WendellM

Heck, just beam a 1944 company (any nationality) over to one of their cubes at 11:30 local. Tell them to spread way-the-hell-out among the levels, then open fire at 12:00 (per their watches) to kill all black-leatherish types. The Borgies will just ignore them up to that point as they always do, since they're not a known threat. At 12:01, all Borgies will be pushing up daisies. "You will be assimilated" - hah! You will be cut down by early 20th century slugthrowers is more like it....

As I recall, I wrote to steve@battlefront.com (that was because Steve had mentioned that others were having the trouble I was - orders not really going out). Alternates are charles@battlefront.com (for Charles of BTS, naturally), sales@battlefront.com and support@battlefront.com. Anyway, my personal experience suggests trying steve@battlefront.com first, then the others if you don't hear back within a few days. They really are good guys, but maybe just a little overwhelmed by how well CM is doing (and thus its traffic).

That's also a worthy pursuit, Olle! Good idea.

Yikes, Oberst, your question just yanked me back to the pleasant days of the late 80s. I remember that nail-clipper vs. X-acto argument that used to occur in my head (with the evil "just use your fingers to pop them out" hanging over my shoulder). That, plus "will this sheet fit in the counter tray (with some squeezing) or will I need two trays?" Danke!

tss wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, that's not so ahistoric if you broaden the scope of CMII somewhat. [...] Finns along with Jacob de la Gardie (who was a Swede with French ancestry) who took his army to Kreml in the early 17th century (1611?)."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the input. While my second-favorite century after the 20th is the 18th, I'm sadly ignorant of the 17th. However, an article from http://www.britannica.com/seo/j/jacob-pontusson-de-la-gardie-count/ states: "De la Gardie captured Moscow (1610) and large areas in northwestern Russia but was disastrously defeated at Klushino in 1610" so that's that. Thus I stand corrected and am richer for the learning. I thank you as another pre-20C aficionado (though I still look forward to CM2 ). [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 09-06-2000).]

Knaust wrote: "please Gunslinger don't pack all bmp files in a huge package...it will be very awsome to download! Let us download i.e. a fire package, a smoke package, etc." A couple of days earlier I was all high-speed with my cable modem. But now, for various reasons, I'm back into dial-up land. While GetRight (or a similar product) helps, a (now) mega-huge 10+ meg download again looks daunting if posted in a single block. So I must second this request....

Geez Louise, Gunslinger, I didn't know if you were serious about modifying all ~1,600? CM textures when your first posted about it. That seemed nearly impossible/insane... But it looks like that's exactly what you're doing. Outstanding work! Thanks much/vielen Dank! Wendell

Excellent post, Das Boot. It shows the true value of smilies (expressing some approximation of real face-to-face conversation). I'd only point out that the more exotic "smilies" (such as those from ACTOR and jdmorse above) are not "real" smilies, but linked, animated GIFs, so don't worry about not seeing them as a stock choice. (They are quite cute, though.)

PawBroon wrote: "Not to mention cardboard counters. Mods anyone?" Ooh, I like it. Realistically rendered, textured, shaded, 3D counters in place of units. No doubt the first mod pack would have untrimmed, ragged corners to replace the perfect corners on the stock set. Then would follow a soda-splattered mod and a potato-chip-grease-stained one .

A tough call, Tiger. I like the idea of the well-ordered German war machine slicing through the Eastern barbaric hordes. I also like the idea of the brave defenders of Rodina fighting off the evil invaders against all odds. That is, I'll play both sides with great enthusiasm. As for which I'll play the most? Probably the Germans in 41-43 and the Soviets 42-45. Yeah, there's a little contradiction in the dates, but there's even more in liking both sides. Now, others have brought up the "minor" powers. I look forward to exploring them, and even having ahistorical fun with them - the Finns or Rumanians capturing Red Square/the Kremlin; the Poles capturing downtown Berlin! In other words, I'll love it all. But for me, the meat of CM2 will be the National Socialists vs. the Communists. Two "evil empires" (as seen in the US) fighting it out with no remorse on either side - chilling, but fascinating... Bring it on, Kamerad/Tovarich BTS! [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 09-06-2000).]

E-mail them again - maybe they just missed it due to recent volume. My guess is that BTS wouldn't have a problem mailing you another manual for a reasonable price assuming you're a registered buyer (they do seem to keep track of such things). They're quite helpful to their customers when bad things happen, in my experience (my first CM mail-out had a problem and didn't actually go out, but Steve fixed it for me). Just give them proof-of-purchase info and I imagine that they'll help. Good luck, Wendell

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>VOTE BLAH FOR PRESIDENT!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heretic! Everyone knows that our God-given two-party race between Gush and Bore is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Magna Carta! Let's all cheer in lock-step... Two bits, four bits... Six? Eight? Do we add two, double, or square? "Who's the King of America again?" "I invented the Internet!" *Sigh* if only the Libertarians could win... just one term would fix so much... *sigh* ObCM: Rushing Panthers with artil spotters is a bad idea. Bad.

Phoenix, Very nice kill. I love when that happens due to the whole reversal of killer/target. Pillar, Nice pic and effect. Evocative.

eba, "With regard to the use of tracers [...] the German fighters tended to hold their attack runs much longer and pass much closer to the bombers if they didn't know they were being shot at." A good point. I know that, as the Germans, I get a lot more "friendly" with the bombers in EAW if I don't seem to be targeted - nice to hear historical confirmation. Similarly I'm more aggressive in presenting my tanks/panzers in CM until a "Gun?" makes its presence known. Then I naturally wish I hadn't been so adventuresome . [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 09-06-2000).]

"a wargamer since I bought a Commodore 128 to take onboard ship (USS Nimitz 1985-88)" Hey, a gamer and a real-life Navy sailor... Friendly regards for the first, sincere thanks for the second. I hope you enjoy CM as I have (scenarios and mods do add to it). Go Navy! Wendell

Pillar, "When I look at this picture, I think of a young man enjoying perhaps his last sunny day before the enemy arrives. Perhaps he is contemplating his death? Or wondering about a loved one?" I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who views war this way. Playing CM is by default a rather sterile realm for such thoughts - more suited to tactics than philosophy. But your picture and words show how that limit can be exceeded. Thank you. Wendell

An impeccable source (next-best thing to BTS) has confirmed that +n increases AI unit experience levels by n. So at +1, Green become Regular, at +3 Regular become Elite, etc. (though the quality displayed doesn't seem to change).

Dittohead, Forgive me for a serious answer . You've maybe figured it out by now, but those aren't really stock "smilies" at all. They're animated GIFs. If you want to "get" them, either copy a favorite (to your own server, to avoid taxing the creator's server) or create your own (many mainstream paint programs can create animated .GIFs). Then, just insert the HTML code in your post. For example, the "vomiting smiley" is: < i mg src="http://tor-pw1.attcanada.ca/~arc/ Images/puke.gif"> I had to stick an space before and after the "i" in "img" to keep the board from actually showing it - omit those spaces for it to show. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 09-03-2000).]

OK, "MAD"Matt I've been willin' t'overlook yer bald pate and sinister goatee, based on yer useful info, but THIS is too much... "THIS" = I won't even get into the monstrosity that David has introduced... my fine Scottish ancestors spin in their graves .... Hamsters... BAH!!! Nothing specific--the world just needed a good "BAH!!!" Please note that the universe will soon implode if this message has ever been edited by WendellM... [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 09-02-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was a little bit dissapointed when I recieved my copy of the game and found it in a paper slip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, me too a little bit. However, I'd ordered from Battlefront before, so I knew what to expect. That, plus the policies of other game companies had led me to have spare CD cases on-hand: only $1 or so each - no biggie. But, I know where you're coming from. It's certainly possible to hand-letter a CM CD-holder, but a printed cover/CD-case would add a certain, welcome, "classy" aspect (though secondary compared to manuals). I'm just happy that the actual content on the CM CD outstrips the content of most "fluff" CD's. Wendell

*Captain Foobar* wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the +1, +2, or +3, I have been lead to believe, is +1 experience level for the computer. for +1, If you get regulars, they get veterans, etc. I dont think it was defined in the manual, but I do remember someone answering that question here in the forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Captain, but while I agree with you that I also read that (and that it would make sense), the post-battle "Map" view still shows those +3 enemy units as "Regular." Maybe their status just isn't updated in CM itself? I may be way off here, but since I don't see such a status update, I attribute the extra combat effectiveness to other factors (though I admit that I could well be wrong). Again, thanks for the reply.

>You got alot more better edgucation than me. Heh... thanks, Def, but what I have is really the curse of fiddlin'-details . I sometimes find myself more interested in the details and statistics of a wargame than actually playing it. Fortunately CM is nifty enough to transcend this: though the stats still beckon to me. I've played CM much more - including PBEM - than any game in recent memory. Those who can play such games well without such fiddlin' have my respect . Regards to all players... [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 09-02-2000).]

I was curious about the effect of "Computer Experience" (none, +1, +2, +3) which isn't mentioned in the manual (at least I haven't been able to find it in mine, though I may be off). I'd read in this forum that it was possibly supposed to increase the Experience Level of troops (Regular/Veteran, etc.) but this doesn't seem to be the case (this isn't indicated when viewing Map after a battle). I'd also read that there were several "flavors" of AI (overly-aggressive, aggressive, somewhat cautious, etc.) and that this was perhaps supposed to choose a more-suitable one for the situation at hand. So, to start to sort this out, I put together a test scenario. This test scenario ("TWM deathpit") has default parameters, except: May 1945 (I wanted everyone available), Meeting Engagement, No flags (this is pure firepower-based). Units: 3 American Rifle Platoons (worth 129 ea.) vs. 3 Heer Pz Grenadier Platoons (mot) (worth 129 ea.). The map is all clear, 240m on a side. Each side's 9 squads are deployed in a line, with the outer squads about 40m from the map edges and each squad about 20m from the next. The lines of squads are about 120m from each other (thus about 60m from their respective rear map edges). HQs are deployed about 12m behind the center squad in the platoon. In other words, a solid line of rifle squads facing each other across an empty battlefield, with HQs close behind. These forces weren't chosen for any reason other than their point values matched. My results may not be precisely typical/average (low statistical sampling - generally 30+ samples are preferred), but they should be in the ballpark, and thus of general interest. Any revisions to my reasoning, or additional tests out to determine the effects to "Computer Experience" are welcome. Tests: 7 runs with AI controlling Axis, then AI controlling Allies, at None, +1, +2, and +3 Computer Experience. The single greatest pro-Axis and pro-Ally result were ignored in each run, leaving 5 results to be averaged (mean). To have a rough idea of overall Axis/Ally balance, a Control run was done as 7 Hotseat games, with units on both sides remaining still. In all tests, the AI sent about 1/3 to 2/3 of his forces forward while the rest remained back giving covering fire. Depending on the initial success, more units possibly moved up. This overall "strategy" seemed pretty constant regardless of the side controlled or Experience Level. The Control run only accounts for units firing at their initial ranges, without moving, but should serve as a rough balancing factor for the overall pro-Axis results observed. Though each platoon on either side is "worth" 129 points, that figure is doubtless an attempt at an overall measure of efficiency in many situations, and not just a straight firefight like this. Just because there's a pro-Axis bias under these conditions does not necessarily mean that the units are "priced" incorrectly. In the runs below, * = one of the two extreme results (highest/lowest) that is ignored. Otherwise, the result is rated as how well the AI faired (+ = better, - = worse). These results are unadjusted for any pro-Axis bias (comments on that will follow). Computer Experience Normal (None) AI-CONTROLLED SIDE AXIS_______ALLY AX AL______AX AL 25 75=-50 _84 16=-68 23 77=-54 _79 21=-58* 68 32=+36* 81 19=-62 26 74=-48 _81 19=-62 36 64=-28 _87 13=-74 17 83=-66* 91 9=-82* 36 64=-28 _80 20=-60 AVG = -42 _AVG = -65 Computer Experience +1 AI-CONTROLLED SIDE AXIS_______ALLY AX AL______AX AL 55 45=+10 _76 24=-52 51 49=+02 _71 29=-42* 45 55=-10 _79 21=-58 48 52=-04 _83 17=-66 24 76=-52* 77 23=-54 58 42=+16 _85 15=-70 64 36=+28* 93 7=-86* AVG = +03 _AVG = -60 Computer Experience +2 AI-CONTROLLED SIDE AXIS_______ALLY AX AL______AX AL 58 42=+16 _43 57=+14* 58 42=+16 _76 24=-52 46 54=-08 _82 18=-64* 60 40=+20* 79 21=-58 48 52=-04 _51 49=-02 43 57=-14* 71 29=-42 58 42=+16 _80 20=-60 AVG = +07 _AVG = -43 Computer Experience +3 AI-CONTROLLED SIDE AXIS_______ALLY AX AL______AX AL 43 57=-14* 71 29=-42* 52 48=+04 _52 48=-04 48 52=-04 _62 38=-24 59 41=+15 _52 48=-04 54 46=+08 _47 53=+06* 63 37=+26* 51 49=-02 54 46=+08 _58 42=-16 AVG = +05 _AVG = -10 Thus the average (mean) results from None through +3 are: AXIS ALLY AXIS BIAS AVG = -42 AVG = -65 +23 AVG = +03 AVG = -60 +57 AVG = +07 AVG = -43 +50 AVG = +05 AVG = -10 +15 Yielding an average (mean) Axis bias of: +36 Control (Hotseat) AX AL (Axis superiority) 77 23 = +54* 60 40 = +20* 77 23 = +54 76 24 = +52 68 32 = +36 76 24 = +52 71 29 = +42 AVG = +47 So, under "balanced" conditions, the Axis can expect to achieve a +47 score over the Allies. Again, this is a crude estimate that doesn't take into account the fact that the AI likes to move closer while under fire (which involves the fact that the German squads have 10 men while the American squads have 12, along with the various characteristics of German weapons vs. American weapons). In any case, averaging this with the observed +36 yields a factor of +42: Computer Experience Normal (None) AI-CONTROLLED SIDE AXIS ALLY AVG = -42 AVG = -23 Computer Experience +1 AI-CONTROLLED SIDE AXIS ALLY AVG = +03 AVG = -18 Computer Experience +2 AI-CONTROLLED SIDE AXIS ALLY AVG = +07 AVG = -01 Computer Experience +3 AI-CONTROLLED SIDE AXIS ALLY AVG = +05 AVG = +32 Thus the revised average (mean) results from None through +3 are: +19 -15 +08 -27 ---- -15 (naturally close 36-47) Well, anyway, such manipulation brings the results closer together, with alternating juxtaposition, so it's probably worth something. Something else worth noting is that once one side achieved a slight superiority, that tended to cascade into a great superiority (since a few unsuppressed riflemen on the winning side were able to suppress a few more on the losing side, leading to more winning-side men being freed to fire on more losing-side men, and so on). There were exceptions, but this was the general rule, so the final results are somewhat expanded from the initial firepower superiority that caused that result. The main point I get from this is that a Computer Experience of "none" cannot really be considered fair. At least a +1, if not a +2, seems called for to achieve anything like "fair" results (compared to an opponent who just always sits still). Again, these are just my interpretations against the AI under specific conditions. What I've seen *seems* to indicate that the efficiency of fire is boosted for AI squads with regard to player squads when "Computer Experience" is raised - maybe that is what is intended (I don't see it in my manual but it could be missing). I'm not sure what factors "Computer Experience" is/are supposed to represent. That is, it doesn't give the AI more units (there's another setting for that), and it doesn't seem to make the AI more "intelligent" (the "strategy" seems to remain "advance with 1/3-2/3 of your forces"). Instead, it just seems to make AI units kill better/be more resistant to killing (or both). I could well be wrong (and would actually be happy to be proven so), but based on my findings (below) it *seems* like "Computer Experience" functions the same way that "artificially boost AI killing/defense skills" works in other games (at least under the limited circumstances that I've tested it). [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 09-02-2000).]

Though not specifically addressing the scenarios you mentioned, MajorH recently posted some general TacOps tactics. You may well have read them already, but just in case you haven't: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum5/HTML/000251.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum5/HTML/000252.html

Combat Mission 2 will be Eastern Front. As for user-made campaigns, the answer is effectively yes. CM has "operations": basically a big map with battles fought on smaller sections of it (dynamically determined depending on each battle's outcome). Reinforcements are possible between battles. Thus, you don't have a linked series of battles per se, but rather a meta-battle environment in the same general area, if that makes sense . [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-26-2000).]