SFJaykey

I pulled this out of the "CM needs longer turns!" thread because I am kind of taking it off on a tangent, hope Hat Trick doesn't mind: This is an interesting idea, which might better reflect real-world limitations on span of control. Though maybe it would have to be based on the number of HQs at game start....otherwise if a few were knocked out you might lose control of your troops. Of course that would be realistic too, be we have to keep some fun in the game, right! Maybe the player should not be forbidden from giving orders to more troops than his HQs can cover, but any orders above that number should pay the out-of-command delay penalty (which should be longer IMO)? The number of orders an HQ could give would depend on HQ quality, right? Here's a similar idea, which would seem to amount to a complete remodeling of the order system but might be interesting for CMX2: an "Order Points" system. Each HQ would get a certain number of order points per turn, depending on its quality, status, whether the HQ is hiding, perhaps the number of troops in the HQ (simulating runners), perhaps whether it had a radio, etc. It would then spend its points to issue orders each turn. Orders would cost more if they are issued to lower quality, hiding and or cautious/shaken units farther away from the HQ, and cost less when issued to closer, not hiding, OK/Alerted, higher quality units. As the HQ's orders points dropped, command delay would be added for each subsequent order, until the HQ was out of points and the (lengthened) "out of command" delay would apply. And BTW when I refer to distances between HQ and units, I think terrain/LOS should figure too. Sounds extremely complicated but would almost all take place "behind the scenes." Command delays are already visible in the interface. If a unit is within command range but not under orders, and its HQ had already expended all its order points, the command line joining them and the units' command-status indicator might turn yellow or something. (BTW, why is the line joining HQs to units under its command red, but the in-command indicator on a unit's status bar green? Why not make them both green?) Just another crazy idea. It would seem to add realism...but is it enough of an improvement over the current system (plus Hat Trick's idea which I think I like) to warrant the coding time and extra complexity? Would such changes bring CM too close to becoming the dreaded "Command Game?" [ June 26, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

I've made one suggestion that moves in this direction without adding too much complexity: when units "Moving to Contact," encounter the enemy, instead of just stopping, trigger the next order & waypoint. So we could have "Move to Contact then Advance," for example, which would be very useful for bringing troops up through long-range nuisance fire. Also, I've proposed tweaking "Advance" and "Assault," which right now strike me as too similar. Perhaps "Assault" could be used for actually taking a position, while units under "Advance" would stop if enemies appeared within grenade range? Or stop in the first cover within grenade range?

Early in games, especially those played on maps with moderate or heavy cover, I usually set long movement routes for my troops...usually "Move to Contact." Then the first turns just involve some minor tweaking and pressing "Go." If (or "when") things don't go according to plan, there's always the backspace key. I'd rather stick with this arrangment and keep the flexibility of intervening at 1 minute intervals, rather than trusting the TacAI to handle unexpected developments. Otherwise it would be less like a competitive game and too much like watching a movie.

Many cruisers did. If you know of any battleships that did, I'd love to know about it, as I am currently under the impression that that innovation was introduced post-war.</font>

No, you're right, I've done it too in PBEMs. 1 downside is that you keep the original setup zones, so if you purchase fresh forces ("reinforcements") you have to agree with your opponent not to set them up in "gamey" locations, eg a fresh RPG team set up in cover right behind your Tiger... It's a viable workaround but a one-click, mutually agreed "Extend game?" option sure would be nice. Perhaps it could be triggered only when the score is close at game's end? [ June 26, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Thanx. OK, if you really want to know... SPOILER------------------------------------ Yes it was on the original map. My game went to turn 34, and it was a near thing. At game end all my bridge defenses were either broken or eliminated, except for a sharpshooter and the LMG. I used my own setup, haven't read the source article yet (should be interesting). I placed a squad and ATR at the south end of town, and the ATR took out both tankettes at cost of 1 casualty. The DP, 1 sharpshooter, a TH team, and another squad were at the north end of town. The rest of my forces were overlooking the bridge and causeway. The 37mm, tucked in a nook in the woods up north, nailed 5 ACs and tanks before being knocked out. The other ATR, south of the bridge, took out 3 more vehicles and scored several infantry casualties before running out of ammo. I don't think he was ever spotted. Mines immobilized 2 more BTs. Around turn 20 the Soviet infantry bulled their way across the bridge with heavy casualties, and got into the woods....after that it got pretty desperate. I pulled in most of the north and south defenses to form a secondary line and tried to fall back, but a pair of T-26s rolled in and my forward positions were overrun. As I said at the end it was just one sharpie (the other was out of ammo) and the DP holding the Reds at the edge of town...that sharpie (up in the Inn) reminded me of the guy in Private Ryan: Reds running everywhere....fire....one squad pinned...reload....fire...another squad pinned....reload....fire....an HQ pinned.... I had one more fresh squad, an ATR, and a TH team moving in from the flanks but with 2-3 more turns it might have been a defeat... Fun, quick game!

I think this'd be a good mod....if you want to keep the original voices you don't need to install it! I think I'd like to try it. Close Combat gave the option of which language the soldiers would speak, and as I recall I played with English until I got an idea of what they were saying, then switched to the original languages. As far as the suggestion to look the phrases up, well, I don't know enough Russian or German to even begin transcribing them. I don't like dubbed movies either. How about a Hotkey for subtitles?

LOL! OK, my deficiency in arithmetic has been revealed! To go along with the failings in English grammar, historical knowledge, and common sense that I've demonstrated earlier. Original post has been edited, thanx.

Just finished playing this vs AI as recommended. very fun little scenario! I managed a tactical victory despite making poor use (with hindsight) of my TRPs....won't say more to avoid spilers but force mix balance seems about right.

I like the idea of flags decreasing in value, and in fact proposed a simple idea along those lines myself: Large flags equipped (optionally) with timers, which turn them into small flags after a certain number of turns. In terms of a "take and hold" type of scenario, there is a great mechanism already in place: operations. In one op I am playing BEM now (it's on your cd), the attacker gets recon forces in the first game, some attack forces in the second, and the main body of his force in the third. I expect the defender to get counterattacking forces in games 4 and/or 5.... Ops don't have to take a lifetime to play: the one I'm playing has turn limits of only 15+ turns/game. Short ops of as few as 2 games could provide nice attack/counterattack scenarios.

Totally off topic, but just how does that baseball term work? I'm guessing you mean just over half, but what is the formula? Why don't they use 55.34% or whatever? cheers </font>

Don't have CMBO, but the tutorials in BB are good. I too, bought The Operational Art of War (forget which edition) but never caught on to it. CMBB is much more intuitive, and the tutorials (really walk-throughs of standard scenarios) are more helpful. Not to say that they make the game "easy," since there is enough depth to the game that after completing the tutorials it took me several tries before I was even able to beat the AI once. And several more before I was able to do it with regularity, then several more games vs. human players before I could even hold my own. Now that I am somewhat proficient with the basics, the variety of troops, terrain, and battle types, not to mention the different playing styles of various human players, keeps throwing new challenges at me. So, if you meant to ask if you should play "through" CM, well, I don't see that happening for me, ever! I live in CA and received my game 3 business days after ordering.

This kind of ties in with the "Conscience" thread. The game already rewards responsible handling of your troops to some degree: heavy casualties lower global morale, which reduces the effectiveness of your troops and can lead to auto-ceasefire or surrender. Increasing the effects of low morale on troops' tendency to pin, rout and surrender would probably be more realistic, but it is a game, after all, and has to be playable. As it is, green and conscript troops are already tough for the player to handle.

I'll add to the general consensus that the guide offers some good pointers for beginners, but anyone who reads this forum regularly has seen most of the stuff already. I agree the unit tables duplicated data that was already easily avilable in the game: I was hoping for tables that would provide data you can't look up readily in the game, like the relative merits of different types of cover, effects of terrain types on movement, delay times of artillery, etc. I didn't think the pictures were that bad, btw; in my copy they are unattractive but perfectly legible. I have the 2nd edition.

Great idea!!!

I think you're on to something, Ligur. As far as the original question, I definitely feel some pangs when my "men" get slaughtered, especially when it is due to my own tactical blundering. I never send them rushing off on obviously suicidal attacks, though of course I will take some big risks and have suffered my share of casualties. I also try to set up defenses where there is a covered route of withdrawl, when possible. And like Jack, I have been guilty of losing armor and other valuable units in efforts to save a few of my boys from slaughter, when no great tactical advantage was at stake. So far this behavior has not cost me too much: I think my batting average against human opponents is still somewhere over .500. Since CMBB counts casualties for points, and casualties lower morale (which affects the effectiveness of surviving units), I think minimizing your own casualties makes a lot of sense in purely game terms. My personal motivation is not really the points, though: I get pretty immersed in the simulation and want to spare my men as much as possible because that's how I would play it IRL. Historically, I think such priorities made sense: commanders who looked out for their men won their loyalty, and were able to ask and receive more of them at later, critical points. [ June 23, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Just came to my attention that my email was not visible in my profile. It's there now....sorry to anyone who was trying to reach me.

Another reason why crew quality affects accuracy: better crews with their superior training, experience, and discpline would be more likely to maintain their sight alignment. And though moving targets are certainly harder to hit, better optics have advantages in this situation, too: earlier spotting gives the gunner more time to judge velocity, better reticle design helps with judgement of velocity and range, and a wider field of view makes it much easier to track a moving target.

Nonsense! From 1940 on the Germans were known to use gnomes, exclusively. They were easier to spot than leprechauns, but more reliable: the early leprechaun prototypes would desert at the sight of every rainbow. The gnomes gave the Germans a substantial advantage over the leprechaun (and elf) equipped Allies...though gnome quality declined markedly throughout the war, and the volksgnomes of 1945 were far less accurate in their ranging than the motorized panzergnomes of '41-42. Of course, Wittman might have been using captured leprechauns...

Given the mountainous terrain involved in much of the Italian campaign, I think the issue is even more pressing for CMAK than for BB. And additional Commands on the menu aren't really necessary. As JasonC has suggested "Follow Road" could be applied automatically anytime two consecutive waypoints are placed on a road, or a vehicle already on a road has its next waypoint placed on the road. (The game should probably test the length of the on-road path vs the direct path from point to point, and only apply Follow Road when the difference is under a certain %, say 30-40%. That should eliminate most weird applications. Also, as has been said the computer-generated waypoints should be visible to the player during the orders phase, so inadvertent applications of the order can be corrected.) "Convoy" could likewise be triggered automatically, when a following vehicle has its waypoint placed on the vehicle ahead of it. Long convoys could be linked up quite easily this way, with no additional commands cluttering the menu.

Wow, the 57mm toed must have been extremely rare. I have only seen the ones with wheels... (Sorry, couldn't resist) On the issue of stopping the QB arms race, this looks like an admirable effort, but I think you will still wind up with weirdly ahistorical force mixes. What I would like to see as an alternative solution is a set of historical force mixes that could be agreed upon by the players. We have force mix options in the Unit Purchase screen already, but they seem to mostly affect rarity numbers. Force mix rules that forbade more unit types would take it to the next level, and be helpful to players (like me) who like to take historical forces, but still have a chance to actually win the game. I have sometimes tried to "negotiate" force mixes with my opponents but it is hard to be specific enough to avoid bad feelings, while still preserving some element of surprise. For example I played a PBEM set in early '42 where we agreed on "no heavy tanks," and my opponent was miffed when I brought T-34s... If someone could develop a few historically-based, game-balanced force mixes to shop from, it would enable players to combine the fun "shopping" element of QBs with some of the historical and game-balance advantages of playing scenarios. I'd do it myself, but in the time it would take me to research and balance one such force rule, some of the better read and more experienced folks here could probably rattle off 5 or 6 better ones.

If the hitting bonus at 1100m for long-range optics is really only ~5%, they are way undermodelled. Higher magnification is very helpful for targeting at range, not to mention the many advantages of a sharper, higher contrast sight picture. Better optics should help significantly with both spotting and targeting. (Emphasis on "If," based on this example: the guns are using different ammo, and perhaps other small differences are modelled as well.)

Sure, though I will be away from the computer a lot for the next week or so. If a slow pace is ok email me a setup: I'll take either side. Email is in my profile...

Well, on the subject of "Follow Road" commands, everyone seems to be focusing on the command delays. Yes that is a problem I would like to see resolved, but the worst part of it for me is simply the micro-management of placing all those waypoints on a winding road. Especially when dealing with columns of more than a couple of vehicles, it is a real PITA. Not to mention the aggravation when the timing of a column is slightly off and the dummies start running into each other... Reducing the delay for road waypoints would help with the command delay issue, and might be a small enough tweak to make it into CMAK. But it wouldn't address the micro-management burden, nor the traffic jams. For those, "Follow Road" and/or "Convoy" commands still seem necessary. And realistic: I mean, IRL, which order would you more likely hear: "Jones: drive down that road and stop just short of the ridge," or: "Jones: drive to that bend in the road, then turn and drive to the next bend, then turn and drive to the next bend, then turn and drive to the next bend, then turn and drive to the next bend, then drive forward and stop just short of the ridge?"

Redwolf- re: infantry spotting for the T-34s, you're right in the context of that scenario; I was trying to extend the argument to more general situations. re: hiding vehicles, note I specified hulldown or dug-in, where the visible profile would not be much larger than an ATG. Vehicles _can_ enter scattered trees and brush, and be camouflaged to some degree. The background matters, too: scattered trees backed up by woods, brush, or even a hill, provide better cover than scattered trees in the open, since there is no silhouette effect...wonder if background will be considered in the CMX2 spotting model? Are vehicles easier to spot than infantry, in the same terrain? Sure, absolutely, but not so easy as in CM now, especially when hulldown, in or behind cover, in poor light, etc. And agreed that CM as it stands does a good job now, the best anyone has to date, but there is always room for improvement too...