Dalton

Just HAD to find out how big my member number is... One of these days I'll have to stop lurking and jump in the Pool, to drop the "junior" tag! ...Dalton

My apologies if this has been covered... How does a "system" force perform against itself? Can a tweeked Allied infantry force effectively attack a defending German "system" infantry force? ...Dalton

A rebuttal I haven't heard yet is this: How does your unit know that they are supposed to go into a hull down position, instead of stop behind the slope & wait for other units to move into position? Having the AI move units out of thier designated position would be REALLY annoying! Trees blocking LOS of a FO - suck it up and move him closer to the objective with your original move order. If you are trying to place your units within 2-3m to optimize your LOS & minimize opfors LOS - you're playing the wrong game. (IMO) My suggestion is to use the existing LOS tool to get a feel for how fast LOS degrades in various terrain types. To do this: Select a unit in the terrain type. Check LOS. Where the LOS line goes red is your maximum LOS - into or out of that terrain type. Cheers, ...Dalton

The worst (best?) case of overkill I've seen is what my Canadians did to a MkIV. The MkIV drove through the ambush marker of a PIAT team (who came out of hiding) and traveled close to the PIAT team (in hiding) of another platoon. Before either team could target the tank and shoot, the MkIV rolled into the LOS of a 6 lb gun... Result: Both sides and the front penetrated! (The second PIAT team got the kill.) ...Dalton

I've had very few problems with the AI running towards/away from the enemy. When assaulting a position (thier move orders end at the enemy location) the squads execute that order until their morale drops low enough for them to break. Once broken they react variably - sometimes they hit the ground & cower, other times they turn around and run finally on the odd location they figure the cover near the enemy is a better place to be than out in the open. I see all of these options as quite reasonable considering 6-10 of your buddies just got hit and you are facing a lot of firepower yourself! What I've also seen is platoons that have assaulted a position with heavy losses, but made it to the objective (and some cover); only to call it quits and run back across the open ground & be cut down from behind after tossing a couple of grenades back & forth. This I find frustrating, but also believable. Knaust, your post seems to imply that you had a squad become broken and then run 100m toward the enemy unit that caused them to break. Is my understanding correct? That would be unusual, doubly so because I have trouble thinking of maps where infantry have 100m of unbroken terrain to run across, without some nearby cover. ...Dalton

4 Of course I'd play Canadians if I had to choose between them & Axis. 3 2 22 10 7

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: I think we've crystallized the proposal at this, and correct me if I'm wrong: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice articulation. ...Dalton

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Ok, perhaps with my unique perspective I should weigh in on this issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, Madmatt. If BTS is certain that exposing these APIs is not feasible - good enough. ...Dalton P.S. - My day job is figuring out how we will shoe-horn new features into our existing 10M LOC s/w base... I know that opening/creating APIs that weren't originally designed to be open ain't easy!

Good comments, Tom. I still feel there is a net benefit to allowing 3rd party development...(sorry for the long reply.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: ... this one statement is at the crux of the issue: "- BTS would evaluate the mod either accepting, rejecting or asking for refinement."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, so my last statement: "I would recommend that BTS find a reliable screener for these mods, that would only pass on high quality modifications for evaluation by BTS." is critical for success. Because: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTS is ONLY 4 guys, and TWO of them are prinicples and ONLY one of them (Charles) writes ALL the code. The Bottom line is that I would not want to see BTS overly burdened with " evaluating the mod either accepting, rejecting or asking for refinement." When they could be working on something more productive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There would only be benefits to publishing the API if the amount of time required to review proposed designs offsets the amount of research & development that BTS would have to do to provide the same functionality. My expectation is that for CM2 there will be hundreds of new unit types - each of these must be individually researched and translated into CM software objects. Research includes: - finding historical justification for including the unit - finding a reasonably accurate weapons load, manpower model, unit special characteristic (if there are special characteristic in CM - I've only played the demo to date. I hope my purchased copy will be here by Friday!) - researching the appearance of the unit - creating the skins for the unit - deciding on a unit cost I'm not sure how fast the guys at BTS can compile this data, but my feeling is that it would be quicker to review proposed units than researching them from scratch. This discussion forum has many(!) people that would be able to make initial evaluations of proposed new units. What would be needed is for these people to enter into an agreement with BTS to provide a screening service at terms agreeable to all parties. (Read: work for free, yet ensure BTS that the unit reviews will be available on certain dates.) I am NOT qualified to do this! I am NOT suggesting that it is anyone's obligation to do this. A couple words on scope: I would expect that a majority of the proposed units would be "new" not "corrections" to existing units. Specifically for CM2, there would be all the new Russian & eastern European units to create - it would be more fun to add something new to CM than tweek something old. (You would be able to brag, "That's my insert_russian_unit_name_here unit!") Of course, there would be submissions that are tweeks to existing units. Either BTS could say NO to all tweeks, or have the screeners only pass on the highly justified tweeks. Cheers, ...Dalton

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: Some of you guys here will never get it, will you? Maybe some of us here don't care about historical accuracy, did you ever think of that? <snip> DeanCo--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had similar thoughts a while back. After thinking about it some more, I'm not sure that the engine will be flexible enough to handle combat outside of the WWII timeperiod. (This is pure conjecture on my part! If you would like to see my reasoning, let me know.) Sticking with this assumption, I would rather see extensions within the bounds of the engine (WWII historically accurate) than the flexibility to create any unit type I can think up. ...Dalton

I think there is a middle ground between fully modifiable & development only by BTS. The model that may benefit everyone is where the user community can develop 'mods' that BTS reviews and incorporates if they feel the mod meets thier exacting standard. Something similar to this is my understanding of how Linux development is done. Anyone can extend or modify the Linux code, but you need to have your software approved and accepted before it will become part of the generally available libraries. (A friend of mine does Linux development...) How I envision this working with CM: - BTS would publish the API for units. (Which may or may not be easy! - the user community would translate their favorite unit to use the published API. - the user would play test their 'mod' - the user would submit thier mod to BTS for review. Along with a justification & validity description. - BTS would evaluate the mod either accepting, rejecting or asking for refinement. - accepted mods would be available as part of the next release, or possibly available as patches/expansions. I would recommend that BTS find a reliable screener for these mods, that would only pass on high quality modifications for evaluation by BTS. ...Dalton

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ricky: And a lot of times both my troops and the enemy will *walk* away when under attack. I'm not kidding. Many times they run but many times they walk. Walking away from someone shooting at you seems very bizarre. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How your troops retreat (from what I've seen) is affected by the morale. If they are trying to get away as quick as possible - to stay put ensures death - they run. If they are suppressed and think they can sneak away using available cover they crawl. If they are performing a fighting withdraw they walk. I tend to use the same logic when I give my troops instructions. A walking retreat is useful because the squad will return fire if there is a good opportunity. When they are crawling or running they don't (generally) return fire. From what I've seen, running away from a bad position results in lots of unnecessary casualties as the troops are fully exposed and not attempting to suppress their attackers. ...Dalton

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Fat Guy: I don't get it BTS. 5,000 squad types? Easily that many! Including three types of MG 34 weapons and some MG 15's are not that big a deal. Will the data base be mod friendly to include these weapons if we want them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not being a beta tester, nor BTS designer my information is just a guess - but from what I've gathered, a generic squad is not assigned, at runtime, a selection of weapons. Instead, each squad type is predefined to have a specific weapon mix (with some randomness). This means that for each weapon mix a different type of squad must be created - thus the 5000 types of squads. So, unless the game is changed to have more generic 'basic' squad types that have variable weapon mixes it is a lot of work to introduce 1 new weapon. Each type of squad has to be modified to include this new weapon. For example: A basic rifle squad that has MG "type A" is a completely different squad type than one that has MG "type B"! Multiple this by heavy weapons teams, second-line units, HQ units, airborne, mechanized, I hope you've got the picture. BTS has probably looked at this already, but... If the weapon mix was determined at runtime by having a list of probable weapons for each man in a squad, with probablities for each weapon type, then you can get the requested variation, without an enormous number of unique squad types. This does make it a bit more difficult to ensure a historically correct weapon mix for specific battles, without assigning a weapon to each man in the battle though! But it would give the scenario designer the flexibility to customize each trooper if they wanted to. ...Dalton

Interesting question! Wargaming (PC or board) is a hobby - something that the person gets personal enjoyment out of. Each for thier own reasons. Hobbies of any sort become a problem when the hobby takes up enough time that your spouse/significant other (s/o) feels ignored. I've seen similiar relationship problems with sports and volunteer organizations! I think that wargaming causes more relationship problems than other hobbies for a number of reasons: - nothing is produced to justify the hobby as being productive (not a ornament for the house, not physical exercise, nothing artistic) - your s/o does not empathize with the attraction to wargamming (there is a whole other thread on the attraction of WWII gaming) - you are at home, yet "not available", adding to the feelings of being ignored Personally, I spend as much (or more) time playing and coaching soccer as I do playing wargames; yet I get 1000% times more flak for gaming. Overall, there needs to be a compromise in the relationship if it is to succeed. Anyone 20+ years old that plays wargames enjoys wargaming, like it or not this won't change. What needs to be negotiated is what is an acceptable amount of time that the person can use to pursue their hobby, and have thier s/o feel appreciated and involved in the relationship. Personally, I spend 2-3 evenings a week with a new game. Once some of the shine has worn off (2-3 weeks, depending how soon Jenn starts giving me disgusted looks ) then I cut back to 1 evening a week or less - and supplement with discussions on-line at work. (like this...) ...Dalton

Something that puzzles me is why vehicles mounting rocket batteries were not common (AFAIK) in WWII. Man-portable rockets were effective against armored targets: the US Bazooka, UK PIAT and German Panzerfaust (sp?). My understanding is that a fairly small rocket could pack the HE punch of medium arty. Planes mounted rockets...Why not AFVs? Any info on this would be appreciated! ...Dalton

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: LOL Dalton. I think you horrendously underestimate the scope of CM . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now I know I definitely CAN'T get the full version. My girlfriend wouldn't stand for it! Fionn, thanks for the reminder of what all is included in CM! I still stick by my statement that the Beta demo is the best game I've played in years - even without the full feature set & chrome. ...Dalton

The best way to minimize piracy is to make your product widely available at a price your target users are willing to pay. BTS has a good position. - It is VERY common today to have internet access. So ordering on-line is acceptable. - Ordering online avoids the problem where your local gaming store does not carry, or is sold out of CM. - The price is reasonable. (it would be better in Canadian dollars! after exchange I'm expecting to pay $65 Cdn.) The Gold Demo could be a problem. IMO, the Beta demo has TOO much functionality. The CM Beta demo is the best game I've played in years!! If the Gold demo is anything like the Beta it will be hard to justify buying the full version...Not because I do not like the game, but because $65 Cdn is a lot to pay for "a bit" more functionality. ...Dalton

Other keys to defending: - planning your retreat - deploying reserves - planning a counter attack Restreat - Always assume that you will be overrun. Plan how you can fall-back in good order. LD is a good example of how to get yourself into trouble. If you put a significant portion of your guys (US) at the stone wall, they have very few options on how to retreat - an all out sprint back to the town is about it! Reserves - Deploying everything you've got in forward positions gives you more firepower, but less flexibility in adjusting to unexpected actions by your opponent. It also makes your defense very brittle - if one portion of your defense suffers there is no way to patch the hole. Counter attack - If you think there is a chance of driving back your opponent, think about your routes of attack. Chances are, that if you found a good position to defend from, it is poor to attack from. A wide open kill zone can be used from either side! (I'm guilty of this one, and have had to surrender after crushing the initial attack. ) ...Dalton

I may have left an incorrect impression with my last post. I really like CM! Enough that my girlfriend hates it. I spend a lot of time during the game scouting things out. It is just like you are there! Setting the view to level 1, then following your guys through their actions is amazing! - Waiting for a tank to roll into your ambush. - Sprinting across open terrain between buildings or hills, hoping enemy MGs don't get you. - Sneaking through the trees, trying to get the drop on an enemy squad. WOW! ...Dalton

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stef: I think this guy has not played more than 30 sec with CM or is not interested in realistic wargames. I'm astonished by such a reflection. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Guys, I know this is a LONG time ago for many of you, but think about your first game of CM... My first game was a couple weeks ago, and took close to 4 hours - and I got my butt kicked. Getting used to the 3D terrain - scouting out good LOS positions, places to move unseen, places to ambush opponents, etc is not easy, nor quick, until you are comfortable with the 3D views. Then add the command options, FOs and AFVs and you have a LOT to learn in you first game(s). IMO, if you pick CM, without having read/heard about it extensively, you are in for a nasty (buy strangely addictive surprise. The CM Crusade is really necessary for CM to be a success. Without people understanding that CM 'is not your fathers war game' it will have trouble finding the interest of a large market due to its completely different user interface. Cheers, ...Dalton

The topic should have said, "Work around for MY CM lockup problem" oops. This may have already been posted, but could not find it in the older postings... Problem: CM seems to lockup on random turns when you press 'Done'. The mouse still moves, but the screen is locked in place. You get a 'bing' when you click or press keys. This failure can also be seen when you select Scenario Abort (alt-A) or Quit (alt-Q) Workaround: The game is NOT locked up. There is an invisible dialog box waiting for input. Guess where the OK is, and click! Not convenient, but it works. Other workaround - play in 800x600 with one quarter video accelleration. Problem description: This happens most often for me when Reinforcements arrive. (Which made the problem hard to figure out - the game would 'freeze' on a random turn, and reloading from the saved game sometimes would allow me to play another turn...) CM has created an invisible dialog box telling you that Reinforcements have arrived, or asking you if you really want to quit, or whatever. CM is waiting for input. Everything that is not a 'click' on 'ok' is rejected. You can find the invisible box by clicking on the screen. If you hear a 'bing' you are outside the box. If you get no sound you are in the box, but missed the button. Keep trying different locations. My setup: AMD PII 400 AGP 2 / ATI Rage Pro (8 Megs) (updated drivers) Win98, DirectX 6 ...Dalton [This message has been edited by Dalton (edited 03-20-2000).]

Reisberg as German Defender There were 2 components to the trap: 1) one of the 88s in the village, left of the road, right behind the first row of buildings, with limited LOS to the road. 2) Yellow platoon (with panzershrek) remainded where at default deployment. Both the Platoon and 88 were set to fire on the same ambush spot: 40m in front of the infantry squad. (about 170m from the 88) One of the Shermans came rolling down the road - right into the ambush...no surprise. Here's the interesting part: The panzershreck unit misses! The other squads open fire. Panzershreck reloads as the turret rotates. Fire! BOOM! <thump> Tank on fire... oh well. Get the troopers out of there before the second Sherman get LOS! What happened: The second rocket missed! It was a shell from the 88 that took out the Sherman. Everyone (me and apparently the AI) thought it was the panzershreck. So... The AI fast moved a second Sherman into postion to destroy the retreating infantry, accidently providing a perfect broadside shot to the 88... Which richoceted!! :eek an 88 at 160m!) Fortunately the Sherman crew was a bit shaken by that and their return fire hit a building! A second shot from the 88 knocked out the Sherman. Maybe not the cleanest ambush, but it sure was fun to watch! CM is unbeatable for getting you involved in the game during the playback sequences! The anxiety I felt seeing the Panzerschrek team miss twice and the Sherman surviving the 88 was amazing! ...Dalton

Does anyone know what the German and US forces would have considered acceptable losses for the battles depicted in CM? I'm wondering because I've had Minor and Major victories where the winning side was in really rough shape! ...Dalton