Zarquon

(double post) [ March 27, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Zarquon ]

"Well, I believe everyone can improve if they get a bit of help and are willing to work at it and be honest with themselves re: what needs improvement etc." I found out later that my newbie opponent had a 3-digit forum member number. "As re: bandwidth. Aren't there free servers out there one could link to to store the pictures/movie files etc?" I think many free hosting services restrict this because bandwidth/webspace limitations on free accounts wouldn't make much sense if you could create 500 accounts and cross-link between them. Besides, you'd need scripting and DB support to allow people to upload their articles and screenshots. Maybe we can get Poor Old Spike as a site sponsor?

(double post) [ March 27, 2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Zarquon ]

You could say that being pinned/panicked simulates the crew keeping their heads down or moving away from the gun for a short time, even if it not shown in the game. The effect is nearly the same, i.e. they don't fire and they are harder to hit. For pillboxes, the ratio of firing slit hits is *far* too high. In a recent QB I bought 3 AT gun bunkers. All of them were silenced after 29 seconds by about 10 light tanks and armored cars at a range of 700-800m. We know the chances of hitting an immobile tank (6-8 feet high) in CM. Now the height of a firing slit should be around two feet, maybe even less. It should be 3-4 times harder to hit than a tank at the same range, I think.

And you're not going to stop until absolutely everyone knows it eh? *chuckle* Of course I'm only ranked 87th on the CMBO ladder so what do I know? </font>

Huge collection of useful tactics threads. A must-read, and the FAQ already points to it, too, as well as to lots of sites with very good tactics articles. Unfortunately, most of them are not situation-specific. Of course, you don't need pretty screenshots to explain that flamethrowers have a range of only 45m and therefore are not ideally suited for long-range suppression fire. But talk in a theoretical fashion about placing minefields - you can be sure some readers will then place them behind their own lines to maximize the element of surprise or somefink.

Yes, that's why I said defensive setups would provide for the best learning effect. For example, I read a few threads about "reverse slope defense theory" and the like, but I found it hard to adopt these because these desciptions lacked illustration and examples. In the end, it all depends on the situation at hand, just like you said. However, defense setups should be complimented by attacks, if only to provide some laughs. The fun would come out of comparing attacks and defenses and imagining how it would play out. The site's database could withhold new defense plans for a couple of days or until somebody came up with an attack for the same map, so to minimize 'cheating', i.e. an attack plan just exploting weaknesses in a defense.

Fionn, I agree that having movie files to analyze situations would be a blast, but it seems impossible to do so without paying through the nose for all the traffic. Popularity could easily kill a site like this. Perhaps a scheme could be found to share those files on a semi-private basis like a mailing list or such? I never had trouble finding reliable PBEM opponents on this forum, but I tend to stick to those I got, so maybe others have made different experiences. Anyway, how could a new site provide for more reliablitily in players? A public rating system a la eBay? Requiring players to reaffirm their availability once a month via automated emails? Might work. However, I'd still favor an illustrated setup/planning site, if only because it hasn't been done before. Novices would benefit the most of it (especially from studying defensive setups - I still consider myself lucky when I get a draw result out of a defense), but it should make an interesting read for all. Jörg

GROG PORN HAS EIGHT BOLD, CAPITAL LETTERS AND THAT'S SEVEN TOO MANY. Of course he's right about the porn thing, but that doesn't mean he is allowed to post in capitals. Only Death may do so, if you ask me.

Just an attempt at giving a clever, tongue-in-cheek reply to people writing two-word, all-capitals replies. I'm still practicing.

Maybe it would require some adult verification system, but there's an advantage to that... [ March 23, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Zarquon ]

From what gathered while playing a CMBB operation yesterday, TRPs do not disappear, but can be placed again in the next battle. Aircraft, however, might not show up at all if the weather is bad and will only appear in the battle they are called for.

An important part of this forum is about various game tactics. People engage in long discussions, ask for opinions, newbie advice and so on. There are lots of fine sites with strategy articles and AARs. Now, I get the most fun out of first seeing the map in a QB or scenario, look at my assets and then start developing a plan. What makes the game fascinating for me is that there are so many different playing styles out there. When two people are confronted with the same challenge, they will almost centainly come up with totally different plans and even a minor detail in planning can result in a huge difference in the outcome. After Action Reports are about a finished business. Planning is discussed in the forum, sometimes at great length, but it's hard to properly illustrate tactics without specifics. What about a site for writing about battle plans instead of AARs? First, there could be an option to post a new situation. Upload a few screenshots of the map (small QBs would be best), then describe the forces available to the player. Finally, let everyone post his ideas. Example: Defense of a small village, 1500 pts, overcast, dawn. Map: [left view] [right view] [top-down view] Your forces: [a rifle company, a few minefields, wire, one 81mm offboard, three AT guns, three halftracks and two tank destroyers] How would YOU set up? Just copy the screenshots, fire up a graphics program and place a few numbers/letters on them. There should be a common numbering system, e.g. 1,2,3 are the inf platoons, AT1-3 are the guns and so on. If you want, you can even illustrate planned fields of fire for the guns with a few lines. When describing a plan for attacking, arrows show the path of advance. Next, write a *short* description of what you will do and why you do it that way. Restrict the <textarea> tag for the description to a certain number of lines, so that people are forced to be brief. If they want to quote entire chapters of Clausewitz, they can do so elsewhere. Let others develop their own plans for this scenario. After a while, you will have a couple of ideas, quite different from one another because it would be pointless to post a plan that has already been described. And what about having the same scenario/situation posted twice, once for the defense plan and once for the attacker? What would happen when Attack Plan #3 meets Defense Plan #1? Tactics grogs could show off their skills, newbies could finally see the theoretical beauty of a reverse slope defense and everybody could learn a thing ot two. To discuss plans you wouldn't need a message board of your own, simply have people start a thread in this forum instead and post a link to it on your site. That way you could easily attract visitors to your site who could then contribute to it. Call it the Olde CM Tactics Shoppe, the Battle Prologue or whatever you like. Just keep it simple and don't try to create another huge, CM encyclopedia that gets nowhere. All is quiet on the western front - yet. [ March 23, 2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Zarquon ]

In Real Life, a platoon might be ordered to sneak up to a patch of woods to observe a farm building. Doing so takes them five minutes. They spot a hidden enemy unit there, e.g. a machinegun. All this is covered to a certain degree by the simulation, although the time it takes is far more predictable. Nobody gets lost, no one trips over a tree root, etc. Now, in CM you as the company/battalion commander get this info immediately and your decision is immediately, too, in game time at least. In reality, someone has get the information to HQ, by means of a runner or radio. The commander then takes some time to decide on the best course of action and relays his decision to the platoon. How long does all this take? It can be a matter of seconds - Hollywood style - or it can take much longer, even hours. Perhaps you want to reaffirm the report (not neccessary in CM) or have more important matters do care about (none in CM, you can take all the time you need). All these uncertainties and delays *could* be somehow simulated, but the game wouldn't be as much fun to play as it is now.

I know that - what I want is a DEAD BUNKER, you $&%/§! And why didn't my $§&% ATR gunners open fire ?

Hmmm... Now that I've tried it, I find they won't even fire at them, at ~380m. I can target the bunkers, but as soon as turn starts, the ATR gunners drop their rifles and start building snowmen, staring at the clouds or whatever. They don't fire.

The topic says it - has anyone had success with these? What's the minimum bang (AT or HE) you need to destroy these pesky things? I don't suppose you can silence them by lucky hits with machine guns since no hit locations are rolled for small arms fire - or is it?

And I thought the thread about the use of bocage as a secret weapon was only kidding - but here's proof!

I suppose Line-of-Sight calculations are mostly to blame for this. In a scenario with 30 units on each side the program must check a LOS 30x30x2=1800 times per second (if CM checks every second, maybe it's once every 0.5 secs, I don't know). With 100 units per side there's 100x100x2=20,000 checks to be made every second. In other words, it depends on the square number of units present. How many units are present in this operation (I've tried to play one turn and my 1200hp CPU took about 30 minutes for it)? Doubling CPU power wouldn't actually cut calculation speed by half because of other bottlenecks in the system (your monster CPU still took 20 min, you said). Hmmm. And I guess the LOS code cannot be improved much after about three years of CM development as it would be the first thing to tweak to increase program performance. Hmmm. The only thing that could make this one playable would be a pre-planned artillery strike on turn one that eliminated most of the enemy's units. Although I love big scenarios, I can't guess why this one was included. Perhaps the next engine will allow for an online connection to the BTS server farm where turns are calculated on 200 machines simultaneously.

Medieval is nice for an evening or two. Sadly, the AI can't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag. Nice graphics. Uninstall. Sorry. EU II is nice for three or four evenings, but the AI-Napoleon constantly fights his way out of a wet paper bag, is quite content with that and retreats. Nice graphics. Yawn. Uninstall. Sorry. HOI is nice for an evening or two, until you realize that the AI doent't even know the difference between a wet paper bag and an Advanced Thing-on-a-Spring Radar Site. It is incapable of amphibious invasions. It is incapable of using aircraft. It seldom moves ground units. I saw Germany declare Vichy France in 1938 (by random event, obviously), then doing *nothing* at all until '42 (uninstall time for me). I recently posted more HOI rantings in the General Forum. If you don't believe me, read the 'Constructive Criticism' area in the official Paradox forum. It's ridiculous. My 2 cents: - either : proper AI programming takes a lot more time than the current profit margin in strategy games allows for. Even CM isn't perfect and only so much fun vs. the AI in it's current state (read recent threads and how it's going to be improved in it's next incarnation). - or : the current idea with game developers is that players want to *win*. The frustration threshold (germanism, please suggest a better term) is so low that loosing (losing, lousing, lusing, lowsing, too loose lautrec) a game puts off most customers. Damn those kids. Maybe both. Anyway, I look forwards to my boardgame session next friday night. And the next CMBB PBEM file. Jörg

How do you push your arms up and down at the same time?

Amen. That's all we ever asked for. Will it be finished in, say, late January? Can we preorder? P.S.[OT]: The only try I gave AA resulted in the AI (Brits) landing on that heath, taking up defensive positions, sending a company or two towards Arnhem that circled through the woods for a few hours before returning, all the while being surrounded by more and more german units. I dubbed it the Maginot AI before uninstalling.

I can only repeat what others said before: it doesn't sound like the memories of a 80 year old german vet. *If* the source text was genuine then the translator was a twenty-something american war buff who quite liberally changed the narrative style and the choice of words.

A scandal! A scandal!

I love this board. Is a 75/L48 intended for direct-fire hair-splitting? Now, regarding assault guns: what's missing in the grogfest discussion is IMO the price issue. I don't see a reason to produce a StuG when you can have a PzIV, except for the price/man hours it takes. You've got (basically) the same gun, armor protection and mobility with both, but the advantage of having a turret costs you dearly in material, production time and crew training. For providing direct fire HE support both are equal. The missing turret puts the StuG at a disadvantage for AT work. So why not call a StuG a cheap ersatz tank? I've read about the price tag somewhere, does anyone have the numbers?