Tarquelne
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tarquelne
-
-
Ah. Thanks, Steve. I, too, was puzzled about the strategy behind the demo scenario design. I'd completely forgotten about the "Just CMBO on another front" accusation.... glad you fully anticipated the cynicism and lack of charity inherint in the average critic.1. The primary purpose of the demo scenarios was to highlight the differences between CMBO and CMBB. Why is this so important? Because if CMBO customers and game reviewers didn't see how different the game is then we would have a PR fiasco on our hands.
-
Hey! Don't dis PG, man!Panzer General, they all seem good enough ways to me to get introduced to the wargaming genre.PG should not be considered a rotten wargame, but rather a wonderful strategy game with a nice WWII "feel" or theme.
-
I suggest people who want to argue about this cut and paste from previous threads.
Not only will you be able to post quickly, but anyone argueing back can simply cut and paste a response from the old thread too.
Anyone saying anything new can put it in bold. It'd be worth calling extra attention to it.
If someone is "just bitching" I think the post can also be posted all in bold.... and then deleted.
-
Oh, me too! And the game's results. I am very happy, though, that the BFC folks are so willing to explain how it all works. Along with not getting shot at, catching dysentary, etc., I find "understanding what's happening" one of the more enjoyable differences between war and a wargame.Originally posted by zukkov:[QB]as for me, i'm certainly willing to trust the game's results table.
-
Woo hoo! That's TWO of us. FEEL the press of overwhelming market forces, you 1940's Low Countries pansies! CM:CBI is practically right around the corner!the China-Burma-India theater. After a little thought about that, I believe such would provide a long timeline and richly varied geographical study as well as a variety of equipments and weapons. -
CBI = China-Burma-India. And I was thinking a game centered on Burma, starting from 41 or 42. Imphal could be included, and China adjacent to Burma. Chinese forces fought in the area, so they could be included in the "Allied" force.Unless you just did Europeans vs. Japanese, but then you'd be leaving out most of the conflict. Esp. China, but also the Viet Minh, Indonesian independence fighters, etc.[/QB]
Lots of interesting infantry-heavy fighting that I think would fit CM's very well. I'd love to see a CM:Burma to Burma. The terrain might be different enough that an engine re-write would be needed to handle the fighting well, I dunno.
-
Most followers of the widespread "Grasping LMG" sect believe that karma has "heat", and, as in Sanskrit, the Grog Prarkit version of "heat" contains connotations of "incubation" and "growth." Thus, the sooner an act of good karma is registered the more time that karma has to "grow."means you pay for it before you get it, wouldn't that be the same as buying it and choosing realllllly sloooooooow delivery method?[/QB]Therefore, the sooner CMBB is ordered the more good karma results from the act.
It's even current practice in some of the older, "folk" devotional cults of Peng to print out a copy of the CMBB advertisements and add them to the house shrines to Madmatt, "washing the Bald One's balefull Eyes with the Backwards Rs of BB", as the poets put it. This is meantr to start storing up that good karma as even sooner.
-
No, CBI. Time to fight some Japanese.Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:No, the Pacific. Time to fight some Japanese.
-
Thank you for the :eek: to rub in the punchline, it wouldn't have been nearly so painful without it. Too bad you can't to a rim-shot with a smilie.The attache responds, "Ah, so, and at these prices you are not likely to see many more" :eek: [/QB][ August 22, 2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Maybe it's just a SYMBOL for something else? Maybe not the movie... the movie contained so much implied violence, so I can't imagine that's what Wasserman really meant to refer to... I think maybe he had something more ARCADIAn in mind.Quite - I still can't see the connection with Humphrey Bogart.[/QB]As for Bogart, the most relevent thing might be "I'll have a cup of Joe."
[ August 21, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Oruzhie krysy?
-
Hey! There's, like, no drinks or snacks in the "new scenario/Rise To berlin /volkssturm" thread.
-
Carefull about reading this forum, its full of spoilers.Regardless, thanks for the feedback on Keegan, I am looking at reading his "Six Armies in Normandy".Chad[/QB]
-
What do the rules concerning POWs have to do with bunkers and aircraft, pray tell?Bunkers and Aircraft would be banned by the Geneva convention for most battles. etc etc etc.[/QB]
-
kawas's posts are really thought provoking:
What else would have been different in WWII if the way vehicles, men, weapons, etc. behave in CMBO really was the way they behaved in RL. (No "Hmm... uh, my hand slipped" Autosave function, but most everything else...)
Optional assumptions:
a) Commanders get to pick the forces right before a battle (QB)
Forces are never more than a few battalions in sizec) Map edges, flags, turn limits
d) QB point values correspond to unit construction cost and/or rarity.
Any Generals who wouldn't have been able to cope with last turn flag rushes?
Could it explain the "great escape" at Dunkirk? (I mean, a more interesting explaination.)
Blitzkrig tactics still work?
Would Germany have been able to produce SMGs to meet the demand? Would the Allies have fielded SMG troops?
Would Canada have ruled the world?
Wither the HMG?
Would the Manhatten project have been derailed by Project Newark: an attempt to make a commander-spooter capable vehicle mounted mortar.
Would the fact that all tanks of a given model have the same ID# altered the outcome of the Falaise pocket?
[ August 19, 2002, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
That'd be quite nifty, esp. if the player could issue orders that would encourage his troops to take prisoners.Operations are another matter. Arguably a player that manages to capture prisoners during an operation should have a chance at obtaining intel about the enemy.Do any of the CM "campaign" systems do anything with prisoners?
-
That's because you aren't "thinking sarcastic". Which is, of course, to your credit.]I'm afraid I don't understand your question or see how it relates to my statement.
...unless maybe _that_ was (gentle) sarcasm.I sense that you are dissatisfied about something and I don't want you to go away from the discussion feeling that way if I can be of help.
Michael[/QB]
That's the trouble with being sarcastic, isn't it? After you do it you can never be certain that any replies are even more saracstic. Well, we all have our crosses to bear.
(Just to be clear, for once, the sarcasm was directed in the general direction of the "CMBB must challenge my graphics card" concept, not you.)
[ August 16, 2002, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Are you trying to say that BFC _didn't_ continue adding lens flare effects untill the game required a 128 meg card? Is that in the FAQ?Not everybody interested in buying and playing good wargames buys a new machine every year. BFC intends to have something to offer that audience.Michael[/QB]
-
Quibble mode on, sir!
Either way the PzIV is weaker in CMBO's WE than it would be in say, the EF.[/qb]
I mean "weaker in Combat Mission Beyond Overlord's Western Erurope than it would be in say, the real Eastern Front." That's why I specified "CMBO's" Western Europe, but not "CMBB's Eastern Front", and of course CMBO has no Eastern Front.I disagree. The main problem I see is the accuracy of the Pz IV vs its opponents (because gun accuracy in CMBO is based on Vo).Work with me, people.
[ August 15, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Yea, quibbling!
I wouldn't disagree with that. I think the PzIV is a little "undermodeled", but not much.In general, though, I think that the Pz IV is pretty much right.
I should have expicitly said, btw, that I was not considering only game engine flaws but also the PzIV's disadvantages in WE, since that's where CMBO takes place. I didn't really want to claim the range-thing as anything - a flaw with the game or just an unfortunate condition. Either way the PzIV is weaker in CMBO's WE than it would be in say, the EF.
So:
I agree that CMBO does a good job of portraying WE engagement ranges. (Except for the QBs.)I think that the engagement range for WE is about right
Ah, but it does make it "weaker" (a relative term) than it might deserve compared to a common opponent, and so I included it. Quibble back at'cha!(The fact that it is hurt by overaccurate tanks firing on the move isn't a problem with the Pz IV's modeling, but is a game thing).
I suspect that that the difference would be significant for hull-down situations, where the PzIV could really use some help. (Ditto for the mantlet.)There are larger turrets than the Pz IV's, to be sure, but if CMBO treats a turret as 35% of a tank
I think that'd be enough to consider it a "strong point" (as opposed to, for example, a Panther A's "weak point")... or at least 1/2 a strong point.it looks like it extends 4" to the left of the gun (as you face the tank) and about 8-12" to the right, with the coax sticking through a hole in the right.
I'm thinking "gyro", and, as the strategic defender, I'd expect the German tanks to move a bit less.(The fact that it is hurt by overaccurate tanks firing on the move isn't a problem with the Pz IV's modeling, but is a game thing).
Ummm.... I looked _really hard_ at the last couple paragraphs, but couldn't find anything to disagree with. without sounding like a total idiot.
(I'm not trying to imply that Andrew H. was being anal, or nit-picky, or anything with a negative connotation, btw. I'm just waiting for some files to finish proccessing, and quibbling about Andrew's quibbles filled the time nicely.)
It'll be interesting to see what the PzIV point values are in CMBB compared to the Soviet Sherman.
[ August 15, 2002, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
I think more the latter than the former, but from the perspective of those poor little CM PzIV crewmen it doesn't really matter.Does CMBO really "limit engagement range", or does it simply accurately reflect the closed in terrain found in Western Europe?
-
I've wondered about this too. From what I've gathered reading here, the answer is "No."Originally posted by SS_Obergruppenführer:What I want to know is was the PzIV really as weak as it is in CMBO?
1) CMBO limits engagement range, so the PzIV can't take full advantage of its gun.
2) CMBO doesn't treat the PzIV's small weakly armored turret as a _small_ weakly armored turret.
3) CMBO doesn't model the mantlet, which would add some armor where the PzIV often needs it most.
4) CMBO might treat the Sherman's gyro to favorably, and probably don't treat the PzIV's optics favorably enough.
If that isn't correct it should act as good grog bait, and we'll find out what is correct.
-
Just curious: Anyone have any inkling of what a PzIV's QB point value would be if the turret was more-realistically hard to hit?
-
Could be one of those things that vary by month/year?
Forces are never more than a few battalions in size
CMBO vs CMBB demo - poor scenarios
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
..... oh, sorry, was that off topic?