SenorBeef

Bump...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Duke: Ok...besides one purchase that I sent back for fixing, we still need: Harpooner (10th of JUNE for him) Senor Beef Harpooner, since he told me about the 10th is ok...now Senor Beef, on the other hand, is pissing me off. Senior Beef, I urge you to get me those purchases by today or suffer the consequences! Youre still not mad about the asskicking I gave you/am still giving you the other night in our little TCP/IP match are you? Seriously, I know everyone here is busy but damn it man...you've had ample time! So please get me that file A.S.A.P! So for the rest of you, expect to kick off the Second Round tomorrow at the latest. This pushes the Due Date back to the 22nd of JUN But let me warn you now! DO NOT be late this time...and as they say "Forewarned is Forearmed". Out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahem, we still have 6 or 7 turns left for me to launch my secret counterattack in. Anyway, sorry, I've been really busy with school lately, I haven't had much time for myself. I'm going back there in like 10 minutes, and I won't be home until 9 or 10 eastern - so I'll work on it right when I get home then. Sorry for the delay.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: "I mean they never miss" Well, I've seen a Jabo make several passes at 1 Panzer IV, with great clouds of smoke and several loud bangs resulting. But when the dust cleared, that Pz IV was still spitting and prowling. So yeah, they miss sometimes. [ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He may be refering to their cannons/bullets, in which case hes right. I think thats just a matter of the CM engine.. something selects a target, and fires a shot/tracers at it. Unfortunately, (or fortunately), jabos always seem to be able to hit their targets accurately with gun fire - and almost always seem to get an immobilize or gun kill, or even take out, your tanks. I remember being pretty annoyed at losing 2 panthers and 1 stug and 1 mark IV (I think) to aircraft BULLETS... all quickly after eachother.

Actually, I just logged into 2k adv srv now.. and I thought I'd seen the same effects here, but I don't. 2k is 'clean' of the flickering bug, but, of course, looks like total crap otherwise in its own right. I'm leaning towards the tweaker program then - although, I checked the option to clear any alterations I made to no effect. Time to go registry hunting after school..

Question: I remember a big discussions back in the fairly-not-old-days about the tiger turret's mantlet adding protection on some areas on the turret, effectively doubling the armor protection for some parts. But the diagram makes the mkIV seem to have the same advantage - 50mm of mantlet over 50mm of turret armor. Now.. was the tiger a special case wherein most tanks have thin turret armor specifically behind the mantlet, or should tanks in general have 'strong spots' in their turret armor like the tiger?

As a general rule, it is MUCH easier to integrate old data into new code than new code into old code - This means, in practical terms, for CM2 to be 'backwards compatable' with CM1 actually means that the unit object/model/details could be imported and work with cm2, rather than any code changing to CM1. In other words, they MIGHT be able to put CM1 units into the CM2 game, in a way being 'backwards compatable', but it depends on how much they're changing things.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Some great comments pro and a few con … but there has been no response from BTS, so this looks like a dead issue as far as implementing (in CM2 at least). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I'm hoping they're discussing it before they reply...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Well, historically there was some sort of 'campaign' system going, however the field losses and the dilusion through replacements would probably result in a unit remaining at the same, and possibly decreasing in experience. Crack units were formed in between battles, not created on the battlefield. Your unit, if it started off at Regular, would probably remain as regular. Plus, trading in equipment for this and that was impracticle, since units at this scale had no control over their own replacements. This would end up in the individual having no choice over their OOB, since all units beforehand would be determined by the computer (ie. Brigade/Divisional command). Your unit will not vary too much from its original deployment. If you have Panzer IV's at the beginnning of the campaign, chances are you will have them at the end. If you have Stug's at the beginning, you can bet your life that Division will not change your unit to Tigers. Also, most units did not see a great amount of combat as a single cohesive formation. Units are routinely shuffled, broken down, combined and refitted. Rarely would a unit fight at one formation from 1941 to 1945, ala. many other wargame campagins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is all a very good post. And I agree with you, for the most part. Again, we're not talking about a war-long campaign in which Sergeant Joe goes from conscript to elite, commanding a BT-5 and ending with an IS-3. We're talking more about a way of tracking losses, casualties, supply, objectives, ect, in a more complex way than CM operations are capable. What I propose would more resemble an extended CM operation than a panzer general style war-wide campaign. The current CM operation system is more or less a hastily done system to give the players some sort of extended battle, rather than a well developed operation system tracking everything important to an operation. Its not bad for what it does, and I don't blame them for not concentrating more on it, but the critical factor here is time. They didn't have time, and they don't have time, to implement an operation system - because they want to concentrate their development effort on their tactical game. I commend that, honestly, I would appreciate a better tactical game than a half-done campaign system. However, because they don't have time to do it, doesn't mean their fanbase doesn't. Together, we can manifest the ideas of what a campaign layer (or extended operation layer, if you prefer) game should be.. and all we need is a coder (which I've volunteered to do), and some good ideas, which are plentiful on this board.. and BTS to "open the door" so to speak. All that is required on their part is a willingness to allow user input in this fashion. The actual technical details involved in allowing what I asked for in the proposal are minimal - they just need to open the door for us to design our own campaign system. Think of it this way. People have been doing a CM campaign game since the start of the game - but they've had to do it manually. To click on each unit, write down the casualties, unit names, ect.. and then calculate the replacements and such, on paper, and then manually go into the scenario editor and re-add all of these units with the same name, the replacement effects (experience, squad liquidation), and ammo/supply detail. This has all been done by hand - we've had discussion of it on this thread, by Jason, for example. The problem is that, as Jason said, it takes hours and hours to track all of this out - and you can't afford to do it in great detail, because it would take entirely too long. What I want to do is to automate this sort of system. You could make it into a set operation - a series of maps by a talented map designer, similar to the cm-minicampaigns, but with real dynamic data - or you could choose to do a GM to players sort of campaign system as Jason has done - or you could do a massively multiplayer campaign like CMMC. What I propose will open the doors to allow ALL of these types of campaigns to be practical, because the repetitive tasks that many people struggle to do manually, because they want continuity, would be automatic and detailed. [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

If you could name CM2 PBEM files under a proprietary extension like 'game.pbm' or 'game.cme' for CMEmail or somesuch, it would be helpful. I've got a few mail readers that want to interpret it as a text file and display the whole thing, which makes it a minor hassle to get down to the download button sometimes.

I was talking with a GM in CMMC about this, and he gave me some ideas regarding CMMC, also. I could write a specific utility designed to assist CMMC GMs and such, by automatically translating cocat .uni files into CM OOB files, automate their unit replacement system, ect. I wouldn't mind doing this at all because I know how hard GMs work for CMMC, and how swamped they can get with manual work, so if these features are implemented, this'll be another program I put on the to-do list.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-: How long would it take to do that Jason? Would it have been nice to grab a text dump file that had a list of units, ie. AO Platoon HQ-3 kills 2 casualties, A1, A2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was actually in Jason's campaign, which was a good learning lesson while it lasted. And that is actually one of the primary things that got me thinking about a system similar to this. The reason Jason had to stop all of it, however, was because it was simply too time consuming to do this all 'by hand'. He had to figure out casualties, how they effect units, ect, ect, all with nothing more complex than a pen and paper, I'm assuming. Something like this would perfectly be able to help Jason's campaign, and those like it. It would automate the tasks that are currently very time consuming to do 'by hand' in CM. Things like CMMC would benefit because COCAT could output a unit file which could then be imported into CM scenario editor .. CMMC GMs would be able to create tactical battles in half the time, rather than looking at a cocat file, memorizing 2 units, going into CM, buying those 2 units, going back to cocat, getting another 2 units, going back to CM... ect. I'm just asking for a way to automate and make some things more flexible and efficient that are already being done - albeit just more slowly and alot harder. EDIT: In reply to the post: It wouldn't be as hard to read, for a campaign designer/master as A-0 Plt HQ 2 casualties, A-1.. ect, ect. I would write a module for the program to read the text file, and display it in a more user friendly form, so they could hierachally and graphically see the information the AAR is outputting. [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Peterk: There's a way to do a campaign without really needing anything more from CM than what it is giving right now - using the Mega Campaign system idea for SP. Basically, your program would just have to ask the user to input the Score (and maybe the final morale) after a scenario is played, and then you use that value to determine which scenario variant is the next to be played. You'd have to create multiple variants of lots of scenarios to deal with the OOB/set-up zone changes for the various win/loss combinations but it would be lots of fun to play. As an example - scenario 1 is a mission where the US has to take a town. If the score indicates that the US did in fact take the town, you would branch to a mission 2 where the US gets to setup in the town and its unit strengths will be adjusted in some way (maybe 3 variants for easy victory, difficult victory, and average victory). Same thing for a defeat - mission 2 would be maybe a 2nd attempt to take the town, with multiple variants. A draw, might be a meeting engagement with both sides in the town at the outset.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an idea we can work with if BTS doesn't allow us to add a campaign utility (by not being able to import files, ect).. But in my proposed system, it would be enourmously more detailed than this. Each squad, vehicle, and team will be tracked for supply, casualties, kills, experience, morale, physical state ... and VLs will be meaningful beyond simple 'victory points', and such. Adding some sort of campaign system like you mentioned would be good, if we end up not being able to do this for technical reasons - but short of that, the system I proposed is much more detailed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: "There is a quality about quantity." Not sure if I got that right and I'm not even sure I know who said it but it was someone important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Stalin. I believe it is: "Quantity has a quality all of its own"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kestrl: What happens to your new veteran tank crew after they get their tank knocked out or disabled? do they return as veteran or regulars in the next battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As yet undetermined. Again, this thread is for an idea proposal, not working out the details of the system. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't think a campaign option is needed in CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, thats nice. Many people do. Thats the beauty of an optional, additional system. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't think its going to happen in CM2. [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Kestrl ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why not? All I'm asking is for them to allow some extra features - detailed AARs, outputted as files.. importing scenario data from files... They're not being asked to design the campaign system. They're being asked to 'open the door' so to speak, for someone else to do it. And for those who are interested to enjoy it.

Jason, I find this post pretentious, condescending, and abstract. I'm insulted. Please retract these utter fantasies immeadiately. Your dependence on numbers is ridiculous.

An additional feature I request is this: Allow victory flags to have names, or at least values (flag 1, 2, 3, ect), and report it in the AAR. This way, my campaign system, rather than having 'generic' victory points, might have something like 'VL 1: Hill 101' and VL2: 'German supply road' In this case, my campaign manager could read the AAR and execute a predetermined action if a certain victory condition were met. For example. Perhaps the mission briefing might state something like "Division wants you to take hill 101 if possible for observation. If you can do so, you can use some of the divisional spotters located there for artillery support".. an action that triggers the player to have an FO in the next game. Or, similarly, if a russian force holds an important road junction, labelled 'German supply road', or somesuch, then the german forces in the next battle can be less supplied, with less reinforcement. This adds a layer of strategy above the tactics, in deciding which objectives are important to you as a player, an adds variety and an extra layer of complexity to the simulation.. and again, would be easy to implement.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: It's not a big thing, but in a way, it is. A pet peeve is that I have spotted an infantry? or a tiger? or a SPA? or what ever and then it hides or goes out of los only to be replaced by the cross marker, star marker, bullseye marker, etc. All well and good except when that same unit reappears elsewhere, the star, cross, or bullseye disappears. That immediately tells me that the unit that was seen over there is now over here. How in the world would anyone know that? As far as you know, it could be an entirely different unit. My suggestion would be to leave the markers on the map and the ONLY way that they would be removed is if one of your units had a los to that particular piece of terrain or was close enough to spot it. As it is now, trying to confuse the enemy is very difficult if the hidden markers keep reappearing as your units move across the map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good call. Another way is to have unit markers fade with time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Well, I certainly hope it sees the light of day; many (including me) have expressed these wishes for months. It is nice to see some people taking an active part. I am satisfied with the response to my question, also - I do agree that experience should not change much. The example about tank kills is a not bad one - I was referring more to infantry - most infantrymen never see the enemy (I posted a good quote some months back about a platoon commander taking over a Bren and wiping out an enemy MG42 - without ever having seen a human being - I suspect this was the norm). Of course, perceiving that you have killed something will affect your morale - but morale and experience are two different things. And I think that applies to tank gunners, as well. A few kills won't necessarily make you a better gunnner - expert marksmen with 1000 bullseyes under their belt still miss 100 percent scores occasionally. But they will indeed increase your confidence in yourself, and your morale. Anyway, not to detract from the main issue - that this is a good idea, and that while details like this need to be worked out, it may be premature to discuss them now. Go to it Senor Beef, George III, et al... I wish you luck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not talking about a PG style campaign necesarily (although its possible). I'm talking about, really, extended CM operations with more detail. Or something similar to the close combat 2 campaign system. Units, after a few battles, might go from green to regular if they consistently inflict decent casualties on the enemy, don't take huge ones of their own, and generally don't end the game in a "broken!" morale state (which I hope the AAR might be detailed enough to report.. or perhaps the AAR can include whether the unit went to "!" status at all. This would help determine whether a unit would be 'promoted'). So I'm not talking about commanding units that go from green to elite over the course of a mini-campaign/operation. I'm talking about a unit with staggering losses going from regular to green or conscript, or a conscript going to green, green going to regular. Units will also be destroyed, their remaining members consolidated into other units.. and their experience will 'mesh' and such. Or you might get whole new green or conscript replacement squads... As I said, specific implementation is currently in the air. Currently, I just want to get BTS to make this all possible. We have all the time in the world to work out the details of the system. But as I said, my idea is to generate a 'campaign' game more similar to close combat 2 than panzer general. Although.. if I made my system modular enough, I suppose either can be done. I'm willing to dedicate alot of time to this project. I truly love CM, and I want to do what I can for people who wish to have a bit more continuity to their CM games. Again, this is a proposal I want BTS to accept here, not a program-design thread at this point. If you support this idea, please make a post, so that they can see the popular support behind this. EDIT: Clarity and spacing [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergei: In general I would find such, umm, "exporting battle report" option worthy of support. I'm sure there would be many uses for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true also. Other uses I have in mind are things like simplified scenario management for scenario designers - perhaps they want to design a scenario in which all units start on low ammo, and don't want to edit each individual ammo count for each unit. I could design a historical force selector that could automate such tasks. Additionally, the AAR->text file would allow a program to organize AARs in a statistical fashion. Average kills per MG, that sort of thing. As well as re-organize (list) units based on kill/death ratio, or most killed tanks, or whatever you might want.. so that you could see the performance of your various squads in a statistical sense. A "medal" system, to those who wanted it, could also be implemented on this basis.. evaluating the AAR and such. A simple features, requiring little of BTS' time, would open the door heavily to user customization and additions in the same way that allowing graphics to be modified has improved the game through the mod community.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Does this mean that your system would rely on how many kills a unit gets to increse experience? Sounds like Dungeons and Dragons to me. Perhaps I'm misreading this. What other factors would you base "experience" on? I think BTS hit the nail on the head right in the manual when they say that increasing experience levels in the course of two or three games is unrealistic. I can certainly see a unit downgrading in experience as casualties are taken and replacements absorbed - but surely you don't mean to suggest that "kills" in any way contribute to a unit's experience...yes? [ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To be honest, the methods by which experience and such would be determined are up to discussion. I have no real solid plan for that. I was mostly proposing the BTS include the option to have such a system - and then, once thats taken care of, we can all discuss how such a system might work. I think kills might be a part of how experience goes up. A green unit that manages to kill twice as many as its own squad seems to be headed on the way to regular status... but that was just an example of the way these could be done. In this thread, I'm just proposing to BTS that such a system could exist - and the specifics for such a system are totally up in the air now, in no way solid. Killings -> experience was just a possible example. EDIT: On further thought - experience won't be one of the huge items that this system might track. Supply level, fatigue level, replacement level, ect will be just as important. I'm thinking that perhaps not a war-wide core unit campaign (ala Panzer General) wouldn't be the best way to go about this - and is what BTS opposed... But an operation-wide campaign of several units, perhaps (ala CC2, arnhem) might be a good place to represent control over a series of units. Experience gain isn't hugely important here (although some greens might go to regular, and some regulars to greens due to losses), but supply, fatigue state, casualties, ect. are. And I don't see anything patently unrealistic about a CC2 style operation-campaign, rather than the PG type that BTS really objects to. [ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: I look at it this way: The 13 second delay you are forced to wait for the Hetzer to start turning simulates the time it would have taken a real Hetzer to back up then pull forward to change facing. 13 seconds is probably rather generous. An imperfect abstraction to be sure, but more realistic than no delay at all IMO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You don't get the orders I intended to convey. I wanted to engage one target to my left for thirty seconds, then turn to my right to face more targets. The idea is to ideally destroy the vehicle on my left, then turn to engage those on the right. I have 2 choices in this situation. I can target the left vehicle, and thats it. The hetzer will turn to its left, and engage that vehicle. If it destroys the vehicle, it sits there, with its ass and sides exposed to the threat I know is just over the hill to the right. Or, I can issue a paused movement order and a target order. If it targets and destroys the target on the left, and then, on pause, 30 seconds later, turns to engage the tanks on the right, it will attempt its only real chance at survival. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A bug is an unintentional mistake in the game. Only BTS would know if this is intentional or not, but it is so obvious I rather suspect that it is quite intentional and therefore not a bug.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is almost certainly an oversight. Maybe not a 'bug', but simply there isn't enough detail in the code regarding targetting while given movement orders. There is no intentional reason that BTS would simply make a hetzer sit there and do absolutely nothing to protect itself, completely ignore a target order. The movement order is 'overriding' in some ways that makes the TacAI function oddly. Just recently I made a post about how units automatically unhide when given a movement order, rather than when they actually start moving - a flaw (over oversight, if you wish) that caused me to lose 2 whole platoons in one game. This is another such case of movement orders overriding previous orders at the time they're given, rather than at the time they're executed. Pause is supposed to mean 'wait until X time to begin movement order', rather than 'sit there and do absolutely nothing as the tank I told you to target pecks away at your side armor...'

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: I'm just always amazed when I here people talking about how this tank was only 100 meters from his tank, or how his tank is surrounded by 2-3 vehicles only 100-200 meters away and then complains when the tank dies.. sheesh.. come on. Jef [ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: jshandorf ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At no point did I complain that my tank died. I DID however, complain, that a flaw in the tacAI made my hetzer simply sit there, pointing at NOTHING, targetting NOTHING, doing NOTHING until it was killed. If it had turned to engage one tank and got killed by one on the flank, then I chalk it up to losing a tank in a desperate situation. However, when the tank sits there and DOES NOT DO ANYTHING AT ALL because theres a flaw regarding the tacAI and movement orders, then I think theres a case for improvement. Alter the situation so that I've got a tank 1000 and 1200 meters off my flank. Now its not such a desperate situation - but if I gave the same orders, my tank would've done the same thing and simply sat there until something blew it up. You can't excuse a flawed TacAI to desperate situations or tactical disadvantage.

Thanks for the AAR. I really haven't played around with them a whole lot, but they look like an interesting bunch.

I want to propose a user-created campaign system that would not require much work or endorsement from BTS, but would allow those wishing a campaign system to have what they want. This evolved from ideas started on my QB generator thread. The mini-campaigns that are out there are currently are quite interesting, since you get a 'feel' for some of your men. But unfortunately, they're not implemented in a way where relative casualties and kills and such can affect them. The to&e always as they will be on the first, second, third, ect battle, not dynamic. I'm thinking of a system wherein I (as a programmer) could team up with a good map designer to create a mini-campaign. They would, naturally, design the scenarios, historical forces, maps, ect.. while I would write a program that would keep track of unit kills, losses, accomplishments, ect, to keep track of their relative strength and their experience. And even supply situation. Now, I've read that CM2 is going to allow more detailed AARs. This is great... one big feature everyone would like to see is the true (non-FOW blocked) kill lists of each unit after the game. With this, it would be relatively easy for BTS to write a quick function that would sequentially output the kill list of each unit to a text file, as well as the casualties and status (broken, ect, for fatigue reasons, perhaps). My program would then be able to read this AAR text file and determine what units are to move up in experience, who needs rest, what units are disbanded to consolidate into new formations, ect, all automatically. Additionally, a feature I requested for consideration was the ability to import a text format (of BTS' choosing) that would allow text files to be imported into the CM2 scenario designer units list. This way, my program could read the AAR files, interpret what units go up in experience, are disbanded, ect, and then create a new file that reflects this, which can, hopefully, be imported into the CM2 scenario editor, so that the next battle would reflect these changes automatically. With the help of a good map designer, or several, mini-campaigns could be designed that would create a campaign-setting to CM that would be completely unsupported by BTS. It would simply be an add-on utility for those interested - no promises from BTS, and no 'caving in' to their idea not to have 'core units' and such. The work on their part would simply be to allow detailed data to be outputted to text files. The fact that cm textures are modifiable has been one of the great assets to the game. Much free work has been done to improve the graphical environment of the game. All for free, from the talented CM fanbase that do it just for the love of the game. I propose the next form of user-based improvement of the game comes in the form of user-made campaign manager programs. All that is required on BTS' part is to allow the data (aar data, ect) to be used, changed, and imported back into CM in the same manner that mods do with the graphics. This is all free for BTS, improves the games for those people who want to use it, and doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't. All that is required of them is simply allowing the output of more detailed aars (already planned) to text files, instead of the screen alone, and to allow importation of standardized text files into the scenario editor. Additionally, I could poll the intelligent people of this forum for basic rules on how replacements and such should affect unit quality.. and we could, together, devise a system by which unit replacements, supply, ect. are determined. My point being is that together we could work out a system by which this would work. I would be perfectly willing to write up the actual program that does all the work. All that is required from BTS is support for outputting AAR information to text files (easy) and allowing importation of standardized text files to the CM scenario editor (a bit more work, but still easy). I'm sorry this is a bit redundant, but I'm sort of merging two posts into one with this.. and I'm fairly tired. But I feel strongly about this, and I'm willing to do all the programming myself if BTS gives us the extra features to do it with. Thank you for your time, and any comments would be appreciated.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: LOL! Pure Creepy Crawley. Thank you to those who agree with me, and screw those who do not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A simple acknowledgement that someone seemed to have understood clearly might help someone not quite grasping the message help with a bit more context. Or it could just be a simple thank-you for not being of the automatic-antipathetic crowd. I didn't see "screw those who don't" in there anywhere. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think I understand ASL Vet's shyness of QBs - I loathe them with a passion, personally, and having seen some of ASL Vet's conversions of Squad Leader scenarios, as well as some of the really great work on the net from dozens of scenario designers, it is beyond me why anybody even bothers with QBs (much less debate their merits). And Jason, I feel obliged to comment on your "intentionally dim" remark - by now you should know that there is a big difference between wading through your convoluted posts filled with abstractions, extrapolations and pure fantasy in equal helpings, and not understanding them, as opposed to intentionally playing stupid. I know its hard for you to grasp that there are one or two unenlightened souls not yet convinced of your brilliance, but you don't do yourself any help by insulting them. I suggest you play less the schoolmaster, and more the schoolboy - which of course is all you are. Horrido! [ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Firstly, why are you accusing him of having posts full of fantasy and abstractions? I find them clear, generally correct, if not as concise as possible. They're very rarely confusing, and they flesh out the topic in detail. Secondly, its hard to have an open and welcoming view of someone of an antagonist persuasion throwing out vague insults at you every time you try to make a helpful post on anything. I've never found Jason to be condescending in any manner before the antagonist crowd seemed to have formed, and even thereafter, he seems to be pretty civil. Yet after he posts a helpful and intelligent post on a subject, immeadiately people are posting with vague accusations of 'fantasy' and 'abstraction', with no real substance to the accusations. [ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]