Soliloquy

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Sarge, was the MG actually firing *at* the platoon? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't friendly-fire in the game? I seem to recall that troops can fire on fellow troops, particularly in fog or heavy smoke. Madmatt had some POTD up showing this a while back.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lee: Arggh, no new patch up yet. This means those of us with 1.01 will not be able to PBEM other players with the new 1.02 disks. Oh, the pain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Someone (Moon, maybe?) said that the next patch would be 1.03. There may be a 'hiccup' in PBEM until everyone is synched up with the same version (unless v1.01 and v1.02 can PBEM with each other?) BTS? What say you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: There is a feature called DYO (Design Your Own) scenario. It is basically a random map with on-the-fly purchased units. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is from an old, old post by BTS. I did a quick search on DYO. So you are right, it is a confusing acronym. That's a pretty good idea (saving the CD scenarios for blind games), since everyone will have them. Keep in mind that the scenario files are so small (15k!!) that it would be just as easy to use the web scenarios for blind play, since it would be a simple matter for you to send one to your PBEM opponent, even if he doesn't have it. I don't know a shorthand term for the user-created scenarios. Other than user-created scenarios.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: One thing I would like to see in the game is when I am setting up my troops, I would like to see the enemy's set up zones too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, no, no! It's better to maintain the FOW within the game engine. If the creator of the scenario wishes to simulate a greater level of intelligence regarding enemy troop dispositions at the outset, they can include such information in the briefing. Surprise is a key principle of warfare, and your suggestion would remove one component of that principle from the game. Besides, this way is more fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Streams and creeks? 2-5 yards across and less than a couple feet deep??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Would such affect the tactical situation enough to warrant inclusion as a new terrain type?

I'd subscribe, for a reasonable fee.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw: I looked very carefully, I saw no projectiles that might have been 'fausts, 'shrecks or grenades. Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the 'shreck team is unspotted, I don't believe that you will see the projectile. A fantasitic FOW aspect, IMO. I'm going to have to find another nervous habit. I don't have any fingernails left after playing this game.

Fighting in Europe? I doubt that those kind of casualties would be acceptable. Fighting on our soil? It obviously didn't happen, but I think we would have borne those losses, just as the Soviets did. [This message has been edited by Soliloquy (edited 06-30-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I can't wait to play some of the DYO scenarios that are posted on the web sites. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [quibble] I think that the term DYO is used to describe the computer-generated battles as opposed to the scenarios designed by real people [/quibble] I have played out the Mckinley's Battalion operation which I got off the net and thought it was great. You've also got a heck of alot (50?) scenarios that came with the game to wade through. Of those, I would definitely recommend Wiltz. I'm sure that they are all of high quality. Have Fun!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: It's Friday arvo get a beer inta ya. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hear, Hear! Um, what's an avro?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: Got pushed back in an Operation for no reason at all. I had really good positions and the enemy hadn't advanced very much... <snip> I had a good overview of the whole map and was aware of every possible route of advance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you really sure that is the case? From what I've been reading on the board, it seems that a flanking force that pushes past your front line can force that line WAY back for the second battle. Some people have even been losing on the first battle due to this (on one particular operation that will remain nameless). It may even be worth pulling a Manieri (just a joke, Cap'n!) and play that op without FOW to see where the opfor actually moved. [This message has been edited by Soliloquy (edited 06-30-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: If you want to use the bocage defensively in CM you need to be behind it not in it (though as close as possible to it) this simulates the real life circumstance of being dug "in the bocage". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Works for me, now that I understand it. Thanks, Simon!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis: The thing that sent me from being very curious to putting me over the edge was the Alpha AAR between Moon and Fionn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's it for sure! I recall being a refreshing monkey even before that infamous night, hitting that button in the hopes of a new AAR page. I've been reading the forum since then, but kept my trap shut until the arrival of the game on my doorstep filled me with such glee that I had to share.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: For anyone designing operations: I have found myself in several operations where I was supposed to attack and reach a certain point in a certain amout of time wondering exacly how far my goal was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a good point. The converse is also true. If I am playing the defense on an 'advance' operation, how far can I fall back before the op is over? Am I making sense here?

Good idea. The editor is so easy to use that we will soon have an embarassment of riches. I value my time enough to want to have some inkling of whether a given scenario is worth playing. The Gamers Net has a voting system in their TOAW scenario download area which works essentially exactly as you describe (simple 1-5 system). Although basic, it seems that a simple system would encourage the voting participation without which any system would fail. MadMatt (or other webmasters) should be able to implement something similar without too much of a hassle, I would think.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Stone: So Soliloquy, Between battles in an operation the computer "draws" new deployment areas with an area of no-mans-land in between, right? Thanks Stoner<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's how it seemed to work. The deployment areas I saw were wall-to-wall, with the front line being straight across. The enveloped area was a box roughly 100m on a side around an immobilzed TD, and was completely detached from the other deployment area. The battles started with the Germans pulled back a bit from their farthest advance. I would guess that the 0m, 80m, ... settings would push both the defender and attacker back farther and farther based on the front line algorithm. Play a op battle or two and you'll see what I mean.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freyland: 4) I do not quite follow the first part of your MG question, but I can answer the rest. You can instruct units to area fire, and they will just shoot at that location until a real target comes along and then they will aim at that target. Not sticky. Jonathan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm. Does this apply to vehicles/guns which are area-targeting a building? I've had a tank destroy a building in the first few seconds of a turn and then continue to fire at the rubble for the remainder of the turn, ignoring newly exposed troops (in LOS, and very close to the area fire location).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Of course, hiding *in* the bocage, you wouldn't get much in the way of protection. Bushes don't stop bullets too well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you can't see through 'em either. The bushes were used as visual cover, not physical cover. And the beef here appears to be that the bocage (when in the bocage) doesn't reduce exposure enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seimerst: Good book but I feel that it should be pointed out that the situation faced by the Rangers was not that they were trying to capture buildings, blocks, sectors or anything like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. But they did need to sequentially secure sector after sector of the city as they travelled, and the tactics they employed while doing so were similar if not identical to those that would be used in a capture and hold mission. But you are correct, the Rangers were not trying to hold any of the territory they passed through on their return.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I think I will just weight this value more heavily and see what that does. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You da man, Charles! Personally, I think that the best (in terms of opportunity cost, ie Charles time) solution will be to tweak the current values just a bit rather than adding new orders (and associated TacAI). Especially as it becomes clear that the targeting TacAI is already taking a multitude of factors into consideration. Does the targeting TacAI currently take into account how long the current target has been targeted? If the 'stickiness' increases (up to some ceiling value) based on targeted duration, it could possibly help alleviate the sit-n-spin phenomenon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!: Soliloquy, Why did you have to leave your prepared positions if you were not even engaged? Ober <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I >think< what happened was that the Germans had moved most of their forces to the edge of my original deployment area. All I had at the front edge were some AT mines and a few bazookas that never had a chance at a clear shot. Thus when the battle ended and the 'front line' algorithm calculated the new deployment locations, the average front line was inside my orginal deployment area. Once the no-man's land was formed around this new line, I was forced to deploy my troops farther back at the start of the second battle. This only happened at the end of the first battle, before I had any grasp of how operations worked. After that, I was able to maintain a reasonably static front line. Although that valiant TD did get enveloped and ended up on its own deployment 'island'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kump: Main gun target Hard targets only<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like this idea. Simple, elegant, and it would alleviate many of the targetting issues. It may require more coding than it's worth, though. Until we clone Charles, we'll need to maintain reasonable expectations. Tweaking of the current acquisition algorithm seems like it might do the trick, especially if the targetting 'stickiness' value can be (or already is) linked to the >perceived< target threat level.

No spoilers I've played one operation, and I thought it was a blast. I'm not exactly sure how the 'front line' is determined between battles, and it cost me on the first battle of an 'advance' operation (playing the defending side). I went for a defense in depth, and never even got the chance to engage before the battle was over and I was forced backwards out of my prepared position without firing a shot or receiving any incoming fire. I did better after that debacle, thank goodness! I like how the shell craters and knocked-out vehicles stay in place, and I like fighting for advantageous terrain rather than VP flags. If you think you get attached to your troopers in one 30-minute scenario, wait until the TD you have coaxed through three battles, and who has almost singlehandedly held off the Hun horde, finally succumbs to that blasted Panther crunching through the woods... Thumbs up from me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The DesertFox: Hit the "Printscreen" key on your keyboard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately, that won't work if you are using a Voodoo 2 card. You will get a capture of one of the opening screens. If you do have a Voodoo 2, there are several shareware programs which can get around this difficulty (which is a V2 problem, not a BTS problem). Do a web search, if necessary.

I go for a wee glass of Brother Adams Braggart Honey Ale, brewed by the Atlantic Brewing Company (based in Maine!). It's a strong, slighty sweet sipping ale. Almost like a brandy.