medlinke

To address a few concerns posted here: 1. Why don't I have scheduled matches. I think that this is a great idea. Unfortunately in the world of PBEM I felt that it was just too impractical. For instance, a player may have a scheduled match against another. However, the other person is going on extended business. This means that there has to be a scheduling change. While in isolation this doesn't present a serious problem, in reality it could pose a serious threat to the "league play" style you are suggesting. For example: Player X vs. Player Y Player X can't play for 2 weeks. So Player Y plays Player D However, now there are no byes left for that round. Now Player G decides to quit the league and Player G has 4 other games scheduled! Where do the gaps get filled? Ideally, you are right. That is the way a league works. SOLUTION: I am thinking of dividing the players up into divisions (corresponding to the fronts of the war). So there would be the: Pacific Front Eastern Front Western Front African Front Players would have to play each player in their division at least 2 times during the course of the season. Players could then play outside their division as much or as little as they desire. Each division would have it's own playoff and championship and these 4 players + the runners up & Special Invitations would advance to the World Championship Playoffs. ---------------------------------------- 2. Why not just a cup? I like tournaments. I think they are really fun and cool. However, I really set out to do a league. The tournaments in the league are special events that offer bonus scoring opportunities for league members. I realize that these things aren't noted on the website. However, if I put everything down now, I'd be sitting on the league for too long and quite simply... I'd rather answer questions on an individual basis for the time being because it gives me the chance to see what people think! ------------------------ FINALLY ------------------------ The Roster has been updated as promised and there is now a NO PREF option when you are selecting the side you'd like to play. So come on over and check it out. If there is enough response on this message board, I'll enact the league structure outlined above. Remember, this is your league! ------------------ ------------------------ Quick Battle League Play 2001 SeriesLeagues are forming now!

I will be adding a no pref option around 5:30 EST today, it's #1 on my list of things that need to be done. In the meantime, come on over and sign-up! I have a few more people that will be added to the roster around that same time today when the roster update comes around. Thank you and enjoy! Keith ------------------ ------------------------ Quick Battle League Play 2001 SeriesLeagues are forming now!

Geez, I forgot to add something. Please visit the site and use the join link to get in touch. I noticed on laptops or monitors with dark settings that the rollovers don't appear very well. However, there are links on the site. Keith

Hello, For those of you who have noticed my posts over the past few weeks, I've been trying to get a ladder / tournament going. However, I've decided that there are enough ladders (Rugged Defence, CMHG Annex, theblitz.org, etc) and good tournaments out there as well. So, I decided to start a Combat Mission League. How is a league different from a ladder or a tournament? Simply put, it has a regular season, which works like a ladder, tournaments, a post season, and a trophy. Yes, it's true a trophy, The BTS Cup which is awarded to the World Champion at the end of the season. How does it work? Check out the website and see for yourself. The league has a rolling admission policy so you can join later or join now and get a points jump on everyone. The Rules and FAQ should explain everything you need to know. The membership of the league even gets to suggest ammendments to the rules, and the scoring model is updated every 20 games to more accurately reflect scoring trends and normalize the league so people can't abuse the system. I would encourage everyone to at least take a look around and see if you like it. I think that you'll like the way the league is set up and it's my hope to get a fair enrollment for season 2001. Everyone is welcome and the league costs absolutely nothing, I'm funding it out of my own pocket. You have nothing to lose! Thank you Keith Medlin President and League Owner CMadmin@culturek.com ------------------ ------------------------ Quick Battle League Play 2001 SeriesLeagues are forming now! [This message has been edited by medlinke (edited 01-19-2001).] [This message has been edited by medlinke (edited 01-19-2001).]

Okay, I see the point in the Short-76 rules and gentlemen's agreements, etc. But at the same time, in the Quick Battle Equipment Purchase screens there are limits on points you can spend on certain categories. While these don't prevent you from buy 5 Uber tanks, if you follow the rules (ie, if the number below your cost for that type of equipment turns red...cut your spending) So, yeah, a player could choose to use 2 Uber Tanks and a halftrack, so what? For that same amount another player could buy a lot of smaller to medium tanks and just outmaneuver or outgun the infantry allowing units like Bazookas, and Mortars to concentrate on the super tanks, which are vulnerable. Do I condone unrealistic purchases? Only if both sides agree to it. Do I think it's unfair when it isn't talked about beforehand? Definately. Either follow the game limits, or follow Fionn's nice ruleset if you are going to complain about these things. It really all comes down to a problem in communications between the PBEM / Ladder / League players. medline

Here is my idea for a dedicated CM ladder. I am interested in finding a few people who know ASP to assist me with some of the database connectivity work. So if you are interested, drop me an e-mail (medlinke@msu.edu) --------------CM LADDER PROPOSAL------------ 1. A New CM ladder with the possibility of an unlimited ranked players and games. 2. The ladder would track, Games Played, & Total Score. 3. Score is determined by the scenario score. (ie 28 to 28 would give each player 28 points) I'm not going to track win / loss in the ladder becasue it doesn't encourage playing a lot of games. I want to reward those who play more than those who end up only playing a few easily winnable scenarios against others. I believe that players who want to be ranked at the top can be through a lot of play and through quality wins, not by preying on unknowing beginners. 4. Scenario reporting will be done by both players and will be verified by a matching score. 5. Cheaters will be banned, and I will talk with others in the CM community about getting them banned other places as well. 6. Players can play as much or as little as they want, and a message board will be provided for setting up games, and resolving disputes. 7. This ladder will determine rankings / rules for future CM tournaments. 8. Please post ideas, but I'm not planning on getting into massive statistical work with this ladder. If you want to add something, send me the ASP code that will enable me to add it. Also once the system is up and running, I will be taking suggestions for future features. But as it is right now this is all that will be included. 9. A record of scenarios and the win / loss percentage is my next project. So if you are interested in getting involved with either of these projects let me know. I am looking for people with a knowledge of ASP to help with them. Finally...As a courtesy to others in the forum. I don't want a debate of why I should / shouldn't use ASP. It's final, that is what I'm using, so don't waste space on the board with that debate. If everything goes well I hope to launch on March 1st with a fully tested, ready to go, ladder system. I will keep everyone updated. And if I get a lot of help, the ladder may go up sooner than that. But March is the timeline I want to work with right now. Thanks Keith medlinke@msu.edu

I agree completely about scenario balance. However, I think that getting a R.O.A.R system up would be nice. The only problem would be incorporating user created scenarios all the time. It would have to be a project in conjunction with the guy doing the work on the CM Scenario DB. Or there would have to be an added routine in the ASP script that would convert all the scenarios in lower case or something... I don't know, but you're right that is a nice thing in ASL. Also, I think I'm going to go with the ladder before I delve into the workings of a tournament. Things like, average playing time on scenarios, rankings, PBEM vs. TCP/IP stats, and user reliability are real concerns that need to be explored before an effective tournament gets underway. Like I said, please keep the suggestions coming in, and look for my ladder system outline sometime in the near future. Thanks Keith

After sleeping on the current system overnight, I think that indeed it's just too much to ask of the participants. The idea behind it was to let everyone (included people bumped in the 1st round)to get at least 4 games of tourney experience under their belt. Obviously 22 games for the finalists is a lot to ask. It would definately prove 2 things...dedication and of course skill. But I think that a tourney that long would lead to a lot of dropout. So...Instead of this idea, what does everyone think of another CM ladder? Then I could use ladder rankings to determine tournament setups etc. However, I think theblitz.org and others do a real bang-up[ ladder job. I guess if there is interest in a ladder I could start another one up. I'll submit a ladder idea to the forum within a week to judge interest. Till then Keith

Wow...I'm impressed by the level of discussion going on in this thread, it actually makes me enjoy physics...(I'm an English Major with a History Minor in Secondary Education at Michigan State) I think that the spirit of Charles post is being overlooked. It's not that mathematically a round couldn't hit and penetrate at a particular range close to 100% of the time. It's the intangibles involved in the situation. Any game can only be close approximation, and it can only be a game. In real life terms, dust storms, and million to 1 things that can happen are just impossible to model. Although the physc of the battlefield certainly is interesting, it seems to me that quantifying it in any other way than is in the game isn't "fair," because it makes too many assumptions...and remember the rule about assuming....You make an ___ outta you and me! In game terms, close to 100% hit at 500 would be boring to me. In the 1.1 patch for instance, this leaves the game down to a mere modeling of paper, rock, scissors in terms of turret / hull rotation speeds. That Sherman that can get it's turret to bear before the Hetzer wins because of technology alone? Certainly there is evidence of this in real life, but in game terms, I enjoy the occasional ping as the round ricochets off the Hetzer's armor. In the ASL community there is a lot of complaining about which combat results table to use. Those who are familiar...feel free to groan. But I think it all boils down to 1 thing. Does the current system uphold the spirit and feel of combat in an interesting / fun way? I believe the 1.1 patch does, and that's good enough for now.... Think of the alternative in game terms... Predictability would kill the spirit of CM in my opinion. Keith

Hi everyone, I suppose this is mildly official at this point. I am looking into the general interest of a CM tournament. I have laid out the format below: -------------------------------------- * Open Enrollment up to 40 participants. (This number may rise, but initially 40 is all I can handle) * Participants can play PBEM, TCP/IP or a combo of the two, and each must submit a screenshot of the AAR screen at the end of each of their games. Failure to do so, even if I see you win on the AAR screen results in a Forfeiture. * Up to 2 weeks to finish each game. No games in the initial 2 round over 25-30 turns. * Rounds 3-5 will be 25-40 turns in length (still 2 weeks though) * The finals are 60 turn games (time considerations of each player are taken into account for the finals) ROUND 1 * participants are divided into groups of 4 players with each player playing each other player 1 time. At the end of this time, the players with the best record (highest victory point totals in case of ties) advance to the next round. ROUND 2 * groups are paired with another group to once again create groups of 4. Again, each participants plays the others 1 time and the best records (again highest points determine ties) advance. ROUND 3 * The two participants with the highest advancing point totals from round 2 get a by in this round. * The remaining 8 participants are paired up into 2 groups of 4 and follow the same procedure as Rounds 1 & 2. With only 4 participants total advancing to Round 4 ROUND 4 * The two participants with the highest advancing point total get a by, excluding those team which didn't play in round 3. * The same procedures as the previous round are in play in round 4. ROUND 5 * The final four participants play each other in the same manner as the previous rounds and with the same advancement rules. ROUND 6 * This is the finals. The participants play the same scenario two times, once as each side, and the winner is determined by the participant with the highest total point total at the end of those games. I think that this might be an interesting tournament to run, and I'd be willing to do it if 40 people were interested and commited to finishing the tournament. I might even be willing to pay for a small plaque or T-Shirt for the winner commemorating the win. I realize that this tournament would be quite long running in at around 44 weeks if it goes the full amount of time for each round, but I think if you want to be in a PBEM tournament it's only fair to let each game be 2 weeks long. Tell me your thoughts! Keith

Someone mentioned this movie costing more than it did...Actually...I read a few months ago that this film is the most expensive film ever made in Continental Europe. Pretty impressive if you ask me. I think that we are an entirely different audience of movie goers from the average John and Jane out there. For instance, everyone knows that in SPR the tanks in the final scene are conglomerations of many different tank parts. To everyone else, a tank is a tank and if it's big and noisy that's all that matters (I agree...the noisier the better!) Regardless, think of the movies that have been listed on these forums as ones that people are actually really enjoying. Now look at that in conjunction with all the war movies ever made...Will this one live up to those standards? Probably not. Will most people care if it does? Probably not. Will it matter to people here? I hope so. There is a fine line between showing people lies and framing a movie in a dynamic historical setting. A movie about Stalingrad for the masses probably won't show the conditions well (aka the babe being clean) but will it matter? I know my fiance sure as heck wouldn't go and see it if there wasn't some chick aspect to the film, so it's a nice tradeoff. I think waiting till it comes out will be a good idea as to how it will be. Although, having CM2 out then would be nice too, because no matter how sick of it you were, you could come home and fight Stalingrad at home....Not that I'm anxious for it to come out! Keith

One of the best things that I've ever seen written was in Boots & tracks I think...It said something to the effect of: build your scenarios and to do balance do armor only, then add the inf, then the support, etc until you find a balance between all the elements. I just htink that this is something you might want to keep in mind

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Hmmm.. now that I think of it, would it be a good idea for the game to place a smoke in the rubble of recently deceaced building?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow....Sounds a lot like what I suggested a month ago and got railed for suggesting...but I still think it's a good idea, and I'm glad more people understand why I suggested that now!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TexasJeff: Are there any patches I need to Install?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To get into the flow of things without too many complications, I'd download the 1.05 patch. Go and Play.... After that, I'd say go to CMHQ (http://combathq.thegamers.net/) and download the mods you like best. It really does add a lot to the game. After you play a while with those, come and get the 1.1b23 patch. And just enjoy the game in the latest stage. The only reason I suggest you do it in increments is because: 1. You'll be playing quicker 2. You don't NEED 1.1b23 just yet (even though it does rock) 3. The mods add a lot, but take some time on slow connection to download... 4. You'll be playing quicker The most important thing to do is to not visit the message board! GO AND PLAY!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Can't wait for 2002!! I take Brazil to win, or possibly the Germans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you want to see how good Brazil will do in 2002, look no further than AS Roma...They have 3 or 4 prominent Brazilians on their team: Cafu, Zago, and Aldair However, these guys don't play together! Look at how their national team is cannibalised amongst the countries around the world. Most of their team doesn't even play in Brazil! I pick Italy...obviously, because they have a lot of home talent, and while they barely win the games they win, the power players on the team, play in Italy and against Italians so they get to see what their teammates do well on a regular basis. For instance, in the game I watched today...Lazio v. Roma (my 2 favorite clubs in the world) Totti & Negro(?) are both from Rome, and both have played with their respective clubs since they began playing in the Serie A.

I'm sorry about the previous post... I really love Italian Football... Regarding the US team....I think in about 10 years they will be on par with one of the Nordic teams, but I think a lot has to be done. After all, it's tough to keep good players in the US when the salaries for good players are so much better in the EU. I also feel that if the EU teams have the choice, they certainly aren't going to risk one of their non-EU spots for some poor American slob, unless he can prove himself. Bottom Line: America...Developing Country... Also....What did this thread start off regarding anyway?

OT rant...beware.... American's suck at "soccer"....You want to know why? There will always be Italian Serie A & Die Bundaslega futbal action to watch. The American hero Lalas, went to Italy, and you know what he did there? Got fired, because he sucked so bad. And for those FA Premier league chumps...Here's a riddle for you? What do a tea-bag and the English National Team have in common? Neither one of them stays in the cup for too long! So to all you weak fans out there....Watch some real football on Sundays at your local Italian Coffee Bar... hehehehe kmeds

Okay.. I guess I'm still not being clear... The fog with snow on the groung thing...I know about that.... However....Snow falling with fog...It would be 1 extra item in the weather dropdown menu. I think it would be a very useful addition. 1. It creates almost zero visibility 2. All snow effects 3. All fog effects 4. For CM2 it certainly will be a condition that should be modeled for reality's sake 5. All the code is there for both of these conditions seperately 6. Think of how useful it would be to have some T-34s emerging from the forest in fog, but obscured by the snow...Pretty scary All in all, there are a lot of things that people want to see. I know mine is just one more things on that long list of things that will never happen. However... It's always worth a shot! And while I'm at it...map localized weather conditions....lowland fog with the rest of the map clear... Keith

Yes, I know that. However, it doesn't simulate fog and snow together. I guess I was unclear with the request. Basically, here is the situation...There is snow on the ground, snow in the air, and fog. I think that would be a nice feature to see. Now that I think about it...I think it might also be cool to have smoke generated from builing explosions. This might simulate the dust storm caused by the debris. It would only have to last like 2 turns, and I think it would be a pretty nice feature as well.

I've also noticed this...It's strange. The computer will also pick EXTRA bazooka units in infantry only scenarios. I may have miscounted, but I think that the computer bought 1 extra one in the last game I played tonight

Hi, Due to the huge amount (not Buffalo amounts though...) of snow in the Midwest region (Detriot MI area) I got to looking at weather in a CM kinda way. I love how weather is done in CM. However, one thing I would like to see is the option to have a fog & snow mix. I've seen over the past week this exact condition quite a few times in many different conditions (rain on snow, heavy snow with wind, extremely rabid snow, and just plain foggy with snow falling) I don't know what would be involved in it and I'm not going to try to guess...But, I think that this would be a cool weather feature to model in CM1 and 2. I realize it's probably too late for CM1, but it should DEFINATELY be in CM2. Thanks Keith

I have a funny true FO story from WW2. My grandfather was a gunners mate on the CA-71 Quincy and they got info from a Scottish special forces FO in D-Day. They were assigned to fire on Pont-Du Hoc. His FO gave them the fire mission and they were pretty successful, but during the firing they lost contact with the FO. Presuming he was dead, they relied on other FOs in the area to finish the job so the rangers could advance up the cliffs. Needless to say, the next morning at about 0300 they hear this Scottish voice saying nice job over the radio. My Grandfather bolts awake and wakes up his buddies. They listen to the FO who is whispering and they find out he is looking down on an entire Company of Germans asleep still. Their guards haven't spotted him at all. So what does this guy say, "Get permission to fire on this position." So my grandfathers Gunner gets the go ahead and tell the Scot to read off the data. The Scot, won't do it and says hang on....Silence....Silence......BOOM! My grandfather asks what the heck is going on and the FO is like, "I threw a grenade down there to wake em up so that when you guys fire on em, they can die with their pants on... Needless to say, my grandpa's gunner gets the coordinates, fires away, and they hear back from the FO that the 1st shot landed right smack in the middle of the encampment! I related this story for one reason only. To show that FO's were very highly trusted, and if they said fire, people got on their guns and blazed away. So, I think if you know that your arty is going to be depleted in 5 turns...don't waste it!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chief: Medlinke: When you create a reserve, do you keep back a platoon per company, or a squad per platoon. And what's the "strange angle" of fire being more effective? Have you (or others) noticed that infantry is more effective if delivered from a flank? B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To address the first question. Yeah, it's only a squad, but that's really all I've ever needed to support about 5 squads. Typically all 5 squads aren't always in a position to fire so you can rotate at the front too. To address the second. I meant to say flanking...sorry. While there isn't any bonus per se, the AI retreats away from your troops. So, if they are getting nailed from their line of advance, and you swing around their 9, any way they go, they can get nailed really, plus, against, a human opponent it opens up the question of how many more squads are behind the squad that made contact?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chief: 3. Less infantry fire. My guys must all have blistered trigger fingers by the time the fighting’s done. I find that I regularly run squads out of ammo in the course of a 30 turn scenario, and that’s with a covered approach march to the LD or other inactive periods. Looking at other posts, I suspect that I’m doing something wrong here. Should I have guys “Hide” more? Am I nuts to try to have squads lay down a base of fire at 200-300m, because they’re really just making noise and attracting fire when engaging troops in defensive positions. My proclivity on the offense is to shoot at whatever I can see that can shoot back, as long as I’ve preserved a maneuver element. And I notice that the AI also seems to shoot until the barrels droop. What am I missing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this strikes an important note. It's really a matter of personal style. I basically do the same thing, but at a lesser range. The key if you are doing that is reserves. You need them anyway for a possible breakthrough attempt, but you can also use them to rotate units who seem to shoot almost constantly. On the offense you have little choice, but to lay down fire at strange ranges because, quite simply, you need to cover your advance somehow. Another tactic is this: seperate your greens from your hardboiled eggs at the start and let the more advanced troops lay down the fire while the Greenies advance. Their fire is more effective and the chance that they will lose their much more valuable lives is lessened. Also, how many turns in are you making contact? One of the interesting things I've learned in the past month is to try to out move the computer in one way or another. This can mean either moving exclusively from cover to cover until you are ready to make that dash across a bridge/open piece of terrain, into the the town, etc. Or it can mean, completely outmaneuvering the enemy. Some of the more elegant scenarios don't allow your troops to do this without great hazard, but a lot of the stock ones do. If you can get that first shot off at a strange angle...Your ammo will be more effective. These are just a few options, the game is wide open for strategies so just experiment with different ammo usages and support. You must develop your own playing style in the game otherwise you'll not be as effective. Keith

I agree about RAM prices. Go to www.pricewatch.com and check out the RAM prices. They had some 128 meg 133mHz RAM for $45 + $9.99 shipping. Definately well worth the upgrade