aka_tom_w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Theres also the turret ring. Rounds could also wedge into the space between the turret and hull. This would jam the turret and make the gun 'fixed'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have lobbied for the inclusion of a specific hit location to be included in CMBB known as the "turret ring" where that woudl be like a "weak spot" hit, a VERY low chance to hit, BUT one of the consquenses of a turret ring hit that did NOT penetrate would be the the turret would no long rotate. To the best of my knowledge this detail or feature is NOT modeled in CMBO. Just a Thought -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by phil stanbridge: I'm about to partake in a huge quick battle, 60 turns, 3-4000 points, and I want to know your opinions on the best terrain for October/November months. I love Magua's stuff but the treebases look off colour during these months. Opinions on a postcard please....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm STILL thrilled with (long departed) Gunslinger's "toned down" terrain mods and grass. find them here: http://www.afv-uk.net/cmoutpost/Terrain/Gunslinger/gunslinger.htm -tom w

Hi There are about 20 of us playing in the two Winecape tournements organized by Treeburst. We are all playing about 9 games in the tourney. EVERY game is CAL rules and with a Varible turn ending, meaning the games are 25 turns +/- 4 turns. This ONE, new addition and requirement ALONE, adds a whole new dimension to the way the game ends and I prefer it now to games I play where both parties know the end turn and prepare for the inevitable and ubiquitous (Happens EVERY time) Flag rush. I an sincerely hoping a fair, cheat proof and secure variable end turn option will find its way into CMBB. Has anyone read anything about this any where? Has Steve commented on this option somewhere and I have missed it? Just wondering? -tom w

The new Lego Robotics and Technics sets are seriously COOL and have bogies and treads and ALL kinds of new neat features. Take a look at: http://goosesmilitarylego.homestead.com/t3476.html for more great pictures of his T34-76 This is a guy is a Lego Military fanatic! But he does VERY nice work! I'd like to see this guy do a Lego Tiger I tank, all in Grey -tom w [ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Just soughting out the rules for my 4th game, will be against aka tom. I'll finish dont u worry <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK For those who are interested and just for the gratuitious BUMP in the thread..... KJ and I have agreed on short 75 rules (after much negotiation! :mad: ) and I will take the Allies and KJ will take the Axis. He will look at the map first as he did the set-up and some time today I imagine, if KJ accepts the map, I will get an opportunity to acccept it or decline it. We have both agreed to only decline one map each, (as per the tourney rules) so hopefuly we'll actually be into the battle in the next day or two. I'm looking forward to this one! Bring it ON Kiwi Joe! -tom w [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaldaen: This would be great for scenario designers too! There have been many a time I'd have like to just watch a scenario play out from both sides <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK I admit this is TOTALLY as foolish as playing chess against your self BUT.... It is possible to link two laptops (or any two computers) via TCP/ip and play head to head and set the turn timer for one minute then play BOTH sides You can plot the ENTIRE game's worth of moves and orders for each unit on both sides and then hit GO and the game will run it self and the TAC AI will take over and try to do its best to follow all your orders every minute This is not exactly the computer playing its selve, its just doing the best it can EVERY minute to follow your orders. This could be an interesting idea for and tournement gathering it could work as a novelty item if there was a gathering of CM players and everyone brought their own computer. (laptops work well) You can set up all your units and ONLY plot moves for the entire game in the first minute (while paused) the turn timer is then set to 1 minute and both players must stand back and watch their orders be followed and carried out by the TAC AI to the best of its ability for the rest of the game, the game will play on until one side surrenders or the last turn is reached, the game will then automatically determine the winner. Now that would be entertaining.... and "sort of" realistic -tom w [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead: Quick question to ponder If the game was real time, would that increase or decrease the SMG Gap? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I always like a post with a sense of humour! -tom w

Unofficially of course here is an update Sajer squeaks a narrow victory with allied short 75 forces over aka_tom_w's Axis forces. A BRUTAL flag rush ending, the game dragged on until the 28th turn when both offered a cease fire as per the turn end randomizer. tom held the one major flag and Sajer took three minor ones. Sajer had the ONLY AFV left active, (A wounded (one man down) .50 cal toting M1A5 U.S. HT) It was a TOUGH Battle and Sajer got the better of it . Sajer 56 aka_tom_w 44 (this is the official result we both agree to it) -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Here's the standings after the Stalin/KelsieD draw: KelsieD.............267.... 5..........53.4 GClement..........124.....2.........62 aka_tom_w.........142.....3.........48.3 Kiwi Joe..............83.....1........83 Sajer...................134.....3........44.6 Stalin's Organ......65.... 2........32.5 The_Capt............56.....2........28 Sock Monkey........0.....0.........0 Labappel...............0......0........0 KelsieD continues to maintain a strong average after 5 games. Nice work, KelsieD!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Big Time Software Administrator Member # 42 posted 07-09-2001 05:19 PM Hehe... this thread is now coming into rather select company in terms of long arguments about fine points. I recognize quite a few faces here that will remember the King of Fine Point Argument Threads -> "Gamey Recon". Still my all time favorite The most important goal of a simulation, especially one that is designed to reflect reality, is to keep a balance between the extreme aspects of the simulation. The less capable the system is in this regard, the less robust it becomes, and therefore the extremes cause the system to fail. In the case of a historical simulation, the less realistic it becomes. So... can someone make a case that in x specific situation with y specific variables that z specific force would fight a little/alot better/worse in such and such a way compared to the enemy? Yes. But do these assumptions always apply, as a rule, to all forces of that particular side in the same defined situation (if there is even an attempt to narrow the scope)? No. I firmly believe that this CAN NOT be done. Not as an inherent assumption based on nationality. So there are most likely other reasons why x in y does z besides concluding "the Human beings in German uniforms weren't as capable of dealing with the cold as Humans in Soviet uniforms were." The main factors that I see when looking at a battle go something like this: 1. Basic level of training. 2. Amount of actual combat experience. 3. Unit cohesion prior to the battle. 4. Motivations specific to that battle, including the "big picture" surrounding this particular battle. 5. Physical fitness/wellness of the force. 6. Disposition of BOTH sides prior to combat. 7. Leadership strengths/weaknesses at particular levels of command. 8. Terrain and other natural conditions (like weather). 9. Weapons available to each side and how they generally matched up against each other. 10. General supply level (usually only a factor when extreme). 11. LUCK, which is most likely influenced by above. There are certainly more factors that could be important, some of which might be more unique to the particluar battle (like a sentry being asleap on duty or most defenders being drunk on captured alcohol), but the above list is a pretty good sample of major influencing factors on a battle. Almost all of the above factors can be simulated in CMBO, but a few have been added to CMBB. Here is a good excercise for the "pro-National Modifiers" to engage in. When you look at a particular battle, think about all the major aspects as I noted above. When you are all done look at how the two sides stack up against each other. I will bet that whatever the outcome of the battle was these factors will explain (in a hindsight way) how the battle was fought and why it ended as it did. All this without even thinking about "this particular side was better at picking their noses while under fire compared to the other side" So even IF one could argue that some national modifier or another was justified, would it have had a significant impact on the battle compared to these other factors? I think not. Now, onto a slightly different aspect. And that is about training as opposed to some natural (i.e. born with) attribute type modifier. Jeff's point about drill having an impact on the INTERNAL way a squad fights is valid. Not just because of what weapon was the basis for squad tactics, but more importantly how training was actually conducted in general. For example, Waffen SS training supposedely dropped most of the "standard" aspects of training in favor of more practical use of time, such as exposing recruits to live fire overhead. Now, if this is totally true, and a different force instead all sat around in classrooms for the same length of time, I would expect there to be a difference when out on the field of battle. However, this can be rectified in CM by giving one force a better Experience rating than the other. So for extreme differences in training standards, I think the Experience rating (coupled with Fitness) does just fine. But what about more subtle differences? I totally agree that 8 weeks of similar training for one nation did not necessarily create the same exact type of soldier as another nation's army which also put its men through 8 weeks of training. I also agree that putting a fresh bunch of young lads from a rural district into rural combat for the first time would likely yeild better results than taking another bunch of young lads straight out of an urban gehto. BUT... How in the WORLD are we supposed to qualify and quantify all thses multitude of possible differences in the large variety of situations that can be experienced in combat? More importantly, how do you compare a set of such attributes from one nation vs. the attributes of another FAIRLY? And how do you do this in the correct relation to the real world impact such differences would have on the outcome of a combat engagement? I say that it is utterly impossible to do this. Because of that, trying to modify a select, almost random, assortment of differences based on whatever invented values are thought up is "bad...bad...bad" Jeff said in another thread that we only ask for strict fact finding and scientific results when someone's opinion is at odds with our "gut instinct". That is not exactly true, as we have changed things around when a) the element is highly subjective (but necessary to simulate) to begin with and a good rational argument can be show as to why our opinion is flawed. Facts of course help the other side out But in general, Jeff is correct that when we have a strong opinion about something we demand MORE than just another strong counter opinion. Otherwise we would be changing things every other day depending on which way the wind blew. Worse, the introduction of national modifiers would encourage such behavior on our part, otherwise we would be constantly labled as "baised this, biased that". And that would be "bad...bad...bad" So I say that digging our heels in, when necessary, is a good thing for everybody. Steve | IP: Logged Big Time Software Administrator Member # 42 posted 07-09-2001 05:59 PM There is another aspect of national modifiers that got tossed in here, and that is the tactics used by the player (or "mouse-wielding player" as Jeff put it ). Higher level tactics, which are totally within the control of the player, can be influenced to more-or-less conform to the real world tactics used by that formation in the same situations in the real war. The Germans tried to engage the enemy at longer ranges than shorter, whenever possible. So if you are a German player, your tactics will (generally) yeild better results if you try to emulate the real tactics used by the Germans in WWII. Not because the player is FORCED to do this, or that there are some national modifiers in place, but because the weapons, TO&E, C&C, etc. were designed to be used with such tactics. A player can attempt to engage T34s or Shermans at 100m, but it is not a good idea. It is true that the player can only influence the tactics used above squad level. This is true for all games I can think of, including Close Combat, that do not focus on the single soldier as a commandable element. So any differences that would come about at the sub-unit level would have to be programmed in by us. But WHAT changes should we be programming in? Jeff quoted a section from Gajkowski's translation of the German Squad tactics manual/s used around mid-war timeframe. The quote stated that unlike other nations, the Germans based their squad around the LMG and not the Rifle. I agree that this was the case, but what does this have to do with making changes? The reality that was described by Gajkowski is in fact already simulated in Combat Mission. Either the tactic was an outgrowth of a better LMG vs. rifle reality OR was the outcome of a specific design goal to have a better LMG and skimp on the rifle OR a combo of the two. Personally, I believe it was more a result of design and a little to do with circumstances. In any case, this German squad level tactical reality IS represented in Combat Mission. The German squad is more effective at longer distances than the US squad (for example), which is more centered around the rifle than the LMG (just as Gajkowski states). However, when distances are closed, the Germans often found themselves at least evened out because another truism of combat is that the more points of effective fire that can be brought to bear, the better the overall results. Hence the German tactics designed to keep the enemy at a distance, especially while on the defensive. If the enemy has the same number of men and only bolt action rifles with 5 shots, then the Germans would still have an edge or at least be even. But this was not the case with US or Commonwealth troops, both of which had more men and better rifles (Enfield was bolt action, but had 10 round box mag). So the number of atomatic weapons, in addition to the LMG, was in theory upped in order to compensate. Some formations, like SMG troops, were designed to give superior firepower at closer range, sacrificing longer range firepower. So what? Well, I for one use different tactics when I play as the German or Allied side. These tactics are, in part, based on the capabilities of the squads under my command. The reason why is because the squads "behave" differently and therefore must be used differently. These differences are based on their weapons and how they were supposed to be used by the squad members using them. So if Tero and others are simply asking us to make squads inherently different from each other, it is already done If we are being asked to make the individual men (all else being equal) different from each other, we will never do that. Steve | IP: Logged Great Post Steve Very informative.... Now lets continue with the Debate its sort of interesting from the sidelines.... -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jhdeerslayer: Thanks Tom W. That's the one. No clear conclusion on this vehicle it sounds like i.e. whether there is a true "problem" and if it gamey or not. The latest RD tourney has excluded it from tournament play interestingly enough. I ask cause I am up against two of these buggers in a Warfare HQ tourney and can't seem to get a piece of them but getting plenty on me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rush them with small arms fire if you can get close enough, otherwise try mortars or arty, they are a Bitch to take out other wise. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: The only things that can kill it are artillery and small-arms fire. It is invulnerable when it's moving. Some say that the crew cannot be picked off, although others claim they have experience of this happening. I am trying to find the thread about it, but so far all indications suggest that it has been either lost or deleted. I keep coming up with a single thread with a blacked-out title box. When I look back through the archives, there seems to be a page where several threads are missing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> try this: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=018686

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: Nice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> VERY Nice check it out! it is one helluva GREAT review Congrats Nice Art work by theat Crafts 2001 fellow who ever he is? It looks VERY nice so far! -tom w [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that your point is relevant here. Let's go even further and let's say that you're correct, or even partially so, in that some nations were 'just better' (which I don't think is the case). How would you apply those to CM anyway? So my squad drill is different than yours - does that mean I go to ground differently than you do? That I run differently? That I die differently? Squads under fire seek cover, stay put, and may or may not fire back whilst doing so. Currently CM allows you to have an experience of Veteran, which means on average that your squad will do any and all of these things better than mine if mine is 'merely' Regular. The addition of the Fitness attribute in CM2 will allow even more differentiation. I still fail to see why you are dissatisfied with the current implementation. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> By Now we are A LONG way off the topic of the "SMG gap" that this thread started out with... At any rate I think the new CM2 "element" or "factor" of fitness will be a new and welcome varient that will enhance the some of the "differentiation" (with a nationality modifier) that some here seek. This element was needed more in CMBO I would say to model the less fit Volkstrum units who I understand were coomposed mostly of old men with automatic weapons, but in CMBO the ONLY factor that is relevent is "men with LOTS of automatic weapons". The "fitness factor" in CMBB should be VERY interesting! Now what the hell was the SMG gap we were talking about?? -tom w

OK Thanks for the update -tom w

You should NEVER underestimate the fluke nature of a hit and penetration with the Allied 37 mm Main Weapon in this game. Its on the Greyhound and the Stuart and I have found that is will penetrate almost ANY flank and any rear aspect of ANY german AFV. I am totally surprised by how often it will penetrate at a weakspot against the heavy tanks. The 37 mm in the Stuart and Greyhound comes with alot of ammo and plenty of AP and it is surprisingly effective! Too bad we can't play with the Grant and Lee series with the 75 mm main weapon and the 37 mm in the turret on the top! now that would be FUN! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Hi WineCape! Sock Monkey has posted to this thread a few times and has at least one game going. I've not heard from Labappel. Is anyone playing a game with him?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup Hi I have one Going with Labappel. I hope he picks up a few maore games so that he plans to complete to the tourney, so that my game against him will count. I think I need to set one up against Sock Monkey and I need to re-negotiate with Kiwi Joe to get a new one set up. I currently have games in progress against: Labappel Malcock (?) (jake?) greg clement Mike (stalin's organ) and can you update the latest stats to: Tom W...........98....2 games....average 49 to reflect my point from the win over Warren Miron? (what is Warrens handle here? The_Capt?) thanks -tom w P.s. Sorry Folks I will be away from e-mail all this weekend as well. Hello Kiwi Joe (I'm looking forward to next engagement!) Perhaps we can start a new round of negotiations early next week for a new set up?

Latest Result "Warren" <k.lan@roadrunner.nf.net> vs aka_tom_w Recon Rules (Allies) aka_tom_w = 72 (Axis) Warren Miron (k.lan@roadrunner.nf.net) = 28 Undisputed auto surrender as Warren's Axis forces fled the battle field. Just an update... I think I have replied to all the PMEM files I have as of 8:00pm EST. I wil be away for the next 48 hrs, so sorry but I will reply to all new pbem files (I hope) sometime Thurs night. Thanks -tom w [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

So?! Am I a newbie and unwelcome here? (as per the long winded post above) Just testing the waters so to speak. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: But how is a tank supposed to know which units are no threat to its existence? A AT-team can be identified as "Infantry?" and most German squads carry Panzerfausts which makes them AT-teams. The Fog of War makes most enemies a potential threat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very Good Point! An unknown (Fog of War creaping in here) infantry unit within 200 meters of your AVF should be considered a credible threat, many types of infantry in this game carry AT weapons, and at 200 meters a buttoned tank should be wary of ANY unknown infantry types, hell you know they just "could be" a REAL threat like a 'zook, piat or 'shreck, but at 200 meters through vision slit on a buttoned tank (because you have NO infantry support nearby) that tank "should" consider that unknown infantry unit a threat. OK scenario "B": Thanks to the borg like miracle of absolute spotting, if some other infantry unit positively ID's the enemy unit in question then you as the player may can ticked that the AFV in question still reacts as though that infantry maybe a potential threat, BUT the crew of that AFV (still buttoned) should not know they have been identified as non-threatening by other friends, so the tank crew does not know (and should not Know, until you tell it) that the "unknown" infantry 200 meters out does not represent a threat and so the Tac AI acts as though it is a threat. This is not such a bad system. It used to be MUCH worse, it works pretty well now actually, IMHO. I think the current system punishes bad tactics and rewards players using good tactics, ( i.e. over laping fields of fire, tanks with wingmen close by, tanks supported with infantry out in front, effective use of art and smoke, that kind of thing) -tom w

Sorry I should have mentioned I was away for the long weekend. It was the Canada Day Long weekend and I am just now getting to my e-mail and to start to return your turns. I alaways try to send the turn back within 24 hrs but I left early on Friday and did not turn on my e-mail vacation notice, as this is a normal three day weekend in Canada. I will get those turns back out as soon as possible. Thanks -tom w

new Result Due to Low morale I autosurrendered last night on the 24th turn Hey Treeburst here is my first result scott uhlir ruhlir@home.com =74 aka_tom_w =26 Sorry I'm not sure of Scott's handle here? Can we get an update of the latest results? Thanks -tom w

too the TOP! Just for Fun anyone playing this game, or more recently new to the forum or new to the game really SHOULD read this thread as it is FULL of very interesting and diverse opinions and it even contains some FACTS and historically accurate info, (in some places!!) -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sajer: Treeburst, what is the rule about refusing a map? I know you are allowed to refuse a map if you don't like it, but is there a limit to the amount of times that you can refuse maps?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't quote me but I understood it was ONE refuse each as per "Maps Quick battles Upon entering the game during setup and seeing the map a player has the right to decline the setup and ask for another if he feels the map favors one player or the other." Oops perhaps I am mistaken I "thought" it was ONE decline per person and then the third map you had to play on. Perhaps I am mistaken? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: I'd like to point ouot that it doesn't always happen like this at all. I reently had a 20mm FLAK (I think) open up on 2 half squads of mine. They never saw it and both were destroyed with the help of some infantry. I moved a Sherman up during the fight but it never saw it either, so ended up area firing at teh "sound contact". Then it got knocked out - now this was at 500m with a front turret hit - a 20mm doesn't do that, and my opponent gleefully reminded me of that fact! This was only a minor flanking attack, so there were no other troops observing, but it just goes to show.........<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have had a similiar experience as the Allies with something that fired bursts of 20mm at me. I still don't know what it is or was and I never ID'd it and it just kept firing and I lost a Stuart and a squad. Sometimes somethings can be damn near impossible to spot and all you do is hear them and get a sound contact and a dead tank (on your end). -tom w

oops [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]