Tarquelne

I'd love to see a China-Burma-India CM, esp. for Burma. Could be quite intense. But, given the depth and quality of the previous games, I imagine BFC could have CM hang around Europe indefinetly and I'd keep buying the games. Hmm... I should stop reading this thread. NA will be great, but I've got the Eastern Front to enjoy now...

Got it! Took less than 1/2 an hour via cable, I think. Thanks, Gunslinger and Chris. It's up on Kazaa...

OMG! It's _not_ unavailable due to exceeded bandwidth limits! Ditto. Ditto, and ditto. Be interesting to see if anyone finds it/downloads it via Kazaa. Not "ditto."

Pics look good! Hmm... does the Scenario Depot have a CMBB maps section? Edited in: (The answer is "yes".) [ November 11, 2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

There is some overlap between the words, esp. in how they're commonly used. A "tactic" is, speaking very generally, a way to do something. It's most usually applied to what and how one does things in combat. Strategy has a similar meaning ("How to get something done.") AND also has then "grand" meaning, fitting it into the strategic/operational/tactical breakdown, which has more to do with scale than anything else. "Strategy" generally has connotations of the involvement in a far-reaching plan or motivations beyond the accomplishment of whatever end the strategy will directly bring about. (In gaming parlance, though, a "strategy game" is one in which you are encouraged to sit there and think and the pace is relatively slow.) "Tactics" is usually applied to specific, detailed and/or concrete actions or methods. CMBB is a "tactical" game because of the scale and wealth of details the game includes. A game with the same scale but much more abstract - a "WWII tactical combat collectable card game" for example, would be "tactical" in scale but probably "strategic" in play. (Or, more likely, shallow - but "strategic" is what it'd aspire to.) CMBB is a "strategy" game because you do use "strategies" when playing, and "strategize" about what you're doing, in the looser "How shall I do this?" sense of the word. So: The terms _are_ "more or less interchangable". "Less" on this board, though, because the distinction is more likely to matter.

("Kazaa Lite" is Kazaa without the spyware.) [ November 10, 2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

You didn't ask, but the 18 man tanks like the German A7V were supposed to have: Commander Driver Mechanic Signaler Cannon gunner Cannon loader 6x machinegun gunners 6x machinegun loaders I'd like to see the A7V in CMBB, but I suppose BFC had some good reasons not to include it.

{"A Warm Place to Sleep" SPOILER) I played AWPtS a few days ago as the Russians. The German "Halftrack?" thingy that looked like a gun tractor buzzed all around the hill behind the house, Russian infantry pinging bullets off the "gun tracktor's" armor from a few 10s of meters away, occasional MG fire poking holes in the snow near the Ruskies. This went on for several turns (4, 5?), while the AT rifles ignored it. It wasn't untill the bugger finally bogged (at the open in at the top of the hill, rather than among the trees it so seemed to enjoy) and I could spare a tank to target it that it was finally destroyed. Guess what? It was really a halftrack! OMG, I was soooo suprised!

????

Get with the program, Gary. In the Glorious World of Computers you're supposed to drool over a 5% improvement.

Well, yeah. No lens flare. And the explosions, frankly, are fairly realistic.

Don't worry. I think you'll find that most of the "complainers" are all big fans of the game, and that the frustration levels are acutally small, or at least much smaller than the satisfaction derived playing the game. Grognard = grumbler, remember. Critical folks, they want to see the game get even better. Much of CM is so good that any problems do often stand out fairly sharply. However, for me, at least, a great game with some noticable flaws and/or bugs is still much better than a so-so game with no particully noticable flaws or bugs. (And even _those_ games are pretty hard to find.)

Hmm... I'm begining to think that a way to more quickly locate units (as opposed to the full-scale "show everything" spreadsheet OOB) might help immersion/realism. I find moving up to mapview 4+ and going to Size 4 and possibly turning off the trees is the quickest way to move around the battlefield and select units... but such not exactly what a Batt. or Co. commander did historically, is it? I'd rather keep at veiw 3 or less (preferably 1 or 2) most of the time, the graphics realistic-as-possible (Size "0", all trees/doodads on) and use a menu/table of some sort to go directly to the unit I want. The +/- keys work... but the larger the battle the more unpleasent cycling through the all units becomes. If any sort of OOBish table is anathema to BFC, maybe a "minimap" sort of thing for the next CM, that just shows basic terrain features and the location of friendlies? Click on a dot to slect/move view to that location? Much like one of the overhead views with large Sized units, but the whole thing is smaller. And transparent? It could overlay your "realistic" view of the battlefield when you need it, then go away, leaving you again looking over the shoulder of your doomed PzIII ("Hey, look, do you think that's an entire Guards battalion?"), or whatever. [ November 07, 2002, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

Not I. Just checked - I wished for a way to search for "Best vrs. AI", though. Add it to my SD wishlist.

I posted a review at the SD yesterday (The Bridgeheads)... or two days ago? Well, "in the past." I realized, btw, that if I can be sarcastic in a review I'm more likely to post one. And remember Andreas, re: the review - you owe me one.

Did Tigers tend to move and fight in larger units?

According to the manual, just what does "final stages of an assault" mean?

Are you sure you're not sharpshooter9599?

Too many dangling straight lines, perhaps? (See, there's another one!)

Kazaa (and as far as I know all the PtP networks without central servers) don't keep a "master" list of all the files shared. Instead, various computers in the network each has their own, almost certainly incomplete, list. The more computers share a file, and the longer a file is shared, the more likely it is others will be able to find it. Only one computer, only for a little while... it's going to be hard to find. If the Bandwidth Nazis take down cm.cozog I'd like to try using Kazaa (or another PtP network) for distributing CMBB files. If enough people put up CMBB files they'll be easy to find. (How many people? I don't know.) [ November 05, 2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

What's your average combat survival time?

Edited out because Lt. H's last post made his position clear. [ November 05, 2002, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I hope it isn't _that_ difficult, I've been suprised before with some of the studies that have been done and are known of here. I am curious as the the frequency of reckless but brave behavior from "green" troops, though. I've not idea how representational of common events the anecdotes I've heard or read are. OTOH, Combat accounts/unit histories I've read are more understandable when the "phases" mentioned in the first post are applied - I'd love to see them added to the game. Commanders may have seldom used the terminology of the JS's post, but they often seemed acutely aware of the phenomena. (And no, I'm not going define "acutely aware" as it applies here, or supply any references. ) (Well trained and Fit but "Sticky" troops would be especially interesting to play with, IMO.) I think the most basic point in JS's first post - that a troop's quality and "experience" aren't tied together as closely as some - CM, for example - often imply. "Training" might be a better word than "Experience" to describe the Con/Grn/Reg/Vet/Crk/Elt spectrum in CM, but it doesn't really cover everything either. "Quality" is probably too vauge... not the word used doesn't matters all that much. Maybe not in QBs, but using the editor I think every one of the "phases" mentioned other than "Sticky" can be seen in CM. Use "Experience" for training, apply "Fanaticism" if Green or Fought Out, and use Fitness for fatigue and possibly for Fought Out. That's pretty good. Of course "pretty good" doesn't seem good enough for BFC... or the grognard players, at least. Here's hoping "Battle Experience" (Combat Fatigue?) makes it into the next game. (The spread of panic mentioned in the first post is something I'd like to see in CM too. Expressed perhaps as the ability for troops, esp. poorly trained troops, to become "Sticky" during a battle? Or does Global Morale already cover this?)

Can we (ie - you ) attach any numbers to the willingness of "green" troops to advance where more experienced troops would not? Probability, distance, increased tolerance for losses?

My guess is they DO, and I think real issue here is captial letters. Assault vrs. assault. IIRC, in CMBB (and BO) units getting close to enemy units "step it up". So when using Advance troops drawing near to the enemy automatically make an assault. Assault, OTOH, represents something beyond the fire and maneuver involved with an Advance. It's a special effort of some sort. So the troops need to stop for a moment (a few seconds, it the player has very good timing and the troops are of high quality) and look over the terrain with especial care, double check weapons or plans, get "psyched", be threatened by the Commissar, or whatever. I havn't found the waypoint restriction very limiting, either. Well, at all limiting, really. For situations that are best described as assaults - ie, moevement either through heavy fire or against strong resistance - I like to use a simultaneous Assault of multiple well rested squads from out of cover. Not that I've had the game very long, but so far that's always required a turn or two of rest for a leat 1 squad anyway.