Michael Dorosh

I have some questions regarding the creation of new scenarios that range from the specific (and annoying) to the thoeretical. How do you move/place the victory flags? One appears in the middle of the board and I can't seem to move it. Click on it and place it as you would any other unit. (right click then select Place and move it to where you want it) To get more, go to the Parameters screen - the control for that is on the right. How do I set the Map Edges and Zones in a manner that they *stay assigned*. I set up my map where I need the allies to enter from the East as well as the West, in an encirclement on a fortified location. The Axis zone is clearly in the middle of the board and when I go to set up the troops, all the Germans are lined up on the Easten edge, clearly in the Allied zone with allied (red) bases assigned to the troops. When I assign the Easter edge as Allied or Neutral it reverts to German, as a matter of fact, no matter how I assign the 'friendly map edged' is reverts to the default. Is this an historical accuracy thing? I think you need to go to the map maker, and go into Zone mode (it is one of the three buttons at the top). Change the setup zones - the different colors are for different forces. Make sure your Axis zone matches your Axis map edge. The scenario editor lays your troops down on the west or east edge by default, I do believe, regardless of actual set up zones - are you sure your Axis troops have red bases? Don't worry too much about where the editor places your forces - this is simply a default and you can't get it to put them anywhere else - you have to physically place them all where you want them to begin. How does one calculate the point balance if scenarios other than a meeting of forces? As in an assault on a fortified position. I am assuming the attacker needs more forces, but without extensive playtesting, is there a rule of thumb that can help? Fiddle with it until it feels right. Look up some historical situations, or even other similar scenarios (be they Combat Mission or other games like Squad Leader or Steel Panthers). See what others have done, in real life and in the gaming world. Then playtest, playtest, playtest. Send it out PBEM to other players here, play it yourself with no fog of war to see how the AI handles the enemy, or even play a hotseat game against yourself. Hope this helps some. ------------------ http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-01-2001).]

Henri, if you talk to Canadian, British or American veterans, they all talk about 88s being used as anti-infantry weapoons. Read the book Private by Les Atwell, or scores of other histories. That doesn't mean they were used that way, though - and I suspect you are correct that the 88 was very rarely used as such. However, it was just like every tank crewman who thought he was shot at by a Tiger every time out - the term "88" was used widely and inaccurately, usually to refer to anything from 50mm to a 150 mm gun of some type. You often hear about "88s" firing indirectly, or firing HE. It was simply a term Allied soldiers hurled around. For Captain Miller to refer to 88s seems historical - every GI also called an MP 40 a Schmeisser. Grognards know this is incorrect, but the men who faced death from them didn't know the difference - or much care what it was called. Just an observation.

Just read both threads cited - interesting, thanks for the link. The only new info I have - and I hate using this as a "source" - but the ASL rulebook mentions that about 2/3 of the British Sherman tanks just prior to El Alamein were Sherman IIs, and that 942 Sherman IIs in all were shipped to England. (These are not Fireflies but standard 75mm gun armed tanks). It does not say how many were converted to Fireflies, only that the most common Firefly was the VC, with the next most common types being IIC and IC. Their rarity factor is higher than other Fireflies. George Forty doesn't seem to give any numbers on IIC Fireflies either. From the threads you mentioned, and the "new sources" just mentioned, there doesn't appear to be anything really conclusive, and if the IIC Fireflies saw action, it seems to have been a rarity. From the numbers ASL gives, if you believe them, you would have to imagine that not many IICs would have been on hand by 1944 to convert. Wouldn't you????? ------------------ http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

Did they not transfer to NW Europe as part of Operation Goldflake - with the rest of the Division - in February/March 1945?

I went to an Italian Campaign veteran's reunion last September. All the infantry vets said they felt sorry for the tank crews, and said they would never have wanted to be locked up in those "goddamn tin cans." A Three Rivers Regiment Sherman driver told me "I used to watch through my periscope as the infantry we were supporting got machine gunned. That wasn't for me." Brave men all.

Blazing Chariots by Bob Crisp - Brit tank commander (Stuart Honeys) in the desert Flamethrower by Andrew Wilson - Churchill Crocodile commander in NW Europe Both very good reading. South Albertas at War by Donald Graves is a regimental history of the SAR (4th Canadian Armoured Division) but has some great photos, and excellent appendices. The history itself is loaded with personal stories and anecdotes, but it is hardcover only and more expensive than the other two. I found Blazing Chariots and Flamethrower in my junior high school library, so you might find them in a public library where you live, or a used book store. I think Bantam published them both.

I should have pointed out that those terms are common terms in British civilian life. A "boot" was (and is) the trunk of a car, a "lift" was an elevator, a "pavement" was a sidewalk, and when a girl asked you to "knock me up in the morning" she wanted you to call on her - not impregnate her. The point being that Canadians used American terms in civilian life, but British terms in military life - which is why the "regular English" that they used at home, and was used by American soldiers, seemed so "unmilitary". And I get the feeling it was you Americans that broke from convention and started giving things funny names, not the other way around. Funny world, I will agree!

Cause some people like girls? Perhaps the movie with the romance and war in it is a romance movie - not a war movie. I suspect Pearl Harbor will be like that. Bound to be some disappointed grogs out there because of that one....

That's what I get for quoting George Forty, I guess! Actually Canadians used to laugh at the American Army during WW II cause in Canada, our civilians used words like "gas", "flashlight", "wrench", etc., but the Canadian Army used British terms like "petrol", "torch" and "spanner." Americans, on the other hand, used "gas", "flashlight" and "wrench" in civilian life AND army life, which seemed odd and "unmilitary" to Canadians. On the whole, Canadians I think respected American soldiers - but were always surprised that the US Army did things so differently from the Commonwealth.

Hmmm, I like Tiger's Tigers better! Which one of you guys wants to do a ME 109 mod for my truck bitmaps?

I would think the gasoline powered tank is more likely to burn when it is hit - though the ammo stowage in each was not good (dry stowage). Rarity doesn't seem to be an issue - about 8,000 of each were built according to George Forty. The ASL rulebook also gives them a RF of 1.0 (if you trust that as a reference). The ASL rules also say the Brits liked the Sherman III the best because of "better speed, performance and reliability." [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-31-2001).]

M4A2 had a diesel engine, M4A4 had petrol.

Funny you mention Pizza Hut - I was at the cavalry barracks at Hounslow (sp?) on my way back to Canada from the UK for three nights - I think I ate at Pizza Hut in London for two of them (and KFC for the third - did you know they charge you per packet for ketchup over there? And KFC was the only place you could get Heinz?) Trouble with the movie set was we were bussed 45 minutes out of town - no corner stores, no Pizza Hut, no nuttin. And 16 hour work days. Fun though. But I guess compared to eating bully beef and hardtack during 24 hour work days, cold macaroni would have been a luxury, so we shouldn't complain, eh?

Thanks, Tom. I have no other scenarios to offer you for the time being - I do have a monster operation. I've put them both on my website - the page for the SPR scenario (and the other operation) is Scenarios Priest, you emailed me looking for a copy of the SPR scenario - but the emails I sent to you bounced back. You can download it from CMHQ Scenario Depot (it seems to be working great now, and consistently, too), or from my site above. Thanks to all who have emailed me and/or tried the scenario out. Thanks for the compliment, also, Wild Bill. I've made mention of your scenario on my site - if you have a more specific URL for your scenario I'll be happy to include it, just let me know. EDIT - oh, I've also included the sketch of the set that I based my map on; it might be of interest to other scenario designers or those wondering what the heck it was I was thinking of! ------------------ http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-31-2001).] [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-27-2001).]

Is it leagues ahead of the original? I'm not worried about graphics so much, but I remember being disappointed in the original B-17 for two main reasons a) German fighters were ridiculously easy to shoot down and the B-17 (in my quivering hands, anyway) was almost impossible to land in one piece Is this simply a graphical update for B-17 or has the gameplay significantly been altered? The reviews I've read don't allude to either of my two concerns.

LOL! Still, it could be worse - when I was on the set of Legends of the Fall, I think we ate Kentucky Fried Chicken 5 days out of 7. They had a guy on the set whose only job was to carry a carton of Marlboros for Mister Pitt, but somewow providing fresh food for the extras was out of their logistical grasp... Think of all the money you'll have when you graduate. (And go to work for UPS or a security guard company like the rest of us college/university grads...)

Here's a question that occurred to me - The Canadian/British infantry battalions were organized with four rifle companies. In action, they usually went into an attack with two companies up and two back - ie two in reserve. American battalions, correct me if I'm wrong, had three rifle companies and a weapons company. I would presume they went into action two up and one back (in reserve). So who had the better system? And why? ------------------ http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

If B-17 made their list, perhaps it is not such an honour for CM to be listed? Did Squad Leader break the top 10?

You could have online tutorials that way, if the chat window could be opened from the two players to the audience, but not each other. That's really a great idea!

I lived at home through 7 years of University so I ate pretty well - but when I went to Halifax for three weeks one year with the Army as part of the Nova Scotia Tattoo, we were billeted at Saint Mary's University. I swear to you that in their cafeteria was the worst dogfood ever served to me. Seriously, I spent a month with the British Army the next summer and the food wasn't half as bad! 109 Gustav, I can empathize with you.

If you are interested in a Canadian TO & E for a rifle battalion, I am putting the finishing touches on one for my site; anyone else interested let me know and I'll post when it's completed. As for US, I am sure someone else will know, but in the meantime - if you live near a war game store, there are miniatures rules out there that have detailed breakdowns that might be appropriate for your use. Or try www.google.com - the best search engine going. Sorry I can't be of more help.

Thanks, Commisar. I was thinking of a situation like you describe. A better example is the impulsive desire to conduct tank vs. tank battles that have nothing to do with getting your infantry forward onto their objectives. I'm playing a PBEM game where the enemy has two tanks firing down at my infantry, and my first impulsive thought was to send the armour running hell for leather to take on the tanks - but then I thought "why"? My infantry will be out of the LOS and LOF of the tanks in one more turn and coming to grips with their infantry. I realize his tanks have the potential to do damage to my guys in the future, but once the furrball starts around the objectives, he has to move his armour in close to get at my infantry (leaving him open to my LATW) or else stand off where he can't do any good. Sending my Shermans in to get knocked out will only provide him a distraction for a turn or so (three if he is laughing REALLY hard). Maybe what I'm talking about is engaging RIGHT NOW as opposed to doing things in the proper order? So in a combined arms battle, how concerned should one be with locating, identifying, and destroying enemy armour - assume we're talking about a meeting engagement.

Granted. You provided an accurate answer, and I appreciate the reference you supplied with your answer, it was a nice touch. If someone is spouting BS and saying you are wrong - consider the source and consider the venue. We can't take away your next promotion by sullying your name. But you can sully your own name quite easily by barking at people, even if they are slinging BS. The difference between slinging BS and simply talking in an uninformed manner in open forum, however, is a large one, and hard to prove conclusively. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. If I find someone to be in error, I find a kindly worded post that shows respect for the recipient goes a long way to stimulating further discussion - and in many cases even generating a word of thanks. Often I find myself learning things in such a situation from the feedback that approach generates. Not to attack you directly, but your gruff approach practically guarantees that further useful discussion will be prohibited. Which is not why we come here. Didn't mean to preach...well, maybe I did just a little.

On a PC, hit CTRL-ALT-DELETE twice. (Is this the initiation thread?)

Lose the attitude, dude. I believe CavScout is correct - there are many movies that recycle titles - from a marketing standpoint, it can either be a good or bad idea. Bad movies sometimes use proven titles even if they are not a remake or even close to the original movie. I saw a Russian movie called "Adam's Rib" that had nothing to do with the original movie of the same name - it was (is?) a common ploy for Russian filmmakers to use English titles that have been used for succesful American movies in the past. Look at all the books that have been called "GIs" or "GI" for example, for an example closer to home. If you wanted to, you could make a movie named Star Wars, but you'd be pretty foolish to. I think the porn industry has other examples of recycled titles as well....