Eden Smallwood
-
Posts
504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Eden Smallwood
-
-
Sorry folks, but I have been invited to your club. Last game I was forced to buy four planes, which once, twice, three times fired on my troops, on a map with Open tree coverage, Clear skies, Mid-day, Gentle rolling slopes...Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:Without exception, friendly air has done one and only one thing for me every single time I've had it- it has bombed the nuts out of enemy armor...
...that I had already destroyed. Call me lucky.
ButWaitTheresMore- this was an ASSAULT! The enemy's position is known!!! We're the guys Attacking, yeah?!? My troops were 200m away from the VL id est the enemy positions...?!?
Um... has anyone from BTS commented on "looking at" this issue? I've got just one Mr Magoo incident myself, to borrow the other poster's lingo, but it is pretty tough to swallow, and from what I've read of y'all... could there be a NeedForTweak in 02...? Or just don't buy planes?
Eden
-
Excellent! I feel much better if only to know that at least someone has understood me, let alone 'leaned' with me.Originally posted by Max BrauHaus:I am leaning to agree with you on this point as you've described it.
But 1.3 does count kills! Therefore, I think what you meant to write there is that 1.5 (?Although I still think the 1.3 experience could be tweaked, it should definitely include for infantry kills. ) should be similar to 1.3 *at least* with respect to counting enemy kills...? Not sure what you meant there, especially with the word 'although', but as far as enemy kills being relevant, yes, I for one agree, definitely.
That's exactly what 1.3 was- the first 'light grey' column on the old 1.3 "core" sheet...Maybe if any infantry casualties are caused or recieved it should be +1.
Agree completely- while there should also be perhaps just a "1" simply for being there, since being in a battle even if no kills are racked is probably alot scarier than anything I ever want to live through, still those who are in the thick of it have to be more seasoned.That would separate out the troops that sit through a battle without making contact with the enemy from those who were on the front lines.
Exactly.The Favor calc. you suggest is very simple. With that -50 to +50 spread per battle, we would just need to make sure the "cost" of using that Favor is balanced.
I haven't seen it be too easy, except for two battles, (with no casualties whatsoever), wherein the map was to blame... In the last game I rolled up 500pts for air, yet in the QB only 300 was allowable... typically I *lose* alot of points if I purchase the aux myself, yet the AI will have a full force, of course. In fact those points for air support should really count as the enemies force...On another note, I think if players believe the Force Multiplier calcs make the BCR too easy, either the Handicap modifiers should be looked at (again), or some people should start playing at a higher Player Experience rating.Eden
-
Quite so, old chap, quite so.Originally posted by SuperSulo:In my own campaign, I do give exp. for killing inf and guns, and infantry even gets exp. for killing mortars. They dont get much, but still.
Oh really? Now how do you justify that, if you do? If you follow me, this is just a question, but are you doing that just for spice, throwing history to the wind? Or does that throw the wind to history? Truly I never quite got the aux concept.I also roll up the Force Size, so I can get anything from 0(!) to 3000 pts aux units.
Again, the papers want to know Why? The aux rolls are meant to keep this stuff on the sane side of historical accuracy... I thinkI've dropped the rolls for the aux sections completely, and let the QB deside how my battle group will look like. You're posting your decisions without your reasons- not fair!Yes I also just finished 6, and in the last two battles I've had almost nothing for Aux. Last time, four planes which shot me not the enemy, (despite the fact that it was an Axis Assault?!?!?!? The enemy position is *KNOWN* you IDIOTS!!! We're the guys *ATTACKING*!!!) and previous time it was just my core with one single flak gun from aux.
True true true, yet that would not mean that we should not come here to discuss it's evolution.I've said this before, but one of the best things about BCR is that you can easily change them to your own needs.
Hmm my only troubles are Map-Disease. Currently II hope I can come up with a system that eliminates the need for the "Auto QB".1) Go into SE and make "Battle 06 Kore"- I have my 600 ish points of core group here, and I can edit each guy to exactly his exp, and name the commander Hpt Smallwood... but the map *sux*, so I have to edit it by hand, *move* the flags from NML to Allied zone... Yuk. The map here is always inferior to a QB map- the QB map will take into account the size, the attack, et cetera... but the SE doesn't.
2) Create a QB with the adjusted full aux size, import the map/troops then just purchase the aux units and bingo- fight!
If that's not what you're doing, what are you doing?
No, that sounds right... I wouldn't trust you to buy my stuff either. (Gawd what a terrible joke: -10 experienceI could just buy the stuff I want/need as Apache does, but I don't trust myself enough for that just yet. )Eden
-
No it doesn't- the men can "learn" heaps in a battle where the "outcome" is a disaster in the opinion of command.Originally posted by JaegerMeister:But does the 'outcome' necessarily reflect the experience your infantrymen gained during the battle?
Yes. Favor is Favor, Exp is Exp, and the two would be more separated now than they have been. Per 1.3, a mortar was counted twice- once for Fritz's experience, once for commander's favor.I would say the battle outcome should just reflect the performance of the commander and therefore favour under these rules?
In that case, with version 1.3 Exp, and version 1.0 Eden's Favor Algorithm (For instance, in the battle i just fought, my men (still green) fought like lions against a vastly numerically superior enemy in a heavily damaged town, despite constant ambushes and enemy positions to overcome, they fought their way forward in thick fog through rubble right upto the objectives, alas, i ran out of time before i could storm the objective building itself and therefore just got a 'minor defeat' but my men inflicted 396 casualties (104?KIA) for only 36 (12KIA) of my ownand were about to win the day. When i went to fill out the new battlegroup sheet, i felt slightly gutted that all the infantry kills my men had obtained in very difficult terrain/weather, counted for nothing.
), post game procedure for you would be as follows:1) Fill out heaps of stuff on Experience sheet, that is the Battle Group sheet. Your men have fought valiantly, and killed tons o' Soviet stuff, and their experience will be reflected in that.
2) In the now vastly liposuctioned "AAR sheet", (formerly the Favor sheet), which has almost nothing on it but the part where the CM AAR is directly entered, (and possibly transfer 51-54 of the current BG sheet, which are AAR calcs), your actual Favor is computed, which represents, in CM's opinion, what the outcome was. In this example, you don't do so hot. If CM thinks you didn't did so hot, then your CO doesn't think you did so hot.
FAVOR : Comes from outcome
EXP : Comes from kills
Which you seem to find inaccurate. Do I take that as a vote of support, or am I still not understood, or...? Please be clear. Your questions above leave me wondering whether you agree, are curious and those are real questions, or whether they are rhethorical and you don't agree...?The stark headline 'Minor defeat' was all that counted !..all i got was a lousy +1 exp gain.Eden
-
What's wrong is that Churchill was not married to this lady, therefore it takes the subjunctive,Originally posted by History Buff:++++Whats wrong with the Sig?
++++"Madam, if I were your husband..."
and since Churchill was a hard core gnarly SturmTiger of an English teacher at one time, (Cambridge?) it's very surprising that he would make this mistake. So I wonder if he said that really, or that *exactly*...? Curious, that's all.
No I don't think I have you wrong- don't get me wrong, as my saying I agree with you does not mean you agree with everything else I said thereafter. Further, as I stated, I am not suggesting that we move away from Reality™ either. Rather, I contend that to create the history of one exceptional company does not detract from the historical accuracy of the simulation. I would not expect a campaign with an RPG paradigm to imply that if my company got to Elite status that it would change the outcome of the war.++++Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the campaign not follow what realisticaly happened.Your reasons for preferring the 1.3 exp factors may differ from mine as I've stated them so far, but perhaps you will agree with another viewpoint I can offer:
The question of whether a soldier takes out mortar, et cetera, is a matter for his experience, (for reasons which hopefully are self explanatory), but is not a matter of 'favor'. The reason comes from a question of 'concern'- when I report to my CO, he will ask me how that very important battle went. If I were to tell him it went great because Fritz took out his first mortar, I expect I would be shot in the foot.
The enemy mortar having been taken out matters deeply to Fritz, perhaps, but not to many others, certainly not to Fritz's commanding officer's commanding officer. My CO has one concern, really- What is the outcome?
From this reasoning I have to agree that the 1.3 exp paradigm seemed more natural to me, and it also provides yet another incentive for using the simplified CM AAR formula for Favor, which at this point I'm guessing noone else finds remotely intriguing.
How does that strike you?
Eden
-
I'm in absolute agreement with everything you said, (ok, I do have one question about your *signature* line but everything elseOriginally posted by History Buff:Even though it's a touch unrealistic that units will become better over time in the real world as the grogs have pointed out, it will give the campaign purpose for the player.
).There is a schizophrenia here; although one poster came close to putting his finger on it, and defined the two types of campaigns, (was that SS?), I think an accurate way to define the competing endpoints are as follows:
G) Grog Campaign Type : History is all; if it's historical, it's good, if it's not, it's bad.
R) Role Playing Campaign Type : This is a story, not about average individuals who had average histories and average outcomes. Rather it is about an *exceptional* group of individuals, who may have started out average, but became heroic, victorious, and whose tale is worth repeating. Quite likely that fact is due to their commander (me) and the attention he gave to them, who loved and nurtured them, and tucked them in at night. Yeah, go ahead and slam me, but this type of campaign is a role playing game of sorts, and as such, the sine qua non of RPGs are present- the risk of death means 'starting over', the reward of accomplishment means an advance, however slight, in 'abilities', the chance acquisition of goods...
In the RPG type, the increased chance of obtaining a killer halftrack due to the company's performance in the previous battle is essentially identical in dynamic to how one obtained a +2 magic sword by defeating the lizard king was when Dungeons & Dragons was introduced in the last millenium...
So those are the two "endpoints", I think, of what people want or expect from a 'campaign'. The question becomes "Where is BCR?" Will it have two sets of rules for both 'types'? Will it be somewhere in the 'middle'? Or can both types be served by one set of rules somehow?
Considering the Grog type, first, I'm immediately struck by the question "What's the point?" If it were complete and utter faithfulness to history, then such a person would never play CMBB in the first place- the Axis lost, period; the outcome is already known.
The suspension we make when we play a 'historical' scenario in CMBB is "I'd like to see what would have happened had I been commander on that day..." For the vast majority of us, this is our reason for playing a scenario, if we even care about historical accuracy to begin with. This part should be very clear.
With that in mind, it should be no effort say the same thing about a Company- "I'd like to see what would have happened, (over the course of time), to this particular company, had I been commander in that year..."
If Mr Grog has no especial interest in following the exploits of some *particular* company, then he can of course merely play QB after QB, stepping the date a bit, checking charts to be sure the weather is correct on that day... Seems boring to me, but that's why they make tutti frutti.
If Mr Grog *does* want to follow a particular company through the campaign yet without the chore of nurturing them to betterment, then I wonder Why?
In the RPG type, against the accusation that it is nonhistorical, that in 19 something there were only X percentage of veterans around... Sure, I agree that the facts of history should be incorporated in the campaign, but when I talk about my crack company with three attached whirblewhinds I'm not talking about the whole dang Axis armies, I'm talking about just my one little teeny tiny Company! An exceptional company, if my tactics are exceptional, but just a company nonetheless.
So for myself, if you haven't guessed, I would suggest that the rules lean toward the RPG side rather than the Grog side. I have nothing against Grogs... duh! But the rationale for their possible interest in a campaign with rules anything remotely like we have now seems... extremely rarified.
My two cents; hope you've enjoyed them; hope they serve to stir the cauldron back to a discussion of the underlying assumptions in regards what is happening here. I think the rules are slightly on the ice of uncertainty, and the best speed may come from a slower start... ?
Eden
-
After seeing many posts on the subject, I have to conclude that with respect to the friendly skies, I have absolutely nothing to complain about.
The forum will be pleased.
Without exception, friendly air has done one and only one thing for me every single time I've had it- it has bombed the nuts out of enemy armor...
...that I had already destroyed. Call me lucky.
Eden
-
Man, I thought I was cheap!! You can't afford an extra ten bucks? Hmmm.Originally posted by Tigrii:I've heard that sharpshooters are good b/c they have binoculars, only 1 man, etc., but 25 pts for 1 man? No way.
Well this is an interesting question; I've been a bit remiss with scouting. Glad you brought it up, (ya skinflint!
). Let's see...
Ah, ok. But what seems more likely, that they will be spotted at tank hunting range, or at longer range? The hunters have some SMGs that seem to work well at close range, but if they're spotted by a rifle squad way out West, they're not going any farther... Whose hunters were you considering? The Soviets might be able to take out a HT...Tank hunters [...] can pay off if they scout out a tank at close range.Now if a SS spots a tank, or a gun, (or a box?) at long range, he might actually be able to take the dang thing out!!! Wow- I'm sold on the idea! Tonight's game I'm definitely going to try that. Oh, wait- the map is Small this time, dang. But next time...
Good idea, Tigrii
Eden
-
Sesam-
Here is my proofread for small typos or slightly awkward wording. I'll edit this *in place*, and hope you have a "diff" function available, to see what I changed.
The most important part of the briefing, of course, is the matter of describing what the player should know in order to get the best understanding of what he is facing, or what needs to be done, as we've discussed above. About that issue, I of course won't know much until I get to the scenario. Still, here are my changes, not many of them and not serious- mostly style issues, and a few particles, conjunctions... Your English is very good. One small thing first, the Turns is listed as "50+", but in the scenario it's "45+", isn't it? I think it is.
PS, after reading: "9./III/JR 23" Er, what's that? How big is it? If it's coming to help me in one of your scenarios, I hope it's big
Anywhow, I will try to get to the scenario soon, but it looks like you're being clear about the situation. Back soon,Eden
Title: Vuosalmi Campaign, 7. URRAHH!
Type: Soviet Assault (Historical)
Date: March 5th, 1940
Time: 09:00 hrs
Location: Äyräpää, Karelian Isthmus
Region: Finland
Weather: Frozen
Terrain: Snow, Farmland
Turns: 50+
Author: Matti Vesanen, matti_vesanen@hotmail.com
Best played by Human Finland vs. Soviet AI. If played by two players the better player should play Finland.
Stick to scenario default
Background:
On February 15th the Mannerheim Line was broken. Finnish GHQ decided to pull the troops back to the intermediary defensive positions on the Karelian Isthmus. On February 27th the Soviets had broken through the intermediary positions and the Finnish forces began to withdraw to the backline defences. The 2nd Division was ordered to defend the Vuoksi river line on Vuosalmi sector.
There is a ridgeline on the southern bank of Vuoksi, from which there is a good field of vision to the open lowlands of the northern shore. Therefore it was decided to hold a bridgehead and put the main line of defence on the ridge.
The Vuoksi line was the last line of defence. The Russians made continuous attempts to break the line with four divisions, strong artillery barrages and air attacks. Weak Finnish forces managed barely to hold the line until the peace on March 13th.
This is the seventh battle of Vuosalmi campaign (1st - 13th March, 1940)
The church hill was lost on the evening of March 4th. The attempt to recapture the hill was a failure. Now the Russians are ready to cross the Vuoksi river.
Strategic Situation:
The situation in our sector is grim. Mustasaari island was lost yesterday and now there is a lot of Russian infantry on the island. The church hill was lost last night and our counter attack was a terrible bloodbath, with Kev.Os. 8 losing over 70 men in the assault. Two hours ago the enemy started firing artillery on the southern shore of Vasikkasaari island. The firing is so intense that you can't hear individual explosions anymore.
Intel:
We believe there is over a battalion of infantry on the Mustasaari island.
The enemy has moved direct fire guns on the church area. We have counted 3 guns and 5-6 MGs on the church hill. They can fire on the SW shore of Vasikkasaari.
The enemy has air superiority, and ground attack planes are circling above us. It's dangerous to move during daylight. If you have to move, use covered routes and a dispersed formation.
Mission:
09:00, 5.3.1940
Suddenly the artillery barrage stops. You hear the terrible Russian warcry "URRAHHH!!!" The ice between Mustasaari and Vasikkasaari is full of charging infantry. You pick up the phone, but the line to artillery batteries is broken. The first wave is almost on the shore...
You are the commander of I/JR 23. Your mission is to hold Vasikkasaari island. It's very important to hold Vasikkasaari because there is only a narrow stream between the island and the north shore of Vuoksi. If we can't hold Vasikkasaari it will be difficult to prevent the enemy from crossing the river.
We have an artillery observation post near point 16. When the lines have been repaired you'll have some artillery support. (spotters appear on point 16)
Forces:
1 Company
4 Maxim MGs
2 Sharpshooters
Reserves:
Artillery in 10-20 minutes (spotters arrive on point 16)
Infantry in 20-30 minutes (you have sent a runner to get 9./III/JR 23 and all other available men to your aid.)
Glossary:
Vasikka-saari = calf-island
Musta-saari = black-island
Lammas-niemi = sheep-cape
-
Hey all-
Do I perceive a koyannisqatsi(sp? not in the dic) here, hmmm? Wee bit out o' control, are we? Having a problem with the brakes, so racing home before we have an accident? Using Assault when we should be using Move To Contact?
Ah well. I will be back soon to dole out wisdom by the panzerload. Been busy knocking the Excelecentricity problem into a cocked hat- we Excel *4.0* users (or lower?) are no longer second rate citizens around here. If you can read a Stuffit file, and you want your Battle Group sheets automated in every conceiveable sense, break your chains here:
http://angelfire.com/mac/programming/cmbb/EdensBGSS.html
What follows is the Readme:
Eden's BGSS Readme or Feedme 1.0.0, package version 1.0.0
••••••• Why You Are Reading This:
You are playing, or would like to play, a campaign in CMBB using _Biltong's Campaign Rules_, (BCR), and you have the ability to read Excel spreadsheets, but not of a version as new as the ones currently on BCR sites.
••••••• The Package Is:
Excel 4.0.0 spreadsheets & macro sheet implementing the "Battle Group" sheet for BCR v1.3.0 and BCR v 1.4.0 Excel being what it is, I'm supposing but don't know for sure that everything here is cross platform.
These spreadsheets (SS) both calculate the experience of your group in accordance with the rules, (as I understand them!), and automate the iteration from one battle to the next. That is, when you're done with all the data entry for battle #5, you will just hit a hotkey and the SS will copy your computed experience column to the experience "in" column, erase all the temporary input for battle #6, and you're ready to save that file as "battle 6" without further ado.
••••••• The Files are:
BCR130 BattleGroup
- SS for BCRv1.3 As unzipped, this file contains the horrific results of my battle number 5 in my current campaign.
BCR140 BattleGroup
- SS for BCRv1.4 As unzipped, this file contains the horrific results of my battle number 5 in my current campaign. This sheet is virtually identical to the 1.3 version sheet, but (like the rules), most stuff does not contribute points like it used to. But I left the columns in anyway. Note that you could track those values, if you cared to- they are simply multiplied by zero.
Eden's BGMacs100
- Contains the XL macros which automate iteration. This file must be opened for the hotkeys to work. The file will be "hidden" when you open it, but no stress.
••••••• The Macros Are:
BG_Iterate Command-Option i (Macintosh hotkey)
- Steps the current spreadsheet to the next battle, most importantly copying all those damn numbers from experience "out" to "in", and erasing kills...
BG_NewCampaign Command-Option n (Macintosh hotkey)
- Same as above, while also sticking "10" into the experience 'In' column.
••••••• The Quickstart Is:
primarily for Excel virgins like me.
1) Open either "BattleGroup" file in Excel version 4.0 or greater, notice that it is depicting a battle rather than being blank.
2) Open "Eden's BGMacs100", say "Yes" to "Read Only?", and don't fret when no new window appears, it's just hidden.
3) Compare the SS with whatever hardcopy or other version of the existing Battle Group Sheet or Core Sheet you are using. It should be pretty clear how this SS matches up, (see "Differences" below). I've used short names for things so it fits on a small screen, (like mine!), arranged things a little bit differently, but really it's exactly the same.
4) Pretending for the moment that we've just finished "Battle 05", execute the "BG_Iterate" macro, either from the menu or (on Mac) hitting Command-Option i. Voila. Now, presumedly, you would save this file as "Battle 06", play the next battle, rinse, repeat.
••••••• The 'Differences' Are:
1) Different arrangement... The complicated experience stuff is all grouped in one place, the kills on the right side. This has the effect the left side of the SS is mostly persistent values, the cells on the right are temporal, 'erased each time' values...
2) in v1.3, the POW calculation in the Rules is "if (n) then 5 + 2(n-1)". Scr*w. I just didn't have the heart to figure this out in Excelese, (see my last para of this document for why), so I just use 2*n.
3) "Fudge" column. With this column you can add/subtract n points to a row, in the case where your rules don't quite match BCR and you don't know how to fix this SS to match your version... Or for instance one could add "3" when POWs are taken to fix the case of #2 listed above. At any rate, the sheet is not brittle, with respect to your customizing the rules.
4) I consider my "core" to include the MG34 & Section HQ which are normally part of the company, so there are still another three rows for scrounged or other units. I think you can delete these rows if you want to.
5) Possibly the experience calcluation is not exactly what is intended in the rules- I'm not really sure. See "columns" section below.
6) "Men" ( Column B ) is always the size of a full unit, not just who is "OK".
••••••• The Columns Are:
These really are the same, just organized different, with shorter labels so I can see the whole sheet at once. "Wooden(5/3)" means, in accordance with 1.3 rules, infantry are given 5 points for a wood bunker, tanks are give 3. All numbers listed here are for the 1.3 version sheet.
Men : The size of the complete unit. This never changes.
Casualties : In 1.3 this is added, per rules to 'Nominal', and needed in both.
In : Experience as resulting from previous battle
Replacements : Level of the incoming replacements
Nominal : New level of the partially casualtied unit, with kill pts.
Favor Bonus : From the Favor sheet
Full Unit : Old guys and replacements together, ((old*old_ex)+(new*new_ex))/men
Out : Same as Full Unit, but capped at max 10 greater than In
Fled(-5)
Rattled(-4)
Left(-4/-6) : Abandoned
KO(-5/-8)
Burn(0/-10)
Infantry(1)
Mortar(2/1)
BFG(5/3) : Big Guns
Wooden(5/3) : Wooden MG Box
MG Box(7/5) : Concrete MG Box
Gun Box(10) : Concrete Gun Box
Simple(4/2) : Unarmored vehicles, jeeps, chickenwagens...
Light(7/6) : Light Armor
Tank(10)
POW(2) : for 1.3, this should really be 5 + 2(n-1)
Fudge(1) : Arbitrary adjustments can be placed here
••••••• The Point Is:
I made the 1.3 version up so I can play this campaign without a mountain of paperwork, (just a sizeable hill), and whatever spreadsheets are available on BCR sites are not readable by me in Excel 4.0. The format of this sheet(s) is such that changes should be very easy to make.
In testimony to that, it took only about two minutes to make the 1.4 version from the 1.3 version, and I include that because it was easy to do, notwithstanding that I for one will probably stick with something closer to the 1.3 rules in re experience.
I can *almost* save these files as Excel version 3.0 files; if you have only version 3.0 and want these, let me know and I'll see what I can do, but I think I would have to lose the macros which make it a blessing. For Excel 2.2, I definitely would lose the macros, but I could at least make the sheets available, which would calculate for you.
Questions or comments or something can be to my address in profile, and sorry if you get blocked. But please don't ask me about Excel- I've never used it, or any other spread sheet program before, I don't have a manual, and in fact the Help function doesn't work, probably becuase I deleted "Micro$oft Help" at some point... oops. So everything I know in the world about XL I got from just poking around, and I know absolutely nothing which is not already in this sheet...
Eden
-
Sesam-
I'm in the midst of Xmas shopping; got your file- it loads fine. It's *pretty* big. "Pinned", eh? I think this is going to hurt.
I do need to catch up on some things but I will be back here soon...
Eden
-
Not sure if I follow what you mean there eden.</font>Originally posted by arkai88:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:
[qb]
I just wonder if that's based on something defensible;
-
If they were Finns, then they must have seen about 19 or 20 men, tops.Originally posted by Sesam:I have one last turn save of the battle. Those three MGs combined have fired 246 ammo units and killed 18 men. Surely they must have seen something!
But pretend that you didn't know what to expect (or not exactly) from the scenario- would you not have wanted them on the closer island? Their usefulness in back seems to be part of your strategy for allowing the enemy in so close, something I wouldn't have assumed I would be doing if I thought I could hold him off further... Even then, I'm not sure I wouldn't want them closer on the first island- maybe deep in the cover there, but still.Maybe what it really means is that I should just play it again and take a closer look at it.
He must be sharp, if he can look at the scenario and tell that those craters were made recently! But regardless- I don't understand how the SMGs will be usefull in *any* role way in the back- they just won't be able to cross that ice, no way, and their FP drops off too much at that distance... No, I'm sorry I still don't get understand why they wouldn't be forward.If he is sharp, he can see huge craters all over the map.
Yes they were. I invite anyone else reading here to tell us how they did. Or maybe I shouldn't- "Oh, it was too easy..."Both testers were Überfinns
Yes to all your tactics, but there is very little arty, (historical amount, I would suppose), and while the Russians "can't take it", there are *many* of them, and they *will* recover!!Green and conscript russians can't take it.
No no you see, I'm not a Finn, so *pain* is generally something to avoid, and... oh, nevermind.It will hurt, but that's ok.
No they don't sound too large- it's more a matter of too many polygons- 2000pts of all infantry... If the 1650 is *all* troops maybe that's pushing it; just send and I'll try it.The battle #7 is large Finnish delay, 50 turns, 1400 points. #8 is large Finnish assault 45 turns, 1650 points. Are these too large? #9 is medium defense, 30 turns, 1000 points.Send to zeppenwolf at lafn.org
with CC to zeppenwolf at angelfire.com
The one at lafn *might* come back, which is why both... it's a long story.
You mean, when you *think* they're readyI'll do that when my new briefings are ready. I will be here, and I'll look for them!! Remember to assume that we don't know the history of these battles, and we certainly don't know what you're thinking. Subtle is good, just not *too* subtle.Eden
[ December 14, 2002, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]
-
! Talk about 'gamey' trivia!Originally posted by arkai88:So in other words don't buy green, vet, or elite.
I'm not blaming you for knowing of course! I just wonder if that's based on something defensible; it seems hard to rationalize a difference in delay times... Ah well- "All's fair", eh?
Eden
-
Now why on earth would I have a screenshot of the last time this happened??? Like Aka says, it can happen in foxholes, for one. If you'd really like a pic I'll snap it next time around; it's not that rare, really.Originally posted by redwolf:Well... screenshots of these other situations?
Eden
-
Yes. You should have mostly reg, some green and vet thrown in for spice. I'm sure I couldn't find it either, probably, but it's been noted before- unless they're almost *all* green, no bug on the play.Originally posted by Treeburst155:I couldn't find anything in the manual about this. I bought regular troops in a QB and the computer gave me many greens, and even a vet. Is this a feature?
To quote the lady at Harold's Chicken Shack, "You gits what you gits!", even for auto-purchase.I paid for regulars, and I want regulars!Eden
-
In a QB, your prisoners, (I mean, enemies you've captured), can liberate *themselves* if you don't keep a close eye on them.
Eden
-
Buy unfit spotters if you wanna; for me they'll hardly move their fat butts as it is.
The vastly more interesting question, (for me I mean), is what effect does it have to purchase a *Veteran/Crack/Elite* spotter?
Is he "better" at saying "to the left"? Or would it (almost) purely be a matter of self-preservation if bad luck happens, or less panicky if a few bullets come sailing to the backfield??? For better accuracy, I'd take it, but it's hard to rationalize that "ability".
Eden
-
Implying that you don't get it otherwise? Yes, I do- in all sorts of places.Originally posted by redwolf:You get it when enemy infantry is lying behind a wall.
I've *always* wondered what the heck that meant. Obviously it's a good bet that it's a waste of ammo as far as damage, but does it mean you can't even suppress him? Does it mean you can just barely see his pack lying on the ground?
Curious. Unimportant, but curious.
Eden
-
Well you're more than welcome- I'd begun thinking that when SDs say "I like negative feedback too" they don't really mean it. Having you voice your appreciation to me is just as important as my voicing my disappointments to you, otherwise I'm not going to say anything.Originally posted by Sesam:Thanks for your comments.
Hmmm well I *still* don't like it, but I do have to take back what I said in part- those *are* pretty good reasons. I wish there were some kind of compromise which doesn't cheat history, but still gives the player time to say "Aw nuts! Here comes a swarm!" Especially the tanks!!I have few reasons for [magic swarm, reasons 1,2,3,4]:
Definitely- what you said in those reaons would have helped me rationalize it. Maybe my game wasn't as *cold* as it was supposed to be? I don't remember what settings can't entirely be saved, maybe temp is one of them?I could have mentioned in the briefing that the enemy was already so close.
But they can't *see* anything from way back there- only the back row of the field?? I though I would need them on the *next* island, not even on the mainland, and it turns out I was right- they would have had a perfect line on the swarm, but would have been unapproachable by the tanks, (at least any closer).I put MG's and one platoon on islands because historically the defenders got fire support from the other side of the river.I never thought someone would start moving MG's over 300m wide river in the middle of fight. Yes, but it wasn't the "middle of the fight" until I hit the "Go" buttton! LOL!![EDIT Also, they were in the shadow of that first island they were headed to- it was only the perfectly timed plane which got their panties in a knot]
?? Even if meant for infantry, the SMGs are good at close range, not at long range, so they still are not useful way in the back? Yes I had some of them on the mainland, but they're fragile, and run out of ammo fast too. Also with swarms of tanks coming I felt I had no choice but to send them on dangerous attempts to take out some if they could. They couldn't.Tank hunter team is essentially a two man SMG team with molotovs, they are good against infantry. But now I'm starting to talk about my weak tactics...
Who, Steve & Madmatt??? I guess I must play it again, (this time with fallback foxholes, which I should have made- another thing good to mention in the briefing. I think they'll be needed!). But whoever playtested this one and got major victories must be pretty insanely good. Possibly this explains the lack of reviews you mentioned- noone wants to admit a complete disaster... I don't know- I leave it to the forum/reviewers, but there are not many QBs or scenarios in which I won't get an MV, and I've played just about everything at SD, (except for huge). Well, very recently I've gone into Campaign mode, but still.The first scenario is winnable, both playtesters got major victories.
OK. So if you could have, you would have *locked* those guys onto their spots...? Maybe in the rewrite. Once again for the briefing, describing them being there, facing that way, would have helped. For me at least- I couldn't tell whether they were there like you say, or whether they were for me to pull and use, which I certainly had to do.The MG's were there because the enemy was on the other side of that open field. It was their job to defend the frontline.
As far as playtesters....er, will it hurt me?I'm looking for playtesters and proofreaders, any volunteers? Seriously, I've got blonde hair and blue eyes, but that must be from furniture-designing Swedish blood rather than fighting-warrior Finnish blood.If you're ok with someone who got destroyed by VC-One, (and you're OK with the United States' civil rights history, especially in re treatment of Al Quaeda pows at Guatanamo), then I'd be happy to test anything smaller than 'really large'.
For proofreading, I'm also available, but I'd prefer if you took a suggestion I've made more than once: post your rough drafts here in ST, asking for a proofread. I will get to them for sure if noone else does first, but I've been trying to get people to do that just for community spirit, esprit de corps and whatnot, and it would help make other designers feel more comfortable coming here asking for help the same way.
Eden
[ December 13, 2002, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]
-
I'll bump it; seems reasonable.
Eden
-
Yeehaw, yip yip!! (insert your ethnocentric cries of glee here. Actually I'm not from the South, but who's counting?). Bang, Bang! Just remember, people- fire into the *ground*, not into the *air*.Originally posted by Biltong:Friday … Time for the weekly BCR Update
Print those doggies out and it's off to Starbucks with this (virtual) Marine!
OK.The designers would also love some feedback on their maps from the player POV… let them have it – good or bad – the end result will be better maps for everyone!_Manstein Fork Al AT_ is not- it is an allied defense. Unless I grossly misunderestand the naming scheme, (which is a good one- I've prodded other mappers to use a similar scheme)... To be accurate, the only flag I see as allies is on my setup zone, so... ?
Eden
-
Of course- more 'brain' is required to shoot and move than simply to shoot, I would suppose. Still, because it is a gas to defend, (laying out mine/wire/tank hunter traps, hee hee, et cetera), I have conducted experiments in trying to get a good game out of the attacking AI.Originally posted by Danzig:I agree that the AI has been playing a lot better, but do you guys find yourself playing the defender against the AI? I still find this not to be as satisfying as attacking the AI. The AI's attacking tactics intelligence still seems a bit off to me. Any comments?
I loathe and despise the 'computer experience' bonus thing, so that's out. Giving the AI more troops is neither a fix, it's just giving it more to be as lame with.
My best defending games have been playing small games as allies on a map where the attacker has three or four map edges for setup zones. Sure, that's just one type of battle, but it does seem to work- I've been completely surprised when the AI went for the 'wrong' flag, and had to scramble madly to get back there...
Panzer Leader has a few maps with those zones; they have Eden's Seal o' Approval, but of course there aren't many. Ultimately, all told there aren't many out there like that period, so you'll have to make your own if you like variety.
Eden
-
Coming from the maker of _Breaking/Making Motti_ scenarios, (which I loved), I was excited and expecting really great stuff. Once I figured out that an entire sequence of battles was being modelled, not just one, I was more excited still. But I was very disappointed.
In the first battle, I was upset to find a huge swarm of enemy magically appearing right under my nose in turn one; possibly there's some kind of justification for this, but I have never liked it, nor do I really believe any justification is possible for that situation- the map can always be a bit bigger...
The setup had me puzzled as well- tank hunters are on an innermost island, yet the tanks cannot cross the ice, so what on earth are the hunters doing back there where the tanks physically impossibly could not get to anywhow??? ( Or was that the fourth scenario? ) Definitely I remember that four MG squads were 'stuck' on that back island where they couldn't see squat- I wanted them forward, so squinched them up forward and tried to cross the ice on turn one, only to be scared poopless by some plane while they were exposed... Ooops! So much for *those* guys!
Spent the rest of the game being hopelessly outnumbered, which is *fine*, really, if it's a historical model favoring history not balance, but I would hope for some appropriate hints in the briefing- surely recon knew that a massive swarm of angry red men were coming, and I could have been told that a delaying tactic was inevitable and should have been considered the best possible scheme. If those MGs had been forward, it might actually have been just barely the edge I needed to hang on... but probably not
The second one (fourth? the one where a breach is attempted to retake at night), was much better- a compelling story/situation not usually found in scenarios, and the balance was such that proceeding cautiously I managed to suffer a minor or tactical victory, not moving quite fast enough, and actually getting a horde of my force routed while having gotten a bit too confident towards the end and tried to cross a small section of ice in a cocky, non-covered way. Good one overall, but still I found it highly perplexing why the forward MG units in that one were apparently ready for an enemy from *somewhere off the left*...
The only other one I played, (skipped the Huge one), ISTR also had the huge swarm of enemy appearing right under my nose on turn one... I can't recall exactly at this point, but overall I was disappointed in not seeing the last ten percent of QA testing gone into this series that went into the Mottis. The briefings ISTR could be improved with a native English proofreader, which does make a difference when there are things which need explaining. Hth,
Eden
What are good infantry scouts?
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Good one. Too bad that radio seems to weigh about six tons...Eden
[ December 17, 2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]