dfgardner

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keith: dfgardner, If you haven't already, check out my historical scenarios on the Gamer's Net Scenario Depot: "The Bloody Causeway" "Indian Fighting" I too prefer to play and create historically accurate scenarios.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow! Thanks Keith, excellent site. Re: Scenarios: Keep 'em coming. Folks like you taking effort to design scenarios like these is what will keep this interesting for some time to come.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen: An interesting subject For me, the key point is decisions[/b<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Robert, agree 100%. I like to start with the historical setup and see what develops. I also think playing against a "live" opponent who is interpreting the situation presented and making his/her decisions accordingly is very challenging.

1. 12 O'Clock High 2. Das Boot 3. Hell is for Heroes 4. The Dirty Dozen 5. The Blue Max 6. Stalag 17 7. King Rat 8. Ft. Apache Those are my tops for storyline. For action: 1. SPR 2. Cross of Iron 3. Zulu 4. Memphis Belle 5. Battle of the Buldge (only for the Panzerlied scene...I was ready to fight after watching them sing the song).

Here's a web site with a lot of nice pics: http://www.inf.upol.cz/~stepanos/ww2.html

As a non designer but a player I find being presented with as close to the actual forces involved in the scenario is what piques my interest. I like to see if, faced with the same relative tactical decisions the real leaders faced, I can better their actions. As a player, I understand the limitations a designer must face (terrain, exact placement etc). Just try to get me close to the units involved and I'm satisfied. That's also why my preference is for historical scenarios or operations rather than the DYO stuff (not slamming the DYOers...DYO is a fantastic element that allows all gamers the ability to tailor this game to their own preferences.) I don't find the challenge in constructing 2 elite forces made up of units that really would not be found together as fun as facing the challenges the "real" guy did. BTW Wild Bill, any possibility of posting a TOE of what the various units were made up of on the web site: ie, the standard US armor company in 1944 had x units represented by this game pieces, etc. Or, has someone already done this somewhere?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: If you and your opponent can agree, and you trust each other, than you could always open an Operation up in the editor and modify that setting to a lower range, although the tempatation to change a few other settings would be strong! Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Madmatt. I take it then the scenario designer designer sets the no man's land for a follow on battle and the previous battle has minimal effect upon the new setup? In other words, if a stop an opponent prior to reaching his objective, but the scenario desinger called for follow on battle to be set up as if the attacker reached objective, then that's how the follow on battle setup phase will be started (think I said that right ). Not critiquing, just trying to understand.

CM community, which do you prefer: Operations consisting of several battles or individual scenarios? Personally, when playing a "human" opponent, my preference is towards the Operations. I like the fact that the results of each battle can impact the forces available for the next one. How does the AI do in Operations?

Question for BTS and Independant Operations scenario designers. Does the design mechanics of CM impose limitations on where follow on forces will enter a follow on battle in an Operations scenario? In two PBEM operations (Drive to Mortain and Task Force Rose), my email opponent and I were surprised at where the "AI" began battle "y" after battle "x" was completed. In the cases in question, the defenders seemed to have limited the attackers advance quite forcelly, yet when the next battle began, the defender was often displaced "rearward" close to 1000 meters. Additionally, the terrain displacement resulted in what appeared to be less defensible positions than the ground previously defended (at still occupied by the defender at the conclusion of the battle). Is the setup area dependant upon the results of the previous battle, are more dependant upon the designers setup inputs? By the way, we both enjoyed these operations tremendously.

Think of these basic concepts: Mission: understand what you've been tasked to do. Enemy: recon, recon, recon. Terrain: the mapboard will dictate the likely avenues of approach. If you think you'd hide a weapon in this or that clump of trees, then hit it with fire (your opponent probably came to the same conclusion). Troops: understand the force you have on your side. You can't fight a pitched armor battle with 2 tanks. Time: how many turns to accomplish your mission. Above all get in there an have fun. The first victory you achieve will make you feel like you've accomplished something. Above all else, prepare to be assimilated!

Could the fascination be something to do with the fact that rarely is a scenario created where an average german unit is engaged with an average allied unit? It seems most scenarios deal with a more elite german force taking on a more average allied one, and a wider variety of german equipment as opposed to more standard allied equipment. Could that be because most of the average battles fought by an average allied unit against average german unit resulted in allied victory and would not make an enjoyable "game" scenario? Also, for me, playing the germans, I get to utter such comments like, "shooten upzen the amerikanisher tankeshen!" and stuff like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maybe?: The more I think of it, the more I figure it probably was a glitch of some sort... Thanks Madmatt and others<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did you notice the AI firing at any other locations? A good tactic would be to recon by fire those areas you might suspect enemy forces to be located. Having played the Americans in this operation, I found myself dumping arty on any likely area. Once, I even dumped it behind a house and, lo and behold, got an 88! My game was PBEM, not against the AI, but a very similar circumstance occured.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Airman: So DF, after your last move when the squad in question did not fire at my scout car, you take back all you have said in this thread!! Did I read your email correctly that you wanted to MICROMANAGE your squads!!! Oh, how the winds of war change so rapidly!! Death to the American invader!!! See you in Bastogne, buddy!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What I meant to say is that I don't want anyone who's in a PBEM game with me to have control....I, of course, demand complete control over my units! ;d

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: DF, I think we have disagreed to agree? Is that possible? Actually we're both saying the same thing, just differently. I like the "fuzzy logic" just like it is. Too much more would be extrememly unrealistic and not fun. Too little would make the game a cake walk (provided you had an inkling of how to fight a company or battalion to start with). I think we both agree on this one: CM Rocks!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Scount PL: I agree 100%. Just trying to offer opinion that essance of this game is the fuzzy logic and the believable "unbelieveable" moves the AI sometimes makes (allows?) for units is what's got this player hooked. In nutshell, I think level of command and control is just fine the way it is, and really does not need much tweeking.....now, if I could just figure out a way to keep track of all the mods!!

NCrawler: Help Your free drive limit has been exceeded. Any thoughts on how I can get mod otherwise? Thanks

I've found that if you select the entire group of tanks and say, have them "Hunt" together, the tanks tend to cover each other. In several scenarios I've played, while one tank was being engaged/destroyed by another, the remaining "platoon" engaged the enemy tank. Using the tanks as Battleships or Death Stars, individually roaming the battlefield reeking havoc works for a time, but I always end up losing them.

Can anyone offer suggestions on the best way to use the US Priest in indirect fire mode? Must they have a line of sight to target to engage? Can they be spotted in similar manner to US 60mm mortars? Help, I'm going to be in deep doo doo unless I can figure this out!

Perhaps the point of the thread has been lost. The thrust of my post was that the most intriguing part of this game is the way the AI acts out orders, whether in or out of command. Sometimes the units just don't seem to "fire" at the target you want them to (line of sight issues aside etc) or fire at the unit you don't want them to, or become "unhidden" when approached etc. That bit of "just don't know" factor is well modelled. Those players who want their "electron soldiers" to do what the commander exactly wants are missing the point (IMHO)....the unexpected factor is what makes this game stand out from all the board games I've played, and many of the computer games.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los: .....Also an interesting twist, when someone starts harranging the situation that does have military experience it's usually someone at the grunt of crewman level, not someone that has had to lead a platoon or company and experienced the "joys" of command at that level. (It's a whole 'nuther ball game). Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course I'm reminded of the famous comment "no plan survives the first shot." The ability of the small unit leader to quickly react to a situation is what wins battles (IMHO). I think the various surprise moves the AI does from time to time is very realistic of what actually happens. It's kinda like telling the first person in a line the real story and going to the end of the line to hear a totally different interpretation....now imagine doing that and shooting at the line and periodically killing or otherwise incapacitating one of the folks in the line.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>.....As a matter of fact, I think that squads that are out of command should be run by the AI, not me. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very interesting comment. For what it's worth, I agree. Having out of command units perform actions they (read AI) thinks is best for the situation would really be interesting....might also head off some of the "gamey" techniques that appear from time to time.

I use a bounding technique with support weapons and don't try to move them with platoon. I position the support weapons to cover the lead squads. When squad reaches its destination, I bound up support weapon. That way, we infantry unit retains sneak status while still being covered. Just my 2 cents. For armor, I've found an effective technique is to highlight several vehicles (assuming you have them) and have them hunt as a group. This seems to minimize the desire of the firing crew to watch the flaming wreckage, or at least cover them while the are so enthralled.

As an avid CM player I've watched with interest the ongoing debate between how much control a player should have over individual units versus the AI making decisions. We've all experienced issuing orders to units and then seeing the AI do something unexpected, or not allowing us to issue enough detailed orders to have our units attempt to accomplish our goal. As a former combat arms (infantry officer) let me offer an opinion for comment: The AI actually models what happens in combat very realistically, i.e., even after you issue orders, you're not completely sure they will be carried out in the manner you wanted. I have found, in my actual experience, that this is closer to what actually happens "in real life." Therefore, for me, the "hook" of this game is that it shows the effects of "fog of war" or human failings, on your orders. Translated: you can never really be sure as a commander that your troops will carry out the full intent of your orders, until you see it done. This "if" factor, for me, is the essance of CM. To change this fundamentally alters this game into most (all?) board wargames where the human commander has absolute control over all units.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KLilly: Since we're waxing nostalgic. I remember the "new" game Blitzkrieg in about 1967. My cat got it also, created huge claw valleys in the Koufax Desert. I personally always played Great Blue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brings back memories. I remember spend at least 2 hours setting game up, placing units with my Dad, only to look at each other and say we both bored. I suspect I'm like many CM players, have several old Avalon Hill board games, copies of old General Magazine....however, I've been assimilated. CM has become all consuming.....rumor has it I have a wife and 3 kids.....however, have not seen them in Order of Battle to any scenario I've played so I'm not sure....my be like CM close air support...something hovering in background!

I too have killed tanks using both US and German infantry, with internal support weapons. In both cases, I let the AI target the vehicles as they moved within close firing range of my troops. In some cases troops were in woods, in some, bldgs. The Germans engaged with Panzerfausts, while the US engaged with rifle grenades. However, the Germans were regulars, while the US troops were Airborne. In other scenarios I've played the regular US troops don't seem to want to wait until the AV gets close enough before they "beat feet." Also, had an AV get "flamed" once with a flamethrower. Crew was not killed but they abandoned immediately; Visual effects were very interesting!

Question to Powers that Be: During a recent PBEM game of Mortain operation, the "game" ended at the end of battle 4, basically ignoring the last two battles. My email partner and I were a bit perplexed, since I was the American attacker and had suffered heavy casualties, yet was given a tactical victory, all without playing the last two battles. Since the ops scenario called for several more replacements in battles 4 and 5 (the two we did not get chance to play), and which could have shifted the final point count, we wondered what happend? The German player had elected to use a defense in depth, sacrificing ground but causing extreme casualties on my side. As near as we can figure it, he must have sacrificed too much ground, since I guess I accomplished the objective (ie, moved far enough towards Mortain, that AI said, "ok Americans, you've won". Can anyone who played this operation comment, or provide general guidance as to how the game engine "scores" an operation?