Deathdealer

Option a is fine with me as good scenarios are hard to come by but as you spoke so highly on those I'll do 'em... 7 fights... mmm, looks like I need to drop some other games depending on the rate we start. At some time in history I did have about 25-30 PBEMs going on at the same time but handling of them was somewhat time consuming. I sure wouldn't mind some cheerleaders help me in the forthcoming fights ... but point system is all the same for me as I mentioned above. As this is a competition for everybody to marvel at I suppose we need some kind of rating system LOL

Scenarios would get us rid of choosing troops and that is more than fun too. Plain QBs no way, too much strange terrain but 3rd mate setting fight would be great. And I agree with Craig seeing me too much - I'm pretty tired against his troopies too Fionn, I'm with you man... wouldn't mind some cheerleaders boosting my morale. But RL (work mostly) is at the moment most inconvinient hindrance to playing. In couple of years I've paid all my loans and I have my own flat so I do seriously consider CM professionalism

Hi fellow CMers... I just heard about this Titans tourney and it sure sounds like good lessons for every participant. At the moment I'm top Warfere HQ player but that's because of few ops and lots of games. Some thoughts about the whole idea... I consider myself pretty ok player ie I've got some nice wins and some sore losses too but that's what one gets when one puts ones nose into games . What's more important is I DO PLAY FOR FUN ie to win opponents force and not so much for those mostly unavoidable flags. I think my former opponents can agree to that. As I understand this is exactly what good chap Fionn means. About battles: I'd say ME QBs on premade map without participitans seeing it. Rather given some vague info about it just like CM QBs (weather should be random) - that should give players their best chances to "optimize" and get their "best" tools into play. There shouldn't be too many flags, maybe some maps shouldn't have those at all. Rules should be negotiated among opponents but I think only Scipios artillery rules are reasonable here. I don't think we'll see KingTigers rolling to meet SuperPershings all the time I'd be honored to get into this tourney as I haven't played anybody else but Craig that have been mentioned here so new "faces" on the field are always welcome. Of course Scipio is just as good as I am so this is still speculative me getting into playing. Just some thoughts... * eh, forgot the most important thing (for me at least). Scoring... I don't care about scoring at all as I try to get more from playing than just this or that kind of score. I'll check the AARs as those give more to me than anything else [ June 04, 2002, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Deathdealer ]

DF is very nice and quick way to blow bridges. Light bridge can be blown away with about 12 75mm hits while stone bridge takes about 25 75mm hits. Haven't tested on high bridges but I suppose those would take little more. As someone said earlier bridges are modelled just like buildings. So bigger the gun (blast value) the quicker it's in demolition work... One bad thing is enemy will hear the unit firing at the bridge so be careful with what you do the trick. Guns will be revealed very easily this way so tanks prevail in this duty. Done some testes about this so there you have it . [ March 04, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Deathdealer ]

This is good news - I was pretty sure it would come up in random maps discussions sooner or later but didn't find any references before. :confused:

Is this idea just plain stupid or has it been discussed earlier? Funny that what is really important to me doesn't ring a bell with anyone else... Naah - I've always been a loner.

Hi everybody I haven't found topics on this one but I discussed a while ago about it. What I really like to see in CM2 would be the ability to choose the shape of map for QBs. Wide, square or deep - and voila we have a lot more things to consider. The shape of map isn't a big issue in small QBs 'cause square is fine there but with larger map this gets really annoying to get wider and wider maps - no real concentrations of important places (VLs). Also maybe then VLs would get located in depth - now they are generally just side by side. Also setting those VLs up should get better: i don't think it wouldn't be so difficult to get random maps where VLs would be clustered more to important places - road junctions, hills, villages... This importance should be randomized a little so as not to get everytime 'attack that hill' but sometimes crossroads would be target and attacker should decide for ones own sake whether to target overlooking hill too or not. Here also it could be proposed to have bigger VLs in the middle surrounded with few smaller ones in a 'circle'. Amount of these places would naturally depend on the size of the battle. I would really love to see QB against AI in deep map where would be a small VL on small hill in the middle, another small VL on crossroads behind it and finally small village where the road leads and there a couple of big VLs in the middle and a few smaller ones next to those... Just my thoughts but quite natural. Cheers!!!

Hi I talked about this with some guys a while ago but maybe it got lost somewhere... Anyway 'my' idea was that with CM2 we should be given a choise (in QBs) to choose the shape of the map ie. wide as now but also square and what's more important the deep map. This should be easy and it would give right away new choices to think about in QBs. Any comments?

About troops riding a tank... I once took Sherman out with PzIV - Sherman blew up with a 12 man squad with it. No survivors - it sure had a shock effect on my opponent... he very quickly got his inf running away from those Shermans... As a side note after fight I had lost one PzIV and another immobilized but opponent had lost 7 Shermans and 2 immobilized plus 3 stuarts burning. Not a bad trade...

I meant that this way VL would not be taken with only one half-squad because in end calculation bunker had some 'value' on that VL. Exact values would be quite difficult to say without heavy thinking. Of course bunker should have ammo... But yes many things to consider.

I'm just in ME QB and I had 'warm' welcome to other guy - I had three PzIVJs waiting down a hill when there came Shermans in to my tanks view - in next two rounds I got four of them and lost one of my own (range like 200m). It was very nice to get 'belly-shots' on them - anyway one of Sherman lightened up totally and had one 12 man group on board: all were killed instantly! Lucky for me he negleted inf advance totally and I got some important shot 'cheaply'...

Stuff to see in CM2? I would really like to have ability to choose the shape of map in QBs - square, wide or deep. That would give immediately new things to think about. Also VLs locating should be 'sharpened' - the routine to calculate 'important' places on the map. It should be little random - sometimes it would be valley or hill or road jucture etc. When map gets bigger there should be a few/several locations like that - also it would make sense to have bigger VL in the middle of one such VL surrounded with a couple or few smaller ones. In the end result calculations troops with ammo should have 'weight' - thus removing crews holding VLs. And type of troop/APC/AFV should have value on counting which side has particular VL. There could maybe be total control = 4 or more value in VL area, partial control = 2 to 4 value in VL area and no control = less than 2 value compared to opponents troops in the area of VL. Bigger VL the bigger area of course... This would make city fights quite hard to get totally to one side which is somewhat 'historical'. Bunkers should have directed strength value in the end calculations - bunker overwatching VL -bridge should effect the control of that VL. Tanks should not have this ability - maybe gamey idea but I think it would make sense. Protecting VL would mean something then. Other thing is the VLs behind the line of troops in the end of battle. If there are no 'great' breaches between the VLs (how that is ever calculated) the VLs behind side should belong automatically to that side. Other thing possibly to come alive for troops the ability to fire at multiple targets on their own - less likely if buttoned of course - but especially German flameHTs etc. should be able to give fire to both sides. Sometimes troops in CMBO already have this ability but nonetheless it should be considered. Key issue here is buttoned/not buttoned: unbuttoned AFVs/APCs should have really low observation ability around of them. This is generally now calculated as longer reaction time I guess. Ending for QBs should get randomized ending - this has been talked before - but with 20 round would could get random +/-10% time variable meaning -2 to +2 random length. Longer game gives longer time variable. And somehow kind of making movies from battles would be great. I think there was a threat about this too... I'm not programmer but could those partly damaged buildings BMPs be randomly added with small holes in then - I think now they are those pink areas - and thus we would create real looking damaged things on the map? maybe this could be extended to AFVs and APCs too. All in all those holes should be rather small. Also multiple numbering to tanks would be nice but then we should have area in turrets where numbers could be placed. This method would greatly raise the workload of videocard though and thus maybe not such a good idea. Just a few thoughts - I guess all of us would come up with quite many ideas given time but what we really get is anyway going to make me have more and more sleepless nights...

I'm finishing one 2000 point defense which started with worst possible way. Attacking US got fighter-bomber in 4th round to area and started hunting my JPz70 - missing but my poor JPz reversed straight to LOS of Sherman/75 side open... pop and toast. Anyway after some real hunting and fighting I have gotten rid of his Shermans (5 from beginning) and 2 M8s and I think 5 or 6 APCs... What got me smiling was last Sherman - it parked next to my flamethrower and woosh - at exactly 32m Sherman goes off. One other cornerstone to my defence was 75bunker next to church which has one narrow LOS to next hill and being kinda down a valley has otherwise LOS only 150m. It got one Sherman, M8 and one APC - beside breaking two buildings filled with enemy. Now we have 4 rounds to go and looks like his attack has been stopped.

I have Duron 700MHz and 256 Mb memo - I noticed some serious freezing when drive c: went down to 500 Mb but freezing went away when I deleted some unnecessary stuff. Now I have 1,2 Gb free space on drive C: I think you should get more memo anyway... ------------------ Aki aka Deathdealer (the Blitz)

Nice indeed! where can one find those beauties? Personally I like those grey tones a lot... but before having enough I have tried to gather same kind of mods to have great conversion depending on my feelings for a fight. Some camo mods from both sides in one set and sand mods for another day - I like my units in unision. ------------------ Aki aka Deathdealer (the Blitz)

I read your ideas about this 'new' way to calculate or consider the role of victory locations. Something came to me which might be of help to get more 'real' situations in QB but also to solve ending results ie. controlling VLs. 1. QB maps: let comp make the map without buildings. Then comp calculates 'good' points in the area considering height and visibility to other areas. Then depending on QB settings (town/village/rural etc.) comp builds up small/large area of village/town/farm and plants a big VL/several VLs in the center (depending on the size of battle) and then adds maybe 2-4 smaller VLs quite close to it (again depending on size of battle). Now the bigger VLs should have larger area of 'importance' and need to be 'occupaid'. Smaller VLs have similar but smaller area around of them. Depending on the size of battle comp should build up 1 to n places like this and 1 to n lonely VLs on 'important' places - cross roads, bridges, high ground (anything else?). Of course here the n has to be small figure. 2. Control of VLs: in the end when situation is settled and comp calculates the results all units should have a 'value of control' which depends on the ammo and their value. The tank with no HE should have smaller value if opposing forces are inf and vice versa. Troops with little or no ammo should get value next to nothing. With inf the value should (may)be calculated with close assault values (40 m) as proposed in another group. All of these values should be considered as circles on the map except with special unit like bunkers which should have their value directed to their orientation. Now the end results would be calculated on zones of control in contents of VLs. The VLs would be controlled by stronger forces of 'values'. The real problem would probably be to QBs generation so the comp wouldn't have to place VL on every little hill on the map but with some kind of randomizing we could get far better QB maps than now. Just a thought thou I'm not sure if this interests you... ------------------ Aki aka Deathdealer (the Blitz)

I read your ideas about this 'new' way to calculate or consider the role of victory locations. Something came to me which might be of help to get more 'real' situations in QB but also to solve ending results ie. controlling VLs. ------------------ Aki aka Deathdealer (the Blitz)