ASL Veteran

I think things are fine the way they are for now. I just think that they can go a lot farther with minefields and engineers than they have so far. The level of detail for engineers and minefields - and other obstacles for that matter - is about as basic as it can be. We should be able to clear wire using demolitions shouldn’t we? From what I’m reading, it would be a lot easier to blast a path through wire than it would be to blast a path through a minefield. Thanks for the info Marlow - I don't know if you were using live ordinance with the bangalore or not, but I'm sure the specified time includes some "I'm sweating cause it's live ordinance" time in it. Even taking the most radical and carefree time though I should think that it would take more than 10 minutes to prep and detonate one (which should include the possibility of friendly casualties since you are throwing safety to the wind). Then you still have the problem of the actual amount of explosives required to get the job done (six bangalore kits for a 20 by 4 path). Oh, and I can appreciate the point you made about the lethal radius, that’s why I included the “in the open unprepared” part as a qualifier. Even some models of simple ‘blast mines’ have a lethal radius if they are large enough, and you don’t want to be near an AT mine when it goes off – those babies have as much as 20 pounds of TNT in them (three times as big as a demo charge)!! Even so though, the S mine is much more lethal than anything in a current CM minefield which seems to only consist of “Toe Poppers”. CM AP minefields are hardly daunting to enter. I checked both the Handbook on German Military Forces and the Japanese version of the same and they did both have their own version of the bangalore torpedo. Of course, I can’t determine when they entered service though. As far as how you set up a minefield .... a standard pattern minefield is set up using clusters of between 1 to 5 mines each. These clusters are set up along both sides of a center strip at regular intervals. Depending upon the density desired, a 20 x 20 CM square would contain between 14 and 70 mines within it, (actually that would be in a 25 x 25 square, but close enough) and it assumes that all your clusters have mines in them. If you include clusters with no mines, I suppose you could have between 1 and 70 mines. So, if your image of a minefield is one where mines are just laid out in a massive blob covering a 20 meter square, the image is a little off . There is actually a lot of space between the clusters (relatively speaking of course). Perhaps I can post the exact method of laying the mines if anyone is interested. As far as Hasty minefields go: A hasty minefield probably would be less dense than a standard pattern minefield since you are just setting up rows rather than strips with clusters, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be less dense – or any easier to breach for that matter. If you have determined that the depth of the minefield is 20 meters you still have to breach 20 meters regardless of it’s density. One thing of interest that I got from “FM 7-7 The Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad” is that it hints that it is okay to pass through a minefield if the mines are located but not cleared. So if you have the probers out and you have identified the mines by marking them, as long as your troops don’t go near the marked mines everything should be fine. That would certainly cut down the time to pass through a minefield I would think. Minefields should be relatively easy to spot if you are actively looking for them in a specific location. I’m thinking that there should be some sort of ‘search’ command added in the future for this purpose (and anything else you might want to look for). Units using the slower movement command “Sneak” could also be considered to be automatically searching for minefields as they move I guess.

Ya know, the deeper I look into the subject of minefields the more I think this area needs to be revisited in future CMs. Take the actual mines themselves for example … there are two types of buriable AP mines listed in FM 20-32 for US use: Mine, Antipersonnel, Nonmetallic, M14 (Toe Popper); and the Mine, Antipersonnel, M16A2 (Bouncing Betty, Tomato Can Mine). The so called “Toe Popper” does what you would expect … blow off one man’s leg. However, the M16A2 – wow what a device!! Holy Cow!! 30 meters will slag an entire squad and then some in CM if they are just walking along in the open unprepared!! Lest we think of the M16A2 as a new fangled device, a look at the German S mine from WW2 should show some similarities. According to the Handbook on German Military Forces: I don’t know about you guys, but the minefields I use in CM have nothing buried in them that can cause this level of devastation! Heck, walking through one is almost okay since you will only lose a man or two if you are unlucky. I might think twice about walking through a minefield with a few of these babies in them though!! How about this beauty made by the Soviets: These devices are probably powerful enough to represent as individual weapons when emplaced as booby traps in buildings or set up outside with tripwires. If I keep this level of posting up, I think I'll catch Michael Dorosh's total in no time

I don't know that they would be invincible, but it would certainly take some time - say more than 25 minutes at least to clear a path that is 20 meters deep. My impression is that using detectors would be comparatively quick at identifying the location of mines, but that the actual clearance of said mines would take some time. Also, you should be able to clear a path through an antipersonnel minefield by simply driving a tank through it. AP mines probably aren't powerful enough to blow off a track.

So what do you do if you don’t have a bangalore torpedo? Here is the method used to clear minefields using electronic detectors (and by a little extrapolation by probing alone)

Some may now be asking – dang, what exactly is the procedure used when breaching a minefield using a Bangalore? Since I've had this FM collecting dust on my bookshelf for 17 years I figure that I might as well get the maximum use out of it now while I have the opportunity . Counting the little people in the accompanying diagram I can see that a ‘crew’ would consist of around seven or eight men. Four men on the push team and three men on the construction team. There is also the guy doing the firing, but it isn’t clear if he is a member of either team, or if he is just supervising the others until he gets his moment in the sun. I also have to wonder if any of the nations in CMBB even had an equivalent to the bangalore torpedo? Did they have any standard mine clearing explosive devices at all? I should think that the placement of a standard demolition charge would do little to clear a minefield since it wouldn't be shaped correctly to clear a path of any significant length. I suppose if you had enough standard demo charges you could clear a path, but it would probably take more standard demos than it would take bangalores (perhaps the path would be a little wider though?)

Even if you take a whole Bangalore kit you would only get a 15 meter by 1 meter path (10 sections 1.5 meters long). It would take something on the order of 6 Bangalore kits to make a path 20 meters by 4 meters. It specifies that it takes four crew hours to prep and detonate a bangalore that is 100 meters long, so you could say that a shorter 20 meter long section would take 48 crew minutes to prep and detonate. This would give you a 20 meter by 1 meter path - sufficient for infantry to pass one way. You would then have to repeat this process four more times to get a four meter wide path - which still may be too narrow for a tank! If each 1.5 meter section is 9 pounds of explosives that would come to about 480 pounds of explosives for a 20 meter by 4 meter path with a prep time of 3.2 hours with one crew - probably around an hour if you had six crews!! :eek: That's an awful lot of abstracting going on here!!

I think a legitimate question could be raised as to whether a minefield in CM could even have a path cleared through it that is both wide enough and long enough to be useful using a single demolition charge. True enough, the use of engineers and demolition charges in CM should be considered in the abstract - and it certainly works - but if you take the bangalore torpedo stats and do some calculations ... it raises some interesting questions. To blast a path that is 20 meters long and wide enough for a vehicle to pass through would take an awful lot more than one demolition charge. It would take deliberate breaching operations to clear a path through a CM minefield, or a lot more demos (and prep time) than one single demolition charge tossed in the general direction of the minefield.

It would make me incorrect if I was incorrect. However, I have no evidence that you are correct other than your strenuous statement of your position as a fact - for all minefields in CMBO of all types in all situations. Perhaps you have some test that you have run and you can send me the file for examination? If your position is proven as a fact I will be the first to admit I was in error. However, my tests all show that you are the one in error. Please note that there are others in this thread who share this view with me. It seems like spotting mines is a little like spotting Bigfoot. I can state for a fact that I've never spotted either a Bigfoot in the mountains or a minefield in CMBO prior to stepping on a mine or driving over it, but there is always some guy living in a trailer up in the mountains who says that three Bigfoot attacked him by throwing huge stones at him. I'm going to focus on reality as opposed to gameality (new word) from here on out . Unless you send me a file that proves your position, I will consider your statement of fact to be baseless and irrelevant. I'm sure there are others in this thread who will entertain a discussion about your fact though (perhaps Joe Shaw), so you may have better success discussing your fact with them.

LOL

Here is what FM20-32 says about bangalore's: As far as artillery goes, I would guess that artillery would not be reliable enough to actually ensure that a 'lane' has been cleared through the minefield - regardless of its effectiveness. Did an artillery shell take out that mine over there? Maybe and maybe not - ya just don't know unless you probe the area, which you would have to do anyway under normal breaching operations. Oh, and I'm not an ex army engineer ... I just have their book!

This stated fact is definitely in dispute.

Okay, so some of this stuff is pretty obvious, but it should give an idea about mine detection. I left out the section on electronic detection since the technology would be much different in 85 as opposed to 45!

Even though this has been discussed before, I see no reason not to hash through it again. I just happen to have a copy of FM 20-32 "Mine / Countermine Operations" published by "Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 1985" and I will post some info about mine detection in a few .... and I won't even ask the commander of TRADOC at Fort Monroe VA before doing it!

I feel your pain I don't think there is any way to detect a minefield in CMBO other than to step on one. I've seen others on the board claim that mines can be detected, but I don't really buy it. As far as I know there has been no 'official' word one way or the other. Assuming that there is currently no way to detect mines in CMBO, I hope that there is a way to at least 'detect' mines in CMBB without having to walk or drive on them. I'm not sure how far up the priority list mine detection was though (or if it was even on the priority list to begin with). One could probably argue that mine clearance without the use of explosives would be out of the scope of the game (probing, then lifting each individual mine detected) but I sure think it would be great if we could 'search' suspected areas for minefields so we could avoid them at least. This would be especially handy for AT minefields as the loss of a vehicle can really put a hurtin' on your chances of victory. Post edited for clarity [ August 01, 2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

Are bunnies going to be in CMBB?

Yes, I would agree that CM is more realistic ... especially with armor. ASL had many limitations imposed by being a board game. By stunted, I simply meant in terms of the options available to scenario designers (terrain, victory conditions, etc), not in terms of how realistic one game is over another. Perhaps 'limited' would have been a better choice of words. Of course, ASL has been around a lot longer and has had time to grow (as evidenced by the growth of the rule book!) and just about every concievable angle of WW2 can be simulated to one degree or another through the use of special rules or tailor made victory conditions. Right now, the victory conditions in CM are primarily based on destruction. Even the value of the flags are not really overwhelming in the overall scheme of things - especially in larger scenarios, or scenarios with lots of armor. When destruction is your only available victory condition it really puts a crimp in what the scenario designer can do to balance a scenario where the opposing forces themselves are not perfectly balanced. You can still use time and troop quality as a balancing force, but that always takes extensive playtesting and can vary alot dependent upon the skill levels of the opponents. Giving the scenario designer more freedom (as I believe is planned for CM3) will really give CM a boost I think. The scenario crowd has been sadly neglected so far (not intentionally, but by limitations to CM). The exit scenarios in particular do not either play (for non ASL scenarios) or translate (for ASL scenarios) well and I have eliminated the majority of them from consideration for CMBB conversion.

I've sent you ten scenarios. The thing to remember about ASL conversions is that they only really work vs a human opponent. They are distinctly unimpressive if you want to play vs the AI. This also leads to the problem of balance tweaking as you simply can't get any idea of the balance by playing the AI. Abandon Ship: this is an interesting little scenario with US paratroopers vs Wehrmacht troops, only this scenario has a twist. The Paratroopers must exit on their friendly map edge in the face of an advancing German force. It requires a player to conduct a tactical withdrawal. Very good as a change of pace. This one is probably pro American, although I've never lost as German. Absent Friends: this is similar to Abandon Ship only there is no exit point, rather a flag behind the US set up location that they will need to retreat back to and defend. This one seems fairly close to 50/50 balance. It is based on a Historical ASL module and the map is an accurate map of the area the battle took place in. Everything We've Got: this is set in Italy in February 44 so the date had to be fudged. It is a fairly large scenario with the Germans in a bit of a shooting gallery. I believe this one is pro American although if the German Tigers get hot they can really give the American fits. I have won this one multiple times as the German, but the US artillery gives them a crucial advantage. First Clash at Stoumont (operation): This one has been around the block a little and there are several reviews of it on the scenario depot. In the Bag: US armored troops need to exit past a German armored force. Difficult for the US to win this one, but much fun nevertheless. Features lots of US Air Support, Jumbos, Panthers ... it is a wild and wooly fight. Last Stand at Iserlon: 3 JagdTigers defending a town with some conscript infantry vs hordes of Americans. Bloody battle that isn't for the faint of heart! I believe this one to be pretty close to 50/50, but the more experienced player should play as American. Marinville Ridge: Small force of German Paras attacking a numerically superior force of Americans in the bocage. No flags - just casualty victory points and tactical ability. This one is close to 50/50 Parkers Last Stand: Volksgrenadiers attacking at Baraque de Fraiture. This is a historical module and the map is accurate. Sharp infantry fight. slightly pro American. The Mad Minute: another scenario during the 'battle of the bulge' featuring paratroopers. Pro German. There is another version of this scenario floating around where the designer took great liberties with the map. This is not that one. Trial by Combat: First use of the Pershing in combat. American numerical superiority difficult to overcome, but if the German gets lucky with his tanks ....... It is probably pro American though.

There is nothing wrong with the maps. In some cases they may seem too flat, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that - especially if your goal is to be true to the spirit of the original. It is part of their 'personality'. The main problem with the maps is that there is more terrain variety in ASL than there is in CM, so you have to do a lot of fudging with substitute terrain types to make it work. Other than that I can't see anything 'wrong' with the maps. I generally convert maps hex by hex - it is easy to do if you know the trick to it (hint, groups of squares can be arranged in a hexagon pattern if you look closely) For the balance issues - well, it is all in the victory conditions. Here is a sample victory condition from an ASL scenario titled "Valhalla Bound". I picked this scenario up at random so it is by no means a unique set of victory conditions. Okay, now the first thing we have to realize is that the scenario has been extensively tested to work with those victory conditions. If those victory conditions can't be simulated it throws the balance of the scenario off - regardless of the exactness of the forces involved. We also have to realize that the CM player will not be able to select between two victory conditions - we have to pick for them. Looking at option 1 we see that 42 VPs must be exited to get a win. Well the Soviet force is larger than 42 VPs and no specific units have been singled out as being required to exit. In ASL, any combination of 42 gets you a win -irrespective of any casualties caused to the German or to your own force. How do you do this in CM? You fudge. You can either pre select an appropriate number of units as exit eligible and hope the Soviet player figures out which ones to exit, or you set them all to exit and hope the VP loss from the destroyed ones doesn't force a Soviet loss from the way CM calculates victory. There is also no way to select a narrow exit point as is specified in the victory conditions - you can only select a whole map edge in CM. Converting the victory conditions is the single most critical and difficult thing to do in ASL conversions to keep the balance correct. How do you convert number 2? Go ahead and take a stab at it. You see, you can use the identical forces in a scenario and use the appropriate maps, but if the victory conditions are not convertible, then it probably isn't worth the effort. I am going to convert this one when CMBB comes out and I am going to focus on victory condition 2 as reasonable to convert. But there are many scenarios where the victory conditions are impossible to convert. I have a word document that I typed up a while back about converting scenarios that may be helpful to some (which I should probably look over and tweak a little since it has been a while). You have to know both games inside and out though in order to do it right. You have to convert time, weather conditions, units, experience, SAN, ELR, victory conditions, and as many special rules as possible. There are many many things that can alter the balance, but nothing has as great an impact on the balance as the victory conditions. Once again though - they aren't for everyone. If they aren't your cup of tea ... so be it. As I know that you create a lot of scenarios, perhaps it is the balance thing that's got ya. I'm just stating my opinion as I have played both ASL and non ASL scenarios in CMBO. Anyway, I'm not going to get involved in a huge discussion on the merits of ASL scenario conversions since people are either going to like them or not as is their choice. The more CM grows as a game though, the easier the conversions will become. You see, it really isn't in the different environments that the two games exist in, but in the stunted nature of CM at present when compared with what you can do in ASL. However, as Steve once put it, it is a lot easier to write a rule for a board game than it is to code a rule or a behavior into a computer game. Given time I'm sure that CM scenario designers will have as much freedom as ASL scenario designers. We just aren't at that point yet in CM. [ July 25, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

My handle is descriptive of a constant state of being and need not be altered by my participation in a game other than ASL. Incidentally, for the curious, I am not pictured in this thread. Oh, and if any of the participants of this preview would like a new PBEM partner when CMBB comes out, feel free to drop me an e-mail. You too Winecape - that is if you are up to a game with a tournament tested ASL player. I'm finished with CMBO for now though. For the non believers, the only relation CM has to ASL for me is in how you convert the scenarios from one to the other. ASL scenarios are going to be reasonably balanced from the start since they have all been playtested before being published as ASL scenarios. ASL scenarios also tend to have a certain 'personality' to them which some may like and others may not. Sometimes the victory conditions are so specific that a scenario can not be converted without skewing the balance or redesigning the whole thing. Therefore, the closer CM acts in relation to ASL the better the conversion. That's all we're talking about here - just more CM scenarios for everyone to play. It just makes the delicate task of creating a reasonable conversion that captures the spirit of the original scenario an easier task if the games play in a similar way. I would be happy to send you a few of my favorite CMBO conversions Winecape if you are interested in exploring the world of ASL for yourself.

There are no more ambush markers from what I could tell. I think those were effectively replaced by the arc commands. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think I could even check LOS when hiding either. My memory may not be accurate on that though. However, I would like to respect Rune's instructions now and I think I will refrain from commenting further on the 'sneak preview'.

Sorry for the confusion on that Dirtweasel. Cameroon and chrisl got the intent of my remark correct. It was more of a general statement than a specific one. One other interesting thing that I noticed was that the AA pintle mounted MGs on tanks fire at attacking aircraft in CMBB. I don't know if this was the case in CMBO or not, but it is most assuredly the case in CMBB. If I think of anything else interesting I'll try to add it later. Dang, thought of something else already. You know the old broken enemy squad runs toward the trees your MG is occupying because it is the best cover around issue? Thing of the past from what I can see. Squads now don't seem to run toward enemy units, but always away. Open ground now appears to be viewed as a form of cover to infantry, who will remain in it while under fire. [ July 21, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

I too want to thank ACTOR for being a wonderful host and I will echo the sentiments of those posted above. We had as much fun in an internet chat room as we did playing CMBB! Automobile grogs also would have been left drooling by a certain car that one of the guests arrived in (I believe it was John Kettler's, but it was there after I got there so I don't know for sure and I didn't ask) . I'm sure I drove the farthest to attend this little shindig, but the information I got out of it definitely made it worth the effort. My focus was probably not on CM itself, but how certain things in CM act in relation to ASL. I came away with a mixed reaction, but the disappointments would only be relevant to an ASL scenario converter grog (Grogs come in many flavors I guess). Only spending about six hours at the helm of CMBB was barely scratching the surface though, and I'm sure that players will be discovering new things daily for several weeks after they get their new games. I even anticipate that there will be a bit of a 'tactical' learning curve for CMBB, even for hard bitten veterans of CMBO. From a general play standpoint the game does have a different feel than CMBO. I think this different feel is primarily a result of the much improved infantry combat. The suppression model is pretty robust and the way the infantry interacts on the map definitely slows the pace of the game down in a positive way. The screen shot above looks to be the first little battle that we played where I was being overrun by a horde of Russians (who were all sitting in the room that you see the screen shot taken in). There were several things that caught my eye in that little scrap ... one of my AT guns penetrated a T-34 but didn't knock it out. The T-34 immediately buttoned up and drove wildly back toward his own lines. I don't really know what happened exactly, but it would seem that armor morale is working just fine. We also had the opportunity to close assault a T-34, and the assault command seems to work the way it was discussed on the message board. When you select the assault command you can then move the cursor over the enemy vehicle and a little message will pop up inviting you to "follow" the enemy vehicle if you are close enough (I don't know what the maximum range is, but the cursor will just be an assault move order if you are too far away). Once selected, your squad will attempt to close on and destroy the enemy vehicle. However, the command can be cancelled by the Tac AI if your troops recieve fire or if the vehicle moves away too rapidly. At least it seems to work that way - one close assault and two other attempted close assaults won't show a player all the nuances of a command. From what I could tell close assaulting a tank will now be a tool that is added to all player's bags of tricks and will be done regularly in CMBB. There were also numerous little tweaks in the commands. Notably the "Hide" command limits some of the things you can order your troops to do (like you can't target when 'hiding'). Crawl is gone from the command menu, but "Sneak" seems to have taken its place, just as "Contact" seems to have taken the place of "Sneak". The new commands have already been addressed sufficiently elsewhere so I'm not going to go into all that. I did notice that my artillery observer kept getting his "count down" interrupted whenever he was pinned down by enemy fire. I had to keep putting a new target line out repeatedly, although the count down was reduced in length in subsequent turns (after being pinned down). I guess you could just say that the commands available to your troops will now vary dependent upon their quality and their disposition. Sewer movement is absolutely HUGE and will have a tremendous impact on city fighting - especially when in combination with the way infantry combat works now. Sewer movement will likely have more of an effect on larger scenarios though. I doubt it will be used much in small scenarios. The tactical uses for sewer movement are a whole new bag of tricks that I'm sure some players will specialize in. I would have to rate sewer movement as one of the biggest things in CMBB tactically since it will open up whole new vistas for those who enjoy city fights. There does not appear to be any graphical representation of sewer entrances, just an additional command that can be selected by a unit. I have to say that the sounds were impressive. For some reason I especially liked the tank engine whine much better in CMBB. The jibberish that the Russians were speaking was quite varied too, although I haven't got the slightest idea as to what they were saying. Kudos to Matt for a magnificent job on the sounds!! One thing that was mentioned was a desire to tone down the volume of the ambient sounds. I too would like to see that, or at least have a means of adjusting the volume of the ambient sounds. Thunder and rain is so loud in CMBO that it becomes distracting. However, that one was apparently still up in the air. We can't really speak about units because of our agreement, but as John's already danced around it I will say that I was both happy and disappointed in the unit/fortification selections. From what I can tell though, Dan and Steve still have A TON of work to do, and when Steve says that a certain post cost us a tank model ... well you better take him seriously :eek: . This was one of the more critical areas for me so the information I gained in this area alone made the trip worth it - even for knowing the definite disappointments. I have to remain cautious on the happy reactions too though since it is clear that there is much graphical work left to be done on the vehicles. I have to admit that I was mildly disappointed in the factories - although the disappointment was anticipated in advance. I guess I can't really complain though as they are fairly revolutionary for CM, but there are aspects of them that aren't entirely complete for ASL purposes. Having factories in their present form in CMBB though is better than not having them at all!! I can also see where this method of building factories can really be expanded in future CMs for other types of buildings as well. Some were wondering how factories were built (checking CMBB preview rules, sees nothing there) ... well you basically build them by putting walls out and connecting the walls together to make a giant building. My disappointments for factories were specifically no vehicle sized entrances so tanks can't drive around inside, and the ability of troops to occupy the second level inside (I don't think of factories as having a second level inside). They could use a few more doodads inside too (now that's just being nitpicky ). The side effects of those missing features of factories may allow factory tiles to be used in other large buildings - perhaps in combination with the standard 20 meter square heavy buildings. The only drawback would be visual since the factory walls all look essentially the same (as fine as they do look Dan, excellent job!!) and your whole city would look like a factory building. Finally, I just want to give kudos to everyone at BTS for the efforts they've put into CMBB. This has all the look of a sure fire hit, even bigger than CMBO.

I want to congratulate BTS on the imminent release of CMBB. I'm sure that we can all appreciate the many hours of hard work and effort you guys put into creating this game. If CMBO is any indication of the quality that we can expect for CMBB, then I'm certain that CMBB will be a first class piece of workmanship (which can be astonishingly rare for computer games these days). Now where's that rabbit stew!! P.S. We only grumble so much cause you guys are the best!! Call it .... tough love!

For those who only see the CDV movie/advertisement and not the BTS intro movie, I would guess that you don't have Quicktime installed on your 'puter. The BTS intro movie only runs on Quicktime. I have the US version and I could not see the Intro movie either until I downloaded Quicktime. As a followup to that though, since there will be a Mac version and a PC version of CMBB, will the movie on the PC version run on Windows Media Player or will the Intro movie only run on Quicktime again? I bought a new 'puter and I haven't installed quicktime on it yet.

My comments were primarily directed at Berlichtingen (that's what the quote marks indicate - I thought that was clear). The references to 'teasing' were not necessarily related to official announcements and bones - but were in reference to the dissemination of information on 'all' channels, of which Rune's invitation was but one. 'The Club' refers to the beta testers and their non beta tester friends. I have no problem with Rune and his invitation to those in the Chicago area - although I can certainly see why people would be angry about it if it was impossible for them to attend. I would not have posted anything were it not for Berlichtingen's seemingly innocuous remarks. His comments set me off. I'm so happy you asked. I actually watch this board daily for about six of my friends who are not as internet savvy as myself (and who all own CMBO). You see, I've been posting on various message boards for several years and I'm accustomed to them. My friends aren't so accustomed, so I gather the information for them and e-mail it to them when I spot something interesting. 99.9% of the time I am speaking only for myself, or taking up the cause of another whose views I understand. In this case I am speaking for six people who don't spend as much time on the net as I - and who are beginning to describe CMBB in terms of vaporware. It isn't the bones themselves that can be frustrating (the ones Matt tosses out on occasion), but in their delivery (official or otherwise). I stand by everything I said earlier. I don't have any doubts that BFC is working very hard on CMBB, and I don't have any issues with Rune's hospitality. However, I do believe that perhaps some are getting a little fast and loose with info that is not available to the general public, and that perhaps some testers should take more time to realize the position they are in.