[Idea that might improve the graphics of CM and CMBB (HUGE PICS)]

The man in the background used as scale reference makes the tank look smaller than the real thing, don't you think? just curious

Look at what he's standing on.

[Rear Screen Element - A different way to fight the recon battle?]

Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:

I thought I understood and now I don't. What is really the point of having a "rear screen"? I thought that the MRL was in the rear of your forces with the FSE in the front. Hiram's confused once more.

You have to go back to the origional post, and ignore much of the later bickering.

Two of the primary roles of a FSE are taking a bite out of the enemy's recon forces and gathering some intel, right? Oh, yeah, you'd also like your opponent to think the FSE _is_ the MRL - that's important too.

bc's "RSE" is intended to do the same thing... his "RSE" looks much like a standard MRL grouping, but it's _used_ differently.

An RSE would tend open up on the enemy far sooner than MRL units. The RSE isn't really trying to defeat the enemy's main body of units, but rather to make life hard for the recon forces.

Where you want to keep the MRL hidden from view as long as possible (and would certainly rather not have it fired on) you _want_ the enemy to try to hit the RSE elements. They're placed behind your MRL, so fire on the RSE won't endanger the MRL. And your opponent might think the RSE is your MRL, confusing him about the actual location of your MRL. If your opponent allows weapons capable of hitting your RSE to fire you have a good chance of spotting them. So there's the RSE's "intelligence gathering" ability.

Now, you can do the same things with an MRL group, sure. The differences between part of the MRL and the RSE is (bit of a recap here):

The RSE isn't part of the MRL. It might not be able to bring it's weapons to bear on your main "kill zone," for example.

FSE elements can easily take some heavy casualties if you're not carefull. The RSE would also be casualty prone. ("Well, there goes a HMG and 2 mortars... but I nailed that AC... and know I know where a big-gunned AFV is.")

I think the term "RSE" is quite clear... though I on a grognard infested board one needs to be extra careful about termenology. How about "Rearward Anti-Recon Elements" or RARE?

Personally, I wouldn't want to use an RSE instead of an FSE, except in rather exceptional circumstances. I think an RSE would be easier to "defeat" (ie - deny it success.) However, I think it's good to keep the concept in mind - just realize an RSE is a way to use units that would otherwise probably be in the MRL, not in the FSE.

BTW - you said "the MRL is to the rear of your forces and the FSE is in the front." That'd put your forces _between_ the MRL and the FSE, now wouldn't it? Don't get too hung up on the bare words.

[ June 18, 2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Snipers (the trained specialist sort) - branch topic from "Clarity"]

I like the idea, FWthatsW.

A near variation would be applying the Sniper just before the map appears. (ie, after force selection for a QB). CMBB will have the ability to apply pre-game losses to each side, right? (What's that feature called?)

Well, the Sniper could be a factor in those pre-game losses. If the other side has a Sniper(s) then it'd be much more likely (or just "possible")to loose a Company or Bat. commander, for example. I'm sure those who know more about Snipers could come up with a realistic Targets list.

[Command delays]

But don´t forget heavy fighting breaking out between the British and American beachheads about who has more gadgets/better doctrine.

I'd like to apologize, btw, to those who actually want to discuss the command delay.

Why don't you go find another thread.

[CMBB--New Proposal For Rarity System]

Colonel and VAB:

1) In an earlier post I did say that I thought the second part of Colonel's proposal was something that should be included _if_ it does actually reflect an historical reality. However, doesn't effect the "competative" nature of either system.

2) I agree that no unit should _always_ have a price increase under VR. (I've said that before in this thread, and I stated the same in the "linked thread" too.) I'm hopeing that BTS was simply expressing itself less than clearly whenever it seemed to say there'd always be a price increase for some units under VR.

The basic principle of having to pay any penalty in a ladder game is a problem in itself.

3) That isn't quite correct.

What's problematical is needing to pay _more of a penalty_ than your opponent.

IIRC, the purchace screen will show you any price increases. Thus a competative player can easily avoid any bad deals and spot any good deals. You'll never have to pay any penalties if you don't want to.

Now, if BTS impliments the system _poorly_, and there are often big penalties on many items and significant discounts for some then ladder players are, indeed, going to be more-or-less forced into buying only certain items in a game... might as well have just had the computer choose the sides. Even worse (an extrme example here) one player could get +10% price for everything, the other -5%. However, "bad implimentation" and "bad system" are two very different animals.

If the system is well implimented, OTOH, players will be discouraged from buying the rarer items, and encouraged to buy the common ones. The Variable nature of the system will ensure fair (remember, assumeing a well implimented system) but ever changing force compositions. Sometimes PzIVs will be a bad buy, so a ladder player will not buy 'em... sometimes they'll be good. Much of the time they'll be no change to the price. I see this as being just like the "dice" not offering PzIVs some games but making them available in others.

The "dice" system certainly is the easy way to go... If Tigers have a "12% rarity", some Tigers only show up on the purchace screen 1 out of 8 times. Simple. The BTS system seems like it'll be tougher to impliment properly... but with BTS's track record I'm confident they'll get it right.

By CMBB v1.12, at least.

And, again, the Colonel's system _is_ something I'd like to see in the game... but I don't think it's at all necessary for ladder players.

[Games]

Hi, peter86.

Welcome, and be warned - your open and friendly attitude, combined, possibly, with the use of the words "coz", "gud", and "sum", could easily lead to a less-than-production relationship between you and the rest of the board.

Look at it this way: Many people here are the type that will spend hours reading and writing about the type of cuff used on 1944 British Airborne uniforms, or argue heatedly about the exact number of rounds carried by a MG42 HMG team on the Eastern Front during August '42. These same people are, it's sad to say, often exactly the type to be put off by the non-standard application of "z" or "u" to a word. Dood.

Now, to actually answer your question: CM, and The Operational Art of War are the only WWII games I play anymore. CM for tactical, TOAW for, well, Operational. It seems there were more once... but whenever I reach for a WWII game these days it's always one of those two. (Though I just got IL-2...)

But I'd like to see some suggestions for a "grand strategic" WWII game that's been published within the last 3 years or so.

And, since you mentioned "WWI games" and didn't specify "wargames", my old, old fav (Saying "fav" is unpopular, too) would have to be Panzer General.

[ June 17, 2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[CMBB--New Proposal For Rarity System]

I'm not asking for the removal of "Variable Rarity", just the inclusion of the "Dice Roll Rarity" for ladder players and others who play to win.

What's wrong with "Variable Rarity" for "ladder players and others who play to win?

Frankly, I thought I did a decent job of showing that they're equivilent. One might like the "flavor" of one over the other, but "winning" shouldn't be a concern.

[CMBB--New Proposal For Rarity System]

With this in mind, it makes no sense to penalize oneself by purchasing rarity units.

Right....

I suppose there will be times when it would make sense to take a rarity unit and pay a penalty for doing so if it was strategically necessary.

(Something I like about the BTS system.)

Otherwise, I just can't see it being used if the player is seriously interested in winning the game which I suspect most people are.

Variable rarity.

Variable rarity.

Variable rarity.

Remember, with Variable Rarity there won't always be a rarity "tax" on all the units! That's key. Otherwise, as you say, rare units would always be a bad value. In the Fixed option BTS described a Tiger, for example, is always going to cost more than a Tiger is "worth." A competative player will rarely, if ever, buy one. But that's _Fixed_ Rarity. Variable rarity is very different.

Maybe if you think of it this way: It's just like the "dice" system, but all those units that "failed" their die roll still show up on the purchace screen - but at an increased cost.

There's still might be something to be said for limiting the total number of rare units that can be bought. (Like, "Only 2 Pumas available.") But, from what I've seen of the VR system "competative players" shouldn't be worried at all. (Unless some units can _never_ merely "full" price (or close to it)... that'd be annoying.)

I don't know anyone more competative than I am (possibly because of the "I'm strong willed, he's a stubborn jerk." phenom.), and I think the system's BTS has described sound fine.

[ June 17, 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Command delays]

From a reasoning point of view it's much easier to issue an order to "stop what you're doing" than it is to issue details about what to actually do.

This is because most soldiers are not actually "grognards," unlike many posters on this forum.

I think there should be a "grognard" optional rule for CMBB, though, which makes all the soldiers act like grognards.

A little text/input box could pop up, and you would attempt to justify your orders given the current logisitcal and geopolitical context of the game. The better your argument the lower the time delay... but make a bad argument (In the judgement of that platoon of little CMBB men.) and "Friendly Fire" will become a major part of your life.

Some combats between opposing grognard units would be resolved via a special "Debate" mode. For example, grognard tank crews would compare armor quality, ammo availibility and characteristics, and the fine points of thier tactical SOP. This would sometimes result in one crew Abandoning their tank. But at other times there'd be a berserk flurry of AP and machinegun fire as the crews attempt to "demonstrate" the actual ROF of their main gun and the inferior quality of an opponent's glacis... or moral character.

[Buying tanks/vehicles in CMBB...]

Will we be able to buy armored divisions? How much do they cost?

[New Player]

Originally posted by athkatla:

Once again, thanks, was just looking at th CMMOS v3.02. As I'm buying the patched version, do I need to d/l and install CMMOS v3,02?

I never have, you don't _need_ it. But it's certainly convenient for working with compliant mods.

[New Player]

Madmatt's mod guide is at

http://www.combatmission.com/mods/MMG.asp

Last updated in 2000, but it's still an excellent guide.

IIRC, most or all of the mods mentioned in the guide are on the Combat Mission HQ site (same site as the guide.)

I recently downloaded some mods from Tom's Combat Mission HQ

http://home.arcor.de/tcmhq/TCMHQ.html

Oh, in case you don't know already: A "mod" in CM isn't like a "mod" for most other games. AFAIK, all CM "mods" only change/upgrade graphics or sound. (Often just the "skin" for one vehicle, sometimes to the point of shifting the game's theater.) A "mod" is generally what a graphic/sound upgrade is called.

You'll be very pleased with what you find.

As far as which ones you should download...

Most have a screen shot, which helps a great deal, of course.

But here's what I did:

I've got a cable connection, a not-slow PC (I don't know if this would work on a MAC) and plenty of time on my hands, so this is what I did:

1) Download every mod that looked interesting.

2) Back up the CMBO's hard drive BMP and WAV directories.

3) Go to the editor and autogenerate a largish map, and place any units you're "modding" on the map. (This is very quick and simple.)

4) Hit "Escape" to leave CMBO. Install the mod.

5) Go back into CMBO and look at the "Preview" of your map/units in the editor. You'll see the modded units, terrain, whatever. (This doesn't work for sounds.)

6) Repeat 4 and 5 indefinetly. Every time you reload the "Preview" any new bitmaps will be loaded.

[ June 17, 2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Clarity]

I'm probably repeating what has already been said many times, but I'll try to be very clear, Mustang.

I have read hundreds of first-hand accounts written by snipers, and they WERE modled incorrectly by BTS.

No.

The game's "Sharpshooters" are _not_ incorrectly modeled born-and-bread (or selected-and-trained) snipers. The CMBO unit is just a guy who's a good shot and has been issued an especially good rifle. That's what the game says they are, and that's all they are.

Yes, a "sharpshooter" was very much part of a partincular platoon, but the game engine doesn't allow a player to break a particular man out of a squad and send him to the second floor to try to pick off the enemy's company commander. CMBO's approximation of that phenom. is the "Sharpshooter" unit.

The "Sharpshooter" unit allows a CMBO player or scenario designer to simulate the "garden variety" sniper found on the WWII battlefield, but not the one-shot-one-kill "professionals" that also took part in the conflict.

You seem to forget, Mustang, that CMBO isn't, can't be, and doesn't claim to be perfect. CMBO is missing a number of units that fought in WWII -True "Snipers" are one of those missing units.

(I remember a thread from last year that ended up 4 pages long in which some people argued that the game's "Assault" boat was seriously underarmored and should be armed with torpedoes and a machinegun. Hopefully this thread won't end like that one did.)

[CMBB--New Proposal For Rarity System]

I actually think both approaches have their merit.

I think the "dice roll" system sounds like fun, btw. It'd offer far more control over your force than the computer-selection method, but could still be much more restrictive than a "you can buy anything" system.

I would be very eager to hear about the current state of QB Setup alternatives available, and how they work. [/QB]

I dunno... I'm having a hard enough time remaining patient. (I'm in bed sick, and CMBB facts might over excite me.) More news about more "kewel" features just makes waiting more difficult.

[Clarity]

Originally posted by Patgod:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I've got a question. If we are going to debase the term 'sniper' by applying it to anybody who decides to take a potshot at somebody else, what word are we going to use to designate those soldiers with the full skillset of stealth, intelligence to determine and identify worthwhile targets, and patient stalking to nail same, as well as a high order of marksmanship?

Michael

School Trained Sniper</font>

[CMBB--New Proposal For Rarity System]

I challenge anybody to tell me (without being flippant) why Battlefront's system is better than my proposed system in my first post.

Go ahead. I'm waiting...[/QB]

I realized I didn't explain why I thought your "#1" wasn't better than BTS's system:

Your system would make it so that sometimes units are available, someimtes not, right? When units are available on the purchace screen you might get 'em, if they aren't you can't.

Ok.

With the BTS system somtimes units are not "overpriced", somtimes they are. When units are cheap you might get 'em, if they aren't you probably won't.

With your system the result is "might get" and "can't". With the BTS system the result is "might get" and "probably won't."

Thus, the only difference is that with the BTS system you _can_ get an "overpriced" unit if you really want to. I don't see this as a problem.

[CMBB--New Proposal For Rarity System]

I challenge anybody to tell me (without being flippant) why Battlefront's system is better than my proposed system in my first post.

The system proposed in your first post had, I think, two main features:

1) Use rarity to determine whether or not a unit shows up at all on the purchace screen.

2) Use rarity to determine the # of units available.

BTS's system has #1 covered fine. Variable rarity will do the same thing _plus_ (and this may be why BTS considers their system "better") give you the option of getting a few items with a high "rarity tax" if you really want to. The "dice roll" system sounds fun, and I'd use it sometimes if it were included in the game... but it really is just a more restrictive version of the present system.

BUT I don't think #2 has been discussed enough. I think a limit on the # of units available would improve (Note the word - "improve", not "fix") the Battlefront system.

With variable rarity sometimes "rare" units won't be "taxed." The possible problem is that without any rarity tax a player could buy a LOT of the unit.

Now, units are usually deployed in like-groups. If you see 1 King Tiger you'll probably be seeing a few more... I think that's historical. At least for the large battles. And for the small ones you won't have the points to afford a slew of KTs anyway, discount or no discout - so still no problem.

However, if some rare units, especially low-point-cost ones, were often deployed in rather small groups (ex: 1 Pioneer platoon, 1 Puma, 1 IS-2) then we have something the BTS system doesn't address. Something that could be fixed by adopting part of the Colonel's proposal. That's a big "if" though. I don't know enough about historical deployments... I saw a not-especially-large historical scenario recently with, IIRC, 3 Pumas.

I will say, though, that I think the BTS system most definetly SHOULD occasionally discount even the most rare unit down to only "full price." Even if the odds are very very small the possibility should exist. Maybe the BTS reps have just been using language a little losely, not realizing how often their posts are taken to university Semantics seminars and analyzied... but occasionally BTS seems to have said that some units will never be only "full price", which seems rather bizzare to me - why exclude some of the units from the full variation possible with Variable Rarity?

(Possibly Steve (or whoever it was) just meant that an individual player may never actually see some of the rarest units without a rarity "tax"? Not because it can't happen, just because it's not likely to happen.)

[ June 16, 2002, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Idea that might improve the graphics of CM and CMBB (HUGE PICS)]

Wow.

I'm going to at least try it on some of the lighter vehicle mods. I never liked the that original Panther look, for example, but the "darkened" version looks great in the pic.

[Clarity]

Here is you mission, answer my question, since I cook am I a chef? Cmon I know you can do it![/QB]

An excellent word to examine.

From eb online:

Main Entry: chef

Pronunciation: 'shef

Function: noun

Etymology: French, short for chef de cuisine head of the kitchen

Date: 1826

1 : a skilled cook who manages the kitchen (as of a restaurant)

2 : COOK

So, yes, you're a chef. And yes, there are snipers in CMBO.

See - two meanings. One refering to the professional, one refering to someone how fills the same role, but in a limited or "amateur" capacity.

Is English your second language, Priest? (That was a "carping or snide attack - ie, a "snipe", btw.)

[Clarity]

Sniper is not a title, like Herr Doctor Professor. It means "one who snipes".

Guys, guys! That's the problem?

It's both.

The "sharpshooters" in the game are not meant to represent those men trained as infilitrate-and-shoot-people-outside-of-battle - ie, "Snipers." Instead they represent good shots with good rifles who "snipe" at people during a battle - ie, "snipers"... "sharpshooters." We all know this, right?

I think BTS likes "sharpshooter" because it doesn't imply all the behind-enemy-lines-sure-shot stuff wrapped up in the term "Sniper." (And maybe for "PC" reasons, I dunno.) They're just supposed to be good shots who do, lets face it, snipe. During the battle the act as a s-n-i-p-e-r.

If someone states that the game's sharpshooters are snipers I don't see the problem. It's true. You can just point out that there is a distinction between the "Sharpshooter" in the game and a full-blown, "I've got my certificate, the lapel pin, and a "I can see you!" mug." capital-S "Sniper".

Face it, sometimes language is ambiguous.

[WWII doctrines]

That my impression that US commanders were being sacked for lack of aggressive spirit, was correct, Tarqulene.

Ok, just makeing sure you weren't refering to:

the US commanders were attempting to force their infantry forwards, through the use of what appears to be almost pure willpower, rather than a proper understanding of the conditions facing them.

"Force forwards.... pure willpower"

The statement could be easily (mis?)understood as a criticism of extreme aggression on the part of the US commanders, not too little.

[WWII doctrines]

Originally posted by Brian:

[QB]

Which contention would that be?

[WWII doctrines]

The US army of WW II was not designed for maneuver arms razzle dazzle.

I may have missed it in the barrage of (informative) words, but in case Jason didn't explicitly say it: The above goes a long way toward explaining the US Army's "failure" to upgun the tanks. It simply had other priorities.

Also: From my first game of CM I gained a new appreciation for the Sherman - those fast turrets! Am I correct in thinking that increasing the gun size makes fast turret rotation considerably more difficult?

[ June 15, 2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[WWII doctrines]

I'm going to ignore the rest of the your post. For now, at least. Maybe someone else will repond to it. I'm most interested in the part below... and it's the least complicated to respond to:

Now, here's a different sort of take - how long do you think the German defences in the Bocage would have lasted if the US Army had developed and utilised the Crocadile or the AVRE?

How _did_ the Brits or Canadians do with the Crocadile and the AVRE in the hedgerows? (Or whever "gadgets" they used.) Esp. as compared to the non-gadgety, big-hammer Americans? Far fewer casualites? Faster progress? (This'll probably necessitate a shift back to general doctrinal isses - good.)

The gadget using Brits or Canadians didn't have a high commander turnover rate? (I think I saw another message mention they did.)

[WWII doctrines]

But it does not fall into your category of not having a tailor made purpose on the battlefield, or not being a response to current tactical conditions - if we are still using that to frame the discussion?

No, on further consideration that bit was useless. All that really matters is whether a gadget/tech was adopted or not.

Or developed at all. Maybe what I should have been inquiring about is the R&D budgets.

If anything the Germans over engineer everything.

They certainly seemed to have made a habit of "pushing the envelope" too far.

A seperate issue from overengineering, but I wonder how much Germany's pursiut of high-tech toys was simply an expression of Hitler's overconfidence? If he consistently over-funded research projects? I can easily imagine that Hitler thought that the technology lead would be easily regained and that Germany could start fielding 1950s tech in a crumbling mid '40s Germany.