c3k

...and that man behind you in the bus thinks it was the same battle he was in.

Exciting times! Tomorrow, today will seem like yesterday.

Quick, dirty, fun! This is a great example of why light tanks sound so good on paper and on recce theory, but don't do so well when they meet MBT's or other main forces, and don't have heavier weapons to back them up. Ow. Thanks for taking the time to post a great AAR. Ken

Well, I have one machine with SIX cores (thppt to you!) and I use it for my CM fix. Yeah, "six for the fix", baby. I run SIX separate instances of CM. I load the same savegame into each. I watch each of SIX replays. Whichever outcome I like best, I save. That's the file I load as a savegame for the NEXT turn. I've found that my play seems to've improved by...wait for it...SIX times! So, multi-core DOES improve your CM experience. Ken "six tongues in cheek"

Morale and leadership: do NOT try to think in terms of red and black CMx1 lines. Instead, think about how the men would react on the battlefield. Is that platoon hq close to them? Can they see and hear their commander? The closer, the better. Don't "game" it, "live" it.

And do we all know why Steve will never, ever, ever see "Titanic"? That's right: because he's "the king of the world!!!" (Shh. This is when we find out that he secretly watched it one night, instead of making more game code. ) Ken Edited: Gasp. Upon reading that, it sounds like pandering drivel. It's meant to poke fun at the man. Er, "da man". Crap. Now I'll be labelled a fanboi. Sigh.

Steve, can we all quote you on this when the BF.C Hegemony seeks to expand its (evil) corporate influence into every facet of life in 2050?

About the only things I consider gamey are opening turn bombardments on the enemy's setup positions or using known asymmetries or flaws to benefit yourself. Last turn rush? Well, if it's a touch objective and I can't keep you out, then you win. If it's a hold objective, well, come and take it from me. But, that's my own opinion. As stated, I will play that way but won't assume anyone else will unless we coordinate it beforehand.

Kuderian, Nicely done. But, um, can we please start a different thread for this? I was =hoping= to see more of the AAR. Ken

I think, by horribly unbalanced, he stated "probably" as a conditional and referenced the ones created out of premade campaigns designed to be played vs. the AI and minorly tweaked to be H2H. I agree. If a solo campaign has the player attacking the AI 4 times, then the balance can be tweaked to ensure the player has something left by the 4th battle. Likewise, the AI forces can be setup to offer a certain level of resistance. However, if you substitute a human player for the AI, then you'd be hardpressed to predict how the battle will unfold. I can program the AI to ALWAYS try a right flank counterattack in battle 1. However, the human player who substitutes for the AI may, instead, just hunker down and preserve his forces for the NEXT battle. In this manner, any perturbation in the balance and outcome of an early battle creates waves in subsequent battles. There's a feedback loop; success breeds overwhelming forces which create more success. Losses early on make it more difficult to preserve forces in later battles which creates more losses. Also, in real life, the player may say, "whoa, I've taken too many hits to continue attacking, I'm going to call a halt", the campaign will dictate that the player must attack. It can be done (balancing), but not if the start point is a solo campaign and the tweaks are quick and dirty. My .02 only. Ken

Oh, sure. Make fun of the exhausted beta tester. Well, beta-fu on you! Because of this relentless taunting, I've just told Steve to REMOVE all traces of frogmen, to include limpet mines, rebreathers, spotting based on bubble trails, "fish in the facemask startle effect", underwater shockwave wounding mechanism, spear gun fights, water in the barrel pressure spikes, and other cool things too cool to mention anymore. Yeah, THAT'S what's been taking up months of time. Now it's all flushed down the drain. Hope you mean people are happy now. Where's my ball? I want to go home now... (Friggin' tease ME! I'll show them. Mutter, mutter, mumber...) Ken (tongue in cheek for any extra-terrestrials who don't understand human humor) (Oh, a P.S. to THAT^^^ Purely in jest. In fact, my tongue in cheek comment, was, itself, tongue in cheeks. Which brings up the question of how many tongues can fit in a cheek? But we digress...)

Nothing to see here. Move along. NO a beta tester did NOT post something in the open forum he shouldn't have. Whooo, don't know where you got that one. Move along.

It seems there is a misunderstanding between a PATCH and an UPGRADE. Patches, as I understand it, will be FREE. However, patches will not be produced in perpetuity. Once BF.C determines that the biggest bugs are squashed and that most concerns are addressed and that a NEW game/engine is available for the same combat simulation time/space, then the patches will come to an end for that game. (As I understand it.) So, your CMBN will always work. It just won't keep getting better and better. Ken

I"m all for it! The other option is multiple AI plans, with different reinforcements. (It is more limited, but there it is.)

My keyboard stops at F11...

I have always used the method Baneman described. It has allowed me to zoom in an a shell being ejected from a rifle such that the cartridge filled my entire 24" screen. Then I zoomed out, clicked up, and I could see every unit in my battalion and all known enemy units in an area measuring several square kilometers. If that's bad camera control, I can't wait to see the good stuff. Ken

I _think_ Iron was introduced due to the popularity of some self-imposed PBEM restrictions. Keeping your view at the lowest level and only cycling +/- through your units is a pretty tough "iron man" approach to playing. You can tilt and pan the camera from the unit's position, but you are not allowed to move the camera position. Using this approach, you may inflict more friendly casualties, your timing will be off, coordination between out of LOS/out of command units will really be off, and you will have little idea of what's going on beyond your immediate bocage, bush, room, or wall. Iron supports that mode of play. It takes some voluntary actions on the player's part. Using free camera with Iron is about the same as Elite. It does, however, show how your units may suffer a lower morale (global morale?) due to a sense of isolation. (If your squad doesn't know that friendlies are all around them, their morale _should_ be more fragile. Iron mode shows that sense of isolation. Elite, etc., do not.) Ken

Procrustean, FTW! Now, be honest: how long has that thesaurus sat open to that page next to your monitor while you just waited to spring that word out into a thread?

Why hasn't anyone brought up the portrait of Major Blaskovitch (?) from the Doom series? C'mon, a progressively bloodier visage as damage (or injuries or morale) takes effect would be fun to watch.

I see a LOT of potential problems with this desired simulation. I understand the real life issues a dead/wounded crewmember could present, but we don't have player tools to simulate a lot of the actions that could or should be taken in a vehicle with casualties. Ken

Bah! Your PURPOSE "commander" is to COMMAND, not to idle away the time. Troops are there to ATTACK. The best defense is an ATTACK! The best attack is a BIGGER attack! The key to victory is willpower. By shoving new troops on the attack over the bodies of their dead comrades you will display to the enemy commander how your willpower cannot be broken. Victory will be yours if you ATTACK. Ken

I play IRON. I used to play ELITE. In WeGo.

Vanir Ausf B has done some yoeman's work researching and testing this issue.

Sweet!!! (padding)

They are vineyards.