Apache

Can you not use the Excel viewer? I think it's a freebie isn't it?

Echo, Code programme for what? There is an auto parameter sheet that will do the bulk of the calculations. General Having played around some I now opt for the version I suggested at 5 above (e.g. calculate Force points as per norm and modify the aux force points by the correct figure on assault, attack and probe to weaken the AI adantage a bit, but not completely. I use the green cost of the core in that case also and then find I always have enough to buy the core at their enhanced experience cost AND the modified aux forces). On the defence I use the cost of the core at the current experience and the aux as generated by the rules (on the basis that the AI is weaker on the attack and probably could do with all the help it can get).

Super Sulo, The major event is a spearhead or support to a major assault but it's probably only relevant if you stick to the rule generated force size (which I do). I've rarely got above 1,000 so an occassional 2,500 every now and then (not too often) would be useful. I'm not so keen on buying up to the limits on the attack as I'm not sure this defeats some of the object of the rules, e.g. the QB generator allocates the attackers points in a way that will attempt to give a more balanced battle. Thats said, a random roll every now and then which WILL give you a bonus and allow you to buy up to the point limit on assault, attack or probe may be useful. I think your option c (if I've understood it right) may be a better point option for aux calculation. I've been playing around with this alittle and the way I do it at the moment is: 1) Select core as norm (mine are 693) 2) Generate Aux points as norm 3) I skip the QB Aux generator as I stick to what the game offers me with SS Mech selected as core on parameters (a personal preference) 4) Total up the core and aux as norm and select this as points for the game. 5) If the game is an aassault, attack or probe I multiply my aux points allocated by the rules by 1.72 etc. etc. accordingly to get the actual 'you can purchase' points and then buy up to that value when I actually select the core force. This way I find I get the benefit of the rules making the game less balanced but don't get completely outgunned all the time (or at least, not outgunned by as much). I still think there needs to be some kind of mechanism built in to allow you occassionally on the assault, attack, probe to generate the type of balanced (or even attacker biased) force so that in some cases you will have superior forces. This probably (AFAIK) reflects the reality a little more for this period of the war too? Using the system above (5) would also allow you to constantly set your core force purchase points at the base level e.g. 393 whether green, vet, elite etc. but give you the spare points to buy them at the experience they've achieved. That way you don't hand over the benefit of your achievements by constantly upping the purchase points of your force allowing the AI to buy even more!! BUT, and it's a big but, if that is thought to be a good idea, how can we handle it when on the defence (because the points you set in the QB are defender). If you roll up 937 as green and your core is vet you will not have enough to buy the core at vet level if you set points to a 1,000. Not sure there is any way round this except by upping the points which gives the Soviets more anyway. It seems that when defending you are always going to have any experience your troops have gained countered by having to up the points to afford them, thus giving the AI more forces. UNLESS - rules to purchase soviets when they attack, allowing human purchase but AI set up? [ November 26, 2002, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Apache ]

I am playing by sticking to SS Mech as above. I use 1 core infantry co and use a platoon of 3 x Stug III. Pushes core to 637. Working out well so far. DEFINITELY think this multiplier for working out the points in the parameters will redress the balance a little so we are not sold short. So far I've been able to afford very little Aux other than a a couple of 221 A/Cs, couple of HMGs and an 81mm mortar spotter in most of the battles Core force has HAD to do the brunt of the work. I'm just glad I wasn't facing Soviet armored last time around. I think they had about 8 million points of infantry, I'd have got obliterated BTW Biltong - Word doc e-mailed to you re some points. [ November 25, 2002, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Apache ]

I suspect you have three options: 1) Use the random number sheet that comes with the rules. It's just a list of randomly generated numbers bet 1-10, you just cross them off as you use. 2)Use a 10 sided dice (gamers use them a lot) 3) My preference, use the auto parameter sheet that does it for you (well, 95%). Would appreciate, if you have other queries, if they are raised on the main topic (188 posts to date). Makes compiling the FAQ easier. Regards Apache

Super Sulo, I thought constantly changing your core company was weird. Perhaps the core force explanation needs to make it clear? Just in case anyone else is half asleep like me That said, I still dispense with the Aux Force randomised unit type, preferring to stick with the Aux that a SS Mech Infantry coy would be likely to get in reality. That's just a personal preference for wanting it realistic of course (ish) but again, might be worth flagging up as an option for those who want to go that route. Might attract even more of the historical die hards to the rules. General I think the rolled up 'major action' every now and then would also help attract those that like the idea of the rules but just don't want to be saddled with just one company + aux for 30-50 battles. On the arty front, the more I think about it the more I think it is linked to the suggested force size modifiers that need to be considered. If your force was not REALLY heavily outgunned, because the defender did not have such a massive point advantage in some cases, the loss of 125 or so from your arty roll-up (because the scenario would not let you buy that much) may not be such a problem, you would probably (hopefully) have a better chance with the forces you did have? Finally, is it worth looking at the aux values at all? Some of the values seem very low and, while I haven't researched it fully yet, I'm not sure you could actually buy anything at all armor wise for the lowest points you can roll, even if you could, would it be worth it? Same applies to some extent with infantry/support. Is it worth looking at what the lowest reasonable points you need to buy something, setting the lowest at that and working up? (This might have already been done of course in which case I'll zip it ). If, and I mean if, they were looked at, is it worth throwing in an occasional random freebie (you get a platoon of stugs/tanks etc. etc.) every now and then? Not often, but again, something which may spruce up the campaign for some if they want to go for a long one. This, and any kind of major force action, could be triggered in the auto parameter sheet and could be linked to an entered battle number at the top, say a possibility of it occurring (or even a certainty?) somewhere between minimum of every 5 battles and max of 10, so it changes. I accept players can do this anyway if they like of course without it being in the rules. May be worth a look for the rules though? Again, wider appeal? [ November 25, 2002, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Apache ]

One last thing, not sure if I'm missing something here but...... To get a greater sense ownership of my company I stick with the one type throughout the campaign. At the moment it's SS Mech Coy for instance. As such, I don't bother rolling up those Axis parameters. I don't use the QB Aux Force generator either. I go straight to main battle. I select SS Mech in Force type so when the options come up I only get those that BTS researched for SS Mech. I then buy my Aux forces, as per the points rolled up, by merely selecting whatever I want within the categories available for the ponts available. Then I buy my core. Now (I am a bit tired so the brain is a bit frazzed), is there a very big 'Yeah...but...' that I've missed by doing it this way, something I'm missing out on?

Whether it's a big issue or not I don't know but I've tried a few roll-up forces and find I get seriously outgunned quite a lot, and I mean seriously. I know it's easy to just improvise etc. but it may be something worth a check. It's mainly to do with arty. Worst example is the meeting engagement where (without using the modifiers suggested as above, which I think would probably be worth further exploration) I racked up 300 arty points out of a toatl 1037. It was therefore a 1250 point ME and I was only allowed to pick about 175 points worth of arty. Not sure whether I should have spent the other 125 on other stuff or not but this would throw out those scores too. As a result I didn't spend the other points and only purchased around 912 points worth. I was undergunned enough as it is but losing that 125 hurt me even more I bactracked and tried a 1000 point force but that again dropped my arty max to around 125. It may only be MEs that are the problem. Perhaps it needs a 'if ME spend any remainder on .....' Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the less balanced scenarios these rules create and the enjoyment of the game is increased a lot. I'd just prefer that the odds weren't REALLY heavily stacked against me all the time (and having not played the rules enough yet I don't know if they would be). I also wonder, is it worth including any kind of major offensive initiative which players can choose to use or not (e.g. your force supports 1-2 other companies and some armour etc. to assault a major position)? Maybe 1 battle in 5-7, or throw a 10 and it's a major offensive, spearhead or support role you play. Perhaps another roll for spearhead/support, 8> and it's the former (unlucky). [ November 24, 2002, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Apache ]

Have a few questions and no response from your e-mail address. Are you still out there?

It did say smoke from burning veh's blocks LOS more so maybe.

Don't wish to sound dumb but in what way do you see that it may not work. I may wait to install RC if there is likely to be an issue.

One thing I am planning, and it's just for personal preference of course, is upping the core force points either straight away or as time goes on. This will allow the purchase of a platoon of tanks etc, letting the Aux forces takes care of vehicle variety. I like to try to keep some kind of historical accuracy and, while I accept Axis battle groups were mix 'n' match affairs, I'm not sure the mixture of AFVs at company level would be so great. I'm also thinking of sticking with the same division type to get an added sense of contnuity. I've not even managed to play the rules yet (will today) but it seems a little strange (unless I'm missing the plot) to play a sceurity infantry company on game 1 and then perhaps a Luftwaffe company on game 2. Again, I'll probably try using repeating the campaign to gou through different div types (except the ones I'm not bothered with). The final point is that having read the results matrix, there seems an awful lot to do to calculate points at the end of a battle. Seeing as the purpose AFAIK is just to determine whether troops go up in level I contemplated devisisng a much more simplistic set of calculations based on fewer parameters (say kills, casualty levels, state at end etc). These are not criticisms at all, I think the rules will be excellent and thank Biltong for all the work. The auto calc sheets will help too. I just wondered whether others had similar thoughts to the above and whether other options I may not have considered have been devised.

What's going to be the problem here? I am just about to install the R/C mod and the patch, will the patch put in some vehicles that don't look right? BTW Kwazy, when you say the IVs will be replaced, are the patch IVs the camo versions that are posted at the CMHQ site? [ November 22, 2002, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Apache ]

Second that. Your grass still graces my CMBO. Good to see you back.

I miss Linda Evangilista

Extracted to here for FAQs (sorry to do it this way, will help me keep track of what's been done)

IIRC (long time ago since I installed these on CMBO) you need CMMM and CMMOS (one manages the mods/installs, the latter manages the selections of markings etc.)?

Biltong, I'll give it a go and will try to monitor the posts in case the FAQs crop up elsewhere. As the threads get closed up when they get full you could perhaps create a fresh until such stage as the posts dry up. Perhaps keep it at the Biltongs Rule Set queries or something like that. Will be some time before i Get the first version out on Word. mega busy at work.

Sad loss to the commnunity. Many thanks for your efforts, your mods were always at the top of my look out/must have list. Damn shame.

Biltong, Got the rules, thanks. Just a thought. Is there any value in preparing a Word FAQ type doc that can be posted at the sites with them? That may stop the posts eventually getting buried, along with the answers you have provided to people's questions.

Yesssssssssssss!!!!!

Is there any update on the CMBB version of this? Didn't PBEM much with CMBO but do now and it sounds like it would be useful.

Hi Biltong, The rules sound VERY interesting. Can you mail me a set pse? E-mail in profile.

I used CMMOS for CMBO and can't wait for it for CMBB. Looks excellent.

Having seen the two current 'mainstream' offering (Waterloo and Austerlitz) I think they offer little advancement over the Talonsoft games of 10 or so years ago. Poor graphics, poor sound, abysmal terrain, crap 'battle rules/formulas', and a dated game engine. In some respects I actually prefer the TS series. You get the impression these two games could be played on a ZX Spectrum!! Some kind of combination of the Total War series units/terran combined with wego and the more sophisticated rules system of cm would be excellent. Not sure how easy it would be to do mind. I like the TW series but the combat resolution does get a bit repetitive. [ November 16, 2002, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Apache ]