aka_tom_w

Will there be a v1.04 patch? If I'm not mistaken there has been no official announcement? Or has there? Or are we just assuming that they are working on the next list of tweaks and fixes? -tom w

A great thread. Back to the top.

Live vehicles do not block LOS or LOF. ONLY KO'd vehicles that are smoking will block LOS and LOF and provide cover. I think its a bigger issue than most people here admit, too be sure they know about it, they programed it that way and it is a DEAD issue. -tom w

You have to move to win There could not be a truer statement... Risking there little cyber/digital lives is what you have to do to engage and kill the enemy. Same for AFV's, Move them to win, if they can target the enemy, the enemy can, MORE than likely, target them back and then it usually just comes down to a matter of Luck! (given more or less even strength units). "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." G. S. Patton -tom w

I would like to design a scenario, (I'm working on it now) that is a counter attack, over a previously fought over battle field. Now, other than a burning building or a tile with rubble on it, what else can I put on the map to indicate a battle took place here the day before? The maps now tend to show mostly pristine country side waiting to be messed up and littered with the dead and KO'd vehicles. Are there any other tiles that simulate previous battle scars? I would like to see burned out vehicle tiles and other tile sets of all the different terrain types with arty craters some heavier than others, to indicate that this place was a war zone just the day before. Any thouhgts? -tom w

Is it gamey to split squads in the initial set up so you can dig twice as many fox holes so you have some to retreat back into. It is my opinion that this is a good and legitmate defensive tactic to split squads so you end up with twice as many foxholes as if the squads were not split. comments? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-14-2000).]

Found this today and thought I would share it It is a page on the www but it seems to be a frame and I'm not sure how to post the address or the URL, as just the newspapers: http://www.nationalpost.com/ comes up its in todays Arts and Life but here is the article: August 14, 2000 Back to Hatfield Saving Private Ryan veterans Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg return to England for another assault on the Second World War David Gritten The Daily Telegraph 'Here we are again,'' says Tom Hanks, grinning bashfully from beneath his baseball cap. "Back in Hatfield, the place that has everything.'' Hanks' tongue is firmly in his cheek as he tells me this, of course. Few people rhapsodize about Hatfield, a humdrum town in Hertfordshire, England. But it has a huge, disused aerodrome that for filmmakers constitutes a dream backlot; on its 1,100 acres there's room to create several distinctly different sets. It was here that the beleaguered French village in the Oscar-winning Saving Private Ryan was created. Hanks starred in that film and Steven Spielberg directed it. And now, as Hanks says, they're back -- as executive producers of a project loosely linked to Saving Private Ryan but even bigger in scope. Band of Brothers is a 10-part drama series for U.S. cable channel HBO based on Stephen Ambrose's non-fiction best-seller about the Second World War. Starting in 1942, it follows the soldiers of Easy Company from the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division through training in America and parachuting into France early on D-Day morning and climaxes with their daring capture of Hitler's fortified mountain chalet, the Eagle's Nest, at Berchtesgaden. Band of Brothers is an enormous undertaking, with a budget of US$100-million, a nine-month shooting schedule, a speaking cast of 500 and 10,000 extras. (The caterers serve as many as 800 meals a day.) Most of the action takes place at the Hatfield aerodrome. Its geography has been drastically rearranged to create man-made rivers, dikes (for scenes depicting Holland) and forests, as well as villages in Belgium and France and the American training camp. For Saving Private Ryan, only a small portion of the aerodrome was employed. Although producers Hanks (who does not appear in Band of Brothers but directs one of its episodes) and Spielberg are star names, the cast is comprised largely of unknowns; only David Schwimmer (Ross from Friends), who plays a tough training officer, counts as a high-profile actor. In a story exclusively about American soldiers, English actor Damien Lewis plays the lead role -- heroic Captain Richard Winters. Lewis is hardly a household name, which may be why filming in Hatfield has attracted scant British press attention. Yet Band of Brothers is a hugely significant production for Britain's film industry. Though made for TV, it is one of the largest projects ever to employ the services of British film crews and craftsmen. For such a production to be shot here is the equivalent of a British company winning a huge export order. The British government felt it was so crucial to land Band of Brothers that negotiations were monitored by Downing Street. "Tony Blair [the Prime Minister] spoke to Spielberg personally about the project,'' says Steve Norris, the British Film Commissioner. "They already knew each other. They first met when Blair was leader of the opposition and Spielberg was in Britain making Saving Private Ryan. It makes a lot of difference when people are made to understand they are welcome here.'' Such high-level persuasion was necessary, because the competition was fierce. Ireland and the Czech Republic were also bidding to be the location. Hanks discloses that last year he and Spielberg also mulled over shooting the series in North America. "But England has the materiel,'' Hanks adds. "You can't find Sherman tanks in the U.S.A. The American military brought this stuff over in the '40s and didn't bother taking it back. So you have the vehicles, and that's no small thing. You have great craft services here. We've recreated Holland, Georgia, the Ardennes forest in Hatfield. And compared with the U.S. or Canada, it's convenient: Everyone lives within half an hour's drive.'' The British Ministry of Defence played its part. At Hatfield, I find retired U.S. Marine Captain Dale Dye. He now runs Warriors Inc., a company that has helped actors in 44 films (including Saving Private Ryan and Platoon) to look and behave like authentic military men. For Band of Brothers, Dye had 60 actors to lick into shape, the most he has been assigned for one film. "The co-operation has been wonderful,'' says Dye. "The Ministry of Defence was kind enough to give us two solid weeks to train these guys. They turned over a camp at Longmoor, which is an active duty training base, with six acres of woods, hills and barracks. I got everything I wanted. And we had a week at RAF Brize Norton, where there's a parachute school. We did a massive amount of training there -- para landing falls, the works. It's really paid dividends for us.'' Spielberg, who admires British film technicians and likes shooting here, wanted to make Saving Private Ryan wholly in the UK, but the Irish government persuaded him to shoot the film's gruelling D-Day landing scenes on beaches in County Wexford, and provided reserve soldiers as extras. For Braveheart, which was shot partly in Scotland, the Irish provided incentives for Mel Gibson and his cast and crew to shoot their big showpiece battle scenes in the Emerald Isle. Both times, John Major's government seemed to be caught on the hop. "We were disappointed that it happened,'' says Norris, who himself was once a film producer. "But back then you just couldn't galvanize the government. I have to say, this government is much more interested and sensitive. There's been a sea-change in the thinking. "For Band of Brothers, the Irish offered a set close to Dublin. We felt we had to compete. The Hatfield site was ready to be redeveloped, so the developers were asked to hold off until filming was done.'' In addition to this new competitive attitude, the Blair government has done something that eluded its predecessors -- it recently managed to arrive at a new British Film Definition to establish whether a film production is "British'' enough to qualify for tax concessions. "There's a simple rule,'' says Norris. "You have to spend 70% of your production budget here. And 70% of your labour has to be from Britain or the EC. If you want access to British taxpayers' money, that's what you do.'' Band of Brothers may look all-American, but will qualify under the British Film Definition. It has several American actors in speaking roles, but as they are unknown, they are also cheap. Hanks and Spielberg receive producers' fees, with a profit share from international broadcast sales. "The nice thing about the Definition is it encourages producers to stick around after their film is shot, and do editing and post-production in Britain,'' says Norris. "If a film qualifies as British, the tax breaks probably cut seven or 8% off its budget.'' The British Film Commission also takes the view that the money from big Hollywood movies not only keeps our film workers in business, but enables the industry to bring on younger people and enhance their skills. Then there is the tourism factor: It is widely believed that in 1996, the year after Braveheart and Rob Roy opened worldwide, the number of foreign visitors to Scotland increased by 20%. "There's nothing like being able to present visions of your country on a big screen,'' says Norris. Britain's major film studios are currently busy, busy, busy with large-scale Hollywood productions. Disney's 102 Dalmatians has just wrapped at Shepperton; Tomb Raider, with Angelina Jolie as computer-game heroine Lara Croft, has started shooting on the famous 007 sound stage at Pinewood; The Mummy Returns, set in Victorian London, has begun at Shepperton. And the long-awaited Harry Potter film from Warner Bros. should start rolling at Leavesden in October. Any or all of these films might qualify as British under the new definition; at the very least their producers will have targets and quotas to aim for if they want tax breaks. That would mean a substantial boost to the British economy, after years of seeing film opportunities go abroad. When New Labour came to power it was quickly and understandably derided for its slavish emphasis on "Cool Britannia'' and a starry-eyed adulation of showbiz values. Yet it has arrived at a pragmatic approach to making foreign film production in Britain work for everyone's benefit. We have an intangible advantage, of course. Back on set in Hatfield, Hanks is grinning his boyish grin: "You know what I love about it here? You can shoot all day and be back in London for dinner.'' He shakes his head: "Britain really is the coolest place to make movies.''

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: How would BTS code that? And wouldn't a battery have extra rounds set aside just for spotting purposes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But they are FREE and they are infinite these now unaccounted for spotting rounds that are HE and they are destructive. This is IMHO a significant issue that should be addressed. Because it can really be exploited to used destructive fire power that at present is free and unaccounted for. Especially for the 14 inchers as in the opening example. -tom w

That sounds like a good idea but,.... right now it is INSTANT arty off when you say stop perhaps it should take as long to turn the barrage "OFF" as it does to wait for it to come "on" But, then you could still call in the free spotting round (and wait three minutes for it) and in the Very next turn cancel it and then maybe only one free spotting round would fall as the cancel order would take three minutes to get there and would cancel the main barrage after the free spotting round in the first minute? (after the three minute wait) SIMPLE... ALL spotting rounds should count against available HE arty, AND/OR spotting rounds should only ever be smoke rounds.. AND it is a good idea to program in a command delay to cancel or change the fire mission or arty barrage. It is still a good idea to have the command delay, it will just be the same problem if the first spotting round is HE and is still unaccounted for. now I know next to Nothing about the way Arty really worked in WWII and I'm not a grognard, but I am keen to see this game evolve to the perfect FUN wargame that does NOT have any gamey cheats or loopholes that can be exploited. And I would say this is the most obvious exploitable loophole found so far. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunter: One possible solution for the problem (?) described would be for BTS to change the cancelling of barrages to give them a delay similar to the 'calling delay' when plotting a barrage. That way, you would possibly be penalised with the rounds going in even if you don't want them. Just a suggestion. Bruce<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand... I just wondered if I missed anything over the weekend? -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: BTS seldom replies to these sorts of issues until they have reached a consensus on how to deal with it. They do address them though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are still a few problems with this game (easy things like spotting rounds not being counted and that .50 cal being suggested to be too leathal). BUT I really don't mind the way hull down positioning is modeled. I don't think that the Hull down position or getting into one is the be all and end all of AFV armour combat and the way the game is modeled with the LOS and LOF from the center of mass or mid point of EVERY AFV and vehicle, works farily well (About a MILLION times better than ANY board game you have ever played!) at least the odds or disadvantages of this system are the SAME for ALL vehicles and both the Allies and the Axis units are equally compromised by this system. I have read here about alot of complicated suggestions and highly theoretical proposals to fix what is suggested to be a REALLY big problem. I think the current hunt command and current Hull down position locating method (mostly luck and trial and error), models the real experience of tank commanders in WWII quite well, IMHO. If its not broke, don't fix it. (I think it works very well the way it is currently handled) -tom w

Hi Has there been any "official" comment on this issue? I was away for the weekend and was wondering if anyone as seen this "gamey" issue addressed or replied to? thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeAcH: Ultra Fog of War option. -Very little info on armor hit -You unit skill is NOT shown to enemy (tanks included) -The condition of your troops is not given to the enemy in such detailed. (Good, Pinned, and routed for example) -Crews arent shown as crew to enemy Perspective 1 lock at game start TeAcH<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These are good suggestions, I like the Ultra Fog of War option and the Lock to view only by Perspective 1 (camera 1) would make the game VERY challenging indeed! I think some here would not think it would be very much fun. I know I don't have the self discpline to do it by myself now. -tom w

#1 gamey tactic this needs attention, soon I think it has been reported that spotting rounds do not count against the available "regular" arty barrage rounds. This appears to mean that spotting rounds are free, and are unaccounted for and you can use spotting rounds (one at a time) over and over again without expending any of your actual arty barrage. ( A very gamey tactic indeed) This should be number one on the list as it has been quoted as the "penultimate gamey" tactic". -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: It's not the deception that's gamey -- it's getting 22 shots of 14 inch out of a 6 shot battery. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK this is a very interesting thread... I think it suggests to us that if spotting rounds fired by arty are not counted against the total rounds fired expended or available then this is game design issue in my opinion, using spotting rounds as a deception is not in my opinion a "gamey" tactic if they are recorded and subtracted from the available rounds. How sure are we that these spotting rounds are not being subtracted? It is not the tactic that is gamey it is the failure of the game to allow spotting rounds to rain down with infinite availability, in this unaccounted for way. -tom w

ok This is the best post so far (I think) (see below) The game is good the way it is (mostly) Now I understand the difference between the hunt command with enemy unit beyond the ridge to target and WITHOUT an enemy unit beyond the hill to target. This is what some here are requesting It seems. It makes sense except why not just use good old "player skill" to put that tank in the right position in the absense of the enemy unit, just get down into camera 1 and hunt the tank to a location BEFORE the crest of the hill. you can't reallKNOW if your tank is actually hull down, until you can target and engage the enemy and actauly see if the game tells you your tank is in a hull dwon position. You can go to camera level 1 at the location you are attempting to target and look at back at the tank you are trying to place hull down and actually see how much if it is showing? if just the TC is visible over the ridge is it my experience that th enemy will not be able to fire at him as he is part of the tank that you can't get LOS to. I suspect (I'm not sure of this one, I should test it) that a sharp shooter on the ground, Would NOT be able to target an unbuttoned TC over a ridge as he cannot "see" the middle of the tank which the game thinks he need to acquire a valid target. Am I wrong about this? I must test that -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aj_nielson: MERC, The difference between the proposed command and the hunt command is the presence of an enemy unit. When using hunt to find a hull down position your tank rolls forward & then stops when it has LOS on an enemy. Great. But what if you want to be in a hull-down position before an enemy arrives, (to set up an ambush or something?), THEN a seperate command would be quite useful. The command would be exactly like hunt except your tank would roll forward until it has LOS on a given point instead of an enemy. Also, I think such a command would be quite realistic. Having a tank roll up a hill until the commander has LOS over it isn't gamey or unnatural. It irritates me to have to fiddle with my tanks turn after turn, playing with all sorts of camera angles as I micromanage my armor trying to get them properly hull-down when the crew should be able to do it on it's own. I'm not a veteran or anything, so this is all just speculation, but it seems reasonable to assume that a tank commander knows how to find a hull down position. The idea seems fairly realistic and would cut-down on the micro-managment of armor to increase the "fun" factor of the game. Just my $.02 -Adam- Either way, CM is still an amazing game!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to add... First I ask myself "exactly what is wrong with the system now" I thought if you ordered a tank to "hunt" over the crest of a hill, it would in fact automatically hunt its selve into a hull down position in relation to a known target which it will have LOS to and engage once it approaches the crest of the hill. Am I wrong? The only problem I see in this whole picture is the The LOS of the TC is not modeled, the LOS of the main gunner sighter seems to be the only one modeled and the LOS of the Machine gunner and driver are not modeled. SO my question is... Is it realistic to expect that these three different points of view came all be modeled. I think it would be VERY nice if the LOS perspective of the unbuttoned TC was modeled so that the entire tank could be hull down and only the unbuttoned TC would be able to see over the hill. In my practical expeirence of playing the game I have SEEN from view point camera 1 just the head of an unbuttoned TC of an opposing tank beyond a hill and been able to target his tank but not fire at it or him, as it was out of LOF. My machine gunner in the bow gun of the tank) was not able to fire at the TC as the game "saw" no valid target as the LOS went from ( I presume ) the center of My AFV to the center (below the ridge ) of the enemy AFV. This is the way the game is modeled. I think it would be nice to see TC in unbuttoned tanks, be targetable even if the rest of the tank is not. And those Same unbuttoned TC's should have a LOS from their lofty perspective modeled so the player (you the commander) can then move the tank in a hull down position. I think there still needs to be only one or at the most 2 spotting perspectives from a tank, one from the main gun and one from the TC (unbuttoned). Did that make any sense? -tom w

This the review and it is a VERY good one Its copywriten so I hope I don't get in trouble for posting it here: Combat Mission is essentially a turn-based wargame. But don’t click away yet; this wargame is unlike any that have come before. It depicts small --a handful of tanks, a couple of hundred men-- World War II skirmishes in Europe. The few of you who have played Avalon Hill’s Advanced Squad Leader board game should get the picture, the thousand of you who haven’t must imagine intensely brutal fire fights between German SS and British Tommies (infantry), American Sherman tanks and German King Tigers. The ROM includes units from six armies and hundreds of weapons, but who cares? It’s all been done before. What hasn’t been done is how the SS, Tommies, Shermans, and King Tigers are thrown into combat and the way they look once there. Lets look at the look first, and the combat next. The terrain and units are 3D. Now I’m not talking pretty, gee-look-at-the-little-swordsmen 3D, but those-trees-block-my-cannon’s-sight 3D. The Combat Mission landscape is full of undulating hills, meandering rivers, forests, buildings (several kinds), railroad tracks, marshes, stone walls --in short real world stuff. And, unlike any other 3D game I can think of, all these landscape features matter! Tanks can hide in the scattered woods (or dips in the ground), squads of soldiers can take cover in buildings or behind stone walls, and marshes can bog trucks and tanks. Of course you can rotate/elevate and pan/zoom your view. Want to know if your antitank gun can spot the tank cresting the distant rise? Just zoom in to a ground level view from the gun and see for yourself. Yep, there have been real-time games that dabble in realistic line of sight, but this is virgin territory (Blue Byte’s Incubation excepted) for turn-based gamers. 3D terrain would make Combat Mission a cool game. But what destines the title for greatness (and a host of game-engine copycats) is the turn-based/real-time action. The orders phase is turn-based. Take your time, click on each unit, check line of sight, and direct the machine gun to chop down the approaching Germans or the Sherman tank to move into ambush behind the hill. Nothing new there, what is new is how your orders play out --i.e. real time. You see, while you where ordering your units, the computer was ordering its own, and when you click “Go” the results are simultaneously played out on the 3D battlefield. Imagine a two-minute slice of Saving Private Ryan in which you control the actors. Your machine gun team will no sooner open up on the approaching Germans than a Tiger tank will appear in the street to your right, gun tube lowering to obliterate your men. The Sherman you ordered to the hill may hit a mine and the crew dies horribly at the hands of a previously hidden German MG34 machine gun. I frequently found myself cheering on an exposed platoon as it ran for cover, fearful that a hidden German squad would cut them down --and this is *turn-based* gaming. I’ve played Unreal Tournament death matches that were less exciting. You may rewind, fast forward, pan, zoom, pause or whatever you like during the playback. Even save a special moment to show a friend (or taunt an enemy). Ever wish you could show your buddy just how your Zerglings swarmed the Terrans? With Combat Mission you can --aside from the fact that it has no Zerglings or Terrans. It is just fantastic. Unfortunately, it is also obscure. Lack of gaming clout regulates Combat Mission to the back pages of the gaming magazines and the review archives of all but war gaming review sights. It’s a shame, because in an era where each new game claims to take its genre to new heights, Combat Mission truly does. And that’s a fact that money can’t buy. Copyright 2000, Ola Balola LLC. Comments? feedback@gameslice.com

TCP/IP is the biggest new priority.. These are my top 5 1- scurrying (indentified) crews drawing too much attention from Tanks. Bailed crews should never be targets for AFV's 2 Look at that US .50 cal as it Takes out light opposing vehciles and makes their crews abandon them VERY qucikly, I think the .50 cal is modeled TOO leathal 3 More Fog of War You should not be able to see the experience level the the opposing units, damage to opposing AFV's should not be so complete or obvious 4) suggest disinformation, for example you can NEVER really know the truth, maybe there would be info displayed with a "?" like "gun damaged" on a an AFV when in fact the round ricocheted, and the opposing AFV has no damage? More fog of War more incorrect info displayed, like it is when they always think it a heavy AFV like a "Tiger Tank'? before it actually determined to be just a Pz IV. 5- inability to veiw map in QBs before purchasing units

Again I would say this is an "enhanced fog of war" issue, there are other issues like can you know the experience level of opposing troops. Should you be able to know the extend of the damage you have inflicted to an opposing tank. (yes if you have LOS and can see that damage with Binocs, but NO you should not know, if the damage is caused by Arty or Airstrikes and no ground units have LOS to that unit.) I would like to suggest another setting beyond full fog of war to something beyond full fog of war, and call it it "Enhanced Fog of War" or "Beyond Full Fog or War" or Dare I suggest... "Close to Realistic Fog Of War" anyway There are some of us here would like more Fog of War and as much of it as realistically possible. I still think this game is GREAT! I'm always thrilled when I have units being shot at and I can't tell where the fire is coming from. This game is GREAT in that sometimes AFV's get KO'd and you have NO idea where the shot or round came from. This kind of FOW is most welcome here as it is new and fun feature that keeps commanders on their toes. Bring on the next level of Beyond Full Fog of War! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-11-2000).]

I love those engineers..... To close assault a tank, first try to get it immbolized. Then kill or supress all its infantry support, then attack it from both sides and the rear if possible with at least two squads. To do this have both squads RUN to where the tank is, (they will crawl on it and under it), at the same time give both squads orders to target the tank, make sure both squads are still in command radius of a leader, the better the skill of the Platoon leader the more likely they will KO the tank. If they are engineers they will use their demo charges to attempt to KO the tank. I have a custom designed scenario, British infantry vs heavy german Armour, (the tanks cross the bridge and they die) that will let you practice close assaulting tanks with infantry. The scenario is not posted anywhere but I'll e-mail it to you for so you can practice if you e-mail me. -tom w

two words Turn Timers Like in Chess some one here is playing ten minute turns thats great, but many of us have to wait longer than that for turns to come back by e-mail. we are looking for immediate gratification and time limits on turns I can't wait -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wayne: But quite frankly, I think we should wait for Skorzeny's reply before we jump to hasty conclusion. Therefore, let's be careful; Skorzeny might have been hired by Dr. Marino to do the research. John Wayne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With respect, given Mr. Skorzeny's tone, attitude and opening statments on this board, I'm not sure if there are many here who would be so charitable as to grant him the benefit of the doubt as you suggest. I personally find it difficult to believe that such a work as "Bloody But Not History: What's Wrong with Saving Private Ryan" was in fact written by the same individual who introduced himself to this board with these words " Topic: This sure ain't how WW2 was.... Skorzeny Junior Member posted 08-10-2000 12:26 AM I am no fool. In fact, I specialised in military history, particularly WW2. My main contention has to do the way the AI in CM handles artillery and mortar support. Back in WW2, once German artillery/tank units were discovered, several minutes, even hours could pass before the Allies redirected their fire against the new threat. " Sorry, but given the lack of evidence, to the contrary, and in the absence of Mr. Skorzeny posting a prompt, scholarly and concise rebuttal and or explanation, it is my opinion that this is a clear case of the most blatant plagarism I have ever seen. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-10-2000).]

My question is do Tanks still target bailed crews when they are no threat? If they do, (and I think they do so at alarming rate) that should be looked at. the ONLY big thing I would like to see next is play via TCP/IP I'm wondering why no one is complaining about the effectivness of the German Counterpart of the US .50 cal? Is it modeled less effectively? The U.S. .50 cal is VERY effective, is it too effective? I don't know. Again Bailed crews seem to be targeted by Tanks when they represent no threat, which means if you advance your bailed crews as bait and attempt to flank the opposing enemy AFV with your armour or anti tank assets you will likely be acussed of using gamey tactics because it seems Tanks love to acquire bailed crews as "easy" targets. BUT There may not be anymore of these kinds of patches before TCP/IP arrives and I can live with that is the game is VERY much fun to play and VERY well balanced as it is. thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Walter: Boy, I sure hope your name is Michael Marino from St. John's University, buddy, or you just lost all credibility on this board. If it is, I apologize (though if you're enrolled at Laval, I assume you're not also enrolled at St. John's), if not, I sure hope you're ready to apologize to this board and Mr. Marino for plagarising his essay. http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~filmhis/filmreview/ryan.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For those too lazy to click.... And I quote..... " Bloody But Not History: What's Wrong with Saving Private Ryan By Michael Marino,St. John's University The release of Steven Spielberg's epic war film Saving Private Ryan has been accompanied by a near avalanche of critical acclaim and praise for its message, theme and realistic, unforgiving portrayal of combat in the Second World War. From HBO and History Channel specials, to Nightline to Newsweek magazine, the film has been lauded for showing World War Two as it really was. Mr. Spielberg himself has solemnly proclaimed his film's realism and his goal to finally make a film to do justice to the war and the men who fought so courageously in it. The director claims that for the film he "wanted to achieve reality" and "assumed the role of combat cameraman, not the role of artist." Star Tom Hanks has echoed Spielberg, claming "why make a fat fake movie when you can find out what really happened and do it that way."1 Based on the nearly universal acclaim for the film, it would seem Mr. Spielberg has succeeded in his mission to a large degree. No one can doubt that the combat scenes in Saving Private Ryan are the most spectacular, grisly and disturbing ever filmed and that the intensity of the movie grips the viewer from beginning to end. The details of the film are also stunning, especially so in the meticulously recreated uniforms and weapons. This is especially true in regard to the German Tiger tanks that appear in the end of the film, amazingly rebuilt with minute and painstaking accuracy. Yet, as realistic as the combat scenes, uniforms and weapons in the film are, Saving Private Ryan is by no means an accurate portrayal of the Normandy invasion and the fighting that went on there. Indeed, the film does what most movies do when confronted with historical details: it changes and omits them to suit plot and storyline. This fact is not so much evident in the beginning of the film, which depicts the American landings on Omaha Beach, which was recreated with the help of the testimony of many veterans and the distinguished historian Stephen Ambrose. However, as the cast of the film proceeds inland on its search for Private Ryan, reality begins to take a back seat to artistic license. This is especially true at the climatic battle scene at the end of the film, ostensibly fought between the American 101st Airborne Division , the principle characters of the film and a German battlegroup of the 2nd SS Panzer Division. The battle is indeed a fine piece of filmmaking, exciting and horrifying at the same time. It was also a battle concocted straight out of someone's imagination &endash; the 2nd SS Panzer division was nowhere near the front on June 13, 1944. Even if it was, the thought that it could march an armored column in broad daylight into a major attack in the face of American air and naval dominance is pure folly. Further, even if the 2nd SS had somehow been able to mount its attack, it is highly unlikely that it would have attacked in the almost ridiculously inept way the Germans in the film marched to face Private Ryan, Tom Hanks and comrades. Why would the Germans march into a town without first sending reconnaissance probes? Why did Tiger tanks (of which the 2nd SS Panzer division had none2) lead an assault into a burnt out town where they would be singularly ineffective? Why would a vulnerable, open topped vehicle such as the German Marder III, designed to engage tanks at long range, be slowly driven through the town to engage enemy infantry except to provide a convenient target for crafty, Molotov cocktail armed American paratroopers? For all the realism in Saving Private Ryan, it is by no means an accurate depiction of the Battle of Normandy. It has, according to those who fought there (obviously, the best authorities on the subject), recreated combat scenes in effective detail, but the film is not a historical work and while the film is powerful, it is not history. As it stands, those who watch the film, believing they are seeing a true story, are in fact seeing something that is largely the figment of the imaginations of those who wrote and produced the film. While the film's message will remain powerful and the emotions it arouses strong, when one analyzes the film as a piece of history, it falls short and this can only serve to undermine its overall purpose. Where was the 2nd SS Panzer Division? It was odd that the American soldiers in the film mentioned the 2nd SS Panzer division by name, considering the fact that it was nowhere near the front on June 13th, 1944. Better known as the "Das Reich" division, the 2nd SS was training in southern France when the Allies invaded on June 6th. Ordered to move north to the front, the Das Reich division faced an arduous journey in the face of Allied air power, which attacked its road columns constantly as well as the French Resistance, which also sought to disrupt its movement to Normandy.3 On its way northward the division achieved infamy for massacring French civilians in reprisal actions and it was not until June 20 that any of Das Reich's tanks reached the Normandy battlefield.4 When the division did reach the front, it was initially placed in reserve and when it entered action it did so against the British, not the Americans.5 The first week in July was the first time that any elements of Das Reich came into contact with the American army.6 Why the 2nd SS was mentioned in the film and not one of the actual formations facing the Americans is difficult to explain; it may be that a number was selected at random. What really happened? So far as the actual Normandy battle is concerned, the climactic scene in the film is apparently based on the 101st Airborne's defense of the town of Carentan on June 13, 1944. The previous day the town had been taken from the Germans and the German commander, Field Marshal Rommel, ordered the town recaptured, given that possession of the town allowed the two American beachheads, Utah and Omaha, to unify and move on the important port of Cherbourg. The principal unit selected for the attack was the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division (usually known by its name "Goetz von Berlichingen") which had just arrived at the front, harassed continually by air attacks. The battle depicted in the film and the actual battle that took place were quite different, however. The film conveys the notion that a few desperate, yet scrappy Americans managed to hold out against a far superior force deep behind enemy lines. The actual battle saw the town of Carentan defended by two regiments of the 101st airborne, supported by tanks, planes and naval gunfire from three battleships. 7 The Americans were also reading the Germans' secret code and knew about the planned attack a day before it happened.8 Thus, the attack was no surprise and hardly the close run affair shown in the movie and it is clear that the facts were altered somewhat in the interest of making an exciting film. Is this bad? Although Saving Private Ryan did not exactly adhere to actual history of the Battle of Normandy, the errors and omissions detailed thus far, have, in actuality, done little to lessen or weaken the impact of the film and its legitimacy as a historical work. It is a film rather than a documentary and a film needs to create atmosphere and dramatic effect. If anything, misnumbering German divisions and embellishing on the facts are errors that annoy no one but carping historical nit-pickers. Where does the film go wrong? Granting that Saving Private Ryan did not follow history exactly, where did it go wrong in its portrayal of the Battle of Normandy? For one, there are two things missing from the film that really &endash; if the film is being billed as a realistic portrayal of the Battle of Normandy &endash; should be there. The first is the decisive role of the American airforce. While it is true that a few P-51s make a dramatic appearance at the end of the film, not one other aircraft is shown flying in the entire film. This is a serious misrepresentation, for if anything defined the key to America's victory at Normandy, it was airpower. In training and experience, the Germans had something of an edge in terms of ground combat over the Allies. At the same time, they had nothing to match Allied air capability and by 1944 the German Luftwaffe had been driven from the skies, giving the Allies complete and undisputed air superiority. As such, the 36 ground attack squadrons of the U.S. 9th Air Force were a constant presence at Normandy &endash; destroying railroads, bridges and marshalling yards, attacking German columns and disrupting all German attempts to reinforce Normandy.9 Field Marshal Rommel himself was seriously wounded by marauding Allied planes and several other German generals were killed.10 Yet, in Saving Private Ryan, this important element of America's contribution is given short shrift by the filmmakers. A possible explanation might be that Mr. Spielberg wanted to portray the odds as facing the Americans as far longer than they actually were. If anything, the odds were stacked against the Germans, as Field Marshal Rommel ruefully noted in a letter home: The battle is not going at all well for us, mainly because of the enemy's air superiority and heavy naval guns…The long-husbanded strength of two world powers is now coming into action. It will all be decided quickly.11