Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Jumbo wrote: > Cooks and clerks fought along side crack Airborne troops The question is, what would you define as "alongside"? David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Along side? Shoulder to shoulder in the same foxhole for heaven's sake is what I mean. Court stenographers who never saw combat along side experienced troops. Cooks throwing down their ladels and picking up a rifle with minutes to spare don't have a whole lot of time to organize into set groups of troops. I know that I'd sure prefer a cook next to me shooting at the enemy than no one. Some German conscripts from eastern Europe used the attack in the Ardennes to look for a way to surrender (if it could be done safely). It was a big concern of Hitler's before the battle. They were along side of elite SS troops -in the same fields and forests. There is a multitude of historical evidence in the form of memiors to suggest that at times they were all mixed together. This was especially true on the American side of the battle during some of it's most heated moments. All that I want is the freedom to simulate the same happenings in a QB. Thats all. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: CM allows you to have units of different quality in a Quick Battle – Elite and Crack, Veteran and Regular, Green and Conscript. Contrary to your assertion, however, I believe that to have a combination of forces at opposite ends of the spectrum would in reality be very unusual. David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not so unusual. It was what happened regularly during the US Army's largest battle during WWII -the Battle of the Bulge. Cooks and clerks fought along side crack Airborne troops -and the Bulge is in the time period that CMBO covers. The clerks and cooks also faced crack German troops with great vallor. I feel that both of us are right here and neither of us are wrong -depending on the situation of what happened in WWII. We probably can throw out endless examples. My view is for not keeping it locked into just one way (how it is now), but rather open for both views. Both happened in history and they should both be able to happen in this magnificent game. BTS, what do you say? You ARE the Supreme Court -so to speak. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Jumbo wrote: > Right now, we have Fionn's short 75 & 76 Panther rules. Toss in rarity for AFVs and you see that players strive to make their CMBO experience historical and enjoyable. That is pure speculation. The existence of Fionn's rule proves only that he himself thinks it is important. I am confident that a lot of people use it, but I am also confident that most people don't – and that accounts for the large proportion of CM owners who do not frequent this board. If you care about this kind of thing, you have the tools to do what you like. BTS, however, has to please everybody with the one product – and a Quick Battle, which is usually a competition, has to be certifiably fair and foolproof. David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> David, It is no more speculation than what you wrote. To me, a QB is a fun time. I believe that if a historical experience is desired, a game host will remind the other player of any additional rules (ie. Fionn's rules, etc...) before the game is played. If the potential opponent won't agree, then don't play against him/her. Everyone that I've suggested these rules to, has agreed. Here is one place where you can get them: http://www.rugged-defense.nl/cm/Fionn3.htm The only reason why people may not use them is that they may not know about them. I believe that Fionn's rules make excellent sense. The alternative is the completely non-historical (and gamey IMO) alternative that you suggest. Yes games can be abused. No game is 100% certifiably fair and foolproof. Its up to us that know, to inform those that don't know. Do you continue to play against those that repeatedly charge with their bailed out tank crews? Do you also suggest that we throw out the ability to historically simulate WW II combat just to have some sort of platform to compete upon -no matter how bland or non-historical it may get? That is what happened to DBM. Still, your reasoning is absolutely no reason to LIMIT those that do want an exciting, historical (non-gamey) experience with CM. If BTS is wise enough to add this in, I'll be eternally grateful. (I'm always gonna be grateful anyways. I just love this game!) All that you have to do is ignore it when you host a game and it won't ever enter the picture. This may help opponents to communicate other things like the game parameters that some are complaining about the lack of, before a game. I you just say "Lets QB." you are opening up yourself to things that you may not want. Communication before the game is important. OK, thanks for reading this. Sorry, if its too long. Jumbo

Thanks Maximus. I liked your movie, BTW.

David wrote: If you had complete freedom in Quick Battles, you could simply buy Elite armour with Conscript infantry to screen it, or use Conscript infantry to locate the enemy and waste their ammo before sending in your Elite troops, for example. David, That would be gamey and nothing else. Besides, would the conscripts last very long? I don't think that they would. Next, your small Elite force would definitely be outnumbered by not a small number due to the high cost of elites. Right now, we have Fionn's short 75 & 76 Panther rules. Toss in rarity for AFVs and you see that players strive to make their CMBO experience historical and enjoyable. Doing what you suggest is akin to charging with tank crews IMHO. Jumbo

As it stands now, we have an option to pick "High, Medium, Low, or Random" when setting up "Quality" as a QB parameter. I'm wondering (yes, BTW, I did a search) if having a "No Restriction" option would be unreasonable. To be able to have an elite tank lead a group of veteran (or lower) tanks would be nice. Having a force made up from only two of the levels seems a little artificial for ALL situations. Surely the Germans didn't attack in the Bulge with only crack units. German units that were made up of conscripts from eastern Europe were there as well. They were right there next to highly experienced troops fighting for their lives. The green and crack US troops mixed it up as well. Casualties must've made such realities exist at the squad level as well. (I'm not asking for that. Just at the platoon and higher levels.) A "No Restriction" option like we have when picking Nationality (or branch of service) would be very nice indeed. Does this idea sound unreasonable to you? IMHO, I don't believe it is. Jumbo

OR -Why does your force have to be made up from only two of the different experience levels? I'd like to insert that lone elite tank with several veteran tanks and some regular infantry. Add in a crack AT gun crew with some conscript panzerscreck/ bazooka/MG teams. Certainly the Germans attacked in the Ardennes with a wide variety of experienced troops. They weren't all SS. Many were eastern European conscripts. A greater variety to choose like we can when we pick nationality/ branch of service would be nice.

TRUCE already!!! The white flag went up a long time ago. What's it gonna take??? What do you want? Blood????????????

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by indycohiba: I think BTS is appreciative of people like me who are eager to reward them for their creativity and originality by continuing to purchase their products. Happy New Year!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You bet they are. The more the merrier. Their product is of course, unparalleled and the nicest part about it all is that it is only going to get better.

Hooray! Wise choice.

I want to modify my earlier statements. I expressed them as though the differences in gameplay were profound. AFTER continued research and after reviewing my thoughts on how I used the American tanks, I have to say that the difference isn't as great as I earlier believed. I believe that I've learned a lot. Don't get me wrong, in a 3000 point QB with both sides enjoying veteran troops in an armor type of battle, the difference was about 152 points in favor of the Germans when trying REAL hard to make sure both sides had similar OOBs. That 152 points is basically a lone Sherman or such. There IS a difference. It IS there. While my personal gaming hasn't enjoyed a very wide variety of opponents as some folks, I have enjoyed a rather comfortable record. I believe I've only lost 3 PBEM or TCP games. So, it wasn't sour grapes. I play for fun afterall and my manhood isn't challenged when I lose at a game. I've been wargaming for more than 26 years. I'd like to thank all who responded in this message thread. I've learned that inflexibility is a fools errand and nothing more. May all shots at your armor result in a ricochet. That is -until you play against me. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by indycohiba: Ok, I am relatively new to the game but love it. Anyword on when we can expect the sequel?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've seen it mentioned that it might be out by the winter of 2001. No one knows for sure. One thing for certain, it'll be terrific when it does come out. Jumbo

Of course, we all know that it is really the year 2051, so the millenium passed by a long time ago.

Odd, I saw Gladiator last night for the first time also. Now I know where Maximus comes from. Great movie that is for sure.

Maximus, You make sense. I believe AD began with January 1st of the year that Jesus was born and not the death. I do know that sometime in the 300s AD, they did a lot of jury rigging of the Julian calendar (from Julius Ceasar) and came up with the Gregorian calendar. They actually threw away ten days. So, it all really isn't very accurate. It all may just be perception, like you said. Can anyone lend a hand? Jumbo

Ok, Thanks to all who participated in this thread. I have a few things to think about. Peace to all in this holiday season. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Oh yeah, one other thing, the Millenium started LAST year! Just as the 1990's started in 1990, not 1991. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maximus, Mathematically speaking, I believe you are incorrect. Supposedly, our calendar was made to begin with the death (and...) of Jesus. There never was a year "zero". It went straight to year "one". A thousand years makes up a millenium and it wasn't until 0001hrs, on January 1st, 1001AD that a thousand years had passed -hence the first millenium. Tonight at one minute after midnight we enter the third millenium. Joy to all. When we say "Happy Millenium", it truly is a wish for happiness -to all that want it. Jumbo

GI Tom, Boy? Personal attacks about age are better left out of this forum. A battlefield asset is anything on a battlefield that can be used to reduce the enemy. If you have the numbers, quality of the "equipment" is not as big a concern -when the quality of the troops are the same. Here is a test: Create a German force with ALL the teams of a good combined arms force. (infantry, artillery, tanks, FBs, etc....) Notice the cost. Next create an equal American force. (Same numbers of infantry, tanks, etc...)Then COMPARE the costs and you'll see a wide disparity. A 4,000+ German force costs the American player more than 6,000 points! Not so much for the British player though. It may not be that the German costs need to go up. It may be that the American cocts may need to come down. I understand that combat effectiveness in CM is important in considering the unit's cost. The combat effectiveness of the Sherman was only high because of it's numbers and not because of it's inherent quality as a medium tank in battle. Both sides didn't call them ronsons for nothing. So here we have a catch-22. The Sherman's combat effectiveness is high, mainly because of their numbers and hence they are given a relatively high cost and yet you cannot have a high number of them because of their high cost in CM. It is totally non-historical. Jumbo

Thanks Jarmo, Of course the point that I'm trying so hard to make is between players of an EQUAL skill level. The NUMBER of battlefield assets always comes out in favor of the Germans because of their low cost. Its where things start out, that I'm concerned with. I cannot speak for the quality of skill regarding the tournament's participents and yet I'm sure that there are participants there with a very high level of skill. Congratulations to all of them. Jumbo

To give the Americans 10-25% more, you have to set the scenario limit (say 2000pts) and the axis player can only use (say 1500 pts), so the American player can even the playing field, so to speak. It is numbers, not the unit quality. Take two players even in skill with forces of equal quality and I will bet that the German player will win because his unit costs are less -and hence will have more units. Who will be left owning the battlefield with EVERYTHING being equal? A force of eight tanks or the force with only six tanks? He had eight because they COST LESS. I am not trying to pick a fight. If anything, I've been a helpful member of this board since my entrance in it. I'm just trying to point out something that isn't readily apparent and yet it has profound affects on the gameplay. Jumbo

Ok, point taken. But it still stands true that with an even number of points for both sides, the German player ends up with MORE battlefield assets than the Americans. It doesn't matter how "good" a player you are. I guess that someone with all KTs in an all armor battle could lose. If both players are even in skill, the player with the greater number of battlefield assets usually will win. Anyone ever hear that the one with last tank, squad,or bullet wins? To me the strength of CM should be evident in a contest between players of equal skill. Not the opposite. Create a German force with all the teams of a good combined arms force. (infantry, artillery, tanks, FBs, etc....) Notice the cost. Next create an equal American force. (Same numbers of infantry, tanks, etc...)Then COMPARE the costs and you'll see a wide disparity. A 4,000+ German force costs the American player more than 6,000 points! Not so much for the British player though. What I'm talking about isn't crazy or fanciful. Its real and it isn't right. It should be fixed IMHO. Thank you for listening. Jumbo

dog6880, I hear what you are saying. There is no time limit in war. I believe that 60 minutes is the extreme limit for a scenario. Yet, most games can be over quite quickly. The longest one that I played went to 19 turns. I had to surrender due to being out of ammo. (The German player had lots with ammo, so I didn't want a slow death.) It seems that the tactical situations represented in the CM scale don't need a lot of time. I guess you can stretch it out as long as possible, but your opponent will eventually find you and aggressively try to smash you. afterall is said and done, its controlling the victory locations that is the prize in CM. Its better to get there first with the most. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood: Yeah. I remember my first beer...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The above two posts insinuate that I'm either an alcoholic or I'm a teenager. I can assure all that I'm neither. I've been wargaming for more than aquarter of a century. Hey Tiger and dNorwood, are either of you guys a CM player that only will play if he gets the Germans?

When playing a ME in a QB where the units are purchased, there is ALWAYS an unfair battfield-asset advantage for the German player -always. Especially in AFVs & vehicles. I especially noticed this while playing the German side. It soooo was REAL easy to win then. Everyone take notice. To alleviate this, we have to give the allied player 10-25% more points. If your opponent isn't a close friend or completely trustworthy, this then allows the allied player an opening to CHEAT & pick more units than what makes the game fair. We then have to have the opponent's point total to be displayed to each player to know for sure if the game as even. Of course, the REAL solution is to make the unit costs more fair & raise the cost of the German units -for gameplay's sake. I bet players who only play the German side will disagree with this. CMBO is a game afterall, isn't it? Why then, isn't it a fair game? Happy New Millenium to all! Jumbo