dieseltaylor

Scottie. Avoid human players who add rules. I have come across one or two and often the basis of their rules are mistaken in fact or effect. \tricky when a noobie to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Actually what you said nox was fair though you might have felt some was a litle too revealing. As for teenagers I think the problem is more to do with the development of the brain which in males does not complete until @ 20. And on the basis you do not give certain drugs to babies because it affects the development then the same reasoning should apply to teens : ) However the fundamental problem would appear to be over consumption. This is a problem of rich societies where alcohol, drugs, food etc are very cheap in relation to shelter, warmth, and proper food. You have to admire a society such as the UK where people get their knickers in a twist over paying university fees but for most students that is actually roughly what they normally spend on pleasure of the drug, drink, CD's travel kind each year. I think if cannabis was legalised it would be on balance probably a good thing. There of course need to be controls so that the state benefits enormously from the introduction by operating tied outlets. This will fund the clinics and raise revenue.

The point you mention is entirely fair and I spent considerable time weighing up the evils of solid flanks and open flanks in game play. And as you point out terrain makes a considerable difference in what is accepatble. Closed flanks in the Western Desert or steppes of Russia are a complete no-no to me. Bocage is interesting as density is higher and the short visual range could work well. The big drawback remains that you should not be able to guarantee a safe flank. Which does mean I think larger maps but with the VP's central so that there is a tension between flanking and getting to the action - which would tend for prople to play straight up the middle. BUT it just leaves the faint possibility that your flank is NOT secure ever. In RL terms it is a fudge as other units would be there but the gain in FoW outweighs this caveat. And to be fair I should have said aother unit SHOULD be there as in RL in the bocage knowing exactly where your unit was in relationship to another in a fluid situation was hardly guaranteed. So again open flanks is a justifiable scenario device to give players. There is another reason and possible work around to consider. Using outer areas of a map - in a reduced detail - as places for troops to commence the game rather than arriving on turn 2 or 3 as if dropped in by magic. This also means that the overhead for wide but fully detailed maps is reduced. I thought of this originally for CM*1 where reinforcements arriving higgeldy-piggeldy on a map-edge could be an organisational nightmare. Particularly if it were conscript trucks dropped just off a road!!

Absolutely great to see it in WeGo. Thanks to tyrspawn. The essential differnce I felt was highlighted when th bazooka team was firing at hte back of the Panther. Tyrspawn said he would have done an immediate re0order for the Panther, In my book that is unrealistic and why WeGo prevents micro-management. But each to his own,

user 38. Good points. I always try to play on huge maps so that players cannot rely on "safe" flanks. Players who like to concentrate forces can then worry about being shot in the side. I note from the CMBN AaR films that artillery will now also punish concentrated forces more effectively than CM*1 One other advanatge of really big maps is that you can use movement and the terrain to make enemy positions untenable - so achieving victory with relatively little fighting is actually possible. I am not saying it happens often. More often it is by use of terrain cleverly a less expensive force may create problems for what in theory is a better more potent force. An example would be getting an ATG or two on the reverse slope of a hill that actually denies the enemy use of of the only logical avenue of attack. Given woods or rough ground on the crest of the hill at ank heavy force would be bottled. Of course artillery, smoke etc. may be available to the enemy force but time is also a factor in games and this balancing of time, risk, reward, and what options are avialable are what make the CM games the great fun /challenge that they can be. Incidentally on very large maps the time taken to travel from one side to the other let alone front to back does mean that pre-thinking what your plan is adds another layer of complexity. So even with a smaller force if it is more mobile,better directed, or favoured by terrain you can achieve success. Smaller maps maximised the value of frontal armour and minimised the value of light vehicles like universal carriers and armoured cars which left a large amount of the games value unplayed. Still each to his own.

From the limited experience I have had with ladder folk, and looking at their sites I have noticed the constant refrain for balanced games. Now to be fair I have probably not looked at one of these sites for years so things may have improved. I do know that if I wished to play ladder matches I would learn all the wrinkles in the game engine. I would also learn all the statistics for suppression or breaking a unit, for knocking down a house. And I am already acquainted with the tanks and movement rates. But it would not be fun because of the effort involved and at the end of day Lady Luck could do you in. Even less fun, One thing I can be sure of is that during WW2 the opposing sides did not arrange balanced battles so what ladder clubs seem to try and create goes against what warfare is about. I suppose I have played over 300 games and probably100 different players and winning is not that important provided I played my side well. My mantra has always been I would rather play a good game and lose than a boring game and win. Not really useful attitude for a ladder player except for holding up those who are "better". I do not play a lot of tournaments. There are exceptions where I want to play though - Nabla tournaments work because you can have unfair battles and lose in points but win by doing better than most of the other players. No balanced game required for a good contest and a great FoW. I have played some other tournaments such as an All Random everything , that was really bizarre but fun. And even downright funny. You will make your own mind up as to what the non-ladder type is. I think non-ladder types are those who what a degree of realism to the battle, history buffs, those who just want the excitement of seeing what the next film brings, those who feel gaming the engine is a form of cheating. If I have maligned Ladder players too harshly and they actually do only play for fun, and unbalanced games are welcomed as being more realistic I apologise.

: ) The one minute turn that takes an hour, But that is moving both your platoons.

Oh God ladder players! I have always laughed at people who felt ladder play was in anyway justifiable use of the CM engine. People who understand WW2 warfare would play with random casualties, even fitness, etc so that a more realistic game could be had. And of course using huge battlefields so edge hugging would simply take you away from the VP's rather than give an advantage. Ladder play was for people with egos that needed feeding and who felt chess did not have enough explosions. : )

I have often made the point that it is not the size of a battlefield that adds complexity it is the number of units. I should add - and the tactical complexity of the scenery JC says Firstly it is disingenuous to say every minute. Orders are only required every time something is required. Ordering a platoon to advance 200 yards say is just one order that may take 3-4 minutes to be executed. Playing with 50 tanks a side in the desert is absolutely no stress compared to moving 25 platoons through a dense landscape on a 1km square map. I have spoken to the odd player who feels an hour a turn is the correct time for a CMAK turn. Personally I think that even in large games 10 minutes is the average order giving time. But then I play for enjoyment not because my psyche demands I win every battle. Vehicle heavy is fun, infantry heavy is unfun, is a rule that seems to apply most of the time. For your campaign it is going to be infantry heavy which I reckon does mean that it will be heavy work for the players. But no doubt rewarding in the end : )

Two points. 1. Within a scenario the designer could actually provide the information that would then render the "Godlike" knowledge as real intelligence. This would help the immersion factor : ) 2. Map reading skills are underestimated by players. Regrettably not everyone here has been taught them and some would be better than others anyway : ). Given certain types of soil/rock/farming practices I would think any good commander would be able to get a fairly adequate idea of how the land would look simply by map reading. Of course there would be features not shown on a standard Michelin map - say a big drainage ditch which might alter for better or worse the general plan. But as a CO and by reading from my map and it showing very flat land a drainage ditch should not be a total surprise. Now finding one atop a hill!!! a drainage ditch would be a big surprise. There is a link in the map thread for Belgian maps and you can see maps, aerial pictures and also contoured maps. You can look at the contour maps 1:50000 envisage a terrain and then see how it looks like from the air - strangely similar! To simplify here is the gist of Waycools post Map overlay Belgium ww2 era using Google mapping and British GSGS survey maps. http://geo.nls.uk/maps/belgium/index.html A blurb from site: Belgium - Second World War military mapping - geo-referenced mosaics These maps were created by the Geographical Section of the General Staff (GSGS) and were used by the Allies during the Second World War. These georeferenced and mosaiced layers were created as part of a project on military aerial imagery held by The Aerial Reconnaissance Archives, based at RCAHMS. GSGS 4042 (1:250,000) - 1937-42. This series is a revised version of a First World War map. The information gathered from aerial reconnaissance imagery was added to most areas. In the remaining areas, alterations were based on the best available French, Belgian and Dutch maps. GSGS 4336 (1:100,000) - 1942-43. This series is a revised version of a First World War map. Information was mainly gathered from French 1:80.000 and Belgian 1:40.000 map series. Particular attention was paid, using aerial reconnaissance imagery, to the revision of railways and roads. GSGS 4040 (1:50,000) - 1943-44. This series was first prepared in 1938-1939. The sheet lines of this series are unlike other 1:50.000 series and have no relationship to any local series either French or Belgian. The sheets which cover Belgium were compiled from local 1:20.000 and 1:40.000 series maps. GSGS (1:250,000 - 1:50,000) - 1937-42. This is a user friendly visualization and shows all three series as listed above in one application. Every series is visible at a different zoom level. http://geo.nls.uk/maps/belgium/index.html Last edited by Waycool : Today at 02:43 AM.

Brilliant site. I can see plenty of accurate maps arriving - espcially for the Ardennes

Crocodile WAS very much feared by German infantry. A demonstration squirt of flame could be enough for wholesale surrenders. In fact in one instance a troop of Crocodiles was going into laager for the night and as a precaution flamed the field perimeter - which lead to a number of prisoners appearing - AFAIR it was 60men. I will asume that it will appear in a later module if not in the next one for British and SS. My guess is later as flame has yet to be sorted.

And the fequency of jamming. And the replacement of barrels. The early CM did make them rather generic other than in FP. This was a disservice to the Allied water-cooled HMG.s that could fire much longer bursts but at a lower rate per minute. http://world.guns.ru/machine/brit/vickers-mk-e.html and in the same place you can read about the MG 34 and the MG42. Neither having the continual fire capacity of the water-cooled HMG's. In game terms you would expect there to be a difference in use, particularly when the Allies were attacking and suppressive fire was required by them for hedgerows/villages, woods. The Germans , concious of the extremely high rate of fire and supply may well be going very much to short lethal bursts of fire, http://world.guns.ru/machine/de/mg-42-and-mg-3-e.html

Mons http://www.tanksintown.be/En/Principale_EN.html To commemorate the liberation of the city in 1944 by the 83rd Reconnaissance Battalion of the 3rd U.S. Armored Division "SPEARHEAD", TANKS IN TOWN organizes each year a tremendous concentration of armored vehicles : SHERMANS, CHAFFEES, PERSHINGS, TANK DESTROYERS, HALF TRACKS, ARMORED CARS, but also JEEPS, TRUCKS and many others will peacefully invade the historic center of the city of Mons.

Possibly it is a commercial decision not to upset too many ethnic purchasers. And of course younger purchasers. I am sure someone will provide swearing wav. files but I suspect they will be modern rather than WW2 swearing.

Steiner I agree about huge battles. We have been fortunate at WEbOb in having a four round tournament where the battles start big and the final one tends ot the massive. Batttalions , mass artillery, 50 vehicles a side. oirks very well in the desert. Knowing that to travel from one side of the board to another will take most of the thirty five turns means both defender and attacker need to think very carefully about dispositions and long term targets. Also it allows for distraction/illusion aswell which is a very uncommon part of CM. By that I mean you feint an attack to draw reinforcements from one area to another. Or yuo actually keep troops lying doggo so that what appears to be a quiet sector suddenly becomes very active in the backend of the game and troops and resource have been drawn away and simply will not have time to get back. : ) All good fun

We have discussed this at WeBoB club and without knowing the game the default view is the most realist/hardest setting. No to say that there may be a week or so while we practice ineasy mode!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Derrick

Really good, and some neat new wrinkles coming out. Such as your FOO type procedures needs an unrattled officer [with radio] , if he is underpressure he may start calling inaccurately. : 0 Sweet.

I have been reading up o Wiki and elsewhere on Rasch. However there are some quite complicated[ to me] exceptions. Judging by the literature and caveats it does look like one could use a week thinking about it. This seems to link to a freebie http://onbiostatistics.blogspot.com/2010/01/rasch-analysis.html to here http://www.estat.us/id111.html

Affy = agree absolutely. Hence the sedums/succulents and shrubs. And bulbs. I am a truly lazy gardener : ) Costard - you swine. My stomach has just attacked me for cruelty!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_John_Monash Seems very balanced. And if Montgomery thought he was the best then that is good enough for me. Monash probably was so effective because he was a success outside of the Army and of an age where he was confident in his abilities. It would be interesting to see how much of the latest biography is owed to its two predecessors : ).

Zombie Myths of Australian Military History Craig Stockings (Editor) Published 2010 Page 5 of the introduction mentions Monash - but I cannot see much more of the book on Amazon. Should be an interesting read, though quite likely unpopular amongst fellow Australians. DOn' get me wromg I think Monash was a very good General and I would be more than happy if I find out he was a great General. But I am a great believer in truth and I have a grave dislike of lying authors. Perhaps a topic on re-writing history ...... Edit - sorry our posts crossed. I will look at Wiki also.

As I have a few days to before release lets see how much of this paen stands up. I actually admire the guy but there are phrases that really seem OTT. I note that it is a Random House book and Random House are very very pushy with getting their wares out. However we will set that aside. So the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Perry a prolific writer but no evidence of any military background. And though a biographer it is of cricketers. In all over 20 books so assuming he started at 20 roughly a book every two years. And not all of them acclaimed even by Australians : ) OK so there are some doubts expressed about him. Perhaps the next thing is to look at the claims. I will go and lie down after this exhaustive research done so far.

Erik. I am surprised at your answer as you do not appear to have comprehended what I have written. But firstly the possible permutations in a pack are completely irrelevant to the position where 4 people sit down and play pre-arranged hands. They only have 13 cards to play and there is no getting away from that position. And given they have to follow suit if they can and actual card-playing sense there is an even smaller chance of variation. Now to get to this "pair score". I read and comprehended what you said. However you did not extend your example to the required conclusion. Seventy-two people play and that might mean, assuming that they all recorded different scores that the chief Axis and chief Allied player could receive 72 points. Now the remaining games may be quite drawish, or with small variation so that all the games bunch up. Now you state that all players who draw share the points. I am not clear what this may mean when you have 36 players and 6 have 72,70,68,66,64 and then the next ten have an identical percentage score how does that work out? And what happens to those beneath them? I have two theories how it might work but rather than work them perhaps you would just tell us. Obviously if you play a rabbit and score 72 points then with only say 5 rounds that score should immediately mean you are favourite to go through to any next session of the best. The average score is 36 so you should end on 4*36+72 = 216. If B is a better player than A but fights better enemy players he may well score averagely throughout the five rounds giving 180. Allowing the fortunate player twice as many as the average player seems far too extreme - however I await to see how you suggest tied scores are dealt with. Also bear in mind that outliers more often show a mismatch of player skill than anything else. The second most common cause is a scenario where there is a make or break situation, it may be a simple as a tank duel which will tend to make the scenario play heavily either one way or another. And of course there is always the chance of an outright freak result - where someone discovered tanks could fall off a bridge onto a road below and then drive around the enemy back line. : )