dieseltaylor

Length of life figures are poor indicators given the huge number who died as children and in childbirth. Excluding women from the average age for fighting men would help. : ) Accordinto Wikipedia if you made 21 you could live to 64. The deaths of the Royal family of Wales once adults averaged 40+ and that is dragged down by battle deaths and death in childbirth. Also riding is actually quite a muscular activity:

Interesting arguments. GAJ - You are right the latter : "This game will end randomly at T35 +/- 5 turns" is far superior to "This game will randomly end at T30 + up to 10 turns" but not perfect as the length of undertime/overtime should not be revealed. You say you cannot see the difference - possibly you cannot see it because it is a mind game action rather than mathematical. Without knowing the underlying mechanism of how likely a game is to end I can only speak from my knowledge of playing CM1 games. Assuming that the scenario designer has had the game play-tested reasonably well the basic assumption is that the attacker can win by or on T40. And that must include surprise reinforcements. So the attackers thought processes are that he can guard against defeat by at least capturing drawable objectives+ by T40 and everything over is bunce. {bunce=idiomatic English meaning a slightly shady bonus} The defender knows that in a correctly designed scenario he has at least a 50-50 chance of winning on T40 so the least he should be fighting for is a draw at that point. However he knows he needs to commit all his forces so that at the end of T40 he is in the best possible position. Planning to hold sufficient VP's to Turn 45 to get a win would be nice but you know the designer feels that the attacker has a win at Turn 40. This is very depressing. Now if the scenario is 40 turns + ? or - ? the attacker aswell as the defender is under the cosh. Assuming you as an attacker now know the target time is 40 + or - then you have to believe that the game is balanced to be a 50-50 chance for either side to win at turn 40. The pressure is on to get safely within the period rather than to string it out. I hope I have made that clearer however it is a subtle point and I suspect needs experiencing to feel the different pressure. I have worked an example: Assuming the 25% possible extra turns from T40 you get to roll a ten-sided dice for how much longer it will continue. In your mind is that the same as on T40 rolling a six sided dice which is plus or minus from and including T45. Seems a lot chancier to me. : ) I see others feel that depending on circumstances a variable ending can be favourable for the defender however I think in all honsty we are scratching at possible justifications rather than the actuality of what happens in the vast majority of variable ending attack scenarios. I do have a sympathy for variable endings particularly in ME's where everything is up for grabs. Attack/defence the defender is invariably starting with his high point in VP's and it should by rights only go downhill from there. However the point about land grabbing on the final turn in a fixed ending in attack defence is valid. However is not my solution equally or more effective in obscuring the game end?

Intelligence test : ) Actually I agree it is not a easy place to navigate and I have been popping in ocassionally for years. I have grown to think of it as a place for the dedicated and not suffering from trolls and children because the interface is opaque.

Not all the time mind. I do have a great conceptual problem with variable endings in attack/defence scenario as the longer time should almost invariably benefit the attacker. If we want true random endings that do not only favour one side - the game end should be randomly earlier also. It may also benefit meeting engagements. In CM*1 I suggested that fixed endings were very much required in attack/defence style games becuase of the benefit for the attacker only. I therefore suggested quite strongly that the fixed end was actually the time when the commander radioed in progress to date. Whether part way through a battle or not I always assumed somebody higher up would require to be kept aware of the situation at regular intervals. If thta is when a game ends so be it. For those who feel variable is the way to go then at least in CMx2 there is a chance that BF whilst tweaking will consider the correctness of my gripe thta variable endings tend almost universally to favour the attacker.

I thought La Valence actually sucked - probably from the point of view that with victory areas tight to the boundary the glass bowl effect is very much evident. As for the vehicles staying around to be killed ..... And we both felt it was way too long in terms of what needed to be done, and it went into overtime just to rub it in. However it was V1 and possibly will play better now. I had no units left to move for about the last 5 minutes and as far as I knew my last troops surrendered two minutes before the game end. After the overtime it appeared I had two invisible men who were still in existence??!!!! I have great sympathy for designers when they are doing these early scenarios with many things not quite finished off in the game engine. I do have a great conceptual problem with variable endings in attack/defence scenario as the longer time should almost invariably benefit the attacker. If we want true random endings that do not only favour one side the game end should be randomly earlier.

dakuth - I connected it at Videogamegeek[.com] baby brother of Boardgamegeek and it is now vetted for inclusion : )

Thats what I was thinking when the politicians were talking about the Murdochs/Brook etc. As you know I actually believe that what you see on the media [various] actually affects peoples view of life. Yes I believe advertising works! : ( So climate of fear and solving problems with a gun/violence might actually be seen as an advertisement of how life is - and how you need to act.

As the news media is being coy ... Not directly relevant to the title of the thread but interesting to see what a force multiplier a semi-automatic rifle is.

Lovely stuff. A quote to give a flavour of a mall ninja:

I always think that the battle in Normandy actually was probaly more beneficial to the Allies than one might think. But then I like to see if their are any positives. The Axis fighting pretty much as far as they could get from Germany. The Allies with pretty short supply lines and controlling the air and sea. Some serious on the job training before more open/mobile battles. Whether unleashing the genie from the bottle much earlier would have been more dangerous to the Allies in getting bloody noses with the use of far less battle savvy troops and the increased supply consumption is an interesting what-if.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/uk-austar-regulator-idUKTRE76L0KH20110722 Aw shucks!

I am quite impressed that someone has thought this far ahead. It is quite ingenious. http://www.gizmag.com/custom-built-survival-shotgun/19271

http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287 I have been seeing this around for the odd decade and you would have thought it has enormous reasons for being built.

Nice one DLaurier : ) Anyone like my Polish gambit with Russia hanging in mid-air? : (

http://www.b3ta.com/links/DADS_WITH_SWORDS Interesting and amusing!

Apple Jam is available and at 20 minutes very fun. Author GonzoAttacker.

The larger buildings are a mystery to me. A I have only played one urban combat and for most of that I eas checking to see an M8 with30+ rounds of 75mm could flattern what I call a block of flats - two storey and pretty wide. The answer is no. So it seems to me that there needs to be some more research on lethality in urban areas. My original feeling was that CMBN had imported CMSF figures but given the new patch was coming I never really looked into it.

Ah yes the dreaded factoids - I used to get very annoyed at the crap Steve Wright put out on Radio 1. I even wrote to the Beeb saying that how could they allow bogus information to be put out in this manner. And you can imagine how I felt about astrology advice ...... Absolutely criminal.

BTW I don't think houses are necessarily a good place to fight from and the isolated house definitely not unless it is in a particularly good position and attackers have no decent cover. Not necessarily for a firefight but for the fact that the house needs to be cleared before an attack can proceed - this makes hiding and taking no or low casualties a good idea. One drawback, and it is a considerable one, is that we can see if the building we attack has a back door allowing enemy troops to move in and out. And of course we know they cannot possibly use any windows at the back to move in and out no matter how logical it might seem. Perhaps in a future CM?

Source of info? http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/dieseltaylor/Recommendematerialsprotection.jpg The above does not specify the type of brick which can vary considerably in density and hardness. Modern bricks are often designed to be just sufficent to the task and with good insulation properties. I suspect pre-war the bricks were not that sophisticated. Special bricks could support over 9000psi while normal hard bricks would do 4000psi. Flint is common in Normandy and flint is three levels higher than cutlery steel on the Mho scale. And a flint wall would be thicker than a brick wall. There is a tendency to see small buildings as being more permeable to fire - a moments thought would make you realise that small dwellings would be more likely to be built form the raw materials to hand such as stone and flint. I have not tested out V1.01 and buildings but there has been a lengthy thread on the V1.

I am always interested in this kind of detail because I like to know how people form such opinions. In WeBoB CMAK is much much more heavily played than CMBB, and CMBO is played hardly at all. But then I am using facts here. As for those who play solo I cannot see anyway of establishing what the figures are so I expect BF take a percentage of sales - which might be seen as slightly finger in the air. Or perhaps there is a basis on how many download the patches ? I have never actually seen a formal survey through the Forum on how people actually play the game though I see in this thread BF have suggested a player start a thread on one angle. I have a theory that though BF do great games and do listen to the forum etc., that they do miss opportunities to generate extra "zap" to the gaming commmunity. So what is "zap"? Well lets look at a few areas: Beautiful Maps There are many many people who love to design miniature worlds, even if they actually rarely play. And they like to have their work appreciated by people playing on their maps. Did BF launch an annual Map of the Year contest? Would it have been difficult to organise? Well No and No. I suspect given the garçon de fanatique base then it would have been as arduous as BFs involvement in the Rumblings of War series. Scenarios of the Year Similar idea. Different categories for the map size plus an overall winner. Rotate one year CMAK one year CMBB. Note that beautiful maps is so not the same as great scenarios though one could imagine some serious testing and cooperation as map builders and force designers work together, PBEMHelper Made playing the game hugely quicker in Trusted mode so a 60 game monster became a one month game. Plus you could play all the game films with a 5 second gap in between. Regardless of the competitive playing side the fact that scenario testing time could be reduced by 2/3rds would have been a boon to many people. I am not suggesting that BF needed to endorse it as it is third party software but apart from a few most people were in complete ignorance of it. Surely any utility that increases the functionality of playing should at least get a mention, subject to caveats, GaJ has just written a program to make playing easier for CMx2 PBEMer's. SO CMSF has been out around 4 years and CMBN arrives and then a player writes it for the community. Somehow it seems that BF actually should have thought about this side of the game - you know like write us a program to do this and get a freebie CMSF or CMBN. Find an Opponent This is a flagship game and not to have an Opponent Finder forum for CMBN together with the game does seem peculiarly unfriendly and may be off-putting to those new to BF games who fail to scroll to the bottom of the page. I cannot see you losing sales by showing there is an active community. And I would also do a sticky as to the clubs where it is played at the head of the find an opponent. Video On YouTube there is a 160 minute playthrough of CMBN. I had played a couple of hundred turns when I watched it but it sure got the concepts over well. If that had been available Day 1 perhaps a lot of confusion for those coming from CMx1 would have been killed at birth. And perhaps it would be best done by an amateur who was not familiar overly with the game so he would see it through the eyes of a noobie. Training Games I have said it previously but I think the learning experience of moving etc could have been improved by some less obvious methods. Seeing how fast you could drive vehicles around a course could have been fun and lead to lots of boasting and experimentation amongst the players on the forum. A mini game with a very small learning curve - and lots of fun. Making the game a pleasure to play, or encouraging the community need not be too expensive or time consuming for BF so perhaps some thought, or get the betas opinions, on the zap factor.

For those not in a drug culture

Interesting link poesel. Thanks.

Yes I played around with re-numbering and saving part watched etc. also to no useful end So finally : By sending a v1.00 turn - in this case 131 where I had watched and done my move. In all honesty my oppo could have run any previous clean turn I had sent in V1, My oppo using V1.01 watched the film and then did orders and saved 132 and everything worked fine after that. best of luck.

SOLUTION If you see the film first you cannot do the switcheroo. It has to be done the player who goes orders then film. My oppo having patched I asked him to reply to turn 131 and he sent 132 which worked on my machine and I was able to send 133 and we finished on 134/135 with the victory file.