Talenn

The only sound effect I didnt like was the Russian ATR. It sounds a lot like a mortar and it took me a while to figure out what was firing. I hope that one is changed or has a sound mod available for the full game. Other than that, the individual sounds were great. I especially like the new tank engine sounds. And the Maxim sounds appropriately like a sewing machine. Talenn

I'd love to have it too if its not too much trouble... smalczak@erols.com... I always loved the .50 cal sound in CC2 and felt that it conveyed the appropriate terror. Thanx, Talenn

FWIW, I dont think one group or the other is necessarily 'better', but I think TCP/IP games give a more 'realistic' feel if kept on a reasonable time limit. CM might be criticized for have 'too much action' within the timespan of the scenario, but a LOT of that derives from perfect coordination of forces and perfect deployment and movement. These are items that occur when a player has unlimited time to plot and plan. You dont have to worry about not giving explicit orders to each unit or running out of time before you can plot the perfect movement path when playing PBEM. Often in a TCP/IP game, you have to focus on one area and really spend time there one turn and spend another turn fleshing out orders for another part of the battle. This strikes me as closer to reality where distant troop movements were not 100% coordinated. Company-sized envelopment out of LOS of the other platoons is a piece of cake in CM if you have unlimited time, but in Real Life and in timed play, its not always that easy. Anyways, I think TCP/IP players will have a different skill set than PBEM players and the ability to think on your feet and make SOME sort of decision quickly is closer to the reality of a company/battalion commander. The PBEM players skill set might more closely resemble a regimental/division commander's mindset for planning and execution. Given that CM models the lower level, I'd say that that give the slight nod to the TCP/IP player. Just $.02 Talenn

This has all been covered before, but I think there are several things that make it far harder for the defender in the game than in real life. Some examples: 1) MG effectiveness (not enough) and lack of options (fire zones etc). 2) Units break fire discipline at odd (and suicidal) times...like at enemies moving in the woods 100m away when if they waited a few more secs, the enemy would be in the open. Too often they engage piecemeal and are cut to ribbons piecemeal unless you take great pains to (unrealistically) limit their LOS and engagement opportunities. 3) That attacker KNOWS that you only have 'x' points, and doesnt have to be as cautious as a real attacker who doesnt necessarily know what he is walking into. 4) The lack of higher unit goals and restricitions lets the attacker squander troops and ammo at unrealistic rates to accomplish his limited objectives. In effect, the attacker doesnt have to think about 'tomorrow'. 5) The defender rarely has access to the 'proper' number of fixed fortifications for the defense. Mine and wire belts are rarely at 'realistic' strengths. 6) Other.... Note that this is not meant to knock the game. IMO, its still the best thing going, but there are certainly things that makes that defenders life more difficult in the game than IRL. I know at least some of them are being worked on for CM:BB. Others, there really isnt anything that CAN be done as they are outside the scope of a tactical game. Talenn

Hmm, generally that's what I figure that Mines and whatnot are for...to channel the enemy and make him go where you want him to go. I will usually buy a few minefields to place along the edges of the map (and a small map makes it easy). Also, a TRP or two targeted in the 'dead spots' can also make mincemeat of people who are 'stacking up' on a board edge. Combine the Arty with the above mentioned tendancy of troops to rout of the side of the board and you have a quick way to lose a LARGE portion of your attack force.

I most other tactical games I enjoy Defense very much and do quite well at it. In CM, its an excercise in frustration. This is not meant as an 'attack' on the game or a 'troll', but IMO, there are some somewhat serious 'issues' with the way CM models the defense. The fact that nearly EVERYONE has problems defending somewhat confirms that. CM (or CM2) will never be able to live up to its full potential until people are able to come to grips with the fact that it IS possible for elements of the game to be flawed. Its difficult to voice such opinions, however, without being shouted down and flamed etc for lack of 'credentials' or whatnot. For my money, I think the defense is so tough because you have so little control over when/how/what your troops engage. It makes for an unending stream of blown ambushes, ineffectual fire at 'wrong' targets, and flat out lack of ability to STOP the enemy from advancing. All of these things could be easily handled by giving the player a BIT more control of his troops initial engagements. I dont think its unrealistic or 'un-fun' to be able to control a bit more closely until the sh#t starts to hit the fan. At that point, yes, control should be more sporadic. At any rate, I too look forward to reading your article(s). I'd want to see what some 'veteran' players have to say for how to defend effectively in CM. Most of what I have seen so far that works effectively involves 'tricking' your troops into doing what you want. In a game this close to 'perfection', I think that is extremely lacking. So, to all you who have ever shouted down someone for daring to criticize the game, you only hurt the development of the game you so dearly love. I hope that at some time in the future, I can look at this board and see dissenting opinions (properly voiced, of course) be responded to positively and even encouraged. Thanx, Talenn

Ok, can someone then please explain to me what having passwords is for then? If we arent supposed to be worried about cheating, why have them? Isnt everyone honorable enough that we can dispense with such things? OF COURSE NOT! Thats why features like that are there...to make sure the playing field is level. IMO, thats all Apoc is asking for....something to ensure that the playing field is level from the beginning of the game. Why is that so dreadful? I think what is the worst is the POSSIBILITY that someone is cheating. Its better to get it out of the way up front. Its like playing a board game and rolling your dice in private. Sure, you could be the most honest person in the world, but if things are going too much your way, the SUSPICION is the worst of it. And it translates to the CM setup the same way. What if the 'Random' settings generate a Day time, clear weather, nice open map and give the opponent a few nice long range King Tigers or whatnot and you end up with a bunch of baseline Shermans etc. It can certainly LOOK like the game was rigged. Same with the above example of night/fog and flamethrowers. For me, if I was dealt ideal conditions, I'd want no doubt in my opponent's mind that it was on the up and up. Its a simple piece of gaming courtesy IMO. I want them to know that if/when I beat them, it had NOTHING to do with any possibility that it was dishonest. I want to trust someone as much as the next guy. Sadly, experience has taught me that too many people out there are more interested in winning than in playing the game for 'fun'. All it takes is a simple look at any other multiplayer game to see that 'cheating' is a somewhat important concern. Yes, even CM has its share of cheaters. People who feel they cant win without some sort of a bonus will always be out there. And its NOT always easy to screen them out. How difficult is it to log onto CMHQ with a different name if you gain a reputation for cheating with one nick? Anyways, I realize that BTS has already stated their stance on the 'status screen' thingy. Fine, no problem, its not the end of the world. But I do not understand all the resistance to this one basic request to keep things honest between people who dont otherwise know each other. Personally, I chalk it up to the usual 'CM Sacred Cow Syndrome'..ie if its not in the game now, it shouldnt be there and we will come up with reason after reason as to why this is so.... Talenn

I think it is still VERY hard for the defender. This stems partly from the lack of ability to actually 'hold fire' as I stated in another thread. You have to almost 'trick' your troops into actually engaging when you want them to (or even when it is BENEFICIAL for them to). Also, the ability of attacking units to 'share spotting' make it so that as soon as a defending unit fires it is instantly annihilated if it is LOS of multiple attackers. Of course this isnt as easy a problem to solve (not by a LONG shot) but it contributes to the defender's disadvantage. Again, you can do things to mitigate against it, but the ball is in the defender's court not to make any mistakes IMO and having less control over WHEN they open up often leads to units being exterminated piecemeal. Given these limitations (and the lack of 'recon' which forces the defender to defend more or less all along the front while the attacker can mass on one side), its VERY tough for the defender. Its certainly not impossible, but it is far more difficult than 1) it is in many other games where people will have cut their teeth and 2) more difficult than it should be IMO. A few simple tweaks to the defender's options for 'hold fire'...ie setting an engagement range etc would go a long way to redressing this. But there are so many people who are horrified by and paranoid of any proposed changes to the system that I seriously doubt you'll see much in that direction. More than likely a continued refinement of the points allocated to each side will be the method used if the general feeling remains that its not quite balanced yet. Talenn

Hey all: Thanks for the responses. I will experiment more with placing my guys deeper in the woods. I've also had moderate success by facing my guys in the opposite direction until I see the target I want to ambush. It just seems silly and 'gamey' (for lack of a better term) to have to resort to such measures in order to get my troops to hold fire. As far as the experience thing goes..sure, I agree. I said that above. But IN C&C and with Regular+ troops it should NOT be a trial in order to hold fire until the enemy is out in the open a bit. I could even understand if they had a GREAT shot at 100m or so..ie walking in the open etc, but certainly not initiating a firefight with enemy troops in a woodline 100m away. Not smart, and IMO, not too realistic. I dont think there are that many men out there willing to break orders in order to draw fire from an enemy. Maybe its just me. Talenn

Theron: 20-30m I can understand. Thats a bit too close for comfort for the guys on the ground and I have no issues with that. 100 meters in COVER, I take issue with! And that situation occurred twice in a single 600 point engagement. I'll have to give Ambush another try and set it to the center or closer to my side of the open ground and maybe the troops will fire when I want them to. I think a but was in the previous Ambush code? I vaguely remember that being mentioned. I still think there should be a definable 'engagement range' available to troops in C&C. It would do wonders for the defense in this game IMO. Talenn

...and, incidentally the reason why defending is so much harder in CM (at least IMO).... Ready? Lack of a HOLD FIRE command!!!!! For the love of god, I think half of the troops in the game should be shot for breaking fire discipline!! Ok, well, maybe I'm overreacting, but we've all seen the following scene time and time again: You deploy your troops in a Platoon Line along the edge of a woodline. There is 90-100m of nice open ground in front of your troops followed by a another woodline and a few buildings. PERFECT place for an ambush! I'll just wait until the enemy clears the far treeline and is moving across the open towards my line and BAM! I'll have him in the open!... Sounds great, right? It is! But UNFORTUNATELY, your numbskull troops open up on the enemy 100m away when they are still IN the opposite treeline and buildings...end result: a long ranged fire fight in which you are probably outnumbered and come off second best...instead of a picture perfect ambush! ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!! Ok, now I can buy this if I have Green troops or have deployed them out of C&C radius...fine, no problems. But VETERAN TROOPS!? Even Regulars shouldnt be THAT thick! And this is in C&C with a Leader with 'double stealth' bonus. Umm...what the heck are you supposed to do!?!? I've tried, Hide and I've tried Ambush...no dice. They still start capping off rounds sometimes as far as 110m....even when the chance of a kill is very slight. IMO, you should have the ability to set a max engagement range for a platoon much the same as a leader generated Ambush point. No, it doesnt have to be foolproof, especially with lesser troops, but my gawd there has to be SOMETHING to prevent the troops from doing this kind of nonsense. In CM2, I intend to have Political Officers or Commisars standing by to execute troops who are quite this dim! And before folks start quoting this battle and that where people blew and ambush, just let me say that I'm quite sure that there were PLENTY of battles where the ambush DID work as planned. Anyone have any suggestions on having your troops maintain fire discipline? Thanx, Talenn

Well, I'm going to weigh in on this one and probably be branded a heretic and burned at the stake but.... Why NOT use 'objectives' in the Operations? Have THEM determine when the map 'advances' or not. If a Op designer wants to make 'Bastonge' or anyplace else the 'key' terrain for the Op, they just place the objectives there. The other areas are simply for support of the assault on the 'key'. A more standard Op could have the objectives scattered along the front a bit more with a certain percent needing to be captured in order to 'advance' the map. This is just a rough idea but one that I've been sitting on since I first lost interest in Ops back in August. Like Tris, I have no 'agenda', I have no 'alterior motives'. I am simply posting a suggestion that might improve the game. Am I right? Who knows? But to SUPPRESS suggestions like I read above is just plain silly. Just my $.02 Talenn

The problem with 'stick to defaults' is that sometimes the AI disagrees with the preset deployment and proceeds to move its troops around DURING the game, resulting in a slaughter. I have set up scens (Ops actually) and had carefully crafted defense and ambush positions scoped out only to have the AI take its troops and move to the other side of the map. I'd like to see a 'hold until relieved' toggle in setup that prevents the AI from deciding to move the troops. Of course Morale etc could force them out, but the mass voluntary exodus from all the prepared fighting positions is a bit annoying. Talenn

Fionn: Maybe, but she looked GOOD! : )

Fionn: Christmas Jones? I never even noticed her; ) IMO, Sophie Marceau put her to SHAME in that movie...I LOVE the whole Evil Woman thing she had going on there... : ) Talenn

Simple Solution: Dont allow Crews to execute any 'move' type order EXCEPT for Withdraw. This would keep all movement AWAY from the enemy and would, IMO, take care of all said 'gamey-ness'etc. Talenn

Ok, we've been testing a few Ops here recently (ones that shipped with the game, and a few home grown ones) and as of 1.03, I think some form of bug has crept into the 'start line' determination. The '0m' setting doesnt work at all anymore, and seems to default to 400m now, regardless of the saved setting. I have set up a test OP to see where the battle lines will be drawn, and obtained some VERY odd results. The defender is pushed back in far too many cases. The 'map creep' is by far the most valid strategy it would seem and runs contrary to the 'spirit' of the Ops. BTS, please look at the coding changes in the Ops for 1.03. Its certainly worse than 1.01/1.02 where the 0m setting appeared to be working fine. Thanx, Talenn

Fionn: Makes sense, but unfortunately, non-ordnance Pillboxes and Bunkers cant form their own Ambush points. This makes them essentially helpless unless an Infantry leader is up there to direct them. IMO, they should have the ability to form an Ambush point of their own. After all, they would usually be given certain area to cover and often be pre-sited etc. Making them be dependant upon external leaders kind of defeats the purpose of them IMO...ie an independant line of defense. Any chance we'll see the inclusion in a later version? Thanx for the help! Talenn

We've tried the 'Hide' and we've tried Ambush, but it seems that Bunkers blast away at the first thing that enters their LOS. Its extremely annoying to have your Wooden MG Bunker fire at the first glimpse of a team 500m away and then get blasted instantaneously by overwatching AFVs. This is pertaining to hidden Bunkers especially, as they should NOT be opening up on anything that moves. It seems the only way we can get them be effective is to tuck them in out of the way places where they CANT see anything. Unfortunatly, this isnt always possible or desirable. Anyone have any ideas? Thanx, Talenn

TeAcH: Careful, or you may be branded a 'Close Combat Heretic' or something! ; )

Uedel: The option to have a 0m 'No Man's Land' DOES work, but it has to be the last thing you adjust before you save the Op. It seems to always default back to 400m if you edit the forces or the map or whatnot. So, just finish the Op, switch to 0m and THEN save. You also have to be careful when going back in and tweaking your Op to remember to reset it to 0m before every re-save. Talenn

Hi all, First let me give a sincere 'Thank You!' to BTS for all the tweaks made in 1.03 in addition to the bug fixes. I was pleasantly surprised to see the items concerning MGs and moving in the open etc in the 'Readme'. Over the weekend, I had the chance to play a number of games, watch a number of games, and revisit my 'Clinical tests' for Interdiction. The results are much closer to what I would expect out of the MGs. Moving in the open in such a way as to be APPROACHING an unsuppressed MG at close to medium range is just plain suicidal now. The same goes to a lesser effect when moving towards enemy squads. You now NEED cover fire and/or smoke or you are going to be filling a whole lotta body bags! This feels far better to me now than under 1.01 where I could often 'bum rush' enemy platoon lines and suffer few casualties going in. I also tried the 'interdiction test'. In this role, the MGs are far better than before as well. They were not able to stop or delay the enemy more than half the time, but when they DID do it, it was messy. I think it was more of a 'spotting' issue than a lethality issue. Often, troops running across 150m of open ground werent spotted until they reached the 1/3 to 1/2 way point. This gave the MGs alot less time to do the 'dirty work' and also made it so the 'objective' buildings ahead were the closest cover. The MGs were set in buildings approx 120m away from the line of movement. If a few squads with MGs in support were placed to interdict, the results were much better. It appears that the squads 'spot' better than the MGs and thus the whole line was able to open up at an earlier opportunity. This seems pretty correct, and the overall effect in the game is much improved IMO. That said, I still feel that CM would benefit from some form of 'Fire Lane' command. Perhaps it could be something along the lines of a specialized 'Ambush' command that ordered the MG to fire on anyone crossing or nearing the designated line. An effectiveness bonus and some 'blinders' to other areas would be all that would be necessary to add this IMO. Perhaps a small 'sighting bonus' near the line would be helpful as well. Anyways, even without the Fire Lanes, the MGs are far more fearsome and open ground far less appealing in 1.03. Only the most callous of commanders would want to send his men across the open in front of the enemy now. I feel this is exactly as it should be. Once the grunts hit the deck, they are much better off, but those those that continue to run are playing with fire. BTS, thanks again for you commitment to the game and to the players who are enjoying it so much! Talenn

I liked being able to open the QBs in the editor as well. It allowed us to go in an make fine tuning tweaks to the map and/or conditions. Ground Conditions and Weather are easier to pinpoint in the editor than in the QB. Not a big deal though, we will just ignore the QB and use the scen editor for HtH play. Priest: We tweak the map every now and then to create a more interesting battle. Sometimes its a simple road addition, or bridge addition/removal. Sometimes we just want to add a river or something somewhere. We do alot of 'refereed' gaming where the two sides set up a QB and a 'ref' tweaks everything to perfection. The only reason we use the QB is to get the preset Victory Locations and the limits on force purchases by category that arent present in the Editor. All of this can be recreated in the editor of course, but it was just a convenience having it done for us. A note to those worried about cheating: There is NO WAY you can prevent cheating in this game, or any other PBEM for that matter. No, it shouldnt be encouraged (ie, not having Pwords etc), but if someone wants to cheat, its mindlessly easy. I gave up worrying about it. If someone wants to cheat, then so be it. If I find out, I just wont ever play them again. Besides, I play for fun and competition, both of which are destroyed by cheating. If I want an easy win, I'll beat up on the AI, and not waste my time (and other's) by cheating in HtH play. I dont understand why anyone would WANT to cheat, but it takes all kinds I guess. Chalk up another vote for TCP/IP play ; ) Talenn [This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 07-28-2000).]

Wolfe: Yes, the Allies DO have some nice 'HE' AFVs, but nothing that compares to the STuH42 in 'purchase points' The STuH42 is a STEAL IMO. Its cheaper than a regular tank by a considerable margin, and far cheaper than both Allied vehicles you mentioned. The lack of a turret is much less of a hindrance in a 'support' vehicle like this. I just want em to knock infantry out of buildings and entrenched positions. Turret traverse is much less meaningful in that role, so why pay for it? : ) Talenn

I find the STuH42's to be a GREAT buy in DYO. The Allies have nothing comparable IMO. Its cheap, destructive and CLOSED TOP! The Priest is a mortar attracter... Overall I LOVE the STuGs. They are basically just armored AT guns to me. I place them like I would place other AT guns..in Ambush positions. The biggest advantages it has are mobility and near immunity to Mortars/Small Arms. The AT guns have the advantages of stealth and spotting ability. Its a trade off, and I find they work better in tandem. 2 STuGIII's and 2 75mm ATs make a POWERFUL (and economical) AT defense IMO. On the attack, I tend to go with MKIVs. As much as I love the 'big boys', fate has handed me my @$$ one too many times in other games to make me like the concept of 'all the eggs in one basket'. Also, in most DYO situation, the defender rarely has many AFVs so a MKIV performs adequately vs infantry type targets. Also, you can get 3 MkIVs for the cost of one Panther, so you actually have more firepower going down-range. Again, its an interesting trade-off. Talenn