Loppari

This happens way too seldom to even be posted in here, but in case someone else consider's this interesting aswell. You can clearly see the layout of the situation going on, but pretty pretty useless however. Leaving CMAK and returning solves the problem every single time. WinXP. <A href="http://users.utu.fi/sami/cmak/murphyslaw.jpg">Screenshot</A>

Actually I did not have anything to complain about sounds before this soundpack, but now that I downloaded it and did quite a bit of comparison I can just say major thank you for it. Nice, very nice.

[ April 10, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Loppari ]

Yes, tabpub understood the point. The operation we were playing was the battle in Kharkov (or near it), can't remember the name from top of my head. The fact that so many games are even worse is not worth mentioning. We are talking about the best game in my opinion and strength of it is realism, which fails at this point. The reason why I'm even more dissappointed is that there would indeed be better ways to handle it. 1) The deployment zones don't need to be so specificly drawn, straighter lines will reduce the overall picture of enemy locations. 2) According to my knowledge, there was no such thing as "no man's land". Using areas that neither of players are allowed to setup gives more 'fog'. 3) Tiny units like team of two tankhunters really don't necessarily need that prohibited area around them. Let enemy deploy troops in there. If enemy DOES NOT deploy any troops there, fine - and he can't _know_ there wouldn't be anyone. If enemy DOES deploy unit near, but far enough to be realistic, fine again. It's alright that enemy is in the range when new battle begins but both of them still have plenty of time to react. Trickiest part of the thing is ofcourse what if enemy does deploy near or exactly on same spot? I don't like to say what would be the 'best' way but there would be at least some ways. Like 1) Predetermine the result of engagement, players are informed shortly results of the battle and rest of the units remain in the area - not necessarily JUST in the spot but near (There are ofcourse some more details to this approach). 2) Units do not appear suddenly on the spot but are approaching the spot instead (complicated proposal but has points). Finally, as an overall suggestion. Which would definately be better than the current one, is just to let reinforcements arrive along the sides of the map, where friendly troops are. Whole idea of units teleporting from place to place is ridiculous as there quite propably (like in our case) are still units in face to face combat with each other. Finally after final comment =) Totally different approach would be to have computer resolve forced fallback - damages to each side are distributes accordingly and new battle starts with sides deploying to their own sides with no man's land in the middle. But getting out of subject now. Comments?

I'm so pissed off right now that I felt the urge to post to this forum. One of main reasons I like CMBO and CMBB is the REALISM. Today, I noticed the bitter truth about the operations, the fact how troops are layed down between battles. Why is the layouting made so, to be strict, stupid? With borders indicating allowed layout spots, every single one of tankhunters and other 'sneaky' troops that are behind enemy lines or flanking them has cover blown. I just can't figure a reason to this approach, totally mindless. The most simple way thinkable, having the new troops come from the border, would at least be realistic - and most importantly, not have the unrealistic effect of enemy suddenly realising position of every flanking troop. Thoughts? Comments? If there is earlier discussion about this, I would appreciate any links.