Forever Babra

Cast it was.

Norway, 1940. ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes...

Updates Lawyer continues to believe in ultimate victory despite having his flank crushed. I suspect he and whatever squeeze he rented for the evening are huddled in his bunker moving units which surrendered hours ago and pretending God is on his side. No doubt the squeeze is mixing up some hemlock tea to celebrate the "victory". Herr Oberst has stumbled on a sidewalk crack and seemingly fallen off the planet. Maybe he'll send a file back after switching to daylight savings time. Michael Dorosh thinks the best use of M7 Priests is to park them in a shady wooded lane without infantry support. Squiredom is too good for his ilk and I fling him back among the washed where I found him, with the advice to "get a sense of humour, bub."

Slow (manual) traverse is already modeled for the Ausf. J. Not sure why that is being raised as an example. ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes...

John B. Sedgewick, Spotsylvania, 1864. For the record, he was killed several minutes after uttering this phrase. It was shortened for the humour value. ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes... [This message has been edited by Forever Babra (edited 03-04-2001).]

"What does this button do?" Krista McCulloch ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes...

I'd buy a hell of a lot more of them, no matter what the cost, if I could see the map BEFORE purchasing. But they are a good value IMO. The presence of any defensive works makes the opponent think "mines", and slows him down. ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes...

A minute to learn -- a lifetime to master. ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes...

------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes... [This message has been edited by Forever Babra (edited 03-04-2001).]

Sucks to be you ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes...

Interesting idea. One possible application might be the inability to issue orders to units not in command control. ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes...

Scenarios are small -- just a few K of text each. Get them now. C'mon... I know ya wanna... ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heroes...

hehe... Cool nick there, lefty. ------------------ Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time -- become heros... Stereotypes The Un-Rant

I don't have anything decent from the Scheldt, but I do have a pretty workable map for Moylan Wood and the Goch-Calcar Road, February 1945, from the book "The Long Left Flank." Most of the Scheldt maps in the book aren't suitable, and everybody and his dog has done the Walcherin Causeway...

Excellent summation, Jason. I think I agree with you on every point except one: Here's the rub. Suppose I am the defender in one of those wide-map, shallow depth defences you speak of (very common in CMBO). If I actually advance forward, I LOSE control of the victory locations. This is something that does need to be addressed, if nothing else. Fortunately, the determination routine for this probably already exists, being the same one used in ops to determine fronts. If the VL is still in one's "zone" when the battle is done, then it should belong to that player.

But what if all I want to design is the first portion? There can be an implication of other, bigger, things happening, but the scenario designer should not be obliged to model them. There may be operational considerations, but CMBO is still a tactical game.

What if I want to design a scenario to capture a bridge? Scenario designers need that flexibility. Time is easy enough to factor in through the use of "X" number of game turns. Clearly, as in CMBO's current incarnation, if the objective is not taken before the clock runs out, victory suffers. But being present on the bridge is not in itself control. I may own the bridge, but if I can't send vehicles across it because of an 88 Pillbox which still dominates it, then it is still under a significant zone of enemy influence. On the other hand, if my objective is to get to the bridge and deny it to the enemy so that HE can't cross it, being present on it with even a very small force would boost the level of victory achieved. What I think is needed is multiple level of victory definition which take into account operational considerations, or some sort of distinction between the tactical and strategic components of the game. If an attacking force suffers no losses, inflicts massive losses on the enemy, but doesn't achieve the operational objective, then, while they can be said to have won a tactical victory, they may have suffered a strategic defeat. Conversely, if losses are high but the objective is reached or held (Arnhem Bridge anyone?), then, though there may be a tactical defeat, a strategic and very important victory is still possible.

Every mod (sans terrain) that I have downloaded has been hi res, and they haven't influenced game speeds in any appreciable way, so, for myself, I would not be looking for low res vehicle mods. If they happened to look kick-ass, I might get them, but I doubt it. People whose machines are wheezing may feel differently though.

I see here the opportunity to blend our tactical game with operational considerations, and control of objectives can be instrumental in achieving this. For example, tactically speaking, one building is much like another. A few yards won't make a difference operationally, and it's just as easy to set up a machine gun here as it is in that building across the street. Unless, of course, that building across the street happens to be the Barikady, or the Univermag Department Store. But generally speaking, in a purely tactical engagement, control of objectives should carry no weight. Control of space, however, should, since control of space would demonstrate which side dominated the field at the end of any engagement. Now, most tactical engagements are unfortunately a part of some "big picture" operationally speaking. If there's an armoured brigade idling behind me (not part of the scenario), waiting for me to clear a route through that town so they can exploit, I'd better do it and do it on time or run the risk of throwing the whole timetable for the op out the window. In these cases, control of specific objectives is crucial for determining victory. So how to define control? Remember hex-based games and those nasty "zones of control"? The same concept could apply here. Rather than a zone of control, however, I would call it a zone of influence: That space within which one can influence the actions of the enemy. Now, as can be readily imagined, a Tiger tank has a much greater zone of influence than a lone squad; and a battalion's worth of squads has a hell of a zone of influence. If I am a lone squad on a VL, and I see a battalion in front of me, that VL is most definitely not mine. So I would define control as having A) a physical presence on the objective, and at the same time, not being within the zone of influence of enemy forces. To further refine it, I would amend to read: Not being within a "threatening" zone of influence of enemy units. To use the above example, if I am a lone squad on a VL and the only enemy that can threaten me is a sharpshooter, then I can say I control that VL. The third, but most obvious, criteria for control of an objective is, of course, if it is behind your lines. But this is really an extension of B above; if it's far enough behind my lines, the enemy cannot influence it, except indirectly.

I want to ponder that a while and answer later. My first instinct says "yes, it's easy to define," but on reflection I see problems.

It is all well and good to say "I want this" or "I want that", but how would you implement it? If you accept as true the four elements of victory I posted above, then how will you reflect them in the game without the use of VLs? If you don't accept them as true, what is your definition of victory and how would you model it?

Only sheep date Mace... ------------------ Quo fas et gloria ducunt Stereotypes The Un-Rant

Ya build your house with the tools ya got. ------------------ Quo fas et gloria ducunt Stereotypes The Un-Rant

I would suggest a combination of factors: - The achievement of local objectives. - Denying local objectives to the enemy. - Destruction of enemy forces. - Conservation of friendly forces. ------------------ Quo fas et gloria ducunt Stereotypes The Un-Rant

Ditto, but do download the demo first. If the demo doesn't blow you away, nothing ever will. ------------------ Quo fas et gloria ducunt Stereotypes The Un-Rant