but has limiting implications. By splitting up the VL area into a number of smaller mini VLs with their VP value decreasing the further from the center, these large instantaneous "step changes" in victory levels by small units can be addressed. This like putting a "line of best fit" through a jagged line graph to make it more "natural". See comments about QB above. Yes. I agree. Having a balance between force size and VL VP points is an important parameter that should be considered regardless. I agree that in QBs, it would be good to be able to also have the option of deeper maps rather than wider maps to allow defenders to defend further forward (rather than on) the VLs themselves. Again, it would result in a wider range battlefield situations. I would say the more tools available to the designer, the greater the range of "realistic" battlefield situations they will be able to create and the less we will have to make excuses for the shortcomings of the game. I hope they will be more than tweaked. I think we can agree that although the QBs in CM can be convenient and fun at times, they may be disappointing when we expect them to play out like a "realistic" battle would. I have much respect for the scenario designers out there that try to ensure that the battle will play out "realistically". I would really like to see what the scenario designers out there have to say about all this. I'm sure they would have some good ideas. What kind of limitations have you guys come across using the current CM scenario design tools? It would be reasonable to say that the way CM currently handles VLs and victory point allocation in all battles can lead to a limited number of battlefield situations that wouldn't commonly be seen in "real life" (especially in QBs!!). Keep thinking about what "real life" battlefield situation(s) you would want to see in a CM+ custom scenario and QB and then think about how it can be implemented. Lt. Bull

31 Lt Bull

A well thought out post FB. Nice use of the term "threatening zone of influence". Implies that an enemy at your door step gives you less control over the objective than an enemy in the next suburb. The third criteria is of course generally correct but not entirely. What of the case of say a parachute drop well behind enemy lines? (as in the case of say D-Day and Market Garden). Or even say Patton's 3rd Army breakout after Operation Cobra? Certain objectives were definitively held by forces well behind established front lines I think at some stage, we also need to start addressing the issue of how "time" factors into victory determination and how it defines a battle. When does the "test for control" in a "real life" battle start and end? What determines "who is winning" a battle at any given point in time? (if at all such a judgement can be made). At the scale of combat CM tries to simulate (especially QB level), what kind of things must happen for us to say that the battle has been won, lost or undecided? When do we decide if the battle has been won, lost or undecided? Does it matter what would've/could've happen if evaluation of the battle were to continue for a few more minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years etc? What does a few minutes of battle mean in the whole scheme of things? Just a few more issues to consider when thinking about what we actually want CM+ victory determination to be modelling in "real life". Lt Bull

Yeah, I often need to do that after reading some of the posts at this forum....hehe. Conversely, we could also look at it another way: How is LACK of possession of local geographical objectives defined? What are features of this? Lt Bull