Redcoat

*Bump* No word from Steve yet. New board doesn't help, couple new posts and this post will be on the second page again. Redcoat

I by no means have the fastest PC available - PIII 933Mhz 256mb 133mhz SDRAM GeForce2GTS yet it copes with everything the current CM can throw at it at 1024x768 and higher, and believe me I've played the largest possible battles. People will naturally find what size battles they and their computers can handle comfortably, people arn't fish, they do have long term memories The people who would complain are the ones who are argumentative by nature and arn't taken seriously by myself. Once again, it is just a suggested option for people like myself. In East Front / West Front I tried a Corps level game once, found it too difficult /time consuming and have limited myself to commanding no larger than Divisional strength since. People try 5000 point and larger games in CM, either love them or hate them (PC limited or just too large for the particular person to cope)People like myself who love them want help from the developer to further our interest. If it's really that difficult to increase the maximum number of units per side then we shall have to wait for CMII and the rewrite, but until Steve says "not in the scope of the game*" or "Too difficult to re-code" I shall remain hopeful. *It is in the scope of the game because it's happening right now. Formations may have been tampered with in the editor to make room for more important units but the scale of it does work in the CM engine. Redcoat

Commissar: Our game is relatively small! I've played 16000 point custom QB attacks that dwarf our game Current maps can support a battle as I described in my first post, but for tactical reasons they need to be considerably larger. Gen-x87: Yes it depends on where they want to take the game, but there will always be people like me who prefer larger games and will push CM's capabilities regardless of BTS's vision of what CM should be like. BTS gave in to the customers demands and gave us 5000 point QB's. As a loyal and happy customer I'm asking for a unit limit increase to aid my enjoyment of the next game. I actually enjoy setting up - planning tactics - and finally setting a very large force into motion, or spending a couple days setting up a multiple layered defence that will have to stop a 15000 point Axis Combined arms assault force. It's all a matter of taste and whether you have the patience to deal with it. A quadruple player PBEM game would indeed be fun.. Olle Petersson: Comparatively few people use the 5000 point QB option, they arn't forced to use it you see, much like people wont be forced to use the largest maps and (hopefully) larger unit limit in CM2. If I want to push my PC until it explodes let me do it, it doesn't mean you have to join me, but I wish I could find more people who enjoy the larger games I'm not asking for a standard feature for CM2, I'm asking for an option, there is a difference. Redcoat [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Redcoat ]

Will the unit limit coded into CMBO be used in the upcoming CM2 or will we have a much larger limit to play around with? Considering the maps will be much larger in CM2 (?) the scope of the game will be able to cover (for example) a Panzer Regiment consisting of a Panther Battalion and a mixed Panzer IV / Assault gun Battalion. This would be supported by a Panzergrenadier Regiment - 1 Armoured Battalion and 2 Motorised Battalions. Trying a battle of this size is (just) possible in CMBO, although many 'unneccasary' units have to be discarded, and of course having an armoured Grenadier battalion is impossible because it would leave little room for any other infantry let alone 4 Companies of tanks. There are many people like myself who enjoy pushing CM's capabilities (and our pc's) to the limit and it's unfortunate that these limits are in place. For the most part it is true that large formations such as this didn't all participate in a battle, but if the maps are going to be as large as I hope (10km by 5km or bigger!) it will be possible to keep a Battalion of the infantry and 1 or 2 of the Tank Companies as a reserve well away from the fighting, and be commited when/if needed (for the historically minded player like myself) Now and again I go back to Talonsoft's West front or East front for my Divisional fixes, it's a weakness of mine. So will BTS be increasing the unit limit for CM2? I would be happy with even 100 extra units per side, it would make the planning and execution of the larger type of game much easier. Thoughts, flames? Any comment Steve? Redcoat [ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: Redcoat ]

Thanks for the info Scipio and Frenchy

It does sound silly and is laughable, but when you think about it those teachers have every right to be paranoid. How many school shootings has there been in the U.S.A in recent memory? Think about that, then that schoolboy being suspended doesn't sound quite so ridiculous. Please don't take that as a flame, it's just a fact.

It does sound silly and is laughable, but when you think about it those teachers have every right to be paranoid. How many school shootings has there been in the U.S.A in recent memory? Think about that, then that schoolboy being suspended doesn't sound quite so ridiculous. Please don't take that as a flame, it's just a fact.

I'm in the process of designing a scenario, but unfortunately I have no sources that give me an idea of what a U.S. Infantry and Armoured Division consisted of. If anyone could point me to a website it would be appreciated - or post the info here I need to know how many Battalions in a U.S Regiment, and how many Regiments in the Division. Also do the Batt/Reg/Div have their own Shermans or other AFV's (Just like German Infantry Battalions have assault guns assigned to them permanantly) or were they assigned independant Tank formations? I need the same answers for the Armoured Divisions too. Thanks Redcoat "When the going gets tough, the tough hide under the table"

Thanks for the replies. Yes I always discuss the game's parameters before a game. Finish or surrender? It matters not and I think people should be given the choice of either. I've never played a ladder match and never intend to. Competition is good but some people will do anything so they don't lose. These were supposedly friendly games.

Out of 20 pbem games I've played in the last 3 or so months, I have only completed or still progressing in 13 of them. The other 7 opponents gave up sending mails when they started losing or had been taking a battering for a while. All 7 couldn't have been commited to hospital/gone on holiday etc and a few of those opponents still haven't replied after a couple months. So why do people do this? That is a pretty large ratio of bad losers. Why can they not have the courtesy to surrender or at the very least send a quick 8 word e-mail *I give up I am a bad loser* Sorry if this is considered OT but I figured I'd get a better response from this forum, and I'm sure other people have suffered from bad losers (or is it just me? I'm not abusive, I'm not a gamey player and I send out regular turns- I wish more people were like that =P ) On the bright side I have a couple of regular opponents who are fun to play against, regardless of whether they win or lose. BTW hello, I'm a long time lurker who can keep quiet about this no longer.