Jump to content

Mad Russian

Members
  • Posts

    1,100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mad Russian

  1. Well, some of us are at the end of those long computer life spans now trying to figure out the best way to proceed from here. Nice that you're not. Sooner, or later, you will be one of those fools when your computer dies or won't turn on any more. Good Hunting. MR
  2. The time for war has come..............this being the 59th anniversary of the start of WWII we have chosen this time to open a new chapter in wargaming as well. We have created a new website that will be for wargaming, history and intersite tournaments. We are starting with CM but don't intend to limit the intersite tournaments to any single game. The new site is called War and Tactics. The tournament is the Master's Tournament. The scenario designers are from The Scenario Depot II. They have all earned a rating of 10 or greater on a scenario before 1 January 2008. They were asked to provide a single scenario to test your skills as gamers. Many of them agreed to do so. All wanted to but some had life issues that kept them from participating. Either way, you votes have spoken. We have listened to what you liked and have have made scenarios especially for this tournament. These scenarios have never been seen before but make no mistake they have been playtested! To register for the tournament you need to go to the new War and Tactics site and register. http://warandtactics.info/board/ucp.php?mode=register Once you are registered. Go to the Index Page. Find the Forum labeled - Games: TOYS FOR BIG BOYS The second forum down is Combat Mission: the "Masters Tournament". Once you enter the forum you will find three subforums. The first is General Discussion Masters Tournament: axis & allied. Enter that subforum. There are two threads inside. The first thread you should look at is The Master's Tournament Information thread. This thread explains everything about the tournament. All about the scenarios, how each round is to be played, who will be matched up against who and how, how long the rounds are, what kind of elimination process will be used, the scoring system.....in short.....everything there is to know about the tournament. Until some of you come up with questions I hadn't thought of....then those answers will be in there as well. After reading through the information thread you can go to the Master's Tournament Sign Up Thread. There I will need 3 things from you. 1) Your email address. 2) What your CM nickname is. 3) What club/site you will be representing in the community. This is a community event but as you will read in the information thread you will be scored both as a team and as individuals. When the tournament is finished we will know which site has done the best and which gamer has done the best as well. I expect to see competition from all the sites to be very intense. I've played some of the scenarios in the tournament and they are going to test all of your skills. Registrations will be from 1 September through 10 September. I'll then set the tournament and have the assignments in your email by 15 September. Good Luck to you all and Good Hunting. MR
  3. The time for war has come..............this being the 59th anniversary of the start of WWII we have chosen this time to open a new chapter in wargaming as well. We have created a new website that will be for wargaming, history and intersite tournaments. We are starting with CM but don't intend to limit the intersite tournaments to any single game. The new site is called War and Tactics. The tournament is the Master's Tournament. The scenario designers are from The Scenario Depot II. They have all earned a rating of 10 or greater on a scenario before 1 January 2008. They were asked to provide a single scenario to test your skills as gamers. Many of them agreed to do so. All wanted to but some had life issues that kept them from participating. Either way, you votes have spoken. We have listened to what you liked and have have made scenarios especially for this tournament. These scenarios have never been seen before but make no mistake they have been playtested! To register for the tournament you need to go to the new War and Tactics site and register. http://warandtactics.info/board/ucp.php?mode=register Once you are registered. Go to the Index Page. Find the Forum labeled - Games: TOYS FOR BIG BOYS The second forum down is Combat Mission: the "Masters Tournament". Once you enter the forum you will find three subforums. The first is General Discussion Masters Tournament: axis & allied. Enter that subforum. There are two threads inside. The first thread you should look at is The Master's Tournament Information thread. This thread explains everything about the tournament. All about the scenarios, how each round is to be played, who will be matched up against who and how, how long the rounds are, what kind of elimination process will be used, the scoring system.....in short.....everything there is to know about the tournament. Until some of you come up with questions I hadn't thought of....then those answers will be in there as well. After reading through the information thread you can go to the Master's Tournament Sign Up Thread. There I will need 3 things from you. 1) Your email address. 2) What your CM nickname is. 3) What club/site you will be representing in the community. This is a community event but as you will read in the information thread you will be scored both as a team and as individuals. When the tournament is finished we will know which site has done the best and which gamer has done the best as well. I expect to see competition from all the sites to be very intense. I've played some of the scenarios in the tournament and they are going to test all of your skills. Registrations will be from 1 September through 10 September. I'll then set the tournament and have the assignments in your email by 15 September. Good Luck to you all and Good Hunting. MR
  4. At least you're consistent, I'll give you that. You have nothing and at least this time you're not even trying to make things up. Not sure what you think you have that makes you all seeing all knowing. Nobody ever said the AI was as good as a human player. That wasn't the question now was it? But you know what, you win.... You're absolutely right. I've not seen a difference in the way the CEB adds to games. I've not had reviews that back up that the CEB makes the scenarios play better if you use it. I've not put them on here with the scenario names and location so that what I put on here can be checked. No, what really needs to be listened to is JasonC and his vast amount of knowledge on all subjects great and small. Where you quote no testing, have no scenarios that you have put out for the CM community to play and rate for you. Where you have admitted that you don't even use the CEB and don't play vs the AI anyway. It's not at all unusual that you wouldn't agree with me. You've called me a Troll, a Nazi Fanboy, told me that I'm full of horsefeathers and poppycock...so why would I not expect the same out of you now? I'm still waiting for you to write that all knowing and ever popular best seller... Jason C's Version of WWII: The Grand Strategic, Operational and Tacital Facts of WWII. The bible on everything anyone would ever want to know about WWII, and this case CM. Maybe you could just include a chapter on CM as a kind of reward for the rest of us. That could take the place of all the missing resources that you never quote but demand of others. It would certainly make it less of a mess when it comes time to back up any of the "stuff" you put out there. You are VERY GOOD at discussing "The Drill" and what the TO&E's are. Not so good if you have to produce any kind of references for your assumptions. Works for me. As I told you before. If you don't want to use the CEB...don't. I'll continue to put the disclaimer in my scenarios that it should be used because it makes a difference in the how the game plays. That's my opinion. I at least have some reason for thinking that way that I have some evidence of actually trying to find out the actions taken in the game. Not just my opinion that I'm selling as the, "Be All - End All" of the snake oil market. Where you say I can't prove what I say you can't disprove it. Over the course of bunches of vs the AI games you find whatever will make a game play better. You have already told us numbers of times how humans play better. We got it. This is a discussion about if the CEB helps the AI play better. I say it does you say it doesn't. That's good enough for me. Have a good day. MR [ December 13, 2007, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]
  5. What actually works to make the dumb AI challenging is long odds, carefully arranged set ups and flag placements, and shoestring-ish human forces that force the player to get something out of each team. But those will work without quality falsification. The vs the AI scenario is capable of certain things a H2H scenario can't do. As you correctly identified, there are certain situations that the AI excels in. High unit density actions on one side that a human player would crush his opponent with can be shown quite well. The issue of stupid comes into play as well. You can actually have the AI be as dumb as a box of rocks if that's what's called for. Or you can smarten it up with the CEB. The question was does the AI play better with a higher CEB? Does it do better? The answer, even by your own words, is yes. How do you explain the difference in gameplay from an OOB full of elite troops with 0 CEB to the same OOB and a + CEB? According to you there should be no diffence. That's not what I've found in the past when I tested the CEB. MR
  6. That's exactly what I mean. The AI is harder to beat with a higher CEB. That was the question. You even agree with the statement even though you don't use it. I have no idea how you would ever tell if the computer would or will execute more orders per game. What I do know is that the computer does other things I consider "smart". Such as flag rushes, flanking moves, using combined arms attacks, less dance of death maneuvers by tanks...etc...that I can see happen. Those are easily identifiable. As you say...DUH....to me that is better. If you want to break down the way the computer does each order and if that sequence is now in a more favourable light I can't help you. I can't prove that. I would be surprised if you can do any disproving of that either though. What I see from you is your usual assumptions. You have no facts, figures, or firm evidence of anything. Just that you don't use the CEB and therefore it's not worth the effort for anyone else to either. Again, if you don't want to use it then don't. I recommend that those that play my scenarios use it. They seem to get very good results using the CEB. I get no complaints. ROFL!!!! I love this statement of yours.... In vehicle combat, doesn't much matter - the higher qualities will just move out faster, engage with less cowering, and hit more often. It doesn't matter much? Higher experience levels just makes them move quicker, cower less and hit more often? That's all? IMO, that's plenty in armored combat. What else is there for vehicles? To be honest though, there's quite a bit more than that. The higher level CEB makes them stalk your tanks, use keyhole positions, make combined arms attacks, in addition to just being better at the basics. Since you don't use a CEB how would you know what it does or doesn't do? This level of discussion is strange. You profess to not use it, yet continue to tell me, and all involved, all there is to possibly know about the subject. If you don't want to use it that's fine with me. More power to you. As for me and my scenarios I will continue to recommend that those who play them use it. Not because I "think" it works but because I've tested it and seen it work. I've seen the results of the reviews on the scenarios as well. Can an experienced designer make a better scenario vs the AI? No question about it. Is one of the tools that make that scenario play better against the AI the use of the CEB? IMO, no question about that either. MR
  7. Does that equate to the same thing as does it play better because it's actually smarter or does it play better because the units are better? Isn't that just another way of simply asking does it play better period? Well, I think I've made my position on how I feel about it fairly clear. What do you think? MR
  8. Let's just take that comment right there at face value. If you have no doubt the AI gives you a better game with the CEB increased isn't that what the original question was? The strangest thing to me in all of the CM world is what difference does it make what BFC did to allow for better game play? If using a higher CEB gives you better results in the game what difference does it make? If that happens because of an increase in CEB, the designer doing a better job, a combination of the two, or the little miniature men my disks came with to install inside my case so when I play they direct the action? The little guys eat quite a bit but my CM games play better because of them.... :eek: I play the computer mostly because I check all of my scenarios vs the AI to see how it does. I play them Hotseat as well. Between the two of them I get the information I need to put that scenario close enough for actual playtesting in most instances. I also play alot of vs the AI scenarios for designers at TPG. So, I play the AI alot. For me personally I wouldn't play a vs the AI without at least a +2 CEB. But again, that's just me. If it works for ou without using it so much the better. Good Hunting. MR
  9. Sorry you missed my claim. I made one claim Jason, over and over. The game plays better with higher CEB's applied. I didn't say I never use it and then tell others why it doesn't work though. Good Hunting. MR
  10. Not when you make the scenario with elite troops and play it out at 0 CEB. Then play the same scenario with an added CEB and it plays better. You guys can use the CEB or not in your own game play. I recommend it because it does a better job for me. But then I don't have a dumb as a box of rocks AI either. Funny you should mention the differences between games. I see a marked reduction in AI capability between CMBB and CMAK. In CMAK, it seems to me, the AI wants all games to be Meeting Engagements and will advance no matter what. I have had to use reinforcement groups to get the AI to defend instead of attack. Yes, the designer has to do some work with the system as well. It's back to the Indy car. Just any driver can't win the Indy 500 with just any car. Both have to do their job. The scneario has to be playtested and balanced for the AI to do it's job. But that's no less true for H2H play. If a gamer plays bad he'll lose too. Well you're welcome. IMO, you're one of the designers that doesn't get mentioned enough for the work you do. And since we are talking about scenarios and what works and what doesn't, gamers should know that your scenarios work. Good Hunting. MR
  11. I don't think the CEB was intended for designer scenarios as much as it was for quick battles, where the players are restricted to a point limit. Your points are valid and worth considering, but lets look at it another way. If BFC was able to code a function in the game that made the AI perform better and smarter with a simple click of the mouse, then why not have that function be the overlying code for the entire game? IOW, if it is universally understood that a smarter AI is a huge selling point, why would they code it so you can only get it as a selectable option, one that few people really use? </font>
  12. Here are some recommendations with descriptions: Scenarios for Beginners Hope this helps. Good Hunting. MR
  13. Double post. Been awhile since I posted here. Good Hunting. MR
  14. The issue is can the AI do better with the CEB at a higher level. The answer I think is yes. I thought I was showing that gamers feel that way too. It was not sarcasm on my part. (Well, the part where Jason says he doesn't use it but has alot to say about how it doesn't work, was sarcasm.) Let's look at this another way. If all that needs be done is to raise the experience levels the designer can do that simply. I could make all the troops in the scenario, at say crack,, or elite, and then there wouldn't be a need for a CEB setting in the first place. Much easier for BFC to do that as well. Just put a statement in the rules booklet. Instead of all the programming and development time to actually add the CEB setting in the editor. Does that make more sense to you? I've played hundreds of games vs the AI. I playtest everyone of my scenarios at least once, vs the AI for various aspects of playbalance. All I know is that if I move the CEB setting higher it plays better. It will do such things as flank you, rush the flags, stalk your tanks, do combined arms attacks. etc...if that's just from getting better experience levels okay. I only see those kinds of responses from the AI when the CEB goes higher. Not when I just add to the experience levels of the troops themselves. The question was does the CEB make a difference. The answer, for me at least, is YES. There are alot of comments that I didn't put on here. They get pretty redundant after awhile. All of them in awe that the CEB addition has the AI playing better than they have ever seen it before. Is it that I've learned to make the AI work by itself? I don't think so since I always use a +2 CEB. That doesn't mean that I get crack and expert troops everytime. I sometimes have conscript troops in my scenarios that get moved up to "only" veteran. If the experience levels are all that make the difference then why wouldn't they be giving you a good fight with 0 CEB instead of adding to it? Good Hunting. MR [ December 12, 2007, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]
  15. Try not to tell me how I balance my scenarios. I playtest and balance my vs the AI scenarios with a +2 CEB. They are set that way for a reason. I thought the entire reason for playbalancing is, "to make the fights more challenging". That's the reason I playtest and balance my scenarios. Can't speak for your ultimate goals as a designer. Personally, if you don't use +AI settings how can you even comment on their usefulness or effectiveness? Good Hunting. MR
  16. Alright then...but still that's only two scenarios...so let's take a look at some others.... How about HSG B Bussard I played all games with +2 AI experience and managed a score of zero first attempt and 100% 4th attempt. The addiction is trying to better your previous score and trying out different tactics. Or HSG B Each in Turn... Well I reckon the 'B' in the scenario title stands for 'Bitch'... I started this baby thinking 'a tank battle vs the AI...? how hard can it be...? Trust me, with a +3 CEB, it's hard enough. Do yourself a favour, download and play it. Thanks for a tense couple of hours gaming vs the AI - and that's not something I say every day... Maybe you want some CMAK examples like HSG KC Untscfhr Barkmann..this one is not only against the AI but an exit scenario for the player as well... I found this scenario to be a mix of intense close action mixed with suspense as you poke your way forward trying to get out of the pocket with your force in tact. The map is good and allows for multiple escape routes and the AI responds well which results in a good vs the AI scenario. If one looks in the discussion area they will find my old AAR, a story of recon, suspense and constant ambushes! I have never done really well with exit scenarios and to be honest I did not fare that well against the AI as the Germans in this fight either. Having said that it is still a well made and enjoyable battle and as the attackers you can never be quite sure what was around the next bend in the road. We can go on with more examples if anyone would like to discuss this further. The bottom line is that the Computer Experience Bonus has the AI playing better. I can show that. I've seen it enough time to include the disclaimer on how to use the CEB in my scenarios. Is it tough to get the AI to fight? Somewhat. It's not the easiest thing in CM to make happen. Can it be dumb as a box of rocks. Yes. Can some of the experts in these forums talk about things they know nothing about...yes. Can the AI fight? I think the download totals for The Scenario Depot II shows it can. I seriously doubt that a scenario that wasn't really good would be the second most downloaded scenario for CMBB and at the same time be the highest rated scenario. That scenario is only recommended for vs AI play. Those that do QB's vs the AI get what you ask for. A quick throw together. Will the AI fight then? Most likely not. Will the AI require some adjustment and a bit of help here and there? Probably. So what? All scenarios require playbalancing if they are going to be worth playing. Scenarios vs the AI are no different. Good Hunting. MR
  17. But you know what, maybe that first scenario was just a fluke. I mean even a broken clock is right twice a day right? So then, let's move on the the number 3 downloaded scenario for CMBB on The Scenario Depot II. It is also 24th in the ratings for CMBB scenarios. That would be HSG EW Panthers Roll. Here some of the comments it has earned: Excellent fight against the AI. Gave them a +1 experience bonus and managed to score a tactical victory. As indicated before you really feel overwhelmed at first, but hang in there and you will experience a very fun and intense armor heavy fight. Per the designer's advice, I played as Germans vs. AI, and it rapidly became a desperate defense. You will have your hands full holding back the Red hordes, praying for your Panthers to arrive by the next turn. Not that they guarantee your salvation! This is how it should be done.... when I play such a battle in only 2 episodes (migraine interval doh!) it means it's cool! I played this a long time ago and I remembered I got crushed. Now I've got some experience I played a Major victory. Again MR succeeds in creating a 2 phased battle. Retreat and counterattack. Plus there's a good PantherQuality/RussianQuantityRate. You should/must play this one! Very good scenario. Went down to the wire with Axis achieving a 55%/45% DRAW and a FLAG changing hands on the last turn. After the first three turns I actually wanted to quit, due to all the demoralizing things that had occurred. I'm glad I played it out. I plan on playing it again, because I think I can achieve a modest level of victory with the Axis, by setting up differently. Ripping good time... Well now, that doesn't seem to be the kind of reviews that one would expect from a "box of rocks" is it? Again, I expect the gamer to use the CEB. Yes, makes a difference in how the game plays. Good Hunting. MR
  18. At The Scenario Depot II my HSG KC Untstfhr Muehleck is second on the all time downloads list for CMBB scenarios. It is first in review ratings. Not bad for a vs the AI scenario...here are some of the comments that it has earned: If you're looking for a fun "thinking mans" shoot'em up, high action, use the map or die, never a dull moment solo play scenario then this is the one for you. Played as Axis vs AI. I can see why this is top rated, it's great. The first time through, I got stomped into the dirt. Exellent scenario, Gotta have good skills using Panther Tanks or it could be a nightmare. Loved it. Have played through this scenario several times and its keeps getting better. Its one hell of a fight and all in all one hell of a scenario. I played this one back when it was posted at the depot and smashed the Russian AI with the loss of only a few men and a couple of halftracks. Had a blast doing it as well. Just played it again and suffered a total defeat turning all 3 of my big cats into flaming hulks. Oh well, it is an intense and fun scenario vs. the AI. I thought this scenario was a complete blast! Played Axis vs. AI with a +1 bonus. I was amazed at how this scenario did not let up turn after turn, especially given my situation. If you like high action scenarios, short sharp engagments, I highly recommend this nailbiting slugfest. I played at +2 vs the AI and achieved a major victory, but it was never 'plain sailing' with losses on both sides and blazing hulks littering the battlefield. This scenario is all action from start to finish and without a doubt, any German victory here is going to win someone a Knights Cross! Excellent Work by the Mad Russian! A pleasure to play and highly recommended. Smart scenario with plenty of action, the map was nicely made with several options for a good defense. The AI put up a good fight with a last minute infantry rush over the hills at the VF. I managed a Major Victory and lost one Panther in the process, although the hero of the piece lost his head to MG fire when he very unwisely poked his head out for a look see. Take particular note that all of my scenarios are recommended to be played as: Add computer experience bonus relative to the experience you have as a player. Good player +1, above average player +2 and very experienced player +3. Also, please note the comments about how the AI played. Seems that there are comments other than how the AI is dumb as a box of rocks. An Indy race car is just a car unless you put it on the right track with the right driver. Let an experienced designer with all the tools that CM gives you and let the gamer FOLLOW DIRECTIONS and the AI will fight just fine. That includes using the CEB to increase the game play in vs AI scenarios. Good Hunting. MR
  19. The major flaw in with the AI is two fold. First most game designers aren't experienced enough to make it work. Second you are asking a machine to be as smart as a human player. I'll post some comments for some of the scenarios I know about. My own. You can decide from there. Anyone with other concrete evidence and not just a cookie cutter opinion can then start the debate about stupid the AI is. Good Hunting. MR
  20. Well you could try playing hundreds of games against the AI and see if you can tell a difference. Or you could ask the wonderfully talented and all knowing experts here on these forums. Or you could ask someone that has played the AI hundreds of times. Or you could just let the gamers that play the scenarios tell you. Let's just take one small item into consideration. Why would BFC add a Computer Experience Bonus to the game, take all that development time and the resource space on the disk if it has no effect? Good Hunting. MR
  21. I guess I don't get this post. HSG has scenarios that feature single tanks for your entire OOB...how much smaller than that can you get? While the emphasis for CMx2 seems to have changed to a smaller scale that doesn't mean that CMx1 can't portray that same smaller scale. BFC is trying some different approaches to modeling the combat portrayed. Whether or not they succeed in that is a personal determination by each and everyone of us. To say that CMx1 didn't cover small unit actions doesn't seem to hold much water for me though. While CMSF isn't my cup of tea, the evolution of the game series is very much of interest to me. I'm sure that CMSF will evolve through patches just as CMBO did. I currently don't own CMBO any more either...I gave it to a friend that wanted to see what wargames were all about. I still play CMBB - CMAK almost everyday though. And so does the friend I gave CMBO to. BTW he gave that same copy to another friend..... So, I'll still give BFC the benefit of the doubt on another ground breaking design, that they broke the original ground on....and wait and see what else they might come up with. MR [ August 04, 2007, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]
  22. How can they be too small, when you posted these parameters.... I am looking for Meeting Engagement scenarios, at about 2,500 points total or less, 30 turns or less (I have found this to be ideal for TCP/IP play). Too large I can understand..but too small? The "or less" parameter should keep any scenario from being too small. Of all the parameters to use for searching for a battle the points is the worst. A 1941 Russian Front 2,500 point battle has far more units in it than a 1945 scenario. The later units cost more....so take a look at overall number of units and not the points. A good indicator is the size of the scenario. Thanks for the kind words about my work. Glad that you find it competitive. I hope that you will try some of our small to medium ME's. If not well we tried... Hope you find what you're looking for. MR
  23. The question of Tiger Battalions being subordinated to Panzer Divisions is simple. They were. I'm not sure that they were for reasons of missing tank battalions but they could have been. As has been pointed out by both sides, the Tigers were sent to areas of critical need. Whether that meant an area of a PD without it's Panther Bn or not seems irrelevant to me. There are almost countless situations where the Tiger Bn's were under the operational control of a Panzer Division. I'm sure that authority came from Korps/Army/Army Group. No matter where it came or why. The Tigers may well have ended up supporting Panzer Divisions that were short their Panther Bn's. If they did, it may not have been the case of that specific issue, but just that they were weak in a critical operational area and needed more support. I see this arguement as being two sides of the same coin. MR
  24. Well, that answers the question if 16th Panzer Division had any. MR
×
×
  • Create New...