USGrant

I think the fundamental question is "did WWII bombers, regardless of technology level, ever cost more than the damage they caused?" This seems to be the case in the demo years. I think that the answer is no, and suggest that Hubert look at tweaks. The same question can be asked about submarines - especially in demo time - but that has been beaten to death here.

I would think that the "missing" destroyers in the game are covering the transports so they should not be total pushovers. On the other hand, something may need to be done about gamey exploits using the cheapest unit in the game for unrealistic missions.

I think the diminishing success percentage is the best way to go. There is no good way under the current model to vary the actual price of research as it is applied to each area because research "points" are purchased independently of their allocation. A generally increasing cost of research points might be implemented relatively easily, however, by making the first research point purchased cost 250, the second 300, the third 350, etc. I would also like to see the first research point for each country be free - maybe an Italian or French scientist will develop something that way. I think that the suggested 5-4-3-2-1% model might be too severe. I'm afraid it would make level 5 technology disappear from the game, even in 1945. Also, it would lead to homogenization of the research levels across countries because there is little return in specializing. In my mind a model of 5-5-4-3-2% or 5-5-4-4-3% might accomplish the goal without making level 5 technology disappear completely. This would dampen the extremes of research, while still allowing players to choose to specialize in various technologies, and thereby increase replayablity. Lastly, I would also vote for a maximum of 4 points per area instead of 5. EDIT Having just reread the whole thread, I realized that I misunderstood Bill Macon's suggested scheme. He is suggesting that the successive research points have different chances of success. I was thinking that each higher level of research should be more difficult. In my scheme, each level would have a certain percentage per point. For example: Level 1 = 5%/point - 4 points applied = 20%/turn Level 5 = 2%/point - 4 points applied = 8%/turn Finally, is each reseach point applied to an area independent? In other words, do two reseach points generate two "die rolls" at 5% each, or one at 10%? If they are independent, it should be possible to gain more than one level per turn. Inquiring minds want to know! [ June 07, 2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

I tried a similar tactic last night against Russia. I floated about 5 corps in the Baltic and landed along the coast between Riga and Leningrad immediately upon DOW. It seemed to work well - then the demo ended The same issue applies, no chance for the Russian to respond under the default setup. I don't have a solution, other than the suggestion that newly landed troops have very low supply. Unfortunately, this "solution" might make Overlord overly weak. A free setup phase could be implemented, but that might make surprise attacks too weak. I was playing Europa Universalis II and one thought came to mind - territorial waters for neutrals. Perhaps the hexes immediately adjacent to the coast of neutrals could somehow be made off-limits to combatants? You could DOW and move there on the same turn, and the existing turn delay on invasions would take care of the response issue. I think most neutrals would not have enough default troops to stop invasion, but their response might be more coherent. I'm not sure that would work at this map scale. It might block some legitimate maneuvers such as German invasion of Norway without DOW on Denmark. I guess it would also close the Straits of Gibraltar. If the "territorial waters", shaded lighter blue, were hand-picked by the designer it might have the desired effect while allowing "sea lanes" to exist where appropriate. Well, there's some food for thought

Forget garage sales, those monster games go for a mint on Ebay! http://listings.ebay.com/aw/listings/list/category2558/index.html

Obviously, Yugoslavia can have partisans. And from other posts by Hubert I understand that Russia can. But what about other countries? I suggest that partisans could be used to address other issues that various posters have raised. For example: Robust French partisans that are only activated if Vichy is invaded. Or perhaps a 2% per turn chance of partisans after France is conquered, that rises to 4% per turn after the US declares war (The Resistance) or that rises to 8% per turn chance if Vichy is conquered. A single Irish partisan might make Brits think twice about invading and disbanding just for MPPs. Spanish and Turkish partisans to help avoid the COS counterclockwise perfect plan. For those who don't remember - in Clash of Steel if Germany attacked France, Spain, N. Africa, Middle East, Turkey, and Russia in that order they were unstoppable. I can't tell from the demo if this will happen here. Considering the Spanish civil war experience I suggest that they could field dangerous partisans. British partisans so that if Sea Lion is successful, the game is not quite over (what are the German Campaign Game victory conditions?). In general I think that partisans could both reflect historical possibilities and dampen some of the enthusiasm for ahistorical behavior. Remember, WWII was total war and if one side or the other chose not to take a course of action that appears to have significant strategic payback, there were reasons. The reasons might not have been concern about partisans, but this might be an acceptable abstraction. They won't typically prevent either side from taking any particular course of action, but might make you think twice. After reading all this, I am suggesting that any conquered country can generate partisans, and that a table could be used to vary their strength depending on political, historical, and game balance issues. Partisans should be able to oppose whoever conquers their homeland, be it Axis or Allies. Also, I would not make the probablities too high, this game should be Strategic Command, not Partisan! A typical minor country might have only a 1% per turn chance of generating a partisan, so that you might see an average of one per game in a Norway or Greece or Rumania for that matter. It would also be good if they could somehow be restricted to their own country, but I suspect that would be difficult to implement at this point.

Same problem with text boxes here. Running Windows XP, Nvidia Geforce3 Ti 200 w/current drivers. I tried Win95 and Win98 compatibility mode - no luck. I see MPP collection and air combat text - that seems to be all. Definitely blank boxes for DOWs, surrenders, etc. [ May 27, 2002, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

Thanks for the input. As I said, I had the same problem with and without ZoneAlarm, so I think it is not the cause. If your Linksys router works that is another good data point. I really don't think it is firewall problem because we have had runs of 5 or so turns without a disconnect, immediately followed by 5 or more turns with a disco each turn I suspect there needs to be some tweaking either in CM or in my TCP/IP settings to make the connection more tolerant to timeouts. I just don't know what to tweak! Also, I am on a Win95 PC, both opponents are on PC with (I think) Win98. ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying [This message has been edited by USGrant (edited 03-06-2001).]

I'm having a slightly different TCP/IP problem in ver 1.12 than others are reporting. Since I got a cable modem installed about 3 weeks ago I get loss of connection to remote computer almost every turn - usually during the data exchange. Both of my regular opponents are on dialup, and I have played successfully with both from my previous dialup account. The usual symptom is that the games lose connection 1/3 or so of the way through the data transfer. Neither connection physically drops, and we can reload and go from there. On the reload it usually makes it through the data transfer but not always. We have also seen cases where 4 or 5 turns ran without disconnects. I've tried both with and without ZoneAlarm running and it seems to make no difference. I've also placed my computer in the DMZ of my router, a Linksys (i.e. outside of its firewall). So my questions are: 1. Has anyone else had problems with firewalls and routers once they connect? 2. Has anyone had problems between broadband and dialup connections (another poster claimed that broadband can choke a dialup, but I doubt it - communication between dissimilar connections is what the net and TCP/IP is all about). 3. Are there any TCP/IP, registry, or cm.ini settings (Win95) that can make CM more tolerant of lags/pauses caused by net jams? ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

When playing TCP/IP I like to scan the battlefield and pick my preferred viewing spot while the data is being transferred. The window that shows data transfer progress is smack in the middle of the screen, blocking a lot of the view. I wonder if it could easily be moved to the bottom of the screen, say right above the unit status window? ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

I'll chime in here to add my observation that the QB maps seem too shallow. I don't have any problems with the width, one can assume there are other units out there etc. But the shallow depth of even the large maps creates problems where you cannot manuever or even set up out of LOS. I wonder if BTS could make the QB maps deeper? I would vote for that, if this were a democracy, which it is not! ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nathman: Chess! To quote James Dunnigan, " All wargames derive from that earliest and simplest of wargames: chess."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, you stole my answer, I started with chess about age 7. First real wargame - France 1940, the Avalon Hill edition, about 1973 or so. I played the "idiot's plan" over and over. Been hooked on the historical aspects of wargames ever since. I can't remember the first computer game, I've had computers since the Vic-20. ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

I went to Amazon.com to see if this series was available there on DVD (its not) and came a cross a nice set of WWII DVD lists you guys might be interested in: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/2U3OFFY48ALTP/ref=lm_d_1/106-5454107-7484427 ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

From my observations I believe that there are 2 modes units can go into - 1)take cover, 2)retreat. I rarely use the withdraw command so I am not too familiar with its behavior. In "take cover" they usually head for the nearest cover, but they do not consider line-of-site (hence the behavior of running forward towards a building instead of backing over a hillcrest). In "retreat" they head straight towards their home map edge, regardless of cover, LOS, or enemy units. My wish list includes tweaks to: 1. Consider LOS when taking cover - but this would be a significant programming effort and might have unintended consequences when you are trying to engage the enemy. I'm not sure there is a reasonable way to implement this. 2. Consider LOS, cover, and enemy units when retreating. Reasonably, a retreat should always be in the general direction the home map edge, but the current straight line approach is an oversimplification that creates wierd situations. ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

I just ran a half dozen tests and units in the situation described above invariably do one of two things when fired upon by the KT at close range: 1. They cower in place (which is reasonable). 2. They run out of the building into the clear directly towards their home map edge. Instead of running 3 meters out the "back" of the building and getting out of LOS. This happened to units in pinned, shaken, and routed status. A couple of time, after they ran 10 yards or so out of the building they ran back to it (if they survived that long). ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

I recently posted a similar issue about "cover" and retreats. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013798.html Perhaps this is part of the same issue? ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

My top 5: 1. Unit roster 2. C&C for vehicles 3. Improved modeling of large buildings 4. Hunt or advance-to-contact for all units 5. Many more options on QBs. ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mPisi: (perhaps allowing a withdraw in a 180 deg. fan away form the nearest enemy unit, instead of the 60 or so degrees towards the home map edge that it currently allows)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have been thinking something similar. Allow retreats/withdraws in the 180 degree arc towards the home map edge, and modify based on nearby, spotted enemies and nearby cover. Ignore enemies at 100+ meters. ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

bump ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

I agree that this is really odd since according to folks on this forum that seem to be in the know, that is exactly how scouts work. They approach a suspected enemy position and peak over a hill, out of woods, or around a building. I think that true scout vehicles have been lumped in with normal halftracks and other transporters which I postulate are prohibited from hunting to reduced gamey tactics. BTS? ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

It appears to me that units retreating out of cover almost always run directly towards their "home" map edge. This occasionally creates some unrealistic and deadly situations. For example, last night the following occurred: I had a bazooka team in a building in the back corner with an ambush on the road. A KT drives up (with his turret pointed backwards!) and the bazooka shoots at just a few meters, hits the side of the turret, and has no effect The KT starts shooting at the bazooka, who gets off one more ineffective shot and runs. Unfortunately, instead of running out the "back" of the building away from the KT, he runs out the "side" where he is blown away by the KT and a nearby Stug. Hopefully this drawing works: STUG.______ ........!........! .KT....!B......! -> should run this way. ........!------! .........! .........V runs this way, killed. My question is can the logic that considers home base, cover, and enemy location be tweaked so that retreating guys use cover better. I understand there has been a slight tweak for guys caught in the open so that they avoid enemies better. Can this be extended to guys retreating out of cover? ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying [This message has been edited by USGrant (edited 12-17-2000).] [This message has been edited by USGrant (edited 12-17-2000).]

38. First game was France 1940 - I loved playing the "idiot's plan" solitaire. The guys I used to play with, and still do are about 10 years older than me. They used to pick me up for our wargaming club since I couldn't yet drive. Still playing with some of those guys on the net, even though I am 500 miles away. One of them recently refered to the group as the "nifty almost fifty gamers." They are old ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying [This message has been edited by USGrant (edited 12-16-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fenris: If/when possible I would like an option added to quick battle generation that would allow you to do a recce of the map before going onto the unit purchasing menu. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not in favor of this because I too think it is to gamey. However, I think there is another solution that BTS has indicated they are looking into. What QBs really need is a briefing screen for player 2 so that he knows the game parameters. This can be done by exchange of email, but sometimes one forgets (either the settings or to tell the opponent!). If you know it is a village, heavy woods, and moderate hills and can pick forces accordingly, you are still in a better situation than any Company or Battalion commander ever was in WW2. Still somewhat gamey, but a fair compromise because player 1 knows the game parameters anyway. ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying [This message has been edited by USGrant (edited 12-10-2000).]

Well, in favor of DirectX 8.0, it seems to have fixed the whiteout bug on Voodoo3 cards. ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: I noticed the tanks firing smoke thing as well. Panthers firing at US Infantry...the Panthers began shotting smoke like crazy. When I moved the Panthers one Tank had its target line remain fixed on its original infantry target. The grey/white smoke target line stayed fixed on the infantry team even after the tank moved out of direct LOS with the infantry team. I thought it was odd behavior, but didnt think too much of it till I read this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I also just witnessed this behavior. A Sherman targeted a 75 mm AT Pillbox with smoke (ok so far) but then drove wide around it's flank with buildings between it and the pillbox. The white smoke target line stayed on for two or three turns, though it didn't fire. I finally cancelled the smoke order. A couple of turns later, once on the rear flank of the the pillbox the tank opened up with SMOKE. A turn later another tank put a HE round through the rear door. ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying