patboivin

I read that in CM the map size will be a maximum of 2km by 4km. Can I create a grid of 2km by 4km squares, in some sort of strategic view, that would provide a context for the 2x4 tactical maps? I would like to cover a large area, but let people place their units wherever they want on the map. Then they would move them in the strategic scale, and when two enemy groups end up on the same 2x4 map we could play this as a scenario. Is this feasible? Thanks.

Word of mouth. : )

How do I set that up? I don't remember it coming up when we start a new scenario. Please enlighten me!

I think I must have missed something, but so far in the Valley scenario, I have been able to see pretty much every mine field placed by the Germans. Was this by design, or have I just been very lucky and avoided the hidden mine fields?

And here I was thinking that Canada was on top of the world. Oh, well. Every map must be upside down.

Any update on this, now that the game is about to be released?

I am in Halifax now, originally from Ottawa, Ontario. My wife just graduated as a teacher and I am an Oracle DBA, so who knows I might move around in the near future. I have played Squad Leader since before it was called ASL, and I learned yesterday that Hasbro owns ASL?!! What the !#$^? What happened to Avalon Hill, do they still exist?

I check in in the evening usually, it depends on how many e-mails the site sends me <grin>. I only really started logging about a week ago, though. I don't know if that's why I am a junior member but if the BBS does keep count I won't be a junior member for long! Once people start posting their own maps and scenarios, and I have the game on my PC I expect I won't log in as much, I will be too busy pouring my life into CM.

Have you thought of putting civilians in the game? Hundreds of people streaming along a road could be a major hassle in a scenario. I think the Allies had to deal with this much of the time. There could also be a count of dead civilians for each side at the end of a scenario, I don't know how that could be taken into account when determining who is the "winner". I am sure some people wouldn't care, though. Civilians would be men, women, children, with loads on their backs, pulling hand carts, with horse carts (very rare), on bicycles... I thought I should just throw that in to see what the reaction will be.

Where can I find, on the 'net, Orders of Battles for ww-II? Specifically a friend and I are thinking of doing a few Operation Market Garden scenarios. I looked at the Close Combat II scenarios but they look very simplified to me: 2 panthers here, 5 panthers there, 1 80mm mortar for the Allies... I can't believe Operation Market Garden was fought with a handful of units on each side, this is ridiculous. I went to some sites last night but many links lead nowhere and others were too vague. Thanks.

Really cool.

When moving in the bush, I bet sometimes you head for a landmark, but sometimes you head in a particular direction because you hear a sound or because you saw some movement (or thought you saw from the corner of your eye). If the noise moves, or if you detect that the movement is shifting position, then you can keep low and follow the noise / movement. It doesn't necessarily depend on terrain features. I like the game the way it is, though. Please leave it as is, don't worry about this, and build us CM 2.0 and up. I don't have 1.0 yet and already I want version 2! We don't want to end up with a game that would need a Cray computer / mainframe / server cluster to run... Given that the turns are 1 minute each, maybe troops just wouldn't have the time to adjust their destination. Right now I am much more interested in seeing the Russian tanks and 1942 -> 1944, the other nations and the Pacific theater than worrying too much about the game mechanics. CM is way ahead of any other computer wargame I have seen so far.

Regarding why would I charge a Panther like that, all the Germans troops were either dead, captured or hiding in the woods and I wanted to mop up. In ASL, you could do close assault against AFVs with regular infantry. There wasn't much chance of success, but there was a chance. It was more dangerous for them to just stand there than to do the actual assault. In my opinion the situation was desperate, I mean Shermans are about as useless as tin cans on wheels against 1944/45 German tanks. It was a total fluke that I caught the Panther in its side, if it had stayed where it was and stayed to face me, both my Shermans would have gone up in smoke. One good side of rushing the Panther was that the other player decided he didn't want his Panther to hang around, so he moved it... I can understand that plotting movement against a unit instead of against the map could be hard to code, though, esp. if the game wasn't built to accommodate this. I am happy with the game, I just thought it was a little silly to see infantry stay in the middle of open ground like that, when there was a Panther just a few meters away. If they did THINK on their own, as some have suggested, they would either have charged or bolted for the woods nearby.

Picture this. You have a Panther (in Valley scenario), sitting on a slight slope in open ground. U.S. troops are plotted (as a desperate measure to knock the tank out) to rush toward the panther to engage it in close combat. During the movement phase, I see the Panther start up and go in reverse for a few meters, then stop. Meanwhile the hardy (stupid?) U.S. troops keep heading for where the Panther USED TO BE, instead of adjusting their destination to head for the Panther. Since the troops were coming from three separate directions, one almost from behind, I would have expected at least ONE of the squads to clue in and head for the Panther. No, they didn't. Good thing the Panther was buttoned up and too busy to notice the troops, because if it had it could have mowed them all down in one MG blast. (the troops were all just standing there, in open ground, about 20m in front of the Panther) Is this a bug in the game? (I know it was foolish to rush the tank in the first place, but movement plotting seems to only take the map locations into considerations, not actual targets troops should try to rush. A turn later I did get the Panther, I timed the two Shermans to come over a crest at the same time. By sheer luck they appeared just as the Panther was rushing in another direction, and the Shermans had plain view of its side (it took them three shots still to get it). Comments? ------------------

You could do it in ASL -- I guess the troops in that game were lean, mean, digging machines... : )

Any possibility at some point of making troops dig in *during* a scenario? Also, fortifications would be nice: WWI-type trenches, tunnels, anti-tank barriers. I know it's a lot easier to suggest than to build. : ) ------------------

Hi, I noticed you put the Super Pershing in there, but you forgot the Elefant, the SturmTiger and the Maus. <grin> The SturmTiger would have been interesting, given that its aim left a little to be desired and the reload time was so long. The Elefant had no MG, that would have been a challenge to use in close quarters. The Maus, yes I know it probably never did much more than drive around the factory buildings, and bog down on asphalt roads, but still -- ... you know... I want to try it! A friend and I after playing ASL for years decided to expand the artillery calibers a little, to simulate train-based artillery. We also tried to put more detail in the Air-to-Ground rules, and air-to-air rules, we thought the ASL rules were a little too vague. In both cases we didn't go overboard, we built upon the tables that came with ASL. I imagine it could be possible to do the same with CM, at least for the artillery. (I am not trying to get you to put Big Bertha in the game! Just the more common calibers like 280mm, 290mm, etc.. Esp. since CM 1.0 is supposed to cover the end of the war.) We did play campaigns where we had limited bombing ability, and strategically we could decide where to bomb and then the other player could intercept or no, as long as some conditions were met. But that would probably be outside the scope of CM (it was outside the scope of ASL). I still have a copy of the rules if you would ever be interested. Any chance one day you might put cliffs and fortresses in the map editor? I remember a couple of interesting ASL maps. I saw a green slope in Valley that is labeled as "cliff", but I don't see a cliff... Also, in the city scenarios, will there be sewers? I didn't see any white phosphorous either. I wonder what that would look like, modeled in 3D. I don't know everything but I thought that U.S. troops had WP grenades near the end of the war. After all this, I am wondering like everyone else when CM 1.0 will be released, I pre-ordered you know. The game is impressive, thanks for building it. Regards, Pat. ------------------