MORE answers to all your questions here!

[Freak]

I was hoping for a revamped, well not really revamped, but a way to organize scenarios and operations in the game. For instance, I am hoping for a way to create folders of scenario types, ie: Kursk or Berlin, and be able to put in all of my Kursk scenarios in that folder, and allow it to be accessible in game. Say that in the scenario pick screen, you can view you scenarios in folders if you want to or not. And you can create folders to better organize you scenarios. I know Steve is familiar with the Mac OS, so I was thinking that maybe the scenario pick screen could work like a mac folder in "list" view. This way we could open a folder and see its contents by just clicking on the folder and the scenarios drop down below without having to open a new folder.

I mention this because, sometimes I find that I need a better way to organzie my scenarios. I keep thinking how cool it would be to have all of my "Bulge" scenarios in one area so that I can go right to them instead of meddeling around trying to find all of my "Bulge" scenraios.

Anyway, I do realize that one could go in an alter the name of the scenarios and put a "Bulge" in front of every Bulge scenario but in the long run I think this would cause more of a headache then a solution.

Regards,

Freak

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

I’ll reply here, because the original thread is locked.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

In 1945 Finland was bewteen a rock and a hard place. They had declared war against Britain and had Brtain declare war against them on December 6th 1941. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC Finland never declared war against Britain during WW2. Anyway Britain (and Canada) did so against Finland on 6th December 1941. At that point Britain also was between a rock and a hard place and the declaration was made to satisfy USSR’s request. Somewhat like Finland, Britain too, as a victim of circumstances, was forced to band together with a tyranny and conform it’s desires to some degree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Mannerheim, while a great political leader, was not able to completely keep the Germans at arms length, and while the US, France and Britain had originally been very supportive of Finland both against Russia and Germany, they were not in the mood to face down Russia for her sake after the war when officially she was a belligerant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankly, after the war, I don’t think that France or Britain were in position to support Finland even if they would have wanted to (And even during the Winter War their concrete support was empty promises mostly. Just like in Poland's case). But USA was, in fact, interested to retain Finland as democracy. There were, after all, lots of people who had goodwill towards Finland.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Soviet Union here was able to move an enemy directly into its camp merely by flexing its muscle, and Finland's allies, the Nazis, has so totally discredited themselves that when they fell, there was nowhere else to turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was there originally anyone else except Germany, who could have supported Finland against still continuing Soviet threat after the Winter War?

I don’t think so.

Btw. Finland was never literally an ally of Nazi-Germany, but co-belligerent only.

Ari

[Stacheldraht]

Regarding earlier discussion of the AI and planning, I'd just like to put my vote in for dramatically enhanced AI (if possible).

It really doesn't seem that the AI ever has much of a plan (in QB's particularly), but rather mills around aimlessly. I've seen the AI do things with vehicles that no human player would ever do: lead an attack through dense terrain with them, leave them utterly exposed on all sides, leave them in the middle of a field for a few turns, etc. And of course, the AI leads with HQ and FO units, doesn't use smoke to screen its movements, doesn't effectively use support by fire elements, often opens fire with hidden AT guns too early (i.e., on infantry instead of vehicles), doesn't place defences logically, obsesses over attacking lowly flamethrower units (or was that corrected?), wastes all its artillery on single AT guns, etc.

This isn't a complaint, but constructive criticism in hopes of improved AI.

[Redwolf]

Steve,

one of the things that annoys me in current CM games is that the attacker can place guns in setup, often in LOS of the defenders lines or the victory flags.

That means the attacker can get the guns into firing position without the problem of moving them into position and getting them spotted by the defender (who is usually in excellent observation of places that are in LOS of his lines). That is unrealistic (IMHO), and also a gameplay problem, as the attacker gets one of the benefits the defender should have exclusivly, placed and camouflaged guns.

I would appreciate it if you could find a way that

- either the attacker must move the guns into position

- or attacker guns are subject to observation even when not moving

Fixes could include that the guns must be embarked to a vehicle and that disembarking gets the same spottability as movement. Or attacker guns can only fire when they moved 20 meters or so from their original setup place.

Or as a brutal fix, during the first turn, attackers guns are as spottable as if they were moving, even when they don't move. Maybe CM has a camouflage benefit for units that did not move since setup, and you could reduce that benefit drastically.

Thanks for your consideration.

Martin

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That means the attacker can get the guns into firing position without the problem of moving them into position and getting them spotted by the defender (who is usually in excellent observation of places that are in LOS of his lines). That is unrealistic (IMHO), and also a gameplay problem, as the attacker gets one of the benefits the defender should have exclusivly, placed and camouflaged guns.

I would appreciate it if you could find a way that

- either the attacker must move the guns into position

- or attacker guns are subject to observation even when not moving

Fixes could include that the guns must be embarked to a vehicle and that disembarking gets the same spottability as movement. Or attacker guns can only fire when they moved 20 meters or so from their original setup place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But...wouldnt this be realistic to some degree for the attacker to be able to place a gun in LOS of a VF without being seen by the defender? Say in the woods or something that has pretty good concealment?

[Freak]

Actually I understand your point, I am just playing devils advocate here.

[Stacheldraht]

Will we be able to

* watch full movies of complete battles when they're done?

* save QB maps for future use?

* play QB's on handmade maps?

[James Crowley]

Steve,

will you be showcasing CMBB with an alpha AAR, as was done with CMBO?

This was very effective and what finally prompted me to pre-order back in -- whenever that was.

I'm sure there would be no end of "high- profile" forum members who would happy to volunteer and, if not, then I'd be happy to stand in

[mccooper]

Hello

Well most of my the requests for CM2 have already been asked and some even been answered (ie the replacement of the ambush command and tank platoons) but I don't think I've seen these requests. Although if they have already been requested forgive me as reading all the posts in a time consuming process and I may have missed them.

Anyway

New terrain tiles

->diagonal bridges - placing your roads just to work with the bridges is a time consuming and annoying process. Especially when trying to recreate a historic map (ie right now I'm working on St Lambert-sur-Dives where Currie won his VC.)

->suspension bridges - for a little extra flavour

->the ability to mess up a map little during the creation phase. Right now you can put rubble and burning trees/building but what about shell craters. It would open up a lot of new options. Very simple if you go with 5x5 tiles

weather

->fog density based on percentage vs a couple of pre defined choices.

equipment

->indirect fire for units on the map. Not necessarily tanks but for example when 25 pdrs are placed on the map they can only fire with LOS which greatly reduces their effectiveness.

->able to dig in tanks but you have the option of being able to back out. Sure tanks were turned into bunkers but troops would also create hull down positions and drive away once their position was known.

scenario creation

->improved controls when configuring ammo load outs. Instead of just having intervals of 1 maybe you could include max and empty buttons.

CM1

You've mentioned that it will be too much work to patch CM1 with the changes/improvements made for CM2 but what about importing the TO&E into CM2. I will buy and play CM2 but I prefer the Western front and I would really like to use some of the improvements being included in CM2 ... especially the new ambush command.

Thanks

[mccooper]

Oh and I almost forgot

being able to put KOed and abandoned vehicles on the map during the scenario creation would also add a little more flavour to the missions.

Later

[Freak]

I would appreciate if this could be answered by the BTS team, will CM2 be compatible with gameranger? I know this was brought up by mac users with regards to CMBO, but I was hoping for CMBB to be able to use gamerange to find opponents. If gameranger support is free, then I think that would be great because it would provide free advertisment for CMBB while its gamers would be seen playing "over the net".

I have forgot why the decision was made not to support CMBO with gameranger, so I might be missing some crucial infromation why it wasnt supported and why CMBB might not be supported with gameranger as well.

Anyways...carry on...

[Freak]

Bump

[Fred]

Victory flags on campaign (OP) maps, so that the AI has a hint where to go.

As it is now, an operation with a certain objective (like the Arnhem bridge) is not possible vs. the AI. It simply has no idea to take and hold the bridge.

Fred

[Bruno Weiss]

Will it have a nice shiney box cover.

[Maastrictian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bowman74:

Nope, sorry this does not hold water and I wish I had seen the earlier threads and shot them down there. Stars! is a much earlier WEGO game (predating CMBO by several years) and was implemented exactly as I described. How does cheating not happen? Because there are tons of sites out there that host the game and the turns are automatically generated by the server (hence why there needs to be a command line way of doing it with no interface). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately you are comparing apples to oranges.

CM is (if I may say so) designed for the mass market. Stars (which I've actually played btw), is not.

CM is being released in '01. Stars was released *5 years ago* when cheating was much less of a problem.

CM is a single or two person game where having a central server is not needed. Stars is played with up to 16 people.

The problem with a central server is that 1) bts would have to host it and 2) any non-bts servers would only be as secure as their admins. Once you give one person the power to process all turns the game becomes insecure.

If you read the thread I linked BTS specifially rejected any scheme where one person would be doing all the processing. Whether you agree with this choice or not is moot, this is what BTS is going to do.

--Chris

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

Steve,

one of the things that annoys me in current CM games is that the attacker can place guns in setup, often in LOS of the defenders lines or the victory flags.

That means the attacker can get the guns into firing position without the problem of moving them into position and getting them spotted by the defender (who is usually in excellent observation of places that are in LOS of his lines). That is unrealistic (IMHO), and also a gameplay problem, as the attacker gets one of the benefits the defender should have exclusivly, placed and camouflaged guns.

I would appreciate it if you could find a way that

- either the attacker must move the guns into position

- or attacker guns are subject to observation even when not moving

Fixes could include that the guns must be embarked to a vehicle and that disembarking gets the same spottability as movement. Or attacker guns can only fire when they moved 20 meters or so from their original setup place.

Or as a brutal fix, during the first turn, attackers guns are as spottable as if they were moving, even when they don't move. Maybe CM has a camouflage benefit for units that did not move since setup, and you could reduce that benefit drastically.

Thanks for your consideration.

Martin<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An attacker could have positioned the guns at night, I dont see this as a big deal. You might have an argument about tanks "appearing" in LOS, but it is a limitation for both sides and it could be thought of as continuing a battle from that moment in time forward.

[Jarmo]

Has been mentioned "a few" times already, but having longer (not wider) maps would go a long way into solving the gun placement problems.

[James Crowley]

Lots of questions and the next one is - where are the answers?

Will CMBB be pitched at the same battalion level maximum as CMBO or are there plans to allow for, say, brigade level (for those who like Big battles - not me I hasten to add)?

[Freak]

bump

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

one of the things that annoys me in current CM games is that the attacker can place guns in setup, often in LOS of the defenders lines or the victory flags.

That means the attacker can get the guns into firing position without the problem of moving them into position and getting them spotted by the defender (who is usually in excellent observation of places that are in LOS of his lines). That is unrealistic (IMHO), and also a gameplay problem, as the attacker gets one of the benefits the defender should have exclusivly, placed and camouflaged guns.

I would appreciate it if you could find a way that

- either the attacker must move the guns into position

- or attacker guns are subject to observation even when not moving

Fixes could include that the guns must be embarked to a vehicle and that disembarking gets the same spottability as movement. Or attacker guns can only fire when they moved 20 meters or so from their original setup place.

Or as a brutal fix, during the first turn, attackers guns are as spottable as if they were moving, even when they don't move. Maybe CM has a camouflage benefit for units that did not move since setup, and you could reduce that benefit drastically.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So I guess that it hadn't occurred to you that they may have positioned those guns the previous night?

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Crowley:

Lots of questions and the next one is - where are the answers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This thread is rather poorly named. Steve excused himself from the previous "answers" thread about halfway through so he could spend some time making CM2 instead of talking about it. Most of that thread was just people talking about what they wanted in CM2 and debating various WW2 stuff at random, which is what this new thread is a continuation of (obviously).

[Kwazydog]

Also note guys that it was actually Matt whom started this thread, and he wasnt aware of Steve's previous comments. Hopefully Steve will have time to drop in later in the week but I know at the moment he is very busy taking care of some other matters

Dan

[Redwolf]

(attacker gun placement)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:

But...wouldnt this be realistic to some degree for the attacker to be able to place a gun in LOS of a VF without being seen by the defender? Say in the woods or something that has pretty good concealment?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem here, if you manage to move your gun so that the defender doesn't spot it, you earned it. I just want the spottability raised for a non-moving gun during turn 1.

I cannot agree to the assumption that gun placement at night realistically leads to the gunfests we see in CMBO attacks and MEs now. After all, the defender has patrols and outposts at night. Guns make noise, especially big guns that need to be towed.

I think that raising the getting spotted chance of a non-moving attacker gun to the chance that a moving gun would have (only during turn 1) is only fair and could even be said to reflect the risk of placing it at night. Alternativly, force the attacker to move his guns before he can use them.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

Again I apologise for inconvenience, but because the original thread got locked I’ll post here.

John,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Finland loses the Winter War & sighns a treaty with the USSR. In 1941 Finland see's a chance to reclaim her lost territory by sideing with Germany against the USSR.

Albeit Finland plays an minor role more concerned with re-establishing her pre WW borders. Finland reclaims the land ceded by treaty to the USSR. Now why am I not to see this move, as an broken treaty?, & the Finnish sideing with the Germans as an act of convience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Literally taken quite right. But frankly this seems to be the Soviet point of view only.

Remember, Finland was aware that the USSR was already going to trash the treaty. AFTER the Winter War Molotov asked Hitler’s permission for the USSR to “deal” with Finland once and for all. So the Finns had no fantasies that the treaty would stop Stalin from trying again to occupy Finland. Basing on the Soviet actions a new “winter war” seemed to be looming in horizon. And by the summer of ’41 there were too many examples of USSR’s indifferent attitude to peace treaties (Look what happened to the Baltic States and Poland).

Also the Finns abstained from offensive operations against the USSR until the Soviets made air attacks against targets on Finnish soil. Operation Barbarossa was launched on 22nd of July, but the Finnish assault began only on 29th. The Finnish navy made some mining operations before that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

...from my reading on the matter the Soviet's had very little trouble attaining their goals & even managed to do it in the original plans time frame Ie, Vyborg fell on June 21 despite intense Finnish resistance, While other Soviet forces drove into Karelia, not bad for an operation that only lasted from June 10 - Aug 9 1944 & who's goals had virtualy been met by June 21. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 1944 the Red Army didn’t attain it’s planned goals against Finland. It fell short on all fronts. Basically it was estimated that the military forces allocated against Finland in the summer of ‘44 would have been enough for the Soviets to push into inner Finland and force the country to capitulate unconditionally. That never happened.

Zahl wrote a good post about this on 05-31-2001 in another thread. It tells about the matter from Soviet pov basing on the memoirs of couple of Soviet generals.

Of course Finland and the USSR were completely in different calibers as countries. There were fewer people in whole Finland than there were inhabitants in Leningrad alone. No doubt that given enough time and resources the Red Army would have defeated the Finnish army. In fact there were preparations made in Finland for a guerrilla war, had the worst happened. It’s ironic that it was the tyrant himself, Stalin, who ultimately decided to save Finland.

Ari

[James Crowley]

Ari,

No disrespect, but it is bloody incovenient

This thread is, quite obviously, meant to be around questions and answers on CMBB, the game. It is not a platform for a political debate. This is the sort of off-topic diversion that got the previous thread closed down.

Some of us are interested in the features and mechanics of the upcoming game and would like to hear from Steve, when time permits. I, for one, do not want yet another thread closed off because of a bloody boring argument revolving around national pride.

Wrong thread; wrong forum. Be a good fellow and take it someplace else.