dieseltaylor

I think NickT has missed the finest point of the concept. With the ability to "overbuy" and "underbuy" by the odd flag value the need to get a majority of flags is no longer paramount. To put it another way your sides decision on how many flags to capture may be very different from the opponents and this dysfunction can/will generate more interesting battles. Worst possible case you both underspend by a flags worth and there are two flags - you both go for one each and feel virtuos holding on to "your flag". Of course you might still go for the same one ..... or perhaps there are three flags .....mmmm. You buy 1500 pts you both grab a an equal number of flag points. Decision time --- has the opoosition got fewer points , do you need to liberate the flag? Has he more points and just teeing you up for a sucker punch. Is this the time when you wish you could do some serious recon? That is my point. The certainty of equal points in forces, equal points in capturing the same flags, is just too cut and dried.

I have been watching,eventually, the film's of NickT and Firefly. Very interesting game, great map but definitely favourable to NickT. The reason I mention it was in the early stages it led me to post - Patrix Uncertainty Principle http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006366 I wonder if any of you have any thoughts to add to the thread given your recent head-to-heads. P.

It is nice to get such thoughtful posters. To summarise: It is incrementally harder to win with lessser forces There is a terrible artificiality in equal forces Flags are too much of a focus Uncertainty of precise numbers[points] is good BUT Is it worth trying? ?....?? I have been giving it some more thought and it occurs to me that within the band of 1700-1300 points one creates the possibility of one side doing a limited attack with retention of ground and somone deciding on an all out attacks with the intention of serious bloodletting. [i am making it a requirement that any force must control a flag to score any points. This amy come as a disappointment those who were envisaging a large number of aircraft:)] So you have the possibility of attack/defence within a meeting engagement. Certainly something to disturb serious bean counters. There is also the added great bonus that recon becomes very much more important - I think it is undervalued because we already play the game knowing the opponents maximum size and also the specific values of all the objectives up for grabs. Certainly most games are played with a dearth of light units scouting. I will be trying out with a "volunteer" shortly but I do not think my opinion will be totally unbiased.

I like your first paragraph - totally agree. 1. I think the bottom of the screen is cluttered enough already. 2&3 I really do not have strong feelings about 4. Battlefront at various times have made the point that they do not want too much micro-management possible [i agree with them] and I think your suggestion though logical and user friendly does border the micro-management fringe. 5. Nice tweak but my thoughts as per 2 and 3 apply It's nice to know you are thinking about it. The CMBB interface was designed by a enthusiast from France who designed a very accepted substitute to the one shipped in CMBO. What a way to get immortalised! Regards, [ March 11, 2003, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]

Oh! User interface. Silly me I am obviously the wrong kind of grog

What I propose " You underspend by say 100 or 200 pts [in a 1500pt] and you get this credited to your flag score" What does this achieve? Uncertainty as to the oppositions precise strength and objectives. And lack of absolute knowledge in meeting engagements would seem highly appropriate. Even in attack and defence scenarios not knowing the absolute size of an attacking force would seem a realistic historical position. If I underspend my need to get a majority of flags is removed - unless of course my opponent has done the same! No longer can you sit on three out of 5 and feel secure. Eliminating the enemy becomes much more necessary. I am watching a league match at the moment and with virtually nobody killed and no armour sighted but based on infantry seen the total tank force has been deduced. You could call this could battlefield intelligence but it must have been very rare that 100% certainty would apply - it is unrealistic. Under the present game system the introduction of PUP really only works with moderators/leagues or playing with friends. I wouild like the forum to consider the idea, play with it, and refine it. Consider in a later CM you could perhaps decide to go in mob-handed with minus flag points but with the need to capture all flags - your opponent might be going in light in equipment but with a flag or two points value to his credit.Now thats what I call uncertainty!!! And think of the fun when you both go in mob-handed!!!!!

I have managed to connect, after aggro, when I let Flash load as this has the connection screen! At 1KB download - no up to 2 I shall be ready to game on Saturday

BUMP BUMP I have already commented in another thread on this iniquitous download. Are CDV doing their best to be awkward - do they already know that they are unlikely to be distributing Battlefront games again?

You might really regret getting the CDV version. You cannot back it up for kick offs - and it is soo precious you know life would be ruined if the CD got damaged. The biggest aggravation is that the version 1.01 upgrade is a massive 68MB - that is not a trivial download on a 56kpbs modem. In fact given the cut-offs operated by some ISP's you ain't going to get it!!!! By the english language version from Battlefront - they deserve the profit and you will be doing yourself a favour. What's really galling is that I speak English and I am required to buy from a German company who when they put the upgrade on a German download site up do not even mention it works for all the languages. *********!!!! (swearing) I could have downloaded it two weeks ago (sorry tried to) Disclaimer: I like Germany and I happily buy Bosch and AEG its just CDV are cr**. P.S. When CMBO was first out I was happily offering to ship them around the UK for free to increase CMBO's sales. Perhaps if I launch the SW England competition with prize money it will generate more interest. .....Hold on a moment what am I thinking of that helps sell moe CDV versions.

I've got it now - see a Onehitsky thread and ignore it. It's either a teaser title or just winding people up. Can he be sentenced to just adding to Peng threads? Please God! I'm kicking myself now I've just made the thread longer. Oops if I'm not careful I'll make it funny. Damn

Another great Jason C post - Thanks. I see an attack defense battle looming with my brother. Of course this is a CMBO post .... now what was that about headings and CMBB Having said that it still a valuable analysis

So what's Battlefront's view? Once BB becomes commercially available [and peopls stop posting tips via the main board] this forum will be very busy. How well are archive retrievals going to work - or will we old hands just know that pre-October 2002 any references we are seeking will relate solely to CMBO. Then of course if you want something CMBO related post October oops

With respect I cannot see that if after splitting one forum becomes slower that this negates the overall benefit of being able to go to the Tips forum you want. I would be very annoyed to keep opening threads relating to a point in one game whereas I thought it was the other. Nice though it would be to think people would identify the posts correctly I can see that it would be overlooked. From the eventual archiving point of view and subsequent searches it will be an even bigger nightmare and the sooner these games are split into two Tips forums the better it will be. Lastly as the spec. req. for CMBB are relatively high I think CMBO will be running for some time and newbies will appreciate the defining of which thread to follow - particularly as within a fortnight this board will be buzzing with CMBB tips. Happy Gaming ....... but split the Board

Bumpity Bump Very Useful, Thank You

Nice post Turbo Demon. My views but put more prettily. What a way to start your posting career!!;-] Regarding people not buying it because of the censorship that is a farfetched and silly idea. However most people on this forum do not like history being re-written for them - it is trivial in this context - but hey as principles go this is one of the few I have. A happy Thursday to all

JuJu I normally play British ...... but for what it's worth search engine Copernicus provides me with two relevant hits on Villers-les-Nancy. Nothing war related found in a brief look but the refs are http://www.ot-nancy.fr/ http://00ced.free.fr/nancy/index.php3 The first one is the tourst board Bonne Vacance

As in all things **** happens - the first TigerI captured was disabled by a shot being wedged in the turret ring. Modelling real life has to allow for extreme luck. Tank ace Bormann "With the TigerII I knocked out a Stalin from the side at 1700 meters with its first round, GLUCKS TREFFER[lucky hit]!!" One thing through this thread is the presumption that optics are crucial- dimly remembering that [or more likely being dim and remembering] one of the German tank aces gave as a reason for his success his gunners ability to snap fire. I therefore turned to Tiger Tanks by Michael Green [Motorbooks International], the only book to hand, which of course did not metion it. However - of interest a] Tiger standing instructions were that the unbuttoned tank commanders range estimation was most likely to be accurate as he had stereoscopic vision [regardless of the fine optics available!] From the TigerI Handbook " The distance can only be properly estimated by the driver and commander, because they can see the target unhindered by the naked eye. It is worse through the telescopic sights, first because the telescope sight magnifies everything by a factor of 2.5 and second because you cannot estimate that well with a single eye." I will now digress slightly to how good the human eye is in the Mark1 eyeball mode. As I sit here I can see large trucks on the other side of the Severn Estuary moving along a road which has to be at least seven miles miles away. The human eye is very good at detecting motion and if a TD crawls across a ridge line the chances of being spotted are very high at 800 metres. In relation to Scipio's post the commander makes a range estimation and because he is shooting uphill the chances of a hit would be great. If the gunner has a shot in the barrel and already has the gun ranged for a likely target range it is a matter of swinging the barrel --- but very lucky all the same [i recall the Ace's gunner always had the gun aligned to fire at either 500 or 800 metres and was so experienced that by simplying looking at the target he would know the distance make the small adjustment required and fire] b]"According to gunnery tests by the British on captured TigerI .... "A five round grouping of 16" by 18" was obtained at a range of 1200yards" [.5metre square at 1000metres] ..... " five rounds were fired at targets moving at 15 miles per hour and, although smoke obscured observation by the gunner,three hits were scored after directions were given by the commander. Normal rates of fire were estimated to be 5 to 8 rounds per minute." Frightening stuff for accuracy c] TigerI turret turning time at highest speed 19 seconds for 360 - Sherman 10 secs. Obviously the MarkIV beats the Tiger. I do wonder that in the fast move whether tank commanders are just "intepreting" orders by slamming on the brakes taking the shot before continuing the route. Also whether the notion of fast is making us assume that the tank is at maximum rated speed. Lets face it acceleration is hardly going to be electric and certainly we know that the top speed changes dramatically depending on terrain and whether the tank is turning around obstacles. Now if I have the time I will carry out 0-20 acceleration tests LOL

Just played the demo's first tutorial ---- very slick interface -- and very intuitive , it must be I was able to move and fight successfully without reading the manual!!! The commendation from Model was nice too.

In preparation for BB we have been looking at upgrading my friend has purchased an 1800Mhz AMD Athlon and in a large open battle the calculation time reduced from 2 mins 30 to I think 1 minute 40 seconds. This was an upgrade from a 466 Celeron. We had missed the graphics requirement though... So we can now save 30 minutes a game which of course means we can start the next game much sooner! In BB we anticipate larger more open maps so thats why the processor upgrade seemed smart [ April 03, 2002, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]

I agree with Combined Arms there is a tendency to concentrate far too much on choosing a killer force for QB's. It is fun but more balanced forces can lead to learning and appreciating true 2WW tactics. Of course Battlefront recognised that and did put force constraints dropdown into the set-up for QB .... they must have known we would have been max-out freaks. Recent club games have involved 15 Jagdpanthers, two battalions of infantry, eight German AA vehicles - not to mention research into the effectiveness of 40 Daimler A/c ....

What to do with 14" guns?!! My friends play a lot and in a 5000pt July 44 the flags [4] were close together Germans run into the wooded areas around the flag - battalion or so - 14" shells land and there are 27 dead german unit counters. Effective or what..... and would you believe it an allied victory. Nowdays we are even more careful about grouping too closely together if naval support is available

Yep Jason C has expressed the point well [as always] - differential ammo loads would seem to be fair both as a balancing mechanism and as a reflection of actuality

Slackjaw Near Exeter - you should have had an e-mail from him today regards

Released in Europe by CDV who also distributed hits like Sudden Strike and Cossacks. Also available with reviews home and they have some shops in towns My brother tells me that a small computer shop in the depths of sleepy Devon has taken several pre-orders for the official release date of March 8th.!!!! Of course we are hoping to get CMBB released at the same time as the US - can Battlefront confirm if this is going to happen?

at a glance at the title I thought this was covering a concern that i have in that in all the battles we have a very reasonble idea as to the points total we are playing against -- varied slightly by troop quality. A certain amount of point counting and guesses as to dispositions part way through the game cna normally give me a degree of confidence I should not have. There was a rather interesting card?table top game called Seastrike which gave the two players different victory conditions and a " budget" to achieve their requirement.This missions where on a pack of cards that the olayers drew from. This made the game very interesting as you may receive relatively few points to spend on your units but your mission was to create max. casualities rather than hold some real estate. It was an excellent way to create max. confusion as though you may acheive your objectives if your opponent did also the result would be a draw. Sitting back on your gains would not necessarily provide the win. I think in some of the developed scenarios this effect of unknown enemy objectives and forces is reached and they are far more tense because of this. Could not the Seastrike system be developed .... at some future stage .... for the CM system. Perhaps some games master would like to trial the system? Players could be given choices such as: clearance of map with 3000 pts in 20 turns or 30 turns for for 2000pts The opposition might have a spoiling mission in which they are required to inflict X casualiies without loosing 25% of their force points. Now with that in mind what force would you be choosing to get in and off the map quickly?? I am sure you can see the possibilities in arranging mismatches. === Or perhaps they have both been given the opportunity of clearing the Map - oops