Dave H

I'd sure like to see some AARs from the players who won Ready for the Fray as the Canadians. I personally felt swamped by the German armor. My A/T guns and Shermans accomplished absolutely nothing. If the Firefly hadn't done well, the score of my game with Sgt. Shultz would have probably been about 95-5 or something! Did anyone else have the experience of some of your infantry reinforcements showing up on the wrong side of the bocage, just a few meters from German infantry? Oh, and congratulations Sgt. Shultz. You were always able to find a counter for everything I tried against you. Whoever you play next will be in for a tough time.

This was one of the great psyche jobs I've seen in CM:BO. You had your opponent literally "in a fog". I admire your patience keeping your secret. Somehow I suspect you got a big kick out of this thread.

I remember seeing similar examples in that hyper-realistic movie "The Battle of the Bulge". On the dusty plains of the Ardennes, the plucky American tankers (Telly, who loves ya?) waited to fire until the bellies of the unstoppable German tanks were exposed. I just want to request that when BFC returns to the Western Front, the ability of vehicles to reverse over bocage should be very limited. If tracked vehicles have the ability to reverse over bocage, the Germans should have equal ability with the Allies. It's a bit too bizarre to watch a carrier effortlessly back over an obstacle that stops Tigers, Panthers, and Stugs in their tracks. Maybe if they had tried reversing they could make it, too.

The bocage slowed the carrier about as much as a tissue would. It backed completely through it with little to no hesitation. I'm still searching, as it appears this has been covered somewhere previously. I'm using the words "bocage" and "reverse" in my search, but I haven't found it yet. Found it! A thread from January 11, 2001 titled "Shermans moving through the bocage in reverse". The memories of some of the members here are astounding. [ August 05, 2002, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Dave H ]

First, I know CM:BO is a finished product. This is a request for the future Western Front version. I am completing a PBEM scenario set in an area with lots of bocage and hedges lining the roads. I had several Canadian universal carriers supporting a platoon of infantry defending in a field. One of the carriers (which I "knew" could not pass through bocage) was positioned at a gap in the bocage. After a few turns of machine-gunning infantry, it spotted a German armored unit. To my amazement, the carrier reversed across the road and backed right through the bocage on the other side! :confused: Since then I've done some searching through the archives and found quite a bit of discussion about Allied tracked vehicles being allowed to pass through bocage. I'm not questioning BTS's decision to allow all Allied tracked vehicles in July '44 or later to pass through bocage, to simplify the existence of the plows added to tanks. I hope future versions will distinguish between vehicles with and without such equipment, and the engines to use it. My concern is allowing any vehicle to reverse through bocage. I don't care what kind of hedgerow cutter is mounted on the front of a tank, it won't help it back through the bocage. I wouldn't think that this would create a big problem in implementing, when the time comes.

Somebody (I suspect Rune) must be living right. We have had a solid week of temperatures from 95-100 F in the area, with high humidity as well. However, today we have a pretty good chance of afternoon thunderstorms, evidently caused by a cold front moving through. The forecast for tomorrow (from the Weather Channel) is a high of 84 F and only 20% chance of rain. Sadly, while you people are crawling around the armor, I will be in an attorney's office signing my life away for the next 30 years. Perfect timing for closing on a house. All of you making the trip, have a great time!

WE TOLD YOU!! :cool: And another unsuspecting gamer bites the dust. Next thing you know he'll be getting abused in the Peng thread.

The best way to explain this is to tell you to download the demo and try it. You'll find out very quickly. (Edited because my typing is too slow.) [ July 19, 2002, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Dave H ]

I second this. CM:BO made every other computer game I had ever played seem as thought provoking as Pac Man. CM:BB will be great, I'm sure, but CM:BO IS great right now! If you have any interest at all in the Western Front after D-Day, order CM:BO today. And welcome to the collective!

Actually, one of the benefits of 25 years with the federal government is that I still have a bit over three weeks vacation I have to use or lose by the end of the year. So I don't even need to fake an illness. Can't help you with the I-24, KY Parkway trip. It looks to me like the long way around. My only advice is to stay on the pavement. I assume you've seen "Deliverance"? Enough said. Are you planning to do the CMBB demo at Fort Knox, or are you looking for a place nearby? If you would like a big room, I can probably arrange one or more in Jeffersonville, IN, which is on the north side of Louisville. I'll even volunteer my house as a site, and risk the hatred of thousands.

Doh!! Next time I'd better look at a calendar. These guys planning weekday trips throw me. Words of warning: If anybody heads south into Louisville on I-65, you will find several miles of construction just north of the river. Traffic can be pretty bad, since you'll be catching the rush hour. There's an accident on the bridge almost every day, and traffic completely stops. :mad:

That does it! Now I will have to oppose building any new bridges over the Ohio River. I will also vote to have the existing bridges blown up! This pestilence must be kept out of Indiana at all costs. I'd love to join this excursion, but that weekend is my wife's birthday, so I can't plan too far ahead. If any of you guys are also Civil War grogs, I can highly recommend an excellent museum in Bardstown, which is not too far from Fort Knox.

This announcement reminded me of a scene in "The Princess Bride". At the top of the Cliffs of Insanity, Vizzini cuts the rope, but the masked man doesn't fall. Vizzini exclaims, "He didn't fall? Inconceivable!" Inigo replies, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I do not think "very soon" means what we think it means.

I wonder how many people here will get your reference....it's a good one!</font>

Don't know if you consider this good news, but it is information anyway. I really, really HATE bocage!! The two battlefields have plenty of the disgusting stuff. I think it was plenty gamey of the Allies to invade in France (not to mention the Germans who actually defended themselves in France) and force us gamers to deal with this uniquely aggravating terrain feature. Can't BTS/BFC fix this and let us play out the Normandy campaign in flat, open country (like the movie "Battle of the Bulge" did for the Ardennes forests)? It would sure simplify things a lot.

The houses aren't enemy units, so they don't get replaced with markers. The pillbox doesn't move, but your soldiers do. If you don't currently have a LIVE unit with line of sight to the previously spotted pillbox, bunker, gun, tank, infantry, or whatever, it gets replaced by the marker. Believe me, you're not alone in losing a unit to a previously identified enemy that was replaced with a marker. My last similar experience was after immobilizing a Firefly in some scattered trees. Later I forgot it was there and moved a Jagdpanther within sighting range. No more Jagdpanther.

It sounds to me that the problem isn't your opponent hiding the pillbox. I think your own troops have lost any line of sight to the pillbox, which is what happens when the "obscure marker" appears. The reason your units can't target the pillbox is because they can't see it! When you know where a pillbox or anti-tank gun is located, you want to approach it VERY carefully. If you go sending a tank around the known position of a gun, you're paying the price for impatience. The relatively small, quiet, and hidden gun will spot the big, loud, and moving tank first almost every time. When you know the position of a gun, get some mortar or artillery fire on it. For that you need infantry.

So according to the link, this is the guy who invented coin-operated doors in restrooms? I'd say that just about cancels out any good he did during the war!! :mad:

athkatla, Congratulations on your victory! It really is a great feeling when the AI folds and everyone on the map surrenders. I've only played a handful of PBEM games so far myself (I'm in the new Newbie Tournament), so when you feel ready to try one, e-mail me at chardeaus@juno.com and we'll give it a whirl. There are only about a million scenarios out there waiting to be tried. Playing against another person really gives you a whole new appreciation for every last bit of detail in the terrain. Your opponent will almost certainly use every shred of cover against you. Please don't be concerned about "naive" tactics. You never know for certain what will work. Unlike the real world, when you make a mistake here nobody really gets hurt. For which I'm eternally grateful.

Jack, You have my most sincere condolences. I can imagine how you're feeling, as my Mother died six weeks ago. All you can do is keep putting one foot in front of the other for a while. But trust me, the sun still comes up in the mornings and life will go on.

Cpl. Carrot, A quick question before we get going. Will we be using the game-generated raw scores only, or will you be using some variation like the Nabla system they're using in the RoW tournament? I bring this up because in the original Newbie Tournament the issue of "unbalanced scenarios" reared its ugly head. SuperTed had to do some adjusting of scores in at least one scenario (if I remember correctly, he divided both player's scores by 2). I personally have no preference one way or the other. So before this comes up, can we get an official ruling now? Thanks.

With CM:BB including tweaked artillery, armed gun crews, improved machine gun effects, RUNNING with a machine gun, damaged buildings, improved graphics, etc etc etc, I'm beginning to suspect these guys don't want to leave us anything to whine about. Then I guess we'll all play CM:BB all the time and live happily ever after and the Forum will turn into a ghost town. "That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, boy."

With so many people foaming at the mouth waiting for the release of CM:BB, may I humbly request that you delay this well deserved gift until AFTER the release date? 12 bottles of wine divided by 5 people could mean some seriously deranged last-minute code getting into the new game. These guys have created a masterpiece. Imagine how complex it would be to program a chess game in which every move the player tried to make was subject to the AI of the piece. How would it change the player's strategy to have pawns which refused to be sacrificed, and bishops which decided on their own which direction and how far they would move? CM:BO has a much greater variety of units, and a much wider range of possible moves. Add in the third dimension, the terrain features, time of day, weather conditions, smoke, etc etc etc. And the whole thing works seamlessly. Sure there will always be details which someone would prefer to have modeled differently. But since way back when I first played Panzer Leader, I'd have sold my soul for the counters to come to life as they have in CM:BO. So BTS has not only saved my soul, but they did it without wiping out my bank account. Magnificent, indeed.

I'm sure this subject has been one of the most discussed since CM:BO came out, but here's my take on the problem. I think the problem may be less a case of too many German FlaK guns than a case of too few Allied air attacks. Most players hate to give up the points for an air attack which they could instead use on infantry, armor, or artillery. With the price ranging from 213 points (Conscript) to 380 points (Elite) for a fighter-bomber, most Allied players will instead purchase a handful of other units. Therefore no air threat, and no need for the Axis FlaK to be sited for, and to have ammunition saved for, air defense. Maybe there's a way to stop completely eliminating FlaK units for the Axis player. I gather this problem shows up primarily in games where the players choose their own units. Simply require the Allied player to take a fighter-bomber for each FlaK gun the Axis player selects, and charge the Axis player the full points (say 225 for a Regular) of the fighter-bomber for each AA gun. I suspect that would eliminate most of the problems with gamey tactics, because by selecting the expensive FlaK guns the Axis player is ensuring the Allied player has as many equally expensive, and potentially devastating, weapons. The Allied player can still choose more fighter-bombers than the Axis player takes FlaK guns. In conditions when fighter-bombers cannot operate, the FlaK guns are banned. Of course, for scenarios the designer has to deal with FlaK vs. air power, but that's a different situation. Just a possible compromise I hadn't seen mentioned before.

Please don't misunderstand my comments. I much prefer a realistic scenario to a wild free for all. I also don't mind unbalanced scenarios. Actually the issue of "balance" has been one of my pet peeves about wargaming for several decades. Throughout history there have been very, very few "balanced" wars, or battles, or skirmishes. Invariably one side has some advantage over the opposition. Many times each side has both advantages and disadvantages. Tactics is how you maximize your advantages and minimize your disadvantages. So bring on the scenarios, with the possibility of running into anything. And ask SuperTed if he doesn't remember his scenario with the snow and the shaken old timers. Oh, that was one whole platoon of shaken old timers in the set-up!