Robert Olesen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I don't know why people are picking on Slapdragon. He is being serious. This is not the frist time a position like his has been presented. The "Fantasy Football" type environment is as legit as the one Robert is asking for, so why pick on him for it? Robert wants the line drawn in one place, Slapdragon in another. I have no problem with either request, nor should anybody else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, on both points. Slapdragons first post was a bit challenging, but the gist of it was clear enough. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> CM2 will almost certainly have a no force pool point restriction option. The rest of the suggestions, which remove even more restrictions, are probably not going to happen simply because we don't want to spend our time on them at the expense of other features. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, I have stated my position clearly and you have understood the message and made (previously, it seems) a conscious decision regarding both issues (map and point limit). Thanks. That concludes the issue as far as I'm concerned.

No, that is not Fantasy Football. I think it would be a good place to draw the line. I read SlapDragons post basically as a question of where to draw the line if not at the historical setting. There obviously is no "correct" answer to this. I think the option of removing the point restriction on the categories (Inf/Arm/Art/...) (or effectively setting it to the max number of points in each category) would be a good way to draw the line.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: PS- I think you should had posted in this topic http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015334.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I could have, but that thread is rapidly dissolving into an argument for or against King Tigers and I wanted to point clearly to a specific topic I think deserves attention: Freedom of choice. CM is not just a simulation. It is also a game.

OK, I'm probably going to get slapped for this, but that can't be helped. It has to be said, even if it is a repeat. I want freedom of choice when setting up a QB. Both regarding force setup and the ability to use an existing map. I realise that BTS is putting a lot of effort into making the force setup in QB's as historically correct as possible. That's good. What I do not understand is why this precludes the choice of an unlimited force selection. I'm a grownup and complete able to make a conscious choice in this matter, as are most if not all ) others who play the game. Why am I not allowed to do that? I like playing a "historical" QB, and I think the rarity option in CM2 is a good option. But I would also like to be able to experiment with other possibilities. The ability to have a free force selection would not detract from the "historical" QB in any way and I do not see why it should not be implemented as another option. It would not affect multiplayer games (if done correctly) unless both players agreed beforehand. So, the argument that it is the way it is because it has to be historical does not hold IMO. We can have both, and I want to be able to choose between them. The same goes for selecting an existing map in a QB. I really don't see why this option should not be in the game. It will only add to the game, not limit or detract from anything. And finally, I know that the scenario editor allows me to make scenarios with any map and force selection, but that is not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for these features in quick battles, where there is a much greater element of FOW than in a scenario I made myself. Now, where did I put that bulletproof west and helmet

I'm quite sure that the movie does not change with a reload, at least for a pbem game. It would be a bug if it did. Btw, a pbem turn requires 3 mailings, not 4, except at startup. It goes like this: Player 1 gives orders (first turn), then sends Player 2 gives orders, then sends Player 1 watches, then sends Player 2 watches, then gives orders, then sends Player 1 gives orders, then sends. Player 2 watches, then sends Player 1 watches, then gives orders, then sends etc. And if you get a watch-only turn, then it is possible to just skip through, save it, send the file back and then reload and watch it later (quitting at the end instead of hitting "Done") if you want to speed the process a little.

Jason, Are you the same Jason Cawley who used to write tons of excellent articles on Stars! strategy? I really enjoyed those. The style and thoroughness is the same.

Welcome! I'm from Denmark too, and currently doing a pbem with another Dane. He is running a Danish CM page, http://hjem.get2net.dk/CutAway/ .

OK, all that .... is entertaining, but it does not answer the question, which I think is a very good one. I think the program has some trouble deciding how far LOS can go into a house. I suspect that LOS is OK up to the house in the example you gave, but as soon as you get into the house it blocks. Perhaps a tolerance needs to be adjusted?

David, Yes, I have considered the "realism" aspect. There is no correct answer to that. I can easily imagine a situation where a commander would have a much better map of the battlefield than CM gives me. I can also easily imagine a situation where a commander would not know the terrain very well. I can, however, not imagine a commander who would not do a great deal to know as much as possible about the terrain before committing his troops to battle. On the topic of realism, which I'm sure has been beaten to death many times before, I find myself playing the game just as much as a game than as a simulation, though I do appreciate the simulation aspect. It _is_ a game after all, and while it tries to give a realistic "feel", it can never be truly realistic. Terrain identification is one of those things that would save me a lot of ardurous work when "playing the game". This is a tradeoff, and I have stated my preference.

I know that can be done and I use it, but no, that's not simple enough. It's a workable workaround, but it's not quite good enough. First, I would like to have this info available any time. Second, I need to remember to cancel the fake move order, or I may screw up my orders for that unit (there is no undo, remember!).

Here is a simple suggestion which I have wanted many times: Allow the use of the cursor to explore the terrain, so that hovering the cursor over the map shows the underlying terrain type. Don't make it a popup text, just show it in a fixed unobtrusive position in the window. The elevation could also be shown. Cliffs can be especially hard to find, and they do have a severe impact on the possible moves that can be made.

Perhaps, but the game could transfer the Hide order to the beginning of the next turn after movement has completed, just as it transfers movement orders between turns. This kind of thing that should be automated IMO. Why not use the computer - it's sitting there anyway - it would allow me to enjoy the game more.

Yes, but not in a QB. I know this is an old topic, but it is an obvious improvement area.

I see you have already ordered the game, but FWIW here's my opinion. I played SE3 a lot and loved it. I tried the SE4 demo and hated it. Probably a severe case of disappointed expectations I do not like the user interface of SE4. Way too much mousework and cumbersome controls. I still follow some discussions on the game (on egroups, there is an SE4 list) (haven't quite given up on the game yet). From this I can surmise that the game is probably too complex, in the way that it offers more options than it can comfortably balance out in testing and in programming of the AI. On the other hand, this is also an appeal to some. This probably implies that the AI becomes a pushover after a while, it might also unbalance multiplayer - someone finds a strategy that cannot be countered. But then, you can always change the data files (most of them are customisable) if you have the time and interest.

OK, can I please have a copy?

How are these flags used? Do you replace the victory objective flag with the appropriate flag for the division you're using in a particular game? Or does it go into the info box at the bottom center?

TwoSheds, It looks to me like you could be on a perfectionism trip (no offense intended ). Would it be possible to publish your "unfinished" version and patch/update it later? The main problem seems to be compatibility - the tool must have a database of some kind. I don't know how it would handle that. [This message has been edited by Robert Olesen (edited 12-15-2000).]

I'm using the Grog interface with several modifications - and liking it a lot, but you probably know that already. One of these days I'll send you a full list of my changes, I have a bit of trouble finding the time for it and I want to make a well-documented presentation with some examples included.

In one game I was relocating a MG team through a forest. I wanted them to walk through the forest a rather long distance, say 300m, then embark a vehicle. First I gave them a Move order, which worked fine. I then discovered that I could use the vehicle, and moved it into place. When it was almost there, I changed the Move order to an Embark by moving the destination marker onto the vehicle. The vehicle was still a good way off and not visible to the MG team. The result: The MG team stopped and refused to continue moving for about 2 turns. I then changed the order back to a Move with a destination close to the vehicle, and after the proper delay (20 seconds, they are out of command range) they started moving again. Is this a feature or a bug? If it is a feature, then I find it confusing that the Move order changes to Embark even at long distances.

This was not a waste of my time. Thanks.

You should send it to Madmatt - It would be a great addition to CMHQ.

Thanks a lot. gashford, your story made my LOL Here's a suggestion to BTS: Program a sense of selfpreservation into these vehicle crews (other than bailing out, that is). There are so many other cases where the soldiers make independent decisions in order to save their own ass, why not in this situation as well?

Sorry about the TD/SP mixup - I had some M10s in the same battle. So, just to make everything crystal clear - was it killed by the blast from it's own shell? If so, how do I predict the blast radius, so that I can avoid this unfortunate happening in another game? Thanks.

Just for the sake of completeness: I'm talking about the M7 Priest TD . In a heavily wooded QB, a Priest of mine opened fire at a MG 25m away. After firing 3-4 rounds, the Priest was suddenly Knocked Out. I'm pretty sure there was no enemy unit around capable of KO'ing the Priest, and the targeted MG did not fire. So, the obvious answer seems to be that the vehicle itself was within the blast radius. It is, after all, open topped. Can that in fact happen at that distance? In the after action report I was listed with 2 vehicles lost, while I in fact had lost 3 including the aforementioned Priest. Perhaps a selfdestructing vehicle is not counted? I was also listed as having killed a bunker that I had never seen. I checked the map afterwards, and it was located in a corner, abandoned. Was it listed as such because the enemy surrendered? I had no airstrikes and did not hit it with artillery.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dfgardner: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An interesting subject For me, the key point is decisions. I like to play with a "historical" setup (as close as possible), but the key question is whether the scenario presents me with problems and decisions that reflect the actual situation well.