Sarge Saunders

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. The music should evolve from German relentless exploit to a Soviet style as the war turns. All this would be very subtle and can be done with orchestration not thematic elements [ie. switching from a German march to Tchaikovsky]. The music will be too short to introduce two different thematic elements probably. But hey, I may be a music grog but I don't know everything! MHO -Sarge

MadMatt, This new color scheme for the forum is good. The old one pitted light text against a light background on some page. As an experienced Webmaster, I know what I like and I like this new look better. MHO -Sarge

In all seriousness, the CM:BO theme music is a mixture of styles around a single martial theme. As I have listened to it many times by itself and it seems to begin with a rather forthright march that reminds me of the Germans. Then as it builds and the fanfare is entered by strings, percussion and more trombones it seems more reminiscent of the marching Allies and the later violin runs herald the impending doom of Berlin. So to me, the music in CM:BB should tell a short story too and it should definately be dramatic. A mixture of styles seems appropriate centered around a single theme because of the shortness. Also, and this is very important I think, the instrument sound quality should sound realistic and preferably be the result of a studio recording. I think the CM:BO track uses real instruments. It is sometimes hard to tell, but my ear tells me they are real (not digitized imitations of a violin section, brass, etc.) Does anyone at BTS actually know? I am very curious. -Sarge

I second that.

If you say so. I respectfully disagree. People want to see the fighting action. For the Allies, much of this fight is on the defense, meaning it occurs on the opponents turn. Meaning: the defender has no idea what actions took place exactly. I would rather not imagine what took place. Much better to see it. MHO -Sarge

I guess it depends on your perspective. The mournful sounds of the string section that opens Mozarts piece seem to me to be the perfect accompaniment to the misery and tragedy of the war. My personal opinion is of course totally irrelevant to everyone else, but the happy, lets- go-kick-some-ass-now type of song doesn't really resonate with me. I know not everyone liked the movie Platoon, but do you remember the scene where "Tracks of My Tears" played over the visuals of a battle in the jungle? The juxtaposition of the violent action and the slow, sad song were very touching, I thought. I guess thats why I hear music like the Requiem in my head when I see scenes of war.</font>

PBEM playback as mentioned before. I would like to see my opponent's attacks against me within constraints of FOW. This seems like a "must-have" to me. Otherwise 2 player has less than desired fun factor. [edit]Also more seamless support for non 1024x768 resolutions (higher and lower) as mentioned in other threads. This outweighs everything else. User implemented workarounds for this are fine for the demo but not acceptable for the purchased version.[/edit] -Sarge [ May 30, 2002, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

Something original that is influenced by Shostakovich wartime works. For example Dimitri Shostakovich 5th symphony (4th movement) has some moments very similar in spirit to the CM:BO opening music. Note that Soviet censors required 32 measures of military march in every symphony!! Just my opinion. I know this may sound "high brow" but I am very impressed with the CM:BO opening theme. Is it original music? The symphonic sound there is the best and I hope CM:BB has something equally good! -Sarge P.S. From the german perspective the sound similar to Mozart Requiem as mentioned before is good, but not martial enough. [except for the Dies Irae and Confutatis perhaps] [ May 30, 2002, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

Depends on the terrain. If the terrain is open then it makes attacking more difficult [hidden guns, etc]. More dense terrain can be overcome with a variation of Fionn's aggressive approach. That means engaging and killing the enemy's scouts in front of your MLR. Have that forward MLR to fall back to and deny the enemy both his scouts and gives misleading intel about your lines. I would not push it too much further than that because the greatest equalizer is the defender's access to TRPs. In a QB buy plenty. Match with heavy mortars and arty. Don't waste buying the small stuff in a defense situation. TRPs + heavy arty takes away the enemy 3:2 infantry advantage quite well. Don't get locked down to your foxholes. Use them as a fall back position, but seek and engage the attacking enemy where you can. So given these tactics and others, and depending on the terrain: Defending could be easier. IMHO. -Sarge [ May 29, 2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

No. Upon exit it will return to 1280 resolution. The escape key work around would be nice. I consider that my 'panic' button. "nothing to see here...just my boring desktop...move along now..." Anyway, the issue with exit (not escape) is that my neatly arranged desktop icons are moved to the left to accomodate 1024 while the game is running and upon exit. Also windows that may have been open to a larger size are reduced to exactly 1024 x 768. A small annoyance really but these little things do add up.... Hope this clarifies things. -Sarge [ May 25, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

Hey Hubert, I too would would like to see this minor video resolution worked out. I don't mind the game running at 1024x768, but it causes issues with resizing my desktop when I use the escape key and also resizing windows upon exit to 1024x768. I run 1280 resolution on a Dell laptop with an ATI rage mobility pro video card. Running Windows 2000 professional OS. Anyway, thought I would pass this along, but you seem to be already working on the bugs. Great job! Really enjoying the demo. Cheers, Sarge

Hello, Very true. For instance, never use area fire at night hoping it will stop once your men get close, because it won't. I haven't checked if green troops are more susceptible to shoot at friendlies than regulars or veterans. I would guess so, since they have a higher tendency to open fire at anything that moves. Anybody knows? Sig</font>

JasonC - I personally could see using these rules if need be. I think force mixture could be defined more specifically. Does this mean Axis Volksturm with Tanks, and AFVs purchased from Heer selection? Or FJs with tanks, etc. I like the checklist structure to this ruleset. You may have even found simplicity too. It addresses enough playability, balancing, and historical issues to be a useful purchase ruleset. Thanks and be sure to keep it posted up somewhere for reference between players. -Sarge [ May 22, 2002, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

Great! I hope you both enjoy it. E-mail going out to Traject0ry to set up soonest.... -Sarge

*bump* Traject0ry needs a taker. Trust me this is a good one to play. :cool: -Sarge

I need 2 playtesters to play each other in my new scenario. Brief description: The Americans must cross a river with four fjords and seize the opposing high ground. Germans must rush to stop it. It is a meeting engagement with 35 turns. Very infantry heavy scenario with a few light AFVs. Battalion sized engagement. This scenario will make an excellent challenge PBEM. It is tough and brutal for both sides. It has already been playtested once by me and another but needs an unbiased opinion of balance. Anyone interested, please e-mail me at mckelvis@usstamp.com or reply here. Thanks, Sarge [ May 17, 2002, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

A feature that gets more people to buy the game could not possibly be "unnecessary". Can't pay the rent with a smile and a sub-machine gun! -Sarge

Wait a minute here. Everyone assumes that full movie playback data must be stored in the same ASCII format as PBEM files. This need not be the case for local hard drive use only. Relevant binary data compressed with any choice of industry standard compression algorhithms could take the same ASCII data from an 800 KB one-minute movie and make is thousands of times smaller! So technically I am not sure disk space is a show-stopper here. I am sure that internal game code is the big thing here. Something has gotta change to support it or they would be doing it already. [ May 14, 2002, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

Hey Moon! Full movie playback would be a welcome enhancement. As a programmer I understand how enhancements need to be merged into an existing framework. Also the sheer disk space or memory that such playback data could take up may be problematic, amongst other issues. However, I do not see this as just a GEE WHIZ factor at all. It would enhance enjoyment, increase learning, and add to sales! Add to sales Say I? Correct. Just imagine a CMer showing the game to a friend. Posibility A) "see all the cool units....here's how you give orders....then they go at it for a minute." Possibilty "Check out this recent game I had against a another guy"....**views a full length movie**....reaction: said friend is likely to be blown away and rushes out and buy CM:BB! So there's your business case for whatever trouble it may be worth. I am sure that referal sales makes up a part of your market. At any rate, please don't consider this the old traditional whining "I WAAANT IT" but a real live request to consider this feature. Thanks, -Sarge

**grin** Well you make some good points VaB...I just wanted to chime in as BTS has been involved in this thread and it's good for them to know that there are different opinions on this. Nice discussion. Very civil. I wish some of the debates around here wouldn't get so heated so others would feel comfort in joining in! Best Regards, Sarge

This is true. No argument there. It is a subjective thing. I remember playing a ladder game a while back that we agreed on short-75 rules. A few turns into it, I saw a mis-IDed Tiger? sitting way back on a hill. Not only did my Sherm think it was a Tiger, but he bounced a shell off of it and there it was sitting back there at long range doing exactly what a Tiger should. My first thought was not "Hey he is cheating". It was actually "Maybe he misunderstood the purchase rules." So I said in my next e-mail "Hey, did we choose short-75 or what?". He brought me back to reality and reminded me of FOW. The moral is that I don't have a....please don't take this the wrong way....paranoia about someone cheating in a PBEM game. So if it falls to BTS to decide to make a system stricter to close cheating loopholes then they MUST weigh playability concerns too (like too many turn files to get started on a PBEM). Let's face it, it is a simulation/game not a Banking application! Cheers, Sarge

Wow. I need to play you then. Giving up such a deal because of what your opponent might think. I'd say the problem with 2 extra turns (or 3 or 4) is that it is silly to have a PBEM turn where ALL one does is set a password and send it back. And this to eliminate the possibility that your opponent could open YOUR file and cheat by observing purchase point values. Why we in the CM community have been playing games with purchase rules (short 75, Panther 76, etc.) for some time now to enforce a sort of rarity. This has been all done on the honor system and it works fine. Even now under the current CM system I can generate auto-pick force QBs and see not only the map but all my forces before I even generate my opponents turn files. If I want better units or a better map for my side only then I could just do it again. This is an even bigger cheat loophole by your standards but I don't think it has been used that often to gain unfair advantage in a PBEM game. My point is that players work out amongst themselves to use the honor system and I don't like to see it enforced new CM:BO coding and processes. -Sarge

Thought I would chime on with the PBEM setup/cheat thoughts. I realize that people want to have a game that opponents cannot gain unfair advantage of them by cheating. But the steps described by those above seem to be cumbersome. This reminds me of the "one bad apple spoils it for everyone" syndrome. OK, there are cheaters. So what. Should it mean that I have to trade files 6 times before I get to see the map? Or 8 times before both sides can get their forces moving? I could see it going something like this for your example 5 turn per week PBEM player: [e-mail 1] Hey you up for a rematch? [e-mail 2] Sure. Prefer 1500 pts, any side, city map [e-mail 3] Here is the setup.... ....(5 or so days later after numerous exchanges) Wow what an ugly map. Any chance we could generate a new one? Ridiculous. In the current system, A setup can be done easily and 24 or so happy hours later both sides have begun their manuevers. Simple and easy to get a game started quickly to get into the good stuff. Just my opinion -Sarge

I have observed that too mainly because of casualty percentages to the overall unit strength. For example, 4 man SMG teams suffer 1 casualty which is 25%. They tend to go to cautious or shaken and often take cover. While an 8 man SMG squad can take 1 casualty and suffer no unit morale loss. These factors are varied by command influene of course. I'd say there is a relatively simple math function that BTS uses to not only show unit morale effect with split squads but also with depleted squads. -Sarge

Yeah I guess Number 2 above may actually be two seperate issues within the one. OK, fine. A platoon LT goes KIA and the whole platoon suffers. Platoon sargeants (as opposed to squad sargeants) would be part of the platoon HQ anyway. The other bit about quality squad sargeants making a big impact on the battle....tough to model without giving individual squads bonus attributes. Scenario designers can model this with veteran or crack status. What happens when the LT dies? Does a quality non-com take command? Sure. It happened all the time. I am not talking about battlefield commisions (outside the scope of CM), but rank did not much determine who the real leaders of a platoon or company were all the time. Platoons and companies with poor (not just dead) leaders where often held together with non-com leadership, especially when it mattered most in the middle of a fight. How could that translate to CM? Not sure...obviously programming is at issue. More important to the playability of the game is playtesting. We all want some new feature that makes our troops better but it works both ways too. -Sarge [ May 06, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]