GreenAsJade

(unnecessary comment deleted) [ March 08, 2005, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Hey - can we have some of those for CMAK?

Schullenratf hangs out in "Technical Support Thread". I reckon there would be a reasonable answer there...

I agree with that completely. Moltke had all the feel of Wolf... sheer terror and continual suprises! When it's so easy to make "yet another scenario" these ones that feel so different and unique are diamonds indeed.

Thanks Kingfish - welcome back to the land of the living!

Yep got it - must have been company firewall. I suppose I should have been working anyhow

no pic?

It is a top scenario, and thanks for not spoiling the later material. Well done for moving in cautiously. You must have figured that the advantage to be had in moving cautiously outweight the advantage the enemy would have had from being able to move forward across all that long terrain uncontested. If in fact that was what the enemy was in fact having to do.... Do you think it's fair to call a scenario "Meeting Engagement" when the setup zones don't match that though? In this case it was I supposed "fair" because the designer set up an ambush quite effectively. But it's a bit tricksy isn't it, since the one and only piece of information the "battle type" gives you is "where the setup zones will be". (Well, OK, also relative forces sizes). [ March 07, 2005, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Yeah - you could say flag rushing, but remember this is the beginning of a 60 turn *Meeting Engagement*. It's not the middle flag that I was "rushing" towards, its an apparent base on "my side". First let me say I think it is a design that worked wonderfully to a particular effect: an ambush. I'm just wondering whether really smart players had some way of working out that this "Meeting Engagement" is actually an "Assault"!

(although in my previous message (above) I wrote "top scenario") I think there's some confusion about whether I'm complaining here. I'm not complaining as such, I'm exploring the idea of how much people rely on/use the "Meeting Engagement" etc description of a battle in forming their plans... just want to be clear that I think this is a top scenario!) So. You're the axis, right. You read the briefing and look at the map. A "meeting engagement" with quite a long map, some flag at either end and some in the middle. So - that near town is mine to start off with, and the far one is his, right? How many of you honestly twigged that the @$@^#$%^!@%^%%^!!! allies were going to be set up in ambush, closer to you than the nearest town!? Wow - it sure was a nice joke on me, that's for sure: GaJ... now hastily trying to pick up the pieces!! [ April 10, 2005, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

OK - I really am going to post a big ole spoiler. So if you haven't played this *top* scenario, go and play it first then come back and talk about it! GaJ.

Hear hear. What he said...

... not that anyone else would know, since this AAR isn't posted yet...

Can you comment on whether these are for H2H or vs AI, and whether they are historical or balanced. Thanks! GaJ.

I thought PBEM was the the most important cornerstone of CM. Afterall, I do play them exclusively. (runs for cover )

There is a vanishingly small chance that you will get the same map. GaJ.

If I could have just one thing, and have it soon, it would be ... search by "best played as".

Just checking about the CMBO thing - it turns out to not be something I need to chase up with McMMM?

PBEM/TCP or vs AI?

The "balance indication" stats themselves are (obviously?) found in the links I gave ( CMAK, CMBB) , which are just before my sig you quoted The raw data is in a system called BAR: you click on "BAR & Stats" button in the left panel about 6 down from the top on the WeBoB Home Page. That will take you to a place where you can see the results presented by player and by ranking. If you want to manipulate the data (for example, to get the "balance indication" stats) you need to ask mike8g for the raw data (or I can send you the copy I have, but my copy is always slightly out of date). Cheers, GaJ.

Belive me. It is possible! I can write a resident "program" (some kind of troian) that will affect Your TCP connection (randomizing one of 10 000 send bytes) and f.e. destroy some *.dbf files. You will not see any difference in IE, mail programs, etc., but in CM (and other "every point is impotant" TCP games) You will see such a strange things as You wrote before (f.e. changing troops experience _after_ buying them, disapearing units, etc.). Every good TCP game sending/receive it's TCP data coded. So i can't plan what that "****ty resident" will change, but it will affect the transfer = "bugging" the game. </font>

Hans, your T2 Recovery says "this is a beginner's scenario". What do you mean by that? Cheers, GaJ.

Has this really been said? I sure hope not. The only way I can get a game in is 2-4 turns a week via email. If there is no PBEM, I'd rarely play. </font>

I'll go look at those. Interestingly, the stats from WeBoB show that unlike Pershotraveneve Ridge, Petrarcholi Ridge did not turn out to be so perfectly balanced. (Admittedly off the results of only 6 games, compared to the 17 recorded for Pershotraveneve (which is the all time most balanced scenario measured so far)). WeBoB CMAK stats WeBoB CMBB stats GaJ. [ March 04, 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Hey, big dude, hit "enter" to get a new line instead of letting the text wrap. For example, edit your post and add an "enter" after "system limiting", "manage it:", "good visibility" etc How it is probably looks OK on your screen, but makes many people's have scroll bars and stuff. GaJ.