Louie the Toad

Richard, My gaming history is similar to yours with the addition of lots of WWII miniatures. BUT as with you, when I got this game, I immediately called my gamer buddies and said exactly " this is what we have been waiting for!" Contented Toad

My PBEM opponent thinks the sound is rifle butts against heads. But I think it is pistol fire since it seems to also occur at longer ranges than 10 meters. Snappy Toad

Makes sense to me. " Go see what that is." -- Oliver Hardy Sensible Toad

Hey Pacific supporters, wait your turn! Each Theater of WWII has something different to offer the gamer, and isn't that what we are really talking about here -- A GAME. In terms of gaming I think the original schedule set for CM is pretty good: CMBO CMBB CM(Desert) and CM(Early Years) as I recall. Each has its own unique challenges for the gamer/tactician. I would venture a guess that after seeing the results of CMBB that CM(desert) might be rethought (because of many similarites). I see this as a possiblity, but one that would be terribly disappointing personally. On the other hand CM(Early Years) '36 to 42' or so would be a GAMER's delight just due to the equipment alone. Then add to that the different nations' organization of troops and the experiments with tactics and combinations of forces. What a great amount of FUN this will be. Anticipating Toad

Michael E, Yup, upon closer scrutiny I recognize the winkie and not the smiley face. Hey, it was late. Sleepy Toad

Yes I use Franko's Rules too. I am probably the one who mouths off about them the most. I have tried them with platoon sized battles and company sized battles. All for great enjoyment. It does slow things down, but makes the AI a formidable opponent who wont cheat. I tried the new rule about no aiming but not enough to give a verdict. I use level 5 to move around in tight places, only to move the particular unit into a corner or such, something it would be able to do in real life but that the AI has great trouble doing. I also think it is ok to use the "map views" 7 and 8 to LOOK at the situation. My assumption is that as commander I am getting info from my guys and they update the map. I never use the map to manipulate units only to view the situation. I also find that the Level 1 view is lacking in depth (maybe its me or my video card) and the map view at least gives some perspective that one would have in real life. In fact, that is the question and the reason for using Franko. "What would it be like in real life." If I am going to play a game using Franko's Rules, I use them. If I want to play a "regular" game I use everything available to me. I don't mix things together. Pvt. Ryan is right on with the Tree problem. If you can run the LOS tool from you unit out of the woods and it stays blue then you should be able to see from out of the woods. So just use the arrow key to inch forward your Tab 1 view until you have cleared the sprite. FTCR Toad

My favorite sound from the enemy is when I hear a shout to the effect ... "I'm out of ammo!" Reminds me of the media announcing that "we have forces on the ground now" or "we have located (the target) and can now track him from the air and from the ground." Irritated Toad

Michael E, I would not call that gamey. Manipulating the quirks in the AI to attain an UNFAIR advantage is the definition of gamey, I believe. One of the quirks being that you can buy an army of King Tigers. But I think this is different because it is an attempt to simulate the real life ability of FOs to adjust attacks. Since the AI restricts the flexibilty that should exist in arty attacks, I see the actions taken to attain a closer match with reality to be perfectly fine. What would be gamey is the withholding of this information from an apponent since it should be available to all. Hence the question I raised to start this thread. Unsatisfied Toad

Aah, I see Michael D beat me to the punch. Yes OPEN FIRE. It is within an arms reach as I type this, really. My favorite PBEM opponent and I recently finished a QB meeting engagement that felt very much like Ambush ! The components were: 1. A German vs a US platoon inf platoon. 2. Small or medium map. 3. Large hills 4. Village 5. Moderate trees 6. Clear weather 7. Franko's True Combat Rules Hey Michael D, I am trying to get that son of mine you copied the Ambush! rules for, to try the CM Demo. He is a real Ambush! fan but he must convert! obey, OBEY !! Controlling Toad

Dear JasonC, It was I most recently I think, that started the thread about having an operational or strategic level game that generated the tactical CM battle. I have asked the same question at least one other time too --- both without satisfactory results until now. This looks great. I began playing the 2 and a ref type of games back in the early sixties. At one time we had two groups of guys (and a ref) playing Battle of the Bulge AH. It all fell apart however when we discovered well into the game that there were 2 different versions of the map that had road junctions that were not in the same place ! I would like to playtest your proposal. I have two other CM players that would be eager to try this. A Trio Toad

Dear Foamy, Please present a good reason why you should be able to know if you can be seen by the enemy. Blinded by the Light Toad

Lest we forget: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Originally posted by Commander: there is no way a sharpshooter could reload, aim and shoot twice like that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <hr></blockquote> Tell it to the Warren Commission ! Remindful Toad

Don't ya just love this game !!! Occasionally someone earns the Silver Star. This was that occasion. Now if players bought only HQ units for infantry--- that would be gamey. Sgt. Rock aka Toad

I think attempting to get a shot at the enemy on especially the opening GO! is a cheating, gamey, way to play. I would immediately stop playing with anyone who tried this. Maneuverist Toad

Has anyone found a good way to limit the number of rounds that fire from a spotter? I have two important targets and 50 rounds. The spotter and at least 2 HQ can see the targets. One of the HQ is in command of the spotter. All are in contact with each other. I would like approximately half of the rounds to fire on each target. Is there a best way to do this? Spotted Toad

Dear Cpl Carrot: An interesting method if you HAVE to rush a MG unit. Reminds me of the way Shermans can knock out a Tiger. Attack from two different directions, forcing the enemy unit to choose one target and suffer from the other one. I think not gamey at all, in fact a rather innovative solution through accidental discovery. The enemy MG has a solution as well. Hide a squad or even SPLIT SQUAD on either side of the MG in support. Sgt. Spinach aka Louie the Toad

Splash, From your experience which do you think the AI targets first given a choice: Halftracks loaded with inf. Inf on the ground Halftracks empty I don't know myself but it is an interesting question. Motoring Toad

Dear George III, Have you tried Franko's True Combat Rules for a serious challenge vs the AI ? Try a small battle < 500 pts. Use all or some of the rules as you think mirror reality. My first impression regarding your game option is that it isn't historically realistic with regard to tactics but it certainly would get one into playing the game quickly. I also think that your option may magnify one of the (IMHO) irritating experiences in this otherwise great game. Namely, kills made by enemy units at the GO command

This is my story and I'm sticking to it ! Heard about CM from somewhere, can't remember now. Downloaded the demo. What a mess. It was like my cursor was made out of flypaper. Whatever I clicked on seemed to stick to it and I couldn't shake it loose. Tried keyboard commands and succeeded in blowing up my own bazooka team with its own bazooka !! Thought the game had potential in overall look and I liked the concept, but the interface was impossible. It seemed worse than Close Combat. So I let it be. Then I read a positive article by Wm. Trotter in PC Gamer. Now I have had great regard for the reviews in this magazine. I have never been disappointed by their recommendations. So I could not believe Trotter's review. I emailed him directly. Interestingly enough he explained that his initial experience was almost exactly like mine. He went on to write that I should not give up on it. I took his advise, had much better experiences, eventually bought the game, have not bought another computer game in over a year and have become addicted (my wife will testify). My brother and cousin both own the game because of me. Soon a couple of my sons will be assimilated. Smiling Toad

I agree: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Seems to me that differences in leadership of a whole unit are more worth depicting than differences in capability among members of crews. I admit that is a judgement call, but I can't avoid the sense that leadership qualities generally had a more consistent and far-reaching effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An important part of this game for me is choosing tasks for units based on the commander's capabilities. As a player, each of us is a commander at least one command level higher than the highest ranking unit on the map. For the MOST part, commanders know the abilities of their subordinates. If we had long campaign games where there was time between battles to "assess" a commander's abilities in the previous engagement then having commanders with unknown abilities and commanders with abilities that grew better or worse might make for an even better game. Alas, we do not have a game where units increase or decrease their battle effectiveness, except thru casualties. Still satisfied, Toad

Michael, Didn't we hear that CMBB will have tank HQ with bonuses system similar to the infantry platoons and HQ system we now have? IMHO there is a perception among many players that the single tank vehicle and its crew constitue an entire combat unit which operates independently from any other command. I know that the way CM is set up tends to enable this thinking. But the truth is, as many know, that each tank is part of a larger unit and should be treated, in terms of command control, more like an infantry squad is treated in CM now. Irwin Toad

Dear Bad, Have you tried the game Panzer Commander? It has what you are thinking about. However you are a tank Platoon commander and that is it. It can be an interesting game when you use it with a Voice Command system and add all of the patches. By the way, Pz Comm and Sid's Gettysburg are the only other games I have wanted to play since receiving CMBO more than a year ago. And then played Pz Comm and Gettys only for a few hrs each. Probably have logged more than a thousand hours on CMBO and the Forum in the past year. Basking Toad

Swede or anyone: Maybe I should ask my question with reference to Awareness: Do you think that a squad that is in command control is more aware of enemy units (spot them quicker) than a squad that is not in command control? AND will a squad that is in command control and whose HQ is aware of enemy units, become aware quicker due to the fact that the HQ has some effect on the squad? As in "Sgt Rock, this is Lt. Jones, look to your right, there is enemy movement over there". Wondering Toad

Actually I believe it is from the ancient language of Boardgame. It refers to a 3 player game where the 3rd player is a referee. Tomb Raider Toad

Doug, I know, but it is the best we can do right now. Coping Toad