Ardem

ETHNIC CLEANSING! call it for what it is 'Genocide' he murdered 1.5 million Armenians, to rival what hitler did with the Jews. And still the little of the West know about it. Beating the allies at gallipoli was not to hard, considering the bad turn of events and the selfishness and stubborness of Imperial Commaders I still don't believe their are great commanders, I do believe that their are only bad ones. You win battles in war and politics by making the least mistakes.

Ike, I loved Napoleonics and having to hand paint them, but all that record keeping on scraps of paper on morale and casualties that was the pain.

But unlike CMC, Close Combat 4 sucked

You do know that Eichenbaum (maker of Operation Störfang) has much of Crimean peninsula heightmapped? He seems to have moved onto a different project, but might be worth asking about... </font>

Arr bugger me they are too. I missed that in reading it before Although it does say planned but I am sure they will be the only ones.

BAH George washington, if the british allowed themself to send their full weight, they would of crushed the independence. But the british had to make sure the french was kept at bay. So they employeed a lot of colonials and mercenaries (hessian) troops that couldn't even speak english. It not that george washington won it more that the incompentent generals they sent and 2nd rate troops lost it. The American history books don't point this out, you should check out the stats of what the british sent compared to what they had a home waiting for the next war with the French. Where do you think the highland regiments were or the guard regiments or some of the better dragoon regiments. Not in the states It would be like saying ho chi mihn is the greatest general over every one because won the war in vietnam, against the biggest nations in the world. The allies lost that war, cause they had no real reason at the time to truly commit to it. The british the turn around 20 years later, and kick Napeleons arse in portugal spain and then france. Then fight them against a few year later and you think that if they send those troops instead george washington would of stood a chance. Please... [ November 23, 2005, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

I am assuming with CMC there will be some default operations already included, and other people are going ahead getting ready to make their operations. It would be a shame for those people if say they were working on the same terrain and battle layout. It probably not possible but is their a way hunter you could say what scenarios would be included?

Personally I going to be trying my hand in the crimea, they are not very well celebrated battles. But they were some tough fights, probably the time the russian started to hit back. Rather then absorb the punishment. I would reccommend finding a couple of people to share the load with, it can make it less daunting. But map making is not to hard, if you want an idea of terrain get google earth it gives most time a rough example, I find I am able to pump out a good and realitic 2x2 map in about 2 hours, without a detail map. Contours: Here is the way i approach it do the rough contours first, then I imagine water run off and great the creek beds and little gullies. Natural Vegetations: Then I put vegetation in more near water sources and less of the peaks of hilltops. Town Planning: Then i put myself in the mindset of a townplanner or farmer and do the roads and farms and chop down some of the vegetation that would of had growth. This 9/10 gives me a really good realistic shape to the map. And if it needs spicing up I think of a certain industry that could benefit from the landscape, say put in a rock quarrey, or a Collective, possibly even a timber mill. I hope this helps.

I think stacking of battle maps like 2-3 battalions and a tank battalion against one battalion would be cut short especially if artillery is implemented well. With all those forces a few barrages would knock out a lot of troops. The reason why stacking would not work to well in CMC.

I remember reading this part, IIRC he was testing and training his officers in combined arms tactics. Didn't capture my imagination as much as some of his other achievements but would be a good winter operation.

If that is the case how can you tell the difference between a break through and a retreat? Is it all dependant on a flags, So there is no way to say punch a hole through the middle and exploit it with back up forces?

Keeping on the subject of battalions and not Divisions, totally different concepts. How about the 1st and 3rd Ranger Battalions surrendering near town of Cisterna. Italy. They were ambushed then surrounded and didn't last the night. Admittedly this was through a lot of pressure by the germans. How will CMC cope with this or do we need to destroy every last jack of a man. Or lets look at Operation Market Garden, surrounded and cut off yes fighting did happen but surrendered was due to being cut off. Or we could talk about the Italians surrendering in droves, there is heaps of stories of Italians battalions surrendering to a handful of Aussies, simply cause there supply lines could not cope anymore. Funny we always remember the wins and conviently forget the losses. But if a unit is surrounded and they walk off the CM battlefield into a enemy hex (square) is it considered that the unit has surrendered? Otherwise it be a gamey approach just to walk your units off the map not to be killed by the opposition [ November 20, 2005, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

I have though about the role of recon in the games, and I would like to propose an idea that might make recon fun and exciting. Instead of having a computer randomly put in what the opposition may or may not have for equipment, allow for space where the player has to manually put what it see in the unit. Ok example. Recon Dagger uses it scout cars and skirts the battlefield, he has seen a platoon of stugs and about a battalion on troops, which make up this, he feels he has enough information and withdraws off the battlefield, he was lucky to supress a few infantry but no major damage was caused either side. The player now makes the icon on CMC as Enemy Battalion and notes down what he believe is consisted in the force. But he didn't spot the Tiger Platoon hiding behind a hilltop. After many battles and recons in the end he would have an a good idea of the consistancy and makeup of the enemy units. And it really makes recons and probe engagements worth something. I rather this way then you get close to a unit and the computer then gives you a listing of what the enemy has. Probably not explained it well, but hopefully you get my drift. I would like other opinions? Additional information maybe recieved like unit name and even radio intercepts, that might allow you to add extra detail, but should be listed in a like an event log. And captured troops should reveal the makeup of their immediate battalion. [ November 15, 2005, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

Unless your holding a LAN event then it makes perfect sense, as everything is real time. But regardless it doesn't matter if CMC is PBEM people can open up their emails plot their moves, and send in a lan environment. Although I do think in a multi environment, that CMC should have a master server on one of the players machines then sends out emails to all competitors which in turn respond back when all emails have returned then the master plots and calculates. Then rinse and repeat. I hope its not like a daisy chain of emails, as this would add to much delay. Also I would like to note, that you could not play CMC for 2 hours without stopping and fighting a battle withing 2-3 turns unles syou use auto resolve even then, I would estimate maybe 45 mins worth of TCP/IP before a battle you wanted or about 6-7 emails whcih going off previous fast pbems I done where the person is on the other end about 1 1/2 hours. But for me CMC is not for a quick game, it about having a good campaign where ever battle would be fought. [ November 15, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

But being a operation, how many units would be in column march for long. I see only reinforcements or units which are to switch flanks to be involved in such column marches.

Yes but this is an important bug to fix, so I just want to make sure the beat testers test this thouroughly.

That might be a bit sucky if the flag is in open land with good line of sight from a distance, hopefully the radius of the flag is increased, otherwise we always going to have to put something in the centre of the map so troops are unnessary wounded for making sure you hold the flag

One thing I have noticed and tested in CMAK, not tried it in CMBB, is when using quick battle with loading in a map. Regardless of the map edges set in the scenario design the AI setup and the way the troops retreat under fire is always East-West for instance all AI Axis troops will align themselves with turrets facing to the East, or the troops when getting shot at prefer to run to the default east west sides. I have done several tests and it always the same using quick battles and importing maps. I don't know how CMC is bring across the data and maps, but I thought I bring it up to make sure it is something you test. Cause it really sucks when you do quick battles and loaded maps and the map edges cause all types of issue in game.

That is possible if they have access to the CMBB code to drop in the unit name field. -------------------------------- Currently in CMBB we only have the option to change the officer name field. So I think the question being asked is, are the field names such as unit name, officer rank field and Company field, will CMC overwrite these defaults, that come from the CMBB editor. Or are you just using the officer field to designate units and descriptions. Also i found the Officer field limiting, will you be providing a new gui for CMBB to display the extra lengths in any name changes?

Steve, I don't live in a cave unlike the major of people think australians do, and there is no shrimp on my barbie. The year you set in, would be the election year or close to it, there is strong sediment in pulling all our troops out and the opposition party will be leading that call, if they get it power they will move out in a second. Australians have had enough of been lead around the nose by American foreign policy. The reasons why we ended Iraq and Afganistan were at best niave. Even I supported both causes, the nation was divided 60 40 split. Next war anywhere US will be going by itself. You don't live here, I do, I think I am able to guage public opinion here better then you. I have friends which have syrian decent, they speak french and english. You think the french jumped an down in Iraq, that would be nothing compared to Syria, even to the possibility of leaving NATO and the Brits well they don't want to upset the french anymore, my brother has been living for 2 years are saying that the British want to get there boys right out of the middle east and back home again, and never to go back. The bad PR about WMD linger in each other countries minds and we feel duped and silly, and the general poplus felt it was about Oil and US interests. We only staying there so we can restore order and leave the place in a less ****ty mess then is was after the war. What I am trying to say make it a US thing, but I would not put it in the story line to drag NATO or other western powers. You once said you interest in modelling close to historical events, so I say make sure your storyline fits some type of semblance. As the US people who think they know what public world opinion is and never lived in the countries you speaking up for, you just making yourself sound silly.

Answering your points I am an aussie, and so I am close to home understanding bali, both this one and the major one a few years ago we have some friends of my wife who lost relatives. So it close to home. But I view the invasion of a soverign country totally different then the act of extemeists. Do you think the British should of invaded Ireland to stop the IRA, or do you think, china shoueld of attacked some of the US assest due to its involvement in Tibet when it was going on. I am not a left win radical, I don't protest and I am come from a very pro-right family. Even now I am starting to question the US justification in it events. So if you were asking my opinion whether I think Australia would back another US led invasion into Syria, I would say probably not, it would be political suicide for leaders in this country this time around. I have never voted Labor (left) in my life, but if we supported, next election would have my labor vote. So to answer your question I still do not see it a plausable, especially in your time frame and definately not a UN backed expidition. [ October 09, 2005, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

The more I see this, the more I am thinking that BFC is playing on the wrong side for the campaign, Syria strong ties to european countries like the french who have had a long friendship with the syrians dating back pre war2, and the russians after ww2. Its almost like watching the opening of ww2 where the germans (US) are invading checz,(IRAQ) poland(SYRIA) on the what they felt pretext of justification. I would like to see NATO shatter, the french and russians back the syrians with their own personnel. Seriously how many invasions are the UN going to allow the US to have so close together? Regardless of your poltics all countries get edging when one nation becomes a constant interventionalist.

I am disappointed not so much for the modern aspect, but definately, I would of rather world war 2. But for the US centric campaign, why create a definate attempt to put one perspective on a game. Having my wife coming from that part of the world, concerns me, how many games out there are whether developers know it or not creating a good 'US' verus evil 'Arabs' atmosphere and a US only option to me, promotes this attitude. Perhaps I am a bit more sensitive to this, then other people. As for the modern game I still consider getting it but would ask BFC to review the US centric campaign. I do think if you do go the US only option, you might be suprised about the level of dropped international sales, but I could be wrong. [ October 09, 2005, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

Totally agree, the expericenced NCO's creates more of the backbone and rallying of the troops more so then the Officer. Infantry is a little different then the armour. I imagine when you wipe out the plt unit, you wipe out the XO, plt sgt, and other people who lead the unit. So when the plt unit is gone who will step up to the plate to take over the plt. Which Squad leader? Armour - when the tank leader dies, you would have the next tank commander in line to take over, so it be nice to see the lines of command transfer to him.

For the enemy it would depend how far away they were, there might be damage but no visable effect. That why in many cases a knocked out tank might be repeatedly knocked out, because the enemy was not sure. Perhaps visable effects should take precentant to what occurs Currently, the firer instantly knows when a tankis knocked out or abandonded, maybe it should be visual effect only, and perhaps we need a command which is a play dead command. That would make even dead tanks a bit more of a worry.