Black Five

Please Email me a copy of your rules. jsfilko@earthlink.net Thanks.

Hell the ONLY thing that I really want is to allow players to draw units from the same pool (if they want to). BTS says that the existing engine cannot handle this type of unit selection due to coding restraints. It is my hope that a re-write would include this feature. There really is not any harm in it and from a coding point of view it would be rather simple to do. This way history gamers, grogs, and pure gamers can all be happy. I would pay an additional $45 to have this feature in CMBB. My 2 cents worth.

Looks like we're getting off topic. Thanks for all of your thoughts. [ June 21, 2002, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Black Five ]

From Karch -------------------- You are leaving out something there. What about the time to code the game to do what you want? From descriptions of the game, it sounds like it would double the coding in the game. Every vehicle and troop would have to be coded into the game twice with twice the TOE etc. -------------------- This all depends on the data structure. You are correct in that CMBO is a very complex program. However, by using the proper data structure this option could be as simple to implement as a Boolean variable. However, as has been stated on many occasions, the data structure for the units in CMBO is very cumbersome. I would assume that when a total rewrite is done this will be fixed. I am sure that when they designed/coded the original game it was merely an oversight that this feature was not implemented. Data and how it is handled is one of the most dynamic and difficult beasts in programming. Finally, I hope for their sake that it would not require writing the code twice in order to add this feature (hell even if it did most of it should be cut and paste). Also from karch -------------------- I can see why people might want it, but not the military. We have never fought a war against an enemy armed exactly as we are and trained exactly as we are. -------------------- I take it you've never been in military simulators? Identical units are used all the time. If you can beat the best hardware, which is frequently US hardware, then you will have an easier time beating opponents with lessor equipment. However, different "skins" can usually be used to keep people from getting in the habit of pasting friendlies From Le Tondu -------------------- BTS has told us that the US Army AND the US Marines have both expressed interest in there being 'same forces' that oppose each other. -------------------- YES, I use CMBO to train my Marines. It was an awesome tool to illustrate just how important it is to properly employ armored units. CMBO does a very nice job of illustrating the value of overwatch, bounding overwatch, formations, etc). I exchanged numerous Emails with Mr. Grammont about how armor is handled in CMBO. Two of my major concerns were turret facings and seek/advance to hulldown. The basics of tactics and complex problem solving have been the same for all eternity (local superiority, mass, combined arms AKA catapults/archers/battering rams/knights or Arty/CAS/armor/infantry, etc). CMBO gives them a chance to plan company level operations as an NCO and then implement those plans against a live opponent. The value of having an NCO think about combined arms and tactics at the platoon and company level cannot be overstated, especially in the armor community. In a real world situation it is quite possible that a Sergeant could be in command of a company or platoon a few minutes after contact if the poop hits the fan. The introduction of full movie playback was also a major concern since it would make for excellent AARs. From Panzer Leader -------------------- Le Tondu you're being a bit dramatic, don't you think? BFS has survived (and done very well) for this long without 'government contracts', right? Who says they even want them, or that they could ever have a chance in the big game market where three companies rule the software like Czars of old? -------------------- One of my concerns with respect to BTS is to keep them in business. Their games are the best in the field. Regardless of all else BTS is about making money. To have fulltime employees requires a lot of money. Take it from someone who owned his own business for a few years, it's friggin tough. Yes, I wanted to give the people in the community a great product, but I was not doing it for my health. If BTS is to survive they need to make money. There is not a good businessman on the planet that intentionally turns away business or designs his/her product to have limited appeal. I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that if this feature is not in CMBB it is due to the programming burden and not because it is non-historical. Finally, to fight with identical units was exactly what every Marine who I have played with has asked for. We are a rather competitive bunch as it turns out. Therefore we want to ensure that when we win a game it is because we are the best and not because the other guys gear was not as good. Well in games that is. In real life all bets are off Black Five [ June 20, 2002, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Black Five ]

Michael- I am surprised that you use the term gamer in a negative sense. Especially given the following from the About Us page: "Our goal is to serve gamers, rebuild our community, and breathe some life back into a hobby whose followers are still here in sizable numbers but have been tossed aside by the Industry." It is going to be very hard to rebuild a community if the Grogs and "If it's not historical it's not worth doing," types rule the battlefield. My suggestion comes from a player who owned a VR arcade any has a great deal of knowledge for what people like to play and for what sells. If BTS chooses not to include such a feature then they are limiting their appeal and the replay value of their game. It is a question of whether BTS is more concerned with Grogs or making wargames that all wargamers want to play. Think about it, do you know anyone that played ASL strictly by the rules? Not including tourney play of course ? Everyone I ever played always had "house rules" of some kind. Even though CMBO is the best tactical level game I have played it could be better. Why not allow wargamers adjust the game to suit their style of play? This increases the appeal and will bring more gamers to BTS. Your thoughts please.

I hope you are both wrong. The coding issue seems odd. If you can add units to the game why no add units with identical characteristics to both sides.

Does anyone have the final word about whether or not we will be able to fight battles with identical units on both sides? Hell, from a gamers perspective I would hope we can mix and match units from all sides. That would be a great tool bag from which to build an army. Obviously this would need to be optional so that people can enjoy CM as a historical game or a tactical simulator. Thanks in advance.

Dear god please tell me it will still be an option to buy individual tanks at a reasonable price if the rarity setting is not used. Thanks. PS: Moon- Are we going to be able to use all of the units that are currently in CMBO as well? Yes, yes the grogs are going to probably flame me but it would be great for what if type games. PPS: Are we going to be able to fight Axis vs Axis, Russia vs Russia, etc? I have not seen this mentioned in quite some time. Yeah, the grogs are going to have fit over that but it would be the ultimate for ladder games. No more whinning about VT, SMG, etc. I hope we can mix and match from all sides if we want. Thanks

Hell a friend and I have found that using a TWO MINUTE shot clock for battles of any size is great. We recently played a 7000 point game with a 2 min timer and it was awesome. There is no time to screw around and it simulates the chaos of battle. You have to prioritize. I love to play on a tight clock.

It crashes the game

I've had success with that but I still do not consider it a perfect work around. After a few more "crashless captures" I will feel better about it thanks.

Hey you stole my signature. Well then again you know who said it so I'll have to change mine

Fellow TCPers- I am sure that everyone who enjoys a good TCP/IP game has encountered the crew/capture bug. Whatever you want to call it the result is always the same, “S#it I just captured a crew.” “Oh, hell no. Well let’s throw some chicken bones in the air and hope for the best.” It has reared its ugly head in numerous battles and operations. There is nothing worse than having this bug show up 10-15 turns into a new scenario. Sometimes by reverting to this save or that save and PBEMing everything can be recovered. Other times the game can only be continued via Email. Considering how much longer it takes to play via Email this is not always an option. After spending countless hours making a new scenario only to have it crash during the first go round with an archrival is no fun at all. My question is this: Since this bug has been know for over a year, why has it not been fixed? Yes, I realize everyone is hard at work on CMBB but to allow a catastrophic bug to remain in CMBO seems odd. I did not write the code for CMBO but perhaps the following could be done with a modest investment in time. Since it may be a while before CMBB is released, it would be great if BTS could find the time to fix this bug. Ideas for a quick fix: 1. Screw realism what about simply auto-killing any unit the game tags as captured. 2. Auto-kill all crews when a vehicle/gun/whatever is destroyed. Many people whine about crew spotting anyway 3. Bypass the capture code for TCP or make a patch that bypasses it entirely. Then you could simply install CMBO on your computer twice and only use the bypass for TCP games. For the time being I use the fanaticism setting at 50% when I make large scenarios that I play with friends on the LAN. If they fight to the death they are less likely to be captured. This is not a perfect fix and it changes the dynamic of the game a bit but I think it helps. Bottomline: Even with the bug CMBO is awesome. It is simply the best game of its type. Your comments please. BlackFive

Great Prizes. Good on you and the guys at Battlefront. Hey, I'm a newbie, errr yeah, can I play? "These aren't the droids your looking for move along." Great idea. BlackFive

Sorry Wacky, the Abrams is just under 70 tons

I cannot speak for WWII tanks, but in a M1A1 you can stop on a dime. My driver went full brakes on me about a year ago when we were going about 30 MPH. Damn near killed the crew and me. My head bounced off the back end of the .50 cal and the loader got tossed around pretty good. You have to remember that it is a tracked vehicle. All of that surface area means that they can stop VERY quickly. Needless to say my gunner had a few choice words for him that day. However, rain/snow gives a whole new meaning to the term "power slide". Hell an Abrams going 50 MPH could stop and be hauling @$$ in reverse before a Ferrari could even come to a halt. Hope this helps. BlackFive

It's a TV show; damn you jarheads are dumb.</font>

During tank a gunnery exercise a Marine in my platoon hit an infantry target with a sabot petal when he was shooting main gun at a tank target. There was a litte debate as to whether or not it "counted" as a kill on the infantry target. Ultimately the giant gash/hole that the petal put in the infantry target was viewed as acceptable since it was about 200 times bigger then the hole a 7.62 would have put in the target Yes, it is very important to take into account where your sabot petals will land if your infantry are in front of your tanks, which is usually where your infantry should be.

A .50 cal can take out the weapon system on any modern tank. Talk to any M1A1 tanker about the dangers of blowing holes in their main gun with their own .50 cal. At 3-400 meters a .50 cal would have no problems putting gashes in modern main gun systems. The weaker metals used in WWII could easily be made ineffective after being struck by a .50 cal round.

I believe I have the problem fixed. I found a slightly newer driver for my graphics card and found that Alt-Tab seems to be more stable the ESC. Whether or not thi sis the case only time will tell.

I'm about to hop on an airplane but I'll respond when I get back after Xmas if you have not solved your problem. I have conneted to computers via crossover cable and played CM. It is very easy to do if you set up the network properly.

Sometimes when resoting the game after Alt-Tab or Esc the graphics at the bottom of the screen are all black. The text is still visable but all the control buttons and graphics are black. The only text labels that are visable are things like the name of the unit the ammo count and the terrain the unit is in. If I click where the buttons should be they work as if they were still there. Problem is I cannot see them. This makes playing very difficult. The little options chart that comes up when you hit the space bars only shows the hot keys. None of the graphics or the menu are displayed. Also if I abort the game and then start a new one everything is fine again. Thanks for your help. I have the following PIII 733 320MB RAM 133MHz WinFast GeForce2-GTS w/ 64MB RAM, 333MHz Current Drivers all around [ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Black Five ]</p>

DOH :eek:

What a brother.....wow great gift idea....sure wish my brother would get me a copy of CMBB for Xmas. Cool gift

The best audio simulation of reload and tank sounds has to be "Steel Beasts." Turn off the lights and play a mission. Gave me goose bumps and flashbacks to 29Palms. Excellent audio of the breech opening, the stub base banging around the turret, the new rounds going "shoop" into the gun tube, and the tc/gunner/loader all yelling.