Noiseman

It imbiggins us all.

Really? Was that me? You have a beter memory then me.(that's not saying much, though) I was thinking: "Ooh, I want that too!". Now I know why I thought that idea brilliant. It is frustrating that you either end up with near invisible infantry or tanks the size of houses. </font>

One thing I always wanted to see in the CM engine was the ability to adjust the size of semi-abstacted units such as infantry, seperately from vehicles. That is to say vehicles could be set to realistic scale, while at the same time infantry could be set to +1 or +2 scale so everything is visable without bases. I'd love to claim credit for this idea, but it originally came from the Member-Formally-Known-As Tweety.

Alt Shift ; Held together toggles this function on and off. Madmatt </font>

Are there gridded terrain mods currently available for CMAK? I realize it'll probably be a while for the desert sand to be 'griddified', but can can CMBB gridded grass be used for Italy? Sorry if this has been asked and answered before. [ December 05, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

I agree, besides a pure tank force probably wouldn't do too well. Most battles in Eastfront (And Westfront too) involve more than one type of unit, so it's not too impractical too allot all armour points in some situations. Some sensible limits would have to apply. Importantly, casualties taken in CM would should be halved to remain consistant with 'Eastfront' casualties (I doubt players would want to fight every battle in the game, I would suggest one per turn). This also simulates that the rear echelon cadres of large units don't take casualties at the rate of the small CM level combat units. Also casualties should be rounded down when re-applying to 'Eastfront' because some CM units like AFV and ATGs 'spawn' points in the form of crews when knocked out, etc. I've also thought that ammunition penalties could be an effective way to simulate unsupported attacks, and for terrain that can't be QB generated like rivers. Just a thought... [ December 03, 2003, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

I recently bought a board wargame (For the first time in a long time) that could translate fairly well into a CMBB campaign game. It's Eastfront by Columbia Games (which many old timers may remember as the wargame played with blocks). It's a game that's been around for years, and there is a computer version too (Which I've never played, but might be able to work for PBEM). It has a very unique step-loss system where each unit has three or four step value, where it's current strength is shown by rotating the block so its present strength is facing upwards - no bookkeeping required. Battles in Eastfront take place inside one hex, with a maximum of four units from each side participating. My idea is to give 200 QB points for each step of value, i.e. a 3 step armour unit would give 600 armour points towards a QB battle. For large battles only 100 QB points per step can be given to keep CM battles manageable. Random rarity should be on in the CM QB generator, and players are required to select units with 'no change' rarity or less to prevent excessive cherrypicking. Terrain should be generated in CM by the conditions in the board hex, i.e. clear terrain is moderately hilly and forrested, Mountain terrain is very hilly etc. Rivers are partially handled by Eastfront rules (only one unit can attack accross a river hexside), additionally a 25% cut in QB points and/or 20% casualties can allow a non-river QB map to be generated, and still give the defender an advantage. The challenge in CM would be to capture or hold the hex, i.e. all the objective flags. As battles in Eastfront can last for several turns with units remaining in the battle hex, it's no problem for battles to result in not all flags being taken. Converting CM losses back into Eastfront units is suprisingly easy. For every 200 points in losses (Reflected in the CM AAR Statistics box) reduce a board unit by one step in the Eastfront manner (The largest units take the first hits). Remember that the battle you're fighting in CM is only a small action in the larger battle taking place in the hex - just because you lost two Tigers doesn't mean every company in the divsion lost two also. Your action just represents how the army group in the hex is generally doing as a whole. One is always motivated to keep losses to a minimum because each loss will be missed in a couterattack or future battle. I could drone on, but I'll wait to see if there's any interest before I get into minutia, especially as most of you are probably unfamiliar with the Eastfront/Westfront/Medfront series. The rules are downloadable at Columbiagames.com. See for yourself if it could work.

Related CMAK thread ...well now, what is the exact meaning of "few" ? </font>

Hey it's the closest without going over right? What do I win what do I win????? I hope it's not a free copy of CMAK cause I just preordered. </font>

Hey it's the closest without going over right? What do I win what do I win????? I hope it's not a free copy of CMAK cause I just preordered. </font>

I'm going to have to get a hernia operation from laughing at that picture!!! Perhaps it should read, "CMAK, is it any good?" [ November 19, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

I'm going to have to get a hernia operation from laughing at that picture!!! Perhaps it should read, "CMAK, is it any good?" [ November 19, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

WOOHOO! A banner day for BFC! I Just ordered Mac & Windows bundle packs for myself, and a Windows CMAK for a friend, so I guess Maddmatt's drinking fest is on me tonight!

ROTFLMAO! I may use this in my signature line!

ACW buffs may want to check out this site Mad Minute Games, Take Command 1861 for a good looking game under development. It is a real time game unfortunately, but has a great deal of potential. Real time could conceiveably work in an ACW environment if realistic command delays were implemented. If I was a designer, I would allow players to issue orders directly to units, but they would not be implemented till a visible rider rode from the General to the unit. No orders could be cancelled, another aide would have to go to the unit with overriding orders. Chain of command can be simulated by having the (player) Divisional aide ride to the (AI) brigade commander who than spawns his own aide to ride to his subordinate regiments. Limiting the number of aides per general would make for some interesting situations, as well as the fact that aides could be killed in transit so that orders might never make it to units. This encourages the player to adhere to the realistic principal that 'the simplest plan is usually the best plan.' Limiting the number of aides per general could be used to simulate command structures and skills for play balance. For example, a player in the role of Lee can be much more nimble with subordinate commander Jackson's units than than with Ewell's because Jackson would have more aides to transmit orders to simulate his superior skill (There could be TacAI differences too, but let's not get into that Vietnam here ). To sum up: Interface-wise the player would simply click on any unit icon to issue orders, but game-wise a realistic animated chain of command courier system is simulated with the inherent uncertainty of the real world. All that being said, a WEGO system is still the better way to go as "real" real time would bore the pants off most players. The messenger system would work just as well in a WEGO environment. In an ACW/Napoleonic environment where the basic 'building block' unit is a regiment or battalion, a messenger system makes sense whereas the squad level size of CMBB/CMAK makes makes 'runner' animations inpractical.

Well as this thread is finally dying down, I will now cast judgement A Soviet surprise attack in May/June '45 reaches the Seine in August, before operational friction bogs it down. The WA use this respite to build up a logistical base that is strong enough to eventually lead to a generally acknowledged stalemate somewhere between the Rhine and the Pyrennes. After a year or two of half-hearted offensives by both sides, a negotiated peace sets the iron curtain down along the Rhine. WA airpower creates much of the operational friction in 1945, but is not solely responsible for the Soviet offensive running out of steam. Strategic bombing is relatively ineffective because of the long ranges to vital targets, which allied intelligence has difficulty identifying. Allied Naval power is relegated to supporting peripheral actions around the Soviet domain (A la Gallipoli in WWI). As an aside: For those of you who have been really caught up in this thread, I would strongly recommend the boardgame Patton in Flames from Australian Design Group. It uses the same rules system as World in Flames, but is specifically designed for the scenario we've been discussing (As well as a '48 scenario). Basically, it is May '45, there are still weak German units resisting, and it is up to either Allied or Soviet player to be the first to continue going east or west. Neither side has an easy time of it, which makes for a fun game. I may just have to break it out when I get home...

I've just tried this method playing the AI, it pretty much simulates the idea I've been suggesting. Set scale to realistic for the entire game. Show all movement paths are on (shift-P), but show all target lines are off. Unit bases can be on or off. Press shift-Q (Turn play aids off) before viewing at levels 3 or higher. This will hide all 'icon' enemy units at high view levels. Well-spotted units will be seen at level three and above, but this is entirely reasonable (After all they are in plain sight). Enemy infantry and guns will be tough to see because bases aren't shown with shift-Q activated, but this is also reasonable. Discretion with zooms and forward panning will recreate a very extreme FOW. At views 1&2 play aids (shift-Q) can be used, as well as target lines (shift-P) and bases(shift-. If anything, this is better than my original idea. One primarily views the battle from 'down low' but can remain oriented to the larger picture (Remember, all friendly movement paths can still be seen at high levels, and long distance moves can be plotted there too). Well-spotted units are easily accounted for, but but micromanaging like a god against vague units is minimized. The AI becomes much more formidable. I never cease to be amazed by the depth of CM and BFC. Everything I could want is usually already in the game, I'm just too dumb to spot it right away. [ September 16, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

This seems a good thread to plug the idea of having the option of making enemy units invisible at view level three and higher. One can still orient one's own units on the higher level views of the map, but any combat type orders would end up having to take place from the first person perspective. This is a very simple way to get one into playable action without a lot of rules (and temptations to peek). It strikes me as being the best of both worlds.

Franko's true combat rules were my inspiration. I was trying to play them, but just couldn't resist the urge to orient myself at a higher view level. I'd have been happy to use view 7 or 8 just to see where my units were on the map, but then I would see the enemy too... That's when the thought hit me.

I was primarily thinking about this concept as a way to handicap a player against the AI, but it could also be an interesting factor in tcp/ip play, particularly if the time limit per turn option is in use. It would take non-virtual time to check out where fire is coming from, which would add a relatively new factor to multiplayer games. Players would have to prioritize certain critical sectors rather than having a god-like overview. I dislike RTS, but time and priorities should have a (relative) place in the tension of a combat simulation. I am certainly not advocating a click fest. This concept really has to be taken in the context of CMX2, as I can foresee a lot of the technical and playtesting issues. For example, in the higher view levels should the player be able to hear things? See tracers? Should enemy units be totally invisible or shown as icons with no unit data? I don't claim to have all the answers, which is why I'm very curious for other players input. I'd like to stress again that I wouldn't want to play every CM scenario or QB in this manner, but it would be fun to have this option.

What do you think of this very extreme fog of war option: enemy units are ony visable to the player on view levels one and two. At view level three and above, only friendly units are visable and they do not show the red/yellow fire/receiving fire sight lines. Movement orders can be given at the higher view levels normally. This option would lessen the effect of borg spotting on the player's strategy, and lessen the effect of the 'god-like' player position. Having to cycle through units at low view levels to see the enemy would better simulate the real-life constraints of commanders. A player who can better keep the facts at his figertips would have a game advantage (i.e. skill). Recon would be of more importance. The major drawback of this option would be that the players (non-virtual) time commitment to the game would increase dramatically. This is why it would have to be a selectable option. I personally would not want to play this way all the time, but once in a while (especially against the AI) it would really add a lot of flavor. I've tried to play QBs exclusively at levels one and two, but invariably become disoriented as to the larger picture (even with an overview pre-printed map). Giving orders can also get tedious. I would think that by restricting views in the manner described above, a nice balance could be struck. Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome as there are a lot of possible permutations of this idea. Unfortunatly at this late date in the development of the CMX1 engine, we'll most likely never see it implemented, but it seems worth discussing all the same [ September 11, 2003, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

It really would be nice to have some sort of 'toggle' to control some labels. The 'eliminated' label would be the first to go, but a close second for me would be the 'low ammo' label for bailed out crews. Since bailed crews are universally low on ammo the label is a bit redundent and cluttering. Whenever an AFV is knocked out there are a blizzard of mostly unhelpful labels ('Eliminated' for the AFV, 'low ammo' and the 'morale status' of the crew). Three labels for an essentially useless bailed crew unit. To be fair though, a toggle interface could end up being just as cluttered and confusing as the present system, so it's not really a very high priority... Sounds like something that needs to be thought out for CMX2. It would be nice to be able to turn off the 'eliminated' label now though...

I'm surprised that most people tend to be picking in the Mid October to November area, perhaps I was being too optimistic... At least perhaps setting back my expectations a bit may ease my sense of anticipation... But I'm still sticking to my guns that we'll see a September release.

I'm surprised that most people tend to be picking in the Mid October to November area, perhaps I was being too optimistic... At least perhaps setting back my expectations a bit may ease my sense of anticipation... But I'm still sticking to my guns that we'll see a September release.

Well someone had to start it... ...face it, we're all thinking about it Anyhow at least maybe we'll be able to keep it in one thread and not drive BFC too crazy OK fellow forum members, give it your best shot, guess a date for the release of the game and/or the demo. All I can promise the winner of the pool are my hearty congratulations, and forum immortality for guessing right. I'll start off by guessing that it must be coming rather soon... Skeletons of bones are being dropped after months of radio silence... CMBB (Or its demo) was released around Aug 31 last year IIRC... The retail release date of BMBB SE was recently moved up signifigantly on the EB Games website (Though its release date has moved around so much there I'm not sure how much that's worth)... A quick glance at the calender and the bottom of my tea cup to read the leaves... And voila, I predict September 9th for the whole shebang. Do you think I'm being too optimistic or pessimistic?