Peregrine

This a game so there will always be gameyness, I just think high point VLs maximises the meeting engagement gameyness which isn't what CM is about. These are also meeting engagments rather than assaults on specfiic locations. Unless the map is a mirror image before you even start one player should have a noticeable advantage. I was daunted when I first started playing CMBB/CMAK PBEMs and actually kept detailed records of every battle I fought so as not to repeat mistakes. In all the games I played I never lost a meeting engagement because I didn't hold enough VLs or I got dudded by the map. I hope that doesn't change.

Haven't seen the balance in practice with the CMx2 QBs but it would be a shame if too much emphasis is on the victory locations. I can't see how this wouldn't result in even more suicidal attacks for the sake of the VL. More importantly in the two players PBs I think it is important the battle loser gets credit with a lower victory condition than Total loss. I have played a squillion QB MEs PBEM and I don't think I ever saw a Total Victory. Hopefully in the next month it will be a squillion and one. PS I saw that my preorder amount in AU$ was less than the full amount US$. Whoever is in charge of your economy keep up the good work.

I didn't QB CMSF as I don't single player QBs and never two playered CMSF (actually tried and hated it). Looking at the CMSF manual the explanation is pretty basic. There is the "terrain objective zone" and the "enemy-casualty victory goal" which is "lowest for meeting engagements". I suspect that it will probably work out with the correct person winning but the degree of victory being presented will be different to the CM. We'll see.

It would be crime not to include that classic in the box or in the demo for that matter.

Understand the above but for all it's realism CM lacks something even the crappiest first person shooter has that requires victory. Teamwork.

Confused about the result in that you got exactly 1000 points. How are ground points and parameters broken up? I am cringing at the thought that too many points are attributed for holding the victory locations and nothing else matters. Large MEs were the most balanced battles in CMBB/CMAK and in my opinion while the victory locations were important they never truly decided the game. Whoever preserved their force best and most mobile at the end of the game did. Just hoping that the QBs aren't slugfest over victory locations because that would make them gamier than they already are.

They have all finally come around to realtime over boardgames and play nothing but Starcraft II now.

Deathly silence. We will see for ourselves soon and we will be able to complain or congratulate with correct conviction.

I am not concerned at all about getting benefits from multiple shots at a single target but a tank that shifts it turret about unnecessarily is sometimes a bit jarring. I am pretty sure I have seen this happen in CMSF but the problem isn't as acute because taking multiple shots from one spot is not a good idea and modern tank rotation time helps camouflage it happening. I see this as a problem in the TAC AI behaviour. I don't think that if a tank crew spotted something worth shooting at that they would immediately (almost?) rotate the turret away from the threat if they lost sight of it, unless of course something nastier appearred or they could see the threat got zapped.

I can remember CMBB T34s shredding whole sqds when close enough to use it. Nasty.

Not sure what you are researching but for generic tank capabilities and Battalion make-up CMBO/CMAK. Probably the cheapest option too.

Not sure how common scouting was. With my relatively limited reading of accounts for sure some crews a single member (typically the TC) scouted ahead where other tank crews simply never did. It could be tricky to implement and still preserve some sort of historical integrity. Do you give all crews the ability or just a select few?

In CMBO/CMBB I am pretty sure they nerfed the effectiveness of abusing bailed crews in this manner by reducing the spotting abilities and not so sure but they also had a high points value so you didn't want to get them killed. Another solution could be to give them very fragile morale. In real life a bailed crew would have limited if any communications with friendlies. They would be doing there best to preserve their own lives in whatever way they saw fit.

The lack of SMGs is something that Battlefront acknowledged earlier in the thread and were going to look at.

I don't think something like this would presentable in a useable way. Imagine how long it would take to calculate everything CM does in a single minute turn. And even then you don't have hit percentages. All you would know is a round is leaving one location in another direction. Practice will teach you alot and random chance doesn't and shouldn't play as big a role as alot of people think. Also before you know it this forum will be covered with gunnery range results giving a lot of this vs this is good and this vs this bad in terms of tank combat.

Funny. When I originally chipped in I thought I was clarifying an Australian's view of the units that actually fought in Normandy and an American's perspective of the Commonwealth but I think JonS said he was from New Zealand so the there is America and everywhere attitude that sometimes popped has been non-existent. Maybe Commonwealth is being used instead of what might be the more general British term to give the Canadians credit so they don't invade while all the US forces are in the middle east.

I think this thread needs to ditch the term Commonwealth and someone with a better historical knowledge me than me to list each nationality that had at least a division fighting in Normandy in the 3 months(?) that the module subsequent to CMBN is planned to cover. Battlefront might give us an inkling what they are planning or they might not. PS Was Commonwealth even the generally used term? I have only one Normandy book on hand and after thumbing through it I couldn't find a single mention of Commonwealth. The landings were simply American Beaches or British Beaches. If the book got specific it mentioned specific army groups and nationalities, when the book generalised it was simply American or British. The divisions present were from US, Great Britain (all parts), Canadian, French and Polish from the simply summary. I didn't specifically go through the 15 page unit list to see if anyone was glossed over.

It is a bit ugly but against humans the games tend to get a bit more gamey. After your initial loses your opponent is obviously ahead. At this point for him it should be run and hide. Am I right the green area in the middle was a victory location? If so the best thing to do for him is hide everything of value and recon with infantry. The onus is then on you to do something special to make up the ground while his units of value are keyholed in spots with quick escape routes or geared up to clobber anything the tries to occupy the VL. I have always felt large QB meeting engagements are the most balanced simply because if I lost it was because I cocked up. Either tactically or in my earlier days doing something a bit too extreme in force selection. Also that little victory condition bar in CMBO/CMBB/CMAK was too useful in letting you know how are going. Once you are ahead (say 58 to 62%) it is tricky to reign someone in unless they start overcommitting their units.

I have got zero problem with Battlefront naming the second module a generic "Commonwealth" and including other armies that were not part of the Commonwealth as part of it. Names have to be simple and I am in no way suggesting that whatever the second module is called specifically mentions each nations forces. That would be dumb. I popped into the conversation because earlier in the thread a whole host of Commonwealth nations were listed that should not be present simply because they did not participate in Normandy (on the ground). I am not backtracking to quote but I thought I read that the Poles should be included because they were Commonwealth forces which is not true. They are allies that fought in the left flank or the British or the Commonwealth flank. I hope the Poles are in. From memory in the original CMBO interface their units emblems were the best and a couple of the scenarios that included them had a really good atmosphere to them.

It is not being overly semantic. Lumping Poles as part of the Commonwealth is just not right. Whether they had similar kit and how their divisions were used is irrelevant. The colonisation practices (happy or not) of the British Empire that eventually evolved into the Commonwealth was long and for sure different nations in the list have different statuses at different times. But the point is the link that leads a nation into the Commonwealth simply does not exist between England and Poland. Never. Throughout the war they are simply two allied countries.

Worst comes to worst couldn't they just sample Gene Hackman saying "but what about the Germans" from A Bridge too Far. Would be a little sad if they didn't make it. I remember a really good scenario from CMBO with them v SS. I think it was set around the closing of Falaise. If they weren't in the 2nd why couldn't they make the third which is Market Garden?

Core units can work as long as it is the bulk of your force and the additions are just specialist vehicles platoons or sqds to help you along so the battles can have differing flavours.

OK quick summary. Aren't we talking about content in the second Normandy module. Poles are allies but not part of the Commonwealth. Not disputing the actual presence. So on the ground the only Commonwealth forces were Brits and Canadians (and Newfoundlers if they were separate to the Canadians). The point I am trying to make is that Battlefront has been indicating that the next module is the Commonwealth forces in Normandy which shouldn't include all the commonwealth nations as they simply were not there.

But all said and done this is a land based game. In Normandy there were no South Africans or Indians correct? Where did they serve? I thought the South Africans, Indians and Australians only served in North Africa? New Zealanders made it to Italy becuase they trusted us Australians to keep the Japanese away and the ****ty European weather is just like home for them with the bonus of pizza. Again this is not somewhere where I am strong in history especially the naval/air units but did Australian units actually participate at all in Normandy in any capacity. There would have been Australians there in numbers due to the way our duel citizenship and transfer between armed forces works but was there actual Australian units present?

What Commonwealth forces served in NW Europe in the Normandy period? There may have been Australians, NZ etc in British and Canadians units but I don't think there was a dedicated unit that was that a specific organic unit of a separate nationality. And for that matter the only Commonwealth units that served in Europe apart from Brits and Canadians were New Zealanders in Italy. This part of history isn't my strong point so don't be afraid to flame. As for everyone essentially getting their dues essentianlly the current Current Mission Battle for Normandy probably needs an asterisk. CMBN* the US bit.