Brian Rock

Both are good reads. "War of the Rats" does have some inaccuracies, but nothing that made me want to hurl it at a wall. Overall it seems to do a good job of capturing the psychology of the participants well, which IMO is generally more important than technical accuracy in a novel. "Enemy at the Gates" is an excellent combination of small scale anecdote and large scale perspectives. Highly recommended. I'd suggest reading "Enemy" first, then "Rats".

No need to apologise for the hassle. As CM Borg keeps saying, you are now one of us.

Rune, note Bobbaro's first comment: "NOT A SUGGESTION!!!" The lads aren't suggesting that CM do this, they are simply playing with other ways you could simulate combat in a hypothetical game. It woulnd't be CM, it would be more of a command & control game. Quite different, and not to everybody's taste. It is, however a game I would buy in an instant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I wonder why the canadians don't have M10's for an option to buy... kinda frustrating when I am making a historical battle when the 3rd Canadian Div meets up with the 12th SS Div. concidering they had them... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only reason they'd be left out is that they didn't come up in the reference material BTS used. If you can come up with the sources to confirm they were more-or-less regularly used they'll put them in. Something like that just happened with the Canadians in a recent patch. I'd suggest you be quick though - once BTS start work on CM2 the updates will be a damn sight less frequent than they have been to date.

My first try using "paratroops" and "landing" I had three hits. This includes two thread with Steve explaining why there won't be paratroop landings: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000210.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000732.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004723.html Now that I've finished being a smartass... I suspect you may not have searched all the forums. Note that the search form defaults to the forum you're currently in. The old stuff will be under "Combat Mission", or just select "Search All Open Forums and Achives". After a year or so you get the hang of it and it works fine. Usually. Honest. As for your scenario: Your idea of splitting up the original units is a nice one. The fact you can't split units the same way for reinforcements in an operation isn't a problem can be reasonably rationalised as the reinforcements will have reformed off map before entering the battle, which could be hours later. Agreed that the ability to split reinforcements would help add to the sense of chaos.

I don't shoot prisoners because it never occured to me to do so. to be honest it seems like a rather childish thing to do.

Why does this topic keep coming back again and again when it has nothing to do with CM? Can't we take it to alt.opinions.don't.change?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If BTS works on getting the TCP/IP patch done, some people will complain that they are not being attentive and are ignoring "major" problems with the game. If BTS tries to tweak and adjust minor things within the game, other people will complain that they should be working on the TCP/IP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pluas, as an extra-added bonus, while they do either they get flamed for not working on CM2. What fun. I wish I was a game designer. In the meantime I guess I'll just have to make do with slamming my head in the car door.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"I must take issue with your assumption that BTS came up with the WEGO system. I believe TacOps was using this system before CM. Just a being a little nick-picky." Never played TacOps so you got me there. I must get out and game more!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ron is correct. TacOps did use a WEGO system first. The graphics are much simpler (more of a classic wargame look), and it's modern combat. The core engine is about six years old I lthink, but it's been through a number of substantial overhauls and is still actively supported by Major H. Most importatnly it is a great game. Good enough that it's used by the USMC, Canadian and NZ armies for training. As a special bonus it's now a battlefront.com product. Check out the demo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Think about it, is there anyone here who would say 'yes I will make illegal copies of Combat Mission, to bad you don't know my address, oops you do, damn.' ???????????/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Point taken. Of course, we've had people on the boards who have complained that the price of CM would 'force" them to buy pirate copies, so you might be surprised. Still, it's a nice gesture, so I'll add my "no way in hell" to the list.

I'm 41, divorced, no kids, probably been wargaming way too much for way too long. One of my old school buddies who is married with two girls is trying to get the oldest to play CM with him. He's had success with other wargames. If it works it would seem to be a good reason to stay married and have a family.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't understand why the entire ww2 could not be included. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, why not the east front? And France 1940? Maybe a bit of the Western Desert, even throw in Burma and Poland and the Balkans. Plus there's the Pacific War... maybe the Russo-Finnish or the Russians vs the Japanese in the 1930s... and come to think of it, Korea wasn't *that* different... Oh, and couldn't it be shareware? Seriously, this is a business and Charles and Steve do need to eat. Also, don't expect CM2 to just be the CM1 engine with new vehicles. There are plans to upgrade and overhaul various parts of the system. If programmers can't get paid for upgrading their software, why should they bother? Still, if you don't think it's worth the additional money, don't buy it. It's a market economy and you can vote "no" with your wallet.

University lecturer in advertising, going back into the ad industry at the end of semester.

(Double post) [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 05-04-2000).]

The US Marines, Canadian Army and New Zealand armies have all purhcased licences to use TacOps in training. CM and TacOps both use one minute turns with players giving orders "offline" and simultaneous execution. Although I agree the principles are basically the same, without modern equipment I can't see CM getting a large amount of formal support. I can, however, see lots of soldiers giving it a great deal of unofficial support.

The US Marines, Canadian Army and New Zealand armies have all purhcased licences to use TacOps in training. CM and TacOps both use one minute turns with players giving orders "offline" and simultaneous execution. Although I agree the principles are basically the same, without modern equipment I can't see CM getting a large amount of formal support. I can, however, see lots of soldiers giving it a great deal of unofficial support.

The TacOps map scale is unique, with 1 pixel = 10 metres.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think you forgot the HPS freak that was heard right after the demo was released (sorry I forgot his name, the one that was almost banned for being a jerk).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, what was worse was that he was flaming CM *before* the demo was released. It's pretty hard to have an open-minded discussion with someone who concludes you're wrong before he's even looked at the evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've had choppers flying NOE get nailed by SAMS at over 3,000 meters. It's tough to keep helicopters alive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you saying you are keeping the helos at NOE in clear terrain? TacOps allow for minor variations in height at any given level, but not enough to hide a helo in. Try hiding your helos behind hills, woods and towns and doing 15 sec "pop-up" attacks. I think you'll find it adds enormously to their survivabilty. Oh, don't forget to move them to a new location after they do the pop-up attack. The OPFOR SAM shooters tend to notice where the attacks came from.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I noticed that infantry in buildings can receive a large amount of punishment before they retreat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A feature, not a bug. If it only took one tank round to empty a building clearing a town would be a piece of cake. Infantry can be very stubborn, and IRL it usually requires sending infantry in to clear a building. If you really need to clear buildings with vehicles then send in one packing a *big* gun - an M7 Priest with its 105mm howitzer works in treat in direct fire. [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 04-22-2000).]

Already pre-ordered several copies on the expectation that lots of my friends would want copies, and that a large order would save on shipping costs. No pirating here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>well.. I can't remember where i came across this info..Just thought I'd throw it out there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wonder if it was an article by Lt Col David Grossman. He's become a bit of a specialist on this and related topics. His book "On Killing" is an extraordinarily good read on issues related to the psychology of killing, both in combat and in non-military contexts. Highly recommended.

I'd also like to see a series of articles like this. Clear and practical - nicely done.

Hitler's greatest blunder: dying before his former generals who published memoirs saying how terribly clever they were and how everything that went wrong was all Hitler's fault.

I received my copy of Flight Commander II last week. I'd played it before on the recommendations of a friend who spoke very highly about it. I'd forgotten how much fun it really is. Not a highly sophisticated game by current standards, but as much gameplay as ever. No idea how close it is to the original game though.