dieseltaylor

I am going to interested in its replayability. I had the RoW game and have one half finished game and one three quarters finished game. I am the English in all of them and think it is a pretty good hand against an Axis who is not fully aware of the forces and timings. There are lots of lovely wrinkles AND sufficient forces for the defender so I think it will always be a great game to play. Good luck.

Ditto

I must admit I thought it a given that all players have degrees of CM skill and good and bad knowledge of WW2 which gives prejudices as to what should have happened and why they lost : ). That is what makes play testing so difficult as your audience ranges hugely in quality. However confining myself to talking about scenarios I felt was doable.

Interesting linkies Hetzer38. There has always been a vocal minority saying the kill factors in CM are overstated for tanks however to achieve the effect of abandonment which the game engine cannot mimic I think it is a fair result in game. As for shooting up soft targets it is interesting to see how effective it was - if admittedly away from an actual battle where BF's airpower does turn up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Crocodile 800 built so more common than many german units

I had a halftrack get a kills on a light armoured car and a MkIV in a recent game. Very impressive.

My advice is don't read JasonC's yet as you will get bogged down in reading. Most people learn to play quite happily without reading his useful research. Just play with the game , remember to use the numbers to get higher up so you can scroll more quickly. play for about a fortnight doing silly things like racing up roads at top speed and just mess about. If you take scenarios seriously from the off you will get depressed - most scenarios are designed to be a challenge for those who have mastered the basics. Play both sides to find out how depressed your infantry get depending what is firing at them - all of this stuff helps you understand when you start fighting for real.

Lets get this straight, I have never designed them in my life and generally I do not play them that often, however as I have probably played 200 + games not often is still a few. I started playing in the early days of CMBO we would have weekends with four of us playing TCP/IP LAN games and believe me you can learn an awful lot watching games where you see both sides at once. And playing one or two minute turns you get through a lot of battles. Anyway so I tend to play fast. So that’s my background for the comments I am going to make: Now I actually have enormous respect for those people who do scenarios and the effort they put in. If this comes over purely as a knocking piece that is not the case. All things are improved by people putting their views and kicking the ideas about to see if they are valid or not. My biggest gripe about scenarios is that they come with an agenda. I will explain that. If you play an ME , excluding random forces, you know roughly what the other guy has to choose from and you know where the flags are. Good or bad you know the computer has no bias. In a designed game you have more operating. The designer may have conceptions of what happened in a particular battle , or he may like designing maps and then makes a battle based on what he thinks will work. To the player of the manufactured scenario he now is not only playing an opponent but the designer and possibly the play testers who may or may not have tweaked it “right”. I will run through the types of design[er] 1. I want it balanced therefore I build a symmetric map 2. I want it balanced I give them equal tanks [ I always think of these two as placing one tank each on the end of a very long bridge with the flag in the middle giving undoubtedly a symmetric map and equal forces ] 3. I am going to recreate a historical incident to the best of my ability. That it is not winnable for both sides is immaterial to my aim. 4. I am going to recreate an historical battle and provided you do what I want you to do the battle is balanced. 5. I am going to do a nice map, I understand the units capabilities , I think this might work and it plausibly could have happened. Design Problems Let me breakdown what I think are problem areas: 1. Engine Mechanics – what the CM engine does badly 2. Bad design 3. Scenario single play versus repeated play 4. Scenario testing – quality of players Engine mechanics Under-powered 76mm makes Russian battles more uneven than they ought to be Allied tanks zooming through tall hedges Fortification glitch in CMBB Squad unitary firepower Uber-spotting Reinforcements appear at random placing Problems with bridges Movement intelligence, particularly road movement where apparently, as in a current game, a tanks unit can plot a highly convoluted path around obstructions, shellholes etc whilst still 2 or 3 minutes away from tanks that have momentarily stopped. Bad design Accepting that the game engine has weaknesses designers should endeavour to avoid those problems outlined above. For instance the Cullin hedgerow cutter was a triumph of PR over reality at a time when the Western Press needed good news from Normandy. Allowing for that opinion we find that ALL allied tanks can prance through tall hedges with ease. In fact the light Honey’s get through quicker than most whereas the mighty Tiger can never get through. Bear in mind that operationally the cutter was only there to avoid tanks going over and showing their belly to enemy AT assets. Therefore any scenario that relies on this huge game design fallacy I am afraid is flawed. Allowing reinforcements to appear on map in range of enemy weapons is a crime against good design. I find that the infantry model is flawed , and acknowledged as such in that squads only fire at one target. So I believe that, unlike the heavily modelled armour, the infantry model is slightly busted and infantry heavy battles are inherently weak because of this.. The game was actually primarily tank centric and that this tends to obscure the weakness. Scenarios: design choices Firstly there is the very important first choice. Is the game for repeated play or is it one where you expect the players to only play it once. I think of these choices as surprise games and puzzle games. The puzzle game can be won however it will need more knowledge of the scenario, and skill than an average player would bring to a game. An example of this would be Chaulnes Version 1 which also falls into the category of a surprise game also but would require repeated play to even beat the AI. I believe Tiger Valley is strongly a surprise game as with perfect knowledge from repeat play I am not sure it is balanced. One of the Monte Cassino games I think is a puzzle game that also includes a set-up trick to seriously increase the attackers chance of winning. Gate of Hell I think may be flawed but for certain is a puzzle game in terms of how to win. Scenario Testing This a troubled area as relatively few gamers help with the testing. Any balancing and comments therefore come from a small population and my concern here is that depending whether they are really good, or really bad players, may skew the recommendations for balance. Also in those scenarios with several options open to players if the chosen option is a disaster the balancing adjustments may again be skewed. Repeated play will never be the same for these testers if they play again as they have too much knowledge of the game. Unfortunately the only cure is more playtesting and fortunately at Band of Brothers we have been able to exhaustively play several scenarios from the Proving Grounds. Less helpfully some games are played mirrored or with advice from previous players so any reports on gam balance are thoroughly devalued for some one who will only play one side with no prior knowledge. Lastly many years ago I was aghast to find that despite the acknowledged need to speed testing along that very few testers used PBEMHelper in trusted mode which allow 100+ email games to be reduced by two thirds to 35 e-mails. I suppose following on from testing is the value of briefings.. Designers give hints which you have to interpret. For instance: “When I designed it I put in heavy cratering to indicate where the enemy has a TRP.” My next scenario after reading this piece of designer lore was to avoid heavily cratered areas – not that this in anyway applied to that game “Your force is small so try to control casualty.” I decided that the village immediately in front of me was going to chew up my 57 infantry so decided to to go around the flanks with my many tanks and get a cross fire on the enemy infantry. Regrettably the warning meant I was to dive into the village with my tanks immediately as my flanks were teeming with a platoon of Panthers. And my FO was shot from pretty much where he started the game as the Germans apparently could set up within 80 metres of me. “Quickness might be your best asset” I played this immediately after the one above so I raced my four tanks into town immediately. All four killed and the infantry on board wiped …… Oh well : ) Good Design Good maps help*. Options for players can really make the game so much more enjoyable. Tanks work well in CM so use them and provide BIG maps so movement is possible and can have purpose. Also BIG maps allow for the use of light vehicles. Combined arms is good so allow a large enough force that they can have realistic force pool to use. * As a geographer and traveller I am perhaps a little pickier than most but when looking at a designed map just check there are no sillies , two large villages within 800 metres, or stone walls in a marshy landscape. An area of countryside with hedges, stone walls and wooden picket fences is very unlikely as one would predominate. I think it is easy to overlook the ground scale and realise that the area is actually very small for most maps [ February 12, 2007, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]

There are several scenarios that clock into the 10000 point plus range. I am not necessarily convinced that large point totals make good scenarios but BotrytisII and Tiger Valley are biggish points and good. If we look at speed to calculate those scenarios they both work OK on my 2000mhz , 1MB Ram rig. I am currently playing Gate of Hell which takes about 4 minutes to calculate each turn . I put this down to a surfeit of foot units and fog. I would not recommend the game, that being one of the reasons. The thing to bear in mind is that it is the number of units where results are being calculated that creates the problems. At BoB I recently played in a tournament called Clash of Titans very late war and very expensive tanks. Six thousand points on the board but very little computation required as it was say 20 tanks and 30 or 40 other units. Gates of Hell probably has roughly 100 units and I assume the Allies have similarish. This might not be a problem if they were not all theoretically capable of being in action ...

I found Fraps was giving me huge files just from doing flyovers on the battlefield - I am talking 100mb plus. I am not sure what you are trying to do. Though I suspect I could have reduced the file sizes it would have given me the one Director cut of the action. If you use PBEMHelper it incidentally allows you to go from film to film in a battle on the click of a key very quickly - and you can go back and forth. What I have not tried but may be possible is to run both sides films if they had the same password. A wild idea but who knows!

I find it amazing the thread gets this far without someone suggesting that it is the hull height that makes it a good target. The hull of Sherman is approximately a foot higher than the Churchill at the highest point of the front plate so that gives roughly 9square feet more target. If it helps think of it as a 5'6" man standing against a 6'6" man. The Churchill had a comparatively narrow turret for its hull and given the percentage shot is to go for the midriff the Sherman gives plenty to aim at.

Us old fogies would consider buying the Mac versions but if we were thinking to showoff we might run an emulator : ) At this rate you might even end up playing! Let me know when you are ready : )

Us old fogies are smart enough to move files from our internet computer to our gaming computer using the magic of USB memory sticks. : ) Your move. BTW Beevor's book on Spain is brilliant and highly disturbing as you see how small groups manage to gain so much power and misuse it.

Very interesting discussion on cocktails. Please note that the preferred mix was sodium chlorate and indeed it was 50cl bottles. web page

There is absolutely no reason to base your purchase decision on the demo games. If you do not like desert warfare it will not matter as there is limitless playing possibilities in Italy. If you like desert than there are some very good games, most particularly Tiger Vally. This really should only be played once for the surprise elements so do not waste it on the AI or a flaky player. Anywya it is a no contest must buy game. Of course I have only played100 plus games against humans at CMAK so you might one the opinion of someone who plays it regularly : )

Cheaper? I assume we are talking in game then. I have fought 15 a side M10's and MkIV's. About three kills either side and the rest of the time we skulked waiting for the other to advance : ) I have had several battles were M10's lose to Panthers but over all I do not suppose in over 100 CMAK battles I have fought more than 3 armour only battles. I can hardly claim to be an expert on armour only battles.

birdstrike. In game you will find that if the Germans are unsporting they will make your TD's uncomfortable with mortars and light ATG. Nothing more embarrassing than having your TD's reverse out of cover during a mortar barrage to be nailed by waiting German tanks The slow rate of fire of the M10 versus a Panther means in an even fight the Panther normally seems to win the majority of time. An ambush weapon fine but they need additional distractions to give them a good chance against Axis armour. I do find that trying to isolate them from other weapon systems on the battlefield so you get 1 to 1's irritating because the whole point of the game is to make sure that if you are fighting then the individual battles are rigged to be unfair to your advantage. I like to see people fielding TD's as they have the extra vulnerability that gives a slight edge : ).

Stratos, There are probably 50 good threads you could usefully read. Search in the archive for JasonC who writes at lenggth and is normally very very good on what he writes. Occasionally he is downright wrong, and also rude. You will find a search simply on this single forum will give you 60 hits. Happy reading

GD Manifestly untrue as 37mm AA could penetrate most thinner parts of a TD at 1000 metres. I suspect a 50mm could do it from even further. A 20 mm would have to wait till sub 500 metres. As for giving glorious stories of TD's effectiveness I am reminded of Gullivers Travels where Gulliver is swarmed by the Lilliputians. I suspect noticing some one 100-500 metres away pointing a rifle at him would not necessarily rated top in Gullivers mind if he viewed the Lilliputians as potentially lethal. Not to say that they did not do sterling work but I like context to go with statements. After all Highest scoring by total or per vehicle? If two were present and acored 2 kills each that would be very high, if there were 60 and they scored 4 out of total bag of ten they could still be highest scoring weapon system. I am sure JC would want us to know how it is without us repeating his research : )

Overstates! Thats putting it very mildly. Only in CMBB wwas it impossible and then it was patched. And I have played more games than JC.

Arriving at a battle without a mortar is a shooting offence : ) But I thought this bug was sorted out anyway?

I was browsing around and came across these NZ gents. I have always admired Freyberg but forgot he had a VC.

E-mail sent : )

I think you might find that the book does not reflect V1.03 of CMBB so the statistics might be wrong. Mr Hare has done a great spreadsheet with all the data including 1.03. A search will reveal it ... I think. You can also download somewhere a proper index , a subject to page index, for the manual. The manual other than that just runs through the page order that one would normally find at the beginning of a book - a glaring mistake really.

Save the money I think unless you are a real noob. It is generally applicable to CMAK but then you do have dust and new orders .... possibly you could spend an hour or two reading archived stuff on any subject you are interested in.