2 units against 1

[Akira]

Sorry if this has been answered yet. I find

hard to review all the posts.

How CMC will handle combat in CMBB if two

divisions managed by two players enter in combat

against another player at the same time?

I mean the map is divided in squares, so up to

4 units can attack one at the same time.

Is this right?

Thank you from Spain. And hello everyone!

Punta de Lanza

[General Bolt]

Multiple players can do the maneuvering on the CMC map. When the fighting starts at the CMBB only one play at a time can play CMBB. I think a single play would need to play the CMBB battle even though the MEs came from two different commanders.

[securityguard]

yeah, it's probably voted on by either the players or the commander. my guess is the commander.

will be interesting to see who takes control of critical strikes in MP... lots of team work and trust will be involved, which is kinda neat.

[Steiner14]

This aspect makes it for me even more interesting: the operational player has to decide, to which tactical player he will give the commando.

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

This aspect makes it for me even more interesting: the operational player has to decide, to which tactical player he will give the commando.

However, comma, being a commander of a reserve inf battalion would suck, while all the cool combined arms games went to the golden boy major.

I would think that fronts would be established for each of the sub unit players and action in those areas would be their responsibility.

[Steiner14]

But wouldn't that mean, that the CMC operational player has to change the CMBB-player every time, a MovingElement crosses such a border?

Seems unpracticable to me.

I guess if two or more MEs participate in the same battle, the CMC operational player will be prompted to decide which player should receive the setup file.

[Moon]

Actually more than 4 units (or Maneuver Elements, ME, in CMC lingo) can be involved in an attack at the same time. "Stacking" is allowed on the CMC map.

Martin

[General Bolt]

Stiener,

I miss understood your earlier post. The decisions would be made at the border of two groups only. Wouldn't the tactical guy that had control on the original area only. The shifted group would be "attached" to the local tactical leader.

I remember reading about a US inf platoon that actually had a tank company attached to it.

Moon,

We understand the stacking but only 1 playr can play a CMBB right. So when the ME's are shifted from two ME commanders are in a single CMBB one guy takes over. Correct?

[Shmavis]

I'm curious about this, too. If one human player leading a German inf platoon requests support from, say, another human player-controlled assault gun battery, does the high commander, or just a company commander in that particular unit, have to decide who will then command the combined force in the ensuing battle?

[Hunter]

IIRC, the most senior commander involved gets the command duty.

[Shmavis]

Okie-doke. Thanks!

[Mad Russian]

CMBB can be played multiplayer in PBEM with a little patience and the will to do it. It is VERY rewarding and the results are quite interesting at times. When we do this we don't allow for more than minimal conversation between players of the same side/different units.

I've even made scenarios that were designed to be played 3 player for CMAK. No difference in the execution for CMBB.

[Brent Pollock]

:confused:

Ooooooooo! I get it now...you simply change the e-mail recipient and use SAVED GAME files for the same side with multiple orders:

- Axis Player #1 sets orders then SAVES and forwards the file to...

- Axis Player #2, who then sets orders and so on until Axis Player #n hits END and sends the file to Allied Player #1, who then does the same rigmarole.

- whoever generates the movie broadcasts it to all players.

Is the the gist?

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

CMBB can be played multiplayer in PBEM with a little patience and the will to do it. It is VERY rewarding and the results are quite interesting at times. When we do this we don't allow for more than minimal conversation between players of the same side/different units.

I've even made scenarios that were designed to be played 3 player for CMAK. No difference in the execution for CMBB.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

The other interesting thing to consider when the local commander is given command of your force is how he handles that force. If some other guy took charge of my scarce troops & proceeded to charge them at the enemy as cannon fodder to discover enemy dispositions while using his own guys in relatively protected overwatch positions, I wouldn't be too happy about that!

Hopefully the practical solution would be for the local commander at all times to use his own guys, if practical, as the so called "cuttin' edge" of the attack while keeping borrowed forces as the backup guys. Things to consider anyway.

Regards

Jim R.

[Steiner14]

Good point.

I hope the 'General' (operational player) will have the possibility to punish such players (taking command away and/or giving another commando: "You play the trucks from now on!" MovingElement7 is immediately under command of player XY + enters already the new email-adress)

[PzKpfwIII]

I am hoping also that using different size "Maneuver Elements" will help simulate, say, early-war Russian tactical inflexibility where such existed, or late-war German disorganzization. For example, only allowing a Russian battalion in 1941 to move from square to square as a battalion, whereas German units would be free to mix-and-match companies into tailor made battle groups where necessary.

This will require a lot of research on the part of campaign designers to avoid stereotyping, but will be an exciting way to capture some of these differences, and flavour of operations from year to year and formation to formation.