dieseltaylor

I thought you would be heading to the target area through the b[r]ush : }

Glider - if you have the time practice games where you are the half squad champion and attack the AI and find out what makes your half squads break , keep a few squads whole and then see what happens to them. I took a long time before I found the Russian secret to defeating German armour in 43 but you have to work at this game and in doing so you get a much better understanding of all the variables and tweaks that exist. I always try to play opponents abck to back so I learn both sides of the at the same time. If there is an advantage you both have the option to play it - or not : )

So if we carry your argument to the extreme each soldier will pair off shooting against each other. Of course it would then be unfair if one soldier was wounded because then it would be subject to two soldiers firing against him ...... If I have a 12 man squad against a 6 man squad you would deny me the flexibility to use my superior numbers by surrounding you but demand I just use moree ammo to show I am tougher? As it happens in RL the idea - if you are pushing for a result you try to suppress the enemy whilst working part of your squad to an advantageous position to flank fire etc. Now within the game you either withdraw your squad to split it , or in anticipation of action you split it earlier.Given that very rarely do you know what the enemy has or where it is you trade off command control for the number of half squads. I am assuming that you do not group the squads around the HQ to invite atillery , mortars etc. I have seen a half squad break on receipt of a 75mm shell on a house they were in. They are fragile - sending whole squads to kill half squads should be a turkey shoot once they start breaking - but do not expect it to happen if you are simply playing squad against squad with no other action. That should be an exception not common on the battlefield. I once worked an HQ behind the attackers line and the 4 men killed a dozen from breaking formations falling back [for no loss] : )

In a battle I am currently in I can tell you that halfsquads break very easily unless they are in command control - even then they are not robust as a full squad

You can re-read some of the opinions, and an entire thread here Battlefront CMBO

Archer tanks pics and details and opinion : )

hpq 90% hps 5% htq 5% About 50 + per year Some people play more than others anyway. At BoB in 2oo4 out slightly over 1000 games of CMAK 3 playes accounted for 20% of all games. The top ten most active players accounted for between 40-50% of all games. "8 players played 30-49 games, 15 players played 20-29 games, 49 players played 10-19 games, 76 players played 3-9 games, 30 played two games and 33 just one" {The top 3 players are above 50}[Approx 300 players in BoB] There are figures for CMBO and CMBB also. The reason for quoting is simply that what people play in this survey may not necessarily be what the commonest game type by number is. How many games people play a year would be interesting ....

Its difficult to use but a mobile 17pdr is really quite nice to have. It will certainly worry the German simply if you keep it alive. Remember it is an ambush weapon. But then with a bit of smoke you may be able to sneak into positions that he is not expecting : )

Well I agree ... partly : )

Gee if only they had had two divisions of modern tanks in Vietnam - game over. No, hold it a minute what if the enemy refuses to fight unless it is mountainous, wooded or marshy, or built up areas.

860 is the assault spend in a normal 500 point game.

Nice idea with the river providing a varying hardish edge to one side. Provides interesting decision possibilities : ) Nice maps . Consider yourself bookmarked : )

No motorcycles this series of games but ... who knows. As for Asia I know someone is doing mods to fight out there. There will be a few people who want to play those. Someone else is doing the Spanish Civil War, and again some post 1945 Palestinian battles.

I have had to split a defence into half squads simply because the game , in Combined arms assault, mode gives you too few points to buy adequate infantry. IMHO history is full of WW2 squads being given extended frontages for the very same reason. I do not see split squads - even mass split squads as gamey.

I thing it is easy to have fond memories of playing CMBO and then graduating to CMBB and appreciating the difference. However if you are brand new to the games then having to learn that in CMBO machine guns are virtually useless but in the later games that they are deadly will be a frustrating experience. Of course learning the effects of the different orders will also double the learning curve for newbies. I really find it hard to understand that anyone can suggest learning two different game systems at the same time. It can probably be done but all the intricacies of actually fighting battles follows learning the basics. And fighting the battles has an immense learning curve to it. That there are lots of pretty mods in CMBO is almost an irrelevance to learning the game. If Erik wishes to mod then CMAK being the newest surely has the most potential for modding anyway?

"I would like to lobby most vociferously" You certainly are : ) Having played games for many decades, and having approximately 200, I have seen games disappear as they have appealed to a more and more specialist market. Responding to the siren cry of more realism more realism the games become less and less playable, and for noobies impossible. Squad Leader comes to mind for sure. Negotiating turn lengths ..... you have to be joking surely. Turn length would be the most fundamental variable you could have in the game short of turning of fog of war. The danger of throwing out a very nearly perfect playable game because of a desire to be "realistic" is great. If you think of the great games you have Scrabble, Monopoly, Chess, Acquire, Empire Deluxe [the oldest still played computer game?] Realistic they are not, simple to comprehend yes, learning experience - as much as you like. Altering timescales for Napoleonic battles with this new engine makes sense . But to throw it in as a variable in WW2 battles seems to be misguided. My wish list is comparatively minor for CMX2. More realistic width of roads etc, fire by rounds - everything else is not important. Generating a new multipurpose game engine that can do loads does not mean they should all be thrown at a popular game assuming that only improvments will happen.

Major Rags It may have passed you by but if you insist on telling people a scenarios secrets that you preface it with a big notice saying SPOILER and then leave lots of spaces so that fast readers do NOT read something they would rather not read. I will e-mail you also so you can amend your post and or remove the scenario name.

Do NOT buy CMBO. Aas it has considerably different orders and effectiveness of weapons you will only confuse yourself if you attempt to play all three. There is more than enough gameplay in both CMAK and CMBB for a lifetime. If you wish to play Northern Europe there are lots of such scenarios available for CMAK done by the community.

I truly believe that a grave problem lies in the game fragmenting into so many possible ways to play that it actually divides the players. I will not play X as he plays the wrong length turn .... the way one plays would need to vary so greatly that you could end up with small enclaves with noobies wondering between the various factions and mastering none. There are always going to be people who wish to tinker with the game to reflect there view of reality. But is only a game and it does need to have some base level that everyone plays.

This looks good for NE Libya. Google can work wonders : ) The map is just over a MB. Oops better do it as a link rather than image!! map

This looks good for NE Libya. Google can work wonders : ) The map is just over a MB. It runs from El alemein/Alexandria past Benghazi. Shows tracks spot heights and types of terrain. [ January 17, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]

Any particular scale? Does it matter what period?

From my reading of WWII tactical histories for ultimate realism we would sit around for days at a time with very minor action at company level. : ) The other thing that comes out in alot of commentaries is how often companies disappeared off into battle and ended up somewhere where they were not meant to be. Or got decimated 9 times over as they tried to carry out orders which were not possible but Battalion said were. As a gamer I am happy to have a game were my intelligence is reasonably accurate and I have a chance to win. That either side has a chance to win is also perhaps more ahistorical than the "sim realists" would care to admit. In a sense the answer is already in the game in that if players agree that original orders stand until a command unit ot its subordinate unit/ section etc is fired upon.The officer is then allowed to re-issue orders. For other units they must continue until two turns later from the sound of small arms firing before re-ordering. Units you have established in overwatch would be allowed to unhide. This could both increase command realism and diminish borg spotting effects.

I am not sure what system the ROW uses - possibly it is the Nabla. The Nabla method of scoring is sophisticated and the result of truly extensive discussions on the forum. It allows for comparative scoring for both sides in each scenario and suggests how to run a tourney. Found here http://www.cis.hut.fi/jarmo/nabla-system/nabla-manual.pdf Only 33 pages! but once you appreciate the beauty of the system and the problems it solves .....

Defendable walls certainly - minimal high outside windows and central courtyard for the wealthy. Smaller houses cut out the courtyard. I still tend to the belief that the town has grown because of the railway stopping to take on water or as a junction ... Long walls protecting nothing are the no-no I think. Why expend the labour to build them.