Nabla

Hmm... Sort of begs the question: couldn't you have another type of battle called attrition, in which the final value of a point won depends on the overall point value of your troops at the end. For example, let us consider the case of a 100 point battle in which you've eliminated a 95 point unit. In the first case, think that you have all your troops intact at the end. The final value of the elimination would be 95. However, if you only have 10% of your troops intact, the value would only be, for example, 9.5 (scaled directly by the 10%). The final victory would be computed from the original point values. That is, in the first in which you have all forces intact your score would be 95/100, and the enemys 0/100. In the second case your score would be 9.5/100 and the enemys 4.5/100 (he has won 90 points, which is scaled by the 5% he has left of his own units). This way in attrition you can both loose (although one may still lose more than the other). Well, had to write it down Any sense in this? [This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-13-2001).]

A very interesting thread, I must say. How about we turn our imagination towards solving some of the problems here. The first idea that comes to mind is to make your QBs longer. This way you could first scout the enemy and then start your attack. A second idea is to increase the point value of light vehicles in QB games. The idea about letting light vehichle proceed on foot is very interesting. I think it would be fairly easy to program this if there was not strategic AI. Which raises another question into mind: is the strategic AI able to handle all the complexity that will be requested in future versions of CM, or should CM become a purely multiplayer game with just the tactical AI? Well, perhaps that should be discussed in another thread.

I'm currently finishing two PBEM games with maximum visibility of 52 and 84 meters, and here's my fresh, hands on advice Armor still rules if you use it correctly. Jason's advice on this was much to the point. Spot enemy armor with infantry, and then surprise them with your own tanks (just killed 3 Hetzers using this tactics in one game). Against infantry, first use infantry units to spot and pin the enemy, and then bring tanks or halftracks in to finish them. HTs have been surprisingly useful in these situations. On the defence side it is more difficult. My best advice is to keep your tanks behind your strongholds and counterattack when you spot enemy tanks. When it comes to infantry, if attacking use very tight formations and T- or V-shaped platoons so that you have maximum concentrated firepower. Try to engage single enemy units. Smoke might still be very useful for separating enemy infantry units from their close support. Defence is again somewhat more complicated, but I'd go with Jason again and recommend minefields in front of your strongholds, TRPs and deception. Oh, and remember that deception can be very useful when attacking also. I think that fog battles are great fun since you will have lots of surprises. Use deception tactics, and at least one of you will have even greater fun

Mench, you've probably just woke up, so good morning I must say that I've always admired you web design. What tool do you use, or have you done the pages by hand? One thing though: the image links did not work when I visited the pages. Excellent work. Carry on.

I'm 30, and according to a recent article, that's the average age of a computer gamer. Boy, that information was surely both surprising and relieving.

As the title subtly suggests I'm one of those who have to fight with video adapter problems when another day of joy is here: when CM2 arrives. Since I'm the worrying A-type of person , I have already been preparing for this moment. Here are my findings so far. First, CM2 will be playable with video adapters that have 8MB of video memory. I asked about the situation from Madmatt, and here's his reply: This alone is great news for me. Second, I have been trying to find out what kind of options there exists for those who'd like to connect a second video adapter to their laptop. If your laptop adapter sells a docking station which has PCI card slots that is one option. This is a valid option for me, for example. However, in my case this option is very expensive. It seems that there is another way of solving the problem: Mobility Electronics produces a universal docking station with PCI slots which (it seems) can be connected to any computer that has a PCMCIA type II card slot. It is still quite expensive, but for example in my case it is cheaper than the original docking station. I have also contacted the company in order to motivate them to make a new product targeted specifically for those laptop users that need a second video adapter, but this is a very, very long call - although I do think there would be demand for such a product. Now I have not used this product, so I can't give you any guarantees. But at least it's an option. It would also seem that they have some models for Mac users. So, to sum up, there is light at the end of the CM2 tunnel for laptop users. [This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 02-22-2001).]

Manta: could you post a message here once the scenarios are ready for download. Thank you very much for putting the package together

I'd be very pleased if those who are happy with their gridded grasses even without smoking them could post some screenshots of what the end results look like. If you could also list all other terrain mods you are using to create the good complete look I'd be ecstatic!

You're a CM addict when you notice that the best, most rewarding activity you can think of is 1) playing the next PBEM round when you're near the computer and a new file is available 2) planning what you'll do next in your games when 1 is not possible.

Well, if only I were lucky enough so that CM2 would be one of those "very few ones", since that's really the only one I give a damn about. Seriously, I understand the problem here, I'm not hoping for an 8MB card to give perfect graphics, just such that I can still play this very, very addictive game.

Could someone please confirm if this is really the case. I'm using a HP Omnibook 6000 with a 700 Mhz processor, but the video card has only 8 MB, and since it is integrated I'm stuck with it. The only solution I know of would be to buy a docking station, which would cost 700$. To buy it only for this purpose would be insane. So if 16 MB is a minimum requirement, I will probably be pissed off for a while. [This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 02-16-2001).]

My user name is actually a mathematical operator, one which, among other things, is useful in solving certain optimization problems. I chose it because it sounds good and because I like some of the very neat mathematics (yes, really) it is used for. Although someone did mention that it sounds a lot like "no habla", so I can also use it as a decoy to set up discussion traps. [This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 02-14-2001).]

An excellent point. In my case there were circumstances which made smoke also pretty useless (night battle in fog, and the enemy had SMG squads, so I did not want to get close and personal with them ), but generally your strategy would make a lot of sense. Thanks for the tip. [This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 02-14-2001).]

There is at least one situation I've faced in which they're almost useless. If you're attacking and the enemy has dug in there's not much you can do with them. You can't really hurt the infantry in foxholes. You can use these mortars to suppress enemy movement but when attacking that's secondary. Under these circumstances I would value something heavier.

Guys, perfect, terrific Oh, and my first BUMP concerning the question below.

Well, they all wrote that a little game company was able to renew war gaming when the big ones failed to do so. What we see here is just one aspect of what it means to "renew" a business. CMBO will remain a classic, like all games that renewed their genres.

Thanks for the tip. The link to Screencorder 2 given above does not seem to be working. However, the program can be downloaded at <A HREF="http://www.matchware.net/screencorder2/default.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.matchware.net/screencorder2/default.htm </A> Haven't tried it yet, though...

Current situation Innovative Game of 2000: 43.2% Combat Mission 30.4% The Sims 26.2% Shogun: Total War Total Votes: 282 We'll nail this one.

Ok guys (and girls ), here's a tip for you straight from my girlfried. A couple of extra hours of CM. Civilization 2, that's her favourite. Keeps her busy while I'm playing and, what's probably more important, makes my obsession much more understandable. Although not wholly, I'm afraid...

We who have the program know that if you won't buy it it's your loss. If you have paid 20$ for any other game (including Alpha Centauri), then this is worth 100$. At least.

CMBO is the best game and the most exciting piece of software I have ever seen. Exceptional devotion from development group. Therefore (not because it is bad) I intend to be involved in making future versions even better, constructively and professionally. But even if nothing in game logic was improved, I'd still buy CM2 (heck, you could have skinned double the price of CM1 from me ). Oh, and regarding the comment of aka_tom_w about reporting known flaws, I think it would really help if someone made a list of known flaws. I mean, really. Searching the discussion board will not do any more, since there are just too many discussions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goofy: I think Elijah has the correct answer. "....so the best way to stop this is to play with people that you trust." I've played single games with strangers before who I really didn't care to play with a second time. Some times this is just a matter of my taste such as "historical" vs "gamey" or as it has been put.."the spirit of the game". I try to make sure my philosophy of what we're setting up matches my opponent's, that way we each know what to expect somewhat. If I feel there is something fishy in a ladder or tourney situation then I report my suspicions to the moderator and wait and see. My experience is that I won't be the only one they cheat! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, all player should be gentlemen, and probably the number of cheaters is very low. But I do think that these kinds of holes should be fixed if it the required effort is moderate, hopefully in CM2. You wouldn't have to keep wondering (especially in tournaments) which guys are the good ones, you know... Anyway, the problem has been reported and BTS can decide what to do. I'm going to continue my career as a gentleman player. And a very nice battle to you too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: There should be a note regarding the game you're playing, so that Operation Lizard can't occur or the player just lies about the settings. However, this won't happen, if it does, until CM2, so the best way to stop this is to play with people that you trust. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I understand correctly, you are referring to another problem, namely the one that the other player can not be sure about the parameters with which the QB was created. This is also a problem, since it can be used to put a smokescreen in front of the other player. But at least you can get information (although indirectly) about the parameters by taking a look at the end result. However, the cheating I have described above can be used for example to find out what units the other player has (when selected automatically), or to select units that match the terrain, and there is no way for the other player to know this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nabla: ... In this case A can't see the units immediately, but is asked to save the PBEM file immediately. ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oops, had to quote my own message, that would of course have to be ... In this case A can't see the terrain immediately, but is asked to save the PBEM file immediately. ...

I am a gentleman, and I would never, ever cheat in CM. Unfortunately I also have a hidden dark side, which tells me that it has, in its feeble little mind, made the following analysis about cheeting in QB PBEM games. Let us call PBEM players A and X, and A is the one initiating the play (sending the first PBEM file). Case 1: A wants to cheat Random units: First of all, if A and X decide to use random units (computer chooses them), A can cheat as follows: A makes a new battle n times, and selects the one which has the best forces given the map, weather etc. Player chosen units: The problem appears in another form when both users choose their units. In this case A can't see the units immediately, but is asked to save the PBEM file immediately. However, A can of course load the saved PBEM file, give password for side X, take a look at the terrain and still send the original saved file to X (that is, without the opponent password A selected when he was looking at the terrain). The only way to stop this from happening (assuming that the logic still looks the same to the users, more to say about how to fix this later on) were for the program to create the terrain in X's computer randomly. The randomness could be based on some property of the computer, time, X's password or the state of the random generator of CM in X's computer. Since I've examined the situation in just one computer I am unable to test the first one, but I couldn't get any variation into the terrain using the last three ones. Case 2: X wants to cheat Random units: X has no possibility to cheat here, since he can not affect units or terrain by the time the QB gets to him. Player chosen units: This has been handled correctly too, since X can only select units, and then has to send the file back to A again (without seeing terrain). So, to summarize, it seems like X can not cheat. How to fix this? There are a number of ways to fix the problem, the question is how to do it so that the number of needed emails between A and X is minimized. You can probably make this shorter, but here's one example of how things can be done (I think ). 1. A chooses password and QB parameters and units if necessary, sends to X. 2. X chooses password and units if necessary, X's computer generates terrain and random units if necessary, X sends to A. Note that X can not act as A since A has already given password. 3. A enters setup phase, where he can see terrain and units, but can no longer change them or act to be X. A set's up, then sends to X. 4. X sets up. The exact set of actions in each step require knowledge about how randomness is generated when terrain and units are selected. Note The length of this message may not reflect the seriousness of the problem, but BTS is correct when stating that people should justify and test their comments before complaining here, and I've tried to learn my lesson.