MORE answers to all your questions here!

[Maastrictian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

I think this is already modeled through fanaticism. There is a chance that a unit will go "beserk" but the player doesn't know if or when it happens; the fighting effectiveness of that unit is increased. At least that's my understanding of how it works.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I definately think fanaticism does a good job of modeling this, though you are not likely to notice it.

For instance, I recently had a 6lber open fire on a colum (5 tanks) of German tanks at 500m. Hey, I had a flank shot on a Panther, figured he would die honorably. The plucky little guy faced down all five tanks, slaughtering each and everyone of them, despite sustaining three minutes of direct HE from them. He took 4 casulaties, but that lone guy just kept fireing.

If that's not beserk I don't know what is.

--Chris

[Mikael]

Any chance of including inaccurate or incomplete maps, maybe as an option? On the Eastern Front especially, the commanders' maps were often sub-par. I find it unrealistic in CM to know every inch of the battlefield, even as the attacker, when the battle begins. And no, I don't want to play with Franco's True Combat Rules! I'm not quite a masochist yet! Only half-masochist!

[Stalin's Organ]

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

If that's not beserk I don't know what is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then clearly you do not know what berserk is (just appart from not being able to spell it!! ).

The original "berserkers" were Scandenavians - Vikings you might know them better at. The best theory I've heard of is that they were psychopathic schizophrenics. They worked themselves up into a FURY where they would just fight whoever was nearby - they were incapable of telling friend from foe, and ignored minor wounds - they kept fighting with major ones too, but it's hard to ignore, say, a missing arm.

There were never many fo them, and they apparently made great tax collectors!

Your 6 lber crewman may have been insanely brave, but he was not berserk!

[Pvt. Ryan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

they were psychopathic schizophrenics. They worked themselves up into a FURY where they would just fight whoever was nearby - they were incapable of telling friend from foe, and ignored minor wounds - they kept fighting with major ones too, but it's hard to ignore, say, a missing arm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, you mean Maximus? He's already included in CM. (Just a joke Max!)

It's my fault for spelling berserk wrong.

[Tanaka]

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

One of my pet peeves is having the grunts fire their weapons at 400m, when I want them to run for cover to cover. Will there be a HOLD FIRE/FIRE AT WILL command?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These type of commands, in stile of TacOps, would be a very fine addition... Much more important then teleporting troops between buildings :eek:

[Pvt. Ryan]

I think the new "run" command will simulate this. Running troops will not fire as much, if at all. They will just try to get to their destination. There will also be a new "assault" command where troops will advance quickly while using available cover and firing automatic weapons.

[Triumvir]

Does anyone know where I nominate units for commendations?

Setup: I've been reading books by John Antal and thought it would be interesting to duplicate one of the armoured attacks he sets up (first mission in Armour Attacks, if you have the book.)

An M1 company was due to attack a platoon position held by three BMPs, one T72 and a platoon of infantry. To duplicate the M1s, I chose Panthers (natch). For the BMPs, I took Cromwells with 95mm guns (so that the hollow charges would mimic Spandrels/Spigots) and for the T72, I took a Firefly. As for infantry, I had one British platoon with four PIATs.

The long and short of it is that one lone Firefly killed seven Panthers, entirely through my stupidity.

I have screenshots at home (but no Net connection, sob) which show a nice neat line of four Panthers knocked out from the rear, in perfect convoy formation. The gamey bastard AI had left all the units where I'd placed them, except for the Firefly, which enfiladed the approach I was using to the rear of the ridgeline.

The first Panther died at 0:05, and every seventeen seconds thereafter, another Panther died. The bastard AI had even enough sense to spray the advancing Panthers with .50 cal fire to force them to button up (though since they were facing forward, that wasn't much help to him.)

A very humbling experience

[The Commissar]

Stalin's Organ summed it up before I could. "Berserkers" are the ones who go mad with battle rage and attack the enemy without any thoughts of their own safety. Think of it as the exact opposite of a rout, where a man thinks of nothing but his own safety and getting as far away from the enemy as possible.

Fanatacism (or the way I understand it) is pure stubborness instead of a berserker like state. I think the fanatic units are the ones who refuse to break and run despite sustaining heavy casualties. While this is indeed a brave, honorable, and insanely dangerous act, it is not going berserk. A "berserker" would, in theory, scream like a maniac, froth at the mouth, and charge through a field of gunfire only to throw himself at the nearest enemy squad with arms flailing. Whether he would live through the charge itself is a whole different matter entirely.

The thing is, such an attack is bound to demoralize the enemy greatly (watching an adrenaline-pumped, armed maniac attack your platoon mates like a frenzied animal is bound to unnerve most people) and in generally distract the enemy enough for the other troops to get away or even counterattack.

Of course, the limitation Pvt Ryan sited is very true. An entire squad is very unlikely to go berserk. So I think this sort of morale state could ONLY happen when there is two people maximum in a depleted squad. This also serves a useful purpose for limiting berserk troops. Most squads will rout before being depleted to one or two men.

I think this could work, if a few details were etched out a bit. BTS? Maybe for the re-write?

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord General MB:

Steve, as I belive this was not answered in the prevois thread: Will tank MG's jam?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this one was answered:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No plans to make MGs in tanks jam, but we might add this. In any case, from what I gather they jammed far less than field deployed MGs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

- Chris

[StellarRat]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Then clearly you do not know what berserk is (just appart from not being able to spell it!! ).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should check the spelling of "apart" before you make jokes about someone's spelling....HE! HE!

[argie]

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

You should check the spelling of "apart" before you make jokes about someone's spelling....HE! HE! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And also Scandinavian, BTW

[bowman74]

OK, have one. Can we please change the saved game format, it drives me crazy. We have a nice WEGO turn resolution but an IGO-UGO results viewing and orders submission phase. Drives me crazy because e-mail games take about three times longer than they need to.

Another WEGO game, Stars!, has one saved game file for every player. The player then views the results of the last move and submits his orders at the same time the other player(s) does! The game can now take both turn files and create new turn files for each player. The most optimal way to do this would to allow a command line option with no interface (even for errors). That way, players will be able to make web sites to automate this so when both players upload thier files, the new turn is generated and they can then download their files for next turn and keep going.

this would make PBEM so much better and the games so much quicker. Nothing I hate more than viewing the results of the last turn, sending it to someone else so they can view the results and do orders, then getting it back so I can do orders, then generating, then sending it to him so he can view the results and then he... Arggggggg!!!!!!

Thanks,

Kevin

[Maastrictian]

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

OK, have one. Can we please change the saved game format, it drives me crazy. We have a nice WEGO turn resolution but an IGO-UGO results viewing and orders submission phase. Drives me crazy because e-mail games take about three times longer than they need to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason they use the format they do is to prevent cheating. The process can be streamlined but not as much as you describe. Please see: PBEM turns (ahh, my first post)

--Chris

[YECoyote]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22:

I think what YEcoyte meant was when you're troops are running from cover to cover.

Lets say it's 50m between two houses you're squad is trying to get to.

All of a sudden an enemy squad shows up, 300m away. My squad opens fire on the enemy squad which is 300m away. That is ridicilous.

This kinda of thing happens to me all the time. That kinda a thing should be fixed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep. That's what I meant. It's a damn waste of ammo, especially when the scenario is 45+ min (heck, even a 20 min fight, it's still a waste of ammo).

[Mord]

You already stated that fog of war will be lifted for AARs. But just how detailed will they be this time around. For example, will we have a tally of officers lost in battle?

Mord.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Then clearly you do not know what berserk is (just appart from not being able to spell it!! ).

The original "berserkers" were Scandenavians - Vikings you might know them better at. The best theory I've heard of is that they were psychopathic schizophrenics. They worked themselves up into a FURY where they would just fight whoever was nearby - they were incapable of telling friend from foe, and ignored minor wounds - they kept fighting with major ones too, but it's hard to ignore, say, a missing arm.

There were never many fo them, and they apparently made great tax collectors!

Your 6 lber crewman may have been insanely brave, but he was not berserk!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, well, should I say it?

Yes I should.

Anthropologist digging around in a Stornoway site were Scandanavian Viking site was forund discovered that men fallen in battle often had odd leath cords in their grave. Literature reveals that these cords were tied arouind the Vikings testicles very tightly then sealed with hot wax to whip him into a "fighting spirit" and make him worthy of transisition to a higher plain should he die in battle. Now, I do not know exactly how these anthropologists came up with this, I was very quickly reading another article and trying not to think about that particular form of self mutilation.

I am not sure that the Squad leader assignment of fanatic troops as a national characteristic to Russian is fair, but since the tool is already in place to have fanatics, no harm is done if it is used.

[Panzer Leader]

It says "more answerss to all your questions" but all I seem to see are more questions, and they even seem to be veering into the ridiculous...

[Berlichtingen]

Ok, let me kick a question out...

Any chance of having any of the following options in scenario design...

1) Side specific VLs that only that side can see during the game

2) Setting VLs so that one side cannot see them

3) In full FOW, having the VLs disappear after setup (ok, that's not a scenario design issue, but it deals with VLs)

[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). In case of a bad (corrupt) turn generation, turns can be re-gened by the player that volunteered to be the game administrator, but all players are notified by e-mail if this happens (because they have to go to the admin page on the server to do it and the server automatically sends an e-mail to everyone saying it was done). Players are also notified by e-mail when the new turn is generated (when all files are submitted). See http://library.southern.edu/stars/stars.htm for an example of one of these sites.

These sites are so prevalent and free that cheating has never been an issue with Stars! I’ve played a lot of games with complete strangers. It just does not happen because no player controls the turn generations or can do it in secret. Heck, BTS could host such a site if they wanted to. I wrote one for Stars! in less than eight hours (of course BTS would make a more professional looking one and spend, say two days).

If you say, well who is going to host these games for free? Trust me, people will be writing hosts sites like gangbusters with our fanatic fan base, just like Stars! They are so easy to write and host. I am not suggesting some radical new idea here. This is something that is tried and true. Can someone from BTS please check out the Stars! game and see how easy this is to implement. http://www.crisium.com/stars/.

Thanks,

Kevin

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

The reason they use the format they do is to prevent cheating. The process can be streamlined but not as much as you describe. Please see: PBEM turns (ahh, my first post)

--Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Will CMBB QBs allow for TRPs when the computer

chooses the forces?

It's a feature I really wish CMBO had.

Will CMBB support preplanned and on call fires?

It would be very cool if one ordered the firing of such a mission and a colored signal flare sprite soared into the air and burst. Even cooler would be some simple logic that would allow a walking barrage. The fire could start on some defined line and walk in predefined jumps at a specified rate. The ability to plot defensive concentrations, a box not a TRP, would be nice.

Will CMBB support Teller mines as close defense AT weapons and as harassment weapons?

Will the Hafthohlladung and Panzerwurfmine be modeled?

Will we see the S-mine modeled in its gory glory? Could do all sorts of damage to a human

wave attack.

Will we see the ability to create field scrapes during the game?

Will the Russians, based on numerous German reports, receive bonuses for rapid entrenchment and field camouflage?

Will camouflage paint on vehicles and guns be factored into chance to spot?

Will additional nets, scrim, brush, branches, etc. reduce chance to spot?

Is there any way to model the German powder type advantage to at least partially offset the demon of absolute spotting and give the Germans an advantage they historically enjoyed?

The Allied reports I've read speak with great frustration of how difficult it was to spot German guns and tanks when they fired. This was particularly true in damp and wet conditions or where the Germans put down tarps

or oil to keep down the dust.

Will there be provisions for high rate Final Protective Fires from HMGs and provisions for presighted firing into smoke?

Will there be some fix to the mechanism by which a squad now fixates on a single onrushing target, only to get squashed by an ignored one nearby? In reality, all exposed targets would be shot at.

Will the appropriate models of the 88 be able to fire from their wheels over a limited arc?

Will the 88 be provided with its full range of ammo?

The accounts I've read describe the use of MT

and HC to combat infantry covered Russian tanks.

Will crew shelters be provided for AT guns and artillery in at least prepared defense scenarios?

Years ago I saw a Bellona pub on German field fortifications. That one had fire positions for the gun and a ramp leading to the underground shelter for the gun and crew. The whole thing went under nets, naturally.

That's all I have at the moment. Thanks for asking!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Grisha]

Will Soviet antitank grenades be modelled, such as the RPG-43?

[Tero]

>It says "more answerss to all your

>questions" but all I seem to see are more

>questions, and they even seem to be veering

>into the ridiculous...

Shall we continue our "more serious" debates that got cut off when the old tread got locked up ? So that we get some spunk into this tread

[Tero]

Will the bunkers and pillboxes still get spotted with sound contacts ?

[VonHeinrich]

I don´t know if anyone has said it before, but there is a preview of CM2 at gamespot.com.

[Culex Pipiens]

i want to submit some questions to BTS:

1)it will be pre-game barrage?

2)can you switch betwen .cmb and .cmc maps?

3)can you make a quick battle with a premade map?

4)will be present fordable rivers tile?

5)can you choose the terrain type in a QB?

tanx :eek: