willbell

Steve, I see your point about the programming being a sim, and then the game uses the sim, and I agree. The game then is playing with army men (and I mean this in a really good way). You structure the game so the player gets to do all the stuff that is fun, and also, magically, you have created the tactical aspect so that it very closely resembles real life. It is not identical to real life because we play many people at once, not just ourselves. All this is great, and I make the point only to underscore the fact that it is not reasonable for us to think that you can solve all the quirks, like borg spotting, they are inherently part of the balancing act between first person and battalion level tactics. This is the best game ever invented. My only contribution is to suggest that a multiplayer game could be either two players on one side, with each one running half the units, or you might make a meta campaign component, where you have a bunch of battle maps set up. Then the campaign program moves men and materiel around on a larger map that represent something like a division level game. One player is the commander, and orders men and materiel around. The campaign game resolves the movement on the larger map, then it is broken down into smaller local battles that the other player then play. The results of the idividual battles then is translated to what happens on the larger map. It's kind of like a PBEM civil war game that I played once.

Steve, I remember from one of your older posts that CM is not a simulation, it's a war game. Strictly speaking, a simulation can only be from and individual POV. So CM is an abstraction, a way out way of playing army men. So the most important question is not whether it is accurate in all it's details, but accurate enough that we feel like we are fighting a real battle, but get to do all the fun stuff too (tanks, canons, machineguns, flame thrower etc. So a multiplayer option can do one of two things. It can let multiple players each play a group of battles that are somehow all inter-related in goal, or it can let more than two players play the same game where there is for instance a two battalions on each side and each of the four players run one of them. The first option is in addition to, and doesn't effect the regular two person game we know as CM. It is a program that is almost a game in and of itself, it manges a kind of metacampaign with several independent CM battles going on at once. And it watches a big map, and lets the individual games know how their battle effected the big map, and where they will be on the next turn. One of the group of players is the commander and gives orders as to where next on the big map everyone is to go. And on the next turn everyone plays a battle again, each one being unique and based on what happened on the big map. So you are always playing CM like we do now, but in a wider context. But of course there are all kinds of abstractions to deal with here, but work them out in the spirit of the design of CM to begin with. The second type is obvious, it requires more memory, but the some units are controlled by commander A and others by commander B, and they move them about either cooperatively or not, and the results are worked out by the game engine.

The VT sounds like something I need to pay more attention to. Barring that I just want to throw in that my experience supports PiggDogg and Flammmmmingknives' position that 75mm DF is the most effective. Artillery is too scattered to be worth the effect. I also regularly target area because it is almost certain that your targets will move around or try to move out of LOS. I would be curious if the effect of a blast contained by the sides of the trench are modeled in CM, it sure feels like it. Also, I can't say enough how much I appreciate it when the more experienced and knowledgeable players jump in on these forums. Thanks guys.

BDW, Force yourself to play one of the other so called "historical war games" out there on the market for a day. You will come screaming back into the arms of CM with joy, even if it is only to play CMBO.

Edit what?

Moon, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there is a point of view element here as well. If you are right behind a clump of trees only one tile deep you may be able to see through and out of it, but someone a distance away from you may not be able to see you through it. try this in real life, a small clump of trees in the distance screens the stuff behind it, but if you are right next to the same clump of trees you can see stuff on the other side of it. Will

Thanks for the responses. Martyr, I figured out part of your answer based on the turn I was playing, but your explanation finally clarifies it completley.

jim, I have been thinking about this in the context of CMXX being the corner stone in a larger campaign as well. Part of the problem is thinking in terms of each individual player being the top dog. We tend to always think in terms of four quarters and the final tally. In fact, the CM battles and campaigns are mostly designed from the same point of view. Even the scoring system in CM tends to bend the design process into this way of thinking. But what if you were to consider a whole different set of outcomes. For instance, what if in a probe it was not a question of whether or not you killed more enemy than the other guy. What if the probe involved having to make a decision as to whether you would be better off withdrawing at that particular time? So in a meta campaign any particular player might not need to win a particular battle in terms of casualties and flags taken, maybe they just need to make their presence known in order to get the right response from the enemy in the wider theatre picture. Does this make sense? No one battle needs to be the winning battle, they all might be just good enough, but the overall goals of the campaign are met. There's quite a bit more to this than I can type up here. Email me if you would like.

Brent, Aha, I get it now! I wasn't even thinking of how quickly you can target 80s. I just used SOS and the turn one artillery spotting on the game I'm playing now! Go figure.

Michael, you are cheating a little bit by using sophistry in your replies, although I have a tendency to agree with your position. You sometimes counter someones case of a small unit effecting a larger outcome by pointing out that it was a different small unit that made the difference. Makes the poster feel like they lost the argument just because you are right, but in reality you are just shifting the credit to a different small unit, not supporting your argument.

I guess after having played CMXX for a while a few technical details are starting to make me curious. In CMAK there is a red firing line when you are being fired at by an enemy tank. And, unlike CMBO, you can hit a tank any number of times but never know for sure whether you knocked it out until a later turn. Does the red firing line indicate that the tank is literally firing at that moment, thus give away whether or not you have knocked it out, or does it just stay red until the next turn? Also, regarding the flags turning off and on, does your opponent see what you see? Are the flags kind of like red lights anouncing you have troops in the area? I'm playing a game with a lot of flags, are they giving hints as to my set up? I've always kind of wondered about these two points, but have never nailed down the answers.

Ohhh, groan. I can't even understand what you are saying about 81s? Are you saying that an FO for 81s doesn't need an LOS or TRP to hit a target accurately? Or if not, why 81s in Doroshes' example, can't I do the same thing with a 105 FO? I guess I just don't even get the artillery point to a counter attack, where's the troops?

Franko, what manual do we need to know the rules from? Have you written a rules manual for your campaigns?

It stikes me that this counter attack doctrine is probably workable in a sizeable meeting engagement. Michael, neat idea with the TRPs. But I don't get the SOS point you made.

I barely have enough knowledge/experience to even ask this question but I'm intrigued. Part of the German defensive doctrine, IIRC, was to counter attack furiously if they lost a position. In CMAK, when defensive games are "balanced", this is not practical since on defense you never have an excess of infantry to make the attack. Is this a game designer or CMAK design abstraction? Or were the furious counter attacks executed from a wider scope than CMAK battles encompass, ie. they didn't come imediately, but hours later from resources from other units to the rear? Did I just ask a totally scrambled and nonsensical question?

Wicky, what if the spotted unit walks right into the split squad. Well, I guess that's unlikely. I'm going to try your method out. Thanks.

Leopard, Sorry, you are just dead wrong. Even if Sharon said it, it doesn't make it true. It would take a hell of a lot more than wishfull thinking and one statement to make the US a slave to anyone's desires. US policy is US policy based on what the US wants, plain and simple. If someone doesn't like US policy they can bitch and moan all the like, but it is plain stupidity to try to attribute it to some ethereal, all powerful cabal.

Wicky, Nice tip! But I still would like them to start sneaking away at contact, not 40 seconds later when they have been over run (for all practical purposes). Will

Hans, You are evil. Sea Lion gave me a heart attack when I realized how slow my tanks were (can't remember the model). Fortunately I was able to readjust my tactics to compensate a little. Will

I'm surprised Kettler is the only one to mention 60ms. They are my weapon of choice for all open topped vehicles. The great advantage being that the spotter can stay hidden, and the mortar can be out of LOS. 105s and 150s will wipe out M10s just by falling close by, one shell can even take out two close by M10s. For closed tanks, 105s and 150s can work, but with a great waste of ammo. Lucky shots are cool, but I save it for arty and "infantry?". I have read quite a few accounts of infantry calling in 150s on tanks to knock them out, but have never been able to reliably manage that in CMXX

Sorry, but the latest CMX2 post was too old and too long, so I'm starting another wish list. I would like a command that is the reverse of Move To Contact. A Move After Contact command, which would be more useful for defense. I like to put a half squad out where they can give an early warning of enemy approaching. This works well, except for the tendency for them to decide to take on the whole enemy force alone. It would be nice if they could be hiding and then creep away soon after making contact.

Michael, forgot to mention that I really like that idea a lot.

I vote for more slots and/or IF/THEN option (as long as we don't actually have to code). It really makes a game richer when assets, that aren't necessarily vital, drop in randomly throughout the game. It's like FedEx stopping at your house. The anticipation can make even a drab turn more interesting. What about reinforcements in the middle of battles for each turn of a campaign?

COG, You are right, sorry I got drawn into this. Bone, Comment on them, but then just let it go.

Here is the sneakiest thing I do, which I learned by frantically searching this forum the night before my second time ever playing Germans on defense (my first time was a route). Put a platoon, or part of one in command, in a postion to sneak around the flank area of the attacking enemy. The attackers don't really expect this. You can get some great recon. If you are far enough out on the edges, and you keep a low profile, you can catch small units, like artillery or MGs from behind. Create some havoc and it tends to cause their advance to falter. It always seems like you can't spare the extra men, but once you take the plunge you almost can't resist doing this. Hint, take advantage of interior lines, which is a lot easier when you have some early recon. If you have fear of humans then spend some time reading the tips and tricks compilation, it is very useful.