Paul AU

Sorry, but I had to re-quote this: "Our bombs are smarter than the average high school student. At least they can find Kuwait." (Quoted by fytinghellfish ). (The quote is as smart as you want it to be).

CMx2 is designed the same way CMx1 was designed in terms of the scale. There’s lot of people like me who prefer the company sized game. It’s true that the element of chance grows as the game-scale shrinks, but personally I find the workload of larger games cancels out their advantages. Because you still have to manage things at a platoon/squad level. So, just a reminder that some people are very happy that CMx2 is staying at the scale CMx1 was designed for.

I’m sure CMx2 will be great, and I’ve read BFC’s whys and wherefores about their new “thin slice” policy. But I’d like to ‘me-too’ what BloodyBucket said, (and continue with his meaning of the term ‘module’). "CM1 had too many goodies, too long a playlife, and you had better get those idea out of your pointy little heads right now", is how I read it too. “Perhaps I'm one of the guys to blame for the whole module idea, as I was happy enough with CM not to be lured in to purchasing CMBB and CMAK.” I only ever bought BB. I considered AK a ‘module’. I’m think that I’m going to be annoyed by the “collect the whole set!” marketing path. It’s a shame that BFC will ‘never’ do a CM:BB again. The (well, a) good thing about CM:BB was that it has such depth, ‘goodies’ and shelf-life. That’s a large part of what made it the huge stand-out that it was. I think I’m feeling disappointed that there’ll never be such a stand-out again from BFC. It feels like Sid Meier saying, “Glad you liked ‘Civilisation’”, but Civ II is going to be released in modules of geographically specific 20-year game-time-periods.” "You can't have everything...where would you put it?" - Steven Wright

I was playing (against the AI), one of the scenarios on the original disk… Germans attacking with tanks/Stugs across a fairly open map. The briefing said, something like, “it may be hard going, but don’t worry, you have a full squadron of ground-attack air support…” I thought “oh no!” “How do I call off the air support?” Sure enough, my planes did more damage to me, than to the enemy. It’s indicative, I think, that my gut reaction was “oh no.”

>> CMx2 is ground up product that is only >> influenced by CMx1, "Only influenced". Gee. And all I really wanted was an improved CMx1. No matter how good or different CMx2 will be... CMx1 deserves a "+" version. "Civilisation II" was "merely" an improved Civ, and Civ III, ditto. Each was well worth doing. Like Steel Panthers II was worth doing. Same program, with many of the niggly-bits perfected. Many user requests, incorportated? So, CMx2 is not really going to be a CMx2? More of a XXx1?

I quite agree that the wow-factor was huge, (and somewhat continuing). But, I'm not expecting CMx2 to wow-me x2. I'd be more than "content" if CMx2 was "merely" an improved CMx1. Because CMx1 is so good.

Don’t Change: (1) Unit scale. (2) Turn-Based mode. (3) WWII Setting. (At least not first-off) (4) The range of historical and geographical options within the one game. Don’t create a game that forces you to play in a certain specific year, in a certain specific area. And then release what’s essentially the same game set in another specific year, another very specific place. (You are going to do this, but still). A large part of the attractiveness of CM:BB was it’s 5 year, six nation, Finland to Sevastopol possibilities. Don’t make the “slice” too thin. Make it thick, and charge me more. (5) The general "feel" that CMx1 has. Change/Add: In order of importance: (1) More control over A.I. units behaviour in the scenario editor. Perhaps reate A.I. various “behaviour profiles” and make these random in Quick Battles, or scenario-designer-settable. These would effect A.I. aggression, etc. Ideally, some system of plot-able ”way points” for A.I. formations, that will force them to make approaches along a designated path, at designated times. “On turn 4, move to this point”. (2) Improved LOS tool. Manually checking each line of sight, point to point, every time, is so tedious, that games are often won or lost dependant on who can stand doing this the longest and oftenest. I want a “click here to see what the selected unit/point-on-the-map can see” button. I recall being told “this can’t be done”, but, any improvement in this regard would be an improvement worth making. (3) Ammo resupply – even if BFC considers this unrealistic (4) Time delays – for opening fire. Similar to the 10 sec. delay-units used for movement. (5) Immobilisation-probability Toggle. Give the player the option of never getting immobilized on roads or flat hard ground when travelling at normal speeds. Even if you think it’s unrealistic.

What "easytarget" said. Also I agree that "1. Allow sorting the scenarios by "best played as" should be top of the search tree.

Very interestng, Bigduke, thanks. I too, had wondered about all that.

"...isn't the AI's behaviour affected by the fact that he can see my troops and moves as well? " I assume that the 'A.I.' doesn't register it's opponents level of F.O.W.. Why would you think otherwise? I've never noticed a difference.

"... And yet I opt for riskier, more daring tactics, which again results in needless casualties." Yes, me too. Although I think that the more boring a scenario is, the more likely one is to be... 'Adventurous'.

I played this scenario (as the Germans, default AI positions) about a week ago, and enjoyed it. Thanks, Andreas. I sent a larger proportion (more than Krautman did) of my force on the long wheat-field flanking move. It was my main thrust. I held a couple of platoons back, also on the far right/south, waiting, ready to cover-fire, and draw fire, when the flankers needed relief. And just one platoon in the left/north woods. These made a tentative probe to cross the same ground that Krautman’s did, but rather convincing enemy fire sent them back to wait for the “all go” moment, near the end. But my attack looked pretty similar to Krautman’s, in general, just far more weighted toward the wheatfield hook. On the ‘near’ hill; I only moved up MGs, coy commanders, and arty spotters. I sent one arty observer and a lone tank-hunter team on the extreme left/north flank, trying to get close on the west edge to provide additional ‘Borg’ cross-vision. The wheat-flank move went well, but burned time. At one point I thought the whole flanking idea was a big mistake, because it was taking so long, for all it’s ‘run’ moves. Crossing the road in front of the wheat fields took some luck, it being covered by a T-34 and infantry. I may have got lucky, with that. My flankers eventually took the south/right hill flag well, with the help of prep arty, then rolled down through the centre-rear of the village, and took the other hill flag. The ‘T-34’s; survived the battle intact, taking potshots the whole time. They did dissuade my front (non-flanking) forces from trying to close, until the very end, and did some damage when these forces finally did open up and try to advance. In fact, my frontal forces were basically pinned the whole game, by the mysterious T-34s. My frontal forces, about three platoons, tried to add frontal pressure, and drawing fire, only when the flankers were crossing behind the village . But the T-34’s fire seemed to be fixed forward, so most of my force was safely ‘behind’ them. I never seriously contemplated even trying to take the tanks out. I never got the rearmost flag. The (very)small force I’d peeled off to take it was repulsed, and I ran out of time and men to make a serious second attempt. I used arty to shut up early long-range enemy MG fire from the back of the south hill (perhaps a waste), then rained it (blindly) in advance of my flankers as they took the first hill. I don’t know what good it did, but I fancy, some. My AT guns… Never got a hit on the T34s, instead just shelling infantry targets in support of whatever move was on at the time. I lost one as I tried to move it. I didn’t think-through my initial AT gun placement well enough. I underestimated the stopping power of the T-34s and just a few enemy infantry, as they stood-off my frontal forces late in the game. Had my frontal platoons been able to close, closer, as was the plan, more of my flankers would have gone for the rear flag initially. Was fun.

According to my father, an eyewitness… (2nd battalion) The British parachute regiment was training some Gurkhas to jump. Had them in a hall, explained the idea of jumping out of a ‘plane at 1000 feet. “Any questions?” “Yes sir. You mean, we jump out of the airplane one thousand feet in the air?” That’s correct. “Won’t we get hurt?” No, no. I’ve done it myself, a hundred times. (They looked at him with new respect) Some consternation - but they agreed, if the English could do it, so could they. It was only later, that they understood what a parachute was.

Buying guns in an unseen (offensive)battlefield is just a gamble. But, if you like a gamble: Just push-‘em. Towing is too fiddly. The idea is to “clear” (or at least heavily engage) the field of gun-killers that are likely to be in range, usually with your armour. This makes your guns (And for some reason I’m assuming you mean Infantry guns, not AT guns) are finally pushed into action, along a road, at best, on a hill, certainly, after your armour is already well engaged, or ready to become so, These guns are second-half or end-game players. The gamble can pay off big-time. The rest of the time, there’ll just be no hill, no road, no use. Really, just don’t do it. (On the other hand, I like a gamble too).

...please confirm that they were playing with default setings for the AI? Ah, no, I can't confirm that. It was a long time ago... "...suggests, playing with the AI free to place units." Quite possible in my case. Perhaps that explains it. (Still a good scenario, though...)

Der Kuenstler, knots in the code. There's plenty. Just think of it as part of the Rich (knotted) Tapestry of Life. "Five metres? That can't be! That's inside the room!"

With regard to the opening post, I'd read the idea refered to, and took it seriously. It's (usually) a pleasure to see any well-run challenge to historical orthodoxy. (Or any other kind of orthodoxy, in fact). 'People' do have a tendency to invent simple myths (because they're simple) - and run with them. But as to the second part of the O.P., "...how to repeat the effect of blitzkreig on a CM scale...", surely one can't? "Blitzkrieg", myth or not, isn't a company or battalion-level thing. "It'll take more than a pointy hat, and bad breath to defeat the armies of King George, sir!"

"That's all I'm saying." I know, what you're saying.

"Remember the pain? It’s been a few years (?) since this scenario has been thoroughly bitched about." Has it? (I just checked the pics, to make sure we were talking about the same thing….) That makes me feel good, because I won it first (and only) time around. I loved the map especially - it inspired a few 'mini' maps of my own. It was one of the most enjoyable scenarios on the game-disk. Small but interesting. (And not too weird). I think it was the only time I really did outflank and ‘flame’ a bunker… Granted, things got a bit desperate towards the end…. And time-pressure caused a few 'letters-home'…. But I’d rate it very highly as a scenario. Hard, fair, no ‘silly’ suprises, no ‘forced’ moves. It was what it said it was. Excellent.

Well… I rather remember one of my first ‘serious’ battles against the A.I., when I first got the game. After I figured I’d got the basic idea. The cool thing was, eventually, that all my previous general wargame knowledge was enough to win the scenario. I felt rewarded that the game was in-line with what I thought I knew. Mind you, this was the game when my only tank bailed, without even being hit. Leaving to me to face a brace of T34s with nothing but infantry. But my raw tactical guesses about long range MG covering fire, guesses about terrain effects, and etc, worked, when I had no idea that they would. They did, and so I was impressed with the game-engine. And the amazing 3D immediacy, of course. Not so much a ‘war story’, as a gaming epiphany story.

(This is a little 'inappropropiate'... ... albiet in response to sustained unprovoked... shall we say, 'abuse').

Why do I loose… Mainly, because I don’t care enough about winning. I haven’t memorised complete tables of AFV stats, which gets what ammo in which month…. or year-by-month-by-nation infantry characteristics. (Nor am I gunna). I don’t slavishly check the LOS from/to every tile every one of my (or their) units will be entering. I haven’t got a terrain-effects/LOS table taped to my wall. Don’t have Excel spreadsheets on firepower/ammo-to-cost charts. For all the B.S. and palava that lots of ‘winning’ players come out with here, 90% of their victories are due to the fact that - they have. Other than that…. Among my other (real) weaknesses are a penchant for the high-risk, high-reward maneuver; an over-reaction to any casualties of mine; and a reluctance to be passive in defense. I should be a little less Rommel, a little more Montgomery; I should be more like Field Marshal Haigh; and learn to sit still when I should. “Hell, when he first came out here, he thought he was John Wayne, going into Iwo Jima. I saw him deck an admiral for torturing a prisoner! Now… he does the torturing himself. You boys take a good look at him - he’s one damn fine American killer!” - How Sleep The Brave

When allowing the A.I. to chose forces (Germans or Russians), it often seems to supply a whole gaggle of light armoured cars (or lend-lease half tracks, bren-carriers, etc). I was wondering how ‘historically correct’ this is. Did frontline engagements really frequently feature whole strings of these? This often? I’m just curious, ‘cause it’s at odds with my idea of what ACs were for.

Alsatian, I would also Feel Miffed, not being told that dynamic flags were in use.

While I won't be playing anything that's Real Time, I have wondered if BFC have considered... At some point, when CMx2 sales have dropped below a certain level, (once CM 3 takes over) re-releasing a made-over version of Cmx2 - which does in fact feature well armed space lobsters? I think there'd be a market out there for it, a different one from BFC's usual. And having been exposed to a CM-style system, some of that market will migrate to BFC's historical games. I suppose it depends on how much work would be required to convert the original CMx2 into a Space-Marine, laser-blasters and weird terrain type-game. I'm saying this because I don't think it'd be much. (Just think of all the historical research you wouldn't have to do... and I'm betting the CM 'community' would lend a claw). Sorry if this has been an inappropriate place to raise this. But I wanted to plant the seed of Project Lobster, somewhere. "They’re in here. They’re in here alright. There’s something moving in here – and it ain’t us!"