Jager

It distinguishes between a BB and a BO and places them accordingly. At least the settings I'm using just move the old files to game directory, so they are not lost. I'm not sure if this came out in the praise of PBEM helper but it gives you a list of your games and you just pick the one you want to play and press play. It handles everything up to giving the password. It really is too good to be true. Sending is equally easy, as it remembers your opponents email address. Just pick the game from the list (if it's not automatically chosen) and press send. It can send multiple gamefiles per mail if you play several games against same opponent.

To a significant extent the guidelines for this tournament were set on the RD side - B&T is providing the scenarios. Are you simply talking about the effect of playing mirrored games? Since the scenario treats each side the same way, I am puzzled as to what it is we can do on our side with regard to balance. </font>

First, the tournament definately was not spoiled in any way and I enjoyd the scenario, so thanks. Second, spoiled warning added after reading reply from Cpt Kernow. Sorry about that one again. My bad. Third, The reinforcement idea was not a bad one. But at least in some cases it seems to backfire. Now, if it had not been tried we would not have learned about it. So we are now a bit wiser

Yep, thats what I did. So big thanks to Cyberfox and Boots & Tracks. Reason for my "whining" is that the experience had some minor issues that can be corrected in the future if they are brought in the open. Sorry about posting about this before the official end of the round one. [ December 11, 2002, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Jager ]

Hi, **** SPOILER WARNING ***** Thread contains some information on round one scenario. ************************** First let's get it in the open: I lost both games in RD tournament round one and got the boot . My opponents played better than me. But in future it would be nice if the kind of unbalance that affected this tournament (at least round one) would not exist. But, I feel that when using premade scenarios in a tournament, so that one get's to play both sides, gives one or the other side unfair advantage. Also this advantage can be acquired by playing the scenario by oneself. For the record: I do not think my opponents did that. I lost on my own But it would be naive to think that in a premade scenario, like the one used in round one of RD tournament, knowledge of enemy reinforcements would not effect ones tactics. A quite large part of troops on both sides arrived as reinforcement. So the player(s) that plays his/her game(s) faster than his/her other opponent gets to anticipate the changes to the balance of power. Extreme cases would be ambush on the turn reinfocements arrive or even artillery bombardment the moment the troops appear. So what should be done? Any ideas? [ December 11, 2002, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Jager ]

Peng is for those who, for some reason, find talking more attractive than action. It is not for me to suggest that it may be because they simply choose to do things in which they are good at (or better than in the alternative ) It is perfectly natural. In all armies there are officers who are more suited to distributing supplies, organizing parades and other rear area activities. We do need all kinds of people

Yeah, we are. Except those buggers really can't drink like real men

Tell me why the attacker should not be able to strike with pre-planned artillery at known enemy positions? Surely, if the defenders positions can be seen in turn one, then the defenders positions could have been seen by attacker's scouts, before turn one. So it would be possible to arrange pre-planned artillery strike at those location. Even more so, if this place has been fought over earlier. If the scenario gives defender very few options to position his/hers troops then pre-planned artillery is and should be devastating. It's stupid to place troops in obvious locations (yes, it is sometimes impossible to avoid). Usually defender can choose where to defend. Scenario designers should take this into account so the terrain should seldom be very bad for the defenfer (yes, there are exceptions )

tts is ok. I saw him on friday. I know his modem broke on him some time ago and his waiting for cable. I don't know if thats the reason for his silence. I'll ask him if he'd care to comment the issue.

Is CMBB going to allow us to locate servers using http addresses? If not, then it means no TCP/IP games for me or my friends. NOT good Explanation below: Me and most of my friends are using internet connection with NAT (Network Address Translation), which means we need a dynamic DNS service to be able to host games. To be able to connect to a dynamic DNS service one needs just the http address and the service translates the address to your server IP. The problem is that in CMBO you need the IP address of the server.

Yeah, skis are a must in the winter scenarios. Finnish troops used them a lot during the winter months.

How about doing a program that does it the other way around? It would be cool to have a topographical map of the combat area. Print it and design your defense and attack plans on those. Great for the slow games where you can't remember what the hell you were going to do. And it would make AARs much nicer I know I could take a screenshot from level 8 view, but they don't show the height differences well.

The list would be excellent It would be good to be able to mark the units (in the list) that you have placed on the map. So you'll find the unplaced units fast.

Parade sucks. been there, done that. But seriously, I'd like to have the troops organized differently during the setup. It's time consuming to find the troops from the line. So here's my idea. Why not have the troops in a parade ground formations in the beginning. i.e. have a company of infantry organized behind it's commander. Each platoon in it's own row/line/rank (what's the correct word here). Support weapons either in their own section or divided evenly to the platoons (thats the way I like). There could even be an area right outside of the map that holds the troops and has the labels for them: rifle company, forward observers, HMG's, etc. No need to check the units to find the single SMG platoon amongst all the rifle companies.

Why don't you just go around the copyright stuff by not copying the original maps, OOB and briefings exactly? If it is not exactly the same then you do not, imho, go against the copyright. You are just creating something similar. Just tell people that you got inspired by this or that ASL scenario or it's similar to it, but it is not the ASL scenario, as everyone can see after carefull studying: See those buildings are in different place or do not exist in the ASL, that road there does not go like this in the ASL map and the germans did not have the sharpshooter in the ASL scenario.

I'm from finland and comments on the forests here (and we have lots of them): Very few forests are in neat rows. Mainly places that grow christmas-trees and like. But large parts of the forests are kept in clear of the undergrowth to improve the growth of the bigger trees that bring money for the owner. This is dependent of the age of the forest. Young tended forests tend to have more undergrowth than the older ones. Just cutting down the forest would actually make it much better cover for the attacker. You'd actually have to get the trees away too. It's much too big job to undertake near the enemy lines. And to another issue. Yes, the attacker can choose the locations they attack, but the defender has the advantage of being able to choose the locations where they wait for the enemy. So no defender, unless absolutely necessary, will choose a lousy defensive position. It's much easier to choose good position than to modify existing one. So the idea of being able to choose the defensive location from the bigger map, would be in my opinion, very realistic.

Is it possible to host a TCP/IP game, when my ISP has one-to-one NAT between me and the internet (and how)? I know that, if the CM supported domain names (DNS) in addition to IP addresses when defining the opposing players location, I could use dns2go or something similar. Is it possible to do a patch to allow this?

Will CM2 support giving domain names (e.g. www.domain.com) as the opponents address? As I'm connected to internet through NAT (network address translation), it would be much easier to use service like dns2go to give my opponents my address. That is when playing TCP/IP games [ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Jager ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: Username wrpte: Are all Finns like the Finns that post here on the CM board Well, my girlfriend has repeatedly stated that she thinks that I'm actually an alien (most recently when I spent large chunks of my vacation creating a logic program to solve logical puzzles). Does this answer to your question? - Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tommi's girlfriend is absolutely right there Tommi, are you getting my mails, is the game still going on?

It would be nice to be able to fortify buildings. Correctly fortified building is extremely resistant to enemy fire. Also the troops inside would much less vulnerable to collapse of the building. In CM attacker, once he/she get's into the town, is as well protected as the defender (unless in the open streets This is not realistic if attacking prepared defenses. Also defenders should get bonuses in close combat situations inside fortified buildings due to the mines, various hindrances and architectual changes of the fortified house to meet the needs of the defenders. I got a city fighting training while in the army so I guess I feel bit strongly about this particular issue Jager