Alexander

You make an excellent point and back it up with some well researced and extinsive data. I had to read it twice though to grasp all your reasons why you feel this way. And works on so many levels....

Any one here who plays the germans more often care to comment on the chance to get a hit from a Pz IV on a fast move? Now that you mention it....PLaying an idle QB vs AI a few weeks ago and took out 2 differentCromwell 7s in a row at several hundred meters with a fast-moving PZIV. I thought, hmmmm, possible bug? Nah! (Right?)

Something to keep in mind: German tanks during the war operated within a platoon structure, too. More flexible with their radios, without a doubt, but subject to contraints not present in CM1. Something else to consider; Russian Shermans, supplied thru lend-lease- were equipped with radios (and leather padded seats). What if you could only give orders to the pltn cmndr and have the other two tanks controlled by the AI with a bias for following the cmndr. I'm guessing that the CM2 will promote the #2 tank when the command tank 'goes down', probably sacrificing any command benefits (targetting, spotting, bogging avoidance, morale?) broadcast by the platoon leader. I also anticipate that it will be cheaper, per vehicle, to purchase a platoon than a single tank for a QB. Another guess: since it seems logical to suppose that radio systems were relatively fragile, CM2 will depict radio breakdowns, simulating non-critcal 'system hits'. BTS, make me a beta tester, now!

Funny Coincidence; I have a sister named Deathdealer. It's a small world. :cool: I second that notion. Narrower maps would make those attack/defend QBs a lot more challenging- for the attacker. Also, while I'm at it, random attacker chosen by computer. Death to MEs! God, I hope I didn't screw up with these Instant thingies.

I use pause often and never felt a lack of flexibility, but then again I don't look at the battle in terms of individual men and seconds to be tweaked and finessed at every opportunity. If you look at your force in terms of platoons and companys, in time blocks of 2-5 mintues, then a 15s pause is short and in the 'middle' of your current orders. It is a question of scale and what CM is trying to accomplish, ie company level battle, not micromanagement every 5s. Right. I like the fact that plotting mmovement is a bit rough around the edges. Too much fine tuning and it turns CM into Synchronized Swimming. That said, I think it would be cool to apply the 15 second delay to firing as well as moving. That is, if the unit has no movement pplot, the Pause command applies to non-opportunity fire.

MS Intellimouse here. A joy to use but I had to trash my Lotus programs, like 1-2-3 and WordPro. It seems the optical mouse caused strange graphical corruptions. Not in Microsoft applications, however. No compatibility problems there. So I shelled out 100 bucks for Excel. Bill Gates and his company are a piece of work.

At the risk of sounding dense, what is to prevent a person from simply taking the screenshot of the setup window and then changing it to human select after? Here's another dense rumination: My opponent and I agree to play a scenario PBEM. I select the scenario, say, Elsdorf as the Allies. Before sending the file, I open the scenario in the editor and distribute a few extra tungsten rounds to each of my tanks. Opponent receives the revised file. Who's the wiser? I could be mistaken, but there's no file comparaison(?).

any other thoughts?[\b] Yeah. The Withdraw command. Right now it's basically used only for grunts. Make a provision that, on using this order, the unit (like mortars and mgs) relinquishes its equioment.

A gun damaged tank should retreat when they realize the gun is unable to fire (this is not always obvious) Exactly. A Cm turn = 60 seconds of real time. I surmise a gun hit might not be readily apparent to the crew. At least not instantaneously apparent, as it is to the player. The crew traverses and try to shoot, fumbles with it, curses at it...THEN- maybe an intense minute later- they reverse out of harm's way. Bottom line, IMHO,- no new coding required.

What other QB types have been suggested, or can you guys think of? A QB with Random Attacker. You notice, on the various ladders, that players are reluctant to defend because defending has acquired, rightly or wrongly, a bad rep. Therefore you end up playing those Meeting Engagements over and over and over. I don't know how this would be implemented, however. I guess it would require an additional email at the start.

I doubt a real-life commander would choose to establish a line amidst the sparse cover that the default tree setting provides. And everyone I play seems to elect the default position for trees and hills. Nor does the computer help the defense by generating water obstacles. One interesting alternative might be to allow the defender to 'buy' weather environments like Mud or Heavy Fog. Now that would even up things in a hurry!

I hope these suggestions are useful Jason, you make my head spin. Let me know when you've finished with that Perpetual Motion machine and wrapped up the Human Genome Project. We can do a PBEM. This discussion has for a subtext the striving for fairness and equality. We want our ladder matches to ressemble chess. The Meeting Engagement may be fun but but ultimately unsatisfying because we know it's implausible. At least it's rare enough to be unrealistic. And we want CM to be realistic. Very realistic. In my opinion there are, additionally, three reasons why defense seems so tough in CM: 1- For QBs, the computer generates a map that is wider than long. It's thus hard to torment the advancing enemy with defilade fire, forcing you, the defender, into a zone defense. I submit that, IRL, there would be greater, fixed firepower on the flanks. Narrower or user-selectable maps would help. 2- I doubt a real-life commander would choose to establish a line amidst the sparse cover that the default tree setting provides. And everyone I play seems to elect the default position for trees and hills. 3- The A/D ratios are not user selectable but fixed by BTS, e.g., at 4500-3000(?). The latest patch ameliorated but didn't fine tune the situation the way a heavy duty player could. Maybe 5500-2800 is mathematically more equitable. I know one can give the other a % force advantage but that's not quite the same thing. There is a way, IMO, which CM accords the defender an advantage: battlefield smoke. Although I was dissed on this before I believe there was, in WW2, more persistant smoke and dust than depicted in CM. Now, as the battle rages the field of fire degrades little. And, yes, I'm hip to the computational restraints.

I'm going to read it! Where do you download this scenario? BTW, Jason, how's that Stars!Supernova beta shaping up? I'm counting on this being the Next Big Thing.

I also did a quick test with 8 Jumbos moving back and forth over a DAMP terrain map. No bogging in MOVE or FAST mode. Didn't try HUNT. You have to give BTS credit for providing a simulation with open and testable mechanics!

Just played a couple of snowed in, tank heavy scenarios and noticed a surprising phenemonon: absolutely no bogging in either one! One of the battles featured K. Tigers, Jumbos, and Pershings. Is this one of the, ahem..., adjustments, smuggled, like Lenin, into the game engine via recent patches?