kenfedoroff

Yeah, I just started another PBEM (my opponent accepted my surrender as Allies...again, sigh). This time I am playing Axis and....Yep, you guessed it, Poland surrendered on the first turn. I could see that being a problem in a Ladder League. Ken

I dropped out of TCP/IP (both SC and CMBB) completely. Now I play strictly PBEM. That way I can take my time on a move (and my opponents can too). If my opponent disappears, or if real-life intervenes, it's no big deal because I keep several different games going. Hopefully, someday PBEM can be made cheat-proof so it's allowed in the Ladder League. That's the only thing I miss from TCP/IP. Ken

No Sir, the turret is merely jammed, and we are rotating to a new direction. Sincerely, Captain Unconscious

The AI is good to learn against but humans are much more coordinated on the attack and devious on the defense. Welcome to the club, Ken

LOL... Amen Comrade. It does model how important leadership was to a successful action, and why there was such a high loss-rate among junior officers (on both sides). In many accounts of the Eastern Front, the platoon, company and battalion commanders were constantly in the thick of things. Ken

Thanks for the response xerxes. Now about the force mix. Where's my platoon of "crack" KV-1 ?? Ken

Good post C-Dog I haven't played that particular scenario but you can't argue with the results. Hmmm....... Maybe less turns are better. Then I can still blame the results of my cowardly, cautious play on the scenario designer. Thanks All, for the input. Ken

OK. Thanks guys Ken

My question is specific to the operation "Gambler's Fallacy", but pertains to other Ops as well. How do I know when I've run out of map (I'm the Soviets on defense), and it's time to issue the "Stand Fast" order ? Should an Op. have a label for a certain geographical point on the map that is designated in the briefing as a "signpost" or "warning light" as far as the defense running out of map ? Apologies in advance if this has been explained elsewhere. Ken

My problem with the "need for speed" in a scenario is this: With the CMBB model of realistic fragile infantry, if a unit routs, you have most likely lost it for the rest of the scenario, unlike CMBO. In big battles with lots of troops, this is not such a big problem. It's only a small percent of your force you lost for performing aggressive recon. In smaller battles, this does become an issue. Perhaps the scenario designer could penalize a lack of aggressiveness by feeding more reinforcements to the defense in the latter stages of the scenario. Or put some hints in the briefing as to what is expected. Ken

One of the great features of this game is the scenario editor. If I (and my opponent) are not happy with, or are suspicious of the time allotment, we can edit this or any other item we want. I edit scenarios all the time. Some of the scenarios I have played might have the purpose of showing just how good the Axis commander has to be to pull off a significant victory (as in WW2 accounts). I have to agree that many scenarios need a few more turns, or some info in the briefing that takes the place of scouting or recon. Ken

If I could make one change for this scenario I would put a medium bridge at the ford, with fording spots on either side of it, just in case some gamey bastich did manage to blow it up. Ken

I wish they had a movie play-back for hot seat like they do for pbem. Ken

You may find that even with cover arcs, some units won't fire. You will have to go through a whole minute of watching your scout vehicle being used for target practice before you can command the over-watch to target the specific gun in the orders phase. Ken

I like a quick peek at the map for one reason: A well-made or interesting looking map quite often (but not always) means the scenario designer has put some real effort into creating a fun and challenging situation to resolve. As more people trot over to the Scenario Depot and make their opinions known, there will be less chance of spending time on a "clinker" scenario, and therefore, less reason for even a peek. Ken

Are you kidding? It saved my life and my marriage. Way back in the bad ol' days, I would have to steal money from my wife's purse and stumble around drunk in topless bars just to make a fool of myself. Now...Thanks to Battlefront.com and the power of the internet, I can make a fool of myself in front of the whole-wide world right from the comfort of my own home. Why just yesterday, I presented two Panthers broadside to a T-34 at less than 300 yd.,(which my opponent promptly toasted...Duh..) ...Which reminds me of all the money I save from bail, lawyers, collision shops, etc. (you get the picture). Combat Mission: Learn it. Know it. Live it. Sincerely, Captain Unconscious

I played this as the Soviets in a PBEM. There is not a big margin for error on the German side. I think the suggestions mentioned above (by the other Forum members) for the Germans are a good place to start. This is a great scenario and shows just how good the Germans were, to be successful on the Eastern front. As the Soviet player I lost most of my force, but caused some casualties and prevented any German units from reaching the exits. (admittedly, in a few more turns, I would have had nothing much left and the Germans that were left would have been able to exit without much resistance). I think this is one of the more challenging/fun combined arms scenarios around. Sincerely, Ken

Grrrrrrr....That's just great. That's all I needed was another reason to go out and find a job.....And I was so getting into the slacker groove. Sincerely, Laid-off Lenny

I like to take a quick peek at the map before I consider a scenario for PBEM. Of course, I tell my prospective opponent to take a peek as well, without lingering over set-up zones, force-mix, etc. As we get more reviews and recommendations for scenarios over at "The Depot" and similar sites, even this "map peek" won't be necessary anymore. Ken

The Free French in Canada will surrender when France falls. Go figure. Ken

Yes they can, at least in v1.06 anyway. Ken

Most, if not all of your requests have been discussed in this Forum. You will have to search back through the old threads to find each topic. I like #2. The land units would have artillery to shoot back. Ken

"Short Attention Span Man" strikes again -or- "my memory ain't what it used to be". Ken

The above might be good points for Grogs or gamers that thrive on exact simulation, but, (I am guessing) many/most people could care less what exact units were in a battle. Many/most people play this game for fun, for the satisfaction of solving a puzzle, and competition. So the poor scenario designer has to make a choice: 100 percent historical (of which 80-90 percent of the people who play it won't know or care) -or- concentrate on fun/playability, etc. -or- make the scenario for your own amusement and everyone else can bloody well sod-off if they don't like it. Maybe it depends on how much one cares whether or not his/her scenario is popular or not. The McKinley's Battalion scenario was fun to play (because I still remember it, and I can hide my own Easter Eggs). If BTS wants to gather a larger audience, (starting with the casual gamer) then they are better served by offering fun/playability vs 100 percent historical scenarios (unless they offer fun/playability, of course). That's my story and I'm stick'n to it. Ken

I know I got one lucky hit at the end of the game, which prompted me to check the gun vs armor data (a green T-34 got a side turret penetration on a P-III at 1,037 yds. with his first shot and the second shot KO'ed). Maybe because I was able to gang up on my opponents tanks I was (overall) able to get the hits for kills? Don't get me wrong, my T-34s died fast and furious when they were out in the open, but when you keep them hull-down they are tough. And I was shocked at how fast the Germans could die if they were not hull-down. Fun scenario and a real eye-opener as far as armor and guns for that time period. Thanks, Ken