Moon

May I take the liberty to point to my own website if you want more information of how recon has been conducted by the Germans, John? (of course also anybody alse is invited ) http://members.aol.com/moonde/FrameSet1.html Check the historical section.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The closer the aim point, the less distance stray rounds will go. Standard physics of aiming.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course! Dang... (what was that blushing face sign again?) How about suppression fire then? Can I assign my MG team an area to fire into rather than a single target? Do I understand right that in order to cover, say, a whole treeline with suppressive fire, I would have to issue two or three fire orders to my MG team?

Don't want to be nitpicking here, but what happens if I shoot at the front one? Will the squads behind it get their "share"? (Small difference at first sight, but if "no" is the answer it means that small arms fire doesn't get tracked... AHA! ) And on a side note: will MG teams "produce" more tracers than rifle teams?

Thanks Ben, very interesting site! But actually what it shows most is how uncertain any data is in this field, I think. Still worth to check out.

YEAH! Or as the polish say (actually sing) "Jeszcze Polska nie zginela, puki Wisla plynie!" (Poland is not lost as long as the river Wisla is running!) And for anybody who wants to sing along: "Yeshche polskah nye sginewa puky wiswa pwinye" (and no jokes about the "puky" please) [This message has been edited by Moon (edited 03-10-99).]

On the information bar as seen in a few screenshots, the information "rested" appears. Also, in the "Spotting" section, the suggestion is made that the US recon team should have taken the longer, "more tiring" route through the woods. So exhaustion of units seems to be simulated. Here a couple of questions to that: will units tire quicker when moving through difficult terrain like marshes, thick forest and/or moving constantly at a fast pace (i.e. running)? will units tire more from turn to turn? Since CM simulates, say, 30-60 minutes of continuous combat in a single game, I would expect that ALL units, regardless of what they are actually doing, should be more tired at the end (e.g. because of the stress of being under fire - i.e. adrenaline...). However, what will the effects be that tired units have to suffer from? I would imagine that they move slower, lose firing effectiveness, react slower to player's orders etc. And finally, would tired or exhausted units be able to go back to "rested" within the short timeframe of a single game? (not that I want to indicate by the phrasing of this question that they shouldn't... )

Not bad idea, John, but how would the information realistically get from the scout unit to units A, B, and C within the 60 seconds of one action turn?

Of course I have to mention here the Polish Airborne brigade as an example which is probably best known for its participation in the Market Garden campaign. As to the names, Chris, tell me if you need any help in putting together the polish names. I suggest starting with Turewicz (for reasons I am sure you will guess right... ) but I can provide you with a couple hundred others easily...

How about simply allowing the players to rename the squads?

I guess grabbing weapons/ammo off dead bodies would be only an option for a soldier if he has no more ammo on him or his weapon broke. Leads me to jams: will weapons jam in CM? And I mean not only the small stuff, but also MGs, tanks and 88s?

Just saw an advertising at wargamer.com - 4CDs is selling Combat Mission at $39.99 and release date is May 1999 - just wondering if BTS already knows that?

From the screenshots it seems that foxholes are represented by a ground texture rather than a "real" hole in the ground. No big problem with that, except - will foxholes be visible all the time in the overhead view or will they also have to be spotted first?

I thought Hänsel and Gretel had a problem with cookie houses and witches? Wasn't aware that there were any flags involved... could you explain?

Another way to prevent overuse of artillery in CM would be to make it realisticly inaccurate. Calling a shelling on a position even 200 meters forward of your position can be a dangerous thing to do - so the safest use of artillery would be at distances beyond the usual spotting range... i.e. you could use artillery to hammer on probable enemy positions (like dominating hills etc.) but could't use it really as effective weapon once the small arms fire starts... Another thing of course are the delay times of artillery. Unless in a well pre-planned large scale assault, it should takes several turns (i.e. minutes) before the shells arrive. One question on the side: how lethal would a 150mm round be to tanks? In West Front artillery is almost useless against tanks. What is your approach to this?

A quote from CITIZEN SOLDIER on that topic: "What good is a King Tiger when you don't have the gas to get it moving"

Interesting interview indeed - and throws up a few new questions, e.g. what was that with "selecting a unit draws a line to its platoon leader"? Sounds interesting enough to know more about it...

Of course my 2 cents will be overshadowed soon by the answers still to come from Steve and others, but what the heck: - the Germans tended to have much more automatic weapons in use than the Allies, especially later in the war. Never heard or read of a specific Allied small weapon the Krauts would have regarded as superior. - IF there was anything the Germans respected or even feared in the Allied weapons arsenal, it was most probably artillery and air support. The Germans thought the "overuse" of artillery power by the US was "unfair", because whenever they ran into trouble, they would pull back and call for "arty"... the Germans felt the infantry should solve its problems itself. (Of course the Germans would have done it exactly the same way if they had the resources the US had ) But that is leading away from the original question...

Well, to make it short: I don't like beer so much. More of a wine type... Very unusual for a German, but hey, I am not born here... But say, do you know "Kölsch"? It's the local Cologne beer. Some say it tastes like p%§$ because it is very clear (still strong when compared with US beers, though), especially those people that like "Alt" (I believe DAB is Alt), a darker beer which comes more from the north (if I remember right). Then, of course, we also have Pils, but that's been copied from the Czechs... After all this beer I have a bad taste in my mouth...hmmm, anybody here likes a good Cabernet?

Should I make you guys REALLY envious now? I am sitting here and sipping on my Kristallweizen... mmhmm... I'll trade in a crate of Weizen against CM alpha... what do you think? [This message has been edited by Moon (edited 02-25-99).]

With reference to an earlier post by Fionn about the AI in Panzer Elite - reading through their FAQs it becomes clear that the AI in PE is linked to the pre-generated maps. This, obviously, is a little trick that makes it much easier to "simulate" a strong AI. I'm not saying it's bad, but it wouldn't work with random maps... BTW: I know also another game with an awesome AI (101st Airborne in Normandy) - which Fionn knows pretty good - that is using exactly the same "trick". One of the reasons there is no scenario editor for 101... It seems to me that linking the AI to a pre-defined map is the easiest way out of the AI problem. From the point of view of a player I must say that I am very satisfied with 101's AI (obviously I don't know PE yet) - it feels very much like playing against a human opponent. However, since I prefer playing against human opponents anyway, I'd trade in the strategic AI against a scenario and map editor anytime...

Hefeweizen is a famous German beer made from yeast and wheat. It's what you drink at the Oktoberfest...

Great idea, Michael! SP - well, I have some maps saved here... makes my Hefeweizen sour...

When I understand correctly, you're saying exactly what I meant - that it would be more realistic but less fun...

Random maps??? RANDOM MAPS???? AARGH... I see rivers springing from the middle of a grass field and running into a hillside where they disappear... I see roads running in circles , crossing the same river three times and ending in a marsh... I see houses scattered all over the map, with no roads leading to them... (sounds like SP? ) And if there are random maps, then "random all" is not far: I dare almost not to say it... "Computer selects force"... AAAHHH! I see the computer player with 8 HQs but no tanks... I see 6 150mm howitzer but no infantry... I see 20 trucks but no soldiers... (sounds like WF? ) PLEASE tell me you are going to do it better...

I think there's an easy way to simulate a more realistic coordination (or lack of) of forces in CM - change the 1 minute action turns into 10 or 15 minute turns. This simulates the orders a CO issues on a tactical level and the feedback that comes from the battlefield. While 1 minute seems to short, I think 10 minutes would be a much more realistic time after which it is possible to adjust you tactics. However, while more realistic, would it be fun to play? I doubt it. It would degrade the player from a player to a spectator. I think there is a limit as to realism - after all, CM is a warGAME. A big part in enjoying wargames for me is to tactically outmaneuver my opponent. To fully enjoy this, a Godlike overhead view on the map is obligatory. Without it, strategy and tactics are reduced to mere reactions. This is VERY realistic ("no plan survives contact with the enemy") but no fun IMO.