Kursk CMx10 campaign looking for players

[JasonC]

We have scenarios - 6 of them, in fact, in the first operational turn. This looks like it will start rather large. If everyone plays we are OK, commander-wise. They've been sent to all concerned.

[Akula2]

I see the 6am battles are out and up for grabs.

I think 6am is way too early for war. It's an unGodly hour. I know God and He ain't up either.

Seriously though, good luck.

I would love to see a campaign run off of a company sized board game such as Panzerblitz/Panzer Leader some day.

These two games and more are available for the computer on something called VASSAL for free wich GJK turned me on to.

GJK and I play ASL on VASL. It's a stroll down Amnesia Lane.

I came to CM looking for my roots but this is getting ridiculous.

[ April 19, 2005, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Akula2 ]

[WimpBastard]

Looks like it's already started

Any chance of me joining in mid-way?

(And i forgot to put my email in my last post, it's wimpbastard@hotmail.com)

[JasonC]

To late comers interested in taking part - it is still possible but not automatic at this point - up to now it has been. We have to see who actually shows up and completes TCP games, and who retains interest. My experience with these things is that there will be people who lose interest or find they don't really have the time, after one game or after 1-2 months. Generally speaking, I've needed alternates well into any campaign I've run.

At the moment, we have 6 players on a side and are generating 6 tactical fights - but whether we keep up 6 tactical fights per op move may be doubted. Usually, you need more players than fights to find room in people's schedules to get a pair online, quickly. On the other hand it isn't fun to be signed up for a campaign, but not have any battle to command for weeks at a time, because there are only 2-3 fights per turn, going on.

If the side commanders think they need them, I'll add extra players now. But my own sense is that it is too early to know we will really need that many, and have games for you. So me, I'd leave the late arrivals are alternates - but expect that I will need them at some point. Fair?

[JasonC]

Eicke is out and wimpbastard is in, on the Russian side. Welcome wb. Email with details and scenarios has been sent to you.

[Eicke]

Jason, if you don't like my name fine. You can and should complain to BF. They could remove it. To remove me from the campaign for it is petty.

[JasonC]

Not the reason, only the subject we were discussing when the reason appeared. And I don't see what BF have to do with any of it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Eicke:

Jason, if you don't like my name fine. You can and should complain to BF. They could remove it. To remove me from the campaign for it is petty.

Jason isn't being petty. Don't know what prompted his decision, but I was one of the ones to complain. Theodor Eicke commited disgusting atrocities against prisoners of war as a field commander with the Waffen SS, as well as organizing and running the concentration camp system, which puts him responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Anyone who would willingly choose such a name as a sign on here, as well as a gmail address, is obviously either insane or immature. Either way, not someone we need to waste a lot of time with. Good riddance, and thanks to JasonC for his decision, whatever his reasons may have been.

[ April 21, 2005, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JasonC]

For the record, that was not the reason for my decision, though it was the subject matter we were discussing. I asked, in private email, for an explanation of the choice of handle. I got snippets and attitude. I had no objection to any of the content of what he did tell me - he told me about a book on the history of the 3SS that he read and liked, which I know to be a fair book etc, he assured me he is not a Nazi etc - I just did not find the answers on point. He never actually told me why he picked the handle. He doesn't have to, if he wants that to remain his business, that's his business. But I don't have to deal with people who won't answer such questions.

In the end he told me he would not discuss the matter further, which made it easy. I don't play CM with people who in my estimation aren't entirely straightforward with me, when asked a direct question. T-E may see it differently and think he did answer me - he made clear he didn't think I had a "right" even to ask, which I am quite sure I don't need - that's his affair.

[ April 21, 2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[DasNoogie]

Jason,

could you go over what actions you consider "gamey". i have played with people who are very strict about what actions you can take and others that say if the game engine allows it, it is okay.

DN

[Platehead]

6 AM East Flank battle vs tdogg to commence shortly.

[JasonC]

I am definitely not in the "if the game engine allows it" camp. Please do not split all your squads e.g. A few up front for scouting, to deceive as to numbers on one wing temporarily, that's OK. You obviously may not play the scenarios before the real event (which "the game engine would allow" but would be outright cheating in this context. You can set up beforehand, as your own side obviously). Please do not abuse mismodeled slope effects with guns. You don't have to worry about gamey unit selection issues since I will give you your units etc. As for things like recon by death with teams and the like, the campaign context should control them. If you get something killed you won't have it next time - simple. Things like exploiting map edges, just play naturally and I don't expect problems on that score. There is one campaign specific item that needs to be controlled - end of game screen intel. You should hit ceasefire before the last turn, and save before hitting go the last time. Send me those files - that is how you end. You are only supposed to get the intel you get in-game, not a no fog post mortem. There is no time limit on TCP turns, but please move promptly if your opponent has already submitted. I don't want to hear the Viennese chessmaster story ("but, but, if I move, I'll lose!") If in doubt, err on the side of historical realism and do not push the envelope.

[Gpig]

Just curious, Jason. What are "mismodeled slope effects with guns?"

Thanks,

Gpig

[Akula2]

Yeah, I'd like to know what you mean too. I'm hoping your not referring to having a gun on a slight reverse slope ... with or without a trench.

FYI, I've yet to hear from anybody on the Soviet side about a game although I sent out a general email.

[JasonC]

I mean putting a gun immediately behind a slope, "hull down" as it were. Direct fire guns fail to hit them far more often than they should, and the tac AI can't tell, so it keeps firing wasting all their ammo. You can put a gun on any forward slope, you can put a gun on a crest line, where hits are somewhat rarer. But putting it just behind a crest close enough to still have LOS forward, is exploiting a game bug for more than historical benefit, and I consider it abusive. Don't do it in this campaign, please.

[Akula2]

Actually, I'd probably never have the opportunity to do that because I'm on the German side.

We do differ in our opinion of it being a bug or not but I can easily ensure that it won't happen by my hand in your campaign.

I just figured if it was a bug it would have been fixed by v1.03.

[JasonC]

It was toned down, but it is not easy to actually fix. Because the whole existing shell flight algorithm is sensitive. What is happening is the flight path of the shell is a degree or two high, and the result is a very long miss when it clears the hill, or a degree or two low, and the result is it hits the front of the hill.

What isn't entirely accurate in this is the degree of "golfing" involved, in dropping a shell just on the other side. That requires modeling of the parabola of the shell's drop not with a range function abstraction, but with the full physics in the vertical dimension, and making sure the aim-point error stuff works with that correctly.

It also requires accurately modeling direct hits ("on the fly", not after "landing") on guns rather than vehicles, before the shell hits the ground. Which is not what the existing HE model does - it plots a "shell intersects ground" location first, then applies blast "firepower" from that location. It is not, in reality, that much more difficult to hit a target 1.5m high just behind a crest, compared to on it. In the game one is easy and the other nearly impossible.

The advantage of a gun should be stealth before it opens up, not greater-than-concrete-bunker defense from any run-of-the-mill slope.

[Booz]

I have sent Akula2 the setup for 1KM West. That battle should be starting soon.

[Platehead]

After two false starts because of connection problems and then a total power failure at my location the 6 AM East Flank battle was completed. First one down.

[JasonC]

Sounds like a saga. Good news that the first is done, thanks.

[JasonC]

Aftermath reports have been sent out on the first battle. The Germans took the location of the east flank 6 AM fight.

[Freder]

Well Late to the party but if you need a German I'm here for reinforcement duty other wise look forward to seeing how this turns out

ElfWizardofChaos@msn.com

[Da Beginna]

Congrats to your excellent idea. I'm quite busy right now, but I enlist to stay in reserve until someone needs my humble knowledge to be tac com of any side (would prefer the German side, though).

Keep it going, I'm looking forward to AARs and screenshots!

eMAIL:

shaq-o-manski@web.de

[Akula2]

Dave and I just finished up the 2nd battle wich was 1km West.

As long as nobody is left out I'm available for another if anybody is unable to play due to scheduling problems etc.

I really enjoyed it.

Thanks Dave.

[Booz]

Thank you Robert....enjoyed it!