Talenn

dalem: Mikester is correct. You wont see any 'spoiler' info. The button you want is labeled 'Parameters'. The adjustment for the 'No Man's Land' size is in the bottom right corner of that screen. Tweak it to 0m. Save the mission and enjoy. Note that when you save it, it will default to the Saved Games directory, NOT the Scenario directory. Simply browse to the Scenario directory and save it there. If you dont, then you'll just select the game from the 'Saves' area rather than the Scenario area of the Operation Selection screen. Hope it helps! It certainly made the Ops FAR more enjoyable for me..no more cheesy 'pushbacks'. Talenn

Yes I mentioned the idea of a 'Morale Cap' or somesuch for severely attrited squads once as well. It does seem that the last few guys in a squad are a little too eager to follow their previously fallen comrades into the void ; ) Of course you could also just interpret those depleted squads as having only that many EFFECTIVE troops left. For example, a squad with 3 out of 12 men left listed in the game might actually have 7 or 8 guys still in unit, but for game purposes, they will fail to contribute further. I guess it works either way, but I would like to see a little more along the lines of 'squad integrity' or somesuch. I'm not sure how it would all balance out though. It would prolly require ALOT of testing to make sure the effects were correct. Something for the 'wish list' I suppose. Talenn

I'm sure many of you are not big RTS fans, but some of us have been waiting on a patch for Age of Empire 2 for almost a YEAR now. It was promised back in January and its still not here. This is from a major publisher, for a game that sold over 2 million copies. Its not for small issues either. There are a fair amount of bugs and a few HORRIBLE balance issues that more or less ruin much of the competitive fun of the game. Compared to THAT, I think BTS is doing a wonderful job. 1.03 looks to be more tweaks and additions than bug fixes (although there seem to a few of those as well). For me, while I want the patch as much as the next fellow, I'm just as happy to have them keep looking into things and making additions. If I have to wait a few more weeks, but get a few of the issues myself and others have brought up dealt with, then I'm happier than if they released it today, and nothing was really changed. I'm all for tweaks and mods being offered through patches. Besides, once 1.03 hits, people will just start making suggestions for 1.04 and the cycle will start over again! ; ) Talenn

M Hofbauer: I remember you from my days of CC2/3 as well. IIRC, you were fairly active on the RealRed forum during it's development, right? Anyways, to your post: I agree with many of your points. Some, I feel, are very minor (the surrendered 'prisoners' etc), but a few are things I would really like to see looked at. I found it somewhat gratifying to see you mention the same thing about MGs as I did when I first started playing CM. I think we BOTH might be a bit jaded by CC's MGs, but even if that were the case, the MGs in CM seem woefully underpowered in the interdiction role. I noticed that a fair number of people agreed in my earlier thread. Hopefully this IS an issue that BTS will look into more carefully. All the post game analysis stuff you mentioned would be neat to have too. My friends and I like to do pretty detailed post-mortems on our games if we have the time, and it would be nice to see all the info without the FOW. On AFV's 'running over' infantry: I think the CC series went WAY too far down that path. IMO, CM is much closer to the mark. Most treadheads did NOT want to close with the enemy grunts like that too often. Sure, it happened, but to allow it to be easily done opens up the gamer to abusing it to the extreme (as was done in CC). Personally, I think the 'overrun' attack in CM works fairly well. As long as the infantry is somewhat suppressed, they seem to break and die pretty quickly. When they are unnoticed or not under extreme fire, they fair better and can sometimes disable the AFV. This is MILES better than the CC 'drive through the underbrush and listen to the infantry go squish'! IMO. ; ) Anyways, glad to see you playing CM as well. I really enjoyed CC (and still might play it to get my Eastern Front 'fix'), but the small scale really limits my enjoyment of it. RR fixed many of the combat results 'issues' that CC3 had, but the 15 unit max leads to some silly OOBs. I never can quite get behind the premise of 4-5 AFVs supporting 2 or 3 squads all the time. The pure infantry fights in CC were alot of fun though. CM just takes it to the next level, and for me, its hard to go back! Cant wait to play the Russian Front using the CM model... Talenn

dalem and others: I've posted this elsewhere as well, but I'll repeat it here in case you havent checked the other threads. Edit the Ops and move the size of the 'No Man's Land' to 0m. This USUALLY solves the majority of the 'pushback' problems. Try it out and let me know what you think. Does it take care of some of the issues that you are having? Thanx, Talenn

Wild Bill et al: OK, I've read through this whole thread and played through this OP and a few others (home-baked). I am quite confident I know the problem. Its the size of the 'No Man's Land'. I believe it is still set at 400m. This is what is causing those unrealistic 'pushbacks' out of Noville. I'm pretty sure its ALSO what is ending the Op prematurely. Try going into the editor and moving the size of 'No Man's Land' to 0m or perhaps 80m. I'm pretty sure most of your problems will be solved! Talenn

To me, the mark of a good wargame is one that make me WANT to have a reserve. If I can just put everything on the line and blast away (and win), then the game's modeling is a bit off IMO. CM generally makes me want to keep some troops back from the line so as to have a cohesive unit that I can throw where I want it. I think any game that has good FOW creates a more favorable atmosphere for wanting reserves. In games like ASL, you basically KNOW were the bad guys are, so having a reserve is not quite AS necessary IMO. But to me, a reserve ALLOWS surprises and/or PREVENTS enemy surprises. My only issue with CM in that way is that it's often too hard to move reserves to the point of decision unoticed and intact. There are far too many keyhole shots and unexpected LOS holes to move about once the shots start flying. I think that units are able to spot a bit TOO efficiently in some cases. Its not overly dangerous, but annoying when the enemy can always see every move you make. That makes me WANT to put everything on the line, as at least then I'll be in fighting holes and/or in position to surprise the enemy when on the defensive. On the attack, I follow Soviet doctrine, i.e...attack across a broad front, identify the weak points and pour everything and it's mother through the hole your troops create. I take horrid casualites on average in the initial assault, but I pay the enemy back in Spades. In this situation, I feel that reserves are critical. Its hard to extricate your troops once they fully engage, so I like to have an uncommited (and preferably mechanized) element to exploit any weaknesses discovered by the assault teams. I guess its all a matter of play style. Last question: Are you basing your lack of need of reserves on games vs the AI or do you play Multi as well? I've found that the AI RARELY does anything surprising to me, so the need for a defensive reserve is greatly diminished. When I play against local friends, I'd have to be out of my mind not to have SOME sort of reaction force. Talenn

In regards to 'Frustration A': I definately think the game would benefit from a general 'engagement range' order. I too have had my troops blithely blasting away at targets FAR in the distance and giving away their positions and wasting ammo. I think a Platoon Leader should have the command and all units in CC obey it. AFV's would benefit as well, from either a similar order or a 'Engage AFV/Infantry/All' toggle. I like to keep defensive AFV's off of 'hide' so that they will shoot at enemy AFVs before being destroyed, but far too often they open up on some team walking 800m away through a gap in the trees, thus alerting enemy armor to the threat...these guys would be court martialed! But, like you said, this is the best thing going. Its not without its share of flaws, but I am confident that BTS will do whatever they can to make changes as good ideas are presented. Talenn

Without a doubt I'm looking forward to it. I have a few friends lined up to pick up a copy of CM when it IS available...for now we get by on Hotseat play. I just cant really play a Tactical game by PBEM. I lose continuity. Games like TOAW are fine that way, but I have to maintain a certain tempo in my attacks and a turn or two a day doesnt cut it for me. So yes, I would also love to see a matchmaking site or something to line up TCP/IP games. I think that was one of CCx's strongest features was the ease and speed of finding a multiplayer game. Just log onto the Zone, start a game up and be playing 10 minutes later. Talenn

To The Powers That Be on such issues: In the process of creating an Op, I've seen the following odd behavior. When I adjust the size of 'No Man's Land' down (in this case from 400m to 0m), and then save the Op, it seems to always default back to 400m upon being reloaded. I dont *think* its using the 400m in the Op itself (its hard to tell without knowing the 'control' algorithms). But if not careful to check it before every time I save, it WILL be 400m So, just thought I'd send this off, so others can test and see if maybe its just an aberration or perhaps even a figment of my imagination (but a darned annoying one! ; ) Talenn

Well, this thread is going downhill quickly, but I'll put another $.02 into the pot. Germanboy: I didnt mention the MG Thread as an example of 'newbie dissing' but as an example of the possibility that someone new to the forum might have something worthwhile to contribute. It also adequately displayed the attitute that 'nothing can be wrong with CM, it MUST be you.' I cant say I blame some folks for that attitude given the number of posts that ARE obviously of questionable merit (Nuclear Handgrenades anyone?) It must be difficult to tell the sheep from the goats, but IMO, its worthwhile to the old-timers to give it their best shot. There are alot of issues being brought up by folks new to CM that I find very valid. Many are, IMO, not worth niggling with at this point, but are valid still the same. Occasionally, some of the things brought up (by new posters) are things I feel would benefit the game greatly. I'm sure others feel the same way. Regarding the Search response: I didnt mean to imply that everyone should have to restated their positions on every point every other week. But if someone missed a discussion, they might want to bring something up of their OWN and get a response. True, if asking questions like 'Is a buttoned vehicle suffering a hit percentage penalty', they might find an answer to their question. If they wanted to open a discussion concerning whether that penalty is too large or too small, they would have to post their OPINION on the matter. Overall, the 'Search for it' response tends to come off as "We've already covered that...go look it up. Nothing you say will change anything. Have a nice day". Perhaps that isnt the way it is intended, but it DOES often sound that way. Again, its an understandable attitude given some of the recurring questions. I've been here for a month, and have seen some of the same questions over and over. The reason I jumped on this was because both the original post AND some subsequent responses have implied that 'people shouldnt question the game mechanics..its been tested and re-tested by people better than you'. I just think that that attitude is not only poor, but dangerous to the continued growth of CM. If people dont actually have that attitude, they should take care not to give others that impression. I am veteran of many forums, and many discussions. I am not going to be 'offended' by post on GAME board that I use a hobby. Also, people should keep this in mind. The ones who you are complaining about ARENT the ones who are going to read this thread and leave. They dont care WHAT people think or what they respond like. Often, I think they are posting trash just to see what kind of response they draw. But the folks who DO have valuable things to contribute read too many threads like this one and think 'Why bother? Talenn

Well, as someone who y'all would consider a 'newbie' to CM (had it since 6/28, but hadnt played even the demo before 6/22), I kind of resent the implications of many of the things in this thread. I agree with ASL Veteran 100% in that just because someone recently discovered CM, that doesnt me that they are newbies to gaming and tactical wargames in general. They just MIGHT know something that is applicable to the further development of CM. I know when I started my thread on 'MG effectiveness' that it was in way so as to elicit intelligent response. It wasnt accusatory, derogatory, or in any way demeaning to CM or anyone here. I felt (and still feel) that MG modeling could stand some adjustment. There was fair amount of agreement with my position. I was under the impression that one of the points to this forum was to let people voice what they thought to be improvements or variants to the current system. Just because some folks have played the game longer doesnt mean that they corner the market on good ideas, even when/if the topic has been repeatedly discussed. The constant reply of 'do a search, we have 40000 posts, blah, blah' doesnt always cut it. Perhaps some people HAVE discussed 'x' topic to death, but some of may not have. Given how quickly CM sold out, there are obviously quite a few people here who may enjoy and benefit from an 'old' discussion. They MAY shed some differing and needed viewpoints. The way games like CM will survive will be on the strength of its modeling and on the loyalty of its customer base. When new customers come here to discuss things (even things that have been discussed before) and are snubbed, they lose interest quickly. I know that was what happened in my case. I felt I made an adequate case, with others who felt the same way. But it felt like trying to overthrow the Government or somesuch! Its not worth the hassle. So I give up and go back to lurking and am much less likely to participate again. Final points: There are obviously going to be areas that can be improved and expanded in CM. When folks come here and discuss ways to do such, it should be encouraged if the discussion is well reasoned. Much of it cant have 'sources'. Alot is based on gameplay 'feel'. If you cant understand that, then you've never designed a game system yourself. It doesnt matter if your data is 110% correct, and every source quoted with footnotes and references galore if something doesnt 'feel' right. Of course, the feel of a game is going to vary from person to person. Part of the point of a discussion forum is to elicit that 'feel' from others enthusiasts. Based on that, decisions can be made as to whether or not to change certain aspects. Also, if 'x' historical tactic cant be modeled in the game, and folks are discussing possible workarounds or solutions, I would think that the 'old-timers' should be jumping for joy that others are interested enough to try and help. It means that CM is expanding and that the potential for future games is increasing. Discouraging that is NOT the best if ideas IMO. These 'pesky newbies' are the future of BTS and CM...try and remember that. Talenn

Just here to cast my vote in agreement with the way CM models Close Assaults vs AFVs. Far too many games make AFVs uber-beasts that dont have to fear infantry at close ranges. In reality, treadheads are terrified of getting too close to the crunchies! CM models that quite well IMO. Talenn

IIRC, isnt VT the great granddaddy of the current ICM type of shell? They are useful for showering troops with fragments via airbursts. They dont do squat to armor, but the casualties they inflict on exposed troops are horrifying. I havent messed with them in the game yet, so I cant tell you how they translate, but I think thats the general idea. Talenn

Los et al: Maybe I'm just missing it...You mean for OFFBOARD Arty there is a separate Smoke ammo? I just see one ammo count on my spotter...am I just being stupid? ; ) Talenn

Los: I was under the impression that there is one 'ammo pool' for OBA. It can be used either as Smoke OR HE. That is my point. It spends alot of this 'ammo' on smoke, and doesnt seem to leave enough for HE in case that juicy target DOES appear. Its certainly not a total waste of ammo, but IMO, it would be better served conserving some OBA ammo (especially from the higher gun calibres) for HE rather than smoking (and I mean SMOKING! : ) many targets out. Thanx, Talenn

chrisl: Yep, I mean vs Infantry and the like..ie stuff, that Arty should have a field day with. I realize it is a valid tactic, and one that I'm glad the AI is programmed for, but I just feel there should be a purchase cost break or an ammo break when used for Smoke. Those OBA missions cost far too many scenario points to be squandered on Smoke in most situations unless they get rounds/ammo point. Perhaps they do, I cant tell, but if not, maybe they should. Michael emrys: Yes, I mean vs an AI opponent. A human opponent doesnt tend to use his 'big guns' to lay smoke in the same way. At least I would hope not ; ). Either way, its not a big deal at all, just an observation. Thanx, Talenn

I've found that the Ops are a WHOLE lot better if you go in and adjust the size of 'no-man's land' to 0 or 80m. This tends to give both sides the terrain they actually took and not kick people back half a klick for no apparent reason. Most of the Ops I've played have had the default 400m 'no man's land'. To me this is REALLY high for the size of the some of the maps. The attacker really doesnt have to push that hard and the defender is thrown back 300-400m almost every time. Try adjusting it down to 80m and see how it plays. Talenn

I'm now using the Lo-Res Grass. I had the Hi-Res and its fine in Battles, but it was causing some issues in the larger Ops. For the record: P3 550, 128Megs, 16Meg TNT2 Card. FWIW, the Lo-Res Grass is ALMOST as nice and much less taxing the hardware IMO. Talenn

Intelweenie: Ok, Mr Smartguy. : ) You know what I meant, but for those of us who arent that intuitive...Yes, it EFFECTIVELY lays the smoke, and obscures the units it wants to screen, but the usage of smoke vis a vis HE is what I questioned. The HE would have removed the same units a threat, not only for the moment, but forever ; ) Talenn

Ok, its me again! ; ) I did a search on Arty Smoke, but nothing seemed to cover this, so here I go: It seems to me that the AI often squanders its off-board Arty fire missions on Smoke. Not that it doesnt use Smoke effectively, mind you, it does, but the Smoke itself is often a waste IMO. With the amount of ammo it expends to smoke out a position, it could have easily eradicated the same position with HE. At the very least, they would have been so suppressed that they couldnt return fire anyway. Is there a more favorable ammo ratio for smoke rounds? By that, I mean, does firing Smoke expend less ammo points per salvo? If not, maybe it should? Just thinking out loud here, I guess. Also, the AI seems to use some pretty big guns to lay smoke. When I'm hunkered down on the defense, I'm MORE than happy to see that smoke landing...it just means I wont lose anywhere near as many troops. Perhaps specific batteries could be purchased with Smoke Ammo only and cost less or somesuch? Anyone else see this? I know there were a few threads complaining that smoke was too effective due to lack of variable area fire. Perhaps this is a counter-balance to the above? Thanx, Talenn

Concerning point #1: IMO, it depends on the number of Bazookas purchased/force size. If you purchase a 'semi-realistic' force, then use the Bazookas like that if you wish. If they DO die, and you uncover armor, its gonna hurt. However, if I read you properly, you are buying Baz Teams well in excess of any standard TO&E because they DO make cheap, efficient Recon. In that case, yes, I find it extremely 'gamey'. Its all a matter of force selection IMO. I try very hard not to buy a 'cheeseball' force in any QBs I play. To me, it destroys the feel of the game. Another point concerning this: In :USERNAMES:'s post on abusing running, and mine on MG Effectiveness, its fairly clear that the effects of troops running in the open are not overly realistic. If those Baz teams were cut down/pinned down as they ran by forward security elements, I doubt you'd continue to use that tactic..even 15 points is too much simply to uncover a single enemy squad/MG position IMO. The 'moving in the open' issue touches MANY deeper issues, and is something I think needs to be addressed in some way. BTS has mentioned a number of possibilities. I hope they soon implement one. The more the game is played, the more evident I think it will be. Concerning point #2: I think its pretty much SOP for many folks (particularly veteran CC players with omniscient AFVs). The problems arise when enemy arty starts to land, if an Airstrike hits or if you are ambushed at close range. These possibilities are enough to encourage me to keep some spacing between the vehicles. This is also a scenario dependant thing. In a small point Scen, where you are pretty sure the enemy is not going to have large calibre arty or airpower, sure, its a good idea. If you have to advance though close terrain, I think its nuts. Anything that knocks out one tank is going to able to get them all, especially if the opponent has buttoned them all up first so their reaction time stinks. Concerning point #3: Again, IMO, feel free. I will often have my troops positioned in one location during setup, but have them sneak to another during play if the situation warrants. If you want to waste time and ammo shooting up suspected positions, I think thats perfectly valid. IMO, fighting holes should be concealed in some sort of terrain or else you invite this type of attack. Its a matter of defense set up IMO. I dont find it gamey at all. Talenn

ASL Veteran: Yes, a FIRE LANE or somesuch equivalent would prolly do the trick as well. Whats missing is that interdiction ability that MGs possessed. ASL did that VERY well. For CM, I think it could work along the lines of an 'Ambush point' for MGs...anything crossing the axis of the Lane would be hit by a generous number of bursts...more than the standard 3-4 minute would be necessary though...also, an accuracy bonus would help beef up the power to simulate the 'sighting in' of a Fire Lane. All: I haven't sent out the Scens as I dont see a further point. By now, I'm pretty sure everyone (BTS included) understands the point I was trying to make. Now its just a matter of disagreement with whether the point is valid, and I think I've heard my answer to that. Hopefully, more people will mention the lack of Fire Lanes and Interdiction thus causing BTS to re-evaluate it as something necessary to this scale. If nothing else, I think work on the Russian Front module will make that fairly apparent. Its definately a fine line being drawn for MG effectiveness. I understand the points that others are making, but I think many of them have just adapted their tactics to meet the MGs capabilities (or lack there of) in the game. Its become second nature to most of the long time players/supporters of CM and its Demos. To some of us who are latecomers, its a fairly obvious omission that I hope will eventually be altered. Thanx for everyone's comments and suggestions so far. At least its now an issue that will most likely be watched more carefully. Talenn

Ben Galanti: You hit it exactly. Three MGs placed to cover a designated area did little or nothing to impede enemy infantry movement within their Fire Zones. EXACTLY. I'm glad that someone else got the same result. John-SJ: There are NEVER enough MGs to go around. Often, a few are placed in important locations to deny the enemy certain critical terrain features. If I could spare a MG for every building or woodline I didnt want the enemy to move to, I'd be sitting pretty. More realistically, I set up a Platoon line to cover the important areas, and designate a MG+Squad combo to watch the flanks and keep the enemy from flanking the platoon. In this, I've failed miserably. I've used the same deployments and tactics in nearly every tactical game I've played, whether on the PC, in Miniature, or on a board. CM is the first game I've come across that I cant use MGs for 'area denial'. Are all the other games wrong? Perhaps, but in this case I tend to doubt it. The 'perpendicular' test was for simplicity. Since reading many people's suggestions here, I modified the test and had angled fire, interlocking fire, and head-on fire tests. The only one that really produced results is the 'head on' fire, and that is defeating the purpose. If the enemy practically has to charge at the MG in order for them to prevent movement, they dont function as interdiction weapons. Jarmo: I've seen the same results that Steve@BTS mentioned with multiple units grounding when one is shot at. The problem (impossible to correct IMO) is lack of 'memory'. Those same squads are just as eager to get up and walk into the MGs time and again. They 'forget' that a particular area is dangerous. This is not something that will be modeled anytime in the near future, methinx ; ) I dont think its overly necessary either as long as the fire results are brutal enough to keep the PLAYER from wanting to repeat the effort. As currently modeled, I dont think it is unless charging the MG position directly. Steve@BTS/Fionn: I'm currently away from my PC that has the Test Scens on it. If I have some quick time, I'll try to and recreate them and send them to you. Failing that, set up something similar to what Ben Galanti describes. Then try moving the MGs to different positions to hit the Platoons from multiple angles, all the same side, both sides at once, or whatever. The results are largely the same. Only the 'head on' really causes significant results IMO. I generally oppose 3 Hvy MGs or a Platoon line +MG with 2 Platoons of attackers (err targets..they really arent attacking). Send both Platoons at once (moving Fast) to maximize the targets and allow no 'cover fire'. Its my firm belief that three defensive MGs should easily be able to prevent 2 unsupported platoons from crossing open ground without either fantastic troop quality, fantastic leadership, blind luck, or heavy casualties. Talenn [This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 07-06-2000).]

Steve@BTS: Ok, and I get similar results when the MGs are being directly assaulted. When properly supported, the MGs DO contribute and help to break up the assault. I think that by now, that is pretty established, even in the 'clinical' tests. But it still doesnt solve the issue of area denial or interdiction. In that role, they are still inadequate. Perhaps, I AM expecting too much, but employing the MGs in the way that they were historically used and not getting any results makes me wonder. MG's do NOT interdict routes of advance unless the attacker is directly approaching the MG (more or less). Perhaps this is accurate. I dont believe that it is. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. I cant state it too many more ways. Far too many people are missing the point I am trying to make. I dont see what can be gained from much more debate. I go away from this thinking that MGs are more useful than I thought when I first posted (and that was in sheer frustration by continued late game enemy infantry Banzai's that weren't impeded by MG fire), but they still cant perform a role that they were often assigned. Thanx for your time. If at some point you are interested in experimenting with a variable RoF, let me know. I would be happy to test it and re-test it and provide detailed results for you. Talenn