SlowMotion

Madmatt wrote: "There is no way for us to "cut out" something in CMBB and stick it into CMBO. " What about from CMBO to CMBB? Do you have any plans of making CMBO maps usable (import to scenario editor) in CMBB? Or is this still secret information?

I think this would be a very useful thing to have. Maybe when watching the movie, the seen units could have a different coloured base, so you could tell which units have been spotted. I've played without FOW only a couple of times, but movie playbacks are much more fascinating when you can see all units.

I know about this Unrestricted type. What I tried to say was restricting purchasing, but in a user definable way. Now both players can agree to purchase only certain amount of each type, say 25% artillery, but sometimes it would be nice if this could be guaranteed by setting a limit when generating the QB. Surely not the most important feature to add, but probably easy to do and could be useful.

I tried to find information about what kind of new features will be available for purchasing troops in QuickBattles. In the CM2 FAQ thread it says that there will be some OOB additions and something that all squads wouldn't have their full strength. I did a search on 'purchase' and 'restrict' and didn't found very much, so my question is: Now there are purchasing options for different kind troops: armor, mechanized and so on. Does anybody know if there will be an option for players to freely restrict points that can be used for some unit groups, like armor or artillery? Then opponents could for example agree that up to 50% of the points can be used on armor, or that only 20% for arty.

Horus: If you do find a solution, could you publish the trick here? I also have the same problem with briefings. Recently when I accidentally disabled and then enabled my network adapter I could see those briefings for a while, but now they are gone again. I'm also using 21.81 drivers just like you.

If that won't be available before the engine rewrite, what about Multiplayer in sense that 'players' could be changed during a battle? If your PBEM opponent quits when half of turns have been played, AI could take his role and continue (provided the original PBEM player tells you his password). Or a battle where AI just doesn't get it and is losing battle, AI could be helped by a human player for say, three turns, and then AI could continue from that. [addition] After some thinking, this could also lead into new kind of game play modes. What would happen if in the beginning of a game, PBEM opponents could decide that a 35 turn battle will be fought so that every fifth turn will be plotted by the AI? Or first humans play 3 turns and then AI 2. This would sort of simulate giving orders and then losing communication to your troops, they would have to manage on their own. And if both parties could have different human/AI ratios, then a better player might have more AI turns and thus the beginner might have better chance. Now we have troop amount bonus and experience bonus, not being allowed to plot all turns would be a new kind of handicap. That could be also a bit like those suggestions about different turn lenghts. You would have to make longer term plans, which AI might throw away if it sees things differently. This would add randomness to the battle. [ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: SlowMotion ]

Hmm... do you have some inside information or where did you get this idea? I know nothing about this, but how about CMBB demo

So if there's no agreement on what's considered gamey and thus people have to negotiate, has anybody or some web site collected a list of things that might be used as a starting point? I know that Rugged Defense has some rules (Panther76 etc.), but anything else? and Redwolf: send me the move

Yes I also think that pretty much everything related to CMBO has been discussed several times already. And because of this, IMO it would be good to keep our current CMBO forum still available. But it would be great to get a brand new forum for CMBB discussions. Hey, there's already a separate forum (or section or whatever) for CMBB beta discussions!

What's wrong with that? If CMBB will be as good as people assume it will, message traffic would gradually move from CMBO to CMBB forums. It would be nice to keep the discussions "in different folders", in case you're only interested in one game but not the other. Just like there are now separate forums for General discussion and Scenario stuff.

I certainly hope so. I think they could create a new CMBB forum already before the game is out.

Wyler should be easy as germans.

IIRC Far From Over Paderborn has good KT action. If you're looking for scenarios, check out Scenario Depot http://www.dragonlair.net/combatmission/

I did write Admiral Keth about this. It could work just fine using the SD forum. I first thought about some other way, because that forum seems to get only maybe 1-2 new messages per day, probably because most people using that site never read the forum. The Lists are much more widely used.

wwb_99: That's definitely one of the problems of the current calculated lists. You can tweak how the lists are calculated, but no matter how you calculate, the system always favors some scenarios. That's why I suggested adding those user definable lists. Totally subjective opinions of one person, but allows people to simply say "These scenarios are really worth trying, if you want tank battle on a big map" or "Small infantry fight, no tanks? Try these...". I'm positive that people would find great new battles this way.

I do understand that given enough time and reviews the good scenarios would stand out. But how long would that take? I think in some recent post Scenario Depot webmaster mentioned that less than one third of the scenarios they list, have been reviewed. CMBB is not that far away and I believe quite a few CMBO players will move on once they get this new gem installed. I've noticed that some web sites have MP3 playlists selected by various people. There are comments on why certain song is on the list. I've found some of those selections quite interesting. Maybe something like that could work for scenarios as well, I dunno. I haven't suggested this idea at Scenario Depot forum as so few people seem to use it.

Sorry if this feels repetetive, but I'll try again: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Germanboy: Well none, if everybody went to read the reviews - my gut feeling though is that many people just go by the top 10 lists. I just don't think it is right, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Many people DO go by the top ten lists. Almost all new scenarios I've played during the last couple of months were from those Scenario Depot lists. I have no problem with that, as I do understand people would rather play the good battles. The problem IMO is that many awesome battles never appear on those lists. The only reason may be that no review has been written yet. The current review system also doesn't guarantee in anyway that some review makes sense at all. Still, all points count just the same. Someone could rate a scenario badly simply because he lost. That was the reason why I suggested the recommended scenarios feature. Instead of the current automatically calculated lists based on review scores, people could just write their own top ten lists or whatever. Then other people could see if some list has a scenario they've liked. And if yes, then see what else that person is recommending. The problem is not the lists, but the way they are made.

I also like that 'other battles by this author' feature. I've used it more than once with good results. But looking at 2) in the first message of this thread, how about a new feature: recommended scenarios? People could simply list some scenarios they've liked and possibly add some free form text to tell why. If some scenario author would want to recommend 5 of his several own battles, ok. If someone else wants to recommend 3 good tank battles, so be it. Top5 small battles for PBEM recommended by XYZ. And so on. I think this would get far more entries than current reviews if it was as EASY for people to do as, say, writing messages to this forum. And I'm sure many people would find good battles they've never heard of before. The simplest way of doing this would be by using the Forum part of Scenario Depot, but I'm not sure if people ever read it as there are so few messages to read. What do you think?

Yes, screen savers. I know that there are mail checkers that tell about new mail by flashing keyboard LEDs or with a task bar icon. I'd like to know if someone has found a screen saver to do this. Simply because it's much easier to notice a flashing screen than blinking keyboard LED.

Hi! A simple question: Does anybody know Windows screen savers that would periodically check whether there's new mail and somehow display it on screen?

In the upper part of the screen, there are two arrow buttons for scrolling the battle list up and down.

I'm not a veteran, but I've never seen enemy infantry climb on tanks. Engineers of both sides have stuff they can throw at tanks and sometimes destroy them. And you can probably kill at least tank destroyers, half tracks etc. by throwing a hand grenade.

I think in the real game there will be scenarios that model not only villages, but whole cities like Berlin. And about the weather effects: they have lightnings that light up your cockpit, rain, mist over rivers and so many other things that make flying just incredible. Some IL2 forum messages mention where to find the demo.

Nope But if you want to see some great looking east front stuff, a demo version of a new flight simulator, IL2, was just released. There you can view objects like planes, tanks, vehicles etc. Looks awesome! The demo has a great mission builder with many weather effects that are also definitely worth checking out. I hope BTS takes a look at this sim, they might get some good ideas for the engine rewrite, if not CMBB. You can find demo download instructions from the IL2 forum: http://www.bluebyte.net/il2-e/../forum/eng/default.asp?bid=41&id= Or if you just want to see some screenshots: ftp://63.143.191.147/IL-2/il2shots.zip

I meant that my current schreck sound is more unique than the one in your update. Not necessarily as high quality, but very easy to recognize from other battle noises. I wish BTS used one sound for schrecks/bazookas and another for recoiless rifles. I would use your sound for the latter.