SFJaykey

Just wondering if whether a unit is "distracted" or not affects its chance to spot enemies moving into its LOS. It seems like a squad or AFV that is engaged, for example trading fire with an enemy to its front, should have a harder time spotting enemies moving on its flank. Command status, morale, facing, etc all being equal. I haven't noticed this to be the case, though admittedly haven't done anything like a careful test, either. - Matt

If you want to play QB MEs, do the setup yourself and use 3rd-party human maps intended for such battles. Dozens of these are available for download at the Scenario Depot and elsewhere. You get nice looking (IMO), reasonably symmetrical maps with routes of approach and flag locations that are "fair" to both players. Out of many good maps I especially recommend "Old Dog's Map Pack" and the "Church and Orchard" map. If your opponents insist on doing the setup and choosing the maps themselves, well, find other opponents. - Matt

I don't agree with this: I've noticed that the cover field guns receive from trenches is quite pathetic, and not noticeably better than that given by foxholes. </font>

Wolf- I ran into the same problem with my first big map: after investing some hours I realized it would work better as an operation, but apparently there's no way to export it. FWIW, the operations I've played in cities haven't worked all that well: I've had a problem with unrealistic (IMO) insertion of units between games. I imagine city fighting as carrying on virtually nonstop, with less possibility for withdrawl and regroup than rural battles. So maybe your map will work fine for a big, long (50-60 turns or more) battle....use scheduled reinforcements to refresh forces rather than the operation scheme. Another alternative is to play one battle, then if you need more time save the game at the very end (Click "Look at Map" at game end, then Save). You can then _import_ the map, including all damage and troops (alive and otherwise) into a new QB, and buy more forces for another go round. Makes a decent substitute for a true operation. In any case I'd be interested in a realistic map of suburban Berlin....if you wouldn't mind my playing on it please post it to one of the host sites or email to me directly! Thanx and good luck, Matt

Martin, I thought the same, I guess the idea is that in the 2nd setup you can position your main force on the right approach route. </font>

Well the big thing would be the ability to follow higher-level orders, such as: "Infiltrate up that creek bed and attack his MG nest from the rear." "Move to Contact," "Hunt" etc are great features but they only take you so far. The out-of-command unit would have to exercise considerable initiative and judgement to solve such a problem. Especially if we are talking about a true command game, where that order is given not to a squad but to a platoon or a company, and the AI HQ has to deploy its squads and any support weapons while out of player command. Then there is the issue of timing. Let's say the AI can really handle complex orders, such as "Drive your trucks down this road, disembark your MGs and mortars, hump them through the woods and take up positions to support our infantry advance." But if they're out of command, how do they know when to open up? Another example, an order given to some forward skirmishers: "Stop enemy probes, put up enough resistance to try and get him to show some of his heavier units, but pull back before you get really hurt." It would take a pretty smart AI to make that last judgement, and even if it could, where's the fun for the human player? I used to think, as you apparently do, that the TacAI was "almost there," but am having second thoughts. After seeing how skilled human players handle such situations, then going back to playing the AI, I think it would take a quantum leap in terms of AI intiative and flexibility, rather than a few tweaks, for this to really work. I mean, right now, any reasonably competent human player can manage a combined arms attack far better than the AI can. And most of us (judging from the statements of forum participants) have never had military training or experience! Some of the company and platoon HQs in the game represent well-trained and battle-hardened commanders. I would hope that when turned lose from my silly commands, their tactics would be _better_ than mine, not worse! And BTW, I am _not_ slamming the AI: it's the best I've played against. And hopefully it will be improved further, so as to make for a better opponent, and to manage those units that inevitably do wander out of control. But its shortcomings are only one of the reasons why I've changed my opinion on the desirability of the "command game" format. Simply put: such a format would lead to too much watching of the action, and not enough involvement by the human player. While perhaps more realistic, it would not be as much "fun." IMO, as always. - Matt

Kind of....still wondering how relative spotting will work in practice, and how the command system may be changed. But I have faith in the designers, that whatever happens will be an improvement, and am especially looking forward to multi-player games! - Matt

Good idea, DW! My pivoting trick works, but is less precise and costs me half a turn. A question: if a "gamey" technique actually adds realism to the game, is it still considered somehow "unfair" by those who, like me, generally eschew "gamey" tactics? I mean, isn't it more realistic for an HQ to be able to tell a mortar team: "I think there may be an MG in those woods; drop a few rounds as we cross this field but don't blow your load." - Matt

Actually, I think you and I approach the game in much the same way. I see an intelligence report as _part_ of the story, like a prelude or preface, setting the mood...even when you pick up "Little Red Riding Hood" for the first time you can look at the picture on the cover and know there is going to be a wolf in there somewhere! Well crafted scenarios do offer twists and turns....as well as, IMO, a good briefing! My desire for an automated intelligence report would apply mostly to QBs, and the "probing" idea I mentioned is admittedly a crutch that I'll use until one is developed. I really think it's more realistic for a commander to have _some_ idea of what he's facing before deploying his troops, at least in Attacks, Assaults, and Probes. But of course an intelligence brieifng, whether automated or by the designer, should not be 100% accurate. And thus it presents even more opportunities for unexpected twists and turns. - Matt [ May 08, 2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

One of the things I'd really like to see in future versions of CM is a pre-battle intelligence report on enemy forces and positions. In lieu of such a feature, here are three subsitutes of varying effectiveness: 1) Briefings by the scenario designer. These are great....a number of the best scenarios I've played have the equivalent of a basic intelligence report in the briefing. I think all scenarios _should_ have them, and plan to include them in all of my future designs. They are less helpful in scenarios where the AI is free to place units, and not at all in QBs. 2) "Probing" a scenario. I've done this a few times, and it seems to work if more than a little "gamey." I start a scenario and locate a small probing force, for example an infantry platoon or a couple of ACs, forward in the setup area, with the rest of my force back near the map edge in deep cover. I play the first 1/3 or so of the scenario's turns vs the AI using _only_ the small recon force, probing cautiously to locate enemy positions. It goes pretty quickly, because I am only issuing orders to a small part of my force and there isn't much actual combat. Then I restart the scenario and play normally. If playing the "real" game vs the AI, sometimes it will relocate its units, sometimes not, but I go in with some idea of what I'm up against. Against human players I don't "probe" the scenario unless they have also probed or played it themselves. "Probing" can be used in QBs if you save the game at the setup phase, probe, then reload the saved setup. 3) Two-Turn Operations. This is an idea I just had, while playing an operation BEM. Design short operations instead of scenarios, with the attacker's first turn units limited to the recon force. Use padlocking and/or the "honor system" to limit defender's movements between games, especially of fortifications. I haven't tried designing such an op yet, but expect it would work well: most of the problems with operations seem to crop up in later battles when main forces are engaged. I'm open to suggestions on setting width of no-man's land and other parameters to make this as workable as possible. How about a 2-turn op with the first battle a small-unit night recon? One downside is the defender doesn't have too much to do while the attacker's recon guys are sneaking from tree to tree. Then again, defenders are supposed to patrol, too.... - Matt [ May 08, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

A month or two ago, with a couple of dozen CMBB games under my belt, I joined the chorus decrying "Borg spotting" and proposed a chain-of-command based spotting system. (Not knowing that a similar idea had been discussed months earlier, long before I'd joined the Forums.) Replies and archived posts to earlier threads warned against turning CM into a "command game," in which the player essentially took the role of a particular HQ on the field. At the time, I thought that such a change, or at least such an option, would be desireable, and said so. Now, having tripled (at least) my CM experience, and played a number of games against human opponents, I'm changing my tune. For one thing, my scheme placed too much reliance on the TacAI to handle out-of-command units. At the time of my previous comments, most of my CM experience was against the AI and I held it in fairly high regard, especially compared to earlier games like Close Combat. I thought that the evolutionary improvements that could be expected in the AI would make it able to handle out-of-command units competently, at least for a few turns. Now, having played many games against competent human components, I appreciate the night-and-day difference, and expect it would take a revolutionary change in the TacAI, maybe two, to make it powerful enough for my scheme to work. Under Full or Extreme FOW, it is already tricky enough to manage any force larger than a company, to spot sources of incoming fire (from a thoughtfully placed enemy), and d*** frustrating trying to manage large numbers of out-of-command units. The spotting scheme I'd proposed would add to the frustrations, and take too much fun out of the game relative to the amount of realism added. After posting well-intentioned gripes before, I thought it only fair to post again now that I've realized BFC had it right all along! - Matt

I designed my recently-advertised assault scenario using an install of CMBB that had been patched to v1.03c, without thinking too much about it. I was surprised when a couple of prospective playtesters reported they could not load the scenario using v1.02. I hadn't expected the patch to affect scenarios like that. Wondering if the reason is terrain-related bug fixes, like the notorious "gun behind the crest" which are addressed by the 1.03c patch. If so, anyone know if such bugs will remain active in scenarios designed using earlier versions of CMBB? If bug fixes aren't the reason, are there still good reasons to use the latest version of the game to design scenarios, or better to use older versions to maintain maximum compatibility for prospective players? - Matt

Yes, options for "Rapid Fire" or "Suppression Fire" would be nice, at least for support weapons. I love on map mortars but some of those 50mms can blow their entire ammo load in one turn. I have resorted to "gamey" tricks to reduce their rate of fire. My usual technique is to keep the mortar facing _away_ from the enemy until I need its fire; pivoting to face the target takes almost half a turn and saves a lot of ammo. But when the game is _forcing_ players into gamey behavior, it seems something is a little off... You know, applying command delay and pause to fire orders, as well as movement, would help sort this out as well. - Matt

Thanks Gonzo. Actually I have had no trouble importing the map to a QB. I have a version of the map that I saved before setting parameters or selecting units, which I copied to the QB Maps folder, which works seamlessly. I can also import the map from the completed scenario: from the QB map generator screen I select "Load from File," go up to the Scenario folder, and double click on the file. CM asks if I want to import troops also, I say no, and there we are. I haven't tried this with all scenarios....maybe it only works with user-generated ones (or those that are not Tournament Saved?) - Matt

I have continued to play around with my big German assault scenario, and it's fun, but I've known all along it would really work better as an operation. Problem is I invested all the time in the big map as a "battle," and haven't figured out how to import that map to a new "operation." Is there a way, or do I need to redo the map from scratch? - Matt

Nightcrawler's are great, and easy to install. They sound "real" to me where some of the other mods have a lot of echo. That's just personal preference, of course, but Nightcrawler's distribution as a self-installing exe was great for a computer klutz like me. If Nightcrawler is reading this, I love 98% of the sounds in your pack....the 2% I'm not as thrilled with are the AT and tank guns, and the sound of rounds penetrating armor. The tank guns are beefed up so much from the original, that now even a 45mm ATG or 75mm IG sounds like an 88! And the "breaking glass" at the end of the penetration sound doesn't sound quite right. This last is the one example where I actually preferred the default "thunk," though it hasn't bothered me enough to go in and try to change that one file back... - Matt

Arcs for area fire sound like a good idea. Or maybe drag-boxes so the feature could be used for mortars, too. Wonder how much suppression effectiveness would be lost; probably a lot. But a Heavy MG42 working a tile or two of trees at less than 200m might be effective... Curious to hear what those who have been in combat IRL think on this, which is more realistic? - Matt

Perhaps the mortars were still setting up? That one has tricked me a few times. Also they need to be pointed in the right direction, can't pivot and fire as fast as a squad or LMG. - Matt

For a fair meeting engagement don't forget to use a good map. A symmetrical map gives both sides similar cover for approach and engagement. There are a bunch of good ME maps available for download at The Scenario Depot and elsewhere; some of my favorites are in "Old Dog's Map Pack." Another good one is the "Church and Orchard" map. Random settings for weather and etc are also helpful. as suggested....the risk of fighting in the rain will make an Axis player pause before investing in Tigers! - Matt

OK, just "finished" my first scenario! It is a very large, combined arms Axis assault, 5000pts vs 3000, on a large map of my own design. Date is July '41. This is a fictional scenario that I hope has a realistic "feel." It depicts the tip of a German armored spearhead attacking a strategic town; I call it "The Tip of the Spear." Point values are high and there is a lot of setup for the Soviet player, but the German side is more manageable because most of the forces arrive as reinforcements, spread over the first 2/3s of the game. Recce forces first, then the main body, then heavier assault units for the final push. I thought this would be an interesting alternative to an operation. Designed for play as 2 player or Axis vs AI. if you play vs Ai make sure you allow computer to place units as I have not set up defense for Russians yet. I would be flattered if anyone would care to try the scenario and give feedback. Please email me directly for the file, by clicking on my username... - Matt PS - Apparently you need to be running the 1.03 patch to play the scenario...a good reason to patch if you haven't already! [ May 07, 2003, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

When that disembodied voice starts giving out the numbers for the next mega millions lottery, could you buy a ticket for me? (Ol' buddy, ol' pal, ol' friend). Sincerely, Private Poor House [/QB]

I was just proofreading my previous post, and realize it sounds like I'm contradicting myself by both objecting to hiding fords too well, and asking for less precise maps.... Basically, I don't think it would be appropriate to hide fords too effectively in the current engine, where maps are 100% accurate. I think it's more "realistic" for an attacking commander to know the location of a ford with good accuracy than, for example, where he might find a hull-down position for his tanks two ridges over, which is what we can do now. If and (hopefully) when CM incorporates more "mystery" into terrain in general, it would be entirely appropriate to hide fords, or at least add some doubt to their precise location, depth, and capacity. - Matt [ May 04, 2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

OK, here's an alternative idea: instead of fixed "fords" have separate "deep" and "shallow" water tiles. Deep water would be impassible, shallow would be fordable by infantry and passable but with a _very_ significant, perhaps variable, chance of bogging for vehicles. "Shallow water" would effectively replace the "deep ford" tile. "Fords" would be hard-bottom crossings useable by vehicles with low (but perhaps still variable) chance of bogging, and under EFOW could be hidden like minefields, as suggested. Though hidden, fords would be limited to shallow water locations only which would help locate them in a general sense at setup. As has been said, useable fords will often be located at obvious road crossings, or at least where river banks are low and suitable for vehicles, which will also help to locate them at setup. The idea of shallow water came to mind as I was working on a map with a stream running through it, where I included numerous fords to simulate a creek rather than a mighty river...I think 2 water tiles would add considerable flexibility for the designer, just like having both "woods" and "tall pines" tiles does. Variability in bridge strength would also add realism...I am sure tanks pancaked small country bridges on many occasions and this would be a fun addition to the game! (OTOH, considering the time scale and relatively small number of vehicles involved in the typical CMBB game, perhaps this would introduce too much luck into the outcome. Consider: your scenario has only one bridge and you have two PzIVs...the first one pancakes the bridge, leaving one tank doing a U-boat imitation and the remaining one stuck on the far side of the river and no more bridge....maybe this is too much luck affecting game outcome? Thoughts?) The idea of hidden fords, variable bridge strength, and even hidden roads (I didn't laugh at the suggestion!) leads naturally into a tangent issue that I hope will be addressed in CMX2: Imperfect maps and intelligence. I would _really_ like to see a little mystery in the maps, where terrain features are imperfectly known at least until units have LOS to them. One way to do this, which might not be _too_ hard to code, would be to allow players to view a rough, large-scale 2-D map, covering the entire battle area but not 100% accurate, at setup and in a popup box during gameplay. The terrain visible through the main viewer would be completely accurate, as it is now, but only become visible as units advance. Terrain out of LOS would be fogged out or blank, and players would need to call up the large-scale map to get an idea (not always 100% correct) of what is on the far side of a hill. Some scheme would have to be devised to defeat "gamey" tactics like deep scouting with half-squads, but hopefully such a scheme is in the works already... One alternative I like would be to extend out-of-command delays to include relay of terrain and enemy spotting info, and relating command delay to the distance by which a unit is out of command range....but Borg spotting is another thread! Also, in many situations it would seem appropriate to have some clue as to where elements of the opfor is located at setup, to represent advance scouting and intelligence. The amount and accuracy of intelligence on terrain and enemy positions could be set by the scenario designer or be another QB option. Boy, I am full of ideas! Good thing I don't realize how difficult much of this must be to code... - Matt

LOL....no I didn't have any magic mushrooms or moldy bread last night, just a glass of port and some blue cheese....at least I _think_ that was blue cheese, found it in the back of the icebox... As for licking toads: when you consider some of the things people put in their mouths, you have to figure that in olden times people got a lot hungrier than we generally do today... - Matt

I just setup a new PBEM yesterday, a large one, "beta" version of Flammenwerfer's new Kursk scenario. Of course I indulged in a pretty thorough map study, considered what defenders I would be likely to face and where they might be located, and placed my own units carefully, checking lines of sight and approach, etc. I thought I had it wired. Then last night, absolutely no kidding, I had a dream. A disembodied voice guided me around the map, saying things like: "His ATG will be here, and your tanks will be charging into them...the line of approach you've chosen for company B looks clear but the last 100m are open and covered by his MGs...If you advance some of your armor here they will be hulldown and command this large swath of the battlefield...remember not to spread yourself thin but concentrate overwhelming force at the point of decision." Of course as soon as I woke this morning I reopened the scenario and flew around the map, and everything I had been "told" in my dream made sense. I'd already emailed the setup file to my opponent yesterday, but I'd tried as always to set up my forces where they would be out of view at turn 1. So I think I will make a substantial realignment before advancing. Flammenwerfer tells me his map is based on a topo of the historical battle...I wonder if it is accurate enough to conjure the spirit of a German tank ace? Not that I really believe that channelling stuff, and besides my dream voice didn't have a German accent.... Maybe I need to take a break from CMBB....but no, what does that guy's sig line say? "Too much of anything is wonderful!" - Matt