Treeburst155

Looking at the test scenario I used for the above test in the editor, the targetting tool revealed some interesting things. I dug the Mark IVs in, then targetted them (in the editor). Chance to hit was 76% with kill chances "OK". When I "undug" the Mark IVs, chance to hit went up as one would expect to 93%; BUT, kill chances were reduced to "Low"! Even the editor tells us Mark IVs are better off avoiding hull down situations! An increase in Chance to Hit means nothing when it occurs due to the exposure of impenetrable armor. The extra hits are harmless, and the chances of any one round hitting the vulnerable turret are reduced. So, the editor backs up my exhaustive testing. Should your Mark IVs be hull down? It depends on whether the gun in question can penetrate the hull at the current range. If not, or if it's marginal, give 'em hull to shoot at! [ February 03, 2004, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

I'm booked up with BIG PBEM battles for the next several months. I'm playing your "Botrytis II", Kingfish's "All Is Fair", and several others. I just know how troublesome it is dealing with 4th quarter dropouts. So, if the need arises, I will make myself available to help get the games finished.

A test: One Regular PanzerIVG, hull down (behind wall) vs one Elite, BORESIGHTED, American 37mm gun at 702 meters. Test run 400 times. I checked the tank for a KO condition after one minute of combat. I defined a KO as any condition which would prevent the tank from firing its main gun again. After 400 runs, 49.5% of the PanzerIVGs were KO'd. I then ran the same test again with only one difference. I removed the wall so the tank was not hull down. After 400 runs, 39.75% of the PzIVGs were KO'd. Conclusion: In this particular situation, the PzIVs were better off NOT being hull down. Note: During the hull-down test, the TacAI backed away from its hull down position. Had the tank stayed put, the KO % probably would have been higher. Still, inspite of the hull down status lasting only 10-30 seconds, the tanks behind walls fared significantly worse. EDIT: This test leads me to believe that any situation where a turret can be penetrated, but not the hull, warrants avoidance of hull down status. This is especially true if a first round hit is likely whether hull down or not. [ February 03, 2004, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

For the past month I have kept both CMAK and CMBB running concurrently on my machine for 16 hours per day. I started doing this to avoid the frequent disk swaps. On top of these two, I run IE, Outlook Express, Zone Alarm, a SPAM filter, and Motherboard Monitor. I just realized that my machine has not crashed in this entire month of 16 hour days with no rebooting other than the morning boot. I'd say CMAK and CMBB are well programmed, no? Here's my setup: Windows ME, nForce2 motherboard, 128 MB Ti4200 with 40.72 drivers, one stick 512 MB Mushkin RAM, XP 2400+. I'm even overclocked to 2296 mhz (14 x 164) If you're having trouble with CM, and are in the market for a new rig, you might want to look into something similar to what I have above. It's the most problem free CM machine I've ever put together, and not at all high end these days. With the right setup, any CM title is extremely stable. Good programming, good machine, good fun.

There is no such thing as the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is just the "Medal Of Honor"; and yes, I believe even privates who are wearing the MOH are saluted by officers. I think thier offspring even get a free shot at West Point. However, most MOH recipients never make it off the battlefield alive. Lots of them jumped on grenades, or held off enemy hordes with MGs so their buddies could escape. There's a few great sites on MOH recipients. I'm too lazy to look them up again though.

Joachim, WE are on the same wavelength. I would love to do a non-blind PBEM of your scenario. In fact, I'd like to apply for a job as your personal PBEM beta test opponent. I don't do the AI though, and I'm only good for about 7 files per week due to current PBEM load. You want to talk about design errors. The biggest single design error is trying to design something that works well when played in more than ONE of the six formats I listed earlier in this thread. The compromises necessary will often make the scenario less than memorable. Rankorian, There will always be tiny battles because they are popular. They fit better with busy lives, and can be created in less time. There is a CMBO scenario where Brit paratroopers have to go to a German radar station, take the radar components, and get away on boats during the night. It's small, it's great fun. I can't remember the name of it though. You might want to try to hunt that one down.

I once saluted a Command Sargeant Major. Boy, did he read me the riot act! I was BSing with my buddies, not paying attention, when the battalion CSM walked by dripping with polished brass and medals in his dress greens. His sudden appearance startled me, and I didn't see the stripes, just the medals and brass. I figured it was a field grade officer, and snapped him my best salute. That following Sunday I found myself mopping floors in battalion headquarters. He was the meanest guy I ever met in the Army, just like you'd see from Hollywood; but had there been bullets flying, he'd have been the guy to have around, even though he was in his 50's. BTW, he would salute 2nd Lieutenants; but not even Captains tried to tell him what to do. He answered to the Battalion commander only.

Played as Axis, non-blind PBEM, scenario is 3/4 complete. I'm sooooo impressed with this scenario that I couldn't wait until the end of the game to post my opinion. I have not won or lost yet. As we go into the 4th quarter the outcome is still very unclear. This scenario is a tactical nightmare....for BOTH sides IMO. Force composition for both sides is very well thought out, downright clever. There is opportunity for both sides to surprise the other, even playing non-blind! Rookies may not fully appreciate this scenario. It's tough....real tough, for BOTH SIDES! Replayability is excellent if you like to do such things. I could play this one several times, at least. Depending on the attacker, it could be slow out of the gate because the attacker has plenty of time. The defender will not win because of the clock. Only superior tactics will see the defender victorious. The ONLY change I would make to this scenario is to spread Allied reinforcements out over a few turns to beat the tedious unscrambling. We all have different tastes when it comes to scenarios; but for me, "Murphy's Law" goes on my very short list of all time favorites. My most sincere and heartfelt Congratulations to the designer. Well done!!!!

Hehe...um......quit spamming the tourney thread?

I think you just did. You see, the representative of Peng is not bound by normal signup procedures. This is because they are incapable of following instructions, or conforming in any way to anything that is even remotely structured. You need only monitor this thread for a reply from WineCape or one of the other organizers. Good luck to you! I hope you get in.

Well, Kitty, I'm not running these tourneys anymore so I can't do any inviting. I believe there is always a slot open for a representative of Peng however. I think you need only post your desire to participate as such, and the tourney sponsor, Winecape, would probably put you on the roster.

I think people tend to like 30 turn battles because such battles usually have much less buildup to the real fireworks. The defender isn't hitting "Go" for 10-15 turns. I can see their point; but I think they're missing out on attacking options with short scenarios, and counting on time to save them when on defense.

Yep, there be nuthin' like CM, even though the world has had almost four years to come up with something better. Congratulations, BFC!!

Now that the fine Ladies of Peng have blessed this tournament, I'm sure it will be a great success. To further insure its success, I will be happy to finish games for 4th quarter dropouts, the time period when replacements are most difficult to find, should the need arise. Of course, should the need arise, I might just hunt down that Wreck fella instead.

Thanks, Panzer 76. I think 25% is probably fairly close, based on my experiences over the years.

Panzer 76, How did you find out that 75% of hits on hull down tanks will hit the turret? Did you test? It's a time consuming test to run, noting where each hit happens. It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just curious as to how you found out that very interesting bit of info. What percentage of hits will be turret hits if a tank is NOT hull down? If only the turret front is penetrable by a particular gun, a Pz IV might be better off avoiding hull down positions, thereby spreading the hits to include the hull.

You can't cheat the delay; but maximum delay is 3 minutes IIRC. After that, all waypoints are free. I can't remember how many waypoints are needed to hit max delay; but it was a lot. This little fact is useless except for big convoy scenarios on very large maps.

Yes, time limits...my pet peeve. In most cases, the quicker the attacker moves, the higher his casualties will be. It's practically exponential. As few as 5 more minutes can make a BIG difference in a CM battle. In reality, that five minutes would not be worth the increase in casualties. Forcing the attacker's hand with time pressure fixes one unrealistic possibility (the non-probing probe, for example) by imposing a much bigger realism issue IMO. I'd rather see a briefing that tells me to probe aggressively or face court martial for direct disobedience of orders and gamey tendencies. Alternatively, the scenario could be designated as a "blind play only" scenario with no promise of reinforcements in the briefing. I really feel like going on a time limit rant; but I'm controlling the urge. I've noticed that CMAK scenarios tend to be longer than BO/BB scenarios. This pleases me greatly.

Would it not be nice if the designer could assign initial flag ownership, either axis, allied, or neutral? This way flags would not have to be garrisoned in EVERY case, only if the designer wanted it that way. A flag would belong to the designer assigned side unless the enemy brought it into his zone of influence. If the flag was unoccupied at this time, it would change sides. Just a little thing that might be nice. Oh, FOW would still be in effect however. If a player owns a flag at the start, and doesn't see the enemy claim it, he continues to see it as his own.

In cases where this is the primary reason for the reinforcements, I'd like to see them trickle in over a few turns, rather than an entire company being plopped on the map. This cuts down on some tedium. Designers should be careful here with two player non-blind. With an attack from the march, the defender must be prevented from counter-attacking the advance units in order to catch the "reinforcements" on their arrival. Aaah yes, this is where I'm a gamey bastiche. If I know the size of my force will be increased significantly in a fraction of an hour, I will tend to hold back most everything until all units are on the map. Why? Like you said, I don't need to probe in order to convince battalion HQ to send reinforcements. They are coming, and I WILL need them. It's better to have some good overwatch established for the "probing" force. I never do gamey things like suicide recon with zooks or jeeps, hug the map edge, put TRPs on known restrictive setup zones or reinforcement points, etc.; but I do try to game the scenario as a whole. Playing blind prevents this; but I've found I need to screen the scenarios I choose for two-player due to too many duds. Briefings could alleviate the non-blind gaming of scenarios a bit by informing the players that they will be in direct violation of orders if they do not conform to certain general guidelines. For example, no immediate counterattack in Fruhlingswind by the Allies, no holding back starting units intended to probe aggressively, etc.. The player could still do these things of course; but he'd know he was a gamey bastiche. I think designing scenarios specifically for blind or non-blind play is just as important as the 'AI or human' design considerations. In fact, I think every scenario should be specifically designed for just ONE of the following: 1) Axis vs AI, blind 2) Axis vs AI, non-blind 3) Allies vs AI, blind 4) Allies vs AI, non-blind 5) Human vs Human, blind 6) Human vs Human, non-blind This would separate the vast number of scenarios into six categories. Players could choose exactly the category they wanted, and feel fairly confident the scenarios will play well. This would make scenario design easier too, because only ONE format must be kept in mind during the design process and testing.

How fast could reinforcements be brought up to an area in need? If I attack with a company, and promptly run into more resistance than expected, how quickly could the battalion CO get another company to help out? How long would it take them to get on the scene? I'm thinking that reinforcements coming in within, say 10 minutes, is too soon unless they have a long way to travel to get to the fight. If they are that available, why not just start them on the map? It would seem to me that any help arriving that quickly is really just a part of the original attacking force, rather than reinforcements. Any thoughts?

You should see a single player option to the left of all the multiplayer choices you mentioned. It is selected by default. As for the PBEM file size, that depends on how large the scenario is. Generally, the more units, the bigger the files. The only way to keep file size down is to play smaller scenarios. The biggest scenarios can create 3 MB PBEM files; however, not all the files will be that big. Stick to medium scenarios (unit count) and your dialup buddies won't have to suffer too much.

I never do what the designer intends, when possible. This keeps opponents off guard. I'm just saying it might be better if the editor treated ground conditions similar to the way hurricanes are treated. Instead of "Deep Mud", it would be Category 5 or something like that. The higher the number, the more chance of bogging, and the slower troops move. This way the designer can describe the ground in an accurate way in the briefing, and fine tune the CM engine to have the desired effect on movement. There would have to be a separate Snow parameter to trigger the snow graphics however.

So many new battles, and so little time to play them. How many excellent scenarios are never even noticed due to the volume of scenarios produced? It's a shame really.

Perhaps the editor should not describe ground conditions with words. A high chance of bogging could be described in an historical account in several different ways. The historian might call it muddy, boggy, very soft, prone to bogging, saturated, very wet, almost impassable, etc.. This means historical accounts might not transfer to CM literally. "Mud" to the historian might translate to "Deep Mud" in CM. If, historically, an armored force avoided roads due to ground conditions, then it is safe to assume there was a very good chance of getting stuck. In CMAK, this very good chance would translate to "Deep Mud", even though the historian may have described it as "soft sand". Instead of "ground condition" in the editor, the parameter should be called something like, "bog/move difficulty", with a separate parameter for snow cover to trigger graphics only. A "bog/move difficulty" set to "4" could mean deep mud or 3 feet of snow, or saturated sand, etc.. A "bog/move" factor of 0 would mean very firm ground, easy to move on, and very little chance of getting stuck. [ January 24, 2004, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]