[Victory conditions?]

And will we have asymetric victory conditions?

[How will CMC affect CMBB tactics?]

No!

[Tactical maps]

Do you know, what happend '41 before Leningrad?

Two german Pz-Divisions were moved around a heavy fortified front just to discover, when they were ready to roll again, that the streets in the maps simply didn't exist.

It's fact that often only a rough estimation of the terrain was operationally available.

But a look at a CMBB-map where you immediately can see ambush-positions before you even have to move any units over there, is unrealistically.

And recon elements are mostly to recon the enemy, not to describe the terrain in detail.

That's impossible anyway, because the commanders have to see the terrain with their own eyes for tactical judgements. And that makes it necessary to move their units over there.

IMO no recon unit can do, what a player can do with a look at the CMBB map.

I think we will simply have to live with the fact, if players want to inspect the maps prior to operational movements, then they will be able to do so. It's the same as ladder playing: you have to live with the fact, that in case a premade-scenario is played, you don't know if the unknown oponent will look at your units.

Maybe a declaration of honor from every player prior to a campaign could prevent from that kind of cheating.

[Attacking from opposite/ multiple directions.]

Cool.

[Tactical maps]

I don't agree. In RL the informations were much worse, than a look at a CMBB map. No chance to check LOS.

But the 'problem' i see is less, if it is realistically to have so much information tactically or even operationally, but more a perspective of gameplay:

the one who is willing to look into the cards, means loading all maps in CMBB before moving his units operationally on a new square, will have a huge advantage over the player, enjoying the surprise-effect.

[ October 20, 2005, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Unit size?]

So i understand it, too.

[How will CMC affect CMBB tactics?]

I agree with all said above, but one point is missing:

we won't see that much battles with balanced forces again.

We will learn, that the normally well balanced CM-battle is quite an exception. And therefore it could change our view at CM in general. Conventional CM battles could even become boring, not becasue of the missing broader perspective, but because of the suddenly felt unrealistically but necessary tactic, to reach a victory in percent.

[ROW 6?]

I think you only need players for the MovingElements + Division CO ->

1 Div. CO

9 Battalion COs

But since the MovingElements are determined by the designer, it could be:

1 Div. CO

27 Company COs

or

1 Div. CO

1 Regt. CO

3 Batt. COs

9 Company COs

_____________

14

or

1 Div. CO

81 Plt. COs

[Heavy artillery unit gets attacked...and then...?]

Renaud,

oh, didn't know the russians have only the 76mm modelled.

On the german side, i think the 150 IG could be used, as model for a 150mm.

But on the other hand, if the Russians have not, then the Germans must be restricted the same way, otherwise in the appearing tactical battles, the Germans would at least get a chance to fight back, while the Russian player only gets three trucks to play with...

I think the designer can't assign CMC-unitsymbols to CMBB-units. This should be hardcoded into CMC because CMC needs to transfer the correct data to CMBB for the correct setup.

[Tactical maps]

The operational player that looks at the tactical BB maps first, and orders his units where the best tactical terrain in CMBB is, will have a huge advantage over the player, who only judges terrain via CMC.

Which could turn into real labor and take a lot of the surprise out of the battles, if tactical players do so, too.

[Heavy artillery unit gets attacked...and then...?]

Now we only need to know, what he means with 'big'?

180 upwards? Or already 150mm? Or even 105mm?

I'd guess, he means the big calibers, that aren't available in CMBB as models anyway.

IMO everything would be almost perfect, if those who have models, can appear directly on the field, and those who don't have models anyway, are represented by trucks.

[Heavy artillery unit gets attacked...and then...?]

I hope artillery-batteries will be modeled operationally (i.e. by trucks). I don't see big problems doing so.

Their corresponding FOs could be moved in a certain radius (operationally) around the battery's location as own MEs.

If an enemy operational breakthrough into the square where the artillery-trucks are stationed happens, then CMC could set them up directly as field-guns for the CMBB battle. Or in the case they even were on the move, set up as pulled by trucks... :eek:

Should make some really new and (for one side) really frustrating CMBB-battles, if maybe the heavy arty of a division is surprised that way by a company of tanks...

[2 units against 1]

Good point.

I hope the 'General' (operational player) will have the possibility to punish such players (taking command away and/or giving another commando: "You play the trucks from now on!" MovingElement7 is immediately under command of player XY + enters already the new email-adress)

[Is this thing really playable?]

General Bolt,

i don't believe, that the tactical players move their units around. Because they don't have enough knowledge about the overall situation.

I guess this will be done by the 'General'.

The tac-player either sees how his units move automatically or he sees the order, where to move it.

Playing the 'General' will be quite attractive, too.

[Breakdowns & infiltration]

I think the penetrating mot. forces will need to be ordered as 'tactical reserves' to the battle prior to the breakthrough.

Then they can appear during the battle as reinforcements and once the front is open, they can rush torwards the other side to get the flags to have a base for further penetration.

And when the battle ends, the mot. units are already at the other side of the battlefield and ready to rush forward operationally.

But a big problem i see, are small enemy units, behind his MLR in other squares, always triggering 1 hour CMBB-battles when they have contact with the breakthrough-forces and slowing down the advance tremendously, although they are no threat for passing armoured units.

[Divisional TOE's]

Excellent, if the design of the included campaigns goes in that direction.

But will there be a possibility, to give stacked units a new name ('Stosstrupp X', 'Kampfgruppe Y')?

If yes, does the operational player do that, or can every player rename them for his taste and just for his personal battlefield-view?

[withdrawl from map & pursuit?]

I want to see the operational player, keeping the tactical player in command, if he simply ignores orders and redraws...

Additionally from what i understood so far, the single tactical player only has very limited knowlege about what is going on on the operational-level.

So withdrawing just for fun could have quite negative cosequences for the whole front.

[Legal Version for Germany]

Please, BFC, give me a censored version, i'm a modern German!

[Can we have an AAR from CMC ?]

Not necessarily immediately on another location but more that consecutive orders depending on the success are delayed.

Think of a breakthrough operation: your infantry knocks a hole into the front and the tanks and mot-units are ready to drive through the hole into the oponent's rear. Winning half an hour (if the CMBB battle succeeds already after 30 minutes) can be quite positive.

But IMO the effect for a (much) faster gameplay because of starting all battles of the same hour in one CMC-turn simultaneously is more important.

[Why not use military symbols?]

I hate military symbols.

[Can we have an AAR from CMC ?]

The only possibility i see, is that CMC-turns continue although a CMBB-battle has begun. But the maximum would be until the result of the oldest CMBB-battle is needed (max. 60 minutes).

But a problem i see with CMC continuing 60 minutes after a CMBB-battle has begun is, that the effect of CMBB battles ending prior to 60 minutes (i.e. due to auto surrender), wouldn't be reflected timewise in CMC.

But on the other hand, the possibility to start all CMBB battles that begin in that hour, would heavily speed things up.

So maybe all battles that begin within a CMC-turn, could be started parallel.

[ October 16, 2005, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[CMC Multiplayer - only Hotseat and PBEM?]

From the CMC-site:

CMC can be played single player against one or more AI opponents (or subordinates), or multiplayer versus several other human opponents. PBEM and Hotseat multiplay modes are supported.

[==Unofficial CMC FAQ== aka cripes don't i already have enough to do?]

Thanks russellmz.

[Can we have an AAR from CMC ?]

Since the AAR takes that long, here are my guesses:

1. set up CMC: infos about your CMC-BB POP3-account are needed, because CMC checks your emails automatically.

2. then choose a Campaign - if human CMC-oponent, input name and email adress of other CMC-player

3. choose own tactical CMBB players for each MovingElement controlled by a human (email-adress)

4. send turn to other CMC oponent (via CMC)

5. oponent receives CMC-turn and does the same as above + gives orders to his MEs and plots his moves

6. sends CMC-turn#2

7. Player1 starts CMC, checks POP3, receives CMC-turn#2

8. P1 plans his moves -> calculation of action

9. send CMC-turn#3

10. CMC-player2 starts CMC, CMC checks POP3, receives CMC-turn#3

11. CMC P2 views action

12. minute 31: battle between ME-x and oponent

13. CMC player has to decide, since ME-x is controlled by a human: auto-resolve or play CMBB? Chooses: solve by CMBB-battle.

14. CMC-turn#4 sent to CMC P1.

15. CMC Player1 receives CMC turn#4 - info: CMBB-battle occured for player Y controlling ME-y and for player Z controlling ME-z - which one should play the battle?

16. CMC-player1 descides for player Z

17. CMC creates the CMBB setup files

18. sends PBEM setup-files

19. WAIT for the bad news.

[ October 16, 2005, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[2 units against 1]

But wouldn't that mean, that the CMC operational player has to change the CMBB-player every time, a MovingElement crosses such a border?

Seems unpracticable to me.

I guess if two or more MEs participate in the same battle, the CMC operational player will be prompted to decide which player should receive the setup file.