Col Deadmarsh

I know there's gonna be a new command in CMBB which will allow your infantry to follow an infantry target but I think we also need an "Assault Vehicle" command. This would allow your infantry squad to rush towards a vehicle, even follow it if it's both necessary and reasonably safe for the squad, and then assault the vehicle with whatever means necessary to kill it. I also think a graphical display should be added to show the men on top of the tank, trying to throw a grenade down a hatch or firing a gun into the mg slit, something to show that the tank is being assaulted. As it is now, you can never tell and only see the end result. BTS, just give us a simple animation to show this command carried out so we know what's going on. [ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

French Infantry -- The oddity that each French rifleman costs the same as an American rifleman can only be explained by the fact that either Steve or Charles is in fact French.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: How do you get "Shecky" from Kanonier Reichmann? You've got me stumped on that one. Regards Jim R.<hr></blockquote> That's some good material you got there, Shecky. Take that routine on the road.

BUMP

BUMP

I've downloaded and installed the program, installed the hi-res patch and yet I can't see any mod list when I start the program. All I get when I click on a nationality is the standard options for tires. Shouldn't there be a large list of tank mods for me to install here?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by kipanderson: Grisha, hi, I agree 100% with what you say. My greatest wish was always for a ?quality? computer version of SL, with CM this has now happened beyond my wildest dreams. However, I would also like to see a quality WEGO operational/battalion game. My greatest wish now, would be for BTS to do a quality ?operational layer? for the new engine in CM3. So one could "zoom in", change the scale from operational scale and resolve a given operational battle at the CM scale. One can but hope! All the best, Kip.<hr></blockquote> I'd like to see a WWII grand strategy game from BTS. That would be cool. Hell, I'd like to see a grand strategy WWII game from anybody. I don't think there are any around.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: I'm following and agreeing with what you're saying right up to the point where it seems necessary for the third party person to be on a diet. I mean, what the.....? Personally, I think the type of person you need in this position is a god like type who controls the purchasing of forces etc. Regards Jim R.<hr></blockquote> Thanks for the humor, Shecky.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: So the whole thing is just a secure random number generator? Col, I tried to install the thing on four computers now, after the "not enough memory" error on my 256 MB machine, seperate downloading of the DLL the distribution of the endgame randomizer did not carray (dispite its 5.5 MB dowload), only to discover that it says it is not compatible to the version of the randomizer you made the .ber file with. I even polluted two vmware images with it, where I don't get the disk space back easily. I am not amused. We just need a 1/6 chance for our 27-33 turns game, I prefer that you throw a dice and if it's a "6" we end now and repeat that for further turns.<hr></blockquote> So, you have the program installed but it's just not compatible with my file? I had an old version of the BADCO program so that might be the problem. I downloaded the new one so lemme send you a new file which should be compatible with you. If that doesn't work, I'll just throw a die. Treeburst, I went back and read the rules again a few days ago and now I understand it, but thanks anyway.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman: I must admit defence scenarios can be boring. Thats why its most authors make their scenarios more for an attacker. As for Scenarios being boring because you can't setup your own units, well many people may prefure it that way. So we don't have to spend hours doing all that, because not everyone has that much time. I find, just to be different picking forces to be a real pain. QB maps have no Rivers, bridges, and when was the last time you saw, say Bocage in a QB? Oh yes it has little single tile lakes...if you want to call them that. Sometimes these lakes are up in the air a level or two above the rest of the battle field, now isn't that fun to see.<hr></blockquote> I do miss the fact that you give up bridges and bocage and such when you play a QB. And when there is water in a QB, it is illogically placed some of the time. In fact, I've just started a QB, probably the worst looking map I've ever seen the computer make, and it has a church who's front door is surrounded by a big lake. (I guess they lower the draw bridge when you want to enter.) By the way, it's the first time I've seen more than those single tile squares of water myself but they do occur--unforunately, illogically. Just like Vanir said though, QB's are the meat and potatoes of ladder players. You don't have to trust the other player when setting one up. Sure, you could play a mirror game of a canned scenario but I don't really have much interest in playing the same map twice in a row--and to be honest, I find the QB maps the computer makes to be pretty challenging and interesting most of the time. Some of them I've even wanted to keep and play again in the future. Hopefully in CMBB that will be possible. [ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: I pretty much agree to all that's been said in favor of scenarios, however there are a few areas where QBs shine. I for one, think a QB Defense against assault is the ultimate challenge. Defense ina canned scenario is often less fun since the scenario designer will usually pick your starting positions. However, on a pre-generated map, I have literally spent hours pouring over every inch of ground for the best positioning. Also, picking forces is another reason why defending is more fun (for me) in a QB, but that is secondary to the fun of "set-up". Finally, sometimes I like using my "old favorite" force mix. Come on, we all have one --our most common and popular unit roster! We may not admit it, but I bet anyone who has played WW2 Wargames long enough has what they feel is the "right mix" For me it is a company of Panzergrenadiers in HTs with PzIVs and maybe some recon elements (either Lynx, 250/series, or armoured cars) If I'm rich, add a pair of tigers or panthers (but never one of each!) and I'm off to the races! I call this force "Kampfgruppe Panzer Leader" <hr></blockquote> Funny you should mention canned Attack/Defense scenarios. I'm playing one now, decided to try a canned scenario for the first time and for the reasons you mentioned above, the battle has been kind of droll. I spent my usual 2 hours or so pouring over the map only to find out the designer had chosen the best locations for each unit. I switched a couple of units from their pre-positions but that was all I did...and I find that boring. If I ever play another canned scenario, it will be an ME battle. Not being able to buy your own units can be a challenge in itself and a nice change of pace, but not being able to set up your own units takes most of the fun away from the game.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by xerxes: Having played a number of QBs and just started playing historical scenarios I've come to a resolution. No more QBs for me. Why QBs are a travesty: 1. Gamey force selections 2. Rules to prevent gamey force selections 3. The less cost effective units are never used 4. QBs are sooo predictable 5. Maps are way too similar I've played (am playing) Sword, Fear in the Fog, Vossenack, Walhaussen, Ham&Jam. They are all great fun, tense and very challenging. I've come to the conclusion that CM was meant to be played as scenarios and that's were the game really shines. -marc<hr></blockquote> I would agree that canned/historical scenarios have their advantage but to a lot of players, they also have their disadvantages. For one, I like to purchase my own units. I find that having a budget and getting as much as I can from that budget is half the fun of playing. It takes a wise commander to get all he needs when choosing units for a scenario without spending foolishly. Secondly, if you're playing ladder, you can't trust the other person when he says he hasn't played a certain scenario or that he hasn't peeked at the scenario you're about to play him at. Now, if you're not into ladder play this isn't as much of a problem but if that's all you play, trust is a huge concern. Now here's some questions I have for you: 1)Why do you think QB's are "so predictable?" Why would a canned scenario be less predictable? This doesn't make sense to me. 2)Out of curiosity, what are these units that are never used in QB's? Aside from maybe one or two from each side, I've seen pretty much everything used by my opponents and I've only played a handful of games. The only units I can think of that maybe aren't used are certain infantry units. Is this what you mean? [ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Patgod: 10 rounds + high ROF = very little fire time. if it were as high as you(and i) would like it then we would be complaining from the other end "why the hell does this thing waste all its ammo in 1 turn on a worthless mmg? this thing is FUBAR"<hr></blockquote> A sharpshooter doesn't go into battle with only 10 rounds. I think we've established this. Vanir, I'll give you the fact that sharpshooters shouldn't have a higher rate of fire than infantry, but as is right now they have a slower rate of fire, don't they? It's been my experience that they fire once every 15 seconds or so...at least at tank commanders. My concern is that you can rush a small half squad at them from 200 meters away and he would only kill one of the men. But...if you say you've seen one kill 3 with "one turn of firing", I'll believe you.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Amidst Void: *WARNING: RANT* No I suppose I overlooked the fact that if it's not abstracted that it would only be 10 rounds of ammo. The ROF is curious at best. In SPR, we can see how fast a sharpshooter can shoot. In CM the pauses in between shots differs dramatically, say 15-20 sec (depending on range) in between shots. I accept that the sharpshooter, when firing, is abstracted and he fires more bullets than I think, and one would think this clears up the whole issue, however it only raises more questions. PROBLEM 1: Why is it that the sharpshooter's fire is so constant that he is able to fire 1 abstracted shot at the 15 sec mark and then again at around the 30, then again at 45 (roughly)? We have to realize that the actual firing of the abstracted ammo round seems to be true to the firing animation, the sharpshooter fires several bullets ONLY when we see the firing animation, and not in between, his reality seems to be subject to his abstraction, he certainly doesn't cause casualties during the reloading phase, and he only fires during the firing animation phase. PROBLEM 2: Considering that I've never seen a sharpshooter cause a casualty during the reloading phase, I can only assume that he is ammo-less and vulnerable, never have I seen him fire back. Why is this? Why is he, so to say, "paralyzed" during reloading? It only takes a matter of seconds to chamber a round, would it be wrong of me to say that he should have a round in the chamber during this 15-20 sec reload? We certainly can't conclude that the reloading phase represents actual reloading, or perhaps you agree that it takes 15-20 sec to reload? The reason I conclude that he doens't have an armed weapon in the reload phase is because, like I said earlier, I have yet to see a casualty caused during that time. Now I'm not critisizing (did I spell that right?), I just don't get how some of these supposed abstractions work.<hr></blockquote> Excellent points. This goes back to the mg teams who should be able to increase fire when an enemy squad is charging them. Hell, why can't this be applied to squads too? Why is there such a long laspse time between firing. Why can't BTS double the firing rate of everything when the enemy is within a certain range and closing? It always makes me mad when enemy squads charge me and my men only get off one round of shots before it goes hand to hand. I have to say though, the sharpshooter especially needs to have a higher ROF. I can't understand why this wasn't simulated.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Priest: Hmmm always thought the Tiger was well modeled and damn impressive and never heard of anyone calling the PIV L70 gamey or bad although I have one opponent who hates Hetzers in such a way.<hr></blockquote> This whole thing was supposed to poke fun at the game. It's not meant to be taken seriously...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: Everyone else has visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads. Go to sleep or Santa won't leave you any presents.<hr></blockquote> Heh, our family has suddenly gone from a family who used to open presents on Xmas day to one who now opens on Xmas eve--so in short, Santa already came...and didn't leave me CMBB either.

BUMP--Anyone got an answer here?

Volume 1 of the new CM unit descriptions: GERMANS JagdTiger -- High price is due to massive gun; it both annihilates the enemy and also compensates for player's sexual shortcomings. Panzer IV 70 -- The gamey bastard's choice of tanks. Hetzer -- Great little tank once you get it hull down. From the side or rear, armor is vulnerable to opponent spitting on it. Hummel -- Firing rate = once every battle Tiger -- A Tiger when facing Bazookas. A kitten when facing opposing tanks. Lynx -- Small, fast, great at taking out halftracks...and never bought because it uses up valuable German armor points. Flammpanzer -- Would've been a great tank in CM if not for the fact that flame range is only slightly longer than the tank commander's Zippo set to "high." ALLIES Hellcat -- Only reason for wanting to give your opponent Germans. M8 HMC -- Okay, reason #2. Churchill Crocodile -- For 246 points you get a tank with good armor, lots of HE ammo, a flame gun, and a shelf life of 4 minutes because every German tank within a hundred miles will be aiming for it. Churchill AVRE -- No real use in CM other than letting you reminisce about the days of CC2. Priest -- MG ammo of 12 is attributed to tank crew using whatever bullets which might have rolled under the seats. Churchill (All Models) -- Blazing top speed of 16mph apparently due to Brits experimenting with solar power. Wasp -- Take one against your opponent and you're smart. Take two and use them together and you're a genius. Take three or more and you get a reputation for being gamey and are blackballed by all other players.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Commander: I would add to that code; if (collision with vehicle.smallerthanme && itisEnemy && TheyAreScreaming) then Do Until ScreamingStops BackupAndCrunchItAgain(); Loop Else BlowItUpRealGood();<hr></blockquote> LOL! I think that's the funniest thing I've ever read on this forum. What is that, a combination of C++ and Apple Basic?

I'm using this thing for the first time and me and my opponent have gotten a late start on checking for the first turn. When is the ber file checked? Is it after both players have moved for that turn? I would assume this is the only way it would work, otherwise a player could open the ber file first, see if the next turn is the last and then rush his men towards the flags.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Frenchy: Deadmarsh: your Pacbell email address is bouncing back. Here's my response to you that I could not send. Deadmarsh: > > Sounds good. I'll download the Randomizer tonight and install it. Picking > forces is fine - let's go with Panther 76 rule. All others are fine with me. > One additional one, I don't particularly like mixing forces (ie Heer and SS > or SS and Gebirgsjager, etc. in the same force mix.) If that's ok by you, go > ahead and set one up ... I'll play any side. ><hr></blockquote> Frenchy, It seems PacHell is at it again. I will get the skinny on what their problem is tomorrow. Until then, you can reach me at pencey@onebox.com Thanks Matt for leaving this up. Got my opponents.

Since no one goes into the Opponent Finder room, I have to post this here...at least till the bald one removes it... I'm pretty flexible as far as parameters go but I prefer: --BADCO randomizer --Modest trees and modest hills --Can do 1 turn every day/every other day --Anything up to 3000 pt ME battles --prefer people who like to write a line or two with their turns so I don't feel I'm playing a computer. Please respond to gregor22@pacbell.net before Mr. Clean sends this post back to its rightful place...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Peaveyyyyyyyy: forgot to contribute, so: I like either 1250-1500 pt QB's large map, 75 rules, 40 turns. 40 means you can take your time to recon a bit, as you need to on a large map. ammo is quite an issue. Modest hills and moderate trees allow a lot of sneaking about out of sight. Troops would not be rushed around blindly in real life, and 40 turns lets you be careful with them. Also, it allows the battle to have distinct stages. The 1500 pointer gives you 3 tanks each, which is the minimum I'd want otherwise each one has to be husbanded just too carefully. ME's only now, as I reckon the attacker's bonus is too high. The other way I'll play is on a double-blind scenario, so there's trust that the opponent won't look at your OOB and reinforcement schedule. The maps are just way better than QB's. Try looking at reviews where more than just one or two people have rated it as even. "Vossenack- a second job", is the closest-matched I have seen. get it at Der Kessel. South of sword, off the CD, is almost right. I screwed it up playing as the Germans, and felt slightly underchanged, but it was a blast, about 4000 points each I reckon. At the end I think I'll count the points to see if I was just rubbish! Anyone got any recommendations? I need to start a new one soon, and I do fancy a scenario, preferably not an attack/defend one.<hr></blockquote> I think anything over 3000 pts is too much. I tried a 5000 point battle on a large map myself and it was just as someone else said, a lot of little battles strung together. There was no sense in that winning one of the battles was going to make a difference in the others as the battles took place so far away from each other. By the time you win one on one side of the map, it's too late to get those units over to the other side of the map to reinforce your other forces. Add to that the responsibility to guard the flag you won in that battle with some of those troops so it's not re-taken. If you're gonna do a 5000 pt battle, do it on a small map which is still very large. This might allow more synergy between all the little battles.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman: Sorry to disappoint you Wacky, life is not a female dog.<hr></blockquote> No, but his wife is.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bullethead: Most vehicles in WW2 (not only wheeled vehicles but many tracked vehicles as well) could not pivot in place but turned in an arc like a car. However, in CM, all vehicles pivot in place, even wheeled vehicles. To make up for this, the time required to change facing is pretty long--it represents the time the vehicle would really be spending going around an arc (or backing and filling in a tight spot where there wasn't room to travel the arc). At least that's what I recall BTS saying. As for the time delay before rotation starts, that's just normal orders delay. If you have a stationary unit and give it orders to move, it will always take some amount of time in the next turn before it starts to move. So if you order a vehicle to move off in a direction different than its current facing, you will see the vehicle sit there before it starts rotating to face the direction of travel.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, as a veteran of this game, I'm aware of the orders delay before the turn. What I was talking about was when your vehicle was already moving, stops to make a turn, but doesn't rotate to the new direction until a certain amount of time elapses. I'd like to see BTS implement a new way for these vehicles to move. I'm guessing that they don't use arcs because of extra memory needed to compute paths and such. Maybe in the future this will change.