Green Hornet

Great tip. Thanks, Limey.

As Sergei mentioned, I would guess your side may have auto-surrendered. If your global morale becomes low enough the system will sometimes execute an auto-surrender. The only way a battle will end is - 1) If the number of turns has expired 2) Manual surrender or cease-fire is given 3) Auto surrender due to low morale

Unbelieveable. Another prime example of the "squeaky wheel getting the grease". Nevermind the fact that there are nearly 14,000 registered users on this board. A dozen folks whine about the font size and it gets changed.

I like the new font size. It appears crisper and it's much easier to read for me. I found the larger type fairly annoying and it looked woefully outdated. You're naturally going to hear more from the people who don't like it. The folks who like it (or don't really care) generally aren't going to waste the their time posting about font size.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but a couple of decent sites that I find useful - WWII Vehicles Achtung Panzer Also, I assume you mean you are a budding wargamer as opposed to RPG'er. The Combat Mission games don't fall into the RPG category.

I promised my wife I'd hold out until after the new year, which was fine with me since I still have so much more East Front action I want to cover. But, now that it ACTUALLY SHIPPING I'm finding a strange weakness coming over me as I reach for my credit card... BFC's gonna get me in trouble AGAIN.

Don't worry Demster, quantity of posts doesn't always translate to quality of posts.

Wow. :eek: Excellent mod! Thanks for all the work you put into these.

A MUCH needed mod. Thanks so much for doing this! Bravo, sir. :cool:

I've been as high as 15 PBEMs, which I found to be way too many for my schedule. I seem to be able to comfortably handle about 5-7 games at once. As HarryInk pointed out, I need to have at least a couple of turns waiting for me at the end of the day. If I fire up the computer and see nothing in my CM inbox, I get a little bummed. However, anything approaching 10 or more games is just too much for me and it begins to become a chore. I have no problem keeping track of several PBEMs at once. When I first started PBEMing, I thought it would be tough to play games simulatenously. But once you fire up a turn, look at the terrain, and see your units, your train of thought comes back very quickly. [ October 23, 2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Green Hornet ]

Great news! Thanks so much for all your selfless hard work on this. From some movie which I can't rememeber - "Sometimes the bad times are there to remind of us of the good times that we weren't paying attention to in the first place..." I know that applies to me with respect to your site. I've taken cmmods.com for granted for too long. Expect a visit from my wallet in the very near future.

Completely understood. IMHO the intentions of your original post were purely information and in no way looking for a debate. However, as you have undoubtedly learned, any type of CM-related information will be subject to debate and discussion on this forum. That's really what it's all about...sharing ideas, opinions, etc So, whether you were looking for it or not, your helpful sharing sparked a bit of a debate. I just think it seems the best way to back up claims would be to conduct a test that produces some meaningful data. Fortunately, in this case, it's possible to conduct some tests and put out some data for the rest of us to chew on. Obviously, it's entriely up to you whether or not you feel you have the time to run some tests. But I'm guessing a lot of folks would be interested in seeing the results. I know I would simply because I've always wondered the same thing.

Good suggestion Redwolf. Folks can debate on the forum all day (and night) but statistically meaningful data speaks volumes.

Okay, I had some time for a more exhaustive test. It seems that intervening cover affects % exposure but does not affect firepower. For those interested, my test was done with German 41 rifle squads positioned exactly 97 meters from their targets (Russian inf). All squads had identical firepower potential (124 at 40m) and all HQ units had +0 combat bonuses. Season was set to summer. Below are the results: Terrain.....%Exposure.....Firepower Open..............75%................87 Brush.............72%................87 Brush(x2)........68%................87 SctTrees.........66%................87 Pines.............60%................87 SctTrees(x2)....58%................87 Woods............57%................87 *(x2) indicates targeting through 2 tiles of terrain. All others are targeting through a single terrain tile. So it seems the game models the fact that intervening cover reduces LOS and therefore exposure; but it does not reduce firepower which would indicate that it does not model munitions being deflected or stopped by trees and brush. Hope a few folks find this interesting.

I agree Michael. My test was done late last night and as I was turning in I realized I should have compared firepower as well. For my own sake, I plan to do a more extensive, comprehensive test tonight when I get home from work (after my PBEMs, of course ). I'll share the results for those interested.

I was so certain that my assumption was correct, I didn't think about doing a test. Well, I just did a test and guess what? I was wrong. At least exposure is definitley affected by intervening cover. Admittedly, this was a quick and dirty test but it was enough to convince me that intervening cover is not completely ignored as I had thought. Below are the % exposures when a unit is targeted through various terrain types ( some types have more data points due to the way I set things up ): Targeting through open - 75, 75 Targeting through pines - 62, 65 Targeting through woods - 62, 59, 55, 64 Targeting through scattered trees - 66, 72, 70 The interesting thing that I noticed was that the % exposure decreased within a given terrain type as the area of the terrain through which the targeting line traveled increased. This game is so cool. :cool:

Good points gentlemen. Thanks for the information. I agree that modeling some sort of interving cover would be pretty cool. If BFC could do it in such a way that kept things simple but still allowed for some type of defensive bonus, that would be my first choice. The situation doesn't really come up that often but it does happen often enough to do some wishful thinking...

This is something I've always wondered about in both CMBO and CMBB. Although I think I know the answer, I'm not certain I'm convinced it makes sense. Standard apologies if this has been discussed before and I just missed it in my search... I have a unit in open terrain, but behind a patch of woods or pines such that the enemy still has LOS to my unit. When the enemy unit opens fire, does my unit gain ANY advantage from the fact that the enemy is shooting through a patch of trees? I would guess the answer is "no" and that my unit's %exposed is calculated just the same as if there were no trees between it and the enemy. I would think the fact that, even though the enemy has LOS through the trees, my unit should still gain some type of defensive bonus due to the small percentage of bullets being deflected or stopped by the trees. Probably too late to address in CMAK(?). Maybe something to add to CMX2. Maybe I'm wrong an it's already factored into BO and BB.

Happy Birthday CMBB!!! I tip my hat and raise my glass to the guys at BFC who have given me more entertainment for my money than I ever thought possible.

Not sure if the rules are posted on any sites but here they are: FRANKO'S TRUE COMBAT RULES SELECTING UNITS Use "+" or "-" keys to move from friendly unit to friendly unit. Then, use the "tab" key. You can then only rotate in place to scan the surrounding terrain. If there is friendly unit within the line of sight (LOS) of the unit you have currently selected, you do not have to use the + and - keys. Instead, you can simply point and click on that target unit, THEN hit the tab key. Any other way of accessing an enemy unit is forbidden. PANNING After accessing the unit and hitting the tab key(which orients the view of the unit forward), you can only "look around" by using the pivot keys (1,3,7,9) on the keypad. BUILDINGS If a unit icon (such as vehicle), blocks your view, you can use the "8" key to click ahead only such distance which is necessary to clear the sprite. ELEVATED VIEWS Once turns begin (after setup), you may use only the lowest-level view ("1" on the keyboard), unless the following apply: A. If your unit occupies are a two-level building, you may use View 2 B. If you are on the top floor of a church, you can use View 2 or View 3, whichever you prefer. ENEMY UNITS You may not "click on" or "select" an enemy unit. Use the "N" key to select targets. ZOOM KEYS You may not use the "zoom key" (the brackets), unless: A. You may use up to Zoom 2x if you're unit you are "looking from" is platoon leader or above. B. Your unit may use up to Zoom 4x if it has optics (e.g, an artillery observer, an AT gun, a tank). Buttoned tanks or tanks that suffered casualties can only use up to zoom 4x in the direction of their turret facing, because, that's where the gunners optics are facing! American tanks may not be able to zoom at all. WEATHER You must always have weather and fog set to "Extreme". SPECIAL SETUP RULES The following setup rules apply depending on whether you are the attacker, defender, or if the battle is a meeting engagement. Attacker: During setup you may use View Level 7 to aid in setup, in addition to the views you are permitted in Rules 1, 2, or 3, above. This "attacker's map" rule represents the "map" your troop commander would use to help prepare your troops for the assault. Defender: During setup you can use the map rule, above, if your signal corps has its act together. In addition, you can freely move about the map in level 1, or view level 2 (or 3, if a church) if that part of the map your viewing from is a multi-level building Meeting Engagements: Both sides may only view using the Attacker's map rule, or from any spot in their setup zone (only). Again, if a spot in their setup zone has a church or building, adjust accordingly. OPTIONAL RULE During setup you may print out a map (by taking a screen shot and printing the .bmp file) for use during the battle. This map should be at the minimum View Level 7. GAME SETTINGS Use only "Realistic" Sized units. Always have "full terrain" on. Turn unit bases and detailed armored hits "off". Generally speaking, use only those feature that the troops could use. Needless to say, Fog of War is ALWAYS set to FULL! [ September 18, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Green Hornet ]

I've always thought the CMBO artillery was way too accurate. I've never had a problem with my CMBO arty hitting my own troops (when I've had LOS). Well... with the exception of the few times I forgot to adjust fire and then ordered my troops to advance right into the barrage. :mad: To be honest, however, I can't say I've ever tried the exact combination that Jim Harrison is describing. Although I know I've certainly moved my troops around during an artillery barrage.

I agree completely. Online games are faster paced and can be more exciting to a certain degree. One comment I was concerned about however is that I've heard claims that TCPIP is more realistic than PBEM because PBEM allows you to take your time and analyze your situation (akin to chess). A luxury that RL commanders did not have. I don't happen to agree with this since the argument that "time limits" make CM more realistic would follow that the closer you can make CM to a "real-time" game, the more realistic it is. This is something I just do not believe to be true.

Thanks guys, This is the way I've always felt as well. I'm glad to read that I'm not the only one who feels there's nothing wrong with putting some thought into your moves.

I know this topic may have been discussed to death in many different forms but I'm really interested in what folks on this board might have to say about this particular topic. At what level was CM really meant to be played? By that, I mean how much do you let the A.I. control your own troops versus how frequently should you be giving new/updated orders to your virtual squads and tanks? Recently, I was involved in a discussion in which a player claimed that "Playing Combat Mission like chess takes all the realism out of it". That playing PBEM games gives a person too much time to think about every fold in the terrain and ponder every potential decision. This makes it unrealistic since real commanders did not have this luxury. My initial reaction is that CM is a game and RL commanders did not have a lot of the luxuries we do in playing CM. However, this did start to make me think... I play tons of PBEM games ( and very few TCPIP games ) and I'm a person that tends to takes his time when plotting moves and giving orders. Am I "missing out" or playing the game in a manner in which it was not intended because I take a lot of time to think through my plans when plotting moves? I'm just curious as to how some of you folks play. Do you take your time plotting moves or give yourself a mental time limit? Do you give new orders to the majority of your units every few turns or do you play "hands off" and let the A.I. handle most of your squads duties? I apologize for so many questions and the rambling of this post but after years of playing CM I'm suddenly wondering if I'm "doing it wrong"? :confused:

I believe QB maps are totally random each time. Of course if you play a lot of QBS on maps with the exact same parameters ( size, terrain types, season, etc) the maps are bound to begin looking similar.