Tarquelne

Which penetration charts are you comparing? Looking at CMBB's tables for June '43* guns don't have what I'd call "almost identical penetrations." At 1000m+ the figures actually seem to favor the 76. However, at 500m or less, what I'll call "CMBO ranges", the 75 gives better results. That'd go some way toward explaining it's success against StuGs in CMBO. *M4A2 Sherman's 75, not the M4A3. AP ammo. I'm assuming they have the same gun and ammo. FHA vrs. RHA: I'd like to see some indication of which (or "what") sort of armor a unit has. Maybe a code letter after the mm figure? [ November 04, 2002, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

(Still waiting for the total breakdown in rationality and civility so often engendered by a sniper-thread, and thus the chance to attack my many enemies here at will. My scathing wit, cruel criticisms and crappy spelling masked by the general chaos! Maybe I'll check back if this reaches five pages...)

How interesting all this discussion of the nitty gritty of CM's engine is! I think it'd help to know what Lt. Kije's basic argument in regard to false positive vrs. base-rate error is, or possibly even the relevent publication information. I ask this not out of any off-topic interest, but _only_ to help ensure than a furor caused by false positives in any future CM gunnery tests is avoided. I wouldn't dream of posting anything off topic.

I understand that in CMBB you can import not only a map but also the units on that map into a QB. True, and working correctly? (Yeah, I could try to confirm, but it's easier to just come here and yammer.) Has anyone thought about making semi-historical or ficitional scenarios created with the idea that players would add some units of thier choice to the scenario? I'd think this could add further interest (since buying units is often cited as one of the most enjoyable parts of playing a QB) and/or replayability to a scenario. Specific what-if's might be good: The Allied player, for example, might be instructed to choose either 300 pts. of T-34 or two 122mm FOs. Eh? For CMBO my LAN group would often play using hastily designed scenarios... not as good as a real fresh-from-the-Depot scenario, but a step up from straight QB. A player would often have input on what units the hasty-scenario designer included. It seems the CMBB import feature might make that sort of thing easy and convenient.

Something reapeated in the StuGs-are-awesome threads fairly often is that CMBB's point system doesn't have any situational modifiers. A 21 point SMG squad is 21 points in a factory, and 21 points on the steppe. In historical scenarios this doesn't matter, but for QB's you really may just have to give the Germans extra points. Personally, I'd rather toss the Germans some extra points and so let them have an extra assault gun, engineer platoon, or some such than work up unit-by-unit rules are (heaven forbid!) prevent the Russian player from using SMG squads.

I'm not saying there aren't enough on the CD or at the Depot, that are too many late/mid war scenarios, or that the early war scenario's I've seen weren't good enough. It's just that I enjoy the early war scnarios a great deal, and want _more_, please.

First, AK, thanks for for the Scenario Depot - great site! I suggest that be put in VERY LARGE PRINT somewhere. That word's come up several times in the last few posts, and it was one I was thinking since ES's first post on the topic: I second ES's points on why players often don't write reviews. Luckily, it sounds like what many designers really want is just some feedback. Hopefully a compliment, but constructive criticism is always welcome, correct? What if, in addition to "Review this scenario" you could simply "Leave feedback for author" No ratings asked, just a small text box. Or, probably eaiser - change "Review this scenario" to something like "Give feedback NOW, sucker!", "Review or be damned!" or "As if we cared, what's your opinion, noobie?"... or something like that. And make the link bigger, why not? And, while I'm on the subject of potentially offensive technical fixes, why not have the site track what scenarios you download, and then ask for reviews when you go back for more? Because it's a lot of work, it's irritating and it's intrusive you say? Well, yeah, I can see that. But I don't know just how much work it'd be for AK, and maybe he could "soft sell it." SD is awefully well put together, I wouldn't be suprised if AK could pull it off... perhaps a fairly narrow frame off to the right titled "Review me?" with a list of unreviewed scnearios? That area's empty when I'm at the SD. I don't think that'd feel much like an EA registration reminder. Oh yeah... I, too, will be better about at least leaving some feedback, if not an actual "review".

In the interest of conserving bandwidth, perhaps put new slogans/numbers in a seperate zip? That way the entire mod wouldn't have to be re-downloaded. And if all you do is add some slogans/numbers then your mods might be needlessly re-downloaded by those still satisfied with the origionals, but otherwise on the hunt for MrNoobie goodies.

It's about 250KB.... if the jpg were compressed even 25% it'd shrink down to about 70K. Hint hint.

Kewel! But in a good way!

Me? Sarcastic? [ October 31, 2002, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

Yea!

Re: Michael D.'s post... tracers, smoke, radio: How common was such ground-based control? It sounds like it'd be a lot of fun if included in the next CM game, and if it's not too rare I wouldn't feel bad about pestering BFC about it. Also: I could ask: "The ambiguity of 'Papal cannibalism.' What's worse: Popes eating people, or people eating Popes?" But that would be off topic, so I won't.

Errr.... SPOILERS! Me too. (Lots of fun.) Two of the first tanks that showed up were provisionally ID as T-34s. Oh no! Oh, only BTs. And then another "T-34" showed up..... "Yeah, right." Oops.

And, of course, in CMBB you can specify a "damaged" map and pre-game enemy casualties, and then say they're both the result of air-attack. But yeah, having it happen during the game would be better - more fun, if nothing else. I played a batch of 20-30 turn scenarios with quite a bit of German airpower in 'em recently. The planes seemed to show up around 10 turns into the game with fair consistency. I wasn't really keeping track, though... But what I really want to say is: Where's the cannibalism, pray tell? When I see "a modest proposal" I expect to see some cannibalism, OK, Michael? Do better next time.

The population of Indiana increased from ~24,000 in 1810 to ~150,000 in 1820.

How about changing the interface? Make "Move" say "Sneak" Make "Sneak" say "Crawl" Make "Move to contact" say "Stop if you hear anything", or whatever. Then _pretend_ that BFC patched the game to your specifications.

Was that the _only_ difference? Did you target the same vehicles the AI would have targeted?

Ah, sounds likely. In my saved game none of the crews are still by their guns, but there is an Eliminated crew.

Before this weekend I was undecided. While it's pretty obvious that infantry is more "brittle" in CMBB than in CMBO (either because of changes to the infantry or changes to the rest of the game, or both) is it _too brittle_? Now I can't say I think they're too brittle. I played a few infantry heavy battles, to try to get the hang of covering fire and the new movement commands. Lo and behold... The number of broken, routed, etc. troops dropped precipitously after the 3rd or 4th game. At this point, based my vast experience watching war movies (and a few other things, I suppose) the game's handleing of infantry feels realistic to me. Infantry turns tail far easier than in CMBO - yes. CMBB unrealistic - I don't think so. Be wary of comparisons to CMBO, and be comfortable with the new features/realities of CMBB before becoming too commited on this issue.* I could be wrong, of course - it's been a few years since the last time and I guess I'm due - but currently I'm in the "BFC Fanboy" camp on this issue. *I hereby explicitly deny assuming that any specific preivous poster of opposing viewpoint has either drawn too heavily upon CMBO when making comparisons, or doesn't know how to use CMBBs new features or appreciate the game engine.

As the article says "The missing auxiliary functions are surprised" So much for online translators. Actually, I think I could make out his point: Lack of context. If you're not something of grog the HUGE number of details can be something of a turn off. ("Do I choose infantry-type-I-can't-spell-#1 or infantry-type-I-can't-spell-#2... WFT?") Alternatly, If you're a certain type of gamer you don't give a damn what the difference is - you've got the stats, who cares? Or maybe you're eager to learn all this WWII stuff... but for everyone else all that contextless detail is wasted effort, at best. My conclusion?: Numerical ratings in reviews - esp. game or other interactive activites - stink. Even with my translator telling me "As battle steering wheels of the allied ones" the review was fairly informative - including the "atmosphere" point. I understood what the reviewer was getting at (I think), and could use that insight in making a purchase decision or discussing the game with others. The "11%" and all the other numbers, though, just beg the question "Why 11%.... why not 12%, why not 10%? Why is it 11%?" All you need to know is the answer to the question - the number itself is only usefull to the hopelessly anal, pre-80's androids with failing analog circuits, and clones of the reviewer.

I just finished a QB. Looking over the map I count 3 enemy "guns" - Two 76.2 and a 45mm AT. The end screen showed 3 enemy guns destroyed. Gloating over the "Kills" stats after the game, however, I discovered the PzIII had 1 gun kill, a 50mm mortar had 2 gun kills, and the onther 50mm mortar had 1 gun kills. 1+2+1=4 guns. So, whats up? A bug, or did, for example, or did those 50mm mortars simultaneously firing on each 76 share a kill? I've got the last end-turn saved. Plus, as this was a demonstration/tutorial game for a friend, I've got saves for most of the previous turns, too. Sorry if this has come up before, my search didn't turn up anything... Please, don't let this be in the manual! Err... if it is, it's my dog's fault! He's supposed to know this stuff.

Because I think it's OK to be rude to gratuitously rude people. (Just to get this out of the way: I'm not doing it to offend Russian soldiers.)

In fact, I never check my posts for spelling. Which is why I mis-spell words so often. Hmmm.... that might be why I mentioned "contempt for posters", rather than mods, eh? Unfortunatly for us, your posts are meant to be read, just as F.'s slogans are meant to be used. And, just like people should avoid using incorrect slogans, people should avoid being repeatedly and gratuitously rude. Seems simple to me. No, you're _also_ being quite unpleasent. I'm trying an experiment: "Hey, Francesco, I'm a Russian-speaker, and a bunch of your slogans look like they're spelled wrong. I'd hate to see a bunch of misspelled slogans on mods! What's going on? Want a hand?" Hmmm.... look! I said what needed to be said _without_ using the word "crap." Cool, huh? [ October 29, 2002, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I just finished an early war QB as the Germans. I bought four (4!) of the gun/cannon only planes... Hs-123? The were only around 60 points each. My PzIIs and one short-gunned PzIV accounted for, IIRC, 1 T-26, 1 tankette (T-38?) and 1 T-60. (Though they all got lots of infantry, thanks for asking.) The planes KO'd another 4-5 T-26s, 2 tankettes and 3-4 T-60s. Cool! Out of (again, IIRC) 12 runs only one air-attack was against German units (an 81mm mortar squad was KO'd.) My opponent thinks he could have reduced losses to the Hs-123s if he'd rushed all the tanks to cover (seems likely), but, given his experience with CMBO, he just couldn't believe that there'd be so many planes and so many strafing runs. Heh heh. [ October 29, 2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]