Psyched

Thanks Len. It worked great and it's all pre-ordered. Maybe I'll see you on the battlefield!

I've tried to pre-order CMBB, but when I try to order it I get a warning window stating that my "cookies must be turned on to shop at this site" First of all, I always considered my cookies to be turned on! But just in case they aren't, can someone more computer literate than my self (which is saying very little) help me out with this one? My OS is Windows XP Home 2002. Thanks

I've got ten bucks that says he's gone in 20 minutes.

This kid seems to always be "shocked" about something or another. Hey, there's an idea...

Thanks, Martin. That's extremely helpful, and now I have a much better idea on how to proceed.

Hmmm. Does this mean be more careful and deliberate on the attack, or that Russian troops have less tendency to break if they are moving slower? It appears to me that fast commands (i.e., Human Wave and Assault) actually raise morale and make breaking less likely. Or does morale of a unit have nothing to do with that unit's tendency to be pinned by fire? Boy, someone smarter than me needs to figure out this game!

I respectfully disagree with this one. In CMBB, if you move the cursor to the side of the screen on the top half, then it rotates just like in CMBO. If you move the cursor to the side of the screen on the bottom half, then it moves side to side. I much prefer having the option of either movement by using the cursor. Like everything else, it might take a little getting used to, but once learned it should be much better.

Madmatt, I'm holding you personally responsible for the disolution of my marriage. First my wife will kill me, then she'll divorce me. Oh well, at least that will give me more computer time. BTW, do they have cable modems in hell? GREAT JOB, GUYS! I am unbelievably impressed!

Even though the graphic shows the squad hiding, and the unit info box lists their status as hiding, it confers absolutely no advantage. I had a similiar question when I noticed that you could order a squad to HIDE in open ground. I wondered if it made them harder to spot. But when I ran a series of tests, I saw that they were spotted just as easily as a squad standing in the open. So even though you are allowed to order a unit to HIDE anywhere you want, it is the terrain that determines any bonus from issuing the hide order. It makes sense that the back of a tank is not an appropriate terrain for 9-12 men to effectively hide.

I just don't get it. Then again, as my wife points out, I don't get a lot of things. As I had mentioned in a previous post, CMBB will allow the ability to commence prep arty barrages at the beginning of Turn One immediately after setup. This represents pre-first turn communication and coordination between the spotter and the battery. This apparently occurs without even having direct LOS to the enemy. Would anyone care to explain to me how First-Turn Arty barrages are considered "gamey" in CMBO but is essentially a built-in feature of CMBB? (And I'm sure that someone will ) And as far as this whole "gamey" question goes, all sides have valid points because "gamey" is a general term that cannot encompass all the different meanings. For example, taking advantage of a software glitch or being grossly ahistorical can reasonably be considered not within the spirit of the game. But what annoys me is when Player A starts screaming "gamey" just because Player B plays differently than he does. In many instances, it's as though Player A doesn't want to have to deal with different contingencies. He wants to be assured that Player B will act only in one or two predictable ways, and therefore is much easier to defeat. IRL, soldiers and their officers are often unpredictable and unconventional, and this can lead to victory. It's like the US military in Viet Nam politely asking the enemy not to do anything "gamey" (like attack the embassy or set bamboo booby traps) and stick to historical, conventional tactics please, or we just won't fight you anymore . An example in CMBO are those who whine incessantly about flag-rushing being gamey (oh no, here we go again! :eek: ). Player A in the above example would want certain assurances that once he captured a VL flag, Player B promises not to rush it at game end. This allows Player A to not have to prepare for that possibility, and therefore he is free to divert units to another VL where he can continue to beat the tar out of Player B. IRL, would Player A leave such a vitally strategic location (a VL) so thinly defended? He would only if the enemy "promised" to attack it only in a predictable manner! As repeated many times, the game-end randomizer feature (available now and in CMBB) generally eliminates this debate. My whole point is that there are different kinds of "gameyness". The ones that are essentially designed to intimidate everyone into playing only a certain way are rubbish and I refuse to bow down to them. I guess it's up to each individual player to decide if a cry of "GAMEY" falls into this category or not.

A little harsh, I think. In fact, in CMBB, you will now have the opportunity to lay artillery rounds that land immediately after setup, representing communication and coordination between spotters and artillery PRIOR to Turn One. This feature was added in order to represent the real-life ability to attack a suspected line of an enemy advance even before they are sighted. Hardly gamey, IMHO.

Lee might be able to say the flag is in dispute, but in the CM scoring he would probably suffer a Major Loss! Using your "Civil War" analogy, the Union may not get the VL points (although the Confederates would almost certainly be broken/routed as previously mentioned), but the victory points would pile up quickly for the Union side because of all the Confederate casualties, probably resulting in a lopsided victory despite the flag being in dispute. Plus, if we continue with the Pickett's charge analogy, the Confederates had a SIZEABLE force in the vicinity of the VL and would have to be destroyed in order for the Union to claim control of the flag. And by the way, we here in Memphis, Tennessee refer to that period of history as The War Between The States , or, if you prefer, The War of Northern Aggression. Didn't that war end in a draw?

That echoes my point exactly. I understand the gamey "feel" of a flag rush, and it's one of those areas where a "game" is separated from "reality". But a player must keep this aspect of play in mind and respond accordingly. A properly controlled VL should turn back a weak challenge immediately, else it wasn't properly defended in the first place and SHOULD be at risk of being lost. Put another way, the VL is labeled as such because it is an IMPORTANT mission objective. Once obtained, resources simply have to be committed in order to preserve it. In some ways, the availability of a potential flag rush can be seen as an ABSTRACTED way of demonstrating the importance of properly defending a captured mission objective. In "reality", such an important holding would be heavily defended in order to keep it out of enemy hands. Again, using a game-end randomizer makes this question mostly moot. [ August 05, 2002, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: Psyched ]

I agree with Xerxes. The whole PURPOSE of having a Victory Flag location is that the area is deemed (rightly or wrongly) as being strategically important and hence must be secured. The very fact that victory points are awarded for securing the area around the flag supports this idea. Otherwise, there would be absolutely no REASON to have Victory Flags in the first place. That whole question, IMHO, is a legitimate subject of debate. Even if the area may not appear important to the player, the directive to secure the area is one of the mission objectives and those orders need to be followed, even if they don't make much sense to the soldiers doing the fighting. The bottom line is that Victory Flags do exist in the game and must be managed properly. If an opponent can throw the flag in dispute within one or two minutes (remember, one turn = one minute real time), then the area has not been adequately secured or DEFENDED and hence victory points have not been earned. Rushing a Victory Location at the end of a game is not being gamey. It's a legitimate way to exploit an inadequately secured or defended mission objective. Players who complain about this tactic strike me as people who essentially want everyone else to play like they do, so they don't have to worry about properly defending Victory Flag locations after they've been taken. After all, that takes manpower which could be used elsewhere to gain control over other Victory Flags. As the Germans learned in the war, holding on to already conquered territory is just as important as taking it in the first place. Neglecting this aspect of warfare could and should prove fatal. Using the Game-End Randomizer should help end this debate, but I think it's unfair to accuse those who dispute a flag at the end of play as being gamey.