newlife

Don't think like Microsoft here. Think like Linux. BTS has said repeatedly that they are not interested in a campaign game. Fine, let other people make those games. But make the CM series a valuable game that can be plugged into the campaign market, and you increase your own market. BTS makes quality products and cheap knockoffs should be no threat to them. However, the market place will change. The more success the CM series has, the more other people will want to get in on the action. Therefor, something like the API done now will allow BTS to have more say in where that market goes. Hell, in a future CM, maybe you could even stop the action, plug in a FPshooter, and play the critical taking of the large factory yourself, then bonce back to CM8. Then bounce back to Panzer General 5 and redirect your offensive. TRS did not do what they did because they are in a "friendly" field of publishing. They did it because it made good business sense to put themselves at the core position in the PRG business. It protects their own products by making companies want to cooperate with their system rather than make competeing ones. This reduces the risk that a group like White Wolf will take over the dominant RPG spot. The comparison doesn't completely overlap with CM, but enough of it to be worth thinking about.

As for knock offs, I don't see how this would generate anymore than CMBB alone will. Maybe if someone creates a GREAT campaign game that connected in, you might see a few people try to make cheap things that connected into the campaign game, but they wouldn't be the people interested in anything CM like anyway.

I'm not thinking of having another game actively interface with CMBB while it's running. I'm more thnking that another game basically spits out a scenario or even just a QB setup, lets the people play it, and then reports back the AAR to the other program. There would be no need to involve the data transfer from PBEM.

I hate typos.

It may have been suggested before (but the number of posts on campaigns is quite daunting). Suggestion: Provide an API which would allow other programs to start a battle, and then be able to read the results. This has several benefits for you guys. A) It means YOU don't have to code a campaign game, and can simply tell those wanting one to build it themselves. and Should someone make a really good game that uses it, it most definately increase sales of CMBB. What's more, if you make it an open licence, you're product remains much less tied to the fate of the other games. Basically, all you would be doing is making it easier for guys like those at CMMOS to do their stuff more fluently, provided they write their own code. The premise is similar to TSR's (WOTC or whoever they are now) open game license. Anyone can use their core rule system for free providd they give proper credit. TSR makes out because for every other game system that ties into them, means that a few more people are likely to buy the Player's Handbook which is the profit maker for TSR. The API idea is similar, for every game out there which allows a player to start a CMBB battle, means more people are likely to purchase CMBB. Finally, this might be something you could patch on after CMBB's release so that it wouldn't delay the game to the delight of the pack of rabid wolves around here who call themselves fans. Pete

I was just playing around and testing different units when I realized that the 88mm PAKs and FLAKs had movement class 9, the same as the gun tractor. I had no clue you could start the scenario with them embarked. I thought they were completely land bound. Once you disembark them, they don't go anywhere of course, so you better choose your spots wisely. That, and the 88mm FLAK has an unlimber time of 4 minutes, while the PAKs have an unlimber time of 8 minutes. Obviously very good reasons why you don't see people towing these around in QB MEs. Sounds like a feature solely for a scenario. Anyone know of scenario that you start with limbered 88s?

Isn't "best of peng" an oxymoron?

They did include Nethack, which had been around for quite a while. I didn't go through the whole list to see if any of the original Ultimas were there or whether the orginal (and still good) text based "Adventure". Now that was a great game. As for lists, they're all bunk no matter who makes them, or even if you agree. Make your own top ten list if you want. It will have just as much validity as theirs. Pete

rlh1138, Thanks for the feedback. I had contemplated moving the defense back, but thought that might make it a little too suceptable to atry. Plus, you would need to do something about the attacker coming along the map edges. If you are defending versus the AI it would be best to let the AI setup the attacking units on it's own, and give it some boost in experience or units. I generally make my 2 player scenarios with troops layed out in an easy way for each player to identify what they have and let them place units themselves, at least for the attacker. I'm still not sure if this scenario is balanced or not for 2 player. I'll keep doing some testing, and if anyone wishes to try it out and let me know, I'ld appreciate it. Thanks Pete

Ahh, I just surrendered the scenario to see what unit made the noice and it turns out to be one of the AT guns. I never new they had infantry sound markers, but it makes sense that you could hear it. Pete

Hi, I was just testing a scenario and I noticed that one of my units identified an enemy infantry sound contact. Not surprising until you realize that the enemy infantry sound contact is roughly a km away, it's raining, and the closest german units is a shocked tank crew. THAT'S good ears. Pete

I've been playing versus random people from the CMHQ chat room, so I have no idea of their experience before I play them. Afterwards, I would guess from gameplay that they would be roughly around my own experience level (I am currently in the second round of the newbie rejects tourney, to give you an idea of my level) Versus the AI I find it never dumps arty on speculation, where I think most of the arty hits I refer to above were from guessing where I should be, or at least where I was. In some cases the arty came down the same turn my men left. Boy was I glad I kept them moving. I would love to play you, but I've found it better for me personally to play TCP/IP cause I can't consitantly get turns off PBEM every day. So if you would like to TCP/IP sometime, send me an email. olandt@mac.com Thanks Pete

I just submitted a scenario to the Scenario Depot that should have a map excellent for this type of defense. The defensive setup provided by me was a little hasty in construction and units are not completely in place, but hopefully the map will work. If you're interested go to the Scenario Depot and pick up "ThreeBrothers". (The Three Brothers are three hills behind which the defense will rest.) It's in the scenario section as I purchased units for it. Pete

okay, everyobody try this exercise. Get a nice attack scenario with Americans attacking Germans during the day. Setup your defence as the Germans for the day. Now go to the editor and change the time to night. See any new wholes in your defence? If your defensive choices included typical German units which have a long range advantage such as most of their AFVs, 88s, or MGs, your defence will not be as comprehensible. The Americans will still rain arty down on you regardless of day or night. e.g. if I'm a frontline infantry unit, I may be glad to have that battery of 88's on the hill behind me, but I sure as heck don't wish for nightfall when those 88's won't be able to directly see the fighting.

Thanks for the feedback guys. Redwolf, your comments about this being a common tactic for infantry heavy forces got me thinking about that. I have been using this with either all infantry or mostly infantry forces. I've been trying to decide whether the tactic can be used with more combined arms or not. At first glance, I don't see why it shouldn't be. But then I remembered how I've dealt with AFV heavy forces in the past, which is mainly to maximize my edge in infantry and concentrate on taking out his infantry while doing my best to avoid his AFVs. That tactic has generally worked fairly well since as soon as the infanry is removed the AFVs are much easier to pick off. That said, can a AFV heavy force afford to use a tactic which will risk it's infantry to a greater extent. So then I thought, what about moving up armor elements with the initial elements. This would expose the forward AFV elements more, but risk could be managed depending upon specific terrain elements and approaches. I think the bigger drawback would be the sound contact giveaway. Usually when I see a sound contact I have a fair idea of where the screening infantry force should be and can act accordingly. hmm My other question is concerns force selection. I've been using regulars, but obviously veterens would be much more valuable in this role considering their better responce times. But is it worth the extra cost? Thanks Pillar for the Fort Polk reference. I really like the flanking aspect of the whole exercise. One of my QB ME's I ended up getting behind my opponet and surrounding him on three sides, cutting him off from his own retreat lanes. God I love fog. Pete

Hi, This is something I've been experimenting with lately. I'll move a few units into a position (usually a plt) I'll make contact and then withdraw quickly (provided the troops have a safe route out). So far, it seems to be working. Usually the enemy will move up units to hit the position i just vacated alowing me to locate several of his units. Plus, i seem to be getting hit by far less arty. Many arty strikes have been hitting vacated positions. After I retreat and the enemy moves his units forward, I call in my own Arty down on his positions and then try to outflank him. The technique also seems to allow my men the advantage of fighting from preferable locations. As the enemy comes in, the eventually hit my real line of men who have chosen good cover and the situation is to my advantage. It also helps with keeping AFVs alive as you can have them setup in fairly safe spots with views towards the expected enemy advance. Since they're not moving towards the enemy its more difficult for the enemy to surprise them and get flank shots (though not impossible of course). I've been using this tactic in town MEs, usually with restricted sight lines due to terrain or weather (one game had thick fog). For what it's worth... Pete

Ah, that's because you don't understand the in game mechanics. JAM, doesn't mean the gun won't fire, it means the team is eating breakfast and is looking for the JAM. Try moving the unit to the nearest corner store and you'll find that it's back in the fight in no time. Apparently BUTTER appears much less frequently as supplies were so numerous that the designeers decided not model BUTTER reserves. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CMplayer: One thing which bugs me is that while an MG is jammed you can't see how much ammo it has.<hr></blockquote>

Hey guys, So, do I assume that a cable DSL (from RCN) has no firewall to protect me? I'm asking mostly for my roommates who run PCs (I have a mac laptop hookedup at most a few hours a day). If that's the case, where is the best web resources on setting up a good hardware firewall. Thanks Pete

Another possibility would to allow the user to voluntarily filter out the extremely rare units and not even show them. Some sort of toggle that will shrink the list down and make it quicker to identify the common units. Mostly just a ease of use suggestion.

Hi, Not sure how you are implementing this, but it might be nice to see the "base" price of a unit next to the modified rarity price so that people will know when a units price is modieifed. Just something to help those people who haven't fully memorized the entire price list for the game (which will be HUGE with all those vehicles). Optional ways would be to put rarity flags of some sort or give the +-% of modification. Pete

I don't see why some people seem to view less control over units as less fun. Personally, I'm a big picture sort of person. I'ld much rather tell a company to take that hill and come up with strategic plans than to micromanage forces. I'ld imagine anything like that for future CM engines would probably come with toggles so you could play something very similar to CMBO, or from just the commanders perspective, or anywhere in between.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155: This happened to me just recently too. I'm waiting for the plane to make an appearance. Bertram, email me the scenario name and I can look at the regular .cmb in the editor to determine if there is a problem. Treeburst155 out.<hr></blockquote> Ah yes, but when the plane strafes your own troops, how do you know it was your reinforcements or his?

You call that a victory! You left 4 men in OK status!

My hats off to you Comabt General for playing a good opponent like Swamp, getting trashed, and still telling us about it. There's no better way to learn than getting trashed by the best of em.

Wow, You could use it to generate perfect keyholes on defense. Cut a few barb-wire lanes through woods for your Nashorn to jump back and forth to. Eww, just thinking about that gives me the shudders.