rvalle

Was the main reason for not upgrading CMBO due to convering the battles or was there more to it then that? If that is the main reason... I would pay to have CMBO upgraded to CMBB standards WITHOUT any premade battles attached with it. 99% of the time I play quickbattles anyway and I'm sure people would make scenarios with the new editor. Just a thought. It should be easier to do then creating a new engine and it would keep us busy for a LONG time (with the new cmbo and cmbb) while BTS worked on said engine. rvalle

You could try Shift C to make the units larger. rvalle

Yes, it will be. rv

Thanks for the recommendations guys. I just placed an order for "In Deadly Combat" and "War without Garlands". rv

Woot! I'm number 15! (Dances a jig) Read it and weep all you wanna be players below 15! Ahem... having danced and such I would love to play you again Fionn. I am sure I will crush you this time just as badly as I did last time. It is going to take me a while to free up enough time to devote to a lengthy pbem game so if you want to play one of these lowly > 15 players go ahead. rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yeknod: Cybeq: What I'd like to see is the same tactics used in a context or a partially determined OOB (tweaked to suit all tastes and styles) that, for the most part, relegates discussion about gaminess to a footnote. As I said in my original post, there ain't much option other than turning on / off AI choosing units. What about refining this method to offer more choice so that we have the best of both worlds? Yeknod <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Me and the gentelman I play have done somethink like this... in our own limited way. Gameyness has never been a problem with us and we have been playing battles for about 8 or 9 months now. But we have tried to take this to the 'next level' and are trying to purchase units in a somewhat realistic manner. What his means is that we buy most things in 4's (platoons). All tanks come in 4's... 4 panthers, 4 shermans (you can mix the flavors), 4 hetzers, whatever. Small guns you buy in 4's, big ones you buy in 2's. Inf in bought by the company but you can 'attach' 2 plattoons to the company. Stuff like that. The only thing we have 'banned' is the puma's. Everything eles is a go. So far its gone well. rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: That little excerpt is interesting. It would seem to indicate that flaming would be done not for the choice of target, but simply to look terrifying, thus keeping the enemy at bay. Of course, there's no way to know if his assumption was right or wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is the name of that book "Flamethrower"? Sounds perfect for this thread! BTW... my kids love your 'Bonjour' wav. rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: That little excerpt is interesting. It would seem to indicate that flaming would be done not for the choice of target, but simply to look terrifying, thus keeping the enemy at bay. Of course, there's no way to know if his assumption was right or wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah. I would think that I'd be flaming anything that even looked like a zook team could be hiding behind. When we go paintballing I go though a LOT of ammo just doing supressive fire. If they are ducking they can't fire back at me. And that is only for fun! Real life I'd drain that Crock dry in about 10 min. rv

Hear that boys! Its time to attack while the Germans HQ is in disarray and save our brothers in arms! Forward! Valle (driver of TD's 10, 11 and 12)

To summarize: Setting fire to buildings weather attacking or defending is 'ok'. Setting fire to terrain while defending is 'gamey'. (What was that whole setting fire to the ocean thing the British were working on? ) Setting fire to terrain while attacking 'to flush out defenders' is ok. Since the fire does not spread it is if limited use as a tactic anyway. rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pilgrim: Lest we forget our manners, a big thanks to YankeeDog and Darwin for shedding some very helpful real-life-experience light on the subject. Pilgrim<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah! Thanks guys. rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Welcome. You've found the new thread. Be sure you read the last page of the previous thread so you know what's going on with the rules. Some important stuff is in there if you want to do well in this tournament. BTW, the thread was locked because of technical problems along with some others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Welcome back Treeburst. While I was not playing the tourney I was following it with great interest (I don't get to play much so I have to live my battles vicariously!) rvalle

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Sorry, I should explain where I am coming from. I have read an awful lot of Commonwealth stuff, not quite as much as some people here, but I am sure I am in the upper quintile. I have read a lot of references of crocs going around burning houses on general principle. I have never read anything about them burning woods on general principle. I can not consciously recall them burning a wheat field, and I somehow doubt that happened, but yesterday I saw a US Marine throw a WP grenade into a sugar cane field to flush out a sniper on Okinawa. Not quite the same, but close. That is where I come from - burning houses, yep. Read about it, happened quite frequently, good in my book. Burning woods/fields - if someone can point me to references, fine, otherwise I would think it is based on an exploitation of the limitation of the game engine's treatment of area fires, hence by definition gamey. I have an open mind about it, but if in doubt I am thinking it is gamey. YMMV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is interesting. Burning houses was done but not trees or other 'ground' spots. I wonder why? A house fire can get out of control as well as a 'terrain' fire can (I would guess, me not being a fireman). It can't be because we were trying to save the environment... not with us carpet bombing areas of France. Being an infantry guy I would defiantly feel better about a patch of woods that was burning merrily knowing that the other side would not be sneaking up though it. rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ricochet: I think, perhaps, there’s a limit to setting things on fire. Treeburst was referring to someone buying a nest of Wasps and going around setting the whole map on fire. Gamey or just weird I don’t know. It certainly would seem to be a little outside the realm of reality. Now a flamethrower team sitting on a reverse slope setting fire to an adjacent two story building which would give the enemy a line of sight to it’s position, well, been there done that. That seems within that realm. Actually, it seems like a waist of resources if my opponent decided to waist Wasps by burning down the woods instead of me<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was thinking of using it more on defence. Say you are defending and have two patches of woods in front of you... on on the far left and far right. Instead of trying to defend both patches and the gap between them, you can defend one patch and the gap and set the other patch on fire. It would limit the attackers choices. In fact, you could setup at guns/tanks behind the patch of woods to be burned and have a nice angle of fire at the gap and other patch of woods. rvalle

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Setting houses on fire - not gamey, I have a number of references of Crocodiles doing just that. Setting landscape on fire, that is different, I can see how that would be seen as gamey. Never encountered it though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can see setting a patch of woods on fire for the same reason of setting a row of houses on fire... denying their use to the other side. I guess I could see that getting out of hand. If someone sets the whole board on fire every game it would get tiring. On the other hand, while the crocs are targeting the woods they would be vulnerable to a tank popping up and getting a first shot on it. rvalle

I saw a post by Treeburst155 that said he thought setting areas of the map on fire was gamey. I've never used the tactic or had it used against me... but it seems like a valid use of fire in the game. I'm reading a book on Rommel right now and it states in two places so far were he did similar things. Once he set fire to a row of houses to provide light so that he would be snuck up on. Another time he set row of houses on fire to provide a smoke screen for a river crossing. The one case where I can see it being gamey is setting fire to houses to prevent the other side from targeting them with area fire. But, setting fire to them to deny the other side access seems ok. rvalle

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Subvet: I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm pretty sure that CM determines which player has the faster computer. The faster computer will then be the one used to "number crunch" the turn. I think being the "host" just means that you are the one to set up the parameters. Once the game is underway the faster computer will be the one that uploads each turn to the slower computer. Connection speed isn't a factor in this as far as I know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I THINK it has something to do with who hits 'Go' first. Like if you hit go first it gets crunched you your system.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Saunders: I have attempted to swivel the the camera angle, but have never seen more then shadows of the planes. Can they be seen?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No... from what I have seen posted, the shadows is all you see. I think it was a choice of not having planes in at all or just putting their shadows in. This way, they did not have to model all the different airplane types. rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Louie the Toad: Hello Midnight, I would not want to foist FTCR on anyone but it would be important for Email and internet play to have a lock in so no one cheats. Trusting Toad<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would think that if someone even agrees to play by these rules they could be trusted to follow them. You would have to be a fanatic to play that way in the first place!! rv

Hi Franko... Please send a copy my way as well. richvalle@covad.net Thanks for the battles!! rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Windopaene: Well I hate to spoil the fun, but what about chess? Is it boring and non-versitile because you always know the layout of the opponents units? I think part of what can make a game, (or scenario), great is that the opponents forces and/or positions ARE known. Thus the problems protrayed by the scenario are known and different "solutions" can be tried..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no fog of war in chess! So what you are saying is only true if both you and the other player have BOTH played the battle. At that point, it becomes a different type of battle. As you are pointing out... more of a chess match. Its a "This time I'll move these guys over here." type battle. I think these are fun as well but what most people here are saying is that, for them, playing the battle for the first time is MORE fun since you don't know what is going to happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: ...Live to ride, ride like the devil... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL Do wheelies, overrun attacks. Engineers can now make ramps for the mote cycles to use to jump over minefields. rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: It's true motorcycles would have a limited usefulness â la survivability and usefulness, but the reasons I would like to see them include 1) immersion - helps give a feel for the era; 2) recce - light recce units can be useful if short-lived; 3) I'm a motorcycle slut - err, afficianado - and vintage bikes turn my crank. My only hope is that, if included, they don't "bail out" as quickly as jeeps. And they shouldn't REVERSE MOVE Horses. Even though I completely agree with BTS' reasoning for not including them, I am still a bit disappointed. On the other hand, I wouldn't like shooting at horses, even virtual ones, so the surest way to beat me would be to buy lots of 'em <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But would they be in the scope of the battle? I would think that they use the bikes to ride TOO the battle, then move on foot IN the battle. I can't see the troops riding around the battle field on bikes! (though it would make for some new movement types: Ride, Ride Fast...) rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blindseye: Hmmmm, I very rarely play the historical scenarios, but always select-your-own, meeting engagement, QB's in PBEM games against opponents. That way neither side knows what the other side has and you can choose your own forces, and their can be no "cheating". However, frequently while waiting for the opponent's move, I will select the same force, let the AI select its own force and play the "same" game against the AI. Obviously, there are differences here. The AI will not pick the same forces as the human player, and the terrain will be different. I just like to practice with the force that I have selected. Is that gamey or bad manners?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that sounds ok. It would be no different than a commander using his forces on a 'training exercise' to see how they work together. You gain no insight to the opponents forces or the map you will be playing on so all is well. rv

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: Boy there certainly is two sides to everything isn't there? I am very surprised to see how many people think this would be cheating or not fair. I believe it would be fun even. I haven't tried it yet however and so maybe I'm thinking wrong but seems like it would really add to the game making it be more challeging even, but looks like I'm the only one so, what do I know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can see where playing the other side AFTER the pbem battle would be fun. After all, that battle would have been 'used' and so not as much of an option to play another person again. But, you should wait till the battle is over. Just as a for exapmple... lets say you are playing someone and have blown up 4 of his tanks. Does he have more? Is he hiding one behind that hill or those trees? Until you know you will be reluctant to move your armour out in full view. But, if you are playing that battle at the same time as the other side you KNOW that 4 tanks is all he has. Now you can move your armor around more freely (watching for at guns and teams... but then you know if he has those too...). What is the fun of that? You now have an unfair advantage by knowing EXACTLY what the other guy has. rvalle