RESULTS OF THE SO CAL PREVIEW

[John Kettler]

Naja,

I tried to cover as much as I could for the benefit of nonattendees, while not stepping on even one of the forbidden topics. In fact, I went to extremes to avoid such problems. Since I haven't had private or public rockets from BFC, ACTOR, KwazyDog, Madmatt, etc., and because my aforementioned head and posterior are still intact,

I remain cautiously optimistic that I did not in fact violate the relevant secrecy requirements. Other than a T-34, a duh for an Eastern Front game if ever there was one, I did not name a single specific anything.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

WineCape,

Were my debriefs to your satisfaction? Haven't heard a peep from you since your "motivation session" before the sneak preview.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Gaylord Focker]

Well at least us non- Californians have something to lighten the impact of the end of summer this year!

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Does this mean a hiding squad cannot target an ambush marker? If so, won't that make it even harder to pull off correct ambushes?

DjB

There are no more ambush markers from what I could tell. I think those were effectively replaced by the arc commands. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think I could even check LOS when hiding either. My memory may not be accurate on that though. However, I would like to respect Rune's instructions now and I think I will refrain from commenting further on the 'sneak preview'.

[Foobar]

Whoa,

I actually have something useful to contribute for once!

I just figured out how the ambush command has been effectively replaced by cover arcs.

Picture the triangle of the arc. If you are at the one fixed point of the triangle, you set the arc be setting the other two points.

All that is needed to set an ambush on a fixed spot, is to place the other two corners of the triangle at the same distance apart as an ambush marker, 5-10m apart, and at the correct distance.

So instead of a single line ambush extending from the unit, you have a very acute angled triangle extending from the unit. I havent tried it, but I am certain that it will serve the purpose of the old ambushes, plus much much more..

Ta Daa!!!!!

[Cameroon]

*sigh* Oh never mind, that's what I get for not reading the full thread before posting a reply

[ July 24, 2002, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]

[WineCape]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

WineCape,

Were my debriefs to your satisfaction? Haven't heard a peep from you since your "motivation session" before the sneak preview.

Regards,

John Kettler

My dear Sir,

Excellent!

The best debrief since Garry Kump/jwxspoon's sneak preview. I thought you were already in your 60's

Your younger age actually means we can keep inviting you up to the RoW MCMLXXXIX tourney with your entertaining writing skills

ACTOR, I don't know if you know the game of Rugby, but you sure will be a success (a-la Jonu Lomu-style) here in South Africa with that "posterior" of yours.

Thanks again ACTOR for your willingness to show some wingnuts that ASL is fading faster from memory. ASL Veteran, maybe you should start thinking of changing your handle sir!

Kind regards,

Charl Theron

[ July 24, 2002, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

Ta Daa!!!!!

Boy, are you slow! I had all that figured out a week and a half ago but assumed it was too obvious to merit comment.

Michael

[Naja]

Thank you for correcting me. I will chalk it up too your keen observation skills and my suspicious mind.

My apologies,

Kamalu Charlot

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by WineCape:

Thanks again ACTOR for your willingness to show some wingnuts that ASL is fading faster from memory. ASL Veteran, maybe you should start thinking of changing your handle sir!

Kind regards,

Charl Theron

My handle is descriptive of a constant state of being and need not be altered by my participation in a game other than ASL. Incidentally, for the curious, I am not pictured in this thread.

Oh, and if any of the participants of this preview would like a new PBEM partner when CMBB comes out, feel free to drop me an e-mail. You too Winecape - that is if you are up to a game with a tournament tested ASL player. I'm finished with CMBO for now though.

For the non believers, the only relation CM has to ASL for me is in how you convert the scenarios from one to the other. ASL scenarios are going to be reasonably balanced from the start since they have all been playtested before being published as ASL scenarios. ASL scenarios also tend to have a certain 'personality' to them which some may like and others may not. Sometimes the victory conditions are so specific that a scenario can not be converted without skewing the balance or redesigning the whole thing. Therefore, the closer CM acts in relation to ASL the better the conversion. That's all we're talking about here - just more CM scenarios for everyone to play. It just makes the delicate task of creating a reasonable conversion that captures the spirit of the original scenario an easier task if the games play in a similar way.

I would be happy to send you a few of my favorite CMBO conversions Winecape if you are interested in exploring the world of ASL for yourself.

[Foobar]

Originally Posted by Michael Emrys..

Boy, are you slow!

Thats it.. Im calling Senechai and changing my vote. Your days are numbered you swine!!!

[WineCape]

ASL Veteran,

Your offer to play a CMBB PBEM once released accepted. Do you have any ASL scenario's that you have converted to CMBO in the last couple of years? Appreciate it if you could forward it to me. (Email in my details)

I'm afraid that time does not allow me to dabble in ASL at all, though I have friends that do play the game. Running a business full time plus being away from home (sometimes out of my country) due to football officiating takes up most of my spare time, not to mention my 2 daughters (age 3/5) demands on those spare free minutes!

But CMBO/CMBB does allow the quick dabble without complex tables etc. to consult!

Let me know when you've received your copy of CMBB and we will give it a go.

Take care,

Charl Theron

[ July 25, 2002, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[russellmz]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

Ta Daa!!!!!

Boy, are you slow! I had all that figured out a week and a half ago but assumed it was too obvious to merit comment.

Michael</font>

[WWB]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

For the non believers, the only relation CM has to ASL for me is in how you convert the scenarios from one to the other. ASL scenarios are going to be reasonably balanced from the start since they have all been playtested before being published as ASL scenarios. ASL scenarios also tend to have a certain 'personality' to them which some may like and others may not. Sometimes the victory conditions are so specific that a scenario can not be converted without skewing the balance or redesigning the whole thing. Therefore, the closer CM acts in relation to ASL the better the conversion. That's all we're talking about here - just more CM scenarios for everyone to play. It just makes the delicate task of creating a reasonable conversion that captures the spirit of the original scenario an easier task if the games play in a similar way.

Not quite. ASL scenarios are a good basis, but a far different medium. Balance must be seriously re-adjusted, and the maps almost always need some work due to the move to a truly 3d, interactive environment.

WWB

[edgars]

I played an engagement in which German armor went up against dug-in Russians. Every time a gun opened up, it was met with a hail of accurate return fire, usually either smashing the gun outright or putting so much HE and MG fire on the crew that the crew broke and ran.

OK, time to come out of lurk mode.

Am i the only one, to whom the above sentence seems strange?

Do you actually mean, that by having a better gunsight optics, tanks spot an AT guns over great distances in no-time? I thought that AT guns in CMBO are already too easy to spot...

What about all those AARs, where single or few well cammo'ed AT guns held up the whole columns of armor for hours if not days, and were never spotted in the process?

Was my perception on the AT-gun-spotting subject wrong or i simply misread the above quote?

[GillFish]

Originally posted by ciks:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I played an engagement in which German armor went up against dug-in Russians. Every time a gun opened up, it was met with a hail of accurate return fire, usually either smashing the gun outright or putting so much HE and MG fire on the crew that the crew broke and ran.

OK, time to come out of lurk mode.

Am i the only one, to whom the above sentence seems strange?

Do you actually mean, that by having a better gunsight optics, tanks spot an AT guns over great distances in no-time? I thought that AT guns in CMBO are already too easy to spot...

What about all those AARs, where single or few well cammo'ed AT guns held up the whole columns of armor for hours if not days, and were never spotted in the process?

Was my perception on the AT-gun-spotting subject wrong or i simply misread the above quote?</font>

[John Kettler]

ciks,

GillFish is correct. In fact, it was a mandatory part of our tactics (was German) that no tank ever operated without at least one other tank in LOS. That said, what I was specifically trying to point out was the lethal synergy among high quality crews, good optics, and the new cover arc command. I found the entry for optics while checking out the tank's specification sheet.

In part, my remarks were extrapolation from what I observed, but what really stood out was how much more effective even relatively weak HE throwers became under the new game. Initial range errors dropped sharply, in turn reducing the time it took to bring effective fire to bear on the already revealed gun, which generally got off several shots before being engaged by us. We were playing extreme FOW. In no case was a gun detected prior to opening fire upon us. According to ACTOR, had those guns been in a treeline, we might never have found them. He says he lost four tanks in one playtest and never found the gun. We perhaps were lucky, for we did find and smash such a gun, together with some infantry positions. I suspect, though, that he wasn't fighting anywhere nearly as close as we were, which was practically spitting range.

I believe, ciks, that you can think of what we were able to do as being well in the upper ranges of possible military effectiveness. Had our tank crews not been as good, or had our tanks for whatever reason not been under solid control, or had we not practiced excellent mutual support, the AT guns would doubtless have lasted longer and done lots more damage than they did. They were not the most powerful of their breed either, which kept tanks alive which would otherwise have died.

I hope this clears away the inadvertent confusion I apparently caused.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Doug Beman]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

(extremely well-written and well-meant explanation of CMBB game mechanics snipped)

I hope this clears away the inadvertent confusion I apparently caused.

Regards,

John Kettler

"I hope this clears away the malodorous miasmi I apparently caused"

DjB

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Not quite. ASL scenarios are a good basis, but a far different medium. Balance must be seriously re-adjusted, and the maps almost always need some work due to the move to a truly 3d, interactive environment.

WWB

There is nothing wrong with the maps. In some cases they may seem too flat, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that - especially if your goal is to be true to the spirit of the original. It is part of their 'personality'. The main problem with the maps is that there is more terrain variety in ASL than there is in CM, so you have to do a lot of fudging with substitute terrain types to make it work. Other than that I can't see anything 'wrong' with the maps. I generally convert maps hex by hex - it is easy to do if you know the trick to it (hint, groups of squares can be arranged in a hexagon pattern if you look closely)

For the balance issues - well, it is all in the victory conditions. Here is a sample victory condition from an ASL scenario titled "Valhalla Bound". I picked this scenario up at random so it is by no means a unique set of victory conditions.

Prior to set up, the Russian must secretly pick a victory condition option: (1) exit > 42 VP off the west edge on/between 11P8 and 10R5 or (2) Control > 5 stone buildings on board 10 at game end without losing > 13 AFV

Okay, now the first thing we have to realize is that the scenario has been extensively tested to work with those victory conditions. If those victory conditions can't be simulated it throws the balance of the scenario off - regardless of the exactness of the forces involved. We also have to realize that the CM player will not be able to select between two victory conditions - we have to pick for them. Looking at option 1 we see that 42 VPs must be exited to get a win. Well the Soviet force is larger than 42 VPs and no specific units have been singled out as being required to exit. In ASL, any combination of 42 gets you a win -irrespective of any casualties caused to the German or to your own force. How do you do this in CM? You fudge. You can either pre select an appropriate number of units as exit eligible and hope the Soviet player figures out which ones to exit, or you set them all to exit and hope the VP loss from the destroyed ones doesn't force a Soviet loss from the way CM calculates victory. There is also no way to select a narrow exit point as is specified in the victory conditions - you can only select a whole map edge in CM. Converting the victory conditions is the single most critical and difficult thing to do in ASL conversions to keep the balance correct.

How do you convert number 2? Go ahead and take a stab at it. You see, you can use the identical forces in a scenario and use the appropriate maps, but if the victory conditions are not convertible, then it probably isn't worth the effort. I am going to convert this one when CMBB comes out and I am going to focus on victory condition 2 as reasonable to convert. But there are many scenarios where the victory conditions are impossible to convert. I have a word document that I typed up a while back about converting scenarios that may be helpful to some (which I should probably look over and tweak a little since it has been a while). You have to know both games inside and out though in order to do it right. You have to convert time, weather conditions, units, experience, SAN, ELR, victory conditions, and as many special rules as possible. There are many many things that can alter the balance, but nothing has as great an impact on the balance as the victory conditions.

Once again though - they aren't for everyone. If they aren't your cup of tea ... so be it. As I know that you create a lot of scenarios, perhaps it is the balance thing that's got ya. I'm just stating my opinion as I have played both ASL and non ASL scenarios in CMBO. Anyway, I'm not going to get involved in a huge discussion on the merits of ASL scenario conversions since people are either going to like them or not as is their choice. The more CM grows as a game though, the easier the conversions will become. You see, it really isn't in the different environments that the two games exist in, but in the stunted nature of CM at present when compared with what you can do in ASL. However, as Steve once put it, it is a lot easier to write a rule for a board game than it is to code a rule or a behavior into a computer game. Given time I'm sure that CM scenario designers will have as much freedom as ASL scenario designers. We just aren't at that point yet in CM.

[ July 25, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by WineCape:

ASL Veteran,

Your offer to play a CMBB PBEM once released accepted. Do you have any ASL scenario's that you have converted to CMBO in the last couple of years? Appreciate it if you could forward it to me. (Email in my details)

I'm afraid that time does not allow me to dabble in ASL at all, though I have friends that do play the game. Running a business full time plus being away from home (sometimes out of my country) due to football officiating takes up most of my spare time, not to mention my 2 daughters (age 3/5) demands on those spare free minutes!

But CMBO/CMBB does allow the quick dabble without complex tables etc. to consult!

Let me know when you've received your copy of CMBB and we will give it a go.

Take care,

Charl Theron

I've sent you ten scenarios. The thing to remember about ASL conversions is that they only really work vs a human opponent. They are distinctly unimpressive if you want to play vs the AI. This also leads to the problem of balance tweaking as you simply can't get any idea of the balance by playing the AI.

Abandon Ship: this is an interesting little scenario with US paratroopers vs Wehrmacht troops, only this scenario has a twist. The Paratroopers must exit on their friendly map edge in the face of an advancing German force. It requires a player to conduct a tactical withdrawal. Very good as a change of pace. This one is probably pro American, although I've never lost as German.

Absent Friends: this is similar to Abandon Ship only there is no exit point, rather a flag behind the US set up location that they will need to retreat back to and defend. This one seems fairly close to 50/50 balance. It is based on a Historical ASL module and the map is an accurate map of the area the battle took place in.

Everything We've Got: this is set in Italy in February 44 so the date had to be fudged. It is a fairly large scenario with the Germans in a bit of a shooting gallery. I believe this one is pro American although if the German Tigers get hot they can really give the American fits. I have won this one multiple times as the German, but the US artillery gives them a crucial advantage.

First Clash at Stoumont (operation): This one has been around the block a little and there are several reviews of it on the scenario depot.

In the Bag: US armored troops need to exit past a German armored force. Difficult for the US to win this one, but much fun nevertheless. Features lots of US Air Support, Jumbos, Panthers ... it is a wild and wooly fight.

Last Stand at Iserlon: 3 JagdTigers defending a town with some conscript infantry vs hordes of Americans. Bloody battle that isn't for the faint of heart! I believe this one to be pretty close to 50/50, but the more experienced player should play as American.

Marinville Ridge: Small force of German Paras attacking a numerically superior force of Americans in the bocage. No flags - just casualty victory points and tactical ability. This one is close to 50/50

Parkers Last Stand: Volksgrenadiers attacking at Baraque de Fraiture. This is a historical module and the map is accurate. Sharp infantry fight. slightly pro American.

The Mad Minute: another scenario during the 'battle of the bulge' featuring paratroopers. Pro German. There is another version of this scenario floating around where the designer took great liberties with the map. This is not that one.

Trial by Combat: First use of the Pershing in combat. American numerical superiority difficult to overcome, but if the German gets lucky with his tanks ....... It is probably pro American though.

[edgars]

John,

understood, thanks.

[aka_tom_w]

this thread is so full of good info on CMBB it is worth a BUMP

-tom w

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

SL/ASL always had great scenarios. Dozens and dozens of times, the battle would come down to the last turn, with my and my opponent trying to use our ESP powers to influence every die roll . When yet another 12 turn game came down to a last turn close combat in the one stone building needed for victory, I would always wonder how the designers were able to make things come out so close.

Maybe CMII needs a "special" victory conditions setting where the computer doesn't tell you who has won, but simply lists the point balance in the AAR, and the player has to figure out who won by looking at the victory conditions (which might include the point value, of course).

I think it's not accurate to call CM "stunted" vs. ASL, since CM is, in all meaningful ways, much more realistic than ASL.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

SL/ASL always had great scenarios. Dozens and dozens of times, the battle would come down to the last turn, with my and my opponent trying to use our ESP powers to influence every die roll . When yet another 12 turn game came down to a last turn close combat in the one stone building needed for victory, I would always wonder how the designers were able to make things come out so close.

Maybe CMII needs a "special" victory conditions setting where the computer doesn't tell you who has won, but simply lists the point balance in the AAR, and the player has to figure out who won by looking at the victory conditions (which might include the point value, of course).

I think it's not accurate to call CM "stunted" vs. ASL, since CM is, in all meaningful ways, much more realistic than ASL.

Yes, I would agree that CM is more realistic ... especially with armor. ASL had many limitations imposed by being a board game. By stunted, I simply meant in terms of the options available to scenario designers (terrain, victory conditions, etc), not in terms of how realistic one game is over another. Perhaps 'limited' would have been a better choice of words. Of course, ASL has been around a lot longer and has had time to grow (as evidenced by the growth of the rule book!) and just about every concievable angle of WW2 can be simulated to one degree or another through the use of special rules or tailor made victory conditions.

Right now, the victory conditions in CM are primarily based on destruction. Even the value of the flags are not really overwhelming in the overall scheme of things - especially in larger scenarios, or scenarios with lots of armor. When destruction is your only available victory condition it really puts a crimp in what the scenario designer can do to balance a scenario where the opposing forces themselves are not perfectly balanced. You can still use time and troop quality as a balancing force, but that always takes extensive playtesting and can vary alot dependent upon the skill levels of the opponents. Giving the scenario designer more freedom (as I believe is planned for CM3) will really give CM a boost I think. The scenario crowd has been sadly neglected so far (not intentionally, but by limitations to CM). The exit scenarios in particular do not either play (for non ASL scenarios) or translate (for ASL scenarios) well and I have eliminated the majority of them from consideration for CMBB conversion.

[DougieB]

Hi Guys

Great thread on CMBB. Would have given my eye teeth (had I any left) to have been able to see the preview in person. But living in N.Ireland, it would have been a no go scenario re cost.

John Kettler

Am a avid fan of your posts which I find most informative and very well written. Keep up the good work. And I can give you 10 years (above).

DougieB