Holdit

http://www.pcgr.com/reviews/simulation/product_1156.asp The first review is especially interesting, as it's written by someone who "always thought that wargames sucked". See what he thinks now. Judging from this, and reactions of non-wargamers I've passed the demo on to, I think the that "revolution" is well under way...

I'm just amazed the gun control debate hasn't spring up yet! (No, that's not an invitation...)

I can relate to this. I have a college assignment to be in by...em...Wednesday 26th (oops!), and a load of job-type work to catch up on before I go off on my hols for a week on Sunday. And guess what arrived in the post yesterday? It gets worse: herself was away last night at a wedding... Still, I have an understanding tutor.

I seem to remember from somewhere that all British infantry platoons had a 2" mortar attached to the platoon HQ. Instead of a bipod, it had webbing round the barrel so it could be gripped by the hand. (I think it's the one Jack Hawkins uses in Bridge on the River Kwai). It must have been very quick to get into action, and I get the impression that sighting was by guesstimation and trial shots, so they would be unlikely to have been used in an indirect fire role, which might account for their not being mentioned much - more thought would probably go into the placing of the 3-inchers.

"I'm not sure what this anecdote is intended to prove..." I think it was mean to prove that Eilte status does not necessarily guarantee elite performance, in one instance at least.

I read the first few chapters of MK, waiting for some kind of supporting argument or ecidence to back up his views. Then I gave up. It's just one unsubtantiated claim after another, with a lot of sweeping generalisations thrown in. It's not literature; it's not analysis; it certainly isn't science; it's not even good journalism. Its only value is its historical relevance. The 1916 Proclamation has historical relevance too, but that doesn't make it a work of art.

"Keep in mind the other party involved also has a "bible" that says the land is theirs." Not to mention that the bible isn't a legal document in any case.

This game might go more mainstream than we imagine. A colleague of mine (big into games, but not at all into wargames or history) has just ordered it after playing the demo for 1/2 hour.

"Played Napoleonic minatures in the 50's; made up my own rules involving a tape measure and dice." ___________________________________________ Ahhhh, Napoleonics; my other favourite period. Imagine that getting the CM treatment...drool...slobber... One thing I'm hoping to do when the full version arrives is to do the Waterloo battlefield. I don't know if anyone would be interested in actually using it but it would be fun to have; it might be good for an operation or something.

I played Valley of Trouble last night giving 50% extra to the Axis forces (it was nearly bedtime and I just wanted a fix without the effort ). The default dispositions seeme OK until turn 1, when I noticed that my second 150mm infantry gun was in the open, albeit dug in. So just to see what would happen, I ordered it moved to the clump of trees overlooking the T-junction in the valley where there's usually an MG42. Sure enough, the lads gradually managed to push it the 20-odd yards, to just behind the '42. Excellent, thanks BTS. But the best bit was to come. A few moves later, the gun began firing at something on hill 216. Watching the gun firing close up, I noticed the MG42 team duck a moment before the gun fired over their heads!! I was gobsmacked, so I watched it again to make sure and noticed some incoming tracers shortly before that . So what I'm wondering is...which did the team really duck for? I've been so impressed with this demo so far, that if it was indeed their own gun that was the cause, I wouldn't be at all surprised. (The gun was knocked out by a 105mm stonk a move later - so there was no repeat performance.)

In other words, keep serving up the steak; the sizzle will take care of itself in good time.

I imagine some of the shortfall could be explained by the German tendency towards complexity, whereas the allies were more inclined to standardise; that and the fact that German ground units could be Wehrmacht, SS or even Luftwaffe, so there's a much greater mix. The allies had no elite "other army". British Guards and US Rangers were, as far as I know, equipped in the same way as line squads, but were just of better quality. In the same way, there's no Grossdeutschland infantry type for the Germans; just use veteran or elite panzergrenadiers (or riflemen if earlier in the war, but that's still to come ). In any case, given the attention detail of this game's designers, and the work required to produce a unit, I'm confident that there's a valid reason for the discrepancy. Anyway, it's not like those US and British squads can't get the job done for you.

I think the fun approach and the reflective approach aren't mutually exclusive. Of course it's fun; if it wasn't, we wouldn't find it so addictive. On the other hand, with the battle over, there is time for though on what you have and haven't achieved with your command. Personally, I make a point of trying to minimise casualties. They may be polygons, but they're polygons representing (to me) real men whose existence isn't to be wasted lightly. This of course, has to be balanced with the knowledge that sometimes, in order to use your men effectively, you're going to have to kill them. Another factor that makes the game so compelling. My best and most enjoyable victory so far (demo only - hurry up postman!!!)was as the Germans in Chance Encounter. I took all the flags for a major victory and utterly decimated the US force. Of course it was fun, of course I was delighted, of course I went "yes!" with each Sherman knocked out, it was great! But...when I saw the casualty returns afterwards and saw the losses (not exceptional either) and weighed them in the context of the scenario: 100+ casualties for a crossroads that in a few hours would have massive artillery and airpower brought against it and be retaken not too long after that. All the sacrifice had bought would be a few hours in a gesture to stave off a defeat that was inevitable anyway. I'm not saying it's depressing, just that it triggers some deep thoughts. I reckon this is actually another feather in Big Time's cap as regards the immersion factor. And is, paradoxically, another factor that makes this game truly great. Of course, after the deep thoughts comes...the next round! Fun hat back on again...

I've been following this one for a while; it's academic for the moment, as the full game hasn't arrived yet After weighing up the arguments, I think I'll download the grid when it can be toggled on and off so it's there if I want it. I must admit that from the screenshots it doesn't look as bad as I thought it would. As to the realism factor, well views 2 and up aren't terribly realistic either, nor is the los tool, nor is knowing the precise status of a squad on the other side of the battlefield from your HQ. As long as it's a question of personal preference rather than advantage, I don't see the need for a debate. A similar debate crops up sometimes in flight sim bulletin boards about how unrealistic it is to use exterior aircraft views. Yet such views can give valuable 3D input to the pilot that is denied by virtue of the 2D cockpit interface, <I/>but that is available to a real pilot. The grid debate seems to be touching on a similar point in that it compensates for insufficient 3D input.

From playing the demo only, it seems that the difference is that crawling men are lying face down and dead men are lying face up. Not too difficult to get that hang of, surely.

"I've found that working another shift than your wife gives you all the computer time you need." Definitely. My other half is a nurse, which means frequent weekend and night shifts. The other angle is that she gets exclusive use of the television while I'm at the PC.

I grew up reading "Warlord" and "Battle" and believed that war was very noble and adventurous. Among the more ludicrous offerings was a commando who was so brave that he was the only man in his unit to make night drops with a white parachute. Yeah, right. I think my first clue to the contrary was either a book by Sven Hassel (I know, I know; I was young*) or, most likely, a series in "Battle" comic called "Charley's War" which recounted the experiences of a young British private during the Battle of the Somme. It was the first story I'd ever read that made me think that a battle wasn't really an event that I'd like to attend. One sequence in particular sticks in my mind: Charley is carrying a small sack and is challenged by an officer who suspects that the sack contains stolen supplies. Looking at the officer but not really seeig him, Charley explains that the bag contains the remains of his best friend, who has just been killed by a shell. The officer apologises and tells Charley that his friend must have been very brave. Not really, says Charley, he was scared stiff most of the time. Somehow this had a ring of truth about it, and subsequent readings and viewings showed the comic book/Hollywood heroic nonsense for what it was. But I found that this made the whole subject more interesting, not less. A bit like discovering that battle of Britain pilots flew their missions, not with tally-ho derring-do, but teetering on the edge of nervous breakdown. I don't think it's necessary to defend an interest in military history. After all, military events have generally had the greatest impact on world events. This combined with the fact that war is the most dangerous, unpredictable and fast-moving of human enterprises, makes it for me a rivetting subject. In any case, lots of people are fascinated by crime stories and serial killers; it doesn't follow that they think murder is a good thing. As to why we wargame, well we're always reading judgements on the performances of past commanders, and it begs the question of whether we could have done any better. War, after all, is an art in that it can be done well or done badly depending on the soldiers' skill and judgement, a factor often overlooked by those who see military matters in Ramboesque terms. It's also, as someone else has pointed out, an interactive history lesson, provided that the materials are adequate (and with CM the materials are without compare!), not to mention a chance to match your wits against your fellow man and see who emerges victorious. As a chess player, I can relate to that aspect too. Sorry for the length, but I've never really ahd to articulate that before, so it's been a bit cathartic *(Sven Hassel's books have long since disappeared off my shelves, but I remember certain sections with fondness for their sheer comedy. In particular, the defrauding of a supply depot by soldiers posing as Gestapo agents posing as soldiers; another affair involving a rigged boxing match; and a box of laxative tea that finds its way to the high command.)

I would have thought that a tank should be firing while stopped or not at all. I seem to remember reading that many US tank crews disabled their gyrostabilisers because they just wouldn't fire on the move, assisted or not. The hunt command seems to combine careful movement with stopping to fire. I tend to move tanks at high speed, especially if it's going to involve turning sideways on the enemy. (Even then I only do it when there's no enemy tanks or A/T in sight or range.)