Juardis

So how would you use the rear facing MG? I assume you'd have to run out of ammo on the front facing MG then target a unit without using the main gun? I could see where that would force the use of the rear facing MG.

well moon, just promise me you'll do Korea and I'll forget all knowledge about CMX2

Well, last I really heard from Steve was that most of the suggestions he had heard were too narrow in scope, more evolutionary than revolutionary, more of an extension of the current engine than a whole new engine. With that in mind, my contribution to the wish list (see thread CMX2 wish list) was more along the lines of flexibility for future products. So I think we can expect - dynamic lighting - elimination of borg spotting - maybe a whole new AI structure such as specifying how the AI will react or AI that "learns" - hooks for ease in adding to the system, maybe making it more modular - whole new turn structure to allow team play, full motion movie playbacks - depending on what direction they wish to go, maybe adding WMD's Try thinking revolutionary....

I created a scenario with 4 flags, dynamic. I could not get the activate flag option to appear.

Again, if that's what a wooden bunker is supposed to represent, then it does a fine job of emulating it. And they are SERIOUSLY underpriced if that is true.

Then wooden MG bunkers have got to be the best fortification for the money. 4 turns of 50mm fire, 1 turn of 150mm HE, a couple of slit penetration, bunker still lives. 2 turns of 50mm fire from the rear, multiple back door penetrations, some partial penetrions, bunker still lives. I'm either the unluckiest SOB alive or the these things are broken. Either way, I have no desire to play this game anymore. Not saying I won't play, just that I don't have the desire.

Reading the Pillbox thread, the consensus is that concrete pillboxes are too easy to kill. I'm playing a operation with multiple wooden MG bunkers. 3 turns of 50mm Pz-III hits have not phased one bunker. Multiple rear hits plus a backdoor penetration (I hate when that happens ) from another 50mm Pz-III on another bunker and THAT bunker is still alive. I'm now targetting the first bunker with 150mm SIG IB. Kill probability? rare!!!!! Now either I'm nuts or wooden MG bunkers are ridiculously hard to kill. I mean 3 turns of 50mm hits should topple a wooden bunker. A 150mm shell, even if it doesn't destroy the bunker, should KO the crew from the concussion. Yet in CMBB wooden bunkers are impervious to all sorts of tank fire it seems. Anybody KO one with a tank? If so, how? [ May 22, 2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Juardis ]

Not really firefly. I'm playing CMBO like CMBB but it's not that successful. For example, area fire just doesn't work well in CMBO. So all I'm doing is wasting ammo. Unfortunately, I don't discover such things until it's too late In CMBB you NEED tanks. You cannot win consistently without tanks. In CMBO I rarely bought tanks and was able to win consistently.

Hmmmm, that could be implemented in both scenarios and ops. That would be cool. Esepecially in the hoped for improvements in multi-player play where there are multiple players playing. Maybe a new guy jumps in when reinforcements arrive and he gets separate orders than the original guys .... or something....

Maybe this is something that could be included in the engine rewrite, but I was thinking of how a battle would unfold if the commanders received some intel on reinforcements. Consider the following hypothetical example (in real life). At the beginning of a battle the expected schedule is laid out. However, during the battle something unexpected happens and reinforcements are delayed. Knowing this, the commander at the front can adjust tactics accordingly. Maybe hold back the big push until reinforcments arrive. So instead of renewing the battle at mid-day, he decides to wait until his reinforcements arrive at dusk to renew the battle. But he may not make that decision unless he had word on what was happening behind the frontlines. So my suggestion is to have briefings in between battles of an operation. Then, either side can choose to not conduct that battle. If both players choose that option, that particular battle is skipped (much like how nighttime battles worked in CMBO). I mean, if there is time in between battles to remove vehicles and tanks, there is certainly enough time to get intelligence updates. Maybe even sprinkle in some intel about the enemy movements as well. Of course, if operations are totally redone, then this suggestion is moot. But if not, then I would be in favor of adding briefings in between battles.

Another teensy request..... have an optional aar screen that talks about the historical results of the battle. I realize that lots of scenario designers include this in the briefing, but some of them are spoilers. For example, Danube Blues....historical context Axis gets murtilized. Me, being axis, think hmmmmm....that must mean lots of infantry in buildings or AT teams or whatnot. So I adjust my tactics accordingly. I'm kicking my friends butt. Much better to know AFTER the fact how the historical action turned out.

the largest pbem file we've swapped so far is a little over 3MB. I can't see it exceeding 5MB. with regards to KGP, I believe that was recreated in CMBO, but then the scenario (or map) had to be removed from that website because of copywright stuff. But ask it in the CMBO forum. You might find what you're looking for.

could the fog of war settings be added to the briefing screen for QBs? thanks editted to change title [ May 15, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Juardis ]

Richie, you can edit the Operation yourself you know. Just open it in the scenario editor and start changing things. Be sure to save it as a different name though, and make sure you don't advertise it as Berli's original operation. However, I don't think you want to reduce the map size or number of units since it is supposed to recreate the massive battle. It's already pared down considerably. But reducing some of the performance hitting features (like the craters) will help a lot when you watch the movies or give your orders. Won't help with the calculations though.

Actually, a fellow BoB'er (Band of Brothers) and I are into turn 4 of the first battle. Forget playing this vs. the AI since it'll take the AI 25 minutes to compute it's moves, then another 25 minutes to compute the results (on my P3-1GHz). However, with both you and an opponent issuing the orders, the only thing left for the computer to do is calculate the results. And since it's PBEM, your machine is calculating the results every other turn. So it's really not that bad. We did remove about half the craters though since the craters are a HUGE performance hit when scrolling around the battlefield. There used to be a 2-3 sec delay between when I clicked on unit and when the unit was actually selected. By removing half the craters, there is very little delay now. YMMV of course, but I highly recommend PBEM and removing a lot of the craters. edit: it takes my computer about 10-15 minutes to process one turn when it's my turn to compute the results. Definitely manageable in a PBEM environment. edit redux: if you do remove a lot of the craters, be cognizant of where you remove them. With limited set up zone for the germans, I was wishing for craters everywhere, so I suggest leaving the craters in the german setup zone alone. For the russian side of things, remove the extraneous craters in the middle of the map, again leave plenty of craters for gun emplacements and stuff. [ May 12, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Juardis ]

With regards to higher level SOPs....I don't think they'll work too well in this framework. I played M1 Tank Platoon 2 a LOT and there was the ability to give your tank platoon SOPs when a) an endpoint was reached in the movement commands or when the enemy was engaged. In theory it worked great. In practice my tanks were running into each other, driving in front of the other tanks, and generally looking like the keystone cops. Several times I took out on of my own tanks as it manuevered in front of me. And this was just 4 tanks in open ground. Translate that into squads or companies of men, in any terrain, and I think you have a nightmare. Besides, the latest movement commands give some sort of SOP (e.g., move to contact, hunt, assault, advance, etc). Furthermore, Steve's comment about area targetting in CMBO is no longer relevant. You can indeed play the area target game to great effect in CMBB provided there's enough ammo. And finally, if the C&C rules I outlined were initiated, then we could have broken C&C rules intentionally so that TEAM play would be much better. For example, think a 4 player rumble here, 2 vs. 2. Each player controls a company. If my suggestion is followed, then it could be done such that the human player only controls one company and only "sees" what those units in C&C of his company "sees". So teammates will not be able to see, on the CMBB battlefield, what is going on with the other guy unless they communicate outside the game. That is a BEAUTIFUL situation to simulate IMO.

Mr. Crowly is spot on. To clarify the out of C&C units, they provide you with NO intelligence. You cannot even give them orders. The TAC AI will make it behave like a soldier, so if it's a sniper in some rubble way out of C&C, well, he shoots at things. No battlefield commander that I know of was able to tell a sniper to shoot that MG loader in that house at this time. No sir, Mr. sniper went to a belfry and did his own thing. If you have a squad break in the game right now, you cannot issue orders to them. I don't think they give intel either. And they behave in a survivalist mode. So the concept is there already. All I'm saying is if they're out of C&C, and you want to give them orders, send a HQ unit over there to get them back in C&C. Compromise. The first turn a unit gets out of C&C, give the human an opportunity to issue one last order then let the TAC AI execute it as best it can. That order can be move forward, retreat back, hold position, whatever. But after the last order is given, you get nothing from them until they get back in C&C. Hell, they may even end up taking out a whole squad, a tank, whatever, but you wouldn't know until you got them back in C&C or the game ended. I think this solution offers the best compromise between eliminating Borg spotting yet still giving the human some amount of control. I mean, the human can issue orders to ANY unit in C&C for crying out loud. In reality a Major or Colonel does not have that ability.

tom, HQ units should be targetted first. Now and always. Just like in the BoB series, Capt Winters was not allowed to take control of his old company per his Battalion Commander, we CMBB players should be extremely hesitant of throwing our Company HQs into battle if he's the ranking commander on the battlefield. But yes, I like the idea of promotion within the ranks if poor Sgt Goody takes one in the chest. There of course, should be associated penalties (like negative bonuses or something). I think if BTS were to model relative spotting this way, it would engage the human player that much more. They become an EXTENSION of the battlefield instead of GOD of the battlefield. And like all suggestions, this should be optional (much like FOW has optional settings).

My only thing, and I argued vehemently for this a couple years ago, is to combine the command style with the multi-level. That is...you the human can only give orders to those in C&c and you the human can only see what those units in C&C can see. Only those units with radios or such can be in C&C with you the human. If I the human can "see" it, then I can pass the word on to everyone else that is in C&C of me so they can then "see" it to. If any unit is out of C&C of me the human, the only thing they know of the battlefield is what they can see themselves and they cannot communicate with me the human at all.

lol...yeah sgtgoody,,,,2 hours into the setup and only half done (at best).

I'm setting up To The Volga. I have a buttload of men (think battalions here). Having never played anything this large, I'm not really sure about this, so here goes... Can a company CO control any squad regardless of which battalion it or company it came from? I hope the answer is yes, otherwise, I have a lot of re-setting up to do (and I mean A LOT). But best to get it right from the get go considering the time investment I'm going to put into this.

attaboy fernando. Good thing you're not french

Malakovski. I'm an honest guy. I try to play by the rules. I therefore am ignorant when it comes to no-cd hacks, or copy protection schemes, or whatever. I buy the software, I install the software, I use the software. If BTS had wanted me to circumvent their very minimal copy protection scheme, they'd have supplied me with a way to do it. Since they have not, I can only surmise that I have to do something special to get around it. Going back to my original assertion of being ignorant, I personally don't know how to get around the copy protection and am quite frankly leary of any method that does so. So while I acknowledge that there are plenty of people that can and do get around it, all I'm asking for is a BTS supported way to do so. And if they would make the fix OPTIONAL (keyword=OPTIONAL just in case anybody missed that the first time), then any ill feelings on the end-users part are do solely to that end-user. MS does NOT make the XP registration optional.

I was thinking more along the lines during setup you either have the option to install it like you do now....or install it special like where you get/give a single number and before you can play the game, you have to register it with BTS. If that number exists already, then the FBI is immediately dispatched to the residence that installed it second. Furthermore, to allow you to reinstall it on your machine (with the nocd version), there should also be some unique identifier of that machine (like ISP address, or cpu verification ID, or something like that) sent along with the registration. I'm not a computer geek, but I have to believe that something like that is doable in this day and age provided you're willing to agree to a little less privacy. I'm willing to do that in BTS' case.

Just a simple request. I still play CMBO. I will be playing CMBB for a long time. When CMAK comes out, I will buy and play that as well. Now then....to greatly reduce the chances of ruining one of those valuable disks, I humbly beseech thee o' BTS to please please please give us the option to fully install CMAK then never have to put in the CD again. It's a pain in the butt, I've already ruined one disk this way, and those of us with kids would be forever in your debt. Thanks