ASL Veteran

Well, for one thing the location of where the truppen start at when you load the scenario isn't necessarily where the AI will be putting them when it's setting up because the designer can use setup locations that are different from where the truppen are located as the default. Generally speaking, I never use a default setup because you never know for certain if the opponent has looked at it or even played the scenario prior to playing against you. I find that doing a partial setup by just adjusting the default isn't very good because no matter what I'm doing I'm still thinking like the designer to some extent and not myself. I always take all my truppen and relocate them to an open field somewhere in my setup area and then start by setting up heavy AT weapons, followed by my HMGs, and finally by my infantry squads. That way I am not influenced by the designer in any way and I may actually find a better defensive design by starting from scratch. Sometimes I end up with something similar to the default, but I got there my own way.

If you are playing from an old save or upgrading a PBEM turn you will hear that sound after first upgrading. It will fade about halfway through your second minute

LOL. I can assure you there hasn't been a falling out there . Steve and Kwazydog are just very busy at the moment on a lot of .... um ... things and stuff.

Sorry, I don't have any source to give you. I think the TO&E information is mostly pulled directly from original documents in the German National Archives.

Steve has mentioned Co Play in the past and I know that he is a very enthusiastic supporter of having a Co Play option in the game. The fact that it's not in there already (even with Steve being an enthusiastic supporter) should be an indication as to how difficult it would be to implement.

Actually it is very relevant because if we know that 10% is insufficient by your standards then it would be nice to know what percentage you think would be appropriate and why. Otherwise you can't put a measurable effect into the game. Do'h!! Now we're back at square one which is ... what percentage do you think would be appropriate and what is that based on? FYI, I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything but you can't sit there and say "10% is wrong ... I don't know what's right but I know 10% is wrong" and expect anyone at BFC to take this very seriously. :confused: It took many years worth of posting, discussion, and debate going all the way back to CMBO just to get this 10% difference.

As I recall, the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler had the extra stuff in it. All the other SS units were as you described.

As far as I know, every scenario that comes with the CD has AI plans for both sides. Some plans are more challenging than others but that's going to be dependent upon the skill level of the designer.

It's only a cop out if it's not true. Maybe there is a scenario designer out there who actually can make scenarios challenging for both the defender and the attacker. If you don't try any of them then you will never know. Why don't you try any of the scenarios that don't indicate which way is best to play and then play it once against the AI from both sides. Let us know how it goes. Otherwise you are just wasting our time speculating and pontificating. All it will cost you is a couple hours of gameplay - and possibly a 'ruined' scenario because you can't play it head to head now that you've played it once. Of course, since you aren't playing any of them anyway that shouldn't be much of a loss. At least you will know if you might be interested in some of the others rather than just trembling with fear that you will end up in an unbalanced head to head game.

Even if the designer puts 'good for head to head play' in the subject line that doesn't mean it's going to be balanced for you and your preferred opponent. Some players play hyper aggressive. Some players play hyper cautious. So really, putting that in the subject line without extensive testing is just a guess by the designer. If you assume that just because a designer labels the scenario 'good for head to head' means perfectly balanced then you are making a huge assumption. The only way to be certain is through repeated playings, and like I said, there is no way the beta testers are going to be able to do that - especially considering that there is no TCP/IP We Go or Pausable Real Time. So I would say that listing a scenario as balanced for head to head play through guessing is going to lead to just as much criticism about the balance as saying that a scenario is good to play however you want to play it. If a scenario is designed such that it can be played vs the AI from either side, then there should be an assumption that there is 'some' level of balance for head to head play since the designer can't use the typical tricks (force stacking and terrain massaging) that scenarios designed specifically for "attacker vs AI only" can do.

The scenarios with no guidelines listed can be played as either side vs the AI or head to head. In other words you can play it however you want to. As to the balance .... you aren't going to get an indicator of the level of balance that you are seeking from a module scenario on the day the module is released. That would require hundreds of play throughs by players who then record their results on some website that tracks scenario results. In other words "The Flowers of the Forest" was played 100 times and the British won 60% of the time. You are simply not going to get that level of balance accuracy right out of the box because there is just no way for the beta testers to run through a scenario head to head often enough to get the results that you seek. So, my advice would be to just grab a scenario, play it against someone, and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe you end up on the short end of an unbalanced scenario but at least you can make an effort to overcome the imbalance and score an improbable victory against an over confident opponent. If you lose - so what? Try to have a little fun.

Sorry, no new pics for the loading screens

That almost always happens whenever you upgrade and continue a current PBEM game. The sound will fade away during your next minute of play.

If the soldiers are on the tank, then the vegetation that the troops are wearing would serve to camoflage the tank while they are riding on it .

Another thing about tank riders is that they would require special animations. All passengers currenly in CMBN are sitting rigidly upright with their knees together. It would look mighty odd if tank riders were assuming the standard passenger pose currently in the game. Tank riders are going to be hanging on to objects on the tank with their arms and legs in various positions to assist in keeping the soldier from falling off. At the same time you couldn't have truck passengers sprawled about on the interior of a truck using the same poses as tank riders so the game would have to know somehow whether a passenger was a tank rider or a non tank rider. The game would have to differentiate between two categories of passenger and correctly use the right animation when passengers loaded a vehicle. I suspect those difficulties have more of an impact with why tank riders haven't made an appearance yet than some of the other reasons offered so far.

Now that we've established the characteristics of the 'primitive human', I'm a bit curious about the 'non primitive' or 'ideal' human. What are the characteristics of the 'superior' human and what sort of a society does he or she reside in? I think I definitely fit the characteristics of the 'primitive human' by the way. Especially number 7 . I'm also a greedy Wall Street type so there's probably no place for me in the 'New Society' or whatever they end up calling it .... .

Compared to what indeed. Once you understand that then you will fully understand what he's on about. Although my original remark was to suggest that perhaps Diesel is a Reptoid, his last sentence is entirely consistent with the political views he holds. Not only consistent, but maybe even essential. However, I didn't ask you to interpret Diesel's context. I am now asking you if you agree with his view that humans are primitive. If so then why? Do you include yourself as one of the primitives or not? I am asking this because I know that you hold political views that are similar in many respects to those of Diesel and I suspect that you are inclined to agree with his views more often than not.

So do you agree with Diesel that Humans are primitive? If so, are you including yourself as primitive or are you just referring to 'others' as primitive?

Hey Diesel, I figured someone should probably warn you. If you say that kind of stuff around John Kettler too often you might get your cover blown.

If it makes you feel any better, I have read an actual personal account of a member of the 12th SS who viewed one of his comrades killing himself while using a Panzerfaust in a foxhole. Apparently he didn't raise the back end of the Panzerfaust up high enough and when he fired it off he was killed by the backblast.

Nothing is repaired between missions. The maps are entirely independent of each other and no damage in one mission is carried over to the next.

1st Company of the 503rd Tiger Battalion commanded by Oberleutnant Oemler was equipped with the King Tiger in Normandy. The King Tigers had the Porsche turret. Their first action in Normandy was in a counterattack on the left flank of Operation Goodwood. Oberleutnant Oemler's King Tiger immobilized itself in a bomb crater, Tiger 111 and Tiger 101 were both knocked out. King Tiger 112 was rammed and knocked out by Lieutenant Gorman of the Irish Guards. All the King Tigers were lost in the retreat to the Seine River in August.

It probably doesn't hurt to bring it up every once in a while, but I'm pretty confident that it's discussed internally as well. I think there are a few beta testers who are either current or former artillerymen and I'm sure they would like the artillery system to be improved. It's probably more a matter of resources than anything else. It probably works 'well enough' so that a revamp gets pushed towards the lower half of the 'to do' list.

From what Steve has said in the past, the Bulge is going to be the start of a new game series. So think of everything from December 1944 until April 1945 as being in a different game series (Bulge, Rhineland, Ruhr Pocket, Nordwind, etc). Some things that are within the time frame of Market Garden would be ... Canadian campaign in the Sheldt, Americans capturing the port of Brest, the channel ports, and fighting around Aachen etc. Sorting everything out so that there is enough of a separation in content between releases will be the tricky part of course. I'm sure that Steve has a master plan for all that though .