WineCape

From ball @ feet in soccer to weapon in hand in wargaming. Combat Mission: Back to topic. BFC just make it look so easy @ wargaming.

Combat Mission

"...a group of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings demand to learn the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything from the supercomputer, Deep Thought, specially built for this purpose. It takes Deep Thought 7½ million years to compute and check the answer, which turns out to be 42." Unfortunately, The Ultimate Question itself, is unknown.

Lionel Messi. Move along. (The reason there was no input from my side into CMBN.) Apologies if off-topic, but life carries on outside, even with such remarkable products as BFC's poetry in motion; should we miss something that, in my lifetime, I'm privileged to watch, to see it unfold ...?

The energy spend gnashing teeth on a decision that has already been made (non-firing of certain AT weapons from any building for CMBN) can be better spend on lobbying, with room-firing research, for Battlefront to abstract certain size buildings less/simulate them to a higher degree, for their future games/modules so that 'shrecks etc. can then be (uncommonly) fired from those larger buildings, where applicable. Together with this, ideas can be volunteered how to implement this via the game engine programming, say for example: no firing of such a specific weapon if there is a squad bigger then a 2-man size unit already inside a specific size room etc. etc. Your idea(s) and suggestion(s) might not work for the programmers, but Charles/Steve et al might hit a light bulb moment given your initial ideas for future releases, given constructive input in trying to abstract/simulate some uncommon occurrences. Even then, your workable idea might be shot down, not for want of merit, but for want of time and/or priority listing as BFC is not EA with 100 programmers on payroll. If this occurs, accept it. Frankly, we are blessed that Steve regularly interacts and at least he will tell you: (a) Good idea, but no time; ( Good idea, other ideas are prioritized above it in the wish list; © Good idea, cant make it work effectively yet; (d) Good idea, will investigate for future modules/games given solid research; (e) Good idea, but not going to happen, as BFC needs a holiday; (f) Bad Idea, too rare/uncommon to bother simulating/abstracting at all. Frankly, I'm disappointed there is no cowbell in CMBN.

Marco, you beautiful bastard!! Please PM the link so that I can install this for my beta test copy of CMBN. Maybe I will have an extra advantage while Peng get's nailed the 4th time by his own CAS in our PBEM battle. Do you have one for planes too? For him.

That will also be the occupants of the Cesspool.

Sig-Line Gold just there!

Charles math formulae for penetration calculations and there being no hard and fast way to indicate what can, or cannot be penetrated at certain ranges, whether due to obliquity, FH-armour or homogeneous armour etc. is one of the main reasons. Just too varied to even give a rough colour coded indication of penetration values. Granted, it may be very helpful in some ways. Currently CMBN do give you a very basic colour coded 'lethality warning' against various projectiles that a AFV can defend against. But do you really want to see 23 colour-coded penetration bars for a particular gun WITH footnotes in-game? Programming time could be better spend doing else, I assume.

Sir, with all respect and no slight intended: What part of the word, that it was generally 'uncommon' for such usage, did you not understand? Did it occur? Yes. Did it occur regularly? No. Was it unusual? Yes. Was it rare? Yes. This, btw, implies it to be uncommon. And if it is uncommon, it will not be necessarily simulated/abstracted. More so give BFC's reasons that the back-blast danger was, given generally non-warehouse sized house rooms in Normandy, a valid issue. Could you lobby that it might be used in very large room where back-blast will, in all probability, not be an issue? Yes. Will BFC change this then for large rooms? No. Why not? Too late, as there are other, more pressing last-minute issues before the game is about to be released. Will BFC look at this in the future, specifically for very large rooms? Maybe. It depends on research, plus whether the JAR actually feels like re-programming this issue.

As much as it pains me to say that in public, I have to say that Rune is absolutely correct.

Sums up all the answers to the OP's questions. And even then, once played, quoting a single reference might not convince Battlefront to put it in. Nor multiple (valid) references thereof if Battlefront feels that they either do not have time, or the inclination, to put it in the game due to various, already mentioned reasons on this forum and elsewhere. Battlefront decided not to allow 'shrecks/'zooks to fire from inside Normandy buildings. Their research shows it was not common to do so. Being an uncommon occurrence, and given BFC valid reasons why even this uncommon occurrence should not be simulated, it will not change for CMBN. Might it change for future models and their games? Maybe.

More like CMSF.

Yes, all CMBN PBEM files contain a "view move phase" and upon reviewing it, and also a plot phase, in the same file. No need for PBEM Helper anymore. Exchange Rate of PBEM - we don't know that yet, other then it will be 7 games over 120-180 day period. Closer to time (in a few months time) will give clarity Ted. Play by email will be a requirement. Both parties can to agree to RT play, of course. The emphasis, however, is on both in the previous sentence. The full tourney schedule, I think, should only be announced on your very next battle, and not in full, in advance. Maybe you should not even be aware of who is IN your section at all, until you play them, that is. Of course, I will have the players sections detailed. Maybe all you will get is a tournament player number, ranging 1 --> 72. All points to ponder.

One of the reason RoW Vets are regarded with a 'slightly' higher level of integrity wrt future invites: None of them are troublesome, so far, for the sake of just being so, nor unsporting, nor do they behave in ungentlemanly conduct. Well, we had no women yet.. RoW is an invite. Though we invite people to sign up wrt newbies, it ultimately boils down to who we want to play in the tourney. We're the host, you're the guest. Certain unwritten etiquettes are common to this arrangement. Invites will not repeat if you don't behave accordingly. That does not imply we organisers will not allow by accident a future Fionn (may his soul rest) in a Rumblings of War tourney, but the Fionn's will be mostly enigmas in them. We like to think we foster some camaraderie and good, sporting fun with ROW - and judging from responses over the years we got that right - apart from being a serious tournament that test your Axis/allied attack/defend skills to the utmost, as well as thinking 'out of the box' when confronted with a troublesome, against all odds scenario. PS: Gamey -- Not drinking during a RoW battle, or not drinking any wine at all, is gamey. Anything else goes in ROW.

You have been marked in my Excel sheet.

It all depends on the size of the scenarios. 120 days might cut it too fine. We might make it 6 months. An AAR for full credit will be, at a minimum, 1 x A4 page, which will include 2 templates: (1) A note to the scenario designer, and (2) your AAR notes. Obviously players must consider their time investment, given 7 games total and the sizes of each battle, BEFORE they sign up. If you misjudge your time needed to finish before the deadline, and withdraw due to this during, barring real life emergencies (death of your cat = not an excuse) consider yourself shot on the spot. We will not invite you again for future tourneys. So, think before you blink. Rather skip RoW VI and await RoW VII then. RoW VI will not be a rush job. We'll take our time organizing this beast. In the 5-6 years interim since RoW V, I'd lotsa time to mull over the ideas how to really screw with the minds of RoW VI PBEM players.

32 bottles you drank in 10 friggin years?! It says so in your profile.

Bonus points will be added to your final Tourney Score if you submit AARs. Each full credit AAR will be worth 4% of the highest player's tourney score (before adding his AARs). Will still be the case. You get a few extra points if you do. This could put you ahead if you're in a tight race in your section. If this is indeed the case that you bypass the player just above you, then you deserve it if pumpkin couldn't be bothered, Nabla or no Nabla 'perfection.' I will provide a short template page for the AAR. The feedback specifically for the scenario creator is the minimum you should do for 1/2 credit. The actual AAR itself will be the other 1/2 credit. Toying also with the idea that no player can advance to a 2nd scenario's play without handing in his short AAR for the prior scenario. If you cannot be bothered to type a short comment to at least the scenario creator, then you might be replaced by the stand-in awaiting on the reserve list. All depends if I get my Bob Martin tablets or not when the date arrives for signup.

Wellsonian/WBWF, so noted. Searching on CMx1 forum for "ROW" or "Rumblings of War" might do the trick in what you are looking for.

Should be all called FFF scenarios: Fake, Fictional Fidelity. All Battles should strictly be classified as Semi-Historical if the definition thereof is: "Inspired by real events." I imagine working 10+ years on the research of a detailed OrBat/OOB of a specific battle [cough.... JohnS ...] is just for amusement and to keep people from going out to fly fish, walking the kids or enjoying the sunshine.

Heh, the SEARCH button is home though .

What he said.

Just regard the Afrikaans-speaking South Africans in CMAK as indirect representation of the Dutch Army. Ons is immers afstammelinge van Nederland! Wel, die meeste.