Tarquelne

I think he was reaching more toward something like a Quick Battle with imported map and troops. ( ) Scenario designer makes scenario. Players import the map/troops into a QB and add troops based on the points/guidelines given by the designer. [ December 13, 2002, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

Ok. I wondered if you might have been just making a general statement. Well, I'll stand by my post as a "general statement", and only grumble about the failure of others to preciently read my mind and so make their posts perfectly unambiguous. [ December 12, 2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

Had this reviewer said those things, I'd be laughing, I assure you. As it is, I'm not willing to read as a laughable display of ignorance. Of course, it's possible I recieve more stimulation than you, and so my threshold of mirthful reaction is higher. But the reviewer doesn't state that BFC made up the stats, strengths, weaknesses, etc, just that they "flow" into the game well. Which I interpreted to mean that they very wide variety of "stats" (relative to most RTS games, for example) that the CMBB player is confronted with don't interfere with one's enjoyment of the game. And that's a point worth making, given the deplorable taste for oversimplification displayed by many. The description of the players "goal" is somewhat ah, "lacking" - but it's certainly not as bad as some of the others we've seen. The reviewer clearly understood that CMBB is a turn based tactical simulation, and can be enjoyed as such by anyone who appreciates the genre. No meantion of power ups, no requirement that the game be realtime or have a campaign, or statement that the game is too slow, or the graphics are too old-looking. Just that they might not to be to everyone's taste. As grogs we of course hold others to exacting standards and grumble when they are not met, and that is as it should be. In this case, some of you are not meeting my high standards of charity and understanding. Therfore, I grumble. I don't mean to sound too snotty or disapproving. (Rather "Just snotty and disapproving enough.") But I don't think mocking reviews like the one linked to above serves any good purpose, but instead does serve to foster a "Us vrs. Them" mentality that isn't healthy. (Or "nice", when you come right down to it.) There are some truly "hilarious" reviews out there: multiple eggregious factual errors all stacked atop a foundation of "Why doesn't this play like Red Alert or Quake?". Lets make fun of them. Lazy, ignorant... basically incompetent reviewers. The author of this review, though, while he sounds fairly clueless, also sounds capable of learning. And while he obviously isn't Samuel Johnson reincarnated, if he came here he could read posts, ask some questions, and generally strive toward achieving grogdom. Which is a good thing, right? OTOH, if we simply want to make fun of people anytime we can or want to... that's what the MBT is for. [ December 12, 2002, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I rolled my eyes at the discussion of armor and hitting "bare spots" or whatever.. its not exactly a document that will be quoted 200 years from now or provide the foundation for a new world-wide religion. However, the author seemed to "get" the game, and made good reccomendations based on that understanding. I'd cite the review as an example of BFC's success in produceing a "very simulation feeling" wargame that you don't have to be a grog to enjoy.

That is clarity at the expense of poetry. Don't pollute your art, man.

While troops Assaulting certainly aren't sprinting all the time, I think what they're supposed to be doing may be more tireing. 1) Jump up (He-sees-me) 2) Sprint to cover (He-taking-aim) 3) throw self down (He-doesn't-see-me) 4) Look-around-see-who's-dead-look-for-enemy-hope-to-see-him-first-THERE-HE-IS-FIRE-missed!-breathe-breathe-breathe 5) Repeat. (Oh-sh*t) The rest at step 4 is nice compared to a straight sprint over the distance, but it still looks very tiring to me. [ December 12, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

That fits with what I remember seeing... but it's also what I expected to see. It'd be interesting (and usefull) to find out just how much rifle and/or LMG firepower it does take to match the supressive effects of an equal-firepower HMG.

I have recieved the impression that for suppression effects ROF is more important than the actual accuracy in "real life". It's easy for soldiers to to tell if they're recieving a lot of fire, and that makes 'em want to keep thier heads down. But to cause casualties the fire must be accurate. 1000 bullets 2 feet away from the enemy doesn't make him a causalty. I understand Firepower in CM to measure "ability to cause causalties." So given equal Firepower ratings I would expect the weapon with the higher ROF to cause more suppression. The Firepower ratings of the MGs have stayed the same, but something about them seems to Suppress infantry more readily. That factor seems independant from Firepower - we've got the same FP, but more suppression. I don't know of any other significant factors, therefore I think that "something" must the the MGs ROF. So: I believe that the same Firepower rating from rifles and MGs won't cause the same suppression, and the difference is due to ROF. And, finally, that this increased ability to supress isn't expressed in the weapon's FP rating. This could be tested... but for the moment, at least, I'm prepared to simply have faith in my reasoning. [ December 11, 2002, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

Even in the Rear a Tiger still has over 80mm of armor, and the expected penetration of the 76mm gun is under 90 at 100m. You did good - you're not going to get a much better shot... But the tank commanders may have been smart to back away - most. esp. if the angles were unfavorable to the T-34s. (Which is something that can be difficult for the player to judge but that the TacAI crews are pretty good at.) 2 suprised Tigers vrs. 2 ready T-34s at 70m and things still don't look very good for the T-34s. Geesh, gamey German tank designers! FEAR the Tiger, fear it! It would be nice if you could instruct crews that this is the best chance they're going to get... but you can't. If the crews had stayed they would have been betting they could neutralize both Tigers before the turrets came around and - this is what I'd be thinking if I were in the T-34 - blew the Russians away in 1 shot each. The T-34s would need to not only hit each Tiger... I think they could do that before the Tigers fired, though the T-34 ROF isn't exactly spectacular, but they also need to KO or disable German tanks... and that's pretty dicy. So, yeah, as other posters explained, there are quite a few things you can do to distract the Tigers, and hopefully you can bring more than even numerical Armor odds against 'em. Try this... say "I'm going to take this pair of 76mm T-34s and sneak up on the two Tigers." And then say "I'm going to take this platoon of 76mm T-34s and sneak up on the two Tigers as I use other fire to button and otherwise distract them." Pretend you're in one of the T-34 crews, and See which sounds better to you, and how much so. [ December 10, 2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

??? The whole point of Rarity is that you pay through the nose for un-realistic forces, not realistic ones. Or... just what do you mean by "realistic", and which examples? I don't think there's been any example given that you couldn't get a No Charge eventually using variable Rarity. And if you really want a battle with a specific realistic but unusual force... well, that's what scenarios (or "No Rarity") are for. In that it might give more balanced/interesting forces than Automatically generated ones its an improvement. However, you can get a realistically "historic" force without excessive costs by using Variable Rarity and never choosing anything with a Rarity charge. Web method: Go to server and get a realistic force. Current CMBB VR method: Choose forces for QB and don't buy anthing with a + cost, and get a realistic force.

And the more you use at once the easier it is to protect the flanks, and the less the slow ROF hurts. (In that you're more likely to have _somebody_ able to fire at any given moment, and better able to maintain something close to a continuous "stream" of fire.) Slow turrets, but the more tanks you have, the more likely it will be for one to already be pointed in the right direction. So the more tanks you can afford, the better the IS-2 looks. The shorter the battle, which - all other things being equal means a less ammo needed - the better the IS-2 looks. The more infantry you face, the better the IS-2 looks. Blast is what, near 200 I think. (More MG ammo too, though it has a coax+flex rather than a coax+bow.) The bigger the AT guns you'll be facing, the better the IS-2 looks. Look esp. at the front hull armor. (I guess it might be more accurate to say, "If you're not facing big AT guns, the IS-2 looks better." The really nasty AT stuff will penetrate anything, but the IS-2 can (sometimes) shrug off frontal attacks that would destroy a T-34.) The tougher the armor you'll be encountering, the better the IS-2 looks. Esp. the slower ROF, less maneuverable stuff. The IS-2's own weaknesses won't be quite as apparent. [ December 10, 2002, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

Do you mean the IS-2, Terrapin?

I can't speak on the historical reality of what you saw, which sounds like what you're really wondering about (though I do wonder if all AFVs don't at least have the equivlent of moderate-quality binocs.). However, the 1st shot hit chance (clear day, flat suface, everything motionless) is probably around 5%. Which isn't very high, but more than high enough to make a couple of 3rd shot hits a not terribly remarkable occurance.

SO: If I could think of a REALLY terrible threat that a) Wouldn't violate board policy. Would be _obviously_ funny. and c) Wouldn't result in Nyarlathot*p ascending from shadow and eating my ro you'd be reading it right now. BFC-S: Sounds to me like TO&E and army list are really quite different. The army list being a processed (compressed, a few starches replaced by sugars, extruded in ready to eat portions) TO&E designed not to plainly state, well, the TO&E, but to provide a framework for "purchasing" units in a game. SO: So, like for every 5 PzIVF2s you must buy 20 King Tigers... or something like that, at least, using ratios of unit X to Y. When you use such lists how often do you have to apply the ratio-rules? What scale of op/battle/campagin whatever are such things generally used for? It sounds like they might be better suited to a large scale than CMBB... (and certainly better if you're not using a computer.) SO then BFC-S: To SO: (Repeat of question asked above.) To both: How "not realistic" is it. At CMBB's scale how often did mixes like those mandated above happen? I should say, btw, that in the larger battles I end up with a "mix" of AFVs fairly often. Generally a platoon of one type and then one or two others, to "fill out the corners" of my Armor point's "tummy." (That's a technical term - "tummy" should be used rather than point "pool.") (How "large" are these battles? Large enough to buy a platoon of tanks plus one or two others using Combined Arms, that's how large.) [ December 09, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

"If you prefer to have me use other methods like banner and popup advertising, just vote for $0." Banners and popup's don't bother me, so I voted $0. I'd _prefer_ the site to be free. If you eliminate the (apparently) unrealistic ad. option the votes might change substantially. Minimizing :mad: : I like the idea of limits for non-$$-contributors. Maybe a "Premium" vrs. "Free" service? Non-contributors have a monthly MB limit, "Premium" users don't? So the "freeloaders" would still get access to the site, and could eventually download everything. Given the fact that you have real financial limits, I don't see how anyone reasonable could be upset by a monthly download limit. Sure, placating the "reasonable" will only help you with a small minority of the users, but every bit helps. Are you willing to tell us what you think your monthly costs will be? (Did you already... did I miss it?) It's hard to make/judge suggestions (or figure out how much we think is "fair" to give) not knowing how much you need. I, btw, don't think you should have to publish your financial records, or anything similar. But allowing everyone to understand the costs might encourage them to contribute.

Thank you! I'm off to look at some pop-ups...

Thank you! I'm off to look at some pop-ups...

That's what Variable Rarity is for... think of it this way: Anything with a - or 0 Rarity cost is what is available, Commander. Everything with a + cost is off with some other Co. or Bat. And you can have both short and long 50's at No Change with Variable Rarity. Could you expand on that? USE VARIABLE RARITY! Sometimes the older eqipment was there, sometimes it wasn't. The frequency with which you can purchace it at No Change, using Variable Rarity, will vary with the actual frequency of the apperance of the equipment. What's the problem? I think WWB's post said all that's necessary here. Did real WWII tankers KO a Tiger II and then think "Whew, that was nasty! But now we can relax some... after all, what are the odds of there being _another_ Tiger II anywhere near here?" That extra cost is like pain. You can keep your hand on the hot stove, but your body is trying to tell you it's wrong. In a similar manner, you _can_ buy equipment with a sig. Rarity "tax", but - if you want to have an "historical" battle - it's wrong. The System is trying to tell you that the "taxed" items are supposed to be elsewhere. No, the system isn't perfect, it could have more options... but it does avoid some of the drawbacks of other proposals (so it's not like they went with what was without-question the worst implimentation), and it does the job... if you use VARIABLE RARITY. I fear that Variable Rarity may not be variable enough. Steve once wrote something similar to "Perhaps some vehicles should always have a Rarity cost increase, even under Variable Rarity." in one of the threads on the subject. I don't know exactly how the system was implimented, so it may be that a Sturmtiger, for example, is _never_ at No Change under Variable Rarity, which would mean that it was never anywhere, which I find foolish. However, it _should_ turn up at No Change so rarely I don't see this as much as a drawback. I like my QBs to be strongly flavored by whatever equipment was really in use at the time, so I don't see this as a big problem. I have seen a Sturmtiger as low as +40%, though. Way down from the usual +200% it normally costs, IIRC. The point costs are supposed to express combat value, right? Well, I thought the +40% cost Sturmtiger was a _bargin_, factoring in the suprise and even disbelief of my opponent. Heh. Well, here we have the point at which QB purchacing is a game, not a simulation. You do have a choice - a real commander wouldn't. Or, if you only take No Charge items, you're staying closer to reality. It's up to you. But you have to be using VARIABLE RARITY. Second QB setup screen. Lowermost left. The drop down box allows you to select Standard, Variable, or None. Under Variable you, too, can _rarely_ get a T40 at No Change. I think it comes from your "older equipment should always be avilable...." comment. The _Rarity_ system never makes equipment Unavialble, just expensive. And, if older equipment was always available at no Rarity tax then players could and, more to the point, WOULD buy it in ahistoric numbers. Thus, the "rarity without rarity" characterization. Explain how they're different in effect from Variable Rarity, please. [ December 08, 2002, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I chose to view that as not an argument against several of the suggestions made here, but rather an argument for the need to include the effect of counter-battery fire in the next CM engine.

I think that's most likely to be BFC's attitude (if they go with scripting at all). I don't think anyone wants to replace the AI, but even a few basic script-like tools could make a big difference in scenarios. The new AI, if it does indeed incorporate "memory", will be a big step foward, but I bet it could still use a few nudges in the right direction. Sounds fun! (If frustrating at times: "The enemy is in THAT direction.... come, you can do it... you can do it.... NO!") Maybe even have multiple players on the same side, who (via the honor system) don't "chat" more than they'd realistically be able to... Which, come to think of it, is pretty much the multiple player per side feature already requested by the TacOps fans, with the AI allowed to control some units.

I'm part of GWAR ("Goethe Was Always Right") and am thinking of joining MEIAW - I'll send you a dollar toward a new Mac, John, if you send me your address. Are you aware of "Low End Mac"? (lowendmac.com) IIRC a friend of mine used information from the site when buying some Macs recently.

And your opponent won't necessarily know that unit at the VL is out of ammo. Well, unless they notice that the Flag isn't flying your colors...

Finding the right movement order might not be the right way to solve your dilemma. Maybe you need a different tactic. Using a mortar is a completely different tactic, but it's also also very popular. And, as mentioned above, Smoke is good. Use it to maneuver whatever you want into better position vrs. the gun. I guess it's just that asking a Hummel to duel with a Gun within that Gun's effective range is playing the game by the Gun's rules. But to get back to using that Hummel against the gun: Without looking at your exact situation I don't know if this would be practical or not, but I'd consider trying Area Fire from the Hummel near the Gun. A 150mm shell doesn't need be particularly accurate vrs. a mere Gun. Seek Hull Down to a point that'll put your Hummel just out of sight of the Gun and fire. Also (with the same caveat with regard to the map) backing WAY off is generally a good idea. Your Hummel is probably better at long range than the Gun. (Optics, doesn't need a direct hit for a kill.) That's pretty likely no matter what you do if your Hummel is at all near where the Gun is pointed. If you really must use a direct, relatively close-range shot from the Hummel then Shoot-and-Scoot might be best. Get into position fast, fire, get out fast in case you missed. (The Hummel has more margin for error than the Gun.) You might not get the optimal Hull down position, but you'll move in (and OUT) faster. And don't forget to apply a narrow cover arc. It'll focus the Hummul's attention where you need it. Did you try using the infantry to provide covering fire for the Hummel? Even if they can't KO the gun they might be able to Pin it long enough to keep the Hummel safe. Even if the Inf. takes some losses from the Gun they'd probably be much less costly than the loss of the Hummel. And if the Gun is shooting at the Inf. it's not shooting at the Hummel... Try the Tips and Tricks forum, too. [ December 07, 2002, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I strongly disagree. While Rare units didn't appear often, sometimes they _did_ appear. (Thus "Rare", not "Absent".) A low Rarity in a Variable Rarity game can be thought of representing a time when the unit is present. Ie, when a player will actually buy the unit because there isn't a big honkin' Rarity "tax" on the unit. Automatically selected forces in VR games use that to good effect, giving a nice historical flavor to games, but retaining some variation. There are some other things you can do with Variable Rarity... with a trusted opponent, at least. If you don't have a trusted opponent, I advise you to find another one. Cheap advice? Yeah - But, to be frank, I'd rather you were inconvenienced than lose ("loose") the present system. (In fact, I hope the Rarity factors vary up 100% of the Rarity rating.) Finally, if you want no more than a 10% difference why bother selecting Variable Rarity at all? You can just use Standard.

No, they'll also accept your soul or your first born child.