Cymru

< may be apocryphal: Sometime in the 50s the British did an efficiency study of getting artillery into action. Watching film, they noticed two men who stood at attention throughout the entire procedure. Eventually the found an old-timer who realized that they were the men who used to hold the horses and had never been reassigned.

This is getting to be worse than the Peng thread: I should never have started it.

Oh no! Now he will add that one to his list

That's okay: I don't have many, grey or otherwise.

At 68 I am beyond worrying

Some time back there was a thread about our age, and I was surprised to find than the average was around forty. I assumed this was an aberration, WW2 attracting older players, but it seems we are mainstream The average gamer is 37, according to the Entertainment Software Association, and for the most frequent buyers, the average age is 41. Totally blows my image of pimply teens in their parents' basement.

Sometimes the behavior is medal-worthy. In a game of Cats and Dogs one US jeep got hit early on. The driver started to run down the road, and continued over several turns, until he reached the far side of the map and presumably scored victory points for his side. During that time at least eight German units fired at him in the early turns, then no one fired after he got halfway across the map (maybe a silent tribute to his determination).

In a recent battle my armor was in trouble, so I ducked behind a building and hoped for a flank attack as he came by: which worked pretty well. Now; if I see an enemy tank disappear behind a building, I make a note and am a bit more careful when operating in that area. So, does the AI 'remember' that tank, or is it strictly 'out of sight, out of mind'?

For the designers: when you create a scenario, and assign starting positions to the defensive units, do you intend these to be used as is, or do you expect the player to move them? I tend to assume the former but have noticed that several scenarios start with a bombardment of the very positions that are occupied by the defense. This seems a little unfair, but maybe that is taken into account in the design of the play balance. So, do you expect us to leave units in place, or are the starting positions simply a suggestion? For other players, do you leave the set-up alone, or move units?

When the Eastern front module comes out, there will be Punishment Battalions who march ahead of your troops

I am mainly type 4. Nearly all my play is QB, which is not nearly as much fun as it was in CMx1. At 68 I am biased about declaring whether or not us old codgers have the wits to play anything new, but I probably spend as much time playing as I did 10 years ago. On a more general note: I have noticed many games tend to get more complex, have better graphics and more options with each issue. I am not sure they necessarily are better games (as in fun). I remember the first Railroad Tycoon as being far more fun than the later versions, as was true for Wizardry. I don’t think it is simply the novelty factor wears off, Myst got better with each round. If I had a magic wand, I would combine the playability of CMx1 with the graphics of CMx2 but have resigned myself to trying to learn how to play better under the new system.

Is there a dedicated gamer out there who would like to set up a mod and scenario rating thread?

Ah! The Olson conjoined quadruplets.

So, if I have read this right. My original problem was that my offboard assets were ‘incompatible?’ with the onboard spotters. Shouldn’t the QB be limited to picking combinations that can work together?

The top secret transparent clip: you can immediately see how many rounds you have left.

As someone who played CMBO then years ago, then came directly to this game, I had (still have) similar problems. Bottom line for me is that I have to be much more careful, act paranoid and move slowly. Behavior that worked most of the time in CMBO gets you killed very quickly in the new system. So far I still don't enjoy it as much as CMBO, but I assume that will come as I improve.

A couple of weeks go I mentioned three QBs Ii got in succession, with the following mixes 1; no troops at all, only foxholes 2: 20 PSWs 3 16 Marders

As long as the radio is working, I am not sure why losing the FO is such a critical problem: surely the remaining members could call in the observed fall. Granted FOs receive some specialized training but I would rather have an untrained backup giving me arty support that get none at all.

I can no longer look, since I gave up. But one is a FO and the other the Battalion commander, so I cannot see why they would not have sufficient authority. As there were no other requests for Arty, it cannot be that they are not considered high priority.

Overall, it would seem to me that the Germans would know more about the local terrain, at least in the first few weeks. Most of them have been there for some time and have had plenty of opportunity to scout it out in detail. The Allies have to depend on various forms of reconnaissance, with the occasional friendly local helping out.

I am playing a QB and have both a forward Observer and a Battalion Commander with radios. Neither is injured or under fire. Both have been in their respective locations for over five minutes. Both receive ‘Denied’ on all off-board artillery. What am I missing? Thanks

Hey, just really good camouflage!

Ooh ooh!! I know this one. When its ajar! got any others?

I just generated a QB, with random conditions picked. When the map opened I had a bunch of foxholes, but no troops at all! Either the Germans had got pointers from the Japanese on ninjas, or they are playing a really high-stakes bluff. Just tried another: medium Meeting engagement. I get 20 PSW 234/1 and four tanks!! Third try. 20 Marders and four PSW 222s Clearly things need some type of tweak: while the scenario might be fun, in a perverse way, it is hardly a reasonable simulation

It seems to me that there are two incompatible wishes that are being expressed. One is for realistic behavior of both equipment and men at very detailed levels. The other is for more complexity, along with larger and more varied units. In reality: what is the largest number of individuals you can control in detail in a battle? I would say a squad, maybe a platoon if you are lucky. How much will you know about what's going on beyond that level? Only what you get second and third hand, with increasing delay. So, if people truly really want realism they should probably be content with *very* small battles or at least minimize their micromanagement of most units. I have no problems with recognizing that this is ultimately a game, so I see no conflict with me being able to fly all over the battlefield at any height, peer into any location and generally mess around with each unit as I please. As a result I am happy with the game and its inherent contradictions (though I do still miss randomly generated QBs as in CMBO)