Patrocles

yeah, I thought as much

Is this for real or are these guys nutz?? October 5 "Over on the Battlefront forums they are saying a demo will be released in 1-2 weeks. The demo is currently 99% finished but they are working on adding voice overs." October 16 "A few of the beta testers have learned of a hack that an un-authorised user has deployed to great effect, which is the actual reason why the demo and game are so delayed. So far it can't be fixed, though the Russian release has gone ahead regardless. Fingers crossed they can get on top of it, or MP will be a bust." http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=158;t=000012 [ October 18, 2006, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: Patrocles ]

good idea! I would like to see this implemented, too. I recall playing a lot of AOK games with Coop and with two players playing one civ. That was a blast and really helped with controlling the game units for this RTS game.

oh yeah, but the sale price is only for online purchases. At least according to what I have read and when I spoke to the clerks at CC.

The link to the Circuit City site is probably a no-no so you will have to dig it up yourself. Circuit City has 'combat mission 3: afrika korp,' developed by CDV Software ( :confused: ), on sale at their website for $13. I'm grabbing a copy! Have fun! edit: hold that order! I also found the Combat Mission Anthology (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK) at the CC site on sale for $15.

My Russian is lousy these days! darn! Guess I will wait for the English-language version. thanks for the info.

punt...missed this thread

I'm looking forward to this game. Time to start checking out the forum more frequently! This was posted at the Wargamer: "Thanks to an email and traslation from DocZ, The Wargamer has learned that Battlefront's Theater of War may have gone gold. According to a Russian language post on the developer's website, the game's "master disk" has been completed: http://ww2.games.1c.ru/ A few posts have been made on Battlefront's website by fans, but so far no official announcement has been made by Battlefront. See the thread here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=63;t=000340 A translation obtained through an automated free online translator also implies that a master disk is complete, lending further credence to the news. Keep checking The Wargamer for more information."

ditto! and the ability to create/design campaigns for single-player and multiplayer (coop or force-on-force)

cool-looking models! looks like panzerfaust will have a very, very long service life!

Sounds like it could be a fun game! real-time!!?? Will there be an option to speedup/slowdown gameplay? I suck at Real-time games because my Twitch-factor rating is somewhere in the neighborhood of -2.3x10^3.

yeah, I asked the author himself. I wish internet posts/authors would include dates with their articles. It makes it easier to determine if the article is worth reading.

not directly related to this half-squad issue but this article was at warfare hq (no date so i apologize if it is has been out for a while): Legitimate Tactics or Underhanded Sleaze: Should Players be Limited to Historical Tactics in Wargames? Submitted by Don Maddox By Don Maddox "You can’t do that," Bill exclaims. "That’s the third unarmed truck you’ve advanced this turn alone!" His opponent, Ralph, calmly ignores him and continues to move his trucks one by one. It’s late in the game and Ralph is playing to win. Bill’s marauding hordes of Red Army soldiers have seized most of the map, but the critical victory location is still just beyond his reach on the other side of the river. Knowing that time is running out, Ralph drives every unarmed truck and a few jeeps directly into the path of the advancing Soviet armor. The vehicles will almost certainly be destroyed, but he hopes they will also act as a speed bump and buy just enough time for him to win… Sound familiar? Almost every wargamer has come across a situation in which an opponent used a "gamey" tactic in order to pull out a win at one time or another. These tactics invariably spark a heated moment of disagreement between players. And no one likes to lose to what they consider to be an underhanded style of play or tactics that totally go against the spirit of the game. But just where are wargamers supposed to draw the line between underhanded and creative? Is an unorthodox strategy necessarily an illegitimate one? This debate has been raging ever since people started playing complex wargames. Ask five different wargamers how they feel about this and you’ll likely get five different answers in return. A wargame by definition is a game about war. Wargames aspire to simulate various armed conflicts by reproducing some of the elements that were present during the actual battle. But there are many different types of wargames on the market and the level of detail and realism varies greatly from one title to another. Some, like Avalon Hill’s classic Panzerblitz, are fast playing and relatively simple in both design and scope. These types of games tend to abstract much of the gameplay and eliminate altogether those elements which are not considered crucial to the game’s basic design. Other wargames, such as Point of Attack II from HPS, seek to reproduce virtually every possible element that could play a factor in a given battle. These games tend to be heavy on micromanagement and eschew a more streamlined approach. Not only are there fundamental differences in the way various developers approach wargame design, but there are also deep differences in what the players themselves expect from the experience. Some players view wargaming with a lighter perspective and are frequently heard reminding others, "it’s only a game." These players very often are not as interested in the minutia of historical detail and place an emphasis on playability and fun over all other game elements. In general, their view is that if something is possible within the confines of a PC-based wargame or legal within the rules of a boardgame, then it is an acceptable tactic in battle. All wargames use abstractions to one degree or another and besides, if the designer didn’t intend for a tactic to be possible they would have taken steps to nullify it, right? This type of gamer does not want to be bound by historical precedent or doctrine. On the other hand we have the gamer who sees wargames as a true simulation of war. Typically, these gamers have a deep interest in the history surrounding their chosen wargame and tend to be drawn to wargames with more detail. These gamers rebel at the thought of ahistorical tactics and will instantly condemn such tactics as "sleaze." Gamey tactics deeply offend these types of players and they will frequently refuse to play against players who continue to use them. In their view, permitting the use of such tactics undermines the whole reason for playing wargames in the first place. But exactly what do most wargamers consider sleaze? Of course, not every player can be an expert on the historical doctrine behind the way armies operate and fight. If only players who demonstrate a clear understanding of historical doctrine are allowed to determine what is and isn’t legal, it’s a safe bet that many newer players will be turned off from the hobby altogether. After all, how many players really understand how a WWII tank destroyer battalion operated or the finer details of Napoleonic cavalry operations? On the other hand, wargamers aren’t stupid and even beginning players can apply a bit of common sense and see that some tactics are clearly beyond the scope of what any live soldiers would ever attempt. Driving unarmed trucks or a field kitchen at a King Tiger in order to block its advance is surely a gamey tactic—but is it a legitimate one? An infamous tactic from The Operational Art of War is to split off tiny sub-units from larger units and place them in the path of enemy formations. Although such units will almost certainly be quickly destroyed, they can greatly delay enemy units from moving and have an effect far out of proportion to their size. Is it legitimate to block the advance of an enemy division with a company, or is this simply a sleazy attempt to take advantage of the way the game’s inner mechanics operate? And what about the infamous VBM freeze from Advanced Squad Leader? This tactic allows players to park a vehicle right next to an enemy unit in order to mask the movement of other nearby friendly units. This tactic works as the ASL rules prohibit the friendly unit from firing at any other target so long as the enemy unit remains in the same hex. Again, was this an intentional design decision, or simply another example of players taking advantage of the game mechanics? Without trying too hard you can find gamey tactics and examples of "sleaze" in every wargame ever created. Some players adopt house rules to impose limits on what can and can’t be done, while others are simply choosy about who they play. Still others feel that such house rules amount to altering the game itself and maintain that the game should be played in its "pure" form. But how do the game designers themselves feel about this issue? Legitimate tactics or sleaze? We put the question to a number of prominent game developers and designers from around the wargame community to get their point of view. Here are what the experts had to say. I guess the short answer is yes they should be allowed to do anything allowed by the game rules. With that being said I also feel that agreed upon house rules should also be allowed for when loopholes are found. My feeling is that gamers always have different views and the true designer’s ideas may not be fully understood. I wouldn’t say it’s really "unsportsmanlike" as much as it is "gamey" which is more misplaying the game within the rules. I feel that gamey rules should be corrected by the designer. —David Heath, President Matrix Games. What an interesting debate. As a game designer, it is very difficult to anticipate every move a gamer will make. But, that is our job – an almost impossible task. It is my premise that a game that allows a player to do such things, is somewhat flawed. This is something that a designer should anticipate. Now having said that, if these types of situations do occur in a game (as they almost always will) then a gamer that takes advantage of them, is cheating – going against the designer’s intent. However, as in the instance of driving a truck into armor to slow the advance, you should look at what that army’s philosophy is. It wouldn’t be a stretch to think the Japanese of WWII would do such a thing, or some of the countries in the Middle East of today. However, to have US units use this tactic would be not make sense, would it? This I would consider to be cheating.—Tim Brooks, President Shrapnel Games. My general view is that a customer’s dollars entitle him to play [TacOps4] any way that he likes when in a purely solitaire situation. Things only get complicated when other humans are involved, such as a competitive ladder, a two player game, or a group game. In those cases the participants should adhere to guidelines established in advance by the majority of that group. I would suggest that carrying "historical fashion" to an extreme level is bad for the hobby. Only the elite historical gamers are likely to know enough about a given period to play perfectly historically and that discourages everyone else from joining in.—Major I.L. Holdridge, USMC (ret), TacOps Developer. I think most wargamers are more interested in the historical representation of a game rather than the raw win/lose attributes. It is almost impossible to code against every possible infraction of what could be considered bad play. One way I talk about this is about a guy who takes a pencil, shoves it up his nose, and then says what a stupid pencil you have designed. Yes, you could design a pencil that this couldn’t be done with, but what’s the point? There will always be some who take advantage of every loophole in the game rules to get the maximum advantage, but these players will eventually have trouble finding anyone who wants to play with them. The historical representation is what most wargamers are after and they will try to achieve that even if it means they are not playing as competitively as possible.—John Tiller, Developer of Panzer Campaigns and Squad Battles. Since no one can enforce morality in life, much less a game, it is foolish to expect it of game players. Obviously, one person’s idea of what is "right" is going to vary from others when addressing the entire spectrum of game players. The answer to this dilemma is to develop a game thoroughly to avoid mechanics that lend themselves to such abuse and change the design accordingly. Sadly, few games receive this kind of thorough development by a skilled developer.—Don Greenwood, President Boardgame Players Association. I’m firmly entrenched in the camp of people using their units in a historical fashion in a wargame, be it computer or board. I don’t much care for playing people that try every bogus/sleaze tactic they know just to win. An example in ASL is parking vehicles in Bypass movement "in" a woods hex which then prevents enemy infantry actually in the woods from moving away. Well, that’s my opinion, and (as the song says) I’m sticking to it. —Charlie Kibler, BreakAway Games, Multi-Man Publishing. Well it’s a great question Don…here is my very strong point of view on it. Bottom Line: I strongly dislike when people do things in games just "cause you can" versus whether it is in keeping with the spirit of the game. In real life the people who do things because they can – vs. doing what’s proper – are the reason laws are so complex and lawyers are rich. I definitely consider it unsportsmanlike conduct in games and in life to justify doing something just because there is no rule (if it’s a game) or no law (if it’s real life). Those people are free to make their decisions, but I won’t play with ‘em or work with ‘em. Life’s too short! I also have a suspicion that those who do whatever they can are more interested in winning versus ENJOYING an experience. I like to win too…but I like the whole experience that playing the games offer. Taking shortcuts destroys the experience.—Eric Weider, Publisher of Armchair General Magazine. I’m sure that, if pushed, I could argue both sides of the coin on this one . . . although I’m not sure I would play more than once with someone who felt that he so desperately had to "win" at a boardgame that it meant pushing the envelope of the rules and running way outside the borders of Reality. Others, to be sure, feel that Winning is Everything. It isn’t, but I doubt I can convince them otherwise.—Richard Berg, GMT Games. That’s an easy question… NO! No matter how hard you try to design/program an air-tight game, these loopholes often occur. They are not part of the design. The goal in creating a good wargame is to create a plausible simulation of war. When designing a game there is always conflict between adding detail (realism) and creating abstraction (playability). It only makes sense that anomalies are less likely to occur in simpler games. Therefore, everyone (players and designers both) should expect that anomalies will exist in any wargame of substance. However, just because there is a weakness in the design doesn’t mean that players should take advantage of it. Why play a "realistic" simulation if your approach to winning is to conduct unrealistic actions? When I play a game, I don’t expect it to be perfect. Therefore I expect all players, including myself, to play in a reasonable fashion. If the planned action violates an acceptable expectation of realistic behavior, then don’t take that action. I love to win and hate to lose, but most importantly I want to be mentally challenged and have fun. I really believe the correct way to approach playing any wargame is to focus on "how you played the game" rather than whether you win or lose. Even the best military commanders lose and have lost major battles. I would rather lose to a superior opponent who made better decisions and could better visualize the battle than me, even if I played my personal best, than win any victory where I used the anomalies of the game to beat my opponent. The only time I guess I could accept using the recognized game weakness against an opponent would be if all participants knew and agreed of its potential use before they started the game. However, having said that I would opt out if someone told me that they intended to do so.—Jim Lunsford, LTC U.S. Army (ret), Decisive Action Developer. I prefer game setup to be historically accurate, with the players choosing their own strategy. The strategy can be based on history, or their own creative ideas. The intent of the game is to model history such that choosing the historical strategy and moves will result in the historical results, or as close as possible. Choosing an alternate strategy should give results that would have happened if that strategy had been historically chosen. Player creativity should be spent on selecting military strategy, not finding ways to alter the model to cheat the system. Besting your opponent at military strategy is a lot more satisfying than besting your opponent at finding loopholes in game software.—Ron Dockal, Schwerpunkt Games, Developer of Russo-German War and Anglo-German War. Yeah, I know this question well since I came up against it I don’t know how many times with Point of Attack 2. In the end I focused on the idea players themselves would know when they “won”, and would be more interested in trying out real tactics than doing “unrealistic” things. However, I’m all about experimentation. Just because no one has ever done something against doctrine or wisdom, doesn’t mean that someone couldn’t, or wouldn’t do it. Heck, sometimes it’s the unexpected things that pay the big dividends. Personally, I feel that if the game system is based on sound principles, and if the actions a player takes could actually be made in real life, no matter how insane they seem, and if those actions result in realistic results within the game system, then I think they are perfectly acceptable. The truck example may or may not fall into that category. In reality the trucks are going to be wiped out before they ever get near the tanks, and the delay and distraction to the tanks would likely be minimal. However, if the trucks are on a narrow road or bridge and block it, or if start burning and create a smoke screen.. well.. then those are things with real effects on the tanks and other units.. and they might very well be valid tactics in the real life situations. What I don’t agree with are actions that are intended to exploit limitations in the system, or cause an obviously unnatural result. Blocking an entry hex definitely falls into this category unless there is a good reason why blocking it really would cause the reinforcements not to arrive beyond just because the game map ended there. Once a game gets to that level of manipulation, it is not being recreating in a realistic way – which is why I play these games in the first place. But, that’s just my opinion. I know that lots of people are perfectly happy to play with varying amounts of “rules lawyering”, so I think the key is to find opponents that are close to your wavelength. In a situation where that really isn’t possible, a tournament, for example, I think you’ve got to go with the game system as the final arbiter and if somebody finds a way to exploit it, well, then that’s the way it has to be. Otherwise you’d have to have a third party act as a judge.. and that tends to lead to all sorts of complications and confusion about what is acceptable or not (and in my experience fourth and fifth parties often soon become involved.—Scott Hamilton, President HPS. The short answer is that players should agree on what kind of game play they want before they start, and seek out players with similar intrests. But that is also the easy answer. The benefit of the wargame community over the RTS or FPS community is that it is populated almost exclusively by grown-ups. The vast majority are enthusiasts about their particular period of interest, and a large subset are fanatics (THE GROGNARDS). They willingly forego the flashy graphics and "bells and whistles" of mass-market RTSs for ultra-realistic simulation of warfare. It has been my experience in multi-player wargames that a good conversation about the goals for the game, and a discussion of what is "out of bounds," can increase the enjoyment for all of the players involved. For instance, I was playing BCT Commander against a player who will remain nameless (not to protect his innocence, but because he, literally, BEAT ME AT MY OWN GAME). It was a replication of a fight from Desert Storm and I was playing the Iraqis. Now, BCT Commander (and its successor, Armored Task Force), does not prevent a player from moving his forces outside his boundaries. At one point, my opponent moved his forces outside of his unit boundaries to bypass my obstacle belt. I protested, and we stopped and had a conversation about the move. We decided, because I did not have the obstacles to replicate my adjacent unit’s obstacles (and because he took pity on me) that the move would not be allowed. So we put our forces in hold fire, he pulled back to within his boundaries, and, when he was done, he went back to kicking my butt. There is a place for "playing the game," that is, sitting on respawn or reinforcement points, flooding the enemy with unimportant units to tie him up, and the like. That’s the realm of the RTS, and it can be loads of fun in its own right. But if you’re playing a serious simulation of historical events, you and your opponent should make a serious effort to replicate historical conditions. In a really good, open, freeform wargame, the designer can’t possibly think of every single situation that two or more human beings might get into. The players have to fill in the gaps. And, what if your opponent can’t be a grown-up? That’s a WHOLE other conversation.—Pat Proctor, President Prosim. I think unsportsmanlike conduct applies to both of your examples, though in those cases it reflects as well on the designer as the perpetrator. The late Sam Ervin, of Watergate fame, used to say that the measure of a law isn’t what a good judge will do with it, so much as what a bad judge will. A designer has to look out for the tricks and gamesmanship of the "bad judges" in the community, and formulate his rules accordingly. I have one specific peeve too, one that has to do with conduct more than gamey strategies. It’s a player who is a stickler for the "You took your hand off the counter, so you can’t change your mind" convention. It’s not right to allow a player to go back five moves and redo all of them, but if he moves a stack and says "Whoops," let him rethink. Secondarily, I can’t stand slow movers. Deliberation is good; making your opponents and allies nuts through a glacial pace is not.—Jim Werbaneth, Line of Departure. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the developers, designers and publishers who took the time to contribute to this article. You can join an ongoing debate on this article right here.

did the DC provide any more info on their breakdown of classifications? something like...manueverability = 50%, firepower = 25% and armor = 25% of score

I installed catalyst 4.8 in late September. However, I did not check if CMBB worked until early October after I installed Windows SP2. I assume it was the catalyst drivers and NOT Windows SP2 that fixed the problem.

hey! I got an ATI Radeon pro 256 card a few months ago. After installing the card CMBB moved at a snails pace! After I updated the drivers to catalyst 4.8 the game works fine. I have no problem with fog but didn't check it before the catalyst driver upgrade. Maybe trying the latest drivers will help? :confused: good luck!

folks always hypothesize how germany could have won the war. How about a thread asking how we could have defeated germany earlier than May 1945? invade France in 1943? More lendlease for Russia? Better effort in N. Africa/Italy? support of Operation:Market Garden etc. please post your opinions

CMBB would not run properly on my computer(extremely sluggish frame rate and mouse controls!) and it was most likely due to the Radeon video card. However, after I installed the Service Pack 2 last night for my Windows XP home OS and now CMBB runs smoothly with no problems!

good points!

Yeah, I think you are screwed at this point unless ATI fixes the problem. I just bought a new rig that came with the Radeon 9800XT and CMBB runs horribly using the latest drivers (4.6? that's what I have)! I may have to go back to my Geforce2 card! time to bug ATI!

ditto! ha ha I was always disdainful of FPS games but now I spend most of my time with BF1942! Gosh! who woulda thunk it!

Congatulations!! I finally received my copy of CMPT (Combat Mission: Pacific Theater)...only available to the first 1000 members of The Proving Ground! [ed. note: a joke]

No problem with the review! I appreciate you putting in time with the battle. It's like taking medicine...it may sting a bit but one is better off in the long run. I know I don't play CMBB/CMBO as much as I should so I'm sure my battles are not as finely-tuned as some of you vets. I hear ya about having a life...the closest i've come to CMBB in the past two months has been this forum! It sounds like you have some huge battles out on the net! I'll probably pass on them b/c I gravitate towards small battles b/c of my lack of playing time. Make some NOISE when you return. In the meantime, I'm sure the folks here will keep your panther/sherman/T-34 fully-armed, fueled and ready for deployment!

And I also thanks Spookster for reviewing (quite critically and harshly! ) my battle "Assault Guns Forward!" I hope to revise the battle in the near future after a few more reviews (HINT HINT to other CMBB players to review battle) You must be one of the best CMBB players on the scene because of your victory. Other players of this battle haven't had it so easy. I stated the better player should take the German side and you took the Russian! I shudder to think there is someone playing with even better skills than you (but he seems to have left his tactical-skill hat at the door in your battle! ) Do you have battles at The Scenario Depot? In your spare time you need to create battles. Since you review many many battles you must show us, and not just tell us, how it needs to be done.

Perhaps my armchair colonel comment was a bit brash, but the story sounds just too ludicrous: they have an enstranged enemy tank crushing panzers and taking out a handful of AT guns. Yet the Germans manage to sneak close enough to the tank to set mines under it, but somehow fail the utilize this amazing window of opportunity. The tank is besieged for "a couple of days", which means that the tank crew would be by then suffering from serious sleep deprivation. And finally when the tank is shelled with an '88, it seems to possess both incredible armor tensile strength and crew tenacity. This could be an isolated example of a particularly fanatic tank crew, but I'm not sure. </font>