Sailor Malan

Ever thought that "because of centuries of colonialism..." might be more appropriate. Read some history. Whilst the British Empire undoubtably removed self determination from large parts of Africa, Asia and all of India, it generally replaced it with a benevolent and paternalistic care for the locals (by the standards of the day - i.e. now necessarily by today's standards). This is not to deny things like Amritsar (sp?) did happen. The British overseas army of a few 10's of thousands of men did not hold down 1/4 of the world by brute force! A much misunderstood thing the British Empire...

B%((^$ H£%% member 22421! Wow, the board grows. Welcome. Study hard and learn, you too a veteran will be young one. [edit: typo!]

Ditto! Heh! I really miss the feeling I got from reading that Alpha after-action report. Even though I suspect CM:SF will be a vastly superior product, I don't think I'll ever come close to that Wow! feeling I got the first time I played the CM:BO demo. Man, those where the days! </font>

Who said anything about real time? I am just suggesting an alternative to complete micro management. Also, vs the AI it would tend to restore some balance (since my CPU can do turns in far faster than I am proposing). I am just looking for possible alleviations to your problem, given (what I think) is a frozen design. You might not like it, but I don't think they are going to tear up the work thay have already done (might be wrong, of course)

I am bought in to JC's issues, but am still looking at possible solutions. JC's variable map size is one, but I don't see huge acceptance from Hunter. So, considering other solutions (or palliatives), and taking as constraints: - CMBB will not be modified (or at least tiny tweaks only) - CMC wont be completely re-written. How's about all CMBB games are played out with turn time limits on? This is normally a TCP/IP option IIRC, but could be used agaist the AI in theory with a tweak? If the turn limit were say 5 minutes + say 1 minutes per x points on your side, larger force sets the limit, you could tune it so that players just cannot manage large forces in the time, and they would just end up using a subset of forces that are on the map, or ordering huge 'multiple selection' advances (i.e. very crude and uncoordinated attacks etc). The time limits could be set so that platoon actions are effectively unconstrained, companies a little pushed but generally OK, Btns rushed (in affect attack with 1 or 2 companies forward, with the rest inactive or 'simple' commands due to time, or very slow and laboured attacks due to having to cycle around the companies on a 3 or 4 turn cycle). Multiple btns would just be impossible to control effectively. Not ideal, but maybe the correct 'counter incentive' for large stacks, and most importantly, do-able in the s/w constraints? BTW, I presume if a CMC is being played out with online CMBB execution, the players could do it this way anyway?

I didn't mean a 6X2 campaign, I meant a 6km WIDE campaign, x much deeper. And locally, 1 btn vs 1 isn't negative odds if the defender is stretched very thin. Tactically it is >3:1

If you mean me, I was not missing the point. I was attempting to show that there are ways to mitigate the weaknesses of CM under certain circumstances that you were outlining, and that Hunter was required to comment on a) whether he agrees with you, and what (if anything) he has done about it. Is it not possible that the CMC engine would only work for a subset of ww2 actions, say overall low force to space ratios, and small MEs (e.g. company), but that that would still be a viable game? Hows about a btn defending 6km of line with a fire brgade of a Panzer company, being probed by a regiment, with only 1 btn 'up' and the remainder as break through, starting well back and only available to add to a Death Star if you advance too slowly to win? (For instance)

I must have missed the post that said we were limited to 4-6 hours. I know that the actual limit will be the number of CM battles the players (teams) can get fought. A single tank btn on a 1 hour basis does take a finite time to pass if on a single road, and if I read the FAQs properly, default CMC turns are 1 hour. If on a billard table, they could line up track to track, and drive on instantly. However, as a defender, either you would have the means to take them out (technology, or numbers), or you would do what would happen in RL - pull back, or die... If not on a billard table, you would have the option to hide in place and contest the follow up (especially if the tanks drive straight though). A well set up campaign should not be open to 'one tactic auto-victory' If we accept that CMC will not be able to produce a fun campaign based on even small elements of Kursk, does that help? I rather think there are a lot of battles that weren't at this scale or density. I know Arras is the wrong front, but I would think this scale would be perfect. If the victory condtions were set wrong the British armour could do a 'fist', but that isn't the only way to fight this battle. I wouldn't design an air warfare game centred on the Marianas Turkey Shoot, or the Soviet front line aircraft on the first day of Barbarossa. The problem with your solution is that you remove a lot of tactical options to the players. I like single companies on the large map. The CM game is one phase in the larger game. I have played 3 a/c vs heaven knows what (reinforced company with Stugs?) - I had only one objective (classify what's there and bug out). Still ok, because the answer feeds the whole. Now, are there enough players like me out there... who knows, but CMC should be a whole lot easier on the umpire than manual campaigns. You assume objectives only have value at the end - objectives at x points per turn can modify behaviours. Points for casualties can modify behaviours. If a campaign can not be won if losses exceed a small % of total forces, and a wide spread of objectives have to be captured I suspect the Death Star will not be a useful approach. Also, a 'to the death repeatedly' player is an absolute gift to the 'lets keep some reserves' player! Thwart objectives, slow advances I say again, what we really need is Hunter...

A good thought - the CMC movement system needs to understand columns/road density, not just square stacking limits - if a fist is moving using a road, or any type of non-billiard table terrain, the number of units (squads/vehicles, not MEs - to allow for different size MEs) that can cross a given 2x2 'square' side per turn/hour etc should be very restricted. Thus a fist should not 'all' be present in the first CM battle of an advance into a new CMC square. The 'top' ME of the stack (or partial ME) should be there on CM turn 1, with either the rest of the ME, or possibly the next ME arriving as reinforcements. Only if the CM battle results in the attacker retaining some of the 2x2 should more MEs be allowed into the square. If the attacker loses the CM battle sufficiently badly, the engaged ME should recoil onto the rest of the fist (involuntarily) and take a considerable amount of confusion into the rest of the stack (no resupply, morale/fatigue affected etc) Jason - you are right (as usual) about the CM aspect, but I can see ways in which they could program CMC to avoid/minimse them. Any 'overstack' worked in RL because they took the time to set them up - you should not be able to sustain one on the move against even half decent opposition. In other words the only way a fist can move at more than a fraction of the constituant MEs movement rate is if they have no significant combat, no terrain damage, no interuption of resupply (intact supply routes etc). Any other issue should cause major loss of cohesion (=CMC 'movement/order following potential'). BTW I would count any 'significant combat as one that fails to capture all 4 CM 1x1 squares, takes any significant damage at all (more than 1-5%, yes: 1 tank in a Btn, or 10-20 infantry casualties), or uses enough ammo to require any resupply (more than 10% of on hand stocks or something) These sorts of (realistic) penalties will stop fists being that easy of effective to use, and hence people wont use them - thise that do would deserve what they get. Now what we REALLY need on this isues is Hunter or the team to comment on this. If Jason's fears are realised this could be a game breaker (only way out I could see would be a shed load of house rules)

I am assuming the key to all this is in the scenario design, given the (I hope) features of CMC. The designer needs to ensure that the attacker has objectives (on the CMC board) that force linear lines (or pseudo linear flank protection/defence at least). Alternatively, the supply lines models need to be adequate. No fist (if all in a single CMC square) will be able to move after say 4-6 hours of moving and or fighting. No combat unit will have ammo after 1 or 2 good CM battles (or shouldn't).If the defender has any mobility at all (even 1 or 2 MEs,) and can isolate the fist or capture the objectives it has no choice but to stop, summon help (what help? It's all in the fist). Thus it is no longer persuing its own objectives. Anyone fancy an overstacked CM battle, with all your troops out of ammo (or down to 10-20%), all fatigued, and low morale (another side effect of not being fed!). I think fists would become a whole lot less popular. If this isn't doable in CMC we need to stop right here because we will not be simulating WW2!

Don't be too quick to penalise artillery quality for the loss of FO's. You should be able to lose a couple before quality really begins to suffer (batteries always had effective 'spares', especially if you are not allowing a battery to support more than 1 ME at once). Morale on the other hand could take a hit for a few hours. The supported ME shouldn't get an instant replacement (next CMC turn), it should take a couple of hours plus transit time for the battery commander to work out what happened, and send a replacement FO IMHO - that is the real penalty, lose support for up to half a day.

And since you're new - "borg spotting" = the (unfortunate, but forced by technology/design/age of game) ability of the player and all units on the map to see anything that any of his/her units can see. (FOO, or mortar doesn't need to 'know' that there is enemy behind the ridge, cos the borg spotter knows! If tanks could do it to, game over!) (In case you hadn't understood)

I hate to add to this thread, so just let me say this: Hitler - a man who thought he was morally justified in assessing an entire group or groups of people as fit only for death, regardless of the actions or status of individuals, and acting on it. Dachau perps - people who think they are morally justified in assessing an entire group or groups of people as fit only for death, regardless of the actions or status of individuals, and acting on it. The difference is only one of scale. Morally there is NO difference.

Try 18", and yes they were breaking the rules, however they withdrew from the treaty before anyone found out, so that's OK then!

Try 18", and yes they were breaking the rules, however they withdrew from the treaty before anyone found out, so that's OK then!