Jump to content

Patrocles

Members
  • Posts

    325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Patrocles

  1. Originally posted by GJK:

    Yes, a few people are linking their scenario's from the SD to TPG. Not a problem, but keep in mind that eventually you'll want to move your scenario up to the SD and off of TPG, since we're not a permanent archival for scenario's (just a playtesting area). The main reason for this is that I don't want to compete with the SD in any way, I value Keith's work too much. I just want to help enhance it by giving scenario designer's a place to upload their scenario temporarily for mass distribution during playtesting.

    Had fun with this scenario, very good job again!

    Thanks for the info! I emailed the battle to The Scenario Depot at the same time (~Dec. 12) but it hasn't been posted as of this morning. Once I hear or see that the Battle is posted at TSD I will remove the link.

    -Patrick

  2. Originally posted by GJK:

    There is a "Review" section at the bottom of each scenario listing. That is more or less a note to others letting them know how the play was and helps people determine if it's a scenario that they want to playtest or not.

    When a scenario is uploaded, a discussion "thread" is automatically created for that scenario and that is where detailed discussions about it take place, AAR's, spoilers, etc. The goal is to have the scenario's author join that discussion so that he can give and get feedback from people currently playing. You'll find far more "discussions" going on for scenarios than you will reviews. Mainly because we're all playing them PBEM mostly and as you know, those can take a while. It's kind of neat to discuss the scenario as the turns are progressing.

    That's the idea at least. As I always post there, I'm open for any suggestions that anyone has and if we come to an agreement on a change, I'll get to work on implementing it right away.

    Thanks for joining, look forward to reading some of your feedback!

    Wow! I like the idea of a discussion thread at TPG for submitted battles. I will make changes once a few recommendation are given and then repost to TPG and SD (assuming I can overwrite my previous version...is that possible at TPG and SD?)
  3. I submitted my first battle design titled "Assault Guns Forward!" to The Proving Grounds and The Scenario Depot.

    I couldn't find a spot on the submission form for uploading my battle to teh scenario depot(did I miss something?)...so I ended up emailing the site and including my battle as an attachment.

    A colleague and I playtested the battle and had some fun matches! However, we are both 'conscript level' CMBB players so I'm sure we are not utilizing optimum tactics.

    Try it out and let me know what you think!

  4. Originally posted by redwolf:

    You might try this:

    First set area fire where you see the "lost unit" marker

    Then set a cover arc over the area where it may appear while retreating. But the cover arc should not include the area fire point.

    If it allows you to do that I think it is likely to change to a target in the cover arc, ignoring the previous order. Let us know how it goes.

    Your idea sounds brilliant!
  5. I had the Panzer IV tank area fire at soviet icon (behind a stone wall) in hopes of suppressing the once visible soviet squad. During the turn the Squad reappeared about 50m behind the wall and was seen to retreat. My Panzer IV continued to area fire at my original designated point. I read in the book that the Area Fire can suppress units over a larger area and I assume this is what the tank was doing to the soviet squad. But it would have been nice if the Panzer IV switched back to direct fire at the retreating soviet squad in the hope of inflicting casaulties. smile.gif

    Is there any way to have a tank "monitor" a target even when it disappears and reappears? Is this idea too powerful (all-knowing player stuff)?

  6. Originally posted by Andreas:

    Briefing content is something I am still working on. While I have never thought of balancing out intel against forces, I think that is quite an interesting idea, and could work quite well.

    Maybe difficult to pull off reliably though, since scenarios are played by players of varying ability, and this basically adds another level of complexity.

    Good point! The last serious wargame I played was the Advanced Squad Leader. I got used to merely looking at the scenario OOB to determine what forces I was up against...guess I need a bit of weaning from that aspect! smile.gif

    (Though I did manage to wrangle two ASL friends for a few games of Double-blind ASL! what a blast.)

    I recall looking at some army manuals with examples of briefings for battle planning. These enemy intel straddled the line well usually saying, "expect 2-3 platoons of heavy enemy armor supported by engineers at company strength..." etc.

  7. Originally posted by GJK:

    Hi Patrocles,

    If you need some beta testers for your scenarios, your more than welcomed to upload them to The Proving Grounds (link in sig below). We have about 100 scenarios now in various stages of beta testing, all with feedback for the author or are currently being played by one or more of the 456 members of the site. Once you upload your scenario(s), a discussion area devoted just to your scenario will be set up so that us playtesters can go over AAR's and ask questions of you or give comments.

    Hope to see you there!

    The Proving Grounds sounds Amazing and intimidating! I'll drop them off as soon as I think they are done! Thanks for the info.
  8. Originally posted by dizee:

    few facts bout those figures.....

    idd many german pow´s fell victime to instant acts of revenge after their capture. shot, beaten etc that was nothing realy special.

    the two main reasons for this low number of returned prisioners where the already bad shape of the germans in the kessel when 6th army surrendered, and the general bad suppliesitiuation in whole of russia during those month. a average german pow wouldnt receive more food than the average soviet peasant.

    That would explain why so few survived. Did the filmmakers cover this in the documentary?
  9. From the Wargamer site

    In Stores : November Release for Afrika Korps Likely

    Posted by Chris 'Pie4Foo' Abele @ 17:27

    Indirect comments from both CDV and Battlefront indicate a November release is likely for both US and European customers.

    Gaming news site Blue's News highlighted a posting from a CDV representative revealing the German publisher's plans to release Combat Mission: Afrika Korps (after action review) to Europe in late November. CDV owns the rights to publish Battlefront.com's titles in the European market, including the Combat Mission series of 3D, turn-based World War II wargames. In addition to this revelation, Battlefront seems to be hinting at its plans to release Afrika Korps in North America on or around November 15th. As part of their announcement of a new Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord and Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin combo pack earlier this week, Battlefront revealed a new combo pack would become available on November 15th containing both Barborossa to Berlin and Afrika Korps. To date, Afrika Korps has not yet gone on sale but will likely only be available to North American customers via web orders through Battlefront.com.

  10. Originally posted by Martyr:

    The film includes interviews with survivors (civilians and soldiers alike), and the review mentions that some Germans commented on the basically decent treatment they received from their Russian captors. That's a sentiment I wouldn't have expected after the fierce fighting on the campaign.

    Has anyone here see the film?

    thanks for the info! This documentary sounds worthy of viewing.

    I, too, am surprised by the comment about the Germans who comment on the decent treatment they received as POWs. I thought I read somewhere that out of ~150,000 prisoners only a small fraction ~5000 survived the POW camps. Does anyone know anything about this?

  11. Originally posted by Chelco:

    There are some engagements in CMBO that are labelled as "tiny". They ussually span no more than 15 turns and a limited amount of units.

    I would like to thank the developers and comunity authors for them. I have limited time to play CMBO (ussually at night, when wife and kids are sleeping) and I cannot go to bed with a big battle still to be resolved. It's beyond me, I keep thinking how to defeat the enemy and cannot sleep.

    When I finish my battle I go to the balcony and smoke a well deserved cigarette, just to think about the past victory or defeat.

    So here goes a big thanks for having my time schedule on mind. :D

    A busy parent.

    Hear hear!! I, too, prefer the small battles (low unit numbers)!

    I appreciate the points being listed on the CMBB battles.

    Thanks for the info.

  12. Originally posted by REVS:

    Just made my worst mistake in CMBB. My Green T34-85 has spotted a hull down STGIII and they start firing at each other. First two shots from both combatants miss. Game turn ends.

    He's hull down, I'm not. Don't fancy my chances of hitting him first with a 34% hit chance. I'm a bit too much on top of a rise, so not being all that familiar with 'seek hull down' I order the T34 to 'seek hull down' about 5-10 metres further back, expecting him to reverse back slightly.

    But no, being a good computer-brained tank driver, he says "OK, I'll just spin on my axis, expose my butt to that STGIII that's 536 metres away and firing constantly. Then I'll drive down the five metres you requested, spin again, and then I'll start firing again. I'm sure he won't hit me in the meantime."

    This is easily, by a very long distance, the dumbest thing I've done so far in CMBB.

    Anyone care to share an even dumber piece of gaming, or am I the current record-holder?

    If this is your WORST mistake in CMBB you must have been born with a copy of an army tactical instruction manual! WTG smile.gif
×
×
  • Create New...