Stefan Wennerberg

I just bought CMBS and CMBS Battle pack 1. CMBS download and activation code are ok and CMBS boots up just fine. However, I also purchased Battle Pack 1 and although I enter the activation code for BP1 and it says "success" when I start CMBS no battle pack campaigns show up. Pls. advise and thanks, Stefan

Typically 1 to 2 turns/day, six days of the week. If you like, go ahead and set up a quick battle or choose a scenario. Defender, no preregistered fire. I'll play as Axis or Allies, attacker or defender. E-mail me with details at a n g e l 4 2 0 5 2 {at} a o l . c o m

Typically 1 to 2 turns/day, six days of the week. If you like, go ahead and set up a quick battle. Defender, no preregistered fire. I'll play as Axis or Allies, attacker or defender. PM me with details

What about the CMAK hedge vs. the CMBO hedge? Are both the same or is the CMBO hedge much thicker.

Determined to prove my point, I created a huge map with one sniper hunting another, no other forces. It was NOT rated Huge as I expected. If memory serves me correctly, it was rated tiny. I also did a scenario on a 800 x 800 map with 20,000 pts. worth of armour (per side) and it was rated huge. So it does turn out that my post on 9/14/04 is completely wrong. I appreciate your setting me straight.

Emer mentioned judgeing battles by size (i.e., small, medium, large, huge). All that tells you is the size of the map (which is very useful to know). For all you know you could have a "huge" scenario pitting one sniper versus another. The "size" of the scenario is only the map size. That's why I like to see the points (or rough aproximates to preserve FOW) mentioned somewhere. The point system is not perfect but along with the scenario write-up it gives a pretty good idea of what type of units, no. of units etc. that are involved. Without point totals I often have no idea if the scenario is 2 or three battialians in size or if it is one company in size). No info on point totals combined with general/vague scenario write-ups such as: "German battle group opposes Russian Guards Infantary Division near Minsk." provides little information in regards to scale.

It is almost a show stopper for me that the vast majority of scenario designers refuse to put point total information in the scenario write-up or scenario title. For example, my friends and I wanted to play something that had 8000 pts. or more. We spent HOURS looking through scenarios, decided that there was nothing and started up an operation instead! I know the scenario designers do excellent work and spend hours creating the scenarios. It seem a shame that point total (or approx. total) is not avail. It seems like fundemental information to choose a scenario, kind of like knowing how many turns there are is also criteria for deciding what to play. Can this be corrected somehow? Stefan

I've been shelling the uberwire with 14 inch navel guns. The wire is ... still there! I think we need to bring Rexford in on this to double check the math. Also, the game s "generic barb wire," I hope this is resolved in CM2!!

You think it's bad with halftracks. I put some barb wire & road block in a clearing surrounded by woods. I had several infantry units area fire at the wire for several turns. The wire ... is still there.

Question: Is there such a thing as "partial hull down?" E.G., I have a vehicle that is behind a small hillock but is not technically "hull down" - does the vehicle gain some sort of minor defense benifit? Thxs, Stefan

I would like to see something like that myself. When I'm fighting a QB it always seems like I'm fighting too much in a vacuam. It would also be cool from the point of view that I w/be wondering what my enemy's intel would tell him about my forces, set-up, etc. Stefan

I'd like to see something like this in QB tied in with some sort of intelliegence rpt for assult/attack/probe situations. E.G, Attacker/defender buy forces. Defender gets a intel rpt. on attacker forces. Defender sets up. Attacker gets intel rpt. on defender set-up & forces. Attacker sets up. Intel quality levels might be something purch. or randomly set up by the QB engine. Stefan

Given the scale of CM and that the 150 is primarly an indirect fire weapon, I'd say it's prob. unrealistic to typically purch. them for Quick Battles. Stefan

Buildings with rooms on ea. floor. House-to-house fighting seems pretty difficult for me to imagaine in the curr. CM1 engine. Stefan

As I recall, the much of the Madd Matt mod packs were actually supposed to be in the orig. vers. of the game. See the readme file which incls. the following text: "Dan 'Kwazydog' Olding: Beta Tester and the man MOST responsible for the textures in the Final Game. Much of the MDMP was stuff he meant to have included in the game but because of time and space on the CD they didn't make it in. All the graphics in the MDMP except the Winter Hetzer are Dan's!" If you have nice speakers, I highly recommend that you also get the sounds. Stefan

Check out: http://www.battlefront.com/products/modern/mrl/index.html http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/books.html the above URL's. Hopefully, BTS will put out a WW II equiveleant of their modern Military Reference Library CD. BTS, put out a CD with all WW II manuals on it or somefink! Regards, Stefan

In my experience of using the scenario editor to "let the computer do the setup" results in very poor placement of HQ units by the Computer AI. I suspect that you will soon discover this. Something I'd like to see BTS fix in CM2. Sounds like a very interesting project. I hope you'll keep us posted on your progress. Good Luck, Stefan

Question: I have been experimenting with the QB generator and (at least with the large battles) Command Control seems to be, at best, handled poorly. Units are often leaderless, HQ units are often placed in risky/silly positions. How would you handle my concern? Stefan

Question: I have been experimenting with the QB generator and (at least with the large battles) Command Control seems to be, at best, handled poorly. Units are often leaderless, HQ units are often placed in risky/silly positions. How would you handle my concern? Stefan

Hello Folks, Ok, here's the deal. I'm trying to come up with an efficient way of creating megahuge quick battles (where I/we attack, the computer AI defends; no meeting engagements) where I (or with a couple of friends, all of us on the same side) can play against the computer AI.. Two things that distress me about the current quick battle: 1) The armies are too small: I want the really BIG battles where armies are worth THOUSANDS OF POINTS. 2) The computer placement of ground troops is pretty bad (e.g., their spread too thin and command control is terrible). On item 1 above, I know that the game is meant to be played at a smaller level but .... you see I'm a gamer/addict and my ultimate dream is to play out WW II man-to-man with 20 second turns. So I recommend that we skip the discussions that CM really handles company level (or smaller) conflict. Your just preaching to the choir. Assoc. w/ item 1 above, I can create larger battles with the scenario generator by "prepurchasing units" via the scenario I/face. Of course, I lose some of the "surprise" because I know more about what the computer forces are composed of than I actually should. One advantage of the huge battles are that given the sheer vol. of units combined with my poor memory (particularly if I don't look at the scenario for a few days) this doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. The real show stopper seems to be item 2 above - poor placement of the defending troops. The only things I can come up with are: 1) Padlocking (or set up all of the defensive poistions of the units myself). 2) Create vars. Zones to "force" the computer AI to place units more sensibly. 3) Use Reinforcements to add uncertainty Padlocking leaves a bad taste in my mouth since I'm concerned that I'll remember the exact location of those mine fields, snipers, schrecks, etc. I've been using zones to make the area the computer AI place troops in more concentrated. I've also used zones to create a harassment/minefield zone in the front, a main defensive zone in the "center" and a zone for units that guard the flanks. Thus, each time I play the scenario, I allow the computer to "randomly" place the defensive units across the appropriate areas of the map. I set up my own units and indulge in a CM extravaganza event! At least that's the theory. Thoughts/Comments/Suggestions? Surly some of you are as mad/insane as I am and have considered similar grandiose ideas. Thanks, Stefan

Has BTS provided any information on CM2 game scale, such as: 1) Map Size 2) Unit Scale 3) Time for a game turn 4) Time that a given game/operation/campaign 5) Largest battle that the game engine will support Stefan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: OK gents, I took quite a bit of my Sunday night to address the issue that has spawned a couple of massive disccussions, including this one. You can find it here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015334.html Panther is mostly correct, but not exactly in the way he has outlined. The basic concept for the changes was to make the forces for each side more balanced from a historical standpoint. This has been acheived to the degree we can enforce such things at this time. We also made the changes to more fairly reflect the strengths and weaknesses of each side in terms of purchase choices. The detailed reasoning is in the thread linked to above. I'll take questions and answers there. Slapdragon wrote: Correct. This thought never entered our mind, but if it is a side effect it is certainly a welcomed one. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-21-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, In CM2 will the players have their "rarity settings" created using parameters such as - battle date, Campaign, parent organization (e.g., division, corps) and/or Geographic Region? What about QB maps, could we generate QB maps based on Geographic Region (e.g, Pryepit Marshes, Lennigrad, Northern Russia, area around Moscow, southern Russia)? Stefan

It seems that there are three different types of scenarios: 1) Historical - where a realistic order of battle is determined based on the user's selection of the Theater/Campaign associated with the battle. 2) Ahistorical - where one or both sides do not have a realistic order of battle based on a Theater/Campaign. However, units used are associated with WW II western thea. Ground troops On or after D-Day. 3) Fantasy - where one or both sides have units not associated with the WW II western theater (e.g., Orcs, Battlemechs, Catapults, American Civil war troops) I think we can rule out option three above as beyond the scope of CM1 and CM2. Although I am usually interested in the historical scenarios/QB's, it does occur on occasion that I might want to set up a scenario (e.g., one tiger tank versus 50 jeeps to settle a TOAW argument) that is pretty much ahistorical. Thus it seems that I am interested in several things: 1) How much ea. side deviates from a historical/reasonable order of battle 2) What is the total combat effectiveness of each side's units (possib. broken down into categories) Associated with item one a ranking from one to five (where five represents a high degree of historical basis for the QB/scenario) for each side seems sufficient. Associated with item two assigning two different point values to ea. unit reflecting their attack and defense values would be handy. Stefan

I'm not as sure about the western front but on the eastern front during the "mud" seasons , dirt roads in Russia were often worse than the surounding countryside, creating horrible problems for german vehicles. Just wait until CM2! Stefan

This is excellent. I highly recommend this site Thxs very much. Stefan Wennerberg