Soddball

I'm playing it now TCP/IP after an afternoon in the pubb :mad: :mad: :mad:

It's a juvenile goat, isn't it?

Sent, you crazy bucket of biscuits. :mad: :mad:

CrowBait and Axeasillyquestion - if you could both write an AAR for Ice Cold in Avnavodsk, telling me what sucked and what didn't, I can release it onto an unsuspecting public. :mad: :mad: :mad:

More angry than Inferno?</font>

More angry than Inferno?? :mad: :mad: :mad: I ought to get round to doing another Cheery Waffles scenario, too. :mad: At the moment I have three scenarios and a campaign in the pipeline, oh, and I've just got Civ 3 - Conquests so my havingfunlife is right out the window. The sacrifices I make for you turdburglers. :mad:

Because: 1) The file you sent said it was for 'A Different Version' - so I asked you to remake the turn and resend it since there is some funny corruptication. :mad: :mad: 2) The file you sent went to the wrong email address, the one which gets 100 junk messages a day and which all my CM:AK turns get filtered as junk. Duh. :mad: :mad: :mad: Just use the 'gotadsl.co.uk' one please. :mad:

Bore Badly! - just the Maggot. How's about a spot of playtesting for me? :mad: :mad:

Doesn't look like it. I am waiting here for mine and have NUFFINK. I have a new scenario ready for playing - Bidberg Heights. Total 5,000 points on an 880m x 800m map (approx) and 24 turns. It's jolly good fun. Any takers for a quick test before I release it to The Scenario Depot?

Well this year in old IngoLand we had a long, dry summer which gave us a very pretty autumn. Normally we have a relatively wet summer and the leaves just slump off the trees around about September. France is pretty similar - don't know about Italy but having been to Corfu (which is the same rocky, dry scrubbyness as southern Italy) I doubt that there are great swathes of red and gold oak trees.

There's the pot calling the kettle black! Not only did we abandon our CMBB game because you couldn't keep up with the patches, but I suppose the demo has bored you by now as I am still waiting for a turn. </font>

Shouldn't the title be "The People Demand Fewer Demands....."? Otherise it's Max Suckage language abuse. Still, I wouldn't expect anything else from Seanachai, who couldn't send a fecking turn if his life depended on it!! :mad:

How are all you tossmuppets doing on Inferno??? Enough hot, bitter, angry molten TNT in it for you? :mad: :mad: :mad:

Do you actually play CM, or are you just hanging around here like a kiddyfiddler outside the gates of a school?

No new patch for CM:BB. No T-28s. No functional multi-turret tanks in CM:BB.

You are insane. :eek: Michael </font>

There might be a bit more activity if you were to send a working turn to the right email address. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Go away, Gaylord.

I think it's the time it takes to design as much as the play time. I'm currently building a campaign which is 15 battles of (probably) 40 turns apiece, on an 8km x 3.5km map, with forces totalling 60,000 points. At present, I've got the map's basic design in place, have completed around 1/3 of it, and have the initial forces selected. and roughly placed. That's after 60 hours of work. My estimate is that it'll be finished after about 250 hours of design and it won't ever be possible to playtest it for 'balance'. 250 hours is a huge time investment on a single campaign or scenario. I like the longer battles, but balance is hard to achieve. I only released one CM:BO scenario - Chalon sur Rhone - which was over 60 turns, but I playtested it for about 6 weeks before I released it to get as good a balance as possible. The big scenarios and ops take a huge amount of time investment, so I don't think what you're seeing is a lack of interest in the bigger scenarios and ops. Building a 2km x 2km map takes four times longer than building a 1km x 1km map.

Axe2121 - you worthless pavement scraping. Not only do you send the turn to the wrong email address, you send it for the wrong game!!! Paula - give your stupid hubby a cuff round the back of the head from me! :mad:

April 4th.

My gut feeling on this is that long-range optics aren't modelled well. I don't de My feelings on this were first formed when playing that CM:BB scenario where you are fighting with Nashorns behind a ridge against IS-2s about 2km away. 2km is a relatively long range but the Nashorns were dead meat in that battle - partly, perhaps, through borg spotting, with 3 or 4 IS-2s targetting the Nashorn, but their precision in combat really was diabolical. My feelings have also been confirmed trying to use 88mm Flak against Matildas in the desert. Try as I might, I can't get any kind of reliable precision from those guns.

Ditto on the captured stuff - I think it's underutilised. However, this is not, technically a 'bug' although IMO it's an oversight. If it were just a matter of "Hey guys, we missed out the Panzer 42MQZ9/D32 48mm with tungsten, load it in the tank database" then I don't think this would be an issue but from what BFC have said I get the impression that they've had to use a shoehorn to lever some of the tanks in here and their biggest stumbling block has been the lack of modularity of the coding engine - so my suspicion is no more vehicles.

Same goes for British forces - no AT weapons of any kind for standard soldiers as far as I can see. No gammon bombs, molotovs or whatever. Tiresome, but there we go. And I know it's not a bug, but man - I miss the Cromwell.

I rode your mamma like the dog-meat knacker-fodder who lost the last Grand National. Scummonkey. :mad: :mad: </font>