Winterhawk

Thanks!

I've made the mistake a couple of times in the demo (while playing as the Germans) of attacking nations that I only learned later would have likely joined the war on my side. I won't pretend for a moment to be the most astute WW2 historian here, so which nations among those represented in the game have the propensity to join the Axis cause? And please, please forgive me my Spanish (nice beaches) and Romanian (mmmm....oil) brothers... [ July 22, 2002, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Winterhawk ]

Interesting. I never thought about the port. I actually declared war on Spain for the sole purpose of using her soil to land 3 Italian armies in the south, which then assaulted Gibraltar from the rear. I guess the Spaniards won't be joining me in my attack on Britain now, will they?

Thanks for the input everyone. One last question for the Ancient One. How does the HQ determine which 5? I've noticed it often skips closer units to support ones that are further away, so proximity doesn't seem to matter.

I've noticed that I can't sail the Italian Fleet past Gibraltar into the open waters of the Atlantic. Surely the intention isn't that that sole UK Corp is preventing travel through there? :eek:

5 Hexes and 5 units? Regardless of the HQ's experience level? [ July 21, 2002, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Winterhawk ]

I've observed the highlighted units, but considering the radius, how far is too far? What are the actual values? It'd be nice to know whether or not that advancing army is about to move beyond the range of the HQ. And what about the HQ's effect on different types of units? For example, as the Germans I've noticed that when you click on the HQ numreous units 'light up'. Yet some don't, even though they are closer to the HQ than others that have 'lit up'. How do we figure out who supports who?

Curious. While playing the gold demo as the Allies, I felt after awhile that I was in a position to couterattack (after raping every non-French allied country of every unit I could get my hands on). While war raged up north in the Low Countries, I took advantage of a complete lack of German presence in the south and advanced the two most southern French armies off the Maginot line and on to Munich, where I encountered Corp strength resistance. I replaced these armies with rear guard Corps - one British, one Canadian. After my armies suffered unexpectedly high losses in the attack on Munich (I just learned all about HQ's in another thread), it was time to reinforce them. To my dismay, I couldn't. A German unit had moved in opposite the most northeast section of the Maginot line, breaking the "blue" line that extended from there to my armies at Munich. The empty hexes immediately east of my two replacement Corp (Brits / Canucks) on the Maginot line were brown. Beyond that, they were blue clear through to Munich. Sorry for the long post, but I get the sense from this that supply lines for any given countries forces can't be broken, even by an ally. True? How then do you provide supply for units that you transport to either allied or enemy soil? And on the subject of Zones of Control (ZOC), I'm used to the system incorporated by TOAW, whereby you were punished with losses when you travelled through or otherwise broke off from an enemy units ZOC. Not that I'm complaining, but there doesn't seem to be the same concern here, which would make sense given the larger scale of both the units and the hex sizes. How is the ZOC determined though where supply lines are concerned? There certainly are cases where a particular unoccupied hex may border both yours and an enemy unit. What determines which unit excercises control?

HQ's. Interesting. To be honest I'd never really considered that, but you're right. The French don't have one, do they? I read the abbreviated, online manual and understand the contribution HQ's make, but how does one determine their radius of effect? And do HQ's provide their bonuses to all units within this radius, regardless of the units force composition? Can you put an HQ to sea? Admirals anyone?

I've played the demo through to completion numerous times now and I've noticed something that seem to bring the play balance into question. It involves the Ardennes. Entrenchment values and air interception notwithstanding (all things being equal), a single, full strength British (or French) air unit attacking a full strength German army in the Ardennes results in a 3-4 point loss for the Brits and 0-1 point loss for the Germans. Reverse the situation but the numbers stay the same: 3-4 point loss for the French army and 0-1 for the German air unit. In fact, it's next to impossible to dislodge a German army once it occupies either of the forest hexes. Multiple attacks with full strength armies c/w air support (including direct attacks with air units) results in alot of dead allies and maybe 1 or 2 points whittled off the German unit. Conversely, I had a full strength French army that was occupying the northern hex completely destroyed by 3 consecutive air attacks from the AI. Hmmm. Dislodging a German unit from the Ardennes is even more difficult than, when playing as the Germans, pushing a French unit out of the Maginot line. Somehow this doesn't seem right. Apart from the obvious differences - experience, strength, readiness, etc., is there something being abstracted that determines that one side simply has better units than the other? If again, all things were equal (including terrain), would the German unit always defeat the French (or British) unit? I've also experienced considerable difficulty dislodging even a Corp-sized German unit from a city. Again, mulitple, same-turn attacks from numerous surrounding units hardly does any damage at all, often only resulting in alot of friendly casualities. Paris, on the other hand, and despite a very entrenched, experienced, army-sized unit in place, falls with relative ease. Any suggestions or comments would certainly be appreciated. :confused:

Thanks for the tip Kingfish, but I agree that that is a bit of a fakealoo workaround. Back to my original question, does anyone know whether or not this will be something addressed in CM2?

I'm sure this has already been addressed, but I must have missed it, so forgive the re-hash. With respects the assignment of waypoints, is it going to be possible to assign multiple waypoints in succession to a group of units in CM2? As it is now, you can only assign a series of successive waypoints to individual units, not a lassoed group of them. You can only assign 1 waypoint to a group. This can be a bit tedious, since I often want, for example, an entire platoon to ‘Move’ to here, then ‘Move Fast’ over to there.

First of all, I’m glad to be back. Work (and a beautiful new 7 lb 4 oz baby girl!) has kept me away for quite awhile. During my hiatus from CM, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking. Laying awake in bed at night, staring at the ceiling, and thinking. Thinking, if I had the skills, the ability, and, more realistically, the money, and if I set out to build the computer game of my dreams, what would it look like. I must say that I now have some very concrete ideas on how the finished product would look and play. The problem of course, is how do I get there from here? Especially since I have neither the skills, the ability, or the money. Without giving too much away, please accept as praise my desire to build on what you have already created with CM, because it is in every respect a fabulous game. I have a vision of utilizing a game engine such as yours as the foundation, and then building an entirely new level/facet on top of it. It really would, in my humble estimate, be bigger, bolder, and most important, more fun and challenging to play than any computer wargame ever produced. But again, how do I get there from here? I have so many questions. How would one get permission to use the CM engine? Do you/will you license it? If so, what’s involved? Assuming I can get this permission/license, what do I do with it once I’ve got it? I’m not a programmer. The only code I know is the PIN number for my bank card. I have growing 3D modeling skills (one facet of my business is graphics oriented), but I don’t think that would be the best use of my skills, nor is it an area in need of a lot of attention in my re-worked vision of the game. To grossly simplify everything, what I see I need are: 1) Permission / License 2) Individuals capable and knowledgeable enough to effect the changes and build and incorporate the new material 3) Someone with enough money to buy bread and water for these people until the project is finished So again, how do I get there from here? I know you folks are in no way obligated to answer any of my questions, and I would certainly understand if you chose not to waste any of your time. I’m sure this isn’t the first query you’ve received like this. There probably isn’t a gamer alive that hasn’t fantasized about designing and building their own game. The only difference between you and the rest of us is you put your oars in the water, so to speak. You took it from your mind and put it in your hands. Consider this then, my first stroke. Regards

Thanks for all the input everyone. I'd still like to hear from someone at BTS though about what their thoughts are on the terrain tiles I referred to earlier. It would be nice to see a rail/road crossing, and a rail/trestle crossing over water. Any possibility to include them in CM2? And for those of you who'd like to be on the 'President's List' and receive an advanced copy of my scenario before I post it for all to see, let me know here with your email addy. My only request is that you reply with your feedback (good, bad or indifferent) once you've had a chance to play it. Your input may very well influence future revisions. It's my goal with this scenario to create something different. Something that offers the kind of tactical variety and challenge that will keep players coming back to try it again and again. Only your feedback will let me know how well I've succeeded.

I'd be happy to Canuck (especially being a Canuck muhself). But you'll just have to wait a bit. I'm hoping to get the time this weekend to finish it. Everything (map, units, briefings) is done, but I just want to complete a few play testing sessions first. I warn you though, it's a rather large scrap. The map weighs in at 1200m x 3120m. I must say too that it's not a randomly generated one. Each tile was painstakingly positioned 'just so'. The force size is, shall we say (so as not to give anything away), sufficient enough to take advantage of the real estate their fighting over. But yes, once it's finished, consider it sent. And thanks for your interest!

Sorry to have to rotate this back into the main stream, but I would really appreciate some feedback on: 1) The possible inclusion of rail/road/trestle tiles in CM 2. 2) Are larger, stone bridges more difficult to destroy? 3) Where's a good place to post scenarios? 4) What's the general consensus about user-generated scenarios - do they get played? And thanks Mikey D for the info on the bridges. It make sense.

I've spent the better part of the last month building a scenario that, well, at the risk of blowing my own horn, is shaping up very nicely. The main objectives on the map are two bridges. During a play testing session the other day, the AI (playing as the Allies) began shelling one of my positions on a bridge that I had just overran. To my surprise, the bridge collapsed! I uhmm, I didn't think they could do that? Don't get me wrong, I think it's great. It certainly can change one's tactics mid-stream (pardon the pun). But I've poured through the manual (again) and found no mention of bridges either being destructible or repairable. It's obvious to me now that they can be destroyed. But can they be repaired? It would make sense too that size and composition (wood vs. stone) would affect how difficult it is to destroy a bridge. Is this the case? I've also included a rail line on my map, and noticed that there seems to be no rail/road crossing tiles. Nor does there seem to be a rail bridge/trestle tile. An oversight on my part or do they not exist? Plans to include them in CM2 perhaps? And lastly, where would be the best place to post a custom scenario? And what's the general acceptance level towards playing user-generated scenarios? Like I said, I've spent a great deal of time on it. It would be nice to share it. Any comments or suggestions are welcomed and certainly appreciated. [This message has been edited by Winterhawk (edited 03-09-2001).]

I've certainly appreciated everyone's input. But my question still remains Madmatt (and others of the BTS guild). Would incorporating a feature like the 'radio chatter' I've described be doable? Is it something that you feel has the potential to improve gameplay and increase the overall value of the experience? I'm also very interested in anyone else's opinion too. Especially those who've had substantially more time with CM than I.

Hmmm. An interesting 'view' to be sure tom. And I hope I haven't misrepresented my thoughts on this subject in any way. I don't mind at all having the ability to roam above and around the battlefield at will, regardless of it's implications on realism. This feature single-handedly adds volumes to the fun factor. But I want to review an action sequence from a given location because, quite simply, I want to. Not because I have to in order to maintain any form of situational awareness. Something I believe that would also add gobs of fun, while at the same time alleviate some of the repetitive, busy, 'gotta see the action from every unit every turn' syndrome, would be the addition of a little radio chatter. Nothing more. Just imagine. You're on a map several 'clicks' by several 'clicks' big. You peel off a couple of small, advanced scouting patrols while your main element moves SW to take up a defensive stance on a nearby ridge. With the exception of assigning orders, you all but ignore your patrols, focusing your attention on the manoeuvre and positioning of your main effort. Suddenly the radio crackles. It's one of your patrols. "Baker Charlie 9'er this is Whiskey 1. Enemy contact. Armour. Sector 4. Acknowledge." A 'sector' can be no more complicated than the 100 X 100 meter blocks used to create a map. They can be numbered, left to right, North to South. A very simplified way of narrowing down your search when you respond to the radio call by swinging your camera over for a look. "This is Baker Charlie 9'er. Acknowledged." ... *sigh*.

I performed a small test last night. I divided a very small, flat map in half (West/East) with a wide swath of tall pines. In the SW corner, I positioned a US Bazooka team. In the NE, a neat little row of 6 Tigers. Throughout the test the Tigers never moved - they were simply 'spotting targets'. I advanced the 'Zook' team into the tree line at the extreme south end of the map. Then, not having spotted anything yet, I turned them north, being sure to remain in the cover of the pines. Sure enough, as each Tiger came into view, the team called out: 'Enemy Tank', or 'Watch Out - Enemy Tank!'. Six tanks. Six warning messages. I must say that I hadn't as yet noticed the regularity and the accuracy of the unit reporting demonstrated with this simple test. Most commendable. And I apologize for my oversight of this feature. I must say though that deanco made a very valid point. One that I hadn't really considered the tactical significance of. And that is that the volume for all the sound effects, voice and weapons alike (excluding ambient), rises and falls with the proximity of the camera. Replaying this small test of mine with the camera down low, as far away as the small map would allow, and facing the other direction (basically trying to simulate the distances on large maps), I never heard a thing. So again, assuming I was playing on a large map, if I didn't take the time to review the action sequence carefully, I would never know that 6 Tigers lay in wait behind that tree line. Is this intended Madmatt? Is there any way to more effectively convey this rather critical bit of information? Admittedly, as per Germanboy's comments, perhaps giving everyone an operational radio isn't realistic. But would that be any less realistic than a central commander who has the ability to 'fly' close enough to any unit on the field so as to hear their conversation? It's obvious that an effort was made to make the intelligence available simply by the presence of the audible messages. Perhaps if it was just a little more accessible... [This message has been edited by Winterhawk (edited 02-13-2001).]

Thanks for the tip Tom. I have in fact already found the large, overhead views c/w bases on to be the quickest way to get the big picture. But it's just got a 'fakealoo' feeling about it. Everything about CM exudes realism and authenticity. Why the shortfall when it comes to battlefield communications? I'm no military historian, but I do know that simple field radios were widely used and heavily relied upon. No WW2 commander had a factor 8 satelite view of the battlefield. He had a unit on the other side of that ridge. And that unit had a radio. And that unit reported back to the commander what he saw. The commander then made decisions based on this, the most fundamental source of intelligence. Not to make comparisons, because CM certainly exists in a class all by itself, but the Close Combat series made simple, effective use of both audible and textual messages to convey important data back to you, the commander. CM by far has a superior variety of voices, sounds, and so forth, and they do fit the particular situation the unit is in. But the intent seems more environmental and generic in nature, more to supplement the atmosphere rather than convey critical data. If possible, I would like to suggest to the designers of the forthcoming games in the CM series, that they take a serious look at incorporating some form of situational communication. Anything that will empower that unit over there to tell me that they just heard a vehicle behind that tree line, and thus save me from having to go look for it myself.

Hello all. And to all, a question. Sort of. And forgive me if it's been covered previously as I'm rather new here. And forgive me too for the rant. I truly do feel that CM is the best game I've ever played. Period. But there does seem to be a rather serious omission. The omission I'm referring to, is that there seems to be a complete absence of reporting. By that I mean that your units never seem to report - audibly or otherwise - on the presence or sighting of enemy units. Admittedly, every once in awhile you'll hear someone shout Panzer! But who said that? And where are they? And how many are there? CM does a phenomenal job of placing you, the player, in command of a incredible battle. But someone must have forgot to put batteries in my radio, because I never hear from the units I'm in command of. Unless I personaly view the battlefield during and after each turn from every applicable perspective, I have no idea what's going on. Case in point. My brother and I, after a number of smaller IP engagements to familiarize ourselves with the nuances of the game, have recently begun a very large Quick Battle - 5000 points each on a 1.5 km X 5.0 km map. A part of my strategy was to position a few units in key areas around the map to serve as 'spotters'. Their role is simply to stay out of sight and watch a particular sector for any enemy movement. Trouble is, when they do see something, they never 'report' it. The only way I know any enemy units are creeping around out there is, at the end of each turn, to enlarge, replay, scroll, zoom, pan and otherwise review the turn and terrain ad nauseum. The acceptions of course are when the shooting starts. It's pretty easy to follow the tracer fire to a target. And the smaller maps too tend to negate this problem, as 1 or 2 camera views can just about pick up anything that moves. But on these big maps it's a very real problem. Oh to hear even the occassional "*crackle*...enemy infantry contact - sector 7 - acknowledge...*crackle*".