Col Deadmarsh

At least it will camoflauge well in the snow...

Hell yes I used those SMG squads! But seriously Steve, I was being quite neutral when I posed that question. I may have been tearing down the game before, but since then I've really been trying to change my tactics, and I'm really starting to appreciate CMBB now and the new dynamics that go with it. But let's face it, if you make a mistake like you said, it's curtains for that squad. And how many people are so on top of their game that they don't make these types of mistakes? So for a ladder player or even just a casual gamer who's played enough battles to realize the power of the MG in this game, that novice-intermediate player would seemingly be wiser to choose armor or support MG's over infantry on anything less than a heavily-treed map. I would almost expect rules to already be in place to limit MG and armor purchases. Maybe I'm wrong about this and that's why I asked others who've played more games than me to speak out about what they're seeing.

In CMBO, infantry was a pretty powerful force on the battlefield, able to overpower MG's and rush tanks without having to worry about being pinned and going into auto-sneak mode for the rest of the game. With the new lethality of mg's, has this changed your purchase ratio of tanks/infantry? Is it a bad choice now to purchase a company or two of infantry because of the way they're now modeled? Are you simply throwing your money down the drain when you should be spending it on another tank instead? I can see infantry still being purchased on heavy wooded maps but anything lighter seems to be a bad move because of their vulnerability to mg's. Yes, they have better anti-tank capabilities as they are now using demo charges and molotov cocktails to immobolize AFV's and also utilize a "Follow Vehicle" order to keep in close range of tanks. But is that enough to still make infantry a powerful force in semi-open terrain? What are you seeing in your games? [ November 21, 2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

Tracer, what database? Anybody working on something for rocky terrain? [ November 20, 2002, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

I'm just curious as to why AFV's have a "Move to Contact" order when they already have the "Hunt" command. Aren't they both the same thing for vehicles?

I noticed that the trees in CMBB are so dense and the foilage so low to the ground that it makes spotting your units that much harder. I almost have to play with tree coverage "off" so I can see where my men are and where they're firing. I thought I had heard that someone did a mod to fix this. If so, where do I get it? Also, the rocky terrain in this game is very hard to spot. At view 3 you have to squint your eyes to see it, at view 4 it's undetectable. Can someone mod something to remedy this? [ November 20, 2002, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

Kernow, the people you're arguing with aren't even gonna listen to your points until you refer to their opinions as "opinions" and not "whining." When you use the word "whining", you are simply saying that you can't handle the fact that others have an opinion.

What about a German one with Zimmerit coating?

Why don't you just reach over and hit the power button on your speakers? :confused:

Ah yes, Bruno. I still fondly remember the pain I inflicted upon your German troops: my Wasps spraying you with flames, your gun getting caught crossing the road as I rolled up your flank, and that final manuever in which I managed to nab your Panther from behind with my Daimler before he got shot by your Stug. Let me know if you're interested in seeing more of that kind of carnage. Now's the time to seek revenge, as I feel like a total newbie again.

Nice site Scipio. I just joined up.

I understand that way of thinking. To be perfectly honest, a small part of me is attracted to the historical scenarios, even ones where I'm at a disadvantage. But the ultra-competitive, and significantly larger part of me wants to stick with ladder play where the best man wins...or so I like to believe. This gives me validation as to why I spend so much disposable time playing this game--so I can become the best of the best. Top Gun of Combat Mission!

I guess you'll have to look elsewhere Seanachai... Have you checked into that Peng thing? I've heard that long-winded, mental masturbators like yourself are welcome there. Frankly, I'd like to see someone create a slick looking site that has a PBEM ladder only. At T-House, the mixing of PBEM and TCP players only serves to ruin any kind of rating system going on. Over there, the player who played the most games gets ranked the highest. The ratings system is based on the chess ranking system which is fine for chess because it awards that person who has been around for awhile and has played his share of games. In CM though, you play a limited amount of battles before the next edition of CM comes out. I don't think I played more than 20 PBEM games of CMBO while I was there, and those might be my last now that CMBB is upon us. One could argue that since I'm only playing 20 games, why do I need a ladder anyway? Well, to me it's like playing poker for money vs. playing for peanuts. It just adds to the competiveness of the game. Some people need that. It's also nice to see yourself ranked. Seanachai, if ranking is so overrated, then why do we see it everywhere? Maybe MLB and the NFL should just play their games and not keep score. Everyone could just go home when they're tired. Do you think the fans would like that? CM is a game just like everything else. There needs to be a scoring system and a ranking system in place...at least for most of us--the competitive ones in the bunch. P.S.--Is Rugged Defense looking for a new web designer? If so, get in touch with me. [ November 16, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

Sadly, yes. That and I owe turns in CMBO to people who've been waiting weeks for them. I'm gonna try another one of those canned scenarios in CMBB tonight though and see how I fare. Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on here. I never saw it to this degree though in CMBO. The following turn they had clear lines of sight to the enemy and all I had to do was tell them to shoot and they did. I can understand if they don't see them, but then on the other hand if "I" can tell them to shoot at the enemy on the next turn, why can't they just do it themselves the turn before? Is this supposed to simulate something here--like they don't actually see the enemy at first? [ November 16, 2002, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

BTS, what about the apparent problem with units not firing on the opposition by themselves? I've only played one battle so far and yet I had multiple turns where my mg's wouldn't fire on a target they could plainly see. Is anybody else seeing this too?

I noticed that T-House hasn't got a CMBB ladder yet. Not sure why... Is everyone on Rugged Defense or are their others? Frankly, someone needs to make a nice, clean ladder site that doesn't look cheesy and have hard to follow links.

I would like to partake in this. Please send me da rules.

Derb, 10 meters is a small area when you think about it. It makes complete sense to me that 3 tanks sitting right next to each other would be either destroyed or have damage to the optics or such. By the way, how does a junior member get a member # of 695? I thought those were only given to charter members like myself? BTS, fix or do sumfink! (I always wanted to say that ) [ November 14, 2002, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

bumpity bump

Taking out the Crawl and Sneak commands was a bad mistake IMHO (<--- For my buddy, Emrys) From my limited playing time so far, it seems that although the "Move" command is more stealthy than the old one, it wasn't intended to replace the old "Sneak" command. So BTS, how are we supposed to flank the opposition now if our only movement order to do so is a "Sneak" order that puts us in a prone position?

You're talking about board games, not computer games. Who's done a North Africa tactical computer game lately? From a visual standpoint, it's not as interesting as the Western or Eastern Front.

I love that...we're trying to implement a new suggestion to the first patch for this game and we're already taking time away from CM3.

Well, yeah...that's hyperbole. I admit I'm not familiar with the terrain of Africa and am simply going by what I see on TV. I just think it's silly to create an entirely new engine with all it's new graphic improvements and then base the game in Africa with such limited terrain features. Yes, I know we'll be in Italy too but that was a very small time frame, right? It seems to me that BTS should've done Africa/Mediterranean for CM2 and then saved their baby, the Ostfront, for the rewrite. This also brings up another question, how are they intending to sell this next CM? After all, North Africa is not a popular theatre and most people didn't even know there was a Mediterranean theatre. So who will buy it outside of the wargaming grog community? I guess they will have to be content with marketing to a smaller niche than their previous games. I for one am not happy that I will have to wait years for the next edition of the Western Front and possibly only get to play half the battles over there. It just doesn't make sense to go to a significantly smaller scale after having visited the Eastern Front with its myriad of units. They already have most of the data needed for all the units involved in the Western Front to recreate the entire theatre so why not do the whole shebang? [ November 12, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

Frankly I had no problem playing in Teletubbie land but now that I have CMBB, I'm getting used to the drab colors which do offer more realism...I think. Scipio, do you happen to know the BMP's for skies? I want to transfer my hi-res CMBO skies over to CMBB.