Seahawk-vfa201

Since the AI uses fuzzy logic all your answers are valid one. Many more factors are to be taken into account to determine what will be the *most probable* behavior. Mind I am using probable since the beauty of CM is that it is not really 100% deterministic. I guess Steve and Charles must have put in it a random numbers generator, and I hope a good one

hehe, of course you got me wrong... and you know it

Good Lorak My ignorance must come from the fact that my units never had to surrender And my concern was justified because I had to treat with many POWs already. Like it is going soon to happen in our RPG, hehe

Do prisoners spotting enemies? I am puzzled about this: May my enemy still see my units because some of his have surrendered? I had not the chance to really verify this happening but IMO they should not provide spotting capabilities. If I move the prisoners out of view they should disappear for my opponent to see. How is it in reality?

The "hull down" information does appear already when targeting, together with chance to kill, distance, etc. It happened to me at least twice. I am surprised it has never happened to anybod else ?!?! fact is: hull down is pretty darn difficult to achieve.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22: I always put my name on the highest ranking HQ unit. It makes you be more carefull with a specific unit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How do you do that?

Currently San Francisco Bay Area. The US of A. Before that France, Switzerland, Italy. I would not mind if I could cast a vote for th all 4 countries

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fox: yeah..i had that happen too..i just assume..u needed to make it to the flag for whatever reason...perhaps u absolutely needed to get there to relieve some troops bunkered up or whatever...i've also completely decimated the German forces..say 96 troops, 16 vehicles 4 guns killed..vs my 36/4/1 killed and still was a draw...i guess its really important to pay attention to the objectives. It must be hard to coordinate scoring so i'll just go with it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd say that applies moslty to playing the AI: it is not going to surrender tham most of the battle still has to be fought, IMHO. If you have 50 turns and by the 20th your human opponent is decimated, you are maybe 2 turns away for settling firmly on the flag area but BANG: your opponent surrenders: DRAW> I guess it easily becomes an easy way for the losing side to obtain a DRAW.

It looks like the flag points have too much weight in cases like this one. If you still have to put forces around flag area but have decimated your opponent to the point his troops are eithe fleeing the field or are captured on the spot flags should be less important or am I wrong? I guess in case opponent surrenders you HAVE all the flags by default, especially when there are still plenty of turns to go (some 30+). Should this be fixed or not? PS It is not just to see the AAR reporting victory: when your opponent can't do anything but surrender both of you know who accomplished the mission.

Hi there. We are doing an experiment (successfully I might say) with CM exploiting the ability of "saving a game" while playing PBEM. We have 8 players sharing the very same scenario. Each player (2 teams) controls a company (3 in total) while the 4th controls the vehicles and support units (sharpshooters, arty, mortars, etc.). We 'build" the turn incrementally, each player issuing orders to his assigned units, sabing the game and emailing the file to the subsequent player. When all are done, the GM (game master, last in turn sequence) will order the vehicles and support and generate the PBEM file to send to the other team. It works great and we believe it could be an additional option for CM playing. The kind of support CM should/would provide for this to happen under CM management (instead of we palyers as it is now) is to have CM register the players, the assigned units, their passwords (in order to recognize the player). CM would the allow orders only to the player assigned units, allow inputing player name to appear in the Company HQ unit, allow (with full fog) visibility of enemy units only pertaining to players assigned units and partial knowledge (a la sound contact) if in radio contact with fellow player units (if they have additional LOS on enemy). Allowing the PBEM generation to only one player in the team (the GM). THEN, if that would also work with TCP/IP... oh my!!!!!!!! All in all that looks like all CM has to do

5 and a RPG multiplayer game just started.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: All combat in my RPG will be in CM. All Operational and Stategic command is done on an operational map. All roleplaying, such as prisoner interrogation and other various things is done through email.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does that mean there will be only one player using CM? (actually two, the other GM) This is what I meant: Capt. Foobar is also along those lines. One GM uses CM and reports the results, the various players will read the emails and issue orders to the GM who will play accordingly on CM. What we do is the opposite. Email is for things like: "I need support arty on this section." Then the player controlling the Arty, if he decides so, will - in his turn in CM - decide if he can fulfill the request and plot the orders accordingly direclty using CM. There is no intermediate level (GM) between one player and CM (as in RPG games). Each player will instead use CM at each turn, be on the battlefield, see the movies and check results with their eyeballs, see what his units see. Hear the screams and the sounds of war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: That sounds like what Capt. Foobar is doing, you should check out his post there was lots of fresh ideas added as well you could benefit from. I'm also starting an "RPG". I think however my idea is a bit different. It seems your idea and the Captain's focus more on having more than one player control a single force, sort of like "Team play CM".. To see what I'm planning, check out the "Another CM RPG starting" post. If you have any ideas to add to either concept, please email me! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well actually the idea is different. Ours (me and Lorak) is multiplayer within same side: many US players against many Germans player each playing his role in CM in a larger scale battle. Communications via email and collaboration on the field, not on email exchanges between players and a Master. Each player will be *playing* in CM. But there are some ideas like disabling the show all moves and limiting the view to each own part of the battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thomasj: Maybe I'm being over optimistic, but would there be a way to do this with multiple people on the TCP/IP LAN/WAN game? Iamgine it that way with maybe a VON(Voice Over Network) program open to talk to the other players to carry out roles. Just a thought, use a VON when playing many other network games on my LAN/WAN. Not to mention people would use email to set the date and time for the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And CM registering the names of players, assigned units to each player and then allowing orders only to the right units. Disabling the "show all moves" in Full Fog as well as bird-eye views of the map (maybe)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huron: Seahawk, that's a great idea. With the "Show movement path" toggle off, at least you wouldn't know what your fellow commanders are planning for the next turn. ... ... Oh, well, now, if only CM would arrive in the mail. Once it does, count me in on this idea. Huron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Huro: you've got the picture. Good point not to use the "Show all moves" feature. As well as for limiting view. Maybe #2 would be OK

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl: What kind of interplayer communication will you have? Can the CC attach vehicles or support weapons/arty to the captains for their command?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This would be a nice add-in (BTS? any interest in that?) in CM. As it would be nice to be able to change the names of the represented soldier, that is if I am commanding a Company then CM would allow to have a Capt. Seahawk commanding the A-1 Company. What you say we are doing ourselves by self-regulation. CM could probably do that: identify the players by password and allow orders only to units under player control. Our setting is with a Company for each player and the GMs will make the scenario, buy units, setup units divided into areas for each Company and assign Companies and goal to the players. Rest of communication via email of course and exchanging the saved game until all orders are issued. At that time the GM sill produce the PBEM and send it to the other team GM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: That sounds like what Capt. Foobar is doing, you should check out his post there was lots of fresh ideas added as well you could benefit from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Will check that one. Thanks for the tip. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm also starting an "RPG". I think however my idea is a bit different. It seems your idea and the Captain's focus more on having more than one player control a single force, sort of like "Team play CM".. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly put: Team play CM. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To see what I'm planning, check out the "Another CM RPG starting" post. If you have any ideas to add to either concept, please email me! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Will go there...

Hi there. we have started an experiment of *real* RPG multiplayer using one option available in CM: the possibility of SAVE GAME even when playing by email. What we have set up is 8 players, 1 Chief Commander and 3 Captains/Hauptmann per side. Each player team share the same password. Each commander has a Company under his orders. Players will in turn build-up the PBEM turn issuing orders to the units they control, saving the game and passing to the subseuent Captain. When all 3 Captains/Hauptmann have issued orders to units (along directivs of Chief Commander) the file will be sent to the GM (CC)) This last will - in our case - order vehicles , mortars, arty and support units. At this time, and ONLY at this time, the GM will hit the GO button instead of saving the game and create the PBEM file. This GREAT idea of ours make do for misunderstandings, needs of screenshots, etc etc as each player will actually execute his orders in CM direclty to his units. Only difference he will save the game and pass it along to his fellow Captain/Hauptmann. That's it. Simple, clever, a touch of genius.

What if players share a Large scenario/Operations. The way I see it is: the GMs set up the forces. Then all COs of one side share the PBEM password. Each CO commands some troops and units. In turn they will receive a saved game with the orders set by previous CO to their respective men. The first CO, group "A" receives the setup with his orders. He plots his orders, and instead of doing a PBEM he SAVES the game. Send the saved game to the 2nd CO. This one opens the game: CM asks if he wants to play solo or as PBEM. Select PBEM and issue his orders. Now instead of closing the gmae (GO) he saves again and sends to the 3rd CO which applies his orders and so on until the last CO who saves and send to the GM. This one review the order phase and issue the GO. The Go will produce the PBEM to be sent to the other GM. I tried with myself. It seems to be working. It is tricky but it would work.

TCP/IP? Sure!!! Programmable closk as well though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seahawk-vfa201: Where are the Mac textures?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Found them!!! thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EZJCA: THANKS!!! for the Mac textures. EZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where are the Mac textures?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: AHEM!....did someone forget to send the set-up for "Sherbrooke fusiliers"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey I sent it already. Rsending it must be lost. I am sending to your old address and the one that get is from here. See ya soo I hope. Warn me if you do not get it by today!

Hi there, after having read all posts it looks like the controversy turns around two separate distinct issues: getting to Hull Down position and advancing untill gettin a LOS on a specific position. Mixing the two is not necessary and probably even wrong. The new command would not be as the HUNT in that this one makes the unit advance till the waypoint or till it acxquires a target, whichever comes first. The new movetoLOS command would instead allow to select a point in the terrain and have the vehicle stop as soon as it reaches LOS to the specified point. In this respect there would be no waypoint but only a direction specified. The units moves automatically until it reaches LOS of the <put here your preferred>. Does not sound unrealisti or gamey: even with no LOS units have a map and know if after a crest there will be a ridge or something. My suggestion would then be to limit the command to areas which could reasonably be on the map: the fringe of a wood area, a bridge, another crest, a road, an intersection, etc etc.

Hi there, I just played Saint La Chapelle scenario with both sides against the AI. With both side I totally crushed the opponent. As the Germans I even obtained 0 men OK for US 4 captured the rest dead. My units only suffered 6 KIA. That said: I wanna play PBEM!!!!!!!!!!