dieseltaylor

Tero I think its your use of the word "None". However if by none you mean 99% or some other percentage of your choosing ........ : )

I had a little test night battle recently and the shreck crew nailed two from a US squad for no loss. Very gratifying because of course morale is all at night.

CMBO is good but not as good as the later two. The final, CMAK, being the most bug free and refined. There is the Opponent Finder Forum http://www.battlefront.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=74 which is rather quiet nowadays. Quite a lot of players have migrated to clubs where dropped games are less likely and there is a community. I play at WeBoB which is possibly the least ladderish. Take a look here: http://webandofbrothers.de/index.htm However CMBO is very minor in most clubs. I have not played it since CMBB came out. If you have any queries ask them here or send me an e-mail through this forum.

I know you are wrong Tero. There are quite a large number of nuns still who would tend to give the lie to your observation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7227629.stm Whilst not all may be childless I expect the big majority are. This also leaves out Buddhist monks and other religions

I feel slightly hurt by the lack of faith in the readers of this Board to use commonsense in their battles. But firstly: JasonC Lets clear up the mathematical inaccuracy. The "Unrestricted" setting for artillery, which I mentioned earlier, is 262 in a 1500 point battle so doubling that can only give you a 525point pot. Therefore in the event that you decided to spend as much as you can on artillery and you received it all a third of your force would be artillery not 50% as Jason suggests. The amounts change in 1500 point assault battles where with the attacker has a 903 artillery limit out of 2580 and the defender 525points. So roughly a third. The need for casualties is reduced but I would still play with some casualties on for realism. Secondly, This I find curiously myopic as when I buy lots of artillery very rarely is it bangs for buck that is important. To reduce a village with 8" artillery may be tactically a very good decision and save time and lots of infantry lives. However most of the time I would be buying mortars to give me smoke screens to get to highly useful positions without losing valuable tanks and/or infantry. I think my record for smoke screening is roughly 14 turns to cover a huge flanking move during an assault. I do agree that artillery is overpriced but again the game/BF bias is worse against the Allies. The tactical superiority gained by buying cheap mortar units for 81points [German conscripts], who have a choice of 4 or 6 tubes, is considerable. The Allies would be spending 103 points [uS conscripts 6 tube] or 138 points [uK 4 tube] I am glad that the benefits of Unrestricted are being promoted but hope that the benefits and effects of casualties is also being taken on board.

With the current balls-up with the international data pipes being cut in the Med. relying on getting connections does seem making yourself hostage to fortune. To be honest on practical grounds it seems to me buying the product rewards the DRM system and will encourage them and others if they feel it is a success to continue the idea. I have never bought DRM'd music and I certainly would not buy anything this restrictive on my enjoyment. Sometimes you have to make a stand against cr*p ideas.

Its funny but the combat in Empire was very simple but it worked with rest of the game very well. In some ways Empire Deluxe add extra layers of complication without really improving it that much. Still my memories are a little hazy after all these years : )

700 points is not a very large force - and that tends to make smallish maps. Action therefore occurs early and 30 turns is actually quite a long time for a smallish map. We would play 1500points + for 28-30 turns. It is possible to play games with little action I accept : ) I once played an armoured battle and that gave us a bout 20+ tanks between us but the game fizzled to a draw with I think one or two lost per side. You look at the chances of gaining anything and realise you could lose more than the flag is worth trying to take it. I am sure the computer can work that out aswell.

Civ - I have just become re-acquainted with it after 20 years - mainly as some friends play it and we are therefore multiplaying CIV 3 Conquests on LAN. It is a great time waster ...... What I do find annoying is the characterised nations which my friends prefer playing with. You know the scenario you are alone on the island but your nation has no interest in seafaring - like totally realistic Doh!. Last time I played I could safely to the next land by 1700. Bah!

I think I have mentioned previously my preference for unrestricted but I seem to be in a minority. Perhaps my eagerness to explain why casualties is important both for historical accuracy, fairness, increased FoW, and to negate the problems of the BF force selection system has muddied the waters. My explanation of the parameters and the effects on purchasing with no casualties was I hope an adequate illustration. To explain it more clearly I will ignore the Combined Arms parameter though most people use that. With unrestricted spending limits on 1500 points with no casualties the Germans can afford all their four battalions and the Allies none. A little inequitable given the hugely reduced purchase costs. Artillery is always restricted but by going for casualties you can double the limit and if you are fortunate you will receive all of it. This may seem unimportant but the limit at 1500 points with unrestricted purchase is 262 and the Germans can purchase 13 different modules of artillery. The US only four. If you were under the impression the Allies artillery arm was a strong one this is a bit of a blow. However with 50% casualties you may be able to buy what you require for your battle. So if you meet someone who suggests no casualties and a 1500 point limit I suggest you opt to play the Germans : )

On re-reading Jason's post I think it is wrong. Firstly what your original force was is irrelevant as the increased purchase limits allow you to buy units you could never have bought previously. The reasoning therefore is faulty on that premise though it is an elegant attempt to rationalise the situation in the game. Firstly, if my armour limit was 217 and by casualty rate [50%] the limit was increased to 315 I could then buy say a Tiger, or possibly two lesser tanks, which was impossible under the lower limit. I do run a risk the Tiger may not arrive of course but the chance of the two lesser tanks both not appearing is totally unlikely Secondly, the BF schizoprhrenia: There is a certain idiocy in the hard limits that BF give. For instance in a 1500 point game the Germans in theory can make 4 battalion purchases. IF you use the combined arms parameters not one of the battalions is an allowable purchase: May 1944 Grenadiers - 1281 points - 18 points over in artillery Jager- 1498 points - 18 points over in artillery, 8 points over in support weapons Fusilier - 1362 points - 41 points over in infantry, 18 points over in artillery Aufk- 1319 points - 56 points over in support With 10% casualties all become affordable. Though why the limits could not have a 10% soft limit is worth pondering. Why is it important to worry whether you buy a battalion or not? It is a matter of cost and it would seem that someone at Battlefront was keen for people to play at batallion [the occasional French spelling creeps in] level. For instance in a Fusilier battalion I pay: 24 points for a squad ,18 for an HMG42 Company level 28 for the platoon/squad and 22 for the HMG Separately Platoon is 33 points, HMG is 29 points As for the Allieds they could never afford any battalions at 1500 limit and given the cost benefit of buying units more cheaply you can see the German player has a considerable advantage that many players do not appreciate. However on 50% casualties the Allies can afford battalions. The reason to go for higher casualties rate is the intrinsic support costs tend to be very heavy so the doubled limit is handy. US Infantry battalion costing 1870 points has 579 points of support assets and the doubled limit is 720 is therefore handy. A rate of 40% giving 600 is adequate but restrictive. Points per squad purchase 25 at battalion 30 at company 35 points That is a hell of a difference and it comes back to the point of why this feature was put in. I am all in favour of historically accurate purchasing but it does seem bizarre that at a 300 point game you are paying the highest prices for every unit.

*Depleted Forces* A unit may be at full strength in wartime but would still not fight with 100% of its men - Col. Wigram commenting on his fact find on UK forces in WW2 Italy explains : and A 1944 UK squad would be 30 infantrymen plus 2"mortar and PIAT and 4 man HQ. I assume that Wigram is talking purely of the infantry and not of the HQ - I have no idea if the PIAT and mortar are included but I suspect they were. So if you claim to be playing an historically accurate game it does seem a bit rich to be fighting with 100% of your force. It is conceivable that the low figure is a reflection of illness, leave, men physically able but not trustworthy in combat - a figure of 3-4%. I am sure an examination of armour will reveal rarely that all tanks were ready and able to be on a battlefield.

It is however very much more historical to be playing with depleted units - usually the infantry. However platoons of tanks etc would often not be at full whack. Anything over 1000points is good for me with casualties on. It also adds greatly to the fog of war. It is particularly true of games using the BF default settings which are very prescriptive as to exactly how many points goes on armour etc. Anyone with an ounce of sense can then work out what the opposing player can afford in tanks if the purchase pot is 1000 points. Not so easy if it were 1500 points. The added advantage is that if you are aware you could lose units you tend to buy in platoons or companies. This is highly realistic compared to the cherry-picking that goes on in most QB's - you know the I will buy a Panther for this , a Tiger for that, etc. My favourite sort of game total is 3000 with 10% or 20% casualties on huge maps. This encourages more light unit purchases as flanks need to be covered. This is generally on unrestricted units and training. Seems very popular with the people I play. A greater fog of war is to be had by using random casualties which REALLY makes the fog of war heavy.

I normally recoil from the state getting involved too closely with family matters but in this case the couple - or certainly the husband is a nutter. Whether the children will grow up even half way normal .....

When you consider how easy it is to make duplicate board games like Monopoly, Cluedo or games like Yahtzee you see that once you get to a price point the rip-off element is negligible. If they had the wit to write-off the sunk costs and just make money on duplicating CD's with an incorporated digital guide then they could be making money. They also could ask for further "donations" based on people's gratitude that they had persevered - and would be attending to patchs and improvements. Incidentally the writing in donation scenario also means you can reward the most loyal with the bonus goodies/patches etc. : )

And yes the SEC seen doing sweet FA . I have found out through life, so far, if someone is doing exceptionally well the odds are they are cheating. I make exceptions for people like James Dyson. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/12/16/how_a_pyramid_scheme_takes_shape?mode=PF

http://angloboerwarmuseum.com/Boer28_battles1.html good modern photos but best used with maps below http://www.britishbattles.com/great-boer-war/colenso.htm http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_colenso.html with battlefield maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Colenso photo http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Boer/BoerWarColensoHartsHill.html http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Boer/BoerWarColensoBoerTrench.html photo http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0270230/ film : ) There is quite possibly some information for Spion Kop also : )

My recommendation for learning but enjoying CM is to play very rapidly in small scenarios so you can quickly get the basics of how it operates. It is immaterial whether you win or lose - and playing this way you should lose. The concept is to get you familiar with the orders and also the horrible effects that will occur as you blunder about. The main reason to do it quickly is to get you used to losing : ) - no actually you could ponder , and work through someones lessons on how to do it right but that takes time. I think you will appreciate the lessons and the extra time spent ONCE you have learned how lethal it can be. Another words in 5 hours playing fast you will learn more about the game than if you did it "properly". Once you have driven your convoy straight down the road in the tiny "A Deadly Affair"[partisans 18 turns] scenario on the disc you will start to want to learn how to avoid the pain : ) And then you will quickly want to be the partisans to show you could have done better than the AI : )

Adam I did think you might look that kind of detail up! : ) An interesting scenario is Eritrean Camarone [?] to see how much of a game can be spent being pinned. It is actually quite interesting for being unusual early war CMAK. The UK HMG seems to have enough fire to pretty much last a 30 turn game though I suspect the German HMG's may well not. Incidentally I suppose all these tests are done with the miraculous 100% platoons that never turn up in real war?

JasonC. Jason do you actually have confidence in Panzerkeils figures as being ammo fired or do agree it is probably ammo issued for the campaign start?

True enough YD. I must admit I had not thought of what proportion of the total cost labour was for a vehicle. The shoddiness - as evidenced by recalls - of the build must be a big turn-off. The collapsed second-hand market for US models as the hire companies dump their cheaply acquired Big 3 models also made them unattractive financially also. Talking Unattractive there was an SUV so ugly : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Aztek Fundamentally I agree with BD6 - or he with me- poor quality management.

Sorry I was wrong on the Union recruiting bill. Speaking as an ex-union rep that sucks. The difference abroad may well be better cars and no stupid finance deals - AND no kowtowing to unions. STrange that iis the case in socialist Europe. : )

John D Salt It is a crime when a really good joke goes unappreciated, I had thought better of this Boards denizens. : (

SO - I know full well where the production figures/stock come from but the 400m figure is not necessarily from the same source. Panzerkeil is using the production figures for a purpose other than explaining usage. Is it feasible that the 400M [395,489,504] is actually the ammo issued for the campaign rather than what was fired? It does seem ludicrously exact to be anything else - down to the last 4 bullets!. The effort of counting all the bullets after the campaign together with the shifting of troops to the West during the campaign does make it hard to believe that the 395M 's exactitude as expended. That is expended as in fired at targets, rather than removed from the arsenals which may be classed by them as consumption required for the campaign.

Hmmm! I see something I thought I had cancelled was eventually posted - rubbish connections today. Anyway most of my previous message was written on the basis that the link "proved" expenditure of 400 million rounds. In fact it is simply quoting the 400m figure back to prove the military were not short of ammo. Where the 400M figure comes from I do not know. However the points about where the counting was done - at ammo dump or unit is still interesting. Did issued ammo on mobilisation reduce the apparent production numbers deduced by Panzerkeil from comparing the April and September 1st figures. Interestingly enough and by strange coincidence : Roughly extrapolating the ammo issued for the forces involved in Poland would be a figure not unadjacent to 400million rounds. Coincidence? Interesting, in a bizarre way.