StugIII

Since the "Cellar Dwellers" don't seem to be represented at all in the 10 pages of posts I'd just like to say "great group of guys." Everyone is returning turns promptly and we had no dropouts. To the designers I'd like to say "good job" on the scenarios. And again, Thanks to Tree. [ June 23, 2002, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: StugIII ]

Thanks for the update. Us married guys, and those with "life partners" I'm sure, understand. I look forward to getting your file this weekend and keep us posted if things change. [ June 12, 2002, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: StugIII ]

Alright, here's my $.02 ($.032 Canadian): Most of these are repeats of other peoples, 1. Subs: Either cheapen them slightly or make them harder to detect. As for sub combat here is a thought, Allow subs to always attack first when facing a single or first unit. Base the damage the sub takes on it's target's adjusted strength after the sub's attack. i.e. Sub with a strength of 10 attacks a cruiser with a strength of 10. The sub does 4 points of damage. When the cruiser returns fire she will be using a strength of 6. If the sub is attacked by another surface ship in that turn then the sub would lose the "first shot" bonus as it would be considered "hunted". If it's already modeled similar then nevermind. 2. Forts: I can understand reinforcements in cities when surrounded but with forts there wouldn't be any population to draw from. I would think anyone able to fight is already at their post and once surrounded no other troops would be able to enter the fort to reinforce. I understand resuppying a fort can simulate stockpiling of weapons and materials but I don't know about stockpiling men. 3. Reinforcing: I too agree that the experience bleed should be lessened if the unit is reinforced in steps rather than right away as long as that unit is out of the front lines. As for reinforcing in a surrounded city, I think a harsher experience penalty should be suffered simulating the conscription of men with little or no training. This would only be a surrounded city. 4. Map: I know it would be very difficult but the inclusion of 2 more rows to the north and 1 row to the south could improve tactical manuevering 10 fold. I've given up on african conquests because I can't get out of range of allied shore bombardment near egypt. The rest of this game has been great and I have the check already made out (a seperate one could be written if any of the above suggestions make it into the game ). Keep up the great work and thanks for listening to all of us.

Keep talking, I'm trying to get all this down. [ May 23, 2002, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: StugIII ]

PawBroon, Thanks for volunteering. We'll see if there's enough interest. As for a setup I'd say the maps could be pre-made but, of course, unit selection would be completely up to the player. This could be alot of fun watching King Tigers vs. Jeep rushes, entire towns going up in flames because of some trigger happy FT team trying to deny an access route, ect... If there's any interest make it offically known and we'll see where we stand in a week.

Just a quick thought, but what does 'gamey' play have to do with the overused, prejudicial, politically inane, intellectually bankrupt, catchall testament to 'halfwits unwilling to admit that anyone's political stance that differs from their own deserves any respect', have to do with the term 'PC' ? Seriously. Discuss 'gamey' play in terms of the game. </font>

Deleted due to lack of witty response. [ May 17, 2002, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: StugIII ]

With all the talk against gaminess and everyone always trying to be "PC", what about an anything goes tourney? No unit restrictions, no questionable tactics bashing and barely any gaming etiquitte(sic)( I have none so I can't spell it either.) I wouldn't have the time or pretend to be smart enough to run this but maybe if there's interest someone would step forward. I think the entertainment value in the AAR's alone could make this popular. Any thoughts?

For anyone having problems with CoS go here: http://grognard.com/info1/coserror.txt I was having the same problems and now it's running smoooooothhh...

Outstanding writing Ted. You've made my day at work a bit better. I have to admit that the simplicity of this game, which was at first concerning, is now becoming very attractive. I know it's still early but I would appreciate your views so far on a couple of things: 1. How is the AI performing? You seem to be rolling right along but I guess that's historically accurate. 2. How much replay value do you see so far and what aspects of the game are/could be randomized to increase the replay incentive? Again, great job and thanks for taking the time to write these AAR's. I'm looking even more forward to this.

Does that mean you may release those files before the game's released?

Rog, you sweet thing. I love it when you talk all mean. You'll definitely get a game from me and NO New York is not considered a minor axis power.

I know this is alot to ask but would it be possible to make the BMP files availible before the game is released so those interested in Modding them can get a head start? This could also stir up even more interest in the game.

Jeff, I know we (you and I) discussed this earlier but I think this will pull off a 5. Will I buy this? Without a doubt. Why? If Mr. Cater provides the level of support that BTS has become known for then I'm sure any deficiencies will be addressed with patches and mods. As for WiF, man is this going to be a deep game. No, Pbem in the demo though

I've loaded CM onto my laptop (specs. below) it runs fine except when I go to the play menu the cursor won't select what I highlight and even worse, when I go to the Create Scenario menu and select units I get all kinds of response problems e.g. unit experience won't select anything but regular, when I select OK I have to hit it twice and then it's like I'm selecting options from the create scenario main menu while the unit selection screen is still visible. Any suggestions? Here's what I'm working with: Toshiba Satellite P3 850 128 Ram Windows Me Trident CyberBlade Ai1 AGP (22) trid8620 driver IBM optical mouse (MO32UO) If you need more info let me know. I need this on my laptop dammit!!! Thanks in advance

Adding to what RLeete asked (why anyone listens to him is unknown), will a disbanded unit's experience level add anything to the force pool or be taken into consideration?

As for a "while we're waiting" tourney, what about a Bracket And Seeded, single elimination tourney ala the NCAA's March Madness? It could be broken down into 4 12 team brackets with the top 4 players from previous tourneys being the 1 seed in each bracket and so on. 1 vs. 12, 2 vs. 11 etc... Sure it would be a quick for players like me but I'm sure I'd learn alot. The end of the tourney would feature the best match-up (in theory) and the tourney would end right about when CMBB is being released. Just a thought...

I'm in agreement with both of the above suggestions. It would be a blast to get a multi-player Pbem going. Maybe a future patch?

Count me in. Thanks to both you and WineCape for these great tourneys.

NO, NO, NO,....All wrong, can't believe you screwed those up Tank. Go ahead and send me those files JUST AS THEY ARE and I'll fix them right up for you. Excellent job. Please annouce when and where those will be availible.

sorry about the above. I hit quote instead of edit [ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: StugIII ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StugIII: I guess it depends on what level you're judging the tactics on. From 42 until 89 the soviets haven't been on the defensive ( outside of vs. counter attacks). If you want to count Afganistan, the Soviets went against their own doctrine and tried to fight against a foe that rarely marshalled more than a company sized organized element at a time (and that's even large for the afganies). Doctrine from 42 on said to bypass small elements and continue to drive to the prize. Mop up units would follow. Well there never was a prize, soviet doctrine did not adjust and they got atritioned(sic) out of Afgan land (in general terms). Verse the German offensive of 42 you say, doctrine stayed consistant with what they learned during the winter defense of 41/42, a collapsible defensive line with leap frog Arty. The problem was availible units. Once the units became availible they went on the offensive, reverting back to their then, fairly new doctrine. I agree with you that the principles were developed in the 30's but they were never put into practice until 42. Finland was like a snowy Afganistan, they didn't adjust tactic and doctrine to suit the situation. Where did they end up? They haven't switched doctrine and tactics since 42 because there hasn't been an opportunity that would force them to. They were going with what worked. Afgan land should have forced them to switch but didn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott B: To say there are some basic similarities that held true through the years is one thing; to say their tactics didn't change from 1942 to 1989 is simply incorrect by any stretch of your definition of "tactics."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess it depends on what level you're judging the tactics on. From 42 until 89 the soviets haven't been on the defensive ( outside of counter attacks). If you want to count Afganistan, the Soviets went against their own doctrine and tried to fight against a foe that rarely marshalled more than a company sized organized element at a time (and that's even large for the afganies). Doctrine from 42 on said to bypass small elements and continue to drive to the prize. Mop up units would follow. Well there never was a prize, soviet doctrine did not adjust and they got atritioned(sic) out of Afgan land (in general terms). Verse the German offensive of 42 you say, doctrine stayed consistant with what they learned during the winter counter-offensive of 41/42, a collapsible defensive line with leap frog Arty. The problem was availible units. Once the units became availible they went on the offensive reverted back to their then, fairly new doctrine. I agree with you that the principles were developed in the 30's but they were never put into practice until 42. Finland was like a snowy Afganistan, they didn't adjust tactic and doctrine to suit the situation. where did they end up? They haven't switched doctrine and tactics since 42 because there hasn't been an opportunity that would force them to. Afgan land should have but didn't.

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: StugIII ]

gunnergoz, You got me before I could explain myself. The various qualities of the soviet forces between 39 and 89 throw a small wrench into my original statement but the tactics (once realized in 41/42) didn't change until after the collapse. I can't honestly tell you exactly how soviet doctrine works now. [ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: StugIII ]