Tarquelne

No, Commissar! All politically correct here!

And what kind of buttons was he wearing? Buttons are important.

Look at how often a tank survives being holed a few times. In the (demo) games I've played the t-34s seem to survive several penetrations about as often as they don't. So, from that, one might argue that penetrations aren't deadly enough, but the little CMBB tankers seem correct in believing that staying in the tank isn't a bad idea, even if the tank is penetrated.

Perhaps BFC has come to understand that the Superior Man does not acknowledge the Mouse, but instead follows the Way of the Trackball? Flick, cursor in upper corner.... flick, cursor is in lower corner, flick cursor is over unit to be selected. I like the new method.

I hope they're at least _aware_ of WWII's CBI theatre. Many don't seem to be, and I think it could be a great gaming experience (Thinking especially of the "Burma" part). Much of the "claustrophobia" of Normandy, with environmental/logistical type hardships like those the East Front. Smaller scale of the action (compared to European engagements) would fit CM well. Well, we'll see. I can always fast for a few days while lying in a puddle before someone walks up and shoots me (with a BB gun) if I _really_ want a bit of the CBI expereince. I anticipate buying all the CM games no matter what, anyway - and I'm sure having BFC do what they feel like is the best way to get a CM game.

Germans with captured t-34s, Soviets with lend-lease Shermans?... I'm looking forward to trying that out (I'd use more points, though), but it's going to feel wierd.

From the Soviet perspective it was the fact that Nazis were _facists_ that made Nazis bad guys, ideologically. Thus, as was mentioned before, "fascist" automatically carries a negative connotation, but "Nazi" doesn't. Calling National Socialists "Nazis" isn't exactly obvious step for Russian speakers.... and Communists would want to de-emphasize the "Socialists" component, too. "Nazi" is also very close to a dialect word for goose-down.

You get the victory points for them no matter the range, but 50-100m seems pretty common. Oh, sorry! You mean using them to destroy tanks! Sorry! Didn't read carefully enough. 40m is when I've seen the molotovs and the grenades fly. I've had 1 kill with a grenade at 37m. I've never seen damage done by a molotov at more than 20m. [ September 12, 2002, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

Maybe because it was more difficult to first "acquire" the target with the gunner's sight, due to smaller field of vision? I was under the impression that a TC's initial range esitmation was more to allow the gunner to find the target in his sights than anything else. But that doesn't really sound like what's going on here, with the 3-way estimations. Just a thought. My source is, more or less, "Stuff I think having read a book _almost_ on this subject 10 years ago."

...wondering how much a common-Panther will cost compared to a common-T34....

Quibble mode ON As a customer I'm exactly the opposite. A game's official webpage is generaly quite up front about telling what the devolopers/publisher thinks is good about a game, and the fans - those already "sold" on the game, tend to agree. OTOH, looking at what people say they don't like can be _very_ informative. My general system is to look at the negatives being kicked around. If I say "Heh, is that it?" I've generally found a keeper. So far the complaints about CMBB have all been of the "Heh" variety. They may indicate actual faults, they may not.... but if "scenario choices for demo aren't as replayable as previous game's demo" is the worst thing said about CMBB, CMBB is _probably_ an excellent game. Don't wanna commit myself.

No Karl! Gee... there goes my planned QB strategy!

I have a suggestion. How about the ability to download a "random" map? Server software coughs up a generically-renamed map for download or e-mailing. Maybe from a chosen sub-set of all the maps ("Large", "Small", "Unbalanced"...). Perhaps players could ask for a map as a pair, and both recieve the map directly from the server to prevent the possibility of one person tampering with the map? In my LAN group we do something similar (but not automated) for QB-style scenarios all the time - it'd be great to be spoon-fed such maps in a "secure" manner.

Ooo, ooo! I know! 1. Lack of contextual (or, really, "extra-textual") cues. Both in intrepreting messages and in expressing thoughts. 2. _Seemingly_ "endless" repetition of criticism("The more people said the same thing") without regard to already given explainations. Or, alternative, unwillingness to search forum for explaination before stating criticism. 3. Inability of some to distinguish or express the difference between "I think this could be better" and "I think this is bad." 4. Accusations that the critics/complainers are selfish, purile, or dishonest. Accusations that those siding with BFC are "fanboys" or worse. ...Same ol', same ol', really. Humans may know who to talk, but they aren't always all that good at it. In my unofficial capacity as Layer of Blame, I do the Nose Thumbing Dance of Disdain in the direction of some of the "Fanboys" for inflaming the issue, and Ear Wiggling Dance of Derision over toward some of the "Whiners" for either failing to see that BFC has some good reasons for making the demo as they did, or for failing to even try to understand.

As a privateer his computer might be stolen.... but many would rather scuttle thier ship rather than give up their copy of CMBB... BP: If $$ is a big concern and you're still enjoying CMBO then I doubt that CMBB would be worth it. You can contiune to enjoy CMBO for free, and while I think CMBB is a great improvement, and well woth the $$, it isn't a wholly new experience, and it isn't free. If you discover you can't find enough CMBO PBEM opponents because they've switched to CMBB, then it'd certianly be worth the $$. If you find yourself pining for the wide open spaces of the steppe, or wondering what's wrong with your MGs, then it'd be worth the $$. So why not just wait? While waiting you can gather more opinions, see if anything is changed in the patches, maybe try the demo again, maybe visit a buddy who has CMBB. At some point you might be willing to sell CMBO, and put the money toward defraying the cost of CMBB... maybe you'll find someone selling CMBB cheap. Maybe you'll get rich. It sounds like purchacing CMBB would be a risk ("Grr... I wish I'd spent the $45 on something else!") that you don't need to take. I doubt that BFC is going anywhere, just wait awhile.

1. Using x8 (or maybe x16!) mag with unit lock view to be one with the binocular guy in my 45mm AT crew.... to see a PzIV's turret poke up above the ridge.... watching a couple of 45 shells fly at the PzIV.... watching the tank's gun rotate toward me... watching a 75mm shell come _straight at me_ and shouting "Ahhh!" just before the rest of the crew shouts "Ahhh!" as the shell hits. 2. Playing with more realistic MGs. 3. Getting 7 side penetrations in a row on a PzIII and laughing (nastily) at the crew as they bail out. 4. Playing with more realistic MGs. 5. Playing with more realistic MGs. 6. Troop behavior feels more realistic.... or at least closer to what I think is realistic. 7. Err.... most everything already mentioned. /Shrug/ I have a generous soul, I'm easy to please. 8. Playing with more realistic MGs. (CMBB just has EF scenarios and improved MG modeling? I'd still buy it without hesitation.)

So, bogging/immobilization should be possibility in the scenario, it was just happening too often?

/snip/ No need to tell me, I'd like to verbally abuse such people. I enjoyed the scenarios, and was happy that they highlighted a number of new things, but I was someone who was disappointed with them, comparing them to CMBO demo's. I went online, read the relevent threads, and discovered why you designed the scenarios the way you did, and thought "Oh, OK, now I see. Good show." The information was really rather easy to discover. On the last three pages on the forum, IIRC, you've explained at least twice, Madmatt twice, and Michael D. 4 times. I DO think that's plenty, which is why I mentioned beating people with a rubber hose.

Ah... I see you edited your post just as I posted. "And bear in mind, I'm speaking soley of the complaints aimed at getting new or more demo scenarios." Ok, given that qualification, I don't take issue with what you've written. Such posts were a small part of the "scenario complaint" posts I've read though. (I didn't read many of the scenario related posts in the first... oh, half or so of the forum's existance.) How about those aimed at persuading to get BFC to make a different demo after the game has been released? /below is the post made before I saw the edited version of your post/ Well, I'm glad I deleted the sarcastic stuff, you're being far more reasonable that I predicted you would be. (I'd characterize wanting another free scenario as greedy.) Don't feed my "projecting" assumption....

Calm down... That's an overstatement... the whining is not "endless", and few if any of the "critics" have the attitude you describe. Steve, it's OK to be emotive, but one should seek for one's emotions, both positve _and_ negative, to be rooted in a real situation... rational, as opposed to irrational. The *&^% wankers whom you should be be allowed to beat with a rubber hose are the ones who can't be bothered to comprehend the reasons BFC didn't design CMBB's demo with the same goals as CMBO's. I've counted them. There are less than 12. I suggest you focus your frustration, identify them, create a double log on, and apply verbal abuse. Ok, ok! /insert wild hand waving/ It's unprofessional, unethical, and fundamentally unhealthy.... but, well... _I'd_ like to do it.

Extremely sarcastic (and terribly witty, you can be sure) response snipped. You've seen evidence that causes you to belive "they" - those who have "whined" about the scenarios - are greedy and dishonest. I haven't. I think the burden of proof is on you. If you agree, and care to support your statements, I'll read your argument with an open mind. If not, I'll have to be content with the assumption that you're "projecting". [ September 10, 2002, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I agree. BFC doesn't need to acknowledge it in any way.... if they snigger hopefully they'll do so among themselves... but I think it'd be fair play for them to snigger openly. And if someone really does come up with a better scenario - one that fulfills all of BFC's goals and requirements (There ought to be a time limit, btw) _and_ is more "fun" - then I imagine BFC will be happy to admit they've learned something. It should be a learning experience.... for someone.

Yeah..... it's totally out of character for someone here to post criticism merely because they think something is incorrect or less-than-optimal.

I've had vehicles bog in the lower areas of the steppe - the ones shaded more toward green in the high-altitude views.

So that makes it the map maker's fault if someone uses the edges for a "gamey" set up? Anyway.... Hey, how about that EFOW? After a little experimentation 500-600m seems the best range to open up with the AT guns. Eh? Closer and the tanks see the guns too easily and quickly eliminate them. Farther than 600 and the guns take too long to score hits/kills - the tanks use the extra time to locate the guns. But that's just against the AI... havn't tried it against a human, or anything close.