Ice

Hey WB: I agree, 25-40 turns is optimal for me. The really long battles involve an enormous, spread-out time commitment and often they are more about logistics than combat, i.e. spending a lot of those turns getting multitudes of assets into position. The only battle I have ever abandoned, never to return, was CLASH OF EAGLES because, quite frankly, I was bored. I think a 25-40-turn battle really concentrates the mind. And the need to "get the war over with" is a significant challenge in some of your own ingeniously designed scenarios. Fighting as the Allies in LE LOREY - A HARD STAND recently, my tendency to get my ducks obsessively in a row resulted in a Minor Victory that would have been Major if I had had five more turns to mop up the last Victory Flag to the South. Of all the scenario designers, you are the one who is most creative in terms of making time available a tactical issue.

Covert Ops is next up for me. Any opinions? I know it only has a handful of new missions but are they any good?

Area fire is very helpful with artillery spotters. If their LOS cannot lock onto a specific enemy target, then area fire is still effective in suppressing the bad guys, certainly better than trying to move the spotter...

[bump] That's a good question! [This message has been edited by Ice (edited 10-04-2000).]

So what are "the many areas" that you are "not happy with"? Let's find out if your criticisms are valid and the response to them civilized...

BeWary: I'd BeHappy (sorry!) to PBEM but I have a full-time job, a toddler, a new-born and a long-suffering spouse so I could probably manage only one or two turns a day. And I have no experience with PBEM although I have been considering it and will re-read the section about it in the manual. If I have not succeeded in putting you off, e me at bisaacson@dreamworks.com.

BeWary: What was the final result of your battle?

Thank you for your considerate and helpful reply, Wild Bill. Yes, I moved my troops up fast, as there is good cover on both flanks; getting to the village up the middle road is more of a fight. I was able to bring several of my tanks to bear on the Tigers but was unable to improve on my customary attrition rate of a just a little better than 1:2 in fights between Shermans and Tigers. My Pershings were engaged on the opposite flank. So, a tank battle lasting about five turns ensued, but I preserved my infantry (with the exception of the company that got run over by the Tigers) and was able to make the final assault on the severely-battered village successfully once the last Tiger was out of action. I believe my own mistake accounted for the draw instead of a minor or tactical victory, as, ten victory points ahead in the 24th turn, I moved an assault vehicle away from an Allied flag on the right, causing this flag to revert to a question mark by the end of the battle. Stupid. So: I'm replaying the CD version per your advice and I need to decide what to do to protect any infantry near the western road from turn 15. I wouldn't want to fight this battle without infantry on my left flank, and there's the problem in a nutshell. I reckon I could move them even further up-field so that they are not literally on top of the arriving Tigers and have some time to react to the threat from the rear. I could hold them back to ambush the Tigers, avoiding a rearguard action entirely, or I could get everything into position even faster than last time so that I can take the village and attack the Tigers from the cover of the (remaining) buildings by the time they appear. That's a tall order. Maybe this time I'll have my Pershings lurking in cover on the left flank. Whatever, the demanding thing about this situation is that one's resources are likely to be fully committed all over the map by the time this formidable new local threat arrives... I think it's a great challenge and a genuinely dramatic turn of events. [This message has been edited by Ice (edited 09-19-2000).]

************* SPOILER ***************** Actually I played this to a nasty draw last night as the Allies. Saw my beautifully coordinated three-pronged assault go up in flames -- literally -- when the controversial four Tigers arrived behind the U.S. front lines and fifty meters from an infantry copmpany that was decimated after putting up a brave fight and claiming one and a half victories. Here is my question: In single-player mode, as the Americans, is it better to play the revised scenario or is the new version only applicable to PBEM-ming and single-player combat with the human playing the Germans? I have V.1.05. It's interesting, see; I do not know whether the placement/timing of these reinforcements is a brilliant, deliberate, if sadistic masterstroke of scenario design by Wild Bill, in which case it's only fair to tackle the original version again, or whether the issue is now considered sufficiently unbalancing to game-play to make the newer version preferable even when playing the Americans against the AI... Obviously an answer from Wild Bill himself would be the mother-lode but all comments are appreciated... ...and yes, I have done a search and read all previous posts... [This message has been edited by Ice (edited 09-18-2000).]

It's on the CD! It's a great one...

Thanks, Actor. I was stumbling towards the same conclusion myself. Thanks for tipping me over the finish line.

A full game movie is not eye candy. It's a tactical tool like an AAR.

Hmmmm, very interesting. You may well be right. I did lose several tanks but two Shermans lost for every one Tiger destroyed seems to be a reasonably acceptable rate of attrition in this game. I may have to hug my armor a little more. When I played the Chambois scenario I lost much of my armor -- not all -- but eliminated all the enemy vehicles and scored a Major victory. In that scenario the ongoing Victory tally seemed to reflect my territorial advantage where in PARIS it didn't. Oh well, now I'm off to Aachen, wish me luck and thanks for your input!

BeWary: I know you addressed your question to Pirate Bill but do you have any theories about why the same thing might have happened to me? I kicked butt as the Allies in A WALK IN PARIS, with at least a 5:1 casualty ratio and prisoners galore, with none of my troops taken. All victory flags were captured and held from Turn 15. The rout was so complete that the Germans should have surrendered by turn 20; it was a turkey shoot after that and the biggest failure of AI I have experienced in this otherwise excellent game. Even while all this was happening, my morale never went above 68 and my Victory score stuck at 53. My only theory is this: I don't like to "cheat" but I saved the game at Turn 7 in order to replay some tank maneuvers and learn how to defeat the formidable German armor. I continued with the battle when the outcome was a little more favorable to me. I hated myself in the morning. Might this have influenced the final score? [This message has been edited by Ice (edited 09-11-2000).]

Point well taken, Grendel. I only suggested a 2-d version of a full battle replay if BTS were absolutely convinced that a 3-d version couldn't be implemented.

This just happened to me in A WALK IN PARIS...

Chris B: I think you have just explained precisely why the system you describe could not to implemented in CM. The game is dynamic; in other words, you can save a game, play a turn, go back to the saved game and play the same turn again with a different result! This means that CM replays must be exactly that, replays rather than (literally) re-plays, i.e. a re-calculation of a set of inputs without dynamic outcomes. It's a clever way to fudge a 'replay'-like function but it would not work in CM.

Seems to me that a seventy-minute movie (in the case of the longer battles) with full sound effects, moving camera and animations is too much to expect a PC to handle. And it would be even more demanding if you could switch off FOW to watch the enemy's actions. It's not just about memory, it's also about storage. A three-minute ROGUE SPEAR mission replay is about 1.5MB, I seem to recall... It would be more practical to ask BTS to implement a 2-d alternative, or there will be nothing at all, even in CM2.

I'm convinced there is a less resource-hogging alternative to the much-requested full-battle replay, i.e. a basic, top-down, 2-D graphical plot of the entire battle, with all friendly and enemy units, movements and weapon usage tracked and identified against a simplified terrain grid. Other information could be presented as well, such as turn number, clock, scores and a running total of casualties and fatalities. There would be no need to deal with sound effects, a moving camera POV or just about anything else that makes the entire-battle "movie" impractical. Simple vehicle and unit icons could be used, with no need to depict detail. Flight sims have the feature I'm describing; it's very helpful and the lack of 3-D hardly diminishes its value as a record of tactical prowess (or lack thereof). It's not a "movie", but it would be a whole lot better than nothing. And it could be saveable, along with the AARs. I regret not being able to save my game-generated AARs, as I am unlikely to remember my last score in a particular battle when I want to play it again. What do you think? BTS? [This message has been edited by Ice (edited 09-06-2000).]

I'm convinced there is a less resource-hogging alternative, i.e. a basic, top-down, 2-D graphical plot of the entire battle, with all friendly and enemy units, movements and weapon usage tracked and identified against a simplified terrain grid. Other information could be presented as well, such as turn number, clock, scores and a running total of casualties and fatalities. There would be no need to deal with sound effects, a moving camera POV or just about anything else that makes the entire-battle "movie" impractical. Flight sims have the feature I'm describing; it's very useful and the lack of 3-D hardly diminishes its value as a record of tactical prowess (or lack thereof). It's not a "movie", but it would be a whole lot better than nothing. And it could be saveable, along with the AARs. I regret not being able to save my game-generated AARs, as I am unlikely to remember my last score in a particular battle when I want to play it again. What do you think? BTS?

Thanks Matt... ...and your CM site is a Very Good Thing...

Does anyone know why one asterisk or two appeared beside a building designator during my recent CHANCE ENCOUNTER mission? I think the building was occupied but I do not know if this is what the asterisk(s) referred to. I cannot find this in the manual.

*********** CHAMBOIS SPOILER *********** Wow, that is a bloody battle, Wild Bill, a real tough go. It's not so much a meeting engagement for the Poles as a purposeful, grim, deadly assault, as they attempt to attrit the tight, lethal cluster of German tanks perched on a hill to the south east and retain sufficient resources and command cohesion to be able to secure some real estate once the infantry is within firing range. And if you can take out one of his tanks for every two of yours, you're in with a shot of winning this, but at great cost. The big German tactical advantage is that they do not have to *move* their armor unless they choose to run for the exits, a point already made by players fighting this from the German side; you can surely win by running. When the human player fights as the the Poles, however, the AI chooses to make this a defensive engagement for the Germans, duking it out to the bitter end rather than heading for home. Is this at all inconsistent with the German strategic aim in this mission (i.e. to get out of Dodge)? My armor was decimated like Pathfinder1's, although I managed to retain a tank and a couple of other miscellaneous assault vehicles until about Turn 20, by which time I had captured three flags and had my infantry planted in the woods on the far left flank and in the trees ahead of the farm buildings in the middle. I was hanging on by my fingernails, however, as the Germans have considerable reserves, including -- on this occasion -- one surviving Panther and a couple of other assault vehicles and by Turn 25, I had to make a limited tactical retreat. Retained those flags, however, and scored a Major victory but suffered about three times the casualties (incl. KIA) than the opposition. Just a couple more questions about this characteristically brilliant mission: - Am I right in saying that this battle is about ATTRITION? Is there any way to fight it in order to avoid these terrible losses, especially of tanks? - Should you attempt to enter the town by the road on the Allies' far right flank, or is this a red herring? - The post-battle map reveals a large German mobile force installed in the town in the southwestern corner of the map. If these troops had come to the rescue of their comrades at about Turn twenty, I would have been outflanked. Is this a flaw in the TacAI, or a deliberate mission-design choice? - Was it true in the real battle that the Germans had such a commanding position on the high ground in the south east to rain shells on the Poles in almost all locations? [This message has been edited by Ice (edited 09-02-2000).]

Many thanks for the great response, guys. I looked up the previous threads last night, followed their advice -- and Pillar's -- and loaded up the Chambois scenario. After eight turns it ain't looking good for my Poles but it's not a rout yet and I'm learning fast. Got hammered in the open ground on the left flank because I did not move my armor fast enough (thanks for the tip, Grim). I'm finding the lowest camera view useful in identifying helpful terrain from which to hunt and reverse (thanks, Tankersley). I will take your advice Feuhrerguy, and devise a couple of relevant QBs, but meanwhile I will see Chambois through to the bitter end and play it again when better prepared. Meanwhile would anyone care to comment on: - When is the best time to disembark infantry from tank transports when there is quite a distance for them to cover before they can engage? - Should armor be sent in waves, with several vehicles kept in reserve, perhaps even for half the battle? - Should roads be used or avoided for tanks under fire?

I'm about to start my third mission vs the AI. I did well in the Tutorial and Bruyeres but those were mainly infantry actions. When I loaded the mission in which the Poles face off against retreating Germans in a village (I forget the title) I gulped, as I have no idea how to deploy/use all these vehicles. And I've never fought inside a town environment. I don't mind trial-and-error but it's preferable to have some grounding in simple tactical knowledge to work from; I don't know where to start and I feel like an idiot. While replies of any length would be greatly appreciated, even brief hints from some of you vets would be welcome... Many thanks in anticipation...