Jaldaen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Radar: I would like the Smoke command to be more flexable. I think smoke fire would be better if their was an option of setting how many rounds are to be fired. Or else I think any round landing within 10m or so to be a hit (its used only to make a smoke screen, nothing else)and the units to cease their fire. As it is units can unload their smoke all in one turn, with the rounds masking each other for no real benefit, other than denying their use at a later time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd like to see some more control over smoke as well... and artillery as well

For those who might be interested I've got "Beyond Bolero" version 0.3b ready to go (with more action then you can shake a stick at!) -Jaldaen PS- If you want it email me and I'll send it your way

So what command(s) would you most like to see added to CM2 (in light of the current and new ones)? Fallback: I'm looking for a command that pulls out an entire squad or platoon from a position being assaulted without them turning their back on the enemy (like withdrawl does). This would be very effective especailly with the addition of the "assault" and "human wave" commands that will be appearing in CM2... In fact this would be similar to the assault command in that it would be like "leapfrogging" backwards (probably slower moving then an assault, but perhaps enough to keep you from being overrun). I'd also like to put delays inbetween orders so that I can coordinate units more precisely. Example: Move to trees, pause 30 seconds, and then assualt the building Finally, I'd like units to return to "hidden" status if they have taken out their targets and have not been moved. There have been been many a time when I wish units had hidden after they finished their jobs. That's My Wish-list; What's Yours? -Jaldaen

Bump for the Tanklord!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: Well, it actually was mentioned and discussed just within the past week I believe but you never can talk enough about a subject that needs talking about. You may want to go back and check the post out. I believe it was labeled something very similar to yours. You shouldn't have trouble finding it. This in fact may be one that Steve himself answered but not completely sure on that part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can find the thread under the heading: "Hey BTS, how about a "Fallback" Command?"... This is a command that I think really needs to be in CM2 especially with the addition of the assualt and human wave commands... Hope to see you over at the other thread, Jaldaen

Thanks Murph... that AAR is just what I needed... I've got a few changes in mind... version .3 here I come... Good Hunting, Jaldaen [ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Jaldaen ]

My best game (against the AI) was about a week ago... I had one platoon account for about 110 kills. They had a great position- reverse side slope mine field and road infront of them, man those poor british just marched to their doom... One of the teams even killed a halftrack with his faust... All in 35 turns... Just my two cents, Jaldaen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murph: After having read the two AARs posted before me (I avoided doing this before so as to not spoil the fun), it seems that I got an easier ride... I only had to deal with one enemy tank. And I didn't have British reinforcements, they were all American. Well, I'll take an easier fight any day! Murph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Murph give us the details I'd especailly like to see how the new version plays from another perspective Thanks for testing it out, Jaldaen

Just giving this a bump in case anyone missed it (I'd like to hear some more points of view on this) Thanks, Jaldaen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: I think this has already been mentioned, but one of the new commands in CM2 is assault, which is half the squad runs forward while the other half provides cover fire, then they switch roles with the half providing cover fire doing the advancing. It is represented on the screen as one squad moving at normal speed and the effective firepower is halved. So it seems to me that a fallback command could be accomplished using similar coding except the unit is moving away from contact. FWIW, I like the idea and wished I had it a couple times in CM1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wish I had it a couple times myself Too many of my men get themselves shot in the back

Thanks Terence, I look forward to hearing how it goes Good Hunting, Jaldaen [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Jaldaen ]

Hey Terence, Thanks for the feedback Sounds like your playing version 0.1, you can pick up version 0.2 from this site: http://www.geocities.com/scenario_archive/playtest.html Look for the Beyond Bolero scenario, it should address your not running into anything until the bridge (as well as a few other things If you play it let me know here

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Tanker demonstrated how to do this with two squads but I think Jaldaen is proposing that we need a command like this for a squad to retreat while taking cover and firing back at the opponent who might rush them as they move away. The withdraw command is only for emergencies. It "is" the "get out of dodge" command. The advantage is that you get out of there ASAP. The disadvantage is that you put yourself into a position of being hit from behind while running away. The other disadvatage is that you can't rotate back to face the enemy after you withdraw. Jaldaen's suggestion (I hope you don't mind me expanding on this) would allow a squad to slowly move away while still somewhat facing the enemy to shoot back at them if they were being followed or rushed at. The advantage is that you aren't shot in the back while running (which doesn't allow you to use cover) and that if you are followed by an enemy squad, you can suppress them and keep them at bay while you slowly move away. The disadvantage would be that you move away at a slower pace than withdrawing. (The morale hit would be less than withdrawing just like Jaldaen said.) I think he has an excellent idea here and I'd like to see it in CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's exactly what I'm looking for Colonel_Deadmarsh... The only fault with the staggered withdrawl (splitting forces or leaving one unit behind) is that with the splitting of squads you take a moral hit and if they are engaged they are a lot more likely to break and where is your cover fire then (running away and getting everyon shot in the back) Now as for leaving one squad behind to protect his retreating comrades that is probably going to turn them into swiss cheese if there is a concentrated attack going on. Essentially you trade either a portion of a squad or a squad to allow the rest of your squad or squads to retreat... although a valid tactic, it doesn't address what I'm looking for which is a command that pulls out an entire squad or platoon from a position being assaulted without them being mowed down from behind. This would be very effective especailly with the addition of the assault and human wave commands that will be appearing in CM2... In fact this would be similar to the assault command in that it would be like "leapfrogging" backwards (probably slower moving then an assault, but perhaps enough to keep you from being overrun). Just my 2 bits, Jaldaen [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Jaldaen ]

You can now pick up my scenario from this site: http://www.geocities.com/scenario_archive/playtest.html Look for the Beyond Bolero scenario. Allied is the side you want to play and thanks for your help, Jaldaen PS- Feel free to give me a AAR (like above) on it

Oops double post... sorry ;-( [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Jaldaen ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: Jaldaen compromise: airborne (sacrificial lamb) vetertan platoon leader with 2 ranks in command, morale, combat, and stealth but don't expect any troops to command: you get a very exciting and very short life as a lamb<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yeah, thats what I'm talking about an ubersacenlambenplauttenheddenquarters!!! Can't wait to see myself (killed) in action PS: Can I be a Polish Airborne Platoon HQ? They get a SMG (Sacrifical LaMb Gun) [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Jaldaen ] [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Jaldaen ]

Hey Tin Man you can pick it up from this site: http://www.geocities.com/scenario_archive/playtest.html Look for the Beyond Bolero scenario. Allied is the side you want to play and thanks, Jaldaen PS- Feel free to give me a AAR on it

I was wondering if anyone else would like to have a "fallback" command, kind of like the withdraw order (no delay with slight morale hit?) only with slower movement and with your men retaining their facing and fighting back (perhaps at half strength?)as they head towards a new position... this would be very helpful when you want to withdraw from a position but keep some heat on your attackers (so as not get gunned down from behind)... So what do you all think? Just My Two Cents, Jaldaen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: no sharpshooter higher than vet(or reg, i hafta check) im afraid... "I want no part of this. I just want to go home." lemming it is!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hmmm... how about an american airborne (sacrificial lamb) vetertan platoon leader with 2 ranks in command, morale, combat, and stealth... I'd even settle for 1 rank in command & morale, 2 in combat, and 1 in stealth... but that's my lowest bid Here's to hoping -Jaldaen

Put me down as an american sharp shooter... elite of course

You posted that you wanted my scenario, but your profile doesn't have an email addy, would you be kind enough to post it here so that I can send you it... Thanks, Jaldaen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Unfortunately, the History Channel leaves a lot to be desired for accuracy. IIRC all modern sniper programs owe their origins to the Germans. The thing the Russians had was numbers... lots of snipers. I doubt there is any real evidense that their snipers were any more skilled than their German counterparts [ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Berlichtingen ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps just make snipers slightly cheaper for the Russians to reflect their numbers? 1-4 points depending upon their training/fitness level? Just My 2 Cents, Jaldaen

I've got a tiny scenario that you might enjoy, it is still in playtesting so there are no briefings, but I'd love to get some more feedback... thus far the majority of people who have played it have 1) enjoyed it and 2) fought to a draw... Just post here if you want me to send it to you -Jaldaen

I'm signed up

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CombinedArms: Great work, Mr. Crowley! The problem seems to be with the setup of attacks. A curious fact is that the AI does seem to do a reasonably decent job of setup on the defense--or is it just that the same pattern for setup works better on the defense? That is, setting up toward the rear and in cover wouldn't be so bad for a defender. Maybe somebody should check out what the pattern of AI setups is, in defensive QBs. Also in MEs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From my scenario design experience, the AI likes to set up around the flags, and prefers trees to buildings (I have yet to see the computer set up a unit in the second floor of a build... has anyone seen this?). If given the oppurtunity it will split up platoons across the board and almost always in the same spots if you give them a wide set up zone, strangely enough the AI seems to like certain set up sites more then others and almost always sets up in these locations, as stated earlier trees are their favorite hangout... Note: this is a generalization, but seems to fit most of the AI's infantry set-up. As for MG crews, and sharpshooters they seem to like smaller buildings to two floors ones... Just My Two Cents, Jaldaen