Col Deadmarsh

Uh...does anyone know what he's talking about? Barrold, I am not suggesting they make the game open code or whatever. I thought we were talking about giving suggestions to BTS vs. giving suggestions to mod makers who do their work for free. I know I was a little flamey towards you on that last post but this "BTS god syndrome" where BTS can do no wrong makes me ill. I see no problem in voicing opinions to make the game better. As for making this game open code, however you got onto that subject, I'm against it. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since we live in a far from perfect world, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If anything for just lessening the no doubt frustrating loss of satisfaction that I would feel if I had produced something I was rightfully proud of and then getting what seems to be an endless stream of "you should have done it this way" comments. I would be hard pressed to not get a little defensive in such an atmosphere and human nature would tend to close more avenues of communication than might otherwise have happened. With your excellent mods, if you were barraged with demanding posts pointing out every nit-picked inperfection (not that my inexpert observations have noticed any...Damn I love those hi-res tanks!!!) I would presume they would lessen your interest in providing them for others instead of doing them for your own enjoyment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Barrold, don't delude yourself. For the most part, BTS is in this for the money. Sure, they have put a lot of love into the game, much more than Atomic puts into theirs but the fact is they are making money off of us. The mod makers do their work for free. Two totally different things here. I don't see a problem with voicing my opinions on what would make the game better. By listening to us, BTS will only make better games in the future which means more money for them. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Long story short, and this may sound kinda wishy-washy, but I think attitude makes as much of a difference as what you've actually got on the map. If you think you're gonna win, you'll have a better shot of doing so than if you think you're getting cut to pieces and there's nothing you can do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which reminds me of a quote somebody once said: "If you think you can or think you can't, you're right."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ps~ Intresting Deadmarsh. Should low quality should remain conscript-green, medium quality add green, high quality add regular? Adding one less experience troop quality gives incentive to play with lesser forces when available rather than be shackled to a narrow range. Giving regular troops to low quality removes the point of having low quality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I hear what you're saying. Maybe we have slighty different reasons for wanting this change. For me, I want a broader selection of quality no matter what level I'm playing--be it Low, Med, or High. Some could argue that Regs would not belong to a low troop quality and they might be right. I only suggested this because it would provide 3 different levels of experience no matter what general level of experience you decide on. As for the people who worry that this might introduce another gamey tactic: If this selection was put into play, two opponents could always decide on whether they want to use med quality with greens, regs, and vets or just buy regs and vets only--just as two people would decide whether or not to use Fionn's 75 rule or not. (With me constantly posting to this thread, I'll be lucky to get any work done today.) ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Intrestingly, no one has worried about the gamey tactics of using regular troops in a high-quality battle (which allows only vets, crack & elite right now). Look out! here comes that gamey "regular" horde of troops....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well put Tiger. Just as the vet troops would be used for the lesser duties in a high-quality battle, what would be the difference in having green troops to choose from with regs and vets? I'd really like to see at least 3 choices per option: Low--Conscripts, Green, Regs Med--Green, Regs, Vets High--Vets, Crack, Elite I hope this post doesn't sound "Veruca Saltish" but I really think that it would make this game even better than it already is. Using the scenario editor is just not a viable alternative because all the randomness is taken out of the game in exchange for what we gain. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

I think there have been some good arguments on this thread after the flaming stopped. I can see how some people might be worried that if we were presented with an option to use green troops with vets that someone would use the greens to scout and have the vets hold the vl's. Then someone else argued that if you send greens out for recon duty, they may not be able to always do the job. They might panic at the thought of advancing while being spotted by an enemy team and head straight back to the rear while a reg or vet squad might continue to advance and look for more signs of the enemy until they are told to stop and take cover. Are the 30 points or so you save by buying green troops worth it when you assign them a task like recon duty that is significantly harder than covering your flank? Has anyone tried this technique on a homemade scenario? I'd love to know how these greens and conscripts react when first shot at. I think what people are really worried about here is their armor being spotted by these cheap teams running from one side of the map to another. With a jeep, you might actually make it across and spot a few things but will this technique really work with infantry? Anyone with half a brain would have infantry out in front of their armor and so when this gamey tactic is used, the greens will be met by an opposing squad or two of infantry with arty or mortar fire included. My guess is they won't last long at all and will never get to see the armor hiding in the back. Opinions? ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

I can't wait for B-17 Flying Fortress 2. Not since Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe has there been a game where you could take on any role in one of those things. I'm anxious to get back into that tail gunner seat and knock fighters out of the sky. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

Chupacabra, just so you don't think I'm an ingrate, I'm gonna praise CM once a week...just to make you happy. I'd really like to know from Steve or Charles why this can't be done if it's true that they already said it's not gonna happen. I mean, it seems like a simple change to make. Chupe...can I call you Chupe...let's say Steve and Charles were all done with your CM2 and they posted that it's gonna come out next week. Now they're bored and have a crapload of time on their hands and is there anything else about CM1 that needs tweaking? If this were the situation, would you still not want this change? Why would it be worse for the game to have more options in the Quick Battles? Here's the problem I have with the current situation: Me and others want to be able to use a broader mixture of experience in troops. You tell us that if that's what we want, then go into the scenario editor and do it that way. Now, here's what's wrong with that option: 1) No random weather 2) No random number of flags 3) Troop selection is done by map maker I don't wanna have to give up these options just to get a broader level of experience in troops. Can someone from BTS comment on this thread and explain why this option wasn't put into Quick Battles and if it's going to be possibly in a future patch? ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

That Rugged Defense ladder doesn't score in the same way that the game does. At least that's what I saw. There was no draw, major loss, minor loss, etc. It's either you win or you lose. Go to Tournament House. They have the best CM ladder there and it's scored how CM was supposed to be scored. If you only get a minor victory in the game, you only get the points for a minor victory instead of a major one. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about let's not? Boy, this sounds like a really good addition to the game. Let's have Steve and Charles take time from making CM2 and introduce a marginally useful feature which you can already get using the scenario editor! I apologize if I sound overly sarcastic, but, well... no I don't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe I don't have hours on end to make my own scenario or didn't that cross your mind? Putting it into the QB screen wouldn't take long at all. You make it sound like Steve and Charles will have to spend months on end to implement this. It's a simple fix and it would provide us with more variety. Why are you against that? If all you care about is CM2, then don't post to this board. Some of us are more interested in in the Western Front and want CM to be the best possible gaming experience around. Some of us don't look at CM1 like it's a guinea pig for the real thing--CM2. Comprende? I plan to buy CM2 but my real love is for the Western Front and I'm sure I'll be playing this more even when the new installment comes out. And since I'll be playing this so much, I'd like to give my thoughts on improving it. I think this is a small fix that would make a lot of players happy. Basically, it means more options. More things to consider when forming your overall strategy. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

I'm in favor of this too. As it is right now, all my squads are pretty much the same. I want to be in situations where I'm thinking about whether I should've put that veteran squad in the building instead of having my green troops hold that location. Let's see this in the next patch. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

Johnno said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What the heck is it with the Hamsters? I feel like a just walked into a room and joined a conversation that has been going on for hours and is totally over my head. (been around the board now for a bout 2weeks and I keep hearing referrence to Hamsters?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Johnno, I too was at a loss when I noticed the fascination some of these people had with particular rodents. The fact of the matter is...we have some sick, sick people in here. It seems that CM is their only cure for not going completely insane so we let them play as long as they behave and don't try to jump the walls to make a run for it. In time, we hope they will be able to re-enter society and live a normal life with weekly doses of CM to keep them stable. The trick Johnno, is to weed out this bad element and find yourself an opponent who is more interested in talking about the effects a Panther gun can do to a Sherman than the effects a hamster can have on the human body when entering through the wrong orifice. Good luck in your search. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

Just to let you know Matt, the image on the Daimler mod is a dead link. By the way, the new mods look great. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

I agree with you Mr. Clark. I think the "Right To Reject" rule is a good one and not only because of this loophole we just found. Someone can always make their own scenarios with exactly the same plan in mind--to have a territorial advantage over his opponent. He could always have two pet maps at his disposal, one to play Allies on and one for the Germs. If you are the type of person who sees this as a challenge being the non-host, possibly being at a disadvantage to an opponent who wants to gain his own advantage, than you don't really have a problem here. For those of us who want an equal playing field, well, the (ROR) "Right of Refusal" or (RTR) "Right To Reject" should be implemented. Pick your favorite acronym and use it. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

Thanks, I'm not sure whether I told my zook team to hide again or not after targeting the ambush marker. The fact still remains though that my enemy could see the line going from my unit to the ambush marker itself which is clearly a bug. Suffice to say, I'm not gonna be ambushing anything until they get this thing fixed. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

Pillar, Why did you even bring this up on the forum if you're not going to disclose this information? What purpose does this serve aside from creating an atmosphere of paranoia? ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What happened was that your 'zook team got spotted and killed. Where they hiding or did you just have them sitting there with them targeting an ambush point? If they are not hiding they can be spotted eventually. That is what happened.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, my zook team was in a foxhole in some trees and hadn't moved in 6 turns. Nor had his tank moved closer to them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But you ARE right about observing the ambush target line. I also have observed this in games. For instance: I spotted some infantry in some woods I was approaching. During my orders phase I could of coarse still see the infantry in the woods but I ALSO could see the ambush target line drawn to the point they were going to ambush. Wierd. I just chalked it up that my men saw the ambush and this let me know that it was an ambush. Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I chalked mine up to a bug. How's that for realism? ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

Well, did a little searching and found out these people had the same problem. I'm guessing this is related to the problem I had with my zook team's ambush marker being spotted by my opponent. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

I'm playing a PBEM right now where I had moved my bazooka team into a foxhole once dug by a now deceased mortar crew. I remained there about 5-6 turns unspotted by the enemy. I gave them an Ambush target order and waited for his tank. All of a sudden, 2 turns later, the German tank saw my zook team and killed them without even moving closer to my position. What makes this even stranger is that my opponent said he could see the line leading up to my ambush marker. I think this situation needs to be re-created so someone can find out what this bug is. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

Exactly Papa. I think this would be the best course of action and would satisfy both the realism nuts and the others who are bothered by the fact that they do not have enough control over their men. Surely there could be a patch that could fix this for CM1 so we don't have to wait. This way, everything remains realistic--the buildings fall down when they should and the men move out when they feel they are in danger. Also, a random factor could be integrated into this that would increase/decrease the chances of them getting out of the building--experience of team, under/not under command, etc. These factors would determine whether or not they remain in the building. The ones who are less experienced/not under command would be "pinned" and find that the house has come crashing down before they could get out. I think maybe if this happened a small amount of the time, it would work well. BTS, I'd really like to see this in a future patch for CM1. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

David said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In other words, if you've got infantry and the enemy has tanks or heavy mortars, don't put your men in a building which is in view of these weapons, or is likely to become such. If they must be there, hide them. The enemy may shell the building anyway, but at least you won't provoke him. But you can't fight from that building under shellfire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't wanna fight under shell fire. Forget about what I said earlier about firing on another squad while my men are being pounded inside by their tank. I confused you there with that line. All I meant was, I want the buildings to hold up longer so I can get my men out the following turn. See, that's the problem. As of right now, I don't have enough control over that. I take a guess that his tank won't move into my LOS and shell building. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. Only the problem is, when I'm wrong, I lose the entire team because I guessed wrong. This shouldn't happen. I should be allowed to make a decision to move them somewhere else. As of now, I don't have the necessary time to do that because the buildings are so brittle. I can't react to what transpired during the turn because I was not given the time to do so. I don't care if we have to sacrafice a little reality for better play. I think the buildings need to be stronger so I can move out my men if the situation becomes dangerous--this meaning, I thought the building was safe, but 20 seconds into the turn, it's taking mass hits from a tank. Why would this be so bad? CM is not 100% realistic. Why not give us more control over infantry by making them safer in buildings which will give us an option the next turn as to where to move them... By the way, even if the AI were to decide to move them out when the building was **heavy damage, could running out of the back of the building be any worse than having the building crush them to death? How would this make it worse? If they stay inside, they will die anyways. Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it... ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

Rest assured Mother, I am in complete agreement with you. I have been bitching about this from day 1. I realize that buildings are not supposed to withstand the shelling of a tank but the problem is, I don't have the time to get my men out of the building when I see it's being shelled. I can put a team in a house in one turn where there is no danger, then come back the next turn and find out a tank has wheeled into LOS and taken out that building with my men still in it. Lemme tell you, this is not fun. Maybe it's realistic that a light building wouldn't be able to take more than 4-5 shots from a med-heavy tank but I have a problem with this since I don't have control over my men all of the time. People, is this realism? Imagine the following conversation taking place: ~~~ Seargant: Men, your orders are to go into that building, use it for cover, and stop the enemy advance. Private: What about that tank that's in the area? If it sees us in there, we'll be dead meat. Seargant: Well, what do you think's the sensible thing to do in that circumstance? Private: To get out of the house ASAP, Searge. Seargant: No silly, you hide under the nearest overhead beam you can find, grab something and hold on really tight, and when the structure comes crashing to the ground with you in it, you hope that you're not one of the 80% of your squad who dies in there. Private: Oh...uh...ok ~~~ People, we need to either do one of two things: 1)Either make the buildings stronger so the player has a chance to give orders on the next turn to get his men outta there when he sees the house is taking hits... or 2)Have less casualties when the builings come down. This way, the player is not heavily penalized for having them in there when the situation became dangerous between turns. If something isn't done about this, it just becomes a guessing game instead of a game of skill. I put those men in that house and I was lucky enough not to have that tank nearby come into LOS... vs. I put those men into that house, the tank came into LOS, shelled the house, and I lost a couple of men but was given the chance to keep them in there next turn and try to kill the enemy platoon advancing towards the house or to get out of there now and preserve what I have left of my squad. CM is at the first option. I believe the second option will give the players more options and make this an even more skillful game because of those options. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What do you guys mean when you all talk of the differences between CC2 and CC3/4?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I can't talk smack about CC4 since I never bought it, but the difference between CC2 and CC3 is huge. CC2 was beautifully designed with exception to the "dancing tank" problem. There was a very balanced mix of infantry strength vs. tank strength meaning tanks did not rule the battlefield. You could be out of armor and still sneak up a German recon team and take out a Sherman with your faust without him seeing you. I think that was what I really liked about CC2 was the fact that infantry was not easily spotted. It seemed like there was always high grass to hide in or something else that would provide good concealment. In CC3, all this changed. Infantry were easily spotted and they became nothing more than walking corpes who succumbed to enemy tank fire. There were little places to hide since it took place in Russia which makes sense but even in buildings they seeemed to be in jeopardy, not unlike CM apparently. What really made everything worse though was that the LOS in CC3 stretched on forever. Tank battles would occur off screen because there was nothing in their line of sight. Hence, you could line up an assault gun from 400m back and pummel the opposing men from almost any angle. Another thing I hated was the new look of the tanks in CC3 (and I see it's carried over to CC5 too.) If you examine the tanks, it looks as though a 4th grader drew them. I dunno if Atomic's art department hires graduates from the nearby elementary school or what but the tanks look like sh*t now. Yes, it's a 3-D game but in CC2 the tanks had a dimensional look to them. In CC3 and now CC5 they look flat. Very flat. One more thing...christ, I could go on forever about this issue...the fighting had a different style in CC2 than in CC3. This is hard to explain and I'm not really gonna try to do so. All I can say is, I had more fun using the infantry in CC2 than in CC3. The men in CC2 seemed more like...real men, and you felt their agony when one of them died. In CC3, this feeling was lost somehow. Anyone else get this impression? ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

Yobobo, the new options for the User List are great. Now I have 3 different ways to pick out my next prey. You are da man! ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...

True. On the CC2 ladder, we played T-House for the "chess-style" rating system while we we're also on Cases which is much more about politics and how often you play. Had fun though getting to #1 on Cases before I got sick of dealing with all that crap. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat...