ASL Veteran

I completely understand Michael's point of view on this. I think that, perhaps, some of the Beta testers have become used to playing CMBB and are insulated from the extended wait that the unwashed masses must endure. The main problem is that we were originally expecting a December 01 release date and now it is July and no new release date is forthcoming (Nothing at all - could be December 05 for all we know). Now we get a few screen shots tossed out once every other month and all this excited talk about new features that can't be revealed from individuals who have been playing CMBB in all its various stages for a year and a half. At some point, those who are waiting will get a little frustrated if they can't play the game while others can. At the same time, those who are playing say "it's a great game with all these fabulous new features we can't tell you about cause they are secret". Well, why tell us there are secret features if you can't tell us what those features are. By doing so all you do is raise the level of curiosity and frustration of those who don't have the game. It is similar to running the fake rabbit out in front of the Greyhound dogs at the dog races - they will never catch the rabbit, but it is always tantalizingly near. Why put the rabbit in front of the dog if you aren't going to let it catch it - unless it is your intention to watch the dog perform for you. Yes, perhaps it is silly to be anticipating the release of a computer game so much that you feel frustrated and angry about the seemingly preferential treatment of some. However, I don't think that a Beta tester (who plays CMBB regularly) is in a position to judge how someone who has no exposure to the new game feels about the fake rabbit running in front of him. Those of us who aren't members of 'The Club' have a right to feel frustrated and angry if we want to. I'm a very patient guy, but I've been cutting back my PBEMs of CMBO and writing up scenario briefings since last November because I was constantly expecting the imminent release of CMBB. Now it is July and I have no more PBEMs going (finished my last one yesterday) and I have about 20 briefings in various stages of completion. After expecting the imminent release for about nine months now the wait gets a little old. I have to admit that my reaction to this thread was similar to Michael's. Don't tease us - just release it. I would go and on, but it is time to go back to blasting Kraut tanks in Panzer Elite!! I know every feature in that game.

It's both the target's reaction to fire and the characteristics of the MG fire that is not accurately portrayed, not just the target's reaction alone. Both halves need to be improved.

What do you base this assumption upon?

Fascinating - a thread about MGs that thinks they are too effective. Well, the problem isn't in their lethality vs a point target, but in the basic modeling of the weapon overall, along with the basic characteristics of infantry under fire. There is both a tactical and a technical problem. I can only imagine that people who use the time honored tactic of human wave assaults in CMBO would be satisfied with MGs as they are. There is nothing lazy about a defense with a properly modeled and deployed MG. It just gives the defender more 'options' for his or her defense. Regardless, the new 'fixes' will not address all of the issues anyway, as the current engine is not capable of addressing them. However, I'm sure it will improve matters to some degree.

Folsom Prison (the infamous maximum security one anyway) is in Sacramento California (well, Folsom California, but that's just an overblown suburb of Sacramento anyway) ... but yeah, the humor comes through anyway.

That's an interesting theory Tom, but I find the lack of a Factory Bone to be pretty compelling evidence too. Perhaps that is where the delay is taking place? Of course, I guess you can't really say it's delayed if they never gave a release date to begin with. Hmmm, diabolical! :eek:

June 24th? That's unfortunate because the World is going to end on June 23rd. :eek:

I would like to see the Rexford book as well - and even a few of Michael's uniform books too. . Anything dealing with TO&Es and OOBs would be interesting too (which it looks like is being covered already anyway).

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought the request was for the houses in CMBB to have yards!! Front yards and back yards, complete with little fences and lawn gnomes.

I can make a few comments about the various marks of 88 Flak from Osprey's "88mm Flak 18/36/37/41 & PaK 43 1936 - 1945" For the FlaK 41 the horizontal sliding breech now used a ramming mechanism that assisted in loading the shell (which apparently was a larger shell than on earlier 88s). It also had a separate firing circuit for use when firing against ground targets. It further states that "In theory a well trained crew could fire 20 rounds per minute, but for all practical purposes this was never accepted battle procedure. Interestingly it says that the FlaK 37 wasn't used in a ground role because it had a pretty advanced fire control system: there is a picture in the book with the shell sitting nose down in what looks a little like an automobile cup holder. The ROF for the FlaK18 is listed as 15 RPM For the PaK 43/41 there is the following info regarding ROF: The book also has a brief discussion about the 88s in the Tigers and various SP guns, but never mentions a ROF figure for them.

Such references should always be accompanied by screen shots so the unwashed masses who do not have access to CMBB yet are kept appeased! :cool:

Well the chassis has a very ... British look about it. Like one of those little Mark VI thingies the British were driving around in the desert and in Greece in 1940 - 1941.

Hey Jason, what thread did Moon mention this about global morale? I think this would be a tremendous addition to CMBB if the global morale actually had an effect prior to autosurrender. Can you give me a link?

I would imagine that the Balkans would be included in CM3 as I believe that will cover North Africa and Italy, so it would make sense that it would cover the Balkans as well. Of course, I'm just guessing.

Why just focus on the platoon leader? I mean, if we are going to discuss the fact that the platoon leader is the last man standing, then how about extending the discussion to include the squad leaders? Sure, squads don't have the same types of bonuses as platoon leaders give, but would that squad's veteran status turn to green status if the squad leader was picked off? How many green grunts are in each squad compared to how many veteran or elite grunts are in each squad? Should the experience level of the squad vary with casualties? Should a squad go into 'shock' if a squad leader is killed? Personally, I wouldn't mind it if BTS chose to go to this level of detail, but once you start talking in terms of individuals such as platoon leaders or specific positions in a tank then I think you have to change the scale of the game from a squad level game to an individual level game. The next step would be to simulate every single individual like CC did (CC was great for it's time). I doubt if BTS will go that route quite frankly.

Ya know, the primary purpose of those turret hatches might not be escape ... I'm thinking that maybe they were designed in so the loader could toss the spent shell casings out of the turret. Just a WAG though as I'm certainly not a "hatch grog."

How about a situation where your victory objective is to escort a column of supply trucks for the relief of the Cherkassy Pocket or somefink. You could make it into an exit scenario and make the trucks worth 1000 points each (and set the other forces on your side as not eligible for exit) - that would pretty much ensure that the exiting of the column of trucks would make or break victory in that scenario. Anyway, this has already been brought up earlier (by Michael Dorosh - and myself too for that matter) and BTS planned on including this feature when they do the engine rewrite. That's a little ways down the road though so a lot could happen between now and then I guess.

Actually I think truck crews get to have pistols when they bail out - they were probably just overlooked.

You could probably use the "STUN / RECALL" counter for Withdraw. Maybe "PIN" could be used for "CRAWL"? You could use the "MOTION" counter for MOVE. You have to use the "Fanatic" counter for something too .

Muzzle Velocity is not the only thing that determines accuracy at range. That's also an interesting firearms theory: heavier round = lower MV = shorter range. You might consider thinking about that one a little bit more. I'm not saying that a SAW is the same identical thing as a FG 42, but I think it would be more appropriate to put it in that weapon class as opposed to the GPMG class. The SAW is almost in a class of its own though as there really aren't any WW2 weapons that are directly comparable. Anyway, it's all opinion and speculation. Nothing to get in a debate over.

I'm kinda thinking that a SAW would be closest to the German FG42 that the Fallshirmjaegers used.

I don't think so. The MP 44 is the Sturmgewehr not a SMG (like some may be thinking) and uses a short rifle round of 7.92 caliber so I don't think the M16 would have better long range firepower. Think of the MP 44 as an AK47.

I think "Run" should be a "CX" counter and "Pause" should be a "TI" counter.

Indeed, this is precisely what I am referring to - a player's ability to dramatically alter the balance of a scenario in his favor without his opponent's ability to influence this action. I consider it to be beyond gamey - this is completely rotten in my mind. I recommend making them stone - although stone bridges can be brought down by a determined player as well it does take a little longer to accomplish.

The fact is that the scenario is difficult for the British player to win in it's current form vs a skilled German opponent without any bridges blown. Blow even one bridge and the scenario's balance is altered dramatically in the German's favor. I've posted on this board in the past that I couldn't lose as the Germans - and that was without any bridges being blown. Just as I guaranteed victory with both bridges blown, I can guarantee victory with one bridge blown. Without the threat of a British assault against either one route or the other, the German can concentrate all his forces on the one remaining route available to the British. Not really, because the balance of the scenario is being altered in your favor in either case - it is just being altered more with both bridges than with one bridge. In other words, you are giving yourself a handicap. The difference is by how large a degree. It would be similar to beginning a non bridge scenario and choosing between giving yourself a +25 bonus or a +50 bonus without consulting your opponent to find out if he is agreeable to your handicap or not. The fact that you feel that giving yourself a +25 bonus is okay and giving yourself a +50 bonus is not okay is similar to robbing a 7 Eleven and saying "well if I just take cash from the register and leave the cash in the safe" that you are somehow morally justified in your action. Once you have decided on the robbery you have already committed yourself to the immoral course of action - in our case playing a scenario against an opponent while artificially stacking the odds in your favor. If you are going to commit to robbing the 7 eleven you might as well take the money from both the register and the safe as long as you are going to be there. You are just as guilty of robbery in either case. No, our specific issue isn't robbery, but I suppose you could say that you are robbing your opponent of the chance of victory by artificially stacking the odds in your favor. That issue (who can destroy a bridge and how is it done) is but a side issue to the main point - Should a player for either side be able to dramatically alter the balance of a scenario in his favor by actions taken within the game that your opponent has no ability to influence or counter? In a sense, this is like the gamey recon on steroids. At least you can counter gamey recon by playing differently tactically or by choosing a different force mix. Bridge destruction is going to happen regardless of what you do. If you are set on destroying a bridge there is very little your opponent can do to stop it. Finally, I would just like to highlight this part of your own sentence small groups of engineers which would imply that these groups are setting charges on the bridges - something not currently done in CMBO. So There!!