sightreader

OK, I know this is a silly beef, but why do all the soldiers in the game have such big heads? It seems out of touch with the beautifully rendered vehicles, weapons, and backgrounds to see everything populated by refugees from Legoland. It also creates a cartoonish tone that undermines the emphasis on realism that pervades the rest of the game... Thanks for listening: I just HAD to say that...

What do we have to do to get this game on something like the Zone, UBI, GameSpy, ASE, or any of the other matching services? This whole thing of trying to chase down a time and place by email just isn't working very well for me... is there someone we can petition?

...and please don't forget to set up your smaller scenarios with start zones on opposite corners of diagonal maps so tanks don't squat along the edge to avoid being flanked!

A quick glance at the dictionary will show that Bazooka was named after a silly musical instrument invented and played by comedian Bob Burns in the late 30's and 40's.

Wow! Thanks for those production numbers: Soviet production was truly awesome. No wonder the Germans didn't stand a chance... heck, I wonder if even the US could have held up against that.

Hey, thank you guys SO much for the formation information! We've played games with these formations, and both of us have been very satisfied! At the risk of being greedy, I wanted to ask some questions about Bastogne. I know that German formations were probably atypical for this battle due to the preponderance of special tanks like Tigers. What were some standard tank mixes found in Bastogne, or was it pretty much a hodgepodge? I know RedWolf hinted that when Tigers did show up, they showed up en masse. Did the Americans pretty much deploy massed Shermans, Fireflies, or something different? Thanks!

Oh wait a bloody second... sorry... the other post had typical German formations (blushing furiously)

That is SWEET information - I'm totally gobbling it up! Did the Germans also have typical tank mixes they employed, or was it more ad-hoc for them?

Oh, I agree with you that it's easy to use, Wreck. The thing is, users who don't understand the underlying mechanics will get frustrated that stuff is grayed out and start calling everything bugs. Of course, they won't take the time to read the manual, either...

Oh... I guess I haven't played with offboard artillery before. I thought you could make stuff like bombardments or airstrikes "reinforcements" so that you have time to move out...

Sorry that my previous post didn't quite get the rarity by availability thing. My only concern is that the system be as simple as possible: the majority of the market may not be as diehard as most guys posting in the forum. Anyone have ideas how to make RVA simpler?

Hey, that site is sweet! And thanks a zillion for the typical force mixes: that also helps a lot! Yes, the British seem to have some pretty exotic tanks, and I am most curious how many of those types were deployed...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Offwhite: Jason made one good suggestion for avoiding this. Another option is to provide FO's as reinforcements two or three turns into the game - that way units have time to get out of the corner.<hr></blockquote> Won't that work to help with the artillery problem? I think it pretty much has the same effect as the gentleman's agreement, no?

How about two point scales, one for combat effectiveness, and another for rarity? Thus, if you were to get a JadgTiger, you'd be out of rarity points and everything else would have to be common as dirt, but the size of your force is still determined by combat effectiveness? That way, a scenario designer can set the rarity number for each side to determine how bizarre forces can get without unbalancing the battle.

Ack! I forgot about losses, and didn't know the question was so involved. I guess I'm just trying to get an idea of which variants were really mass produced and which ones were experimental things. How about this... What are the most common tanks or SPs for each of the Germans, British, and Americans? Is it possible to know the rough ratios (about twice as many Shermans as Churchills, about as many Cromwells as Panthers, etc...)? A monthly answer is probably excessive... maybe, at most, mid 44, late 44, and early 45? Thanks! I didn't mean to cause such a hassle.

Hello out there! My friend wants to set up battles based roughly on how likely one is to encounter them in roughly the right numbers. What are the rough production numbers for the most prevalent models of tanks and SP guns? How likely is it to see things like Sherman Jumbos, Fireflies, or StugIVs? My back injury prevents me from long sessions of research... Note: I understand that this depends on the battle, like you'll be unusually likely to see Tigers at the Bulge, but nonetheless we could really use the info. Thanks!

Herr Oberst's post now has me wondering something else... Sure it's gamey edge hugging, and sure diagonal boards help solve it. But is it gamey to flank someone on a diagonal board? When you flank, wouldn't you theoretically get shot at from additional enemies farther to the side? In my tests, once a flanking manuever has been done, you still have to get everyone to attack at the same time, which is no easy thing with a moving enemy.

I agree with the last three posts: edge hugging is often the only logical way to play, especially if there's good cover over there. Now the question is, does the diagonal board eliminate it without interfering with your tactical options? I think it's safe to say that in small scenarios this trick works; however, I never play big scenarios and this solution may be impractical. In the scenarios I play, my front line is a little spot in my corner of the diagonal map. If your front line is straight on a diagonal board, then you have more room to deploy troops, but your start zone is triangular and the deep territory pointing at you may be wasted space. This may increase the board size beyond any practical limit. However, in exchange, you get the wider middle ground which may open up some possibilities for flanking. Once you get to the middle ground and start working your way into enemy territory, I think you can edge hug your way in, but at least you have to earn the right to do that. Hard for me to say: my health is too poor to play long battles on such a large scale.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman: Changing the setup areas size wouldn't change that at all. I agree with the principle of th idea, but can it be use effectively in CM? You <hr></blockquote> I was wondering if edge hugging is even much of an issue with a large battle and a wide front. Of the large number of units arrayed, it would seem that only a small percentage could take advantage of it. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> said you tested small battles (20 turns did you say). From the number of scenarios I have played (must be at least 1000 by now) not very many are that long. In the time frame all the AI has time to do is attack head on. Now if you didn't play <hr></blockquote> Actually, I meant 20 minutes, not 20 turns. Most of the games were over in less than 10 turns. However, without infantry, there is nothing for tanks zipping around to be careful of, so they can cross the map in about 3 turns. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> the AI you wouldn't have the problem. I know some people to edge hugging, but the shape of the map will not really change this. Thats all for now. Rob [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ][/QB]<hr></blockquote> Actually, this was the principal target of the diagonal map: to prevent edge hugging by humans without forcing them to play irrationally. How do humans continue to use edge hugging on a diagonal map? I think it's a possibility, but in the diagonal tank games I've played it's so difficult to set up that one prefers to exploit terrain instead. Is it likely to be more prevalent with infantry?

I'm not sure I fully understand the big battle problem: is it that you can't cram that many guys into a corner, or that the corner would have to be so large that the map would become enormous? You could enlarge your start zones by making them triangular rather than diamond shaped, but I assume that's not the issue... Definitely you can fiddle with terrain to prevent edge hugging. For a guy to does a lot of Auto Generate, that's a pain, but for a scenario designer, it's reasonable. The ideal map, of course, would be circular, but for a game that intrinsically does things in square grids that's sorta unnatural for things like Auto Generate.

Oh yeah, one more thing: what's the best way to make Scenario folks aware of this? I don't want to cross post this to the Scenario Talk forum: I did that before and learned that cross posting is an Evil Thing...

I think I emailed the Combat Mission people once about setting up more scenarios like this, but never got a reply or acknowledgement. Maybe I didn't do it right? Certainly I don't claim to be the first to set up a map diagonally. I may be one of the first to recognize its potential for solving the edge hugging problem, but I don't know that for sure either. All I can say is I came up with the idea independently, and for that I am happy and have high hopes that the idea will improve everyone's experience. Unfortunately, I have back problems and can't play scenarios that last more than 20 minutes, so I haven't tested it on anything other than small tank battles. I was curious if any of you guys out there with healthy backs might have tried it with a wider variety of units...?

Yes, I can vouch personally that flanking is very prevalent in a diagonal scenario. The first guy to get to cover around the left or right corners of the diamond gets flanking rights. In quantity vs quality tank battles, the Tigers race to get lines of sight that go all the way across the board so they can shoot down Shermans running sideways to flank. If they can't kill enough Shermans this way, then the Shermans usually have little difficulty closing in on the Tigers from all directions. From then on it's a matter of timing: make sure all the Shermans pop up at the same time and you'll get that rear shot.

Thank you all for the congratulations. Last I recall, there was some concern that putting a start zone in the corner made forces prone to artillery bombardment. I suppose all that depends on how large the battle is. I haven't tried this with infantry or other stuff, just tanks.

Well, I'm most pleased to report that after over twenty all-tank battles on the diagonal board, we have yet to encounter a single case of edge hugging (edge hugging is where a tank will drive along the edge of the board to avoid being flanked). It's still possible, but it's so hard to execute that the terrain ends up dominating strategy instead (as it should). How have experiments gone with non-armor units? FYI, to make a diagonal board, just set the start zones to be opposite corners of a square board so you're fighting across a diamond shape. Avoid maps with unapproachable high ground in the start zone.