Treeburst155

The only problem with operations, as far as RoW style tourneys are concerned, is the time it would take to play just one operation. How long is a short operation? 50 turns or? TCP/IP tournaments would probably work. Treeburst155 out.

White4, I'll see what's up with Tom Norton. To All, If you really did not like one or more of the scenarios, please tell us why. I think constructive negative comments are at least as helpful as words of praise when it comes to scenario design. Don't be shy, but be constructive. Write me some scenario reviews I can pass on to Boots & Tracks. Thanks! Fight On!! Treeburst155 out.

Thanks for the update Combined Arms! Fight On!! Treeburst155 out.

Cameroon, Does this 'command delay only' thing apply just to Soviet conscripts? IOW, would an early war Soviet regular only differ from a German regular by command delay too? Oh, and how did you ever figure that out? Treeburst155 out.

Now that's what I like to see. Good work Old Dog! BTW, you can hold down the shift key while cropping maps and they will crop from the opposite side as usual. Try it! Treeburst155 out. [ November 11, 2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Well, we can't implement the plan posted above due to one finalist playing in the ROW II tourney. Perhaps we can resolve this with CMBB? Treeburst155 out.

Hey, that's one informative little tutorial there, Berli! They should put that in the manual. Thanks! Treeburst155 out.

TabPub, You should have received a turn from Mike8g some 12 hours ago. Fight On!! Treeburst155 out.

Where did you get the 41.03s? I think they may have improved the FSAA over the 40.72s. Treeburst155 out.

Rex, #1 in your post is on the list. #2 is not mentioned. Treeburst155 out.

Redwolf, It's clear you have too many CD drives to keep track of. Please send one of them to me ASAP. Yeah, CMBO is still every bit as good as it always was. The arrival of CMBB doesn't change that. Besides, they still have some bugs in CMBB to work out. I noticed that Boots & Tracks recently released a couple more CMBO scenarios. If this forum is active enough, we may see the big design names devoting more time to CMBO. We have two problems to overcome before we can hold another CMBO tourney (RoW style). The first is that we need scenarios, and the second is me getting the time to organize the thing. December 1st the signups begin for the B&T CMBB tourney. This will eat up a good chunk of my free time; BUT, work will be real slow for me for a couple months starting about December 20th. I think I've seen enough AARs now to design some fun FICTIONAL scenarios for a tourney. I'd really like to try it. You guys would be the guinea pigs. The big question here is, would people want to PLAY in a tourney with fictional TB155 scenarios? :eek: Treeburst155 out.

Hi guys! Out of the three prize eligible sections, the Tourney I section is done. You four may feel free to discuss the scenarios among yourselves via email, but don't post anything yet! We'll have to wait until ALL the games are very near completion before we do that. Remember, we're determining scenario balance with the eight groups of non-section winners. In this Final Round we have 44 people playing 66 games (each scenario is played 22 times) so it will be awhile. The slowest players set the pace. I will start pushing hard to get things wrapped up towards the end of this month. With any luck I'll be running the results through the NEW IMPROVED Nabla Scoring program in early December. I will send out scoresheets to those who have finished their games within a few days, as soon as work gives me a little break again so I can work on it. Fight On!! Treeburst155 out.

I have this problem too with any driver after 29.42. I've never been able to pin down a cause. They're just a little unstable with CMBB. I've found that reinstalling the drivers solves the problem for awhile. This is easy to do with the latest drivers too. Right now I'm using the 40.72 drivers. I had a crashing spell recently, reinstalled the drivers and I've been alright for hours of play so far. It WILL happen again. When it does I will reinstall again. Treeburst155 out.

When it gets jerky are you playing a large scenario with lots of units? Is it a town map with lots of buildings? When you are trying to plot a waypoint, or use the LOS tool, does it take the line a second or so to catch up with your cursor? If so, this is normal I think, even for fast machines. Big scenarios with lots of buildings and units really give systems a workout. When it gets real difficult to plot, I find it best to just go to view five or six, scroll the map with the arrow keys, and plot my waypoints. Treeburst155 out. [ November 07, 2002, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

We can blow up large heavy buildings in one turn now?! Wow!! Treeburst155 out.

Your computer has PLENTY of horsepower for CMBB, or any other entertainment software for that matter. Treeburst155 out.

Play games running north/south for more deadly arty strikes. Then you can hit 100 meters of front line instead of the rounds falling short and going deep. Treeburst155 out.

Yep, that's the right situation for a withdraw order, when all is lost anyway. I'm glad it works out sometimes. Treeburst155 out.

bump

I would like to please demand that nobody make any demands. Pleeaase! I'm demanding nicely. Treeburst155 out.

and more thoughts..... If I design a map for QB import that does not conform to QB norms regarding size, VL points, and setup zones it will be the equivalent to a half finished scenario where the player finishes the job with a very limited editor. It's like using the QB feature of the game to act as a third party to purchase troops, but not as flexible. I guess my main point throughout these posts is that play balance could be seriously disrupted with a map that does not conform to QB norms. I'm always thinking balance and competition play here. Treeburst155 out.

More thoughts on this.... In a QB, the player makes many choices. If he wants to use a custom map, he will have to make those choices based on that map. With maps designed specifically for a certain type and size of QB, the player need only choose the right battle type and size to know the map will work, and yield a fairly even game like any other QB. With a map that does not conform to QB norms, balance in the battle could be way out of whack, unlike a standard QB. Treeburst155 out.

Hmmm...you're right about the setup zones importing with the map. I could have sworn when I checked that it didn't work for me. Maybe I imported a north/south map when I checked that? As for the rest, in order to retain the true nature of a given QB type and size it is necessary to duplicate setup zone dimensions, map dimensions and VL points. I'm assuming here that the map dimensions, VL points, and setup zones of auto-generated QB maps have been carefully chosen by BFC for any given type and size of QB. In order to preserve this, custom QB maps should duplicate these map features. If one does not do this, you don't really have a QB. You have a custom scenario where purchasing units can be done. This is a great thing, but it's not a QB by nature. Also, loading just any map into the QB could very easily result in an inappropriate map for the battle size and type chosen. It would be nice to know that the human designed map I'm importing into my 1500 point Axis attack QB is a suitable size, and that it contains a proper amount of VL points. I wouldn't want the setup zones to be too far off of QB norms either. So, there are two ways to look at importing maps. One, I'm going to play a custom scenario and choose my own forces. Two, I'm going to play a typical QB with a better looking custom map. Treeburst155 out.

It seems to me that good custom QB maps would require the mapmaker to design the map for a particular size and type of battle. For example: Axis Attack, 1,000 points, medium map; or Allied Probe, 1,500 points, small map etc.. There are two reasons for this: 1) Although you can import maps, you cannot import the setup zones. Knowing the dimensions of the zones that will be superimposed over your custom map can help prevent map design problems like over-exposed setup zones. 2) In order to preserve the balance of a typical QB, the VL points used in an auto-generated QB should be known, and your map designed with the same amount of VL points. A valuable service someone who enjoys making maps could provide to the community would be to create custom QB maps with the proper dimensions, the proper amount of VL points, and careful consideration of where the setup zones will be. Considering all the types of battles (7), map sizes (4), and defender point choices (13), you would never run out of work. What, no volunteers? I shall begin work immediately. Prepare for the weekly release of Treeburst155's Custom QB Maps, carefully designed for specific battle types and sizes. The first map will be for an Axis Attack, 1,500 points, medium map. Treeburst155 out. [ November 05, 2002, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

All I know is that when my spotters get into trouble during a fire mission, I often have problems with the fire mission. This is just an observation over years of CM play. I've seen it rarely because I learned to keep my spotters safe. I'd REALLY like to actually see an off-target fire mission where the spotter has LOS and is not being affected by incoming fire. Right now, it appears to be an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Try Bulletheads scenario. You can test arty hundreds of times in minutes. In thousands of tests I've yet to see an off-target/in LOS fire mission. Treeburst155 out. [ November 05, 2002, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]