Noiseman

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?

I'm not at all sure this would be gamey. If I were a general at that time in that place I'd do that very thing and call it tactics. Other, more knowledgable guys, will probably prove me right in just a few minutes. </font>

I was just looking at the EB Games website and noticed that CMBB is scheduled to be released for retail on Oct 14th. I must say the box cover looks very cool, a Tiger II looking mean amid a rubble strewn city... Hopefully this bodes very well for a relatively near release date for CMAK. After all, one must figure that CMAK will be released via battlefront.com before CMBB is released retail. I freely admit that this is pure speculation on my part, but it does stand to reason. Maybe less than sixty days to go...

Several minor reasons acually. Scenarios tend to be a bit larger than I like, and for the most part I've only played QBs. Most importantly, I've been burned playing other games online (Mostly first person shooters). Somebody always knows the map better etc. While I don't think people here would stoop to such things, I'd just assume start with a fresh map each time. I see your point with computer picked forces, I suppose I should let it just pick both sides more often, but much like women like shopping for clothes I like shopping for armour and mortars! The most frustrating thing sometimes with QBs against the AI is that it will pick some really stupid forces for itself, but if I pick it's forces I know what's coming, which ruins half the tension (fun) of the game. Usually I pick my own forces at a 30% penalty for an attack on the AI who picks its own forces.

I think I'm going to take the plunge into internet play over the weekend. As such, I've been curious how others prefer to play CMBB QBs, as I'm not too interested in playing preset scenarios online. The answers to the following questions should be for your favorite settings, not for what you are willing/unwilling to play. My answers are the listed ones. Point Size: 1000 or less Force type: Combined Arms Force Chooser: Human Nationality: German Terrain type: Village Atk/Def/ ME: Random Year: Random Weather: Clear Some of these choices are harder than I thought. If push really came to shove on the year I'd probably pick 1943, but I really enjoy the different challenges of all the years. Also I will probably defend at first online, but overall I prefer it to come up randomly. I am pretty hardcore on point size though. Just out of curiousity, here are some optional questions on your most common display options: Scale size: +2 Bases: Off Most common view level: Three Warning labels: On Trees: Scattered Some of these questions may have been asked before a while back, but preferences can change over time... [ August 07, 2003, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

I guess this begs a general question for all forum members: What scale do you play at? Personally I'm usually a +2 man with bases off. If Tweety's unit type scaling idea was adopted I'd go: realistic vehicles/bunkers, +2 infantry with bases off. Of course I will use bases in heavy woods etc. That's a given for everybody.

A book not listed in the bibliography that I thought was excellent was called With Rommel in the Desert by a junior officer on Rommel's staff named Heinz Schmidt. I'm sure it's out of print now, I read it in the seventies, but I'd love to get a hold of it now. Later in the African (Tunisian) campaign the author commanded an anti-tank battery which he describes tactically in pretty good detail IIRC. First hand accounts are rare and invaluable...

That's a really great idea! Why didn't I think of that... The main reason that I sometimes have to switch to Realistic scale is so I can see exactly where vehicles/bunkers are in relationship to buildings/obstacles. Having vehicles at realistic scale, and then infantry units at a larger and more visible scale would be the perfect match. I still contend that round bases would look better though [ August 06, 2003, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

It may sound pretty petty (it is), but the colored bases in CM are kinda ugly. Once in a while I find it necessary to view the game at realistic scale and have to use the bases to see units. Just as a matter of aesthetics, I would think that they would look much better if they were round instead of square. I'm pretty sure that the squares can't be made into circles via a mod because they're probably hard coded, but what's the harm in asking? While I'm at it, why don't I ask that the bases look like muted national insignias or flags? I'm mad, mad I tell you! So what if the units disappear in the pattern of the insignias? I told you I was crazy! Where's my Prozac?

I've had a real rennaissance with mortars recently. I ignored them for years, but now they're one of my 'must have' purchases for a battle. They are invaluable against AT guns. You can spray ATGs with all the rifle and MG fire you want, all the bullets will do is bounce off the gun shield. Lob a few mortar shells in and the tanks are rolling forward again...

Great pics, I didn't realize there were so many German tanks left in such good condition. The only ones I've seen are the ones at the Aberdeen Proving grounds museum in Maryland, and they were allowed to rust away outdoors for many years, a true shame. It's funny how different the tanks look in photographs taken today when compared to historical photos. Thanks again for posting them!

Things have been slow at the office, so I loaded CMBO on my office Mac. It was the first time I'd played CMBO in a long time, and the first time I've seen the un-modded version in years! Gosh, it seems so primitive now :eek: It gave me a great appreciation for how far CM has come. It really made me notice all the tweaks and tender loving care that went into CMBB. When I first got CMBB I guess I was so engrossed in the gameplay that I didn't appreciate all the little stuff, such as the ammo bar (instead of just numbers), not having to press the shift button to move the camera side-to-side, improved muzzle flash graphics, etc. And the gameplay is so much different in CMBO, marathon runner infantry that never tire, simpler commands, a much faster pace... It took me a while to get used to CMBB, but now it's hard to go back... It made for a very pleasant stroll down memory lane... :cool: By the way, I love the fact that CMBO effortlessly adjusted to the wider aspect ratio of the iMac screen, something brand new games designed for OS X can't do...

One thing that people tend to overlook about Napoleon in the 1813 campaign was that the armies had gotten too large to be effectively controlled by just about anyone, Napoleon included. Many times he came to the cusp of great victories, only to be brought short by command breakdowns (and lack of cavalry). Consider that by the next time that armies of comparable size were fielded in the mid 1800's, telegraphs decent roads and railroads were in existence to speed communications. Wellington, while a brilliant tactician and strategist, generally commanded relatively small armies against mediocre opponents who were fighting in hostile territory. I have a hard time considering him to be Napoleon's superior. Don't forget that at Waterloo Napoleon was also running all of France while forming a government in addition to fighting the campaign.

Point well taken, Schrullenhaft . I had a feeling that something like this would be the case. I was remembering CMBO when the squad leader's photo would appear when a Inf. unit was selected, it seemed like an area of that size could accomodate a simple icon of a soldier. So instead of having just one slot for the leader, a slot for each soldier seemed plausible. The more I think about it, the more I realize how difficult it would be to impliment something like this in CM's present incarnation. One can always dream though

It occurs to me that the empty black area on the control bar at the bottom of the screen in CM could be better utilized. It seems like a good idea to me that this area should show a graphic of an infantry squad when such a unit is selected. That is to say, a full strength squad of eight soldiers would show eight stock icons of eight individual soldiers when selected. A squad reduced to five soldiers would show icons displaying five soldiers etc. As the physical area on the bar is about an inch tall, a lot of information about a selected unit (and it's individual soldiers) could be easily and graphically displayed. For example, an inch tall color drawing could easily display a standing Fallshirmjager holding an MP-40. That's a lot of info at a glance-he's a paratrooper, armed with a submachine gun, and as he's standing his morale is good (If he was crouching he would be cautious etc). Each individual soldier in a squad could be displayed as an icon in this manner side by side on the (presently) unused portion of the control strip. I would think this would be very do-able as a similar thing is done with armour units, i.e., the armour thickness chart in the center of the CM control strip. A hundred or so extra bmps shouldn't be a huge burden on a resourceful company like BFC. When I try to convert people to CM the hardest obstacle to overcome is the three person display of the infantry units on the map. By graphically displaying each soldier (In a very low maintainance way) I think it would get the point across that the infantry models on the map are just representative, which would make the game have a wider appeal with no playability costs. It would also add to the enjoyment of a humble player like myself. I don't know if this idea has been posted before, it seems so simple I can't believe it hasn't. If it actually is a new and do-able concept I fear that it may have come too late to be included in CMAK... :eek: