Liebchen

Yeah, it seems new pilots get 'beginner's luck' by default.... :-D

The only way I've been playing local games has been when there are no players available for online play. (I realize that that's not universal; some may want to have LAN parties, or something.) I would prefer online play with real people over bots. Could the game (or online system) be modified to allow for this preference? Perhaps players who happen to be online at the time of playing a local game could receive some popup notification of events occuring online? Perhaps a little window to the side, ala WinXP's update notifications or Symantec's NAV update notifications. Perhaps a button could be added to allow this option, allowing some to play local games undisturbed... Anyone else share this sentiment?

Thanks Kuroi, that was exactly what I needed.

But that really has an immense effect upon the odds, now, doesn't it? If a card is supposed to be 1 in 76, it should remain 1 in 76 and not suddenly double in frequency. Card counters or not, no player should have to face an IMS:D twice. Imagine dodging that bullet, breathing a sigh of relief, and then seeing it again. That's just not right -- especially if the card is supposed to be a one-of-a-kind card. Just my humble opinion.

:confused: </font>

There should be a way to see the cards in your hand when the query re: following a foe up/down is asked. The hand disappears and I can't seem to figure out how to see it (if there is, indeed, a way to do so). Also, it would be nice to see the pilot skills while the game is in progress.

Except if you start the game at high, in which case you start with fewer cards. So you'd end up with 5-6 cards.

Is there any way to know the breakdown of the deck? Or is this something that will mutate over time, with the introduction of new cards?

Will people be able to design a terrain feature (such as particularly interesting buildings) and save it independantly of a scenario or map? In other words, I can imagine modders and designers creating models of, say, the Reichstag, and offering them for DL. Scenario authors could then insert that terrain feature -- predesigned -- into their map. This could both reduce the turnaround time (potentially) for scenario design and increase the variety of terrain features we'd see. I could just imagine scenario designers shopping for just the right model tavern, for example, with the 'shopping list' growing exponentially as terrain features and their variants appear.

Excellent stuff, thanks Brian! This should be sticky-posted somewhere.

Moon, I understand the concept of the chain of actions and reactions, believe me, I do. Haohmaru seems to have grasped my question, however: This is the stuff I'm asking about. Are the actions and reactions all generic? I think not. This difference between 'in my sights' and 'out of the sun,' for example, is explained nowhere that I've found. Here's another example: I've noted that I can use a barrel roll sometimes in response to an attack, but not other times, for example. I'm trying to understand the parameters and distinctions. It sure would be nice if the right-click window elaborated a little, such as by telling us these things. Or at least the help files should say something about it. Is is written out somewhere that I might be able to see? Is this certain? I seem to recall having had more than one option yellowed out when reacting/acting, at times (but I could have misremembered this). Are there not some cards that counter other different reactions, for example, 'ace pilor'? So are you saying that if I start countering with a barrel roll, I'm committed to using only that card from that point on? It doesn't say this anywhere.

I got that much already. What I'm asking is if there is any other substantive difference between the different moves. Is one action card like another action card? For instance, what is the practical difference between an 'In my sights 1:2' and an 'Out of the sun 1:2'? I see that a scissors will switch from disadvantaged to advantaged. I see that half loop will change neutral to tailing. But what is the practical difference between 'tight turn' and 'vertical roll' when it comes to reacting? Do they have any different outcomes, other than requiring different counter-reactions from the attacker? When I use a 'vertical roll' I don't change altitude. Are you saying that it is supposed to? Is this only when it's used as an action, but not a reaction? (If so, why?) You see where I'm going with this?

Can someone please explain for me, in a clear manner, what the different characteristics of the different moves are in relation to each other? The "help" barely says anything. For example, it seems to me that a barrel roll works well when your being tailed, but does it work better than with other situations? What is the interplay? Or are the actions and reactions just a collection of cards that either counter an attack or are countered by like cards?

I would largely agree with your analysis, were this a strict simulation of real life. In RL people can't move from one apartment building directly into the next without using extraordinary means. In RL one cannot enter a building from any point of its exterior, for that matter, but must usually rely upon the use of doors and windows. Of course, this is not RL, is it. The question had to do more with what the CM rules allow and disallow. CM allows infantry to access buildings from any point (usually). The problem is one of internal consistency. Recall that the starting premise (that one could move from rubble to adjoining intact building) was based upon experience. My units made this move constantly throughout the first battle of the operation. They were not re-routed once. I analyzed this as being internally consistent with the CM movement rules. Take a large building square in the open. In CM, a unit can move into that square from any of the four sides. Now when two large buildings are adjoining, movement from one directly through to the other is prohibited. But when one building is rubbled, the still-erect building is now the equivalent of a stand-alone two-story building. As I stated, this theory was supported by practice -- until I got to the second battle. <u>Then</u> (and only then) did the units start to get re-routed. And -- interestingly enough --even in battle 2, some units are allowed to move directly from rubble into adjacent still-standing buildings without being re-routed. It is the lack of internal consistency that bothers me. I need to know what units are capable or incapable of doing. I also need to know what the <u>enemy</u> is capable of doing. If moves are arbitrarily allowed or disallowed at different times, then I could end up passing a block by as 'a barrier' only to have Russians sneak through it later, when is proves to be passable to <u>them</u>.

Search produces nothing but pre-release speculation, so... I am playing 'Hell on Earth' the Stalingrad Pack operation. It is quite a wonderful experience, all in all, BUT I am experiencing some confusion as to urban movement, to whit: My basic presumption has always been that one could move units from a rubbled area to an immediately adjacent building (two-story, heavy, in case anyoen's unclear on the concept of 'urban'). In the first round of the op, I had no reason to suspect this theory, but in round two things have gotten shaky! Now (now that the morning mist has risen and the enemys' guns way down the boulevard can shoot my men, that is) suddenly units moving from ruins to immediately adjacent intact buildings get re-routed by the AI to run all the way around the block and into the street where the enemy can shoot them. Can anyone elucidate a clear and predictable rule for movement from rubble to adjacent intact building, or must I chalk this up to the vagaries of urban wartime chaos?

Maybe I wasn't clear. I installed all mods, including the dirty treads, but the dirty treads don't show up in the game... [ November 22, 2002, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Liebchen ]

I've got all mods installed, and they look great -- except for their brand-new, spit-polished tracks! How do I get the tracks to change? :confused:

What you are describing there sounds to me like bunkers, not trenches. The game certainly allows you to set up rear-facing bunkers.

I haven't read your whole post, as I haven't played the scenario yet, but I wanted to point out that it is not uncommon to call certain scenarios "meeting engagements" where one side has more forces and more of a burden of attack. "Wiltz" is a good example from CMBO. "Tiger Tiger" appears to be a CMBB scenario. The point, I believe, is that neither side starts out set up on the map, and certainly not in prepared positions, although one side may start out much closer to the objectives than the other and may have a better opportunity to set up a screen.

Could it be that the firing troops are firing their rifles blindly through the barleyfields? It <u>is</u> area fire, after all, and has a greatly diminished accuracy. I can imagine that many, if not most, rounds would not be hindered too much by passing among the grainstalks, but would generally make their way down the field. I can imagine being the target unit hiding in a prone position in the grainfield, with bullets whizzing overhead. I may not be getting hit, but I certainly would think twice before standing up. :eek: Overall, it makes sense to me that there is "LOS" through the grainfields. Think of it as "LOF" instead, if you must -- line of fire. Any person who stands up in them gets seen, any person who remains hidden does not get seen, and the bullets just keep flying in any event, either accurately or randomly. Has anyone tested to see if units hiding in grainfields have reduced LOS? I suspect that the answer will be in the affirmative... [ October 04, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Liebchen ]

This explains a lot. I will try it tonight, myself, just out of continuing curiosity... [ October 02, 2002, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Liebchen ]

This is what I referred to. It seems that the Germans opened fire at 50m when given no particular orders, but when told to hide -- but to cover an arc -- they held fire until 15m. Of course, I do not know the extent of the covered arc... I assume that it was for 50m or more, right Dirtweasle? I may do my own tests tonight...

So you are in support of universal spotting? Or just a gamey bastard? Seriously, though, it seems to me that the TC of that Tiger would need to get the lowdown on his surroundings periodically by peaking out. He'd need to make sure there aren't other targets out of view of his periscope or whatever he uses. Don't want to be snuck up upon by tank-killers, do we? And what about when he offs that target; who will be next? I would think that there would be times when the TC simply has to chance the odd sniper shot to get the job done.

Yes. After all, they did see in black and white back then, didn't they?

I was just coming to that conclusion on my own. What is troubling is how the hiding Germans didn't fire until 15 meters, even though they had detected the enemy at 50 meters and had a covered arc order. I do not understand this.