McAuliffe

Hi, It happens, that I just designed a huge CMAK operation map - for those that know the area- stretching out from the east (Borgoumont) to the west (Targnon), over 4 km, based on a topographic 1:25.000 scale map. In the south, it includes the village of Cheneux, scene of dramatic close combat fighting during the attack of the 82nd. paratroopers. I am trying now to figure out how you can set up playable game against the AI on such a map. I was studying the order of battle in the various stages of the battle for the pocket of La Gleize-Stoumont and used the local museum brochure as a source. 7 KT's were left behind in La Gleize. None of them were found in Stoumont. From what I have read and saw on pictures, some of them were active during the battle for the Sanatorium of Stoumont giving support from the hamlet of Roua, just north-east of Stoumont. Apparently, they were able to make it back to the center of La Gleize. A couple of the abandonned KT's were found on the acces roads via Borgoumont and on the highway leading up to the village of La Gleize. 2 were defending the farm of Werimont (south of La Gleize) One of these -commanded by Döllinger- was later recovered and placed on the market square. Other KT's were destroyed or abandonned during the attack on Stavelot and on the road between Stavelot and Trois-Ponts. Although many sources, say that 45 KT's started the campaign, I hardly can believe that and tend to stick to the number of 14 as stated above. BTW, Is there anyone anyone that wants to try to test play the operation map? Unfortunately, I had to replace the KT's by the 'ordinary' ones. :mad:

2nd. patch?...Okay great! Just three reminders "to make sure that none more will be needed after that": 1. Houses on pavement in various orientations, please? 2. Right now, Quick Battles are generated with AXIS set up at WEST side and ALLIES in the EAST. This means that when a map, where the orientation is set different, is imported in a Quick battle, the units are put on the map by the AI, facing the wrong direction, which results in quite funny situations, like attacking pillboxes that are pointing backwards. Please let the definitions of friendly sides of imported maps overwrite QB-parameters. I even experienced in such cases, that during the set-up turn, my units were incredibely bunched up together in some corner of the map, outside of the set-up zones. 3. If in parameters, the area is set "combined", I found out that trees are still green in winter :eek: Oh yes... and I support the motion of introducing KT's And else...yeah, you know already by now, read the sig.

I could be wrong, but isn't there for each height interval a "grass" bitmap available. Now, if one of the modders could make 20 colour variants from light red to dark green and make it compatible with the CMMOS-selector in order to switch the mod quick on or off, you should be able to get a quick impression of the elevations on a map. Provided, the designer has not created table mountains, the gradual change of colour, should give you an indication about the slope percentages.

Right!... you mean 3 SS Panzer divisions head on against whatever Russian tank army somewhere in a sunflower field of a couple square miles? Interesting to read about or making a movie, but playing...not so sure. The scale of the key actions was just huge, too huge to have the same atmosphere created in a CMBB map. I recall players complaining that there computer choked when processing one turn of: "To the wolga" which was IMHO the only scenario more or less reflecting how battles where fought on the Eastern Front. I agree on the variety of armor and other toys to play with and Yes, I like to play battles where scenery and nature of terrain play a role and where the outcome not only depends on the evolution of weaponry at a certain time for one side or another. I was not dissapointed by CMBB. For as much as I know about the eastern front, it just didn't contain the tactical challenges, I was interested in. Too nice to be true.. I guess that BF just wanted to satisfy the various interest-groups. Why am I interested in Western Front, more specifically the Ardennes? Maybe because I lived nearby. Why is someone interested in the desert war, maybe his grandfather fought there and told exciting stories.. Maybe, you have read Anthony Beever's book about Stalingrad and you got hooked on by flamethrowers in sewers, who knows? All the best.

Addictions always return. You can try to suppress them, but it's hard to get rid of them. Although, I swore never to touch the stuff again, I could not resist and bought CMAK. Since CMBO, I own a copy of CMBB too, but skipping playing CMBB was easy. I always advocated, that the actions on the eastern front were not suitable to be simulated in a company-level and tactical game and that the terrain was most of the time too boring to pose any challenge. Best tactics were reduced to a head on and hope for the best. More or less the same applies to desert warfare: Although actions were of a smaller scale, I prefer to play a naval battle simulation then plotting my troops around in an empty scenery. Now that CM is picking up the Italian theatre, that should make things different again: Mountains, little villages on crests to fight for, bridges to seize. It made look CMAK very promising. Besides, with the mods available you could create all your favourite CMBO scenario's again. So, what are my first impressions of this 3rd. version of CM. Cool, you can create maps and import them in your quick battles. (this was already the case in CMBB), There is the usual attention for details of terrain as well as of the vehicles, uniforms, etc... Unfortunately, most maps of the Italian theatre didn't look very convincing. I don't think the available 8 m interval for height difference, doesn't help either. You just need more intervals, to get those slopes smoother. I had also some trouble to select units, when I was playing a quick battle: What do you do with an allowance of 119 pts for artillery, if the cheapest FO costs you 123? Selecting two pltn's of ordinary infantry pushed my support bonus through the limit. At the end, I could not spend half of the points anywhere else then buying fortifications and trucks. Maybe experience will help me to understand more the selection procedure, but right now I don't know what to expect when I open the unit screen. Scenario design: As I had seen those cool pictures of buildings on pavement, I started immediately to play with the editor, Finally, we would be able to create those typical European villages or towns. However, I found out, that there may be eight icons available, only two orientations for building on pavement are showing on the map. Please note, this is different for the buildings without pavement, where you can play with the orientation of the various buildings and thus create narrow alleys and diagonal streets...on grass tiles. Why do the buildings on pavement have not the same features? Moreover, it makes 6 of the 8 icons useless. Last but not least: sniff.. the makers failed again to save some of my precious time: [rant mode on] Where is the follow the leader group command, damnit! This is a COMPUTER game and IIRC computers were invented to automatisate repetitive and boring tasks. [rant mode off] I hope they dig it before they release the CMII engine. All the best.

This should read now: Lugano, Switzerland

Like others already brought forward, the chaos on a battlefield should not be reflected in the tedious work of plotting every waypoint for each unit. Now, with the present game, a player will take already the time to plot the waypoints for a his column. The fact that he needs 15 minutes to execute this movement doesn't seeme much to do with the realism on a battlefield to me. On the contrary, I think that a soldier or a driver on a bttlefield is well capable enough to avoid an obstacle to follow the road or to duck for cover when he comes under fire. What I would accept however, is a penalty in reaction time for units further positioned from "the leader" or for less skilled units.

scroll down to the 12th post on this page Enough said.

No, indeed, but you will have waving palm trees! Ha, this is my favourite subject...or better, my main critic on the game. I hardly play the game anymore, except for some PBEMs, because I find it becoming so tedious, to plot all these waypoints for every single unit. I don't mind to plot the whole itinerary for one tank or unit, but if, I want to move a whole column or company through the same waypoints, why should I plot over and over again this same itinerary. Quite boring actually. Especially when you know that this is a computer game and computers were invented to free people of repetitive and boring tasks. I will only be playing again, I guess, when there is a command that enables to order a designated group of units or vehicles to follow in the steps of the leader for which you have plotted a number of waypoints. Maybe you could add the options, that the units should follow the "leader" in column, in a skirmish line or advance in column but deploy at point of arrival. The designated units would automatically be directed by the AI to the starting point of the "leader". IOW The AI would plot the shortest and most suitable way (terrainwise) to this starting point. Quite simple, I quess, since the AI corrects now already your waypoints when you plot over unpassable terrain. When your column comes under fire, depending whether you used hunt, fast, or move to contact mode, the vehicles would stop and return fire, speed their way through the ambush or cower away, just like when the AI forces now your vehicles to do this, when they encounter a threat, that they probably can't match. This command would speed up gameplay significantly and gameplay would focus on the action and the tactical decisions, not on the execution. Imagine the time you would save while playing a TCP/IP game. And of course you would be able to play bigger battles by TCP/IP. I don't need no moving wheels, crashing sounds, waving trees or bullets kicking up dust. I need a ... follow the leader group command!

Thanks, thought so already...But better asking first.

Got a warning of a friend of my, to remove following program, I just want to check if it is supposed to sit in the Windows/System folder or not : jdbgmgr.exe It's preceeded by a "teddybear" icone Can I remove it? PS.: I am running Windows 98

I am a fan of big historical scenarios and Ops., but admit that my poor PIII 450 Mhz is not completely up to the task. However what bothers me the most, is the micro-management of the units. I have been begging BFC since the beginning to expand the variety of group movement orders. This would allow turns to be processed more quickly in battalion size scenarios or Ops. Click a group of units > highlight a leader > plot his itinerary and the other units of the designated group would move, walk, to the initial start position of the leader and follow in his footsteps. At the end of the command you could choose then the option "deploy" or "column" I hate the repetitive plotting of waypoints for all units in a platoon or even a company. IMHO, I consider it even as unacceptable in a COMPUTER game...You know why computers were invented, don't you? Even in MS you can use macro's to avoid repetitive tasks. It would make big scenarios and Ops much more fun and it would allow to focus on the decisions and render the action-part more prominent.

We need Red Adair to put out the fire on those oil wells

You did it the wrong way around... At least... that's how I proceed in CMBO: First of all, A should have put already his troops on the map in the editor. He saves the scenario in the scenariofolder (no passwords needed) and sends the scenario your way. (IMPORTANT: he should not send you a PBEM file, but a SCENARIO file) You open the scenario in the editor and you add and place randomly the troops, that B has selected (via a separate e-mail, that you got from him or whatever) in the set-up zones which are destined for B. Then "tournament save" the scenario and send the saved scenario to A. A starts in PBEM mode the saved scenario >> fills in password >> plays first turn >>sends turn to player B. B chooses his own password and opens his side >> does set-up >> sends PBEM file back to opponent A, etc... An extra security-feature in order to avoid cheating: After you have added troops of B in the editor and saved the game, you start the game on the A side (no setting up to be done, since A has put himself the troops on the map already) and send PBEM file to B. You then communicate the password, you used for the A-side, to A-player, so A can open and answer the PBEM files that return from B. [ April 10, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]

Antwerp, Belgium (EU)

Glenn, Looks like kind of a "Baugnez Scenario" you're brewing. I can only give you one advice: Don't put troops in trucks, when you wish that the AI moves them to the frontline. It just won't happen. For one mysterious reason the AI seems to be aware that it's better not to move unarmored vehicles around in exposed terrain, even when the AI is supposed not to see the enemy yet. Suggest, you put your troops in conscript HT's and put a lot or little VF's along the path they should follow. Other tips and tricks you can find on my web page, see link below.

The connecting roads should be 2 levels higher then the elevation of the tile where you place the crossing. (or 4 levels higher, in case of a large bridge) In other words, your stream should be 2 levels (or 4) lower then the surrounding ground. If you want to learn more about how to place bridges, create smooth river banks or just design a nice map, I suggest you take a look at my Tips and Tricks of CM Scenario Design Page It was created for CMBO, but it's of course valid for CMBB too...

Thanks for playing the Malmedy scenario. The LOS on a foggy mid-day in CMBO reaches approx. 725 m, IIRC. Though, identification of vehicles and troops will be hard. The visibility drops drastically when you change parameters to dusk/dawn (approx. 250) like in another good playable scenario against the AI : Grand Halleux. When you use heavy fog, under similar circumstances visibility drops to 100 m or less. Too bad you can't see the fog with an ATI-card as it adds to the airy feeling in this landscape. Not as bad as my Banshee Voodoo2 card though, that still renders smoke and explosions as rectangular bitmaps.

Reading Herr Schoerner's posts, I am wondering CDV had it right after all.

HeHe..looks like there is another addict around

If you are interested in Bulge scenarios, I have a site dedicated to CMBO battles in the Ardennes. Have a look at the URL below.

Don't know for the M3, but I did just a test blowing up a bridge up with 105 arty. I had positioned some tanks on several spans. When the bridge blew the tank disappeared - probably fell to the bottom of the river. You cannot drive a vehicle into water and you can only push abandonned vehicles from a bridge. Maybe you should scale down your vehicles with the ALT C key and find out that they are somewhere somewhat connected to the main land.

I am suspecting you're making a huge scenario. IIRC, the limit is 256 units on the board. There is no limit in points. You can put -if you wish 256 King Tigers- on the map.

Would suggest to have a look here : Tips and Tricks of CM Scenario Design

Okay...That leaves us only one solution : PATCH UP CMBO ! I don't need the doodaddies, nor the human wave command . (besides, I had other priorities, did I mention the " follow the leader... " okay, nevermind ) But, but please... the importing of existing maps in QB's shouldn't be too difficult to apply in CMBO, no? The cover arc command as substitute for the ambush command looks workable too, I guess. I realise, that from a commercial point of view, it would be insane to upgrade an old version, in the midst of the launch of a new version, but I guess people that play this game eventually will buy CMBB automatically. hey Lawyer , good to see you back! hope you took some nice pics...I really enjoyed our drive with the SPW