billcarey

Still no arguments as to why the new system is better, except the "I don't like the keyboard" argument, which I think is all well and good, but a very weak argument. I use the keyboard all the time to issue all of my orders, because it is 9.357 million times faster than opening the command menu, so that argument doesn't really apply. I'm sure I will eventually get used to it, but that does not, most emphatically not, make it necessarily better. - Bill

I wrote up a pretty thorough analysis (from an interface design point of view) of the change in another thread. The rough summation of it is that the new interface is less intuitive, more complex, less powerful, and more prone to error than the old interface. I've yet to hear any arguments or explanations for it being better interface design except: 1. Other games by other companies use it. This is a somewhat valid argument as consistency is a valid principle of interface design, but I would counter-argue that consistency within a company's product line, i.e. with CMBO outweighs the concerns of consistency with other companies products. 2. I do not want to use the shift key. This I think is a bogus argument *from a design perspective* (it may, in fact, be true, but that does not mean it should influence the interface design). My counter argument would be that the reduction of the featureset of the interface - the loss of the rotate-while-translating-back command - is not worth the (perceived) increase in simplicity of removing the necessity of the shift key. The fact that the shift key is still part of the interface here renders this argument somewhat invalid for me. You still can't slide-while-translating-front without using the shift key. So, while I have taken the board's advice and tried to get used to the new camera movement system, I haven't. I still expect it to behave like the camera system from CMBO, perhaps because I was so happy with that. I would be very happy if a hotkey would be added to switch betweent the two movement systems, but, of course, I have some sense of perspective. I am eagerly awaiting CMBB and this won't kill the deal for me. I was loath to see the inclusion of the combo-box in OS X. The abandonment of Creator/Type codes for filename extensions makes me cringe. Bad interface tends to proliferate, and there's nothing to be done but pointing it out and hoping it can be changed. I hope the postman arrives with a present tomorrow! - Bill

In my own defense, I was young and foolish. And terrible at CM. Bil whomped me good in that game, but I came back to beat him in Last Defense. He smoked the whole map with the beta-lasts-forever smoke and assaulted the town with all possible haste. I had a platoon in cunning ambush on my right which he completely bypassed in his haste to wail on my guys in town. When turn 10 rolled around, my 'cats ran into town along with the platoon of reinforcements. Simultaneously my formerly-ambushing platoon swung into his rear. So he had three depleted and low on ammo platoons being attacked from the front and rear by fresh men. The culmination of the game was one hellcat engaging his Tiger at a range of 0m and delivering the knockout blow. I think I got a tactical victory. Those two games hooked me on CM bigtime. Aah, memory lane... - Bill

The sound quality in the demo is unbelievable. If these are downsampled, the game is going to explode my ear drums in the best of ways. There's not much more aurally satisfying than hearing two platoons of russians backed up by a maxim open up at once on a dug in german platoon. Smartly done. The 20th can't come soon enough. - Bill

A thesis: The CMBO demo scenarios appear better to CMBO players than the CMBB demo scenarios because our prior experience with CMBO biases us: 1. The CMBO Gold Demo represented a huge leap forward in playing coolness as compared to the CMBO Beta Demo (which, while it hooked many of us on CM, is, in retrospect, pretty goofy.) The CMBB demo is not being compared with a beta quality demo, nay, not even with a Gold Quality Demo, it is being compared with a whole other game (!). Compare the CMBB demo to the CMBO beta demo and it looks a whole lot better. 2. Our ability to enjoy the CMBB demo is affected by our prior experience playing CMBO. I still find myself giving fast move orders instead of advance and telling troops to advance instead of setting a covered arc. I'm used to not wasting ammo points on area firing, and being able to move men much more quickly than possible in CMBB. So: I think the only way to realistically assess the betterness of one demo over the other is to guage the reactions of people who have never played one or the other. Everyone who has cut their teeth on CMBO will be a biased observer. Go Heisenberg!

There's a difference between elegant and powerful. The new interface is (imho) clearly less elegant than the old, and I think you could make a pretty good argument that it isn't even more powerful. Consider the commands available in the old interface: Move forward. Move backward. Rotate right. Rotate left. Move forward and Rotate right. Move forward and Rotate left. Move backward Rotate right. Move backward and Rotate left. The modifier key adds the following commands: Move left. Move right. Move forward and move right. Move forward and move left. Move backward move right. Move backward and move left. That gives us a total of 14 commands, each of which has a converse command in the interface. For every command there is something to do it's opposite. Now, consider the new interface: Move forward. Move backward. Move left. Move right. Rotate right. Rotate left. Move forward and Rotate right. Move forward and Rotate left. Move backward move right. Move backward and move left. The modifier key adds the following commmands: Move forward and move right. Move forward and move left. For a total of 12 commands Now, twelve is two less than 14, so what commands have we lost? With the new interface, it is not possible to either: Move backward Rotate right. Move backward and Rotate left. Additionally, the opposite converse commands of Move backward move right. Move backward and move left. now require the modifier key to be in a different state than the commands: Move forward and move right. Move forward and move left. So the changes made to the interface have removed two commands, and broken the natural pairing of four others. That is what I mean by less powerful and less elegant. It is a more complex ruleset to be learned that produces a less complete set of commands. Now, the interface is *arguably* more powerful (if less elegant) if you ignore the modifier key, but that's a stilly thing to do. It's akin to saying that a three spead truck has more power than a porsche - if you never shift the porsche out of first!

Berlichtengen, Do you really not use the keyboard at all when you play? I keep one hand with my pinkie on shift, my index finger on T, and my other fingers on A, and E, and my thumb on the spacebar. (I think these will be the most common commands in CMBB) It makes issuing orders very fast and intuitive. I would have no problem with having the whole of the screen translate around by default and rotate when a modifier is pressed. It's the mishmash of the two that causes problems. Is there any way, with the new interface, to simultaneously move the camera backwards and rotate either direction? If the new interface allowed me to do everything the old did without using the shift key I would be all for it, but the new interface removed some commands from the old interface, and still requires the shift key for some others. I just don't understand why that change would be made. - Bill

Tom, Right now, the shift key does what it did in CMBO: it makes the whole monitor edge translate instead of rotate. Which adds another layer of complexity and inconsistency to the rules. The old rules: Sides of the Monitor Rotate. Top and Bottom of the Monitor Translate. Corners (the intersection of the two regions) do both. The modifier key makes every instance of rotate become and instance of translate. The new rules. Top and Bottom of the Monitor Translate. The Upper sides of the monitor rotate. The Lower sides of the monitor translate. The upper corners rotate and translate. The lower corners translate and translate. The modifier key makes the top part of the monitor sides translate now, and the bottom is unaffected. I like the old interface. The best solution would be to have the CMBO interface with a user defined preference to either translate or rotate. When the modifier key is pressed, it does the opposite of the preference. So, if I set my move preference to "rotate", the shift key makes the edges translate. If i set my move preference to "translate", the shift key makes the edges rotate. Just like the CMBO interface, but a wee bit more customizable for those who are big on translation. Also, I really like that the live weapons in a squad are show in the main interface. This has saved me much pressing of the enter key! - Bill

I'm sure I will get used to it, people can get used to all manner of badly done interface. That doesn't mean that badly done interface is as good as well done interface. I have yet to hear an argument as to why the new system is better than the old. The old system is a mirrored system, where every command has an easily available opposite and the use of the screen is consistent. In the new interface, the top of the monitor behaves diffrently from the bottom, which is both confusing (why isn't the translate section at the top? or in the middle?) and inconsistent. I'm getting used to the close control being next to the size controls is OS X.II windows. That sure doesn't mean that I like them being there...

Aah! But you can't do everything you could! I haven't found a way to simultaneously move the camera backward and rotate it, which I sorely miss. A toggle would be really nice. - Bill

So the demo arrived on my computer at 5:00 A.M. the 1st. I have been greedily playing it and can't wait for the full version with the scenario editor! I piddled with making scenarios in CMBO, and cannot wait to begin with CMBB. But: I think that the new camera system is a dramatic step backwards from the old system. (I am discounting the interface buttons to scroll because they are a completely seperate interface from the edge-of-screen-system) Here's why: 1. Ye Old System The edge of the screen was divided into eight different interface sections. Placing the mouse at the top of the screen moved the camera forward. Placing the mouse at the bottom of the screen moved the camera backward. A natural pairing. Placing the mousse at the rightmost edge of the screen rotated to the right. Placing the mousse at the leftmost edge of the screen rotated to the left. Another natural pairing. Placing the mouse in any one of the four corners would invoke both actions for top and side movement. Thus if the mouse was in the top left corner, the camera moved forward and rotated left. If the mouse was in the bottom right corner, the camera moved backwards and rotated right. To translate left or right required the use of a modifier key. Now, why is this good interface? Every possible command has a command that will do its opposite. If I move my camera too far forward, I can easily move it backward. If I turn-right-move-backward, I can move the mouse to the opposite side of the screen to undo that movement. Now, with the new edge interface, the top edge of the screen behaves identically to the old CM system, while the bottom edge of the screen behaves like the old CM system with the modifier key pressed. This is most distressing. Because of this there is not way to undo a move-forward-rotate right, nor a way to undo a move-backward-translate-left. Instead of four pairs of converse commands, we now have two pairs of converse commands and four unpaired commands. This has (for me) made battlefield navigation much more difficult. Possible solutions are: 1. Return to ye olde camera system. Simple, elegant, beautiful. 2. Keep the new camera system, but make the modifier key flip which side rotates and which side translates. A kludge. 3. Add more complexity to the system by further subdividing the sides of the screen into three regions, a top rotate, middle translate, and bottom rotate. Ok, but complexity should be avoided if possible. Just my thoughts. The new tank model is beautiful in it's frustrating ability. I put two turns worth of 37mm shells into the side of a T-34 and all that happened was the tank panicked. Then a platoon hq destroyed it with a close assault. The excitement is back bigtime, and the Pz III is a sight to behold. [ September 02, 2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: billcarey ]

I've got a question about a feature that won't make it into CMBB (unless someone beat me to the punch and I missed it) but might be neat for some future game. Rally Points. They would be purchasable like TRPs but possibly more expensive (30p?) They would then be able to be placed in (and only in) the setup zone of the player. It might be sensible to code it up that only yellow setup zone guys can use a yellow Rally Point. Panicked and Broken (and Routed?) troops would gravitate slowly towards the rally point (usually) and cautious, shaken, or alerted units could move towards the rally point at a reduced CNC delay. So, the seven tests that I only sort of remember: 1. Historical? I'm not a military person, so I don't know. How common were rally points in set piece battles? 2. Common Enough? See #1. 3. Useful/Different? I think so. Would add to a defender's ability to build a second line of defense and keep his upper level COs from running around all willy nilly. 4. Codeable? Beats me. So what do people think: are rally points a feature that would be worth having? Would you use them? Are they possible? How would you gamily expoit and break them? Just thought I'd throw out the idea, 'cause I don't remember seeing it before. - Bill

Right after school starts and papers start to pick up! Who needs a GPA anway? It's my last year of school ever! Bwuhaha... Hail to BFC! The destroyer of grades everywhere! - B.

Hey, I'm putting together a little operation featuring an American Airborne raid to take a pair of bridges at night and defend them during the day. It's coming along nicely (attacking at night is really not the plan.) but I've got a question about points and reinforcements. I'd like the glider boys to every couple of play throughs be reinforced by a US Rifle company and a couple of shermans or stuarts. So I created a reinforcement slot for battle 4 with an arrival chance of 10%. All well and good. Now, the germans are bringing some serious hardware to the party, and if the Glider boys aren't reinforced, they'll be lucky to have a broken half squad left after 10 battles (this is on purpose). If they are reinforced, they should be able to hold the bridge fairly well. My question is, when evealuating who won the operation will the game engine count points of reinforcements that never arrive towards victory, or will it act like they were never included in the scenario at all? Also, if anyone would like to play test the op, let me know and I'll send you a copy in a day or two when it's roughly done. Thanks! - Bill (Photon)

I guess there just isn't an acronym for what I'm talking about (though Tarquelene and Jason and Hiram appear to know what I'm talking about) The FBRRWHWSE (Forward, but really rear with heavy weapons screening element) as it shall be called is most definitely not a "support line to the MLR". It dosen't support the main line (at least not at first). It engages independantly before the main line with the three purposes Tarquelene so eloquently stated: 1. Bother his recon 2. Confuse him as to your disposition 3. Reveal his heavy hitters Now, as I understood things, that would make it a screening element (of some sort.) I like RARE. I think HWSE (Heavy Weapons Screening Element) works too. I don't really care. What I do want to know is if people have had any success with things like this. Jason, Mortars are usually my biggest worry doing this, but I figure that my HMGs can take a fair pounding from 60mm mortars, and that 20mm flak guns can trade at good odds with his light vehicles. The HWSE/RARE/FBRRWHWSE can be so spread out that it's not a good trade for the attacker to hit it with his heavy arty. I haven't tried a defense like this as the americans, but I suspect it would work well because of the .50 and the abundance of light mortars. Shame they don't have any small autocannons though... - Bill

(sorry for the hiatus - way too much work) Jason hit the nail on the head. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have a FSE or that terrain can do it for you. There are (imho) multiple arrangements of a FSE. One is a group of infantry in front of your MLR that engages the enemy first. Advantages: 1. The screening infantry are cheap in terms of points 2. They present a physical barrier to the attacker Disadvantages: 1. The screen can be broken with local (short range) pressure Two is several clusters of heavy weapons placed behind your MLR which engage the enemy first. Advantages: 1. The screening heavy weapons are immune to a local attack (there is a big MLR in front of them) 2. The attacker must reveal his heavy and support weapons to remove the heavy weapons screen. Disadvantages: 1. If the attacker just rushes his main body forward, the rear screen won't slow him down much. (But I suspect this is true of a infantry screen too) 2. The screen is more expensive than a light infantry screen. The reason I tend to favor a heavy weapons screen is that it accomplishes two things a forward screen does not. First, it disguises the position of the MLR. Many players I've played and used this against expend their artillery on the FBRRWHWSE (Forward, but really rear with heavy weapons screening element) because they see it first and it looks like a juicy arty target (guns and hmgs and mortars) Second, it forces the attacker to reveal more of his assets to circumvent than a forward screen does. Thus it not only accomplishes counter recon, but active recon for the defender. More when I'm back from work.

Tarqulene, "what's the appropriate target for the Vlksgrnder squads?" They open up usually right before his assault makes contact with the MLR and serve as a mobile reserve once the battle is fully committed. (I've been tempted to move four squads to the command of the company HQ as a super-reserve platoon, but I haven't tried that in a game yet.) Jason, I agree with everything you say until the last little sencence. (In fact, the force composition you describe is almost exactly what I use most often) Aah, but I do. If I expose guns he will be forced to either let them wail on his forces or kill them somehow. His infantry isn't close enough to be effective, and I'm happy to trade light flak guns and HMGs for large modules of artillery. If he rolls out his tanks, I have long range AT assets to destroy them. You can use this not just to do counter-recon work, but actually to do recon work. If you have a forward screen, he can punch through that with light recon assets and some infantry. If you have a ranged weapons recon screen he has to reveal heavier assets to remove it (or expend valuable arty on low priority targets). That's why I like it better than a forward screen.

Sorry 'bout the terminology - learn something every day. Were heavy weapons companies employed against recon elements before the MLR engaged or were they brought into the battle once the MLR committed? It's not so much the use of heavy supporting weapons, it's using them before you engage your main line that I'm mostly concerned with. Thanks

This is definitely a very open defense. It works pretty well when you don't have suitable terrain for a good closed defense. 1000 point Allied Attack March '45 Small Hills, Medium Trees, Village German OOB: 294 1 x Volksgrenadier Company 99 1 x Volksgrenadier Platoon 56 2 x HMG 42 46 2 x Panzerschreck 54 2 x 81mm Mortar 134 2 x 75mm Pak 42 2 x 20mm Flak 47 1 x 75mm Artillery Spotter 102 1 x 120mm Mortar Spotter --------------------- 874 Base cost of defense You can add to this something to shore up whatever's weakest in your playing style. I'm wretched at tank and gun fighting so I'm going to shore up my at defense with a 50mm Pak and a StuG III. Pretty standard stuff. It's going to take me a while to get a screen shot together. Probably the easiest thing would be for me to e-mail you a scenario with one of my defenses set up. My understanding of the counter recon stuff was that your counter recon effort should be aimed at forcing the attacker to reveal his valuable assets (tanks, massed infantry, heavy artillery) and attrit them where possible while not revealing your main defensive body. I guess most people accomplish that by having a skirmish line that the attacker must cut through and in doing so reveal his stronger forces. The rear screen accomplishes this by engaging his recon assets at a range where they are unable to respond effectively. This should force him to either conduct his recon under heavy fire and losses or bring something to bear that can respond at that range. If he dumps his heavy artillery on your spread out skirmish line all the better. If he brings tanks or assault guns to bear on your line, you have AT guns to kill them. If he rushes his his screen forward you can counterattack with your MLR which is supported by your rear screen. Just some thoughts.

That's the plan. You use long range assets that the recon elements can't respond to hopefully forcing your opponent to reveal his long range hitters which you can then kill, allowing you to use your MLR in either a hit and fade or counterattack role. If you want I can send you what a defense would look like on an autogenerated map. Because your counter recon troops can't be rushed (they are far away and there's an MLR in front of them) they can be very spread out, which makes them a poor artillery target too.

I've been reading some of the posts on how to fight the recon battle and the use of FSEs and whatnot and I was wondering if anyone has (historically or otherwise) used rear screening elements in the defensive. The rear screening element that I use is usually: 1 x Platoon CO 2 x Volksgrenadier Squads 1 x HMG-42 1 x 81mm Mortar 1 x 20mm Flak Gun 1 x 75mm AT Gun 1 x Sharpshooter This super-platoon gets placed about 200m behind my MLR which is composed of mostly SMG troops and Panzerschrecks and is used in an hit and fade role. Each rear screening element engages any recon elements it sees with the appropriate weapon, with the intent of drawing out either a strong infantry response to be ambushed by the MLR or an armored response to be dealt with by the 20mm flak or the 75mm pak. I generally use these teams in pairs in a thousand point defense, and have had fantastic success against the AI (not surprising) and some success against live opponents. Just wondering if anyone else has located their recon screening elements behind their MLR - I suspect it has some advantages. - Bill

Just wanted to say thanks to mensch for hosting my first map! I'm not much of a scenario maker, but thought someone might have fun romping around the map I put together. If anyone makes a fun scenario out of it, send it to me. billcarey@mac.com The 88s are meant to be very commanding. If you go running around willy nilly in front of them you will lose. Fast. You've got to move slowly and carefully to either set up a good mortar fire position and hit them with onboard stuff or get very close to them without being spotted and wailed on. Offboard arty is pretty ineffective, though the big stuff will hurt them. Originally I had thought of this as a night raid map inspired by the likes of Blowfish and Fertile Fields, both of which are masterpieces. - Bill

I think the magic words are "OS X Public Beta" - I installed it and CM died a horrible death - I am trying to figure out why. If anyone knows well out with it man! - Bill

I am getting the same thing, which is disrupting a pbem I figure OS X must replace an extension or extensions to make the 3d stuff "classic compliant" and that new extension is confusting combat mission. I don't have a clean version of 9 so I can't really check the 3d stuff, but that's where I'd look to find the prob... - Bill

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What about some poor old peasant high up in the hills in Eastern Asia, who has never heard of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, will their Gods find space in heaven for him? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes.