Tris

Let me get this straight, Peter. You just can't fathom four (count them with me, please: one, two, three, four) soldiers in a full (actually, reinforced counting the armor and extra artillery assets) battalion with "sniper" or "scout" capabilities? I can. Easily. Now if you have some other point, or if I'm putting words in your mouth somehow, I will gladly stand corrected. Otherwise, all I can see is that you seem to want to extend the silliness from the "other" thread over to this one. I'm not up for that. I would love to discuss CMBO intelligently with anyone who has that interest. I respect the simulation at that level. I have no interest in telling you, or in you telling me, what is and what is not "gamey." And if you must engage in that then at least come to the table with your dubious duff in order. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-09-2000).]

Well, so much for my "improved" bat. It turned out to look like some orange-flavored stick thingie with years-ahead styling. Sure wish I had Magua's talent.

I think I'll have to recolor that bat, though.

This guy's something else, is he not?

Good point re communications, Todd, an item I thought about several times last night as I watched all four of my snipers buy it, one right after the other. (The last kill was funny! He'd finally made it all the way to the nearside road hedge, but I was not patient enough when I gave him his command and ordered this poor solder to crawl right through the hedge instead of sneaking up to it and then hiding, where he might have heard anything on the far side before barging through. So through he goes, and sure enough, what has the wacky AI done? but to order one its platoons to march down the road in pitch dark, to where is anyone's guess, and sure enough one of the squads, or perhaps the leader, my level of intel wasn't high enough to know for sure, waxed him.) Anyway, two things: First, let's examine your position a bit further because it seems to have inherent logical flaws, to include 1) while we could hardly expect our men to always be radio equipped (though in some cases a walkie-talkie--I've always loved that terminology) might be appropriate--depending) would it not be possible for these soldiers to gather the intelligence and get their reports, physically, back to HQ? Isn't this what we would have expected from our WWII GI's? 2) if we can have no useful intelligence from these modest (dysfunctional, as you might have it) assets, then where would "yours" supposedly come from? In my scenario, we speak to a battalion ordered to attack a couple of villages some ways away. Now at battalion level I would expect that formation to assume responsibility for its own reconnaisance, certainly all of a local nature. Regiment isn't going to tell battalion what's out there a few hundred meters to its front, isnt this so? From where, then, does battalion's intel come? My second deal: 1) I think I might have an issue with the way snipers are modeled in terms visibility vis-a-vis the enemy. All of mine last night were crawling along and stopping at judicious intervals (except for the gross mistake I committed at the road hedge, already confessed), and each duly discovered foxholes (most of them empty--more on that in a sec) and waited to see what was up, etc. Well, finally I ordered them to proceed to see what might happen, and like I said they all were turned into lonely dog tags. I wondered about this beforehand and so took the liberty of making these snipers 1 Elite, 1 Crack and 2 Veteran, just for purposes of my test. (I want this scenario to play well, from both sides, and it's rather large and demanding and without reasonable intel I'm gonna have to make some changes.) Based on what happened last night I'd have to say that unless my sample is too small to gauge from (and it well could be), snipers just aren't up to their work as scouts. Please understand that the ground started off dry, but I arranged for "Bad" weather and so it conveniently rained the first turn (remember, this is night), a circumstance which ought to have helped to diminish everyone's visibility and hearing and thus abetted my snipers' efforts, yet all I had to show for their exercise were those four dog tags. Not a good sign, I'm sure everyone will agree. 2) I have a very large problem with what I discovered about the TacAI, namely that on the first turn of a scenario, at night, with the Germans designated as the defender, no less than four German platoons were ordered to desert their foxholes and walk around aimlessly in the night air, headed God-only-knows where. What's with that? I have noticed previously that foxholes would be discovered with no one in them, but this is the first clue I've had that these have not necessarily been evacuated for intelligent reasons but rather solely because the TacAI hasn't a good clue. Where were those Germans headed, southbound down the road from Prairie du Chien, last night? Why were the foxholes discovered by my other three snipers all empty as well? What's going on here? Is this an old issue, and if so what has BTS had to say about this? P.S. I took snapshots of the action (I use HyperSnap) but I do not know how to post these to the boards. If someone would give me the answer I'd be happy to post the most relevant of these--they show a lot. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-09-2000).]

Why not just repost the list with it's own simple thread title (I'd suggest "BMP list") so we have a ready, easily accessible archive for others to search for and retrieve from in the future?

Mine's the Stuart as well--has been ever since I read all those JEB (The Gray Ghost) Stuart comic books back when I was a child.

Same here. I eagerly await your next tutorial, Todd. Re "time," in my OP scenario I've given the Allied player the maximum 30 turns during night hours, with four snipers to work with should he choose, in order to accomplish his requisite reconnaisance. Unfortunately, that still does not quite measure up to the demands from the Allied side of this particular scenario, but that is a design issue at another level and one which I am powerless to affect. This is a very good game system, but it has many large (and some curious) holes in it. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-08-2000).]

I wonder if Mr. Justice simply views the best role of CMBO from the special perspective of his personal military experience--which draws exclusively from our present "high-tech" age of warfare--or if he meant, rather, to suggest that scenarios employed solely as a training exercises might be better off to provide the level of intelligence he alluded to. Afterall, this author comes across as anything other than a dimwit; further, I imagine any professional soldier with combat duty under his belt would not be fast to deny the real-world value of hard intelligence data gathered just as close as possible to the time of his unit's jump-off. Even today, a satellite image taken twelve hours ago is one thing and a first-hand report from, say, a SEAL team on the spot just an hour before another. Yes? Unless Justice chooses to reply we shall never know what this gentleman's thinking was when he made his recommendation re the value of scouts in CMBO. Meanwhile, I encourage authors of scenarios to make their little creations as interesting for (and demanding of) gamers as they can. As for historical vs. fictional scenarios: both enjoy their proper place, surely. I currently slave over my first design, which is wholly fictional yet promises, as far as I can determine, to provide one whale of a fight from either side of the line. And is this not the most important thing? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-08-2000).]

Re the use of scouts: while I appreciate Justice's evaluation as far as it implies to CMBO scenarios I think his view is somewhat limited insofar as it could impact the scope and variety of said constructions. Why is it not possible to design an interesting scenario in which available intelligence is nowhere satifactory and/or reliable? Why would this kind of scenario necessarily be less worthwhile to game than one which more closely conformed to what Justice seems to view as this game system's optimum? Do you suppose each and every action in WWII at the level which this game wants to simulate came gift-wrapped for the respective combatants with perfect overview? Read widely but think for yourself.

Stuka wrote: With almost a 50-50 result,its equally possible that each guy is only half up to the task. If you'd been paying attention you might have noticed that it's been like this for some time. Maximus wrote: I don't get it, the leader of the free world is being elected and all you foreigners say it's boring. The US elections have a huge impact on world economics as well, in case you didn't know. So true. See below. Chupacabra wrote: I'm American, and I think it's boring. Both Bush and Gore are centrists. They've tried to appeal to the same constituencies over the same issues. In the end, I doubt the next four years will be much different no matter which one gets elected. You think it's boring too, eh? Well, okay. I think it is quite exciting, I think our whole political process is quite exciting. Diluted somewhat over the years, corrupted (some would say) beyond easy redemption, but always of great interest to be sure, if for no other reason because the result of this procedure impacts every American everywhere every day. Getting around all that . . . while it is true both candidates (I almost wrote "wannabe's" there) look to be about as centrist in their expressed views as could be, even when this country's two-party system chooses to construct platforms of remarkably different design the case always seems to be that after the vote is gotten in and the president elect finally is sworn into office it is business as usual the next day . . . for our country. This is the chief reason our political system is pleased to be viewed globally as the most stable on the planet and correspondingly why our currency, the good old U.S. dollar, remains the world benchmark (for currency traders) this many years down that speculative trail. The fact is we could have elected Ross Perot eight years ago or some crazy former professional wrestler with cauliflower ears, for that matter, and our system would still in all likelihood have functioned in the afterwash of such a crazed and wooly event pretty much as it had before. The two candidates are centrist, you say? Our electorate is centrist, or nation's collective sense of what is right and what is wrong tends to be centrist. And this, too, should come as no surprise, for our citizens are drawn from every gene pool on the planet and bring with them all the cultural baggage which that must imply, all of them eager to elbow their way in and work for their fair share of the pie. The result of this exercise in social homogenization is (as it must be) a society which is by definition somewhat centrist in nearly every possible respect.

I will repeat what has already been posted to this forum: if you follow the link http://mapage.cybercable.fr/deanco/tactics%20guide.htm you will find an extemely informative (and ably written) tactical treatise by one Todd C. Justice. I printed this document last night and pored over it, and let me tell you it represents a worthwhile investment of any wargamer's time. Good show!

Sounds good to me. I'm not much on anticheat systems, could never see the point. Hell, I'd rather a person cheat on me crazy if it's that important to him. I'd sure hate to think that I was the reason for his latest bummer.

Sound advice, Gene. Look, would you mind contacting me at tristanjohn@compuserve.com ? I've a proposition for you--you know, one of those "offers" you can't refuse.

Guess it depends on how you look at it. I've been "wargaming" since the 50's yet got waxed by the first scenario I jumped into (this was with the Gold Demo). And you know what? That beating I absorbed at the hands of this game's AI is what convinced me to log right back on to the Battlefront site and place my order. I then went back into the demo and tried that scenario again. Of course I had the edge this time since I already knew what to expect from the Germans, but I must say that getting some of my own back at Jerry's expense did help my morale some. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-07-2000).]

Doesn't matter . . . Magua's mine!

An intelligent reply. Thanks. It continues to amaze me just what this simulation is capable of accomplishing. When one considers this is but the first version then it is easy to entertain greater hope still for future releases. I might add that the small scale of the CMBO model is not what I look for in my gameware as a rule--I'm more of an "operational" kind of guy--yet after a mere few weeks with this one I find myself more and more a slave to its sultry siren ways. Keep up the splendid work!

I'm on the wrong coast and any time S-S-M is fine. I could arrange to play during the week at night as well.

Er, no offense, but I sorta doubt that wargames are niche products because their designers don't model five hundred different kinds of uniforms No offense taken, I assure you. But your impication (that I do draw this conclusion) I find to be curious. Why would you suppose that I believe anything of the kind? No one except the groggiest of grogs is going to notice whether the GIs are toting FPZ-13 Field Canteens Mark 3 or FPZ-13 Field Canteens Mark 4. No one has mentioned equipment detail down to canteens on this thread yet, to the best of my knowledge. Certainly I have not mentioned canteens. I'd be willing to venture that I know quite a lot more about WW2 than the average computer gamer, but for all I know, German armored car drivers were issued uniform feldgrau bunny slippers in 1943. The majority of gamers are going to look for whizbang stuff, not how many uniform BMPs there are. I don't know re the uniforms, either, though I'm interested. In film it's almost always the case that we find our little tankers wearing black outfits, but then I do not recommend using "Hollywood" as one's primary source. And don't get me going on the "average" gamer out there. While I don't know, my guess is that CMBO has its fair share of this dubious type based on my reading from this board re some attitudes around here, especially with regard to wide acceptance of gamey solutions to common wargame situations/problems. But here's the thing: my thesis was and is that CMBO would be infinitely better off if the developers would implement a better (call it more extensive, if you want) database use schematic for items such as terrain, buildings and vehicles (so that multiple buildings, say, could be designed and used at once in the same scenario). How anyone who has spent more than an hour or two with this game's editor could doubt as much is quite beyond me, and in any event it is nothing I'd care to argue too heatedly, as I find it to be something of a truism. Be happy to argue with you in general on almost anything else you'd care to mention, though. I'm always up for exercise here. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-06-2000).]

Your thinking is too simplistic, but you are student, so you will have some time to learn. I suggest you do lots of it before pronouncing brainless trash about other people's business again. Of course, Andersen Consulting will welcome you with open hands and a huge salary if you continue doing it. You are correct in a certain sense but have gone overboard with this--it's a sort of personal attack--and in my mind's eye you owe this person an apology. Hopefully, this apology would be a well-meant one. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-05-2000).]

I just think BTS and Battlefront.com are taking advantage a little. I think that I understand and appreciate your point of view, though please consider this: <LI> BTS could have hardly known what its market would have been coming into this venture--a case of "They said it couldn't be done" and all that--and so probably arrived at its present price structure with the hope that eventually enough profit would be realized to allow them to continue with the company's work. <LI> Even had BTS known what its sales would be, it has every right to charge what it feels its product is worth in the open market (I certainly would if I stood those shoes). <LI> No matter how this title looks to you with respect what is charged for it with re to its (supposed) relatively lower (compared to more-or-less parallel mainstream titles) production costs, isn't it so that you derive much enjoyment, and thus perceived value, from this purchase, and is it also not the case that you have had less happy experiences in your gaming past, that you might well have paid less (or more, for that matter) for the purchase in question yet then as part of that "bargain" received entirely less, too? Anyway, a free market philosophy prevails (thankfully) and consumers can (as they always do) vote with their pocketbooks. I find it a good thing that many consumers of our hobby have chosen to vote "Yes!" for CMBO, as this will go a long way toward ensuring that we will one day get to enjoy a sequil to this engaging piece of software. A kind of good deal where I come from. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-05-2000).]

Thanks for the suggestion and trust me, we are listening. Steve has said before that he had a great deal of other uniforms planed for CM but to be honest, they just ran out of time. With a newly hired in house artist we are hopeful that we won't have such issues again. You here that Kwazydog? GET BACK TO WORK! This game enjoys a veritable embarassment of wealth when it comes to third-party mods, Matt. What effectively stymies this select little niche of the wargaming market, though, with regard to these add-ons, is the inability to efficiently (and completely) interface all this great artwork which has thus far been made available due to a rather conservative design decision to not create a helluva lot more slots for things such as uniforms and terrain. If the authors want to see this title really take off, that would be the cheapest ticket. You know, I can easily recall, back in the good old days of DOS, when software developers claimed that the "memory" issue was the great bugaboo as to why their games then could not support such robust parameters. So here we are, some ten years down the road, with scads of accessible memory and system power to burn . . . and still this same-same school of design conservatism seems to reign supreme with developers. Now why is that do you suppose? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-05-2000).]

This is potentially worrisome - at some point, the cost of CM per hour of gameplay will be so low as to be effectively zero. Looked at logically . . . that is an impossibility. I agree that as one owns and plays the game longer that the cost per hour for the purchase will plunge to an insignificant amount--which is a very good thing from my perspective. It's been awhile since any computer game gave me this much bang for my buck. Last I can remember would be the original Earl Weaver Baseball. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-05-2000).]