Cauldron

Did a test: 81 mm Better troops fire faster. There is not a lot of difference between a HQ fed LOS and a direct LOS. FFE's arrive about the same. C & C of vet + troops does not seem to matter, accuracy is about the same. TRP's add NO difference to accuracy. POINTS: Don't worry too much about mortars being in C&C fron an accuracy point of view. From a survival point of view HQ LOS's are a good deal OBA ( I used 105) Better units fire faster. HQ fed LOS is slower than direct LOS. ie time on target Either as a result of C&C OR direct LOS ( I'm not sure) vet + observors seem to fire in a thinner CA widthwise, lengthwise error seems to be about the same as regular direct fire LOS. POINTS: Vet + observors with direct LOS with or without C & C have a better drop zone than lesser units widthwise. Crossing the T with two OBA's should give a disernable X pattern. From a health POV "HQ fed LOS" is a good deal but not as good as the mortar one. QUALITY MATTERS. TRP's add very little to accuracy. Hope this is of some use in your next game(s) eric :cool:

I am asking whether in making a game the AI considers a battalion reserve in reinforcement 1 to be THE only battalion reserve. eg R1 10 inf platoons 5 AT guns blah blah If I add Battalion reserve to reinforcement 2 is this ANOTHER battalion.. What i want is for the above ( ie: first) to be the reserve . So, R2 might be 3 inf platoons and 2 atg's LEAVING 7 inf platoons and 2 ag's for subsequent ( r3,r4,r5)reinforcements. I hope this clarifies the focus. ta

Hy, I was wondering if it is possible to do the following: Situation: Stationary AFV with infantry on top. The AFV is to move 100m up a hill (say) and disembark the squad 10 m further ahead. Quite often the squad will disembark before the AFV moves.... A solution > I would also be interested to hear any " fine tuning" that has worked using the pause command. ta

Machine guns in CM are good infantry supression weapons and work at much longer ranges than infantry ( as you might expect). The better the quality the more "bursts" you get per game turn. There are no fire lanes. People who say they created "interlocking fields of fire" in CM are talking out thier ass.. I suggest as a newbie you just " try a few things out" if you have a passing knowledge of military weapon usage try that first. Welcome aboard eric

nope. it just told me what i already knew )

Despite the title the sound file is really good and adds a certain dimention ..... Good work Spielberg eric

Hy, I was wondering how this works on a battle and on a campaign. If you put the fact that you want to release a battalion reserve on reinforcement 1 do you have to add the same fact again in R2, R3 etc. IF the above answer is yes IS THIS the same part of the original reserve (in fact the other bits of R1 not already given to you) OR is it a NEW battalion reserve. The point I want to make is : IS it possible to have a battalion reserve GIVE YOU ( per the AI thought on what to give you) portioned_bits_of_ ONE_ battalion. I think this sort of game could be extreemly good aginst the AI in particular . PLEASE help ... thanks eric < a scenario designer gone mad >

The Stalingrad map for CM ( ASL copy) has been available for ages.

41 in 2 weeks... I believe Rommel got his batton 'round then eric

If you did the July 11th scenario, that was FUN !!! eric

Rather than test my own game ( which i have now done 20 + times) it would be good if I could get experienced players to test this campaign. This is set in 1944 and is a fictional ( but very fun) battle. The Russians ( US, Brit) are up against the SS. The AI has not done a good job as the Russian so the more experience player should go Allies. This is available at the scenario depot and this direct link: www.firedream.net/~talisman/combat.htm PLEASE tell me if you have a team (human/ human) and how it went.... thanks eric

15 years in the making, 50 000 000 hours playtesting.... It is posted here >>> www.firedream.net/~talisman/combat.htm ( file name: factories.zip). This ought to keep those who like nice things to play with ( panther's, whirlwinds, 20quad's)happily entertained. I should warm you the "valley attack" is pretty wild and although it plays OK against the AI is better against a human.... I welcome comments ... eric

Well done of that. Excellent series...

Please carry this forum question to "technical stuff" where it belongs. Additionally you will finds what you are looking for as this has been a mojor subject of discussion since XP was realeased. PS: As an XP user I can say it is a vast improvement on Win 9x.... and I'll take the bug any day Thanks also to Matt for helping in this and to the driver testers in the tech forum. eric ** New campaign to be realsed very soon - and its a beauty ( 100 hours + of testing)...

http://www.geocities.com/scenario_archive/w.htm

Cool comments... Although quite a few answers are about the comparision of ASL and CM I did not intend that. Instead I was describing how scenario's: the placement and use of forces (+ reinforcements), as well as the perimiter fought out within the battle ( al la Red Barricades)is too limiting or just done plain wrong CM. It was a scenario design issue not a ASL Vs CM one. The points that followed were my ideas of the "limitations" that if they were improved would make scenario design better ( for both designer and player). In essence, if enough people are interested in getting campaigns to work the way they should all of us will be happier. ta

I believe the AI IS better in CM than in ASL, but only by about 6 x 50 cal shell caseings, no make that 4.

I want to add a 4) the straight line perimiter ( for camnpigns)is so frustrating I persoanly want to stick my finger in Stalin's eye. AHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhh !!!

Anything that boosts campign style battles is a good move... I don't think "meetings" are necessary, rather do it on a time schedule if both flag A and B are not taken by turn xx, then <order 2>. etc etc I believe even the Americans had things called phones

As a player of the first for 10 years+ and CM for 1, out of the 50 odd battles and campaigns I've played very few "feel right". I have no doubt that the armour factors etc etc are true, so what is missing? I will first say i have also designed battles and campaigns so have a pretty good idea of what you as a scenario designer are trying to achieve. I also belive CM designers are as smart as ASL designers so there is only 1 factor that is letting it down. The game system. There are 3 major factors to this: 1) The perimiters are indescribably bad, two infantry platoons for example CAN lead to the enemy achieving an end board result in a campaign even when Panthers and the like are still very much alive 2) The reinforcements number only 5. This is VERY limiting and leads to a hoilus bolus addition of forces, frequently nothing like what the designer is wanting. This should be increased to 20 at least. If you only want 5 that's great _ I suggets in BB you will want conciderably more. 3) The lack of flags or some sort of "focusing force" in campaigns is extraordinary. One of the major reasons campaigns are not as popular as battles is because they are hardly catered for. I have to give the computer (AI) 25% more forces just to achieve what a non- expert human could. The AI also reacts in predictable ways and in many cases ( esp campaigns) is practically useless. I suggest all of these points will be of increasing frustration as Barbarossa comes out, and I don't think a " cutesy battle" for Smolensk ( etc) is going to be much chop for long. If you want better games, more realistic games, that dare I say it - in some way represent "an on (the) ground appreciation" make a better game. Engine 2 could be so good, or it could just be ordinary- which do YOU want.

Not more unscientific than Cauldron's flat-out claim and the rest blah blah blah... I decided not to stand in the middle of a rocket impact zone ( the way I WOULD MODEL IT)to test the verasity of my claim. I do however have many video's showing an actual rocket launch and subsequent impact ( needeless to say not during actual battle). Both my points ARE valid regardless if you think it is scientific or otherwise. ta ta eric

http://home.planet.nl/~wijer037/HansW.html Just to get you all warmed up for Stalingrad in BB. Hope you enjoy, btw the author is a very nice person and will respond to e mails etc

At the risk of making this sound all too simple........ Rockets in CM are BOTH too inacurate and MOST DEFINATLY too "weak" on impact zone. Rockets in many ways were a terror weapon - you see whole trees fly over your head and most people think bad thoughts. NONE of this is indicated in CM. end of story eric

Can we stop the love fest now... ???? Although I have a likeing for CM I do not think it is near perfect, and if you think it is you just haven't been looking into it enough. For anyone interested you can e mail me so I may illustrate what I mean. I would expect a post like this to originate from a newbie, one thing is for sure, he never designed a scenario ! eric

does now )