Louie the Toad

Hey PiggDogg, You and I are about the same age. But my first wargame was given to me by the family of my sitter. I know I was younger than 10. I still have the original game (somewhat the worse for wear) It is called BLOCKADE and the copyright date is 1941. That got us started on making our own games and and I went on to purchase Gettysburgh by AH (the square rather than hex version)as my first purchase. Does anyone remember the name of a game where in a battle you gave your troops an order from several choices by selecting a corresponding card. The enemy did the same. When the cards were revealed a matrix was used to determine at least part of the outcome of the battle. I might still have this game somewhere packed away like the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Dusty Toad

If victory conditions were set randomly for each side by the AI at the beginning of the game, without the other player's knowledge and these victory conditions were generated from a list of many possibilites, each player would be challenged to accomplish his own objectives, while trying to decipher and keep the enemy from accomplishing his objectives. So player A receives his orders to take the crossroads and hold it at all costs. While player B receives his orders to preserve his forces by retreating them off the map. Both players could achieve a tie by following their orders. A victory would go to the player who best followed his orders plus interdicted the enemy. With a long list of possible 'Orders' the chances for some interesting matchups would result. Smashing the enemy would not always be the best approach. This does then, put an emphasis on what would be more akin to Operational Orders. But it would give us the opportunity to try different objectives and new ways of approaching the game than fighting to the last man. Not the last of Toad

Another approach, more AI complicated, would be my description in my reply to Michael Dorosh in the Scenario Talk Forum under Dynamic Flags battle. Similar minds are gathering..... Toad

Michael, In light of your Dynamic Flags scenario, I would appreciate your thoughts on this. I have quoted myself from another thread --- It just occured to me that part of the 'uncertainty' of Operations is that your objectives and the enemy's may not be directly opposed to each other. For example, maybe my objective and therefore my Victory, is to take the bridge. Maybe my opponent's objective and his Victory is to minimize his casualties. While I get points for taking the bridge, he gets points for conserving his force (in order to fight another day). Victory Conditions could be used to simulate Operational Orders under which both players operate secretly from each other. Once again, maybe my orders -- Victory Conditions -- are to inflict as many casualties upon the enemy as possible, without regard to my own. Whereas my opponent is to hold onto the crossroads until the end of the game. Yes, there would be some scenarios where the battle would be like ships passing in the night, but that would happen with an Operational Overlay too. Using a list of say six to ten Operational Orders the AI could assign each commander an Order that the other commander would only be able to figure out by the actions of his opponent. So now a player would have to determine what the enemy was up to and try to prevent it, PLUS attain his own Victory Conditions. Victory Points for following the Order would be enough to determine the outcome of the game.

Aside from all of the numbers, according to Panzer Aces by Kurowski, once an AT gun is sighted, mostly from its muzzle flash, its life is equal to the time it takes a german tank crew to fire one and occasionally two shots at it. If HE is already loaded this would be about 5 seconds. If HE is not loaded and the first shot misses, add another 15 to 20 seconds. Several references to ammo stockpiles blowing up as a result of hits and near misses. German crews seemed very good at spotting the enemy (in this case Russians). Enemy crews seemed very poor at hitting or penetrating German Tigers. Circa 1943 Timing is everything.... Toad

Sir Agustus, Yes. You know how good it feels when you hear one of your tank commanders yell, "Got him !". And you know how awful it is when you see the number of your own men on your Unit Information screen start going down. So how about a record of unit successes (kills) right there, without having to use the Enter button and having the entire screen halved in the process. This would add extra enjoyment to the replay of a turn as well. Lets have more fun. Toad

I think it would be helpful (convenient) if the 'casualties caused' info on the INFO/KILLS screen were on the UNIT INFORMATION screen in some manner. Maybe just + + + or * * * symbols as a visual aid so you would know at a glance which units are being effective. I am not asking for a change in the FOW as to knowledge about kills. I think this little addition would add a great deal of satisfaction to game play. Wanting to be satisfied..... Toad

I find the incident to be totally realistic although one does have to wonder what action identifies the target as 'dead' and therefore no longer worthy of being attackedby the AI . Could be something to do with movement. Hit em again, hit em again, harder, harder --Toad

Hammer, Are you guys sure you are sending the same file back and forth? It sounds like you might have been playing two versions of the same game for a turn or so. This could happen if one of you renamed the file before sending it and they got mixed up. Just a thought.... Toad

I opened the new site. Went to the welcome screen, and there under RECENT NEWS HEADLINES the first line stated: Pre orders now being taken !!! However the second line stated: for Airborne Assault I nearly broke a finger , er.. a toe -- Toad

AcePilot Without the Forum the following interests would go unfulfilled: Scenario design and testing Making Mods Military History Military Technical Strategy and Tactics Worldwide opinions, comments Suggestions for improvements And Many others The Forum allows CM to have something for everyone. Happy Toad

Print is too small. Aging Toad

Rommel22, "Employing his standard tactic, his plan was to drive quickly into the enemy, take advantage of the resulting confusion and smash him." p.358 Elsewhere it states that after charging into the enemy, he would move his tanks off to the flank, regroup and charge again. With ratios of between 50 to 180 kills (tanks, assault guns and anti tank guns) to 1 Tiger killed I wonder about Russian player personal (not game) morale in CMBB. "I'll be the Germans". "No I wanna be the Germans" "You were the Germans last time". "No, you were!". Toad

Michael, Yes, I know. I also knew if I ran this one up the flagpole, you would be among the first to salute it. Thanks for your answer. Toad

From 'Panzer Aces' page 351 "While the panzer crews slept, Wittmann led a patrol (on foot) into enemy territory and discovered a camoflaged anti tank gun and several tanks." ( ) are mine After his crews woke up, he briefed them and they all drove down to the site of the AT gun. There they blew that up plus eleven enemy T 34s which appeared on the scene. Verrrry Innnterressting ... Toad Of course he scouted ahead during 'Operations Time' so it doesn't count. Right ? !!!

Ok, so now we know. No Operational tie in with CM. But here is something to think about..... It just occured to me that part of the 'uncertainty' of Operations is that your objectives and the enemy's may not be directly opposed to each other. For example, maybe my objective and therefore my Victory, is to take the bridge. Maybe my opponent's objective and his Victory is to minimize his casualties. While I get points for taking the bridge, he gets points for conserving his force (in order to fight another day). Victory Conditions could be used to simulate Operational Orders under which both players operate secretly from each other. Once again, maybe my orders -- Victory Conditions -- are to inflict as many casualties upon the enemy as possible, without regard to my own. Whereas my opponent is to hold onto the crossroads until the end of the game. Yes, there would be some scenarios where the battle would be like ships passing in the night, but that would happen with an Operational Overlay too. Using a list of say six to ten Operational Orders the AI could assign each commander an Order that the other commander would only be able to figure out by the actions of his opponent. So now a player would have to determine what the enemy was up to and try to prevent it, PLUS attain his own Victory Conditions. Victory Points for following the Order would be enough to determine the outcome of the game. I don't know, but it seems to me that something like this is within the scope of CM: BO, BB, XX. Modestly proposed by ...... Toad

Nac4 I am looking forward to CM the Early Years '36 to 43' because I thoroughly enjoyed board games that came out using these units in tactical encounters. I disagree, because of my gaming experience, that only the scenery will change. Would you mind describing your credentials with regard to wargaming, playing and design. Curious Toad.

As one who has brought up the topic of Operational Overlays at least twice before... I have this to say: If I knew how to develop an operational component for CM that I so much desire, my strategy and tactics to get this done would include: 1) To privately remind CM of all of the posts on this topic, indicating there is a lot of interest and convince them that this would be a great move, both for 'the sake of the game' and financially. 2) Offer my services, either contractually or voluntarily to get the job done. But, that's just the Toad way.

redwolf, There were some lengthy posts about this. I especially remember discussions about movement and area coverage, zones of control, supplies and so on. I know about the refereed games of which you speak. But these folks thought they could develop something, using the AI. That was my impression anyway. Not being fluent in coding and all, maybe they were just lobbing smoke shells, but they (individually) seemed motivated and knowledgeable. What can I say? My solution was to use a board game to generate the battles. --- Avalon Toad

Several months ago there were a few enterprising lads who each on his own was going to try to develop operational formats from which CM battles could be generated. A terribly ambitious task. But I must ask: What has become of them? "Let's split up and look for the monster" -- Toad

Two Thoughts. I find it odd that the friendly soldiers riding on top of the vehicles as described would not suffer ill effects from the WP. Also upon reading the passage again, I believe it is referrering to both the smoke from the WP AND WEATHER RELATED FOG which was covering the town. So I am not convinced that this was an example of purely smoke and therefore not the best scenario to use to determine its effectiveness. Foggy bottom Toad

Personally I think they should be called TOADADS

Drat, I spelled coffee wrong. The curse of having a friend named Tony Coffey

Musings... Maybe its just me, but when I size up battle field maps in CMBO or any wargame really, I can't help but looking at them with US Civil War 'glasses' on. So I look for the 'good ground' and think about getting to a position 'the fastest with the mostest', and use other civil war expressions. Or maybe it is just that the tactics are timeless but I like the romanticized vocabulary. I find it somehow less appealing to use modern day or WWII tactical or operational expressions. The coffey tastes better when the Toads are downstream.

Call me a traditionalist or a minimalist but it seems to me that ooda is 1. "Get there firstest with the mostest" 2. Then refine from that maxim to fit the circumstance. (for example: the mostest can mean the most units or the most fire power or the most eyeballs) KISS a Toad