moneymaxx
-
Posts
219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by moneymaxx
-
-
Links should be working now
, edited my post. -
Just finished itOriginally posted by nevermind:Another possibility is to write a short summary of your gamey beliefs and mail them to your opponent before a game,and see if you can agree on terms.i think it was moneymaxx that said he was going to start dong this.
. It's no literature masterpiece, but I think it covers a wide range of subjects (especially for CMBO). I'm just posting it here as an example. Here it is:'Gameyness - My view.txt'
Gameyness is a hard to define. Reading through a lot of threads on the CM board I came to the conclusion that there are as many definitions as CM players. The best advise is to discuss this subject before a battle against a new opponent (YOU
) starts. Therefore you have to read now my own personal list of gamey things V1.0 based on the following link: http://home.arcor.de/rehbold/Gamey_tactics.htm . I'm always willing to discuss the subjects and we can agree on additional rules. If I consider something "not gamey" it doesn't follow that I use those tactics, see for example 12).
1) Flak Trucks:
= gamey
2) M8 HMC
= not gamey
3) Wasps
= not gamey
4) Hetzer
= not gamey
5) SMG squads
= somewhat gamey if used as the main infantry force, let's say no more than 30%. But I don't consider paratroopers or Fallschirmjäger gamey at all.
6) "Super tanks"
= not gamey (additional rules might be necessary)
7) Big artillery
= not gamey
8) Assault boats
= gamey, if used on dry land to attract fire.
9a) Mixing force branches
= not gamey, but it destroys the "atmosphere" of the battle if too many branches are involved. I think 2 are OK.
9b) Mixing countries
= not gamey, but strange. I want do it, because it "kills" the "atmosphere". If you want to, go ahead.
10) Wire spotting
= gamey
11) Flame walls
= gamey, but I don't consider it gamey if someone burns down a building to deny access to that building unless it is a victory location.
12) Crews used on attack
= not gamey, but I consider it too unrealistic, so I want do it. If you want to sacrifice your crews, go ahead.
13) Crews used for scouting
= not gamey, but I consider it too unrealistic, so I want do it. If you want to sacrifice your crews, go ahead.
14) Edge hugging
= not gamey, CM is a game and has map edges just like chess. It's difficult to decide what's flanking and what's edge hugging and either player can easily find an explanation why a map edge should be friendly or hostile. To avoid this discussion, you can move wherever you want, I'll too.
15) Jeep (vehicle) rushes
= not gamey, but I consider it too unrealistic, so I want do it. If you want to sacrifice your vehicles, go ahead.
16) Flag rushes
= not gamey, since it is difficult to decide whether something is a rush or a late attack. I will occasionally use them.
And even more that is not included on the web page:
17) Snipers for scouting
= see 12) - 14) , not even unrealistic IMHO when Snipers aren't send on a suicide mission.
18) Guns without transport
= Some claim that every gun must have one transport unit in a ME or attack mission (not the defender) and can't start the battle in a prepared position, hence they have to be towed by a truck, HT or a jeep. This is not my point of view. I place guns in overwatch positions to guard the advance of my forces. Anyway this is more about what one considers the reality of a ME. I think that a wise commander would always place guns to protect his advance. Be warned
. Since not all means of transport are simulated I will not buy a transport unit for every gun. The game allows this, so why should I buy e.g. trucks if I don't need the mobility.19) Historical OOBs, tactics
= I don't know enough about those matters. Therefore I don't care if StuH '42 fought alongside Panthers or not. Buy what you want, I will too.
20) Destroying buildings to get LOS
Blast those houses, I will too
.Feel free to add a point, that is not already covered. I'm playing CMBO to have fun and I like surprises. Come up with a strange force mix, if you want, and try to beat me.
On this web page you can find a player categorization http://home.arcor.de/rehbold/ranger_categories.htm . I'm definitely a number 4 player. I'll play against all other types except 6).
I'm planning to update this .txt file every time a new possible gamey subject surfaces. For CMBB it would be a lot shorter file I guess.
[ March 31, 2003, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
-
Just took a new look at the site, it looks great. How can you make the changes so quickly ?
-
I don't know if one should be removed directly, I think unavailable is sufficient. Maybe you could remove someone if he is unavailable for more then x months. By the way, I wanted to notice that I dont't have the slightest idea how a website is programmed, so if it is too difficult or complicated just say soOriginally posted by GJK:Probably something in the form of a "probe" email that if goes unanswered the person is set to be unavailable. If unanswered a second (or third?) time, then they are removed.
.About the "probe" email. Isn't it possible that the site just remembers when the player last visited ? A cookie maybe ?
But before I ask even more, I should tell you, great site
!! -
There is another thread "What does the community need??". And I think this site is what the community needs
.I especially like the experience rating and the ability to write a profile. Being almost a perfect site, I still have 2 suggestions:
The most important one is, IMHO, the status of the player. As LOU2000 pointed out in another thread, it's difficult to find an opponent e.g. on the Tournament House website, not because there aren't opponents listed, but because many of them (most?) signed up years ago and do not play CM anymore, therefore they never answer mails.
If this new site turns out to be very successful, then this problem will surface. You write dozens of emails and never get an answer. The solution seems to be an OPEN/CLOSED status, that is set automatically by the site. E.g. if a player doesn't visit the site in let's say a week, the status gets set to closed, so that nobody bothers to write an email. It would be nice too if the player could set the status himself, to prevent to be flooded with more game requests when he is already playing 100 PBEM simultaneously
. If there is no more space to display this information, maybe the name could be colour coded, green = open, red = closed.The second suggestion is not that important
, but there are still "CMBO only" players out there. It would be nice if this could be displayed. I think that most players just display the complete list and don't notice that I can't play CMBB (at the moment 
). -
Campaign mods? If yo're referring to new scenarios and operations, you can find those here:Originally posted by Brigadier:campaign mods
-
Fionn,
if Poor Old Spike chickens out, you should have some spare time. I challenge you (CMBO), not much of a challenge though, I'm afraid. But it's just GAMEY if you play NEVERMIND and not me.
If you don't want to, nevermind, otherwise schulli_2000@yahoo.com.
LOU2000, I liked your idea of a CM multiplayer site
. Still looking for an opponent, then write me. -
I accept the challenge (no it's not peng, for god's sake), today TCP/IP and we'll post the result here :cool: .Originally posted by nevermind:It should however be noted that moneymaxx is a really bad player who never checks his email.
And I DO check my email, daily several times! I had to say that so that nobody gets confused, Nevermind made a joke
.[ March 28, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
-
I think we should warn you Redimpz. After 2 years of playing CMBO (almost daily) I was shocked playing for the first time CMBB, it's much harder. I don't know how much wargaming experience you have. For people who play wargames only occasionally the learning curve of CMBB is very steep, maybe too steep. For me it was too realistic to be fun in the beginning, though I had a lot CMBO experience (frustrated, I sold it on Ebay, then I bought it on Ebay and now I'm happy with itOriginally posted by MikeyD:My opinion is why should we make him feel like he should be frightened of starting with CMBB?
). I had to learn to love CMBB while CMBO was instant fun. I would prefer to learn all the basics with CMBO and not with CMBB since CMBO is more forgiving (don't lead with tanks, ATGs are deadly - buy onmap mortars, place guns in keyhole positions, yes Tigers can be knocked out ............).The graphics of CMBO will improve a lot with the mods but it will never look as good as CMBB, because CMBB has more detailed polygon-models. IMHO the graphics of CMBO were never spectacular compared to action games, but the immersion is very high. At the moment I'm playing CMBO without any mods (I only have a prehistoric 3d card at the moment) and still I find myself going down to level 1 viewing to follow my troops into battle.
I can't help you with the LAN problem in CMBB, CMBO though has a minor glitch that couldn't be fixed, it sometimes crashes in TCP/IP when gun crews are captured.
To conclude all this, if you're willing to spend a lot of time learning, aren't easily frustrated and if you have (a lot?) wargaming experience you can start with CMBB otherwise I would advise CMBO.
-
I'm happy that your sales figures seem to be satisfyingOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Fortunately, our sales data does not indicate that the Demo for CMBB harmed its sales, which is often a point people claim is true.
. But maybe you could have sold even more.I'm speaking from a German perspective here. I don't know how I came across the CMBO demo, but at that time CMBO wasn't distributed by CDV. I just loved it, played it again and again, with both sides, different experience settings, bonus for the AI,extra troops.... Well, I even considered asking someone for his credit card number to buy it in the US. What a day when I found the American version on Ebay. I'm still playing CMBO today.
But would I've bought it with a demo the quality of the CMBB demo (which is "unterirdisch" = crap)? Certainly not. It doesn't help that CMBO and CMBB get very low ratings (considering it's quality) in the most common German PC games magazines (around 70%) either, claiming that both games are hard to play, only for specialists with a difficult to understand UI..... and so on and so on.
The only way to verify if this is true or wrong is to download the demo. Given the fact, that CMBO was launched quite late in Germany, I'm assuming that it didn't have such a big fan base as in America. People who don't KNOW CMBO, thus new to the CM series, will find the CMBB demo boring and will think that the low ratings are justified. Therefore they'll not buy it. What is the use of a demo showing ONLY the new features of CMBB, when A LOT of people don't even know CMBO. Adding to this, I'd like to say, that I hardly ever buy a game without downloading the demo first.
Therefore, IMHO, you can't say that it didn't hurt your sales, you just reached a statisfactory level of sales or even more, based on the assumption you had before the release of CMBB. If you COULD have sold even more with a better demo, nobody can tell with certainty, but I'm quite convinced that sales would have been even more spectacular.
I understand, that you can't change the demo now. But I hope that in some years with the release of the next CM product the demo quality will be better. Just remember this easy to remember sequence: Better demo --> More sales --> New Ferraris for all people working for BTS (Lear-Jets for Steve and Charles) --> More money for the development of CM '95 '98 and CM XP --> More happy wargamers around the world
.[ March 27, 2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
-
What a bunch of cowards, instead of going up that hill to take a look themselves, they send some shell-shocked crews who just escaped from their burning tankOriginally posted by Louie the Toad:My FEELING is: the crew is part of a larger unit which is more than just their tank, and if they are not hurt or dead then by god they can at least crawl up to the next crest and let the rest of us know what's out there before we go over the top.
. It doesn't sound gamey, but the CO should definitly be court-martialed.[ March 26, 2003, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
-
Great link Sarge, it's a must read!Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:Found this from a while back. The ramblings of a drunken CMer and funnier than hell, but it defines the extreme view of "fun" versus "realistic".
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=017641#000000
Enjoy!
-Sarge
-
Thanks for your quick reply Fionn. I actually chose the airborne units to get the 75mm Pack Howitzer, I just like to use gunsOriginally posted by Fionn:Well, a lot of people might have an issue with you mixing airborne infantry and tanks since, usually, the airborne operated without tanks plus lots of people find the airborne units very powerful and find their lack of tanks a balancing factor.
. Buying a lot of guns has the advantage to overload the defensive capabilities of the opponent against guns, which are mortars and arty. Therefore freeing my infantry from the arty threat. If the opponent doesn't use arty, then I have a quite powerful weapon.Just one more little question. Is it OK then to chose Fallschirmjäger as the Axis player together with the StuG IVs ( while not buying anything from the other force types). Also I'm no history grog, I know that this should be considered a realistic choice since the Canadians who liberated my hometown faced exactly that type of forcemix.
[ March 26, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
-
Thanks Sarge
.By the way, I just wanted to open a virtual bottle of champagne for all the readers of this thread because it finally made me a member
(so some would say that "JUNIOR MEMBER" better describes the quality of my posts 
).[ March 26, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
-
That's exactly the problem that I have, what is the definition of a "fun play" vs. a "realistic game" ?Originally posted by Fionn:So, I agree with your basic standpoint although I'd probably be a bit more "realistic game" than "fun game".
I can only present some of my force selections from recent PBEMs and TCP/IPs here and ask if this seems to be the selection of a “fun” or more or less “realistic” player, whatever those definitions mean.
900 points ME Allied (Americans):
1 x Rifle Company, 1 x Greyhound, 1 x M8 HMCs, 2 x M10 TD all regular.
1000 points Allied attack (British airborne + British Army), 1500 points for the attacker, 1000 for the defender (against Nevermind by the way, who I wish to thank for helping me in my first TCP/IP and PBEM):
1 x Parachute Company, 2 x 6 Pdr. ATG, 2 x Pack Howitzer, 1 x Daimler, 1 x Wasp, 2 x Wolverine, 2 x Cromwell VIII, I’m not so sure about arty but it was something like this:2 x 5.5inch, 1 x 4.2 inch mort, all regular.
2000 points ME Axis (Wehrmacht):
1 x Panther G, 2 x StuG IV, 2 x PSW 234/3, 5 x Mot. inf., 3 x 75 mm ATG, 2 x 50mm ATG, 3 x 75 mm inf. gun, 2 x Sdkfz 7, 1 x Spw 251/1, 5 x Panzerschrecks, 2 x 81mm mrt. FO, 1 x 120mm mrt. FO, all regular except maybe 1 or 2 Schrecks.
If I knew what kind of player-type this is, I could include it in my profile
. -
That thread is just a little before my time.Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by moneymaxx:
The same arguments were used, most of them develop around the different assumptions what a ME is. So if anybody is interested, take a look. (Hey Sarge Saunders, you took part in the discussion, why didn't you mention it. It's from 2001 one though
. ) But as you can see this has been discussed before. I dunno how I feel about it now and that is what a good discussion can do. I guess it does not need to come down to one's definition of what an ME actually is. For me, it comes down to the possibility of having an a-historical balance that is heavy on field guns.
But my thoughts are now slightly more mixed on the subject than they were. Either way, I've never insisted on this towed gun rule to any of my opponents. But I have had opponents insist on it and thus I mentioned it in the context of this discussion.
-Sarge </font>
-
Sorry, wanted to edit my post, but quoted myself
.[ March 26, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
-
Fionn, I know, that you bought your forces to show a Soviet tactic, should have pointed this out. But what I wanted to say was, that I don't consider buying a lot of M8s gamey at all, I love surprises. So if my opponent surprises me with a lot of them, great. I want to add that I shouldn’t have used your name to give weight to my argument, just assuming that you share my opinion, sorry about thatOriginally posted by Fionn:Moneymaxx,
I just saw your post and wanted to clarify something. IN general terms I'd figure that the force I picked there was definitely a bit gamey.
OTOH my opponent and I played that game in order to show off two different styles of play ( the manoeuvrist attacker vs the static defender). Since I'm an adherent of Soviet doctrine I was left trying to find US vehicles to fulfill Soviet roles.
This ended up making the whole thing look gamey within the narrow confines of the types of games most people play. OTOH said gameyness was essential to actually bringing a quasi-realistic force to the battlefield in order to illustrate how a manoeuvrist attacker could achieve decisive manoeuvre even in a small CMBO battle.
Just thought I should explain since I thought you may have been unclear regarding the context of the force purchases on both sides.
.Talking about assumptions, I did a search last night and I found a discussion about "guns without transport units" that can be found here (and around 100 threads about gameyness): http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=020742#000000. The same arguments were used, most of them develop around the different assumptions what a ME is. So if anybody is interested, take a look. (Hey Sarge Saunders, you took part in the discussion, why didn’t you mention it. It’s from 2001 one though
. )Reading it makes it even more clear: THE BEST THING IS TO TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT WITH YOUR OPPONENT BEFORE THE BATTLE STARTS!
[ March 26, 2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
-
Who said that it is expected to run for the victory locations in the first few turns. It seems that this is an assumption too ("how one should play an ME"), much like the assumptions about "what happened before the ME".Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:[Further, if we just start making assumptions about what happened "before" the battle (ie, transports already dropped guns off) then some people may make assumptions that you don't agree with. And I think the whole point of gamey/unrealistic/unhistorical discussion is to not make assumptions that would lead to disagreements with your opponents.
But lets talk about it in terms of expectations. In an "attack" QB, one does not expect to run forward at break-neck pace to guard the VLs. For one reason, hidden/prepared AT guns will kill your armor from turn 1. In a "meeting engagement", it is expected for both sides to make for the objectives, and thus each other, in the first few turns. People do not expect to be ambushed by prepared and hidden AT guns on turn 1 of a meeting engagement! And I suggest that this is because of people's expectations of what a "meeting engagement" actually is.
-Sarge [/QB]
I don't want to question your point of view about what a ME is, I just have a different one. As I've stated I think it's an emergency situation in which both parties have to take an VL with an equal force. Both parties have then of course some knowledge about of the presence of the enemy and don't just bump into each other giving time for some preparation.
Anyway, more than showing that we have different opinions
, it shows that there is definetly a need for clarifying this BEFORE starting any battle with a new opponent . -
Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:
Thanks Sarge, I get your point. Anyway I like to have transports for my guns, because it gives extra mobility.The one transport one gun rule seems a little strict though since not all guns were transported by HT or trucks. I've seen pictures of tanks pulling guns and since horses are not simulated, but I don't want to bring THAT subject up again. Therefore, in the future, I'll buy a transport for every "heavy gun" like the Pak 40 and only some for the light ones like the 75mm inf. Having them in a prepared position doesn't seem gamey. If we accept, that a strange thing like MEs happen, then I would say that they definetly don't happen "out of the blue" otherwise all forces should be in transport order before the battle begins, since not only guns have to be set up, tanks, infantry, and FO, all take there starting positions inside the setup-zone before the battle begins. Maybe ermergency battle would be a better name for a ME, in which both forces have to take a vital position without adequate forces, hence without a point advantage.
And now, surprise
, I would like to go back to Nevermind's original question. Also many posts in this thread didn't answer his questions directly, I think the answers show that there is NO standard at all regarding what players consider gamey . Therefore I made it a habbit to send the list of possible "gamey tactics" to my opponent before the battle begins (I will add the subject transport for guns). In the end I or he/she can still decide to play or not (do female CM players exist? 
). An example is the the AAR which can be found here: . I think it is undisputed that Fionn is one of the best CM players, who wants to tell him he is gamey because he bought 12 M8 HMCs. Well I definetly don't. I think surprise is the best thing about CMBO or CMBB and I'm trying to find a force mix that can deal with nearly all force mixes my opponent can have (bugs aside like the Flak SdKfz in CMBO). Though I have to admit that I mainly play Combined Arms and that it is always possible to set the parameters in a way that only one side can win. E.g CMBB open ground, dry, unrestricted force, no trees, no hills, day, 1941. I play Allies with only KV-1s . And yet another answer, yes I like to discuss the game that I just played with my opponent, but I find it easier when I lose
. Winning and then talking about it, does feel a little bit strange. I definetly hope, that this thread continues, beeing a little bit off topic at the beginning, it became very interesting recently.
-
That is the first time that I hear somebody calling this gamey, an opponent who chooses to buy guns without transport depends a lot on his luck to find initial setup positions. So he trades mobility for the possibility of an ambush position.Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:Just a couple things may seem "gamey" or otherwise detract from realistic play IMHO.
1. bringing towed guns (without transport) to a meeting engagement. (some may also argue that attackers should bring guns embarked to a battle)
-Sarge
Since I use this tactic I would like to know how many transport units I should buy to not be considered gamey, e.g. one per gun or one for every two guns etc.. Are Stugs considered to be transport units? I think in CMBB they can tow guns but in CMBO they can't. On the subject of bringing guns embarked into battle, does this refer only to attackers?
I hope somebody can clarify this for me, because I don't want to be gamey at all
(I normally buy some transport units, more or less 1 transport unit for 3 guns plus Stugs). -
LOU2000, a great idea.
I was searching a long time to find a CM Multiplayer site. I came up with Tournament House too, but never got a reply. I think the problem of TH is that people are listed as open even though they inscribed 2 years ago and never updated there status. I guess there are a lot of people in the list that actually aren't searching for an opponent anymore.
The TH system is not that bad, but the open status should be set to closed after a while automaticly.
Therefore a new multiplayer CM site would be great, it doesn't need a scoring table, but it would help to find a equally skilled or stronger opponent.
Speaking of finding an opponent, I'm looking for one that considers himself a good or very good player to learn from my mistakes (no I'm NOT A MASOCHIST
). Write to schulli_2000@yahoo.com. I almost forgot, a dedicated AAR site would be nice too.
[ March 23, 2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
-
On your first question, I would say that you should definetly start with CMBO unless you have a lot of experience with other wargames. I realy mean a lot, I played CMBO for 2 years, a lot
, then I switched to CMBB. It was so much more difficult, that I sold it on Ebay. Going back to CMBO I found it quite simple, some even call CMBO the action version of the CM series. So in the end I bought CMBB on Ebay and I'm very happy with it. If you don't want to be too frustrated start with CMBO. You can even upgrade the looks of it by downloading mods that improve the graphics a lot. Just search for mods here in this forum.You can find a unit database following this link:
http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/
There are to versions, one for CMBO and one for CMBB. The person who did this is definetly an angel, for CMBO players at least, or has way to much time
. I hope this helps you to get started.
-
I made a test (CMBO). 10 81mm FOs firing a smoke mission on a TRP in a wood, July 44, very dry, clear weather, 150 smoke rounds each. I tried it several times, no fire started, though with HE it did.
Tried the same thing but with a wheat field, no fire (HE started a lot of fires).
Fired with 5 Hummel, 10 smoke each, on a wheat field and at houses and in houses, no fire.
Therefore I'm quite ceratin that smoke doesn't provoke fires in CMBO. Can't test it with CMBB though.
[ March 19, 2003, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]
. If there is no more space to display this information, maybe the name could be colour coded, green = open, red = closed.
).
).
Please everyone look at this
in Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
Posted
Canary Islands (Spain), just moved here and I'm planning to stay (well, if I can find work here
).
[ April 02, 2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]