Greenman

Please do notify when and where these scens get posted. I love historical scenarios and am in general awe at those who design and build them. Thanks for all your blood, sweat, and tears, Franko.

I loved that footage of german shells richoceting off the sloped armor ... that was pretty cool. But I agree with that it was content-light.

I've never seen PBEM files that big, ever. Have you tried compressing them? Winzip or some other compression program? I don't think you can split the file, but really I don't know.

Jason, Have you checked out Germanboy's 'Bulge' scenario on Der Kessel? I don't have the OOB he used handy (I'm at work). But it might be good to compare. Just a thought.

The AI bonus is an experience bonus, instead of more troops, the troops it has have more experience. I think, I could be wrong, I don't have the RB handy. A +1 bonus to the AI raises all its units experience by one level. So all regular troops are now veteran. Bonuses don't make the AI smarter, it just gives it better tools to work with. Its troops won't break and run as often, they'll be tougher in assualts and the like. The AI may still choose to place troops in crazy places though. In my last game against the AI, it bunched up all its armor on one hill top, Three panthers and two Hetzer. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Dunno about historical accuracy. Is there a scenario creator or grog out there who knows?As for points, as the attacker, I can't quite remember the formula ... In the most recent PBEM, I got an additional 50%, i.e. a 1500 point game attack/defend game, I received 2250 points as the attacker. :confused:

The AI has definitely put me in a spot or two, especially when it has bunkers. But like most everyone (?), I give it big bonuses, +2 or +3 ...

Sounds awesome ... just wondering, what kind of bonuses did you give to the AI?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76: But, to answer your question; if you have the patiance to read through my posts (as Im sure nobody has now ) you will see that my point was this: IF the development of the new 3d engine was hampered because BTS was trying to include low end systems, I suggested they should stop supporting it. Of course I want CM to be as good as it can be! But, tof course limits, thats why I wrote that IF so was the case they should rather aim at the mid-top end market. But, for a number of reasons this topic is to early to begin to discuss, and proberly no point in anyway as I think BTS very well will follow their own strategy which as been formed already. Is that an anwers enough? And could we now please leave this topic alone and get back to the real posts with no content? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In other words, "IF I'm not getting everything I want, then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE gimme"? Like I said, we sound like spoiled children.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy: Wait a second! :eek: You do not want to bring CONTENT to this topic, now, do you?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Content!!? The Horror, the Horror ... [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Greenman ]

This thread is like bad addiction ... no pleasure but you just keep coming back ... Anyway, I wanted to see the conversation go another way. Ok Panzer if you're so gung-ho for BTS to shoot for mid-range systems, how would CM be different? What improvements are you talking about that you wouldn't get with the BTS' philosophy on system requirements (that is, to include low-end systems as well)? I think this is a far more important question. I think that when we get down to just what improvements we'd like (graphically), we'll find that we want it all (i.e. requiring a bleeding edge system). I just get the sense we're coming off like greedy little children, whining when we see something 'better'. "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can I have it?" Just my $.02 of the moment ... [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Greenman ]

Thanks ... I have fond memories of effective smoke screens when I played the demo (Valley of Trouble), since I got into QB's I've gone light on the OBA and have missed the smoke ... relying on the mortar teams has been sad. Those allied inf really need all the help they can get.

Trying to make a better Horse and Musket, Hyperstock?

Maybe I'm not using em right, but the 60mm mortar's smoke placement leaves a lot to be desired. Small loads, random placement, and limited effect. Am I doing something wrong? [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Greenman ]

In CM, my men haven't had that much trouble in the dark ... though I haven't done a forest battle at night. But in and around villages and stuff, i.e. relatively treeless, things go pretty smoothly. I'm thinking of Drop to Destiny and the Ham and Jam scens.

Does anyone else find that when you do a group move command, the graphic of the move line doesn't end in a nice little cube? It looks likes its cut short?

I play CM on a Celereon 333, 96 megs of RAM, the video card is stock as well as the sound card. I've modded it up and CM plays real nice ( though I haven't tried a HUGE battle on it). I'd hate to see the push for graphics put CM out of reach for me ... I know, I know this is all hypothetical, since the engine rework is a year or more out. Oh, and Panzer I think people have come to this thread feeling insulted because of the title. Its an accusatory tone. It may not have been your intention. But its a good reminder to us all to think not twice but three times about how our posts might be percieved. [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Greenman ]

And watch bunching your commanders ... nothing is more annoying than finding that your mortar teams are under the wrong commander (ie the one without the crucial LOS). It ruins your day.

Dunno about the chances of bogging with Fast or Move ... I tired to send four trucks full of troops over the rail line in Any Port (part 5). They just stopped on the tracks until the next turn, when they completed the order and made it over the tracks. Unfortunately in the mean time, the pause caused my green troops to bolt from the trucks and run back (!) the way the came ... pushed my plan back a few turns. (CO's ought to carry cattle prods for those troublesome green troops.)

I know from personal experience that night hiking in damn hard. If the terrain isn't linoleum smooth, good luck. You stumble over every single root, rock, and dip. I did about 10 miles in 8 hours one night this summer. The most frightening experience is falling in the dark, you have no idea what you're falling into. I can't even imagine what combat at night must be like. [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Greenman ]

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Greenman ]

Did you try searching the old threads on the search engine? I'm sure the answer's already been posted.

The third battle of Patrick Ware's 'Any Port After a Storm' mini-campaign was a good bunker buster scenario. I had two platoons, zook's included, hammer the bunker for three turns straight. It took a while but eventually it cracked. Unfortunately it ate up most of my remaining ammo doing it. Did I have a bad position or is multiple turns common? I had one platoon behind, cracking the door. The other was right on the front slit. It was the front platoon, IIRC, that finally knocked out the gun.

I'm not really good with armor, having focused on infantry tactics since I bought the game. Recently tried to rush three Shermans around two Priests up the road. As it was wet and raining, I didn't want to off-road them for fear of bogging down. Anyway, the resulting snag cost me a VL as the AI plot insane courses around each other. Anyone know how wide, in terms of vehicles, the road is? Can one vehicle pass another? How do people deal with lots of vehicles on narrow little roads? :confused:

Tom, Thanks, you're site is a treat. I like how you organized the scenarios as well, by region.