Robert Olesen

The ability to set up random game parameters is a great idea and a big enough task in itself. Go with that first, you can always add unit selection later. Make it CAL complient, or have an option for that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: If we consider the rules we have so far as a good foundation or starting point I hope we can add some more that will make it more balanced. I hope to work with Abbott on some of the wording of additional rules. First off do we all agree that the spirit and intent of the Rules for CAL is to provide a "largely level" playing field when it come down to unit selection EVEN for those new to the game so they are not unduely disadvantaged by more experienced players who REALLY know how to cherry pick forces? I thought that was the goal from the get go, AND of course to make those unit and force selections largely historical and balanced for all concerned. Your rule suggstions and proposals are still welcome as far as I can tell. -tom w [ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand the premise you are mentioning and it is a fair one. It does not cover all the needs of the experienced players, however, ref. your following post. In effect, two sets of rules are needed. One set defines explicitly the parameters for a CAL game, and the other set contains some optional rules that are used subject to agreement by both players. A newcomer would then be advised to stick to the standard rules until (s)he accumulates enough experience to judge the effect of using optional rules. This is pretty much what you have already, but I would personally like the optional rule set to be expanded. And the distinction could be clarified. Btw, thanks for the good work and the well-considered replies

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott: Actually CAL was named after its creation. I have never seen a pure infantry battle played nor asked for as a ladder match. That does not mean the option should not exist however. If folks would like to work up an idea for this by all means send it along abbott@tournamenthouse.com <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, Abbott. Hmm, how about this: Infantry and mechanised games use effectively the Recon rule (with the obvious purchase restrictions imposed by the force setting). This limits artillery to 81mm. I'm not sure if this is reasonable in infantry games, but I'm no expert on this. Armor games could also be considered, subject to either the short-75, Panther-76 or Heavy Armor rule as agreed by the players. One other question: Why have games where the computer makes the force selection been excluded :confused:

Well, yes, it helps. It is a choice and it is a help to know the reason for it. But why not allow pure infantry games? Perhaps that type is seldomly used?

I don't undserstand why the CAL is limited to Combined Arms games (apart from the name, which is really makes it an arbitrary decision). I don't see how other force types, with the exception of unrestricted, could be gamey as long as the players agree to the choice. This must have been discussed while the CAL was being formed. Perhaps someone can give me a qualified reason for this choice :confused:

Me too please, at robert.olesen@get2net.dk Thanks

I haven't played all that many, but I would like to add my vote to the Bulge scenarios mentioned above. Played Assenois and station by email. The first is balanced and very good, the second is unbalanced but still a lot of fun and recommendable. I'm also playing Patrick Wares Any Port campaign by email against the same opponent - into the third game by now. They have all been very enjoyable - good story, interesting terrain and challenging goals. Highly recommended.

There is another trick to this, when running on a PC. I use a freeware program called QRes: http://www.berend.com/qres.html It allows you to set the screen resolution for a shortcut. This way I can run CMBO in 1280x1024 while my usual resolution is 1152x864. It also allows you to change the color depth, which is useful for some games.

I'm using my modified Grog interface (available at DeanCo's) and - I'm running CM at 1280x1024, no problem - I have fixed the ! (moved it left a bit) - I do get the Alerted status

Well, it is an awkward command to use. The question of why it can only be applied at the start of a turn must have been debated to death, I'm sure, but the logic of it escapes me. I would love to have been able to tell a unit to move forward to a firing position, wait for a while and then pull back in one go. Also, considering that the command can be issued repeatedly, a smaller increment would have been more useful. 3 5 second pauses would have the same effect as one 15 second pause and a 5 second pause would give you more flexibility.

Here's a case I just encountered where a hunt command would have been useful: My bazooka team was at night closing on the flank of a SP gun, which was protected by infantry. My team was not detected by the infantry when I ordered it to close, and there was a small hump in the ground between them. I targeted the tank (out of sight at that moment) and used Sneak to delay detection by the enemy infantry (some of them might well be able to see the team before it got a LOS on the gun). When the team got a LOS to the gun, it continued moving for a little while before setting up for the shot. They were fired at and broken before they could get a shot off. A hunt order may not have changed things, but it would have been the natural choice if it had been available.

To Leonidas: It's simple enough to rename the files yourself and insert the missing 0's. I use the same system as most people here: I keep recieved files in the pbem directory and move the processed files to subdirectories - typically one for each game, but often grouped after the opponents. This way it is simple for me to keep track of the games I need to respond to.

Sequential numbering. Definitely. It's much simpler.

E

Thanks a lot, guys I went into the scenario with the implicit assumption that these guns were vulnerable because they were made for long range indirect fire. I can see now that this was a bad case of wishful thinking. Things have not been going too well for me (being up against very good defensive maneuvering), so I haven't got a lot to work with, but I guess I'll just have to adapt somehow

I'm playing a scenario where I'm supposed to find and knock out some german artillery. This brings up a simple question: Were the german artillery guns suitable for direct fire, and what would the minimum range be? I can see two problems with this: The ammo may not be suitable (probably has a delayed activation to protect the gun/crew), and the guns may have long range because they were not built for a low depression. I really don't know anything about it, though. I have located (some of) the guns (in the game), but haven't discerned the size yet. The author must have used the infantry guns that are available in CMBO, and he certainly did provide them with ammo , but I suspect that these guns are not the same guns as the ones used by the artillery. Is that correct?

DeanCo, In fact, why not post the background bitmaps so that we can mess around with them and add another text and/or font? Please email them to me (zipped) if you won't post them at your site.

That's the point - I can't post them myself. I can send you the second one by email - the first one is too large to send more than once through a 56K modem.

I have two AARs that could well be posted somewhere if anybody is interested. The first is on Assenois by McAuliffe. It's large (over 3M) but I'll try to reduce the size of the graphics. The second is on Any Port After a Storm by Patric Ware. This one is only 3-400K. Both are written using Word97, but could probably be transferred to .rtf The first one might be difficult to convert to HTML as the pics are of varying size, but the second should be easy to convert. I don't have a reliable .doc to HTML converter (well, Word 97 might do the trick for the second one). Drop me an email if you are interested.

SuperTed, Another suggestion: Post the news at the top of the list, not at the bottom. Makes it easier to find.

Hey Tiger, I don't recognise that one. It appears to be a marsh tile (633), but I don't remember seeing it before. Can you elaborate?

Hi SuperTed, A couple of suggestions. The opening pic is nice, but a bit heavy on my 56k modem. I suppose I can get around that by bookmarking the news page. It would be helpful IMO if you could set up the links on the news page to open in another window by default. [This message has been edited by Robert Olesen (edited 02-20-2001).]

I had the same feeling, but then decided to try it out. So far I'm enjoying it. The thing is, that you can pick ladder opponents that play for the enjoyment as well as anywhere else, and ladder playing is a bit more regulated than other playing. I don't have a lot of ladder experience, but at the risk og gross generalisation, I would say that the Rugged Defense ladder seems to be a nice and cosy place, while Tournamenthouse seems to be a bit more competitive . Other than that, just keep the good opponents and drop the bad ones. I have to say that I have been very lucky with my opponents so far. [This message has been edited by Robert Olesen (edited 02-20-2001).]

I want to put the scenario briefing into an AAR, but can't figure out how to extract the briefing using the editor (or any other way). Any help would be appreciated.

"Keep in mind that CM will not run at a higher resolution than your desktop resolution. Fore exapmple, to run CM at 1024x768 your desktop must be set to at least 1024x768." You may know this, but there is a freeware tool called QRes (for Windows): http://www.berend.com/qres.html It lets you set the screen resolution etc. for a specific shortcut. I use it to run CM at 1280x1024 while my usual resolution is 1152x864.