Sgt Schultz

To get away from Guns and back to tanks for a moment... I read that a only the tank's original crew may re-crew a tank. Is this a coding issue similar to the gun code? Is it a unique indentifier thing? Is it an anti-gamey deal? Just curious. You guys know best where your time and effort is invested for the most bang for our bucks. I can see the possible gameyness, but would like the option of getting a tank back in action if the tank is good but the crew that bailed is below minimums and another crew is available. Combining two partial crews to get a lightly damaged tank back into the battle would be nice as well. I completely understand the probable rarity of these events, but wanted to know how difficult/time consuming it may be to include them at some future time. --

Robin Trower, Eno(801 Live), John Hyatt, John Prine, Steve Goodman, T-Rex.. I listen to old stuff but not quite 40's.

Picture a Sherman. Nothing wrong with it at all. The 'Commander' orders the crew to bail out to recon a treeline(foolish but possible). The crew dies performing its mission. Another nearby Sherman is abandonded by its crew due to damage. Question 1 - Can a crew take over a tank that is not its own? Question 2 - Can a tank crew take over a Halftrack or vice versa? Question 3 - Could a German crew take over/capture an Allied tank or vice versa? Bored minds want to know... -

As long as it comes with a manual, they can slide the disc in like CMBO. Although I would pay a premium for a mini-footlocker or ammo case disc container, with the mandatory signed pics of the BFC team.

Wow, I come home from work to find that the pitchfork tines were being sharpened and the torches lit. Bravura performance on BFC's part for the quick sticky and constant attention here. I have been gaming online since there was an internet, and have NEVER seen developer involvement with the customer at the level that BFC continually provides. On a side note... I don't care how much extra I have to pay... please oh please don't make me print out my own manual. CM manuals are some of the last vestiges of true gaming paraphanelia left in this instant gratification, gimme gimme gimme world. I want the 27 color glossy photos with circles and arrows, with a paragraph on the back of each one. -

If my understanding is correct, CM2 campaigns take place in individual battles on individual maps. The results of each battle determine the next map and so on. Is there a comparable alternative to a CM1 "static operation"? If a campaign is taking place in a series of battles in a restricted area, I am hoping for structural continuity from battle to battle. Example... I take down a church in battle 1. Battle 2 is in same place near that church, is it still down? ---- I can of course work around it, but was curious. -

While I didn't play CMSF(and obviously cannot comment on CMBN), in both CM1 and historical reports armor is very vulnerable once its supporting infantry is stripped away/outrun and it is forced to button up. If we are assuming battles in the D-Day timeframe, then most maps will not be plowed, but will in fact be high with crops/grasses. This makes for ambush opportunities. One of the early AARs shows a grenade sailing into a truck full of Engineers from a bush. Think along those lines. One of the first training scenarios in CMBB was an armor ambush I believe, just to get folks used to the fact that tanks aren't uber-deathstars. Anyone can cower in a hole as armor rumbles closer. Hiding is the easy part. Choosing you hiding places and being patient is harder. ----- Once folks get used to a deployed MG42, the word will get around quickly. SMG squads should be coming soon™ to a Module near you. They were little bundles o' death in CMBO. Having an ammo halftrack nearby would make these little bullet pukers extremely dangerous. The tight infantry groupings may be more of a change for CM1 players, than going to WWII weapons will be for CMSF players. No more stretching my 'toons out. No more super-toons made from my best squads and a Cpt(the only way to make reserves for me ). If a player isn't quite the WWII grog, then I think most surprises will be cool ones after the initial adjustment. The TO&E of the Germans as they get desperate means more firepower per person, and Kitties galore. Each module should boost the 'oohh... aahh' factor. You haven't lived until you've fired a Sturmmoser Tiger's main gun. 380mm(yes, three hundred eighty) of what is basically a tactical nuke.

The guys at BFC get a nice reprieve in the first hour or so as everything locks up from refresh monkeys, and then the download servers igniting. So it looks like I am leaning more towards option 3.

It seems there will be testing to do for optimum artillery use. Linear mission opinons only(since that is all we saw) Variables that may/look like they affect the linear arty mission... Caliber Number of tubes Number of rounds Type of mission(harrass, etc) Length of target line The initial viewing was like some kind of gamer porn. The subsequent viewings allowed for limited conclusions to be made. The mission began with numerous tubes firing multiple volleys from each tube to the initial target spot. Second set went to the middle of the line. Third went to the end. Fourth seemed to cover the area between 2nd and 3rd volleys. ---- So, to extrapolate from our set of one... By tuning the number of tubes, type of mission, length of target line and caliber a player may be able to get the most 'bang for his buck'. The preview the map option helps yet again for smarter purchase options for arty. If you have a good idea of what you need to do a job, you won't spend too much or too little.

... to help pass the time until release. http://skippyslist.com/list/ Yes, it's the list. One of the few necros that just doesn't get old imho.

Certain Formations did very well, even polyglot ones such as "Nordland". Some sucked and were eaten whole in a few engagements. The SS had some units that were graced by a confluence of military circumstances that, when coupled with the death squads' actions, may have created a feedback of perceived ability from both within the formations and without. Training, equipment, veteran personnel injected at opportune times, battle experience under favorable conditions... all variables that are shared by any formation in any army. Convince troops they are elite and they will work to prove they are. The better formations tended to be the older ones. At the lowest common denominator... You put a trooper that spent a year in Russia up against a green American who doesn't even know his new squad leader, and well.... Command level ... uneven, but some of the fascists weren't totally without skill. No Rommel or Raus in that bullpen, but some knew how to put the lessons to use. Flip didnt mean it wasn't true. The deciding factor was most likely fanatacism, and perception of the effects of that fanatacism upon both the enemy and the formations themselves... in addition to the reputation of what were basically non-combat units commiting atrocities with SS shoulder tabs. Even the ones that sucked sucked with pride(we are SS so we MUST be the best). They were too hide-bound to change and the commanders were too loyal to replace. The brutally Darwinian process of modern warfare did not allow enough time for some formations to learn. ---- Edit - In CM terms, SS means nothing beyond uniform and TO&E tweaks, because we ain't scared of 'em no mo'. Unless ... like I posted before ... they tend to be more fanatical.

Set Fanaticism to 50% or higher and you get an SS formation. Green or Veteran, they will will perform just as poorly or well, just with more gusto and less breaking. They may wander off and get slaughtered, but they will do so with PRIDE and the secure knowledge of the Final Victory.

Who is Fionn Alex? -- That is just a WAG(wild @ss guess), but it should be close.

1st WWII comp game was a DOS game Battle Of Britain. Chunky clunky flight sim. 1st comp game with any resemblance at all to CM was Panzer General series, of which I had all of them. Once I found CM I stopped looking.

Random Ramblings of a Refresh Monkey We are good to go for a few years. The guys at BFC have truly blessed us, and will continue to do so, with our WWII pixeltruppen and all their assorted toys. After my steel case is full... and the guys at BFC have had their last umbrella drink in their money-counting hammocks on the beach ... where shall we go from there? I saw a post where Steve has deservedly stated he is 'bout done with WWII. I think we can let them off the hook after 12+ years. Personally I am thinking it may be time to take it fictional again. Since CMBO I have had two dreams for your engine(s). They are tiny dreams, but they keep me warm at night. ------- Combat Mission: Fulda to Biscay... Late 60's to mid 70's. Soviets vs NATO. One module. The war is too fast to need more. Optional idea ... same war fought with different generations of equipment to make for more Modules. 60's, 70's and 80's. ------------ Combat Mission: Red vs Blue Completely break the paradigm. Red is soviet-style.. quantity over quality. Blue is NATO-style. circa 1950. Add a set-up interface that allows a player to design and save his units. Example... A tank. Each facet has thickness and slope. 5mm thinkness and 1 degree slope adjustments allowed within the set limits for that vehicle type. 5mm Gun Bore adjustments and 1 unit L/ adjustment within limits. Track width and Engine size adjustable within limits as well. These variables would set the price and stats for that unit once saved. Lots of armor means high ground pressure and low speed. Big Bore means low ammo. Lots of high-end options would boost rarity even farther in a synergistic anti-gamey way. Etc. You want to design a Sturmmie? Fine, but be ready to pay for it. Would you want your APCs to be tracked or wheeled? Six riders or eight? Small cannon/grenade launcher combo or larger cannon? Artillery adjustable in 5mm Bore sizes and three flavors... mortar, howitzer and artillery. You get the idea. You design each unit type for the whole army, and purchase what you need for each battle from the pool. Right at the quasi-historical point of platoon level radios, but no uber-weapons systems. ------ optional idea... Once the total force is designed and saved it is posted to BFC database for possible opponent perusal. This allows folks to have an idea of what they may be facing, if not exactly what or in what numbers. ------

I still have an Encyclopeadia Britannica "Science and the Future" 1976 add-on that had a section on colonies in space. 10,000 people in orbit, sustainable ... with 80's tech. --------------- My personal opinion on needed space tech is more or less divided into short-term, mid and long-term ideas. Short-term, we need to get a vehicle.. now. Retiring the Shuttle with no replacement shows the kind of blatant short-sightedness only seen in US Congressmen. Mid-term... just because Hollywood makes movies about things doesn't mean they cannot happen. The rocks are out there and NEED finding. We have the nukes left over from when we were thinking of ending civilization back in my youth. Long-term... The Space Elevator, or Orbital Tower if you will. Reason A. Too many of us now. Getting worse. Only ONE cheap way off. Reason B. See mid-term. If a rock or comet happens upon us, it may help if all our genetic eggs weren't in this one tiny basket. 20K self-sustainable population on the Moon or Mars or one the large asteroids, and humanity survives. EDIT addition - Almost forgot about Yellowstone, combined with other environmental factors here. May not need a rock to need a reason to get out of the pool. Reason C. The industry needed to construct would drive almost all industry off-planet. Once you have zero-gee factories turning out solar panels one micron thick, may as well keep turning them out. One medium-small asteroid could both anchor the structure and provide materiels for both construction and sale. ----- No Tower ... population numbers will self-adjust. I have no idea how that will happen, but am fairly certain I wouldn't want to be around when it does. ----

The IS2 was only marginally faster than the bunkers it replaced when the Soviets went from Defensive to Offensive warfare. Poor metal quality. Stamped engine parts that ground off full kilos of metal shavings into the oil sumps. It got the job done it true brutish Soviet style, but was just another stepping stone to the future of tanks... The Mk XXXIII Bolo

Use green troops. Their 'commitment' level is rather low, and their highly developed sense of self-preservation should keep your casualty rates low as well. Although... this may result in a higher number of captured pixeltruppen, plus those few fellows that remembered pressing business off the map edge. I take it we don't have the Global Morale meter hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles any more, making sure we do not press our boys too hard. --- Now that would be a handy addition ... Adjustable Global Morale(GM) triggers. Casualties and lack of objectives = falling GM. Time passing and no improvement of measured metrics = falling GM Once GM reaches a set value ... battle ends and calculations for all victory conditions commences. By adding in objectives to the casualty count, it denies formulating exact numbers needed to push the enemy into ceasefire. Historical scenario where the battle ended after few casualties(Recon)? Set it to 65% Fictional Assault with historical units and a good fight ... Set it to 35% for the Defender and say 50% for the attacker. By making the settings adjustable for both sides, each with its own trigger value, you could obviate the need for objective calcs and just use casualties. Scenario designers can build in increases in GM during a battle by way of reinforcements. EX. If the battle takes a lot out of one side early, but too much force at once would be unbalanced, send in reinforcements on turns 15 for a quick boost. By adding objectives and a few other things into the mix(I see steve saying lol at the coding times involved), one could add more granularity to the rise and fall of GM during a battle. GM rises the longer a 'hold' objective is held. Each 'touch' is worth not only victory points, but GM percentage poinst as well... put in by the designer. GM rises/falls as median/average suppression rises/falls. *

I would say that there is a teams guy who will NEVER be able to buy a beer in any spec ops-frequented bar in the world. We can never know his name, but the people who matter do ... his team mates. Raise your cups to the Super Squids of Seal Team Six.

Those are all more or less boilerplate measurements that anyone can make. Make a map with varying inclines and terrains. Place a squad on each terrain type. Give move order. Repeat at least 10 times for each variable introduced. One day of testing will give you a gut feel of what your troops will do in a majority of situations. You will never get exact times, but you will be close enough that most units will not be taking a smoke break at turn's end, and they will not be roaming off into the great unknown either. I did this with all three CM1 games. It helps a LOT. *

Bingo. I started with scenarios rather than maps and this is what happened to me in CM1 time and time again. I would design a mission, assign forces to accomplish and prevent, then start on the map. It would grow slice by slice to accomodate what I wanted to happen. It seemed that historicals were popular, and I couldn't match that fidelity. So I made large maps that could be sectioned as needed. A La Carte maps. Take what you want. Now that it seems that C2 is more constrained, the battles may not take up as much space. You can't have a double command bonus HQ stretching a 'toon out for hundreds of meters before the command line goes red. So that may be a factor in map sizes compared to CM1. --- And yes, I was one of those that designed and played Btn/Reg sized scenarios and QB maps. I will be again too. -- Edit - I believe some small amount of confusion/discord is due to some taking the 'Normandy' part of CMBN more seriously than others in regards to map design. Historicals will be shipping, and there will be many more of extremely high fidelity soon™ after release. The open tank country calls us with its siren's song. The Ardenne whispers with threats and opportunities. The map editor tempts us with its mountain-creating elevation possibilities. I will see miles of Bocage in other maps... give me the range my 88s need baby. No need to wait for the equipment and troop modules to make the maps they will play on in a few months time.

Hobbits would make good tankers though with their small size..

I prefer larger maps and set ups away from the edges. I don't like arbitrary limits to my plans. Make the map edges into terrain features that are clear reasons to be AO boundaries. I prefer creeks/streams or ridges. It is an immersion thing for me, and if the other side really, really wants to play flanking maneuver then no gamey edging is needed if the map is roomy enough. Plus, if the terrain and vehicles allow, one could even get behind an enemy on a larger map with objectives near center and setup zones halfway between objective(s) and friendly map edge. Larger maps also allow for multiple mini-battles to occur for various terrain features and/or objectives, without the ability for almost instant reinforcement from other forces. Two Companies with a few attachments sent on a task for a reinforced Btn sort of scenarios/battles. You probably have enough to do the job... but darn that's a lot of diverse places to hold.

Signs you may be an old wargamer... You always try to park your car hull-down to the threat axis. You have that moment of worry about being caught by artillery at a very long traffic light. You examine roadside scenery for tactical opportunities(a lot of us seem to be coming out of that closet) You watch more History and Military Channel than all other forms of passive media combined. You keep old war games that niether you nor anyone else will ever play. You have punished a cat for running across your battle space and ruining 2 hours work. You can stack tiny cardboard counters 6 high with NO LEAN.('don't block my LOS string') etc etc

Tanks are much more fragile than they would first appear. Grinding brush and tree branches into one's treads would probably be a way for the driver to really anger the rest of the crew, as they pry all the crud from the thrown track. Also why just Leroying into a house with a tank was contra-indicated for most sane crews. I am assuming there will be a quite satisfactory sound effect as our pixelpanzers grind through the underbrush. If not, one could reasonably expect a mod soon™. They DO knock down fences. Not sure how much in the way of perma-tracks they leave in other terrain types yet.