RudeLover

Carentan, anything by WBW, anything by Moon. I'm looking forward to the revised DeSobry, Bill! Thanks again for all your tireless efforts on behalf of CM! Moon's ops are all very well done, IMO. McKinley's Bn and Utrechtseweg are great. I'd like to put in a good word for Moon's "Drive to Mortain," which I haven't seen mentioned. Play as Yanks, and the pressure's on to advance, though you know there's gonna be ambushes every step of the way. I've enjoyed the first battles of Shanley's Stand, Task Force Rose (by M. Hunkele on Moon's site), and Operation Sea Lion, but haven't played them all the way through yet. [This message has been edited by RudeLover (edited 09-11-2000).]

Seems to me that I've seen the 'gun hit' message on an enemy tank only to have that very tank later spank me hard. Or was I hallucinating? A few 'false positives' would prevent the prudent tanker from discounting an AFV that's had a gun hit. Then if you get a gun hit and the bad guy slams 'er into reverse and disappears, you gotta wonder, is he hurt, or just sneaky?

I searched on 'operation' and got a bunch of hits. I'm still having mixed results with ops, sometimes finding myself pushed waaay back when defending...with FOW I can't always tell if it's justified. When they work right, though, the ops are very cool... Here's a couple: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum6/HTML/000095.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum6/HTML/000044.html These have Desobry spoilers: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum6/HTML/000097.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum6/HTML/000204.html General operation discussion: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum6/HTML/000245.html

If you have at least one waypoint or rotation order plotted and then hit 'H,' the last order will go to "Run + Hide" or "Rotate + Hide" or whatever, which I think is what you're looking for. You can also do a pause 'P' before the rush if you want your guys to be more or less at a certain point at a certain time. Combinations of hide and hide + target ambush marker will accomplish some of what you want in the second paragraph. Usually the TacAI will stop hiding and start shooting when it's clear concealment has been lost. Read up on and practice the ambush command; careful placement of ambush markers can be critical in defending. Beware that the experience level of a unit and its command status are critical in determining whether they stay hidden or shoot too soon and blow your ambush. Green troops out of range of their HQ will usually shoot at exactly the wrong time...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hopefully in CC2 we will have objective flags in operations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bite your tongue!!! (Just kidding; CC2 was the last wargame I played the heck out of and I'm glad to see these familiar sights but now in 3D...thanks for the efforts!)

Though I'd guess that variations of vehicles already in the game would be easier to build than something that has to be built more or less from scratch (e.g., Brummbar). There was talk a long while back of an 'expansion pack' with new vehicles, but I haven't heard much about it lately, and maybe it's no longer planned? The US M-16 AA HT would be cool, too, and they were important in some battles esp. in Ardennes IIRC. I'd still rather have CM w/o these toys than another throw at Chance Encounter...

Hate to wade into a flaming morass, but I have a (long) comment. In my previous position, I contributed to the development of a very complex product. The product involved several years research and development time, and the work of a dozen or so very bright people. We would have workshops to help people use the product. The audience of the workshops was typically made up of people who were considering adopting the product. There were participants in the workshops who would sit down, listen to introductory remarks, glance over things, and immediately say, "this is all wrong, a pile of rubbish, I never would have done things this way, let me tell you how I do things…" There were other participants who would listen, try things out, then ask, "hmm, I like a lot of what I see here, but I'm wondering about this thingy here and what is the intent of it. It's not what I'd expect, is there a design reason behind this that I'm not immediately aware of?" The people in the first category were often wrong, often didn't understand what they were talking about, and rarely had considered all the issues behind the development of this product. Not always, of course, but the vast majority of the time. After a dozen or so of these workshops, we could usually peg them within a few minutes. Their abrasive tone often meant that their concerns, even in the rare cases that they were valid, were rejected, at least in the short term. The people in the second category were often right, recognized that the development of a complex product involves a large number of tradeoffs and choices, and usually identified the issues that the development team had struggled with. In some cases they had solutions that we hadn't considered that were ultimately incorporated into the final product. In others, there were design issues that required a compromise, and the development team had to admit that the solution was imperfect, but involved some choices. These people were also much more fun to talk to. One can argue that people in both categories should be treated equally, but if you are talking about human beings, it's just not going to happen. With limited time and patience, who would you choose to deal with? If there were an AI running things, maybe both groups would be treated equally poorly. Would that be progress? During a year or so of lurking on the board, I've seen only a handful of people in the first category. BTS themselves almost universally either don't respond or are pretty polite with them. I've seen both Steve and Charles step in and ask other board members to go easy on someone. Sometimes people go too far and are told so. In either case, as others have said, 'the forest answers back.' On the other hand, I can't think of a business or agency that has cultivated and rewarded people in the second category to the extent that BTS has. That's why there are 100K messages here, and why so many of us keep coming back. [NOTE: There is no specific comment on any single member here, just a general observation. Your mileage may vary.]

Cool, Cavscout. IMO, what's so cool about this game is that you can learn how to play better by learning real-life tactics and doctrine/SOP.

See also the following thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum7/HTML/000146.html A real-life tanker talks about 'lowsky' and 'tophat,' suggesting that maybe it isn't so gamey after all. I've seen other tankers on this board talk about the real-life small displacements and rotations for a fighting tank (never been there myself, thankfully).

To Steve Clark: If you're trying to get the flavor of the historical campaigns that CM portrays, many of the scenarios and operations on the CD and at the various scenario sites will do exactly that. That's my preference, personally. They can give insights to a particular battle or portion of the war, if that's your thing. Between those on the CD and the 3rd-party scens, you could probably spend a month on June '44, then a month on July '44, etc. Moon's site has some additional cool Normandy scenarios if you go that route. Quick Battles and Design-your-Own can be great for exploring the capabilities of particular units and vehicles, or for testing your skill vs. an opponent. Those who PBEM seem to gravitate to them, since they're easily balanced. Also, if you know a lot about the war, you may find that you know what really happened during historical scenarios, which may 'spoil' them, since you're not going to be surprised by the reinforcing King Tigers in the same way as the historical forces were. The randomness of QBs ensures this will not happen. I first played a bunch of QBs before trying the canned scenarios, just to hone my skills. I found that the first play of a scenario is always 'special,' since there are suprises in the map and the enemy lineup that can't be replicated. I didn't want to spoil my first play of a good scenario with a bumbling setup, etc. After a bunch of practice, I felt like I was ready for the historical scens. I'd say try some small ones first, since the very big scenarios and ops can be overwhelming. For a while I was playing a turn a day of McKinley's Battalion vs. the AI; that's all the time I could spare! Of course, your mileage may vary...

If I remember correctly, the delay for an order depends on your experience level. The Green purchaser will typically have to wait longer than Regular or Veteran. Elite gamers will have the game almost immediately after hitting the send button. Of course, if you are out of command radius (e.g., Canada, California, the EU), delays are lengthened considerably. Don't worry, once the game arrives you'll forget the wait. If it's any consolation, read some of the messages from the early days of this message board (pre-Beta demo, for example) and think how long those folks had to wait...

See also a recent thread or two on the 'CM-Tips and Techniques' board on this site. (It's much smaller, so you should find things more easily there.)

Two quick points. First, the balance between the combatants and their equipment will be gripping, whether it be scrappy early war Panzers facing a mixed bag of crappy tanks and fearsome T-34 and KVs or the late war Ferdinands and Tigers hoping their long range guns can keep the hordes of T-34s, SU-xx, and JS at bay. Command and control issues, 2-man turrets, radioless tanks, and the varied terrain and weather on the Ostfront will make for fascinating new tactical challenges. I expect gameplay to be even more varied in CM2, with great long-range duels on the steppes and grueling infantry fights on vast forested maps. Some of the East Front scenarios in the Squad Leader series had a very cool hopeless Thermopylae feel to them, with eight German squads defending vs. battalions of Soviet troops, that is nothing like the West front. Second, I've found that I've learned tons about the Western Europe battles from playing some of the very well-researched scenarios and operations. Those and this board have prompted additional reading of things like Doubler that I'd never heard of before. With CM2, I expect to learn a great deal about the war in Russia, meanwhile oohing and ah-ing at the best wargame around. I can't hardly wait... [This message has been edited by RudeLover (edited 08-21-2000).]

Though I'm not in any position to offer much advice about tactics, several posts bring up a point (Chuckd talking about 'bum rush' brings back memories, btw) that I'm still learning. Know the strengths and weaknesses of your units. The shoot-n-scoot strategy is what the M-18 was designed to do. It's extremely speedy with a decent, turreted, gun but very little armor, best suited for dashing from cover to cover, popping out for a flank shot. (Be careful darting through unknown territory, though, as 'fausts will burn.) Sherman has some of these features, as well, with a weaker gun but a very fast turret. The StuG, on the other hand, with no turret but a good gun,is an ambusher. See also Hetzer, etc. IMO, learning the strengths and weaknesses of the various units and the appropriate tactics for each is one of coolest things about this game... If you want to go deeper, since the units have the strengths and weaknesses of their real-life counterparts, you can learn something about the suitability of, say, US Tank vs. Tank Destroyer doctrine.

I can't answer all of your questions, and I'm sure wiser folks than I have input, but here's my take. Remember that the number next to the little red cross symbol means guys in the squad who are killed, but also those who are incapacitated, wounded and evacuated, panicking, MIA, or otherwise no longer contributing to the fighting. Thus the phenomenon of a single guy bugging out as in the CC series is happening, but it not shown graphically. The accumulation of several casualties then starts to affect the squad's morale. These effects are abstracted, and you can't click on Pvt. Saunders and see that he's hurt and running for home, but it's happening 'under the hood.' It's the price you pay for being able to handle multiple battalions vs. a reinforced platoon...

When you remember _two_ previous "you've played too much CM" threads? See also: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/006850.html

I was confused, and searched. Do (non burning) wrecks block LOS? This old thread says they do: [url="http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002266.html

Somewhere in the manual it sez that tungsten rounds won't be fired until a target is acquired. First and second shots often being inaccurate, the gunners don't want to waste their special ammo on a target they aren't likely to hit. That said, based on your report I would have been tempted to load the T for that second shot. I've watched a 57mm atg bounce multiple rounds off a Panther while carefully hoarding their tungsten rounds. Evidently they can be traded for a couple packs of smokes and a bottle of Cognac . . . BTW, the Fire & Manuever scenario was, well, humbling...I knew I sucked, but I didn't know I sucked that bad!

Anyone ever tried to Target Wide with German rocket artillery? Or would that be like making instant coffee in the microwave?

Actually, there are spotting rounds in now, they come a bit before the FFE starts. Try a search as this has been discussed. The whole artillery fire procedure is somewhat abstracted, but you can see the spotting rounds. With 14" naval guns, often the spotting round is enough to complete the mission! Also, if the FO doesn't have LOS to the target area, he won't see the spotting rounds to adjust them and the fire will be pretty wild. Perhaps this is the issue? I think the second point, where the countdown stays at 2min for several turns, or counts down irregularly, simulates things like temporary loss of radio contact, battery is busy with other fire mission, radioman is taking a leak, etc. Until rounds are in the air, that time should be viewed as an estimate rather than something you can set your watch by. Again, much is abstracted, so the specific cause any one time is up to your imagination.

Regarding the famous Tiger driver in Villers-Bocage, I too have been immobilized (on turn 2, for heaven's sake...doesn't make for much of a legend!). No spoilers, but I did find there are many .50cal mgs present amongst the British force, though they are not carried by infantry...

My story is like a few others here: started with Avalon Hill's Kriegspiel, a very intro-level game, and progressed through D-Day, Tobruk, Richtofen's War, eventually ended up with a shelf full of Squad Leader stuff. When ASL came out I just couldn't imagine starting over and gave it all up. After several years of D&D and other RPGs, I discovered girls and other distractions. As some have said, CM is the extension of Squad Leader I always wanted, without the little cardboard pieces and rules. (Mind you, I have warm feelings for those little cardboard pieces, just not sure how they'd fit into my current life...) Hope they're able to make CM2, 3, 4, so I can fire up a Matilda II or a Polish 7TP and pick off those pesky Pzkw IIs again...

Oh, another thing, Battles in operations are a place where variable battle length would really be worthwhile. There's times when turn 20 (or whatever) comes when you're in contact with the enemy, and the battle ends. In my head I imagine that an order has come in to one side from higher up to pull back or re-form or something, but it can strain the suspension of disbelief. Having said that, I have no notion of how easy/hard it would be to code any of this...

I like the idea of operations plenty, but I still don't totally understand how they work. I will say the concept of a three-day series of battles, say, is more appealing to me than, say, taking 'core units' through the whole Western front. Compliments on a really sound idea. I have tried a few of the ops (oddly, the first two I fired up were Moon's McKinley's Bn and Utrechseweg, mostly b/c I'd had a few weeks to salivate over their web pages by the time the CD arrived). They're even more gripping than battles, in part 'cuz you know if you lose this ATG it's your last one and there might not be any more, even though you've got three battles to go and there are bad guys all over the place. Like others, I have found myself wondering about how far I could advance/retreat and what my objectives were. It would be nice if you could have a map showing the start map and the objectives, even a simple one, as an attached file (like the text briefings). Since I played allied in both of the above, I was defending and found myself sometimes pushed back from defensible positions when a battle ended, without really understanding why. I've enjoyed more the role of attacking in operations (maybe this is why A Day in the Cavalry works so well), though I'm probably too conservative and thrifty with my troops. I kind of wanted briefings between battles above and beyond the AAR screen. A bit of text saying 'Battalion reserve committed' when you get reinforcements or even 'Col. X has committed a platoon of tank destroyers from the 799th TD Bn.' Could you attach a text message to each reinforcement group? I had the idea of making a tutorial operation to teach myself how operations worked, how vehicles were repaired, ammo resupplied, wounded evacuated, etc. I even made a tiny map with sub-company sized forces...just haven't had time or imagination to finish it. My intent was to test for myself the effects of parameters like 'no-mans-land size,' etc, as well as the different op types (advance, assault, destroy). I think a tutorial op would really help new players figure out what is happening. Or an AAR of a tutorial op where someone who knows what's happening comments on what's happening.