TigerChow

OK, I'll start it off - I started out miserably, losing (3) of my MkIII's right off the bat. But I ended up with 65-35 tactical victory. Also, I scored a Major victory on the Tutorial, but I didn't read the directions - I didn't do the human wave thing, and instead "assaulted" my guys across the open ground in front. TigerChow

It seems to me that a big factor in the fight to the death is that as long as a player thinks he can win, he will continually sacrifice his troops. Unless the game is a draw, somebody will end up winning. How about this idea - instead of accounting for all 100 points to either player at the end, why not limit allowable points based on your losses? The total points between players needn't add up to 100, although 50 points would be still needed to "win" the game. Depending on how much losses a player takes, he might not get enough points to win even if he has all of the victory locations. I suppose though that this wouldn't work too well for those tournament type situations in which someone has to win to get points, but for two guys who want to duke it out somewhat more realistically, it might have some merit. Of course, any implementation like this would not make it into the next CM release... Tiger Chow

One way to keep the opponents from sitting still would be to give one side a point advantage in troops and the other an advantage in flags. Of course, that's not technically a "meeting engagement" style balanced battle, and would more than likely end up as an attack/probe battle. But I think it would give an added dimension to the battle. In fact, I think you would probably see a lot less battles end up as slaughter-fests, with the attacker pressing home an attack with the last man to take the defender's flag. In this manner, you might see what I would consider more realistic attack and defense, where commanders are a little more careful with their troops. TigerChow

Sent to armdchair - let me know what you think.

Anyone game? I'm currently play testing with another, but I'd like some feedback on double blind play. Anyone interested, please let me know. Scenario specifics Title : Night of the Rat Type : German Probe Location: A nameless city in Western Europe Weather : Damp, overcast (night) Date : October, 1944 Length : 22 turns This is a fictional battle in a fictional large Western European City. The german forces are attempting to open a breach through british lines before a major counter-attack. The battle is set in the downtown area of a major metropolitan area. It is a dark and quiet night, for now... Author: Keith Walker kwalker2@charter.net (the title is kind of lame - anyone who playtests and gives feedback feel free to help me pick a better name) thanks, Keith

Well... OK, so maybe the Global Morale linked to VL control isn't such a great idea. I'm trying to come up with some interesting tactical scenarios where it would have an impact, but can't quite get there. On the other hand, I agree with JasonC's comment about typical CM type battles being bloodbaths. It seems that every CM engagement features one or both sides sustaining huge casualties. If this had actually happened in real life, I suspect that both Allies and Germans would have soon run out of troops. The slim WWII reading I did way back when, it seems that most engagements ended with one side retreating (or surrendering if that wasn't possible), not getting pummeled to a pulp. (Yes, I know there are noteable exceptions) On the other hand, you don't always want to fight with a bunch of pansies. As CombinedArms pointed out, this might not always be the most exciting game. If your attack gets bogged down out of the chute, just because you lost a couple of tanks and a platoon of infantry to artillery, what fun is that? Maybe what is needed here is a "Realism" option that could be set by the scenario designer or in a QB for effects of Global Morale on the TacAI. Set it high, and your troops are much less likely to get into harms way when they see enemy fire, set it low and they act like a bunch of Marines storming Iwo Jima. Maybe "Realism" isn't the right term, as I'm sure there are examples of Real Life battles that were fought with high casualties on both sides. Fanatacism could have something to do with this, but that typically only affects a certain number of units, based on the setting. And it generally turns them into "Supermen". It seems like could be used here is something more like a global modifier to all troops. Just some more thoughts... TigerChow

From my understanding, controlling VL's do not have any effect on Global Morale. Atleast it doesn't seem to, as I always start out at 100% whether I own them or not. So what about making a case for VL control affecting your Global Morale. It seems to me that this might make for some interesting twists to some games. Surely there are real life examples of this as well? I would suggest making it optional by the scenario designer, maybe even giving each VL flag a "Global Morale" value. Thus, it might be very important to hold one particular VL as long as possible, or your troops start routing more easily. This would give the scenario designer more flexibility in making certain objectives more important than others. As an example, in a scenario, you might have some high ground that is strategically important, for whatever reason. Lose this ground and "all is lost" so to speak. Any comments? TigerChow

Hey all, I'm not sure whether anyone has been bored enough to post something like this before, but here goes: Condition LOS Range Day/Clear 4,050m + Day/Overcast 4,000m Day/Rain 2,000m Day/Fog 752m Day/DenseFog 250m Day/Snow 1,001m Dawn/Clear 1,054m Dawn/Overcast 761m Dawn/Rain 438m Dawn/Fog 199m Dawn/DenseFog 84m Dawn/Snow 251m Night/Clear 186m Night/Overcast 146m Night/Rain 95m Night/Fog 54m Night/DenseFog 28m Night/Snow 64m Range is over flat/open ground. (In case anyone is wondering why, I'm in the process of designing a scenario where I'd like a certain LOS range, but don't care about other conditions as much...) TigerChow

One thing that seems to be missed here in the discussion of accuracy of a gun v. a rocket tube - typically, a gun fires its entire salvo from the same tube v. a rocket launcher, which fires its entire salvo from multiple tubes (each rocket having its own tube). Therefore, I would expect more dispersion from a rocket launcher firing from 12 or 16 tubes (or whatever they fire - I'm not professing to be a grog w/ all the answers) than from a single gun firing a 12 or 16 shell salvo. I don't profess to know what the true dispersion is, just throwing out another possible explanation for more inaccurate rockets. TigerChow

Are yours? Didn't think so. Ever wonder how that squad can execute a flanking move through 150m of dense forest and come out right where they were planning? I'm not sure how it could be implemented, but I think it would add a little "flavor" to the game if units could get thrown off course when moving "blind". Any takers? Some ideas about implementation - Chance of going off course directly proportional to inexperience levels. Chance of going off course decreases when in command (or maybe that should be increases - what with all the disparaging remarks about 2nd Lts. and compasses!) Chance of going off course indirectly proportional to "visibility" (not sure how to implement - maybe based on LOS in direction of travel. ie. If you can only see 20m in direction of travel, your chance of getting off course is greater than if your LOS is 500m in direction of travel. I would picture going off course as having your waypoints adjusted by the ai as the units progress through the move. I'm sure there would be a lot more to work through... TigerChow [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: TigerChow ]</p>

So who can share some grog type info on HQ TOE's. Is this even a realistic idea given the actual organization of the various HQ units in different armies? It seems to me that in the american army the platoon Lt. always had a platoon Sgt. that was either the "real leader" of the platoon or was always second guessing him. Atleast that's how I remember Hollywood portrayals... I tried finding something last night on the internet, but didn't really find anything definitive. I just don't know where to look. TigerChow

I was just thinking the other day, isn't there a platoon sgt. in with that HQ lt? If so, why not put him to work too? Many times, I've wanted to split my platoon up to do a little recon work or something, but the guys I split off always end up getting shot to pieces and routed because of lack of leadership. Now, I'm not too sure of the histerical accuracy of this, but why couldn't you split your HQ unit in two, with two effective leadership units. On the surface, it seems reasonable, but I'm sure there are those out there who can answer more in depth... As a first suggestion, I would implement this as follows - You can split any HQ into two units (don't all commanders have immediate second in commands? even co and battalion commanders?) Of course, you should be "penalized" for this as well (can't get something for nothing). Possible penalties include - reduced command radius for each HQ unit, loss or reduction (or random split) of leadership bonuses, others? I think the benefits would be enormous. No more lonely mg units sitting out there just out of command radius, ready to rout at the first hint of enemy arty, effective recon patrols unencumbered by excessive command delays, etc. Any takers? TigerChow

Here's a thought for the eventual engine rewrite when (hopefully) SOP's will be introduced. Ammo usage setting - conserve ammo, normal usage, flame anything that moves (not sure how useful that one would be...). What got me thinking about this was how often my troops seem to run out of ammo during even normal length battles (with tacai doing the targeting). The way I see this working is that the unit would fire depending on the setting and the chance of doing actual damage to the enemy troops. This way you can have some guys only engage at short ranges (when chance of inflicting damage is greater). Of course, you could add variability in there to give some chance that they disregard orders (especially those finicky green troops.) For what it's worth. TigerChow

I can see valid arguments for reinforcements being both more expensive, and less expensive. More expensive. As Slapdragon mentioned, during an attack, it might be advantageous to hold some of your force back to keep them safe from harm and conserve their ammunition. In this case, when they arrive, they'll be fresh, full of ammo, ready to go, against hopefully a foe that has been beaten down somewhat and low on ammo. However, on the defensive, it might seem the other way around. When you have guys at the start, they can dig in - a big advantage, thus they should be worth more. Also, if you have fewer people on the board to start with, it will be easier for the attacker to take the objective flags. Once this happens, you will find yourself at a disadvantage, becoming the "attacker" without the benefit of additional numbers. A third scenario you say? What about meeting engagements. I think you could apply both these observations to such a situation. On the one hand, if you have a much superior force to start out with, you will have an easier time taking the objectives and/or advantageous ground. On the other hand, your forces will be attrited somewhat, which would make them easier to tackle by your opponents fresh troops. A real conundrum... TC

Well, once again, it appears that I'm talking to myself... Self, something else to consider might be "overlapping" setup zones. Might be a little difficult to implement, but again, it would give the player and scenario designer more flexibility in determining setup zones and placement of units. (Self, next time don't start such a boring topic, maybe somebody else will join in, maybe something like how tripods increase the effectiveness of american artillery...) TC

Not sure if this has been suggested or not yet, but wouldn't it be neat to be able to "set up" reinforcement markers during the setup phase? I would like to see the reinforcement markers get same treatment as other types, allowing players to "place" them during setup, scenario designers to "lock in place" during design, etc. I think it would give us more flexibility - ie. do you want that company reinforcement to support the main attack? or provide flanking support, etc... Tiger Chow out

Just to put my two cents in... In reference to the anecdotal evidence to long range kills, is there any mention of whether the target and/or gunner was in motion? I can see how it might only take a few bracketing shots to hit a stationary target (say you just crowned a ridge and found a platoon of T-34's having breakfast 2km away). However, I have a harder time believing that it is that easy to hit a moving target at that distance. If it takes 4-5s (I'm quoting from memory of earlier post - may be wrong) for the shell to travel that distance, it seems to me that any "juking" that the target does could easily produce a miss. Just a thought for further conversation...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Well, then you're destroying the purpose of having skill classes? If you notice, the delay times change depending on if the unit is in HQ contact range or if is has been "disrupted".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've thought about this a little too, and agree with Napoleon - Let's throw in a little randomness to the movement delays. How accurate is it for all nine squads of a company (assuming they are all regulars) to "move out" at exactly the same time? I wouldn't mind seeing a range of delay for each experience level. I think it would add a level of excitement to the game - I can just see myself screaming at my electronic men who are taking their time getting up... "I told you to move-out - now MOVE IT MOVE IT MOVE IT!!!" (Conjures up memories of a certain TV marine sergeant motivating his young private!)

Maximus - In an earlier post to this thread, you mentioned BTS adding an additional quality to the squads, that of "morale" for CMBB. I don't recall any discussion to that effect in any previous threads. Hopefully, I am missing something, because I think it would be a great thing to add. The overall "Fanatacism" factor is ok, but I like the idea of having some troops that have great morale fighting alongside some troops that have crappy morale in the same battle. The overall fanatacism doesn't quite give you that feel (you don't know up front which are your good troops and which are your crappy troops). What I do remember is that BTS is adding a "fitness" level. Can anyone confirm that they are in fact going to add both of these qualities?

Hey all, I have a "Russian" street fighting scenario I just finished... to whet your appetite for CMBB. I've only played it once against another human, and adjusted the play balance a little. If anyone would like to try it out and give some feedback, e-mail me (kwalker2@charter.net) Type - meeting engagement Size - small map (800x800) but huge forces Length - 60 turns Historical - NOT! based on my own imagination If I get enough good feedback, I may post it on one of the scenario sites.

During a CM game the other night, I could have sworn I spotted my old uncle Earl driving one of my Sherm's... (groan - apologies if that line has been used in a previous relative spotting thread) Seriously, I think if BTS were able to do multiplayer TCP/IP and relative spotting in CMII or whenever, it would answer alot of the concerns some people seem to have about the proposed implementation of relative spotting - mainly the fact that you still will have a god's eye view of the battlefield. Imagine with multiplayer, you only have knowledge of the troops under your control, and what they can see. Also imagine an additional level of FOW - friend or foe ident. Friendly fire wouldn't be so friendly if you're not communicating well with your partners. "Now where did Cpt. Muckawitz say he was going to advance?" Hoping that we'll get multiplayer AND relative spotting at some point in the CM saga... TigerChow

This is my take on the use of smoke in that situation (actually - that is exactly how I played Valley of Trouble the first time I played it). My initial impression is that no, it's not gamey. But after a little thought, here is what I came up with. I would only consider it gamey if it takes advantage of something that you could do in the game and not in real life. Now, I've never run through 100 yds. of thick smoke, but I can't imagine being able to see only 20ft. in front of me, running 100yds to my target, and not getting disoriented somehow. In other words, if it's a real thick smoke screen (no open spots to speak of to catch a glimpse of where you are going), then I would consider running more than 30 or 40 yds into it somewhat gamey, since the game doesn't give you any chance to get disoriented and come out on the wrong side of the smoke screen - missing your target altogether! (I probably wouldn't put up a fuss if someone did it to me, though). On the other hand, if it's not really dense and has openings (maybe the smoke mission only lasted a turn or so), then I wouldn't consider it gamey at all. The other reason it could be considered gamey is because the defense could not 'area fire' into the smoke. Do to game limitations, you cannot area fire into a spot where you don't have LOS. I don't know if it happened in real life - but I would think if you were on the receiving end of the smoke and thought that someone was rushing at you through all that smoke, you might start spraying out the lead to slow them down. Of course, you might be concerned about hitting friendlies also... Finally, a comment about my experiences with smoke: I have tried several other rushes through smoke screens - typically directly into houses or some other fortified position. In nearly all cases, I have gotten chewed up and spit back out. Probably because the smoke screen wasn't the thick kind, and as soon as my poor troops emerged, were blasted to smithereens. My 2 cents. TigerChow