Eden Smallwood

I can tell you how you *can* win, yes. You can play a cautious game, feel like you're getting nowhere fast, lose a few HTs, revise the plan a bit, take *forever* trying to locate and destroy those d*mn guns, advance slowly, cautiously... Eventually I was about to run out of time, (by my best guess, anyway), and the allies surrendered- I had spent so much time blowing him to Kansas that there was not much left of him, but I would have been lucky to have gotten everyone across that dinky bridge... I *sorta* hesitate to admit winning that way- I think most grogs here would say 'that's not how you're Supposed to do it', but hey- I've been through enough of these scenarios like this where you just can't find those stupid guns and all your stuff gets knocked out... Well, that just dang well wasn't going to happen THIS time, so that's how I played, that's how I won. Sure was a *pain*, at any rate. Good one. Eden

Alas, no, not really, not if I take your meaning. I recall a thread, (or two?), where I or someone else said, "It would be nice to have victory be definable as recon'ing gun location, or simply moving the front forward, or destroying all enemy armor at all costs, or delaying enemy sufficiently, et cetera." Whereupon, (ISTR), Steve or someone has come in and said something telling yet vague, like "Yeah, yeah- don't worry, you'll be pleased" or something. Sorry, but all I recall are hinty vague things; certainly I haven't seen Steve come out and *list* what will be, or anything, no. Anyway, the point was, using the points in AAR screen will make us forward compatible with anything they happen to dream up. I'm there. I hope it's worth missing Green Acres, too. "Bailiwick", from Bailiff, and Wic, village, (related to VICinity). Good one. And you've earned one, just as soon as the rules are done. Oh really? So luftwaffe shouldn't be used at Dawn? Curious. I just spent 300 bucks on strafing ME109s, in my first (tactical) defeat of the campaign. I should have spent it on anything else, but your rules made me buy air, and there was nothing to strafe!!! Dreadful, dreadful battle. 9 deaths. I lost the IIC, although I picked up a JagerSomething from the repo auction. I'm quite distinctly nonplussed. From your comments, I think you misunderstand me; you seem to be in fact agreeing with me although you don't think you are. In that example I posted last time, what I listed was only the *right* hand box of that section, whatever section it was; most of the document remains exactly as it is. As you say, it follows the screens; very good. It is mostly the right hand "blurb box" which could be turned into a completely unequivocal flow chart style. Those 'ifs' listed there would mostly end with the statement "proceed to next section", while the cases which are exceptions might say "jump to section X". Look at it again, maybe you'll see it differently. OK! I've got another possible prettifier, in _Note 8_, concerning Immediate Assaults and whatnot. ( First, I assume that "Weather" is one of the things altered back or forth by one? ) Consider adding the Section # for each thing and listing them in order: [section 39] Temperature [section 40] Weather (?) [section 41] Wind [section 43] Map Type [section 44] Tree Cover [section 45] Hilliness [section 46] Damage Ahhhh. Hmmmm, put "Favor" on backburner, eh? OK, then, I'm off to peruse Mssr du Scalpel's note- let me see what is being prescribed for the experience ills, hmmm. Eden

Just thought I'd moot the question of how different types of units compare wrt getting tired. Of course MGs... forget them. I mean do Pioneers get tired more easily than Rifles, (are those satchel charges really beefy?) I've never noticed in game, but it might be interesting? Eden

Not in any way I have discovered, no.</font>

It should, if it's disputed by the enemy- that implies that the battle really is continuing. I've lobbied for that before; ISTR it is *partially* implemented..??? And I've also lobbied that a flag behind one's lines should stay owned, regardless of whether one's troops remain there, which would have fixed that problem in the first place. But I was cruelly shot down by the vicious meanie *Emrys*, and... oops, did I say that? I better erase that; oh no! It's too late! I've already hit the 'Add Reply' button! Auuugh... Eden

Dang- it's 'Pyrrhic' , after Pyrrhus, who wiped himself out in order to beat the Romans. Eden

"Nothing to do"!!! LOL! Ok, I think I know what you mean; sorta, kinda. But honestly, there's *plenty* of stuff to do! In regards this idea for Favor- well this would be our solid, understandable, forward compatible, quick easy *baseline* paradigm for assessing favor. If you'll notice my other post above, it didn't take more than one game until I had found a circumstance, ( capturing Co HQs ), where it seemed to me that perhaps there would be a place for *extra* calulations wrt Favor. More relevantly, I think, the place where in re Favor there will/could/should be "plenty to do" would be in deciding what to do with the Favor accrued... whether to convince command to delay the attack until wind dies down, or try to snatch that "extra" webelwerfer from B Co, et cetera. It comes from BTS's grog-savvy black-box estimation algorithm of how successful we are at battle. Notice that in the rewrite, when we (allegedly?) will have more, and more sophisticated victory conditions, we will still be right on the money by adopting the above. But I think it's clear, (I think ), so like you say, let the votes be cast... Uh oh- did I say that? Who's The Great Scalpel? ...and all the other identical mentions? Thx. OK. (Please notice previous post in re small PDF goofs, btw). In 9, if Enemy force becomes "Unknown", we select "Random" for 10,11,12. Ergo on 10,11,12, there really should be a "Random" cell after the other cells, since it is a valid result/choice. Also in 9, the result table indicates < 8 Yes 7 > No which according to usage in the rest of the document seems to say "8 or less => Yes ; 7 or more => No". Clearly there was a typo, but which typo was it? The #, or the answer, or...? This condition, (or similar) exists also in sections 11, 12a, 17, 25, shoot maybe more. Throughout the document there is inconsistency with usage of the > and < symbols- sometimes they mean "less/more than or equal to" and sometimes they mean "strictly less/more". I'd suggest picking one symbology and sticking with it- we will always find our own ways to be confused without needing the help of symbol ambiguity. Section 33- "If Time not Day or..." I came across this one today; it's Dusk, and I don't have the knowledge of whether that counts as "Day" for the luftwaffe...? Suggest either "not Mid-Day" or "is Night". Sections 9, 10, et cetera correspond in number to the parameters sheet, but 1 through 8 do not. Or 1 through 6 do not, or something. Consider renumbering 1 through 8, the "pre-roll" sections, as "0.1 , 0.2 , 0.3 ..." to help refer to them and distinguish them from the others which mostly follow the param sheet. Generally, attacking the rules with a flow chart mind would most certainly help. Like cascading "if" statements- if "this condition" then "read this blob" else read next if statement. Section 01, date, right side instructions column: Is this your first Game? [Y enter blah blah, go to somewhere else yadda] Is this an immediate Attack? [Y add one time slot; if was night then dawn next day, so day++ also, goto X] Are you still here maggot? [Y that means you roll like a normal person; blah blah] Is that enough for now? I might have more typos or something when I understand everything... Eden

Ok, therefore you are creating a new map with your core in the *Scenario Editor*, and then you import those troops into a new QB with randomly made aux units, right? I went around in circles for hours before figuring out how to import randomly QB made aux units onto a QB with hand selected core... Otherwise, correct me and I'll wear the Homer Simpson Award in my sig for a month, but you can't get a QB generated scenario into the Scenario Editor, not for beans or peanuts. Hmmm that's mighty interesting, but NOT AS INTERESTING AS YOUR INITIAL POST, OF COURSE. Eden

Sending about five encircling pioneer squads to ambush a tank ... at night. Eden

If you're buying each squad separately, how do you get the Co HQ, or the MG34 w/ HQ section which is part of the Co but once again you can't buy just a Section HQ??? Sorry, this doesn't help, but at least I did BUMP this to the top, no? Eden

Yes, I've lost lots o' flavor, but I'm sure it'll turn up around here someday. That "over-chewed gum" sounds like my Battle #03- 100% / 0%. It was a *bad* map for the AI to do an ME on. Ooops! Sorry guys, but better to give than to receive. While we're on the subject of favor... I captured three Platoon HQs, and two Co HQs, which struck me as the one thing which would impress my commander alot more than knocking out a few weapons...? These are Soviets, of course, so I guess maybe they are HQs today, yet were vodka farmers yesterday. Still, they probably have at least a few super secret maps and whatnot- surely capturing all those guys would be a coup? So what does Max BrauHaus think? Have I over-chewed the subject of favor? Are these ideas JuicyFruit™ good, or Bazooka Joe™ no? Eden

I have only two games which are 'keep until the Y3K bug'; one is about a month old, (guess what it's called. Hint: rhymes with 'BM' , 'PeePee' ) and the other one... how old is Hellcats now, like fifty years old? Think nothing of it; not a problem. We will wait silently and patiently until you have something to tell us, no later than next week. Eden

Right, you'd lose ("lose", btw) ten points of it! So far I haven't complained, ( I mean, used up my favor), I simply do what I'm told. I would much much rather do what you talk about next, using my favor to *get more troops and/or weapons!!!* And if the commander was 'favored', (which means he must have been winning, recently), then surely he had a better chance of getting goodies...? But that's not in the rules. ( Yet? ) Eden

Minor is Minor, and Tactical is just like in idiomatic English, euphemistically admitting that you "won", in some sense, but almost Pyrhhic (sp?). You 'won', but if this kind of "winning" keeps up, you're fired! Allow me to put those two statements by you together, and suggest that you take it to CMBB instead- let me offer you an alternative which might be worthy of considering. Why not use the calculated 'points' in the CMBB AAR as one's "Favor" points? The people at BTS have already gone to some effort, we believe, to make that final "97% , 3%" victory calculation in the most meaningful way possible. Instead of duplicating that effort, and reinventing the wheel, at least partially, we could say that a 97% victory adds 47 Favor Points; a "35% , 65%" defeat would subtract 15 Favor Points, ( the range of { 0, 100 } is remapped to { -50 , +50 } ). The benefits would be leveraging BTS's effort, (that number reflects multi factors), being more accessible to newbies, (by referring to a well known part of CMBB), fitting in with CMBB, and just plain fitting in with the KISS manifesto. Downside- Favor points are now of a different magnitude than before, ( "Trade in *fifty* Favor points to alter die" ), but because we have a limited use for FPs so far, this wouldn't be a big impact...? But what do y'all BCR junkies think? Aw shucks. I have to say that I'm not a grog; any thing I ever say here I just base on common sense, and I don't avow to having any true knowledge of history. But I *am* a ruthless proofreader... Are you *sure* you like feedback? Here's another one, section 28: "Can use 10 points of FAVOR to alter die by 1" Ah, great- I want to change the die by 4, so that's 40 points. ( or IS it? ) I suggest either: "Can trade in 10pts of F to alter die by *maximum* of 1" or "Can alter die by 1 for each 10 pts of F traded in". I'm pretty sure you mean the former; just for the next newbie. Eden

•••• A Morning Commute •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • Luckier than you would think! I also encountered Chumpy, but my luck was not so in tune. Coming up the left side, same as you, ( My Co HQ took out a gun all by himself! ), it eventually happened that all my squads from the left and from the front pretty much *flooded* into that factory at the same time- it was a *BIG* party. Next turn, Chumpy, who was hiding the rubble next door picked the right moment to play Burnin' Down the House. Ruined the Cheese Dip, I can tell you. Eden [ December 10, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

All those results are distinguished in the game, but the 'Minors' are not listed on the Favor sheet. It was said in a much earlier post that Minor would be considered 'Tactical', but it would certainly be wise for BCR constructs to "match" CMBB constructs whenever possible, so Minors should be listed there, even if it is decided to grant the same exact points for Minor as Tactical. If only so it would take less explaining for newbies- fewer surprises are good. On the note of 'matching' CMBB and the subject of experience gain, the book of all wisdom, page 146, "Experience", gives the impression that going from Green to Regular is just a matter of getting dirt in your face a couple times, but a Veteran however is someone with "first class training and/or proven themselves in combat [...] long combat histories". Should we not take CMBB as our guide, whenever it or the manual seem pertinent, and in this case advance Greens to Regular with a small amount of battle, but have a heck of a time, (either duration or performance), getting from Regular to Veteran...? Just a thought. Eden

Zero ratings aren't counted- they don't affect anything. Eden

I had to ask that too. It's Japanese for 'Smallwood', actually, but what he's referring to is the 'Kobayashi Maru', apparently some test I don't remember from Star Trek where the cadets were supposed to *not* be able to win, (to teach them that not all situations are winnable), yet Captain Kirk went in and hacked the computers the night before, so he won it anyway. Eden

IME when Stuffit says it's corrupt, it dang well is. Then that's a very good indication that your browser is not kosher with the ".bin" data stream, which is Macintosh binary. I would much sooner switch downloading methods to a dedicated FTP program; *especially* one which can 'pick up where it left off', so if your connection breaks you're not hosed... I use 'Anarchie Pro 3.5', as sweet as it needs to be; there are others. Goto "MacOrchard.com" (I think?) for a list of shareware/otherware ftp and every web thing you could imagine for Mac... Eden

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I still think you don't; part of what you're saying makes no sense to me, ( "never be exactly on the movement path" ??? ) and the other part seems also like a misunderstanding because all the code needed for this is *already in the game now*, (in different places, of course). Let me try an example; Tank facing north, position zero zero. To give two parameter 'SeekHD' command, do the hotkey, then *click* : Point One is 100 meters due North; the tank will travel due North a maximum of 100 meters looking for an HD spot. The cursor still is waiting for the second point of the command, just like when it's waiting for the 'Scoot to?' part of SnS. *click* : Point Two is on the enemy tank, who happens to be at position 200 meters North, 200 meters East; the position of the enemy has no relationship whatsoever to the direction of travel. Like SnS, there is a typical case: an SnS path typically would go out, then come straight back- this SeekHD would typically move along vector X looking for an HD spot wrt some enemy who would typically be *in the same direction*, but like SnS, that typical case is not required, it's just typical. Part of the beauty of this idea, I think- it's possible to travel North while looking for a HD spot wrt an enemy who is slightly or grossly to the Northeast. The programmatic stuff you mention is a result my still not being clear, or I don't get it- the interface part of this is exactly like Shoot 'n' Scoot. The code to look for a HD position wrt some other point also exists in the Seek command as it is now. Just splice the SnS interface onto the existing SeekHD code guts... Sure! Just like RL™- if the enemy is at twelve o'clock, but the best looking HD spot for miles around happens to be at one o'clock, that's where I'm headed. If I understand this one. Well, if we're not on the same page now... what can I say? Matias, you see what I mean, right? Well, yeah... I think you're probably right about that too. But all the meat of the code clearly already *is* in the game... *sigh* Eden

Redwolf, I don't understand your objection, not even remotely, so I think I haven't made myself clear. Imagine it works, interface-wise, exactly like Shoot 'n' Scoot- you lay down one point, (the movement-until line), and the other point, (which would have been 'scoot-to') becomes the 'HD with respect to that' point. The movement point is movement 'up until here but no farther'. Like we have 'Shoot' and 'Scoot' points, imagine 'Seek-till' and 'wrt' points, respectively. See? EDIT - Oh! I see it now- when I listed the points in the first post, I wasn't referring to the interface; just listing them. So they came up in the opposite order than they would as a command... I'll go swap them. Sorry! Eden [ December 09, 2002, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

Hey Commando- I'm struggling with this stuff too. Until you get a 'real' answer, (I'm waiting for one myself, back there a ways- got a clue?), I think that part of the equation is non-zero in the case where you are replenishing your casualtied squads with your *other* casualtied squads, (from 'scrounged' squads first, I think, unless it's an emergency reorg..?) So if you had A,B,C squads in your Core, each of which lost three guys, (nine total lost), and you have another squad D which lost one guy, you could take those nine remaining D guys, (which might have experience), and toss them into the A,B,C squads to get three full squads at 10 guys apiece. In that case the equation makes a difference. That's what I'm doing*, but caveat I barely undertand half of these rules! Good catch! No Minor Victory listed, either... *EDIT - Well I have to do an 'Immediate Attack', (I'm hosed!) so the rules are different then- I have to replenish with my existing Rambos. But still, I think that's how the equation makes sense. Eden [ December 09, 2002, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

Ooo, Ooo, Ooo! Those sound like Really Good Directions™ to move in. Just a note on nomenclature- what you've described up there is, I think, close or very close to what 'we' have meant by "scripting"... some of us- most of us? Just me? Some of us, anyhow, didn't mean the 'lame/static/brittle' scripting, part of the reason it's been a messy debate on this one. At any rate, what you've described up there sounds really good. It sounds like you guys are hip to what's up. I for one am way content with what you at least are shooting for. Hey everyone, did you hear that? He PROMISED!!! Eden

What's wrong with the suggestion we've made before, that SeekHD should take two points as parameters: Pt1: *Travel* towards this point, but don't go past it. Pt2: Seek HD *with respect to* this point. EDIT: Points now listed in proper interface order, as they would occur if implemented as a command similar to Shoot 'n' Scoot. Eden [ December 09, 2002, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

For the *first battle*, are the Aux units determined in the same way as for any other battle, or are they specifically taken from Green Germans? Or are they determined the same way as for any other battle, except for the one single difference that they must be Green? Er...? Thank you, Eden