Mad Russian
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mad Russian
-
-
That's interesting, I thought the super sophisticated scoring system you used, had a better plan than just 65-35. Is there more to it than that or is that it? :confused:Originally posted by Kingfish:An example:
ROW IV - South of Vevi
King (axis) - 65
Fish (allied) - 35
Panther Commander
-
That's interesting, I thought the super sophisticated scoring system you used, had a better plan than just 65-35. Is there more to it than that or is that it? :confused:Originally posted by Kingfish:An example:
ROW IV - South of Vevi
King (axis) - 65
Fish (allied) - 35
Panther Commander
-
That's interesting, I thought the super sophisticated scoring system you used, had a better plan than just 65-35. Is there more to it than that or is that it? :confused:Originally posted by Kingfish:An example:
ROW IV - South of Vevi
King (axis) - 65
Fish (allied) - 35
Panther Commander
-
Yes, the best that can be done at present, is just simply no communication and don't look at the other players orders. That isn't as bad as it seems, since only one Allied player would get to see what the orders are, before sending the turn on.Originally posted by General Colt:3 player PBEM? Interesting.
What are the actual mechanics of playingg this out?
Even though the review states the team should not communicate there is no friendly FOW. Either teamed player can see all the other guys men/movement orders and targets.
Hopefully BFC includes a smooth engine for taking care of all this in the "CM The Next Generation".
Panther Commander
-
Yes, the best that can be done at present, is just simply no communication and don't look at the other players orders. That isn't as bad as it seems, since only one Allied player would get to see what the orders are, before sending the turn on.Originally posted by General Colt:3 player PBEM? Interesting.
What are the actual mechanics of playingg this out?
Even though the review states the team should not communicate there is no friendly FOW. Either teamed player can see all the other guys men/movement orders and targets.
Hopefully BFC includes a smooth engine for taking care of all this in the "CM The Next Generation".
Panther Commander
-
Yes, Panzerman is correct, the game can be three player for PBEM. It is one or two player for anything else.Originally posted by Tha_Field_Marshall:How is that gonna work?
Panther Commander
-
Yes, Panzerman is correct, the game can be three player for PBEM. It is one or two player for anything else.Originally posted by Tha_Field_Marshall:How is that gonna work?
Panther Commander
-
I have posted HSG First Town Liberated to the Scenario Depot. This is a 5 battle operation depicting the 82nd Airborne Divisions capture and defense of the village on June 6th.
Play it and then leave a review. This is one of the new, not reworked from CMBO, scenarios that depict the fighting in France from 6 June through 25 August 1944. You will find them in the HSG listings.
Panther Commander
-
I have just posted a scenario at The Proving Grounds that will accomodate three players.
The scenario is HSG A Polish Finish. Check it out and leave a review or comments.
http://www.garykrockover.com/cmbb/index.html
Panther Commander
-
I have just posted a scenario at The Proving Grounds that will accomodate three players.
The scenario is HSG A Polish Finish. Check it out and leave a review or comments.
http://www.garykrockover.com/cmbb/index.html
Panther Commander
-
Well maybe so, but I just posted a scenario at The Proving Grounds, that will allow for three players. It's called HSG A Polish Final.Originally posted by Slappy:Oh, and while I'm at it. Multiplayer strictly equals 2. I'm pretty sure that 1 player is single player and that there is no provision for fractional players in the current engine.
Panther Commander
-
The books by Chamberlain and Doyle The Encyclodeia of German Tanks and American and British Tanks are very good.Originally posted by Scheer:Hi btm,
I have, and highly suggest, the following books :
Chamberlain & Doyle
Encyclopedia of german tanks of world war two
and
British and american tanks of world war two
Both have LOTS of pictures and are true references, IMHO. You get one or more picture per vehicle, and the technical details. And both cover the HT´s and SPG´s .
I have ,from Tim Bean and Will Fowler, Russian tanks of world war II ( Stalins armored fist ).
Only tanks are mentioned, but it starts with the first russian tankengagements ever, sumthing around 1919 and leads from there to 1945 and parts of the early 1950´s .
I like both.
For Russian Tanks there is no better reference that Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two by Steven Zaloga and James Grandsen. Mr. Zaloga's Red Army Handbook is very informative about Soviet subjects that include more than just tanks.
A single volume that covers most of these fairly well is World War II Tanks by George Forty.
Hope this helps.
Panther Commander
-
Welcome. I see that both of your posts are here. So let's assume that you are fairly new to the CM world. You got some really good advice from Sergei about starting with a smaller scenario.Originally posted by yacinator:ok u can have captured tanks but what about small arms. like can i have my italian squad take m1 rifles from an eliminated american squad?
Find a fight in the battle of Crete and work on that. Once you do a few battles then work up to a small operation. Once you have your legs under you then go for the gold and do your monster operations. You will not be able to do the Crete fight in it's entirety though on this scale. The map won't support it. A series of operations that covers the fighting can be done but that is a VERY ambitious project. Good luck on your designing.
Panther Commander
-
Here is an excerpt that came from the 3rd Armored Division website. It tells of an action that took place by A Company, 36th Armored Infantry Regiment. There have been multiple discussions about time management during a battle and this AAR is one of the best I've seen relating what happened during an attack.
__________________________________________
Working in two teams we leap-frogged aggressively and cleared out buildings on both sides of the street. Flushing out a number of frightened German paratroopers we continued on until we came to an intersection, which was covered by a German anti-tank gun. I sent Mike Lucas back to where the tanks were, which had halted at the beginning of the village, to retrieve the platoon radio that had been on the deck of one of the tanks. Mike returned a half hour later with a tank and with word that shrapnel had riddled the radio useless.
By this time I discovered that each of us had less than a full clip of ammunition for our M-1's. I sent two men back along the street to recover empty clips that had been ejected. Borrowing a machine gun belt of .30 caliber from the tank, we reloaded the recovered empty clips. Because the tank commander dared not expose the tank to the anti-tank gun, we sat there for several hours before being relieved.
Thus, on 12 December we were able to take the objective with a force 20 times larger than our original reconnaissance patrol that tried unsuccessfully two days earlier. But the victory this day was not without casualties. We had another eight men killed and six wounded.
A Company's total casualties for the three-day affair were 16 killed, 33 wounded, 15 evacuated because of exhaustion and one self-inflicted gunshot wound. Thus our casualties totaled 65 or 43%.
There was a tremendous amount of heroism displayed by the men of the Company and the Army recognized this. As a result Lt. Berlin received the Distinguished Service Cross (he had been recommended for the Medal of Honor), nine men received the Silver Star and seventeen Bronze Star medals were awarded. To cap it all off the entire Company received a cluster to The Distinguished Unit Badge, or Presidential Unit Citation as we called it, having received its original one for its actions in breaching the Siegfried Line the previous September.
______________________________________________
For those wishing to read the entire account of the battle the web site is:
http://www.3ad.org/testimonials/wwii/pacios/wwii_36air_pacios.htm
Panther Commander
-
That was awesome. I just got myself under control enough to answer. I needed the laugh and it was a good one.Originally posted by Abteilung:Lol...nahverteidigungsaffe. He might fit inside the bustle of a KT...
I can see it now...Bazooka Joe spends 10 minutes crawling through muck and filth to gain position on the dreaded big cat. Just as he raises up to take aim he hears "squeeeeek...clang" followed by furious grunting and sounds of knuckles dragging. Joes frantically looks around from side to side trying to discover the source of this unusual battlefield noise....*whap* *oof*....the last thing poor Joe sees is:
STURM!!!!
Thanks.
Panther Commander
-
The Red Army Handbook is great but it isn't Steven Zaloga's best book on Soviet Armor.Originally posted by redwolf:Steven Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook 1939-1945" is first class. While it is not exclusivly about tanks it has a lot of good information about the Soviet models, more so that I have seen in more specialized books.
Don't be mislead if you know "US Army Handbook" and "British Army Handbook" by Gorge Forty which are by far not as good as Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook" although they are the same book series.
The BEST book out there is Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two by Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen.
This volume covers EVERYTHING the Soviets used including Lend Lease gives numbers, unit designations, TO&E's, etc. If it is Soviet and it's armored in WWII it's in here. Bad news is that I believe it is out of print. My copy was printed in 1984 by Arms and Armour Press.
ISBN 0-85368-606-8
Good Hunting.
Panther Commander
-
Does soft ground?Originally posted by Moon:Yes, fast move does increase chance of bogging.
Martin
Panther Commander
-
Treeburst,
My post was not aimed at you, but as you said, "those that can do and those that can't teach". So I am trying to get across that you don't have to win every fight to enjoy the game and to lighten up on some of the criticism aimed at a designers work. Who's ever it may be. Your thread is about teaching scenario design. I just gave my $.02 at what I use for a criteria. I also don't go by playtesters scores. I have had many a playtester that was either beaten by the scenario or blew it away that found it enjoyable.
My point is this NOBODY is going to win every scenario. So when you don't win learn from it. Make yourself better. The same goes for scenario design. Which I believe is your point. Make it easier and more enjoyable. Your system will not be for everybody but for those that use it and get value from it all the better. That IMHO is why you shared to begin with. Sorry if I got off on a tangent that took us off course for a bit.
As a designer you sometimes wonder if people played the same scenario you made when they review it.
Panther Commander
-
Did you ever play the Sainte-Mere-Eglise operation? HSG First Town Liberated?Originally posted by Runyan99:
I know you looked at it I was just curious if you'd ever played it?
Panther Commander
-
Bogging is just what you said it is. A one size fits all reason for a vehicle to quit moving forward. Whatever that reason is. Threw a track, killed the transmission, motor quit, whatever.Originally posted by Roger Eriksen:I am playing the 2 Pounders and Tigers scenario PBEM. One of my M3s bogged on open ground. Is this bog another way of saying "random mechanical breakdown"?
My tank was attempting a shoot and scoot...could a fast move increase a chance of bogging? :confused:
Even stuck in the sand. Go figure...
Panther Commander
-
I think you are right. A historical scenario is "NEVER" 100% historical. If we were being accurate here the best that can be done is semi-historical. Now I hang the tag historical on my scenarios if they meet the following criteria:Originally posted by Treeburst155:A truly historical scenario can't really be "reworked" too much and still remain truly historical. I'm a firm believer in designing for gameplay first, and historical accuracy second. I think history should give ideas for scenarios, rather than act as a blueprint for a scenario.
Treeburst155 out.
Do I have a battle map?
Do I have order of battle information?
Do I have a detailed source and if possible more than one?
The three are equally important. If I don't have one I may well call it a semi-historical fight.
But let's see the "BEST" that we can do.
You have a battle map. Okay, did you know that right out in front of that German strongpoint 65 meters away there is a slight dip in the ground. And it was from that dip that the Lt. threw the grenade that took out the German MG?
Now for the units. What kind of German MG was it? How many rounds served the gun? What experience level was the gunner? What about his buddies? We don't like seeing scenarios where all of the troops are the same quality so a designer makes a platoon have a personality with the level of experience of the squads and leader. But is that experience historical? More than likely not but you have no way of knowing.
And last we have our source data. Who wrote the data you are using? Is there a bias? Is the author just making up a story or embellishing it to make it read better? There is no way for you to know you weren't there.
So, a truly "historical" should have as much accuracy in it as possible, to try to get as close to recreating the battle SITUATION, that occured to those participants, on that day in history. I try my best, but when I have to make a decision that covers a "fact" that I am missing, I don't sweat it because there are a million things I don't know.
I know how much research Rune does and it may be more than anyother designer. Not necessarily because he wants to do more research but because he may well have better sources than anybody else. I don't always like the outcome of his scenarios but then there is usually at least one whole side that isn't too fond of how any historical engagement turns out so I don't sweat it.
Players seem to think that you have to win every battle you fight with a Major Victory. I feel sorry for that attitude. I am here to learn and enjoy my hobby. That means I can and do lose. I'm getting better and that is my goal. Not to win every fight but to get better. That includes in scenario design.
Thanks for posting the VL program on TPG. It will help some people get an idea of what they may be looking for. I do agree with Rune that there is no one size fits all answer to scenario design. I think that your program gives people a place to start but there is no substitute for playtesting. If you can't do it yourself send it over to The Proving Grounds. In fact even if you can do it yourself send it to them. Another opinion is good and that is a pretty experienced bunch.
Enough.
Panther Commander
-
I've seen it!!Originally posted by von Lucke:Looks like a classic compare / contrast situation.
The Pillar-o'-Fire is obviously a gasoline-fueled Sherman, while the other, less Smote-From-On-High burning Sherman is diesel-fueled.
Maybe Panther Commander should see this thread?
I am watching this conversation with great interest. What concerns me is that it appears that GOD and bridges have to both be present for a Sherman to blow up. :mad:
Now I see why I could never get one to blow up! I fired at them AWAY from the bridge.
Panther Commander
-
I've seen it!!Originally posted by von Lucke:Looks like a classic compare / contrast situation.
The Pillar-o'-Fire is obviously a gasoline-fueled Sherman, while the other, less Smote-From-On-High burning Sherman is diesel-fueled.
Maybe Panther Commander should see this thread?
I am watching this conversation with great interest. What concerns me is that it appears that GOD and bridges have to both be present for a Sherman to blow up. :mad:
Now I see why I could never get one to blow up! I fired at them AWAY from the bridge.
Panther Commander
-
Thats not entirely true. You troops can stay in the area of the fire only for awhile. Ive seen several times when troops of mine are in an area which catches fire only to be auto-moved(AI) several turns later when the fire gets too fierce. I think troops can move into a area with fire as long as the fire isn't too intense. It all depends how bad the fire is, that goes for houses too. As for how quick or slow a fire can brew up, i just had a HT burning in a wheatfield for over 10 turns until the wheatfield finally caught fire. Just more randomness that makes the CM battlefield fun.Originally posted by MeatEtr:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:
Your troops didn't have to leave. The fire won't hurt them if they were in the area before it caught fire. If it catches fire and you are outside the area you can't move into it. Fire is a strange animal in CM.
Panther Commander
</font>
</font>
**** ROW IV (part 2) ****
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
So send away buddy.
Panther Commander