Lt Bull

OK. A good start. These seem to be fundamental to all battles. We can consider each one of these factors as paramters within themselves which can be given "weight" depending on what kind of battle we are trying to simulate. The last two factors: - Destruction of enemy forces - Conservation of friendly forces are probably more easy to define/assess than the first two: - The achievement of local objectives - Denying local objectives to the enemy I assume these are relating directly to "geographical" objectives. In "real life", is possession of local objectives easy to define/identify? How is it done? What factors are considered? Is time a factor in it? Do both sides see it the same way? We must not forget that if we are to develop a "realistic" model for defining victory parameters of a battle, those parameters must also make sense within the scope of the bigger picture of what might be happeneing (but is not dirtectly modelled in CM). Lt Bull

I thought I would start a new thread to address what I think are key issues that haven't been properly addressed in other related threads about VLs and victory determination in CM(+) (more recently in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/016431.html) Some interesting ideas on how VLs can be handled in CM+ have been thrown around in many other threads as well. I think perhaps we could be jumping the gun here a bit by not relating it all back to a simple yet important preliminary fundamental question. All these ideas mean nothing (and are very difficult to evaluate) unless we can answer: WHAT IS IT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MODEL HERE? Once we clearly define that in "real world" terms, only then should we start coming up with ideas and answering: HOW CAN WE BEST MODEL THAT WITHIN CM+? To begin with, we can consider the "scope and scale" of CM. In "real world" terms, a single CM scenario can currently model: 1) 0-120 minutes of WW2 combat. 2) a combat area ranging in size from 0.06 to 4.8 sq km. 3) force sizes ranging from single platoons/vehicles up to 5 German Rifle Bns or 3 US Rifle Bns + loads of support vehicles (not aware of exact figures, but its huge). That's quite a range there. Keeping that firmly in mind, I would hazard a guess that most people are thinking of ideas for battles in the size realm of a "typical" 1500pt 25-30 turn QB on a large map and ignoring the implications on larger sized batles for example. I haven't seen many people consider/discuss the +/- of any ideas when considering the whole "scope and scale" possible in CM. This is why I think I don't believe a single "simple" answer to the "VL question" (without adequate reasoning) will adequately cover ALL situations and why I do believe it would be best to have a range of different ways to model a range of different battles and circumstances. Back to the first question: WHAT IS IT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MODEL HERE? Ultimately we are trying to model a way of deciding which player, if any, deserves to "win" a "battle". We won't be able to judge the ideas unless we can refer it back to what we hope it is we are trying to model in "real life". Are all "real life" battles the same? Are the object of all meeting engagements, probes, attacks and assualts the same for both sides? No, so why should we think there might be a single simple solution for determining "victory" in all situations? A different kind of battle, a different set of victory conditions. Makes sense to me. I would also point out that when considering the scale and scope of a "typical" QB ("realistically" 25-30 min of a reinforced company sized ME on 1.4 sqkm area with arbitrarily placed VL locations without any immediate strategic/tactical/"real life" significance), it will always be difficult to find a way in which "victory" can be determined. Can we really expect it to be clear cut? Thats why all this moaning about VLs in these battles and what should be done to "fix the VL problem" seems so trivial. So what I would like to see is for discussion to go back several steps and for people to think more about what it is EXACTLY about a battle that we are trying to establish. For me, orders are orders. CM has its own way of defining them and it automatically looks after itself. Follow them or fail. It's simple. I can accept the way CM clearly spells them out to me and all it's implications. Leave a VL undefended and you may lose it in the last turn. Tough s*#t! You let that happen. Perhaps you couldn't really have afforded to send your assets to go and fight elsewhere. If that is what is required to ensure you don't lose possesion of the VL, then so be it! But whether they are "realistic" or not is another issue. If people aren't satisfied with following the orders currently unambigiously defined by CM as it stands, please be more specific on what your alternative suggestions are trying to model in "real life" and how your suggestion then does that. Be careful. A 30 turn 1500pt QB ME is not the be all and end all of definitive WW2 combat (I think they were actually an exception than than the rule). I don't think these are very easy questions to answer. Lt Bull

What can I say? We are not worthy! Fantastic work Marco. Lt Bull

It's good to see that a new angle on this whole VL issue is being looked at. Good points being raised all over the place. I apologise to Scipio if I defelcted discussion too much away from what I think he originally set out to discuss (ie. alternate ways in which VLs/victory determination in CM2/CMII could be modelled), but it was the insinuation that "we all agree" that the current CM system has a "VL problem" where it "sucks" and has no merits when VLs can be "stolen" in "gamey last minute attacks" that I think needed to be addressed. I defended the current system to let people know that its not as "unfair/unfounded in reality" as this insinuation tries to suggest. I'm never did say that the way CM currently handles VLs/victory point allocation is perfect or isn't worth discussing any further. I just wanted to point out that it is possible to play CM within its unbiased confines without the need for "external" rules on what you can/can't do (because we think some things are "gamey" and feel we have to do something about it). What is it that the FINAL GAME RESULT in any CM battle is trying to simulate? As far as VLs go, it is SIMPLE: Who (if anyone) is able to "keep control of the VL" at the end of the last turn. This is absolute, unambiguous, unbiased, final, and automatic. It is NOT, by definition, who would've/could've had control of the VL if the game went on any longer or any shorter than specified by the scenario turn limit. Or even, whose ass warmed the VL the most throughout the battle. Once this is whole-heartedly accepted and understood by BOTH players, there should be no problem in accepting whatever result is achieved and what led up to it. Tanklord, you are spot on...as far as CM currently stands goes, its just as simple as that. "If you can't hold the VL, you don't deserve getting the points for it". Let me add....under any and all circumstances possible. They are your orders! No ifs or buts! But we need to remember that we are dealing with several "controversial" issues here which have been around for some time. 1) the concept of a "last turn", which is absolute and of common knowledge to both sides. 2) the method in which CM allocates Victory Points with regards to occupation of geographical terrain, which is an all-or-nothing based on end game conditions ONLY. The way CM handles both of these concepts isn't all together that bad (irrationally "unrealistic") such that we need to call it a "problem" and somehow feel we need a way to introduce a set of "external" third-party rules of our own to impose on our gaming experience to "take the pain away" until CM2/CMII comes out with a new system. However, when we consider how CM2/CMII might handle victory point allocation/game duration (as per Scipio's original post), I'm sure we can think of novel creative ways to IMPROVE and build upon the way it is currently handled in CM. I hope it will be an interesting and workable blend of many of the ideas being discussed here (and also in other threads). Lt Bull

Thanks Deadmarsh and iggi, Im happy you can see my point. I believe we can all be comfortable with the way VLs are currently modelled in CM without having to feel we need to impose "rules" on contesting/attacking VLs. Just think of a VL as being a much bigger area than what most of you may currently think it is (or should be) and the game (and the result) will look after itself. Off to work now. Be good. Lt Bull

As the good Colonel points out: "I don't think you really know what it means to have control of an objective. I will give you a clue. If the enemy can contest the objective in the space of a few minutes, YOU AINT GOT CONTROL OF IT!" Even if the world did magically end with one minute left, to make it anywhere near the VL in that short amount of time, by definition, means that the enemy got WAY TOO CLOSE to the VL in the first place. By definition if you really had a well defended VL, it would take many turns for the enemy to even start thinking about turning it to ?........right? Perhaps everyone should start rethinking what they consider to be adequate control of a VL. Perhaps we need to rethink VLs as being more than just a small patch of dirt and more of a larger area that is more difficult to defend than we currently think it is. Its just a matter of scale. Lt Bull

Spring 1944, Western Europe. A jeep scrambles furiously up a windy dirt to track carrying an irrate colonel who has specially driven out to meet one of his frontline company commanders. Col: "Captain, can you please explain what the hell happened on that hill you had only minutes ago told me you had well secured?" Capt: "Well sir, we were fortunate enough to have been able to make it to the hill before the enemy did as their LOS was blocked by a ridge several hundred metres in front of us. Once we got there we set up a defensive perimeter and employed units in ambush positions around the hill. We waited and waited but when the enemy suddenly attacked from the woods just over the ridge sir, with armoured infantry, tank support and a smoke screen..I..I don't know...in just a few short minutes, they manged to contest the hill right when we didn't want them to." Col: "You set up a defense around the hill you say. What kind of defense Captain?" Capt: "Well sir, we basically deployed a few squads and AT infantry in the woods maybe 50m forward of the hill but kept most of our force hidden in cover several 100m away on the flanks to nail the enemy if they advanced on the hill." Col: "I see, you call that a defence of a hill Captain? How the hell are you expecting to defend a damn hill if a damn defensive line of a few squads is only a few goddamn metres forward of the hill you say you were "defending"? You KNEW you had to hold the hill until 1500hrs to screen the deploymnent of the main TF that was moving up the road north for a surprise attack on the enemy flank." Capt: "But sir, besides that small patch of woods just forward of the hill, there was no other cover about. There was an orchard several hundred meters forward and to the right of the hill and a small village to the left but I though it too risky to deploy that far forward of the objective." Col: "Too risky hey? Not enough cover? You think I don't expect you to take risks Captain? I don't give a jacks ass even if you didnt have any cover at all. Your orders were simple. Advance to the objective and defend it from the enemy until 1500hrs at which time you would report in your current situation to me. I had to cancel the whole attack at the last minute after hearing that the enemy had made it to the hill. How the hell are we supposed to win this war when officers leave their work undone?" Capt: "We held the hill for most of the day sir. It was just those last few minutes that they managed to make it close enough to the hill to contest it." Col: "Damn it Captain, if I didnt want you to have control of the hill at 1500hrs I wouldn't have asked you to hold it at 1500hrs! You were given specific orders and you failed. Why the hell you didn't adjust your defence accordingly to prevent the enemy from contesting the hill in the last few minutes is beyond me. If it meant taking the fight to the enemy, well, so be it! At least they would'nt have been anywhere where near the objective. Didn't reconn report that the enemy opposite you were of a similar size and force anyway"? Capt: "I believe that to be correct sir." Col: "So why the hell didnt you take the fight to the enemy instead of letting them take the fight to you in those last few minutes? This was technically a meeting engagement was it not? You get just a little bit too cosy hiding in your ambush positions perhaps? It's not as if they had superior numbers. You though they were going to let you just have that hill without a fight?" Capt: "Err, we thought we were set up well enough to hold the hill sir. I still can't believe they could do it." Col: "Well start believing Captain. You prefered to deploy the minimum number of units just forward enough to be able to claim control of the hill. You sat back in your cosy little ambush positions while you let the advancing enemy casually group at will all around you for a last minute assualt on your position. Why did you let them do that? Didn't you ever play or watch football son? Ever seen the coaches modify their plays depending on the score, their field position, the personnel on the field and the game clock? Four points up, you don't set up a dime defense on the last play of the game when the other team sets up in Jumbo formation at the goaline. Frankly Captain, I don't think you really know what it means to have control of an objective. I will give you a clue. If the enemy can contest the objective in the space of a few minutes, YOU AINT GOT CONTROL OF IT! Deal with it or get out of my battalion!" Capt: "Yes sir. I will try not to fail you next time." What is the problem here? Follow your goddam orders!! Lt Bull

The first online game I played was the original Close Combat many years ago. You could give yourself an identity in the game setup and after seeing that there were a few players about that named themselves Sgt ***, Lt *** or Col ***, I thought it a good idea to use the same format (im sure there would be several of those players now playing CM) Seeing that I had a nickname Bully and that the only reason I set out to have an online identity was to play wargames online, I thought Lt Bull summed it up an have used it ever since. Lt Bull

A damn tragedy! Thats was one superb quality site. I just happened to download the latest PBEMv3 pack probably just hrs before the plug was pulled (let me know any of you want it) Im really shocked. Col Klotz <=SALUTE=> for what was a great site. Hope it can be reincarnated again, much like Kumps CM Outpost was. The bastards! Lt Bull [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 02-08-2001).]

Just thought I should also post up how much I liked Kump's CM Outpost. It was a *quality* site and definitely one of the best CM sites around. Sorry to have to see it go. Good luck with your other project Garry. I hope you find someone willing to continue your site. Lt Bull

I suggested this to Teach in a TCP QB and he thought it may be worth posting... How bout a battle system where an ATTACKER must control the VLs for X amount of turns in order to win (or to "convert" the VL to his control). Or even, victory points accumulating for controlling VLs for every turn in a battle (much like some board wargames use Victory Points allocation for VLs controlled at the end of a turn). I think this could be argued to be the more "realistic" means of determining "control" of an area ie. not for the last few fleeting seconds in the last turn of a scenario, but a few solid turns (minutes) of occupying the VL(s) to gain CONTROL> Lt Bull

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost: How did you carry out this analysis? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Firstly I assumed a statistical normal distribution to model shot dispersion as a basis of the study and also (very importantly) guns ALWAYS target the CENTRE of the target visible to them. I then recorded the quoted "To Hit%" of various guns vs various targets (silhouettes) both "hull down" and "in open" at various ranges (500,1000,1500,2000,2500m) given on a CM scenario editor firing range. From this data, for each range, for targets "in the open", an arbitrary (but nevertheless valid) STANDARD DEVIATION (or standard measure of shot dispersion) can be subscribed to each type of gun BASED on the "To Hit%" and target silhouette. Once this STANDARD DEVIATION of shot dispersion is determined for the gun at that range, it is possible to look at the "To Hit%" against the same target at the same range but when the target is now "hull down" and determine what % reduction in silhouette would be associated with the new hull down "To Hit%". note: I assumed that silhouette varies linearly so that a silhouette of 100 is twice the size/area/target of a silhouette of 50 for example. (important: this does not imply that a gun has double the the chance of hitting a target that has double the silhouette at the same range!) I was going to post some graphs/pictures/tables to better explain but gave up after I realised you cant cut/paste BMP/JPGs to Forum threads. Files need to be hosted online somewhere and then linked to those sites. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost: Was this stated 37% reduction in size common for all hull-down AFV's ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My analysis concluded that a 37% reduction in target size (or silhouette) when hull down is consistent for all vehicles regardless of size/silhouette. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost: What does the reduction in size have on the "to hit" chance of engaging guns ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm quite sure the modelling of hits vs guns is handle differently than hits vs vehicles as there appears to be no silhouette value for guns. Regardless, if you think about it, guns are in effect like a tank's turret, so they can be considered in some ways as a tank in constant "hull down" status (with only the turret exposed). Further, HE is primarily required to KO a gun, not AP. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost: I believe that hull-down in CM is all or nothing, either the AFV is hull down or it isn't. My understanding is that there is no "degrees" of hull-down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct. This has been verified by BTS in the past. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost: ...It becomes a question of weighing the benefit of reducing engaging tanks "to hit" chance versus increasing the probability of successful incoming shot hitting a weaker part of the tanks frontal aspect (the turret in the MkIV example). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That question is PRACTICABLY difficult to answer when you probably need it most...while playing a game!! Its can be analysed, though, by a simple calculation if you have the data readily available, which it isn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost: But, again, if memory serves the reduction in the "to hit" chance wasn't really focussed on. It came down to more of a discussion of the benefits of being hull down in the more abstract. Increased chance of retreating out of enemies LOS, being able to retreat and move about unobserved, and of course reducing the "to hit" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, and as a rule of thumb, unless your tank has a significantly weaker turret and is at "close range" to an accurate firing gun(roughly speaking much less than 500m), the abstract reasoning will probably weigh in more heavily in favour of being hull down. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost: - but by how much ? and is the reduction the same for all hull down AFV's ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, it could be quantifiably analysed IF all the required data was given. You would need this info for every situation that may be of interest to you in a CM game: 1) % chance to HIT turret/upper hull/lower hull/tracks in the both the "in open" AND "hull down" position at the range in question 2) % chance to KILL tank GIVEN a hit on the turret/upper hull/lower hull/tracks at that range None of these factors are easily determined from CM, especially 2) as it involves complex penetration calculations with many variables. Both 1) and 2) could be determined empirically for very simple situations by doing CM "firing range" testing. Matching penetration values at range vs target armour/slope could be used as a very crude estimation for 2). Lt Bull

Greasy Pig, Go to the CM scenario editor, and on clear flat terrain put a stone wall. Place a tank just behind it and an enemy tank on the opposite side of the stone wall say 400m away. Drag a LOS or Target line >from the enemy tank< to the tank behind the wall and you SHOULD see "Hull Down" in the target description (along with To Hit%, range etc) Now drag a LOS or Target line >from the tank behind the wall< to the enemy tank in the open. A note should appear next to the tank behind the wall saying "Hull Down (bow MG blocked)". If you dont see any of these text notes, let me know. Lt Bull

My analysis of the basic quoted To Hit % values in CM indicates that being hull down relates to roughly a 37% reduction in target size. I am curious to hear other peoples findings/conclusions and see how this might correlate to the actual figure (or model). Lt Bull

Strangely enough I may have first hand knowledge of at least one of the vehicles used in SPR. While visiting Trieste (Italy) last year, I stopped by the Diego de Henriquez Museo di Guerra per la Pace. I was fortunate enough to be shown the vehicle collection which has not yet been opened to the public. They are kept in sheds in an ex-military barracks. I could not believe the stuff they had there. When I saw the Marder III and the condition it was in, I immediately thought of The English Patient (yes, its in that movie for about 3 secs driving past in the background) and SPR. The guys showing me around told me that it is apparently the only one of its kind that is still mobile and has been used in movies (they didnt know the names though I assume it was in The English Patient and/or SPR). They did let me take a photo of it and I can send it to you if you like, but the guys at the museum told me that they had been burnt before by someone taking photos of their unreleased collection and publishing them so I wont post it up. There is a scene in the Ramelle battle where an opened topped SP gun moving down the street gets molotov cocktailed by US paras from an upper storey window. I have checked my photo taken of the Marder III at the museum with stills from the movie (SPR on DVD) and it IS definitely a REAL Marder III. I am pretty sure that the Marder III used in the SPR movie IS the one at the de Henriquez museum. It really is a rare collection they have. They also hold a SdKfz 7 Gun Tractor that is also operational and in excellent condition. If you are ever in Trietse, Italy, go to that museum! Lt Bull

...sorry, was experimenting with inserting images in posts. Thought I was going to get a preview first [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 12-16-2000).]

This thread (and a very intriguing one it is) should be retitled: "Gee..It took CM to make me realize I hadn't fully understood the implications in some situations in placing a tank with a weaker turret in a hulldown position". Get over it! It is NOT a game bug or an unusual CM modelling flaw or even an undesirable observation (if real life modelling is what you want!). I can assure you that the kind of "phenomena" described by MichaelU (how is that August Bank PBEM going btw?) is NOT CM specific! It is a totally realistic phenomena which can be easily demonstrated outside of CM. Let me carefully DEFINE what "phenomena" I am talking about as I see room for much misinterpretation and generalization. It is very specific. GIVEN THAT a tank has weaker* turret armour IN RELATION TO the rest of the tanks armour, more so the GREATER this weakness and the larger the size of the tank ), then at ranges typically LESS THAN 1000m, the SURVIVABILITY of that tank (at least) from a SINGLE AT SHOT targeted at it, if placed in a hull down position, WILL BE REDUCED than if it were not to place itself in a hull down position. (*note: by weaker, I mean more prone to being penetrated IF HIT than if hit in the hull) It is also worth reminding yourself of the key assumption made by CM which goes hand-in-hand with why we see/should expect this phenomena....that is that... >> Tank gunners ALWAYS aim for the centre of area (CoA) of the tank target which is visible ie. the aim points will be different depending if the target tank is hull down or not as the tank is only partially visible to the gunner when hulldown << This goes hand-in-hand with the assumption that tank gunners DO NOT AIM FOR THE WEAKER ARMOUR on a tank either because they have no knowledge of it or because they just simply aim to MAXIMIZE their chances of simply HITTING the target ie. aim at CoA of the area presented to them. I have modelled this statistically and have come to the same conclusions. I hope to release some graphs showing this apparently "unrealistic" phenomena being modelled. Queries welcome. BTW, I think I have heard BTS mention somewhere before that tanks are either hulldown or not (you cant be any more or any less hulldown than just hulldown). My calcs correlate to a CM hulldown as meaning a 36-37% reduction in target area presented to the enemy. More to come. Lt Bull

Sniperscope, Be sure that you are: a) opening CM using the Public Beta "Combat Mission Publuc Beta.exe" file, and not the v1.05 "Combat Mission.exe" If you haven't updated your CM shortcut, you may be inadvertantly opening CM v1.05. not confusing PBEM files (*.txt) and SAVED files (*.cmb or *.cmc). After opening a PBEM file, it is possible to "save" it midway through the turn as a SAVED file. I know that PUBLIC BETA *.cmb or *.cmc SAVED files are invisible if you try to find them if you open CM v1.05. Thats the only thing that comes to mind here. Lt Bull

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf^: The idea of my mod was to make terrain elevation more visible...B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...which is something that I am looking for in grass mods! Being able to judge elevation is probably a more important feature than the texture itself. I go for the lighter "subdued" style terrain but have yet to find a subdued-compatible grass set that lets me judge elevation as easily as I could with the original CM grass set. It seems the trend in grass modding has been to decrease/comprimise the tonal differences in the tiles to make the tiles blend more. This is fine but with the abscence of dynamic lighting, it makes it almost impossible to judge elevation (which can be difference between life and death in a game!) Having tonal differences isnt a bad thing or something which has to be comprimised to make a texture set look realistic in CM. It actually compensates for the lack of dynamic lighting in the 3D CM world. Low lying areas are "in the shade"/darker and higher areas are brighter (in direct sunlight). I think the original CM grass set is excellent. It has the right balance of tonal variation allowing adequate elevation judgement and texture blends to make it look like grass on hills in the game. In fact, I have gone back to it after trying out several of the subdued-style grass packs. Really the only thing I would change about the original grass set (given that I have now gone to "the dark side"...please forgive me BTS...hehe) would be to give it the subdued treatment leaving the texture/tonal variation between tiles basically the same. A step in the right direction Wolf^. I will be trying out your mod. Good work! Lt Bull

Good post Spook. Im sure BTS will address the problem next patch. I've only played bocage scenarios in v1.05 and below and have also seen that similar behaviour. It sure is annoying and unrealistic. Just had an idea about an alternate way of modelling bocage that might be worth considering (for future?). Have the bocage feature "sit" on a thin strip of terrain (like scattered terrain) slightly wider than the width of the bocage itself so that units next to the bocage get some extra protection, rather than just sitting in open terrain (as is almost always the case). From the pics I have seen of hedgerow in WW2 (http://www.geocities.com/jeffduquette/phtNORM2.html), there typically was a 1'-2' ditch which may have provided extra cover for those adjacent to the hedgerow. It might enhance the defendabilty of bocages and prevent some of that "Germans defending in foxholes behind bocage running into the bocage" kind of behaviour, as they would technically now be in "cover" terain, not open ground. I'm sure this couldn't be done in CM but its just an alternative way it could be modelled. Lt Bull

I am back after a 5 month OS adventure, have CMBO all modded up and have hordes of scenarios to choose from. I am now looking to build up my CM opponent list again. So if you are looking for a fight, I am waiting for it. Drop me a line at arf@start.com.au See you on the battlefield. Lt Bull PS: And Urquhart...you cant hide...Im coming for you !

The time has come for me to head off on my European backpacking adventure. Its been a longer than anticipated wait for CM but Im sure looking forward to the day I return home in a few months and find the game waiting for me. Take care. Lt. Bull PS to all my PBEM opponents: I hope we can resume and finish off our battles when I return. I enjoyed each one of them. [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 06-13-2000).]

I have an idea/concept I shared with Teach who thought that it might be a good one to open up to discussion at the Forum. It would invariably require the assistance of BTS for it to have a chance to work. Basically, it would be a list of verified email addresses (posted on some web site) of people how have legitimately purchased a copy of the game from BTS. The list itself would allow people wanting to support the game to check the email address of all their opponent to ensure they aren't playing against a "rat" (or non-legitimate CM owner...duh!). For privacy reasons, not EVERYONES email address would be listed; only those who WANT to participate would email BTS informing them to authorise their inclusion on the list. It won't stop the game from being copied but at least it might pose limitations on the "rats" with unauthroised copies of the game wanting to find PBEM/IP opponents. They could effectively be ostracised from the main CM gaming community and forced to find other "rats". It would also give owners of CM some surity that they are actively helping to support the game by playing other legitimate CM owners. Perhaps even patches/tech support could only be made available to legitimate owners. I don't know if anything like this has ever been attempted. There might be some logistical problems with it perhaps. I will leave it with those wanting to pursue it. Just a thought. Lt. Bull

damn double post! [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 06-04-2000).]

It's worth remembering that only YOU know for certain that your team has run out of ammo. Your opponent does not. Therefore in this context, the unit is still considered a threat to your opponent and can still come in handy as a bluff and decoy. Acting in a way that may indicate that it is out of ammo may give the bluff away. Just trying to make the most out of nothing. Lt. Bull [This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 06-04-2000).]