patboivin

Yes you would think that since they were assimilated by the CM Borg, they would at least mention his name somewhere.

How could they?! There are not enough smilies in that one!

Born in Ottawa (Alta Vista), left eight years ago. I now live in Halifax. Yawn. My sneaky plan is to move to Boston area within two or three years, who knows though my wife will probably talk sense into me. Ironically, one of the things I miss most about Ottawa is Fandom II, the SciFi/Fantasy/Strategy Game store that used to be on Rideau Street, then Laurier Street E, and now is near O'Connor downtown. Hobbyland was good too, but that's long gone. I bought my first AD&D manual there, (G1- Hill Giants module) before the Player's Guide had been published. Fandom II made a lot of money off of me, but I don't regret a penny, hours and hours of enjoyment from those games. Go check it out, and ask those two guys when they will set up a web site so I can buy stuff online from them!

Is this Arkham, like in the H.P. Lovecraft books?

Just curious, sometimes I read threads and I think: "LOL, if I worked for BTS and I read that, I would just shake my head and grin." Has that happened so far? Are there discussions that you think are amusing? Maybe you are so busy you only take an occasional glance at the forum, there is already plenty of work to do. What about some suggestions by players? Are there any that made you think "Gee, why didn't we think of that?" I ask because sometimes I am amazed at the calibre of some of the people on this forum.

This what I like about this game. When under pressure, you can have a general idea of what your troops will do, but you can never be sure. Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief as a unit gets obliterated because of stupid decisions.

I noticed that the German flamethrower half tracks blow up very easily. I haven't been able to use flamethrowers successfully either, except maybe to blast a building, to make sure the enemy wouldn't be able to use it. (I know it's gamey, and I remember the long thread about that, but I couldn't affort to let my opponent walk into that building!!! )

I would like to comment, but I really can't. You see, I only bought air support once. I played through the game, got slaughtered because I expended points on air support. Well, you purchased air support, you say, whay aren't you happy Pat? I am unhappy for this reason: THEY NEVER SHOWED UP. Grrr.

Very good CM Borg. No offense intended. I don't want to get assimilated a second time!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oompa-Loompa: Tahks very much! My first (and second?) messages were unclear. I got those smilies down-I was wondering about the Borg, and Angel and such. A test :angel:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, you have to use that URL I put in my message. there are piles of smileys there. You have to copy the "new" smileys' URLS, and paste the URL into your message.

OK, there are a number of smilies at this URL: http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/ But the ones I posted were done by placing a word between two colons: :word: OK here are the words: cool confused eek mad rolleyes colon with a second character sometimes produces a smiley: ) ( p o D semi-colon ) That's it I think. [This message has been edited by patboivin (edited 09-29-2000).]

It would be nice if we could drive a tank through a house to make it collapse.

Yes, imagine what would have happened if the Me262 had come out a couple of years earlier.

Well, at the very least, we need a smiley for the CM Borg. Something with tubes and a claw, maybe. And red eyes. The Borg needs red eyes. And deathly pale white skin, I guess they are all albino's (?) I've seen this one used: And since this is CM the Borg should have a helmet.

Are the :xxxxxxx: smileys still limited to the following? I know we can get more smileys from other sites, just want to know if there are more :xxxxx: smileys I don't know about.

Welcome Alan. If you like WW2 tactics you can put all your other computer games in a box and put them in your attic, because you won't play them very much anymore.

I haven't had much success with telling snipers what to do. I typically sneak them in a high but hidden position, then wait. The best position I can think of for them would be at the top of a building, where they can stay hidden but have a wide variety of potential targets to select from. Then they usually take single shots. They take their sweet time about it though. On a happy note I sometimes see enemy tanks suddenly button up, never to unbutton again. I just place them in a good spot and let them pick their own targets, I find that telling them to target specific units doesn't do much good. Also their priorities rarely match mine, which is realistic I guess since they don't see the whole battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: I'd agree with the suggestion that their be a free form and an historical form I'd also suggest for QB that if you selected automatically. The computer would pick your equipment then display it for you. You would then have the opinion of keeping the computer selection or rejecting some units, receiving a lesser number of points for it. If you decided you didn't want a Stug at 88 you could turn it in and buy something else for, say 75 points, ie there would be a penalty for changing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this, plain gaming vs. historical should be separated. If people modify units too much while in historical mode, there should be a penalty. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: "Sell" vehicles like the infantry, by platoon and section and let the rarity function pick what you get. ie you select a platoon of infantry, an AT gun section and a platoon of tanks. The computer lets you know what you get and as above you have the right of refusal (and buying something else) with lesser points. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like this idea, sometimes when I pick my units I have no idea which ones go with which. We are falling into that historical vs. game-playing delineation again, users should be able to select historical (which would include rarity factors and "set packages" of units) vs. plain gaming (a la carte, paratroopers squads, Jeep MGs and supertanks everywhere.). Here is another plug for the Maus, the E.100, the Challenger, and the U.S. experimental tanks... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: Place a list of all the units out for the mass committee of this board to vote on its "value". Some units are a good "package" while others are not. It might be of value to see how the grognards rate the various units and vehicles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree with this, BTS has done a lot of research already, surely they have an idea already of how to rate units. The grognards might want to comment on the proposed scheme after it is almost ready, but a free-for-all debate could take years to resolve. But then again it would keep this forum going. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: By the way don't forget those German & Russian transport horses in CM2! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I totally agree with this, although I imagine modeling horses must be a nightmare. Heh heh. BTS, again I think you are doing a great job, most game corporations would just have quickly put something together and released it onto the market. And they would just have wanted to determine the market potential. You are asking people how they think you can improve the quality of your product! I haven't seen that done before.

I haven't read this whole thread, but relative point values for units is a conundrum. Sometimes it is impossible quantify qualitative differences. Apples and oranges. Someone tried to do that with AD&D fifteen years ago (the MonsterMark published in White Dwarf magazine, in the UK) but it had major problems. The formulas were complicated, and they used arbitrary values to reflect abilities that just could not be quantified. Also in the games I played, every time someone came up with a new way of using an ability the formulas were no longer "realistic". Charles and Steve, I don't think you will ever be able to resolve this. Maybe once in a while look at people's comments and rule on the matter, but you will never get it down like you did with the armour and penetration stats. I for one agree that vehicles should have some inherent point value, because vehicles do have an advantage over infantry: If they don't like where they are, they can leave. Infantry often has no other option than hunker down and wait it out, or try to sneak away on foot. Speed definitely matters. Another reason, probably not part of the game, but for me as a player is that it costs more to build a vehicle than throw a conscript onto the front lines. So vehicles should cost more. Re. MG jeeps, would it really be impossible for an HQ unit to climb into one? Just thought I should ask.

I don't know him, but I like posses. We need a posse.

I am running CM with tons of mods on an old Pentium Pro laptop, no 3D card that I know of, 64M of RAM. The game looks great, the only thing is that fog = totally grey screen, can't even see the key combinations (the screen that shows Alt-A, and so on). Is anyone else running CM on old hardware, and if so, what is it, and how does the game look? Some people on the SSI forum are insinuating that you need new hardware to run CM. Not so I say.

I haven't read all this thread but in my opinion, the points should be left alone. HOWEVER I agree with one of the posts, people in unarmoured vehicles should be enclined to drive to cover asap when fired at, or when better units are spotted by them. There should be a morale adjustment there, given how vulnerable these units are. It would help better simulate recce vehicles, who I am sure did not help their HQs locate enemy units by being blown into a thousand pieces. It seems more likely to me that they would have advanced, and retreated right away whenever contact was made. It could be useful for those of us who don't know much to see vehicles grouped together like infantry is into battalions, companies, etc. We should still be able to purchase individual units if we want to, but we should be able to buy armour in (relatively) historically accurate groupings. Same for artillery, vehicles, etc. If people want to play with rampaging MG jeeps, so be it, next time just buy three Wirblewinds, create crossfire lines and wait for those jeeps. They blow up real fast. After a few games of this your U.S. opponent will just drop that tactic. My opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aloid: Gamer since way back. Dogfight, Richtofen's War, Luftwaffe, were the real early ones. Aloid<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, I remember Luftwaffe that was a great game. Loved those circular chits. Also, I liked playing the game where you could see what would have happened if the Me262 had been introduced a couple of years earlier. Apparently it was ready for production, but the concept didn't fly (pun intended). It just goes to show, one thing here and another there and everything can change. I am glad the Germans didn't put the Me262 into production earlier in the war, that would have been REALLY annoying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan Fredriksson: Oh, how much we wanted those guns! We had to build our own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can still buy them on eBay if you want to pay the price of CM for one... sigh. I was waiting for them to do a remake in 1999, you know, it seemed timely -- but nothing. Again, sigh.

Well, what would you call an MMG Bren carrier with one wounded crewman? A mobile, unarmed, totally vulnerable, observation post that carries no passengers.