Brian Rock

I mainly use view 4 for planning and playback, and occassionally use view 3. View 1 is fun for watching tank-tank and tank-AT gun duels. View 2 gets use occasionally for playbacks of some of the more involved infantry actions. For long LOS checks I use 7 or 8. I prefer bases off and units at +1. Trees tend to go off for planning, and on for playback.

I'm surprised to hear you have found SMG squads to be ineffective at short ranges. For example, in a game I was playing last week my opponent had a full strength US 12 man squad rush a house with a 7 man SMG squad. I took casualties, but his squad disintegrated. In an earlier game I've had two depleted SMG squads stand up to a couple of assaults by 2-3 US squads... addmitedly the third wave toasted them. It's always a bit hard to analyse these situations without the full picture. Were your guys suppressed? Did the US have any fire support from other units? What was the morale of your units like? Were you just unlucky? Anyone else have any problems with SMG squads?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Bastogne there were 101 guys who were regularly run over by Panthers while in foxholes (they weren't crushed).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee. And it didn't occur to any of them to get out of the way the second or third time? (Yeah, really, really dumb joke, but I thought this thread could do with a bit of lightening up.)

JonS: I understood that, and understand his concerns. My comment wasn't directed at Rob; it would be rather pointeless, as he already said he had and liked BCT. It was directed at wargamers who are interested in artillery. My point was that everyone who likes to fiddle with arty should get that game - which, curiously, is precisely what I wrote the first time.

Brigade Combat Team is the undisputed champion here - but then it was programmed by an artillery Captain. Everyone who likes to fiddle with arty should get that game.

Timers are a good idea for people who agree to use them, either as a handicapping device, or simply to add some additional friction/confusion to the mix. As a "no-cheating" device, not so good. There are people who will try to get around them, and who will probably succeed. These are people who will play a turn 800 times to get a 1% advantage. Comments: a) the marginal advantage will be useless in most cases in a few cases someone will win a skirmish because he micromanaged an extra 2 SMG in a squad 10m closer c) so what? If it gets that aggravating (and it can), stop playing with them. Easy. I just don't play people like this. I dumped one PBEM opponent for constantly rigging the games so he would win. I don't mind losing, but don't like it to be obligatory. By game six it became clear (seems he kept little having problems with the OOB... like sticking to it). Life's too short to make oneself stressed dealing with this kind of person. Easier to find people you like to PBEM with - I think this board will squillions of them.

Royston, The reason the pirates can sell CDs for $3 is that they stole them. If I want to deal with thieves I can also buy a nice new TV for $100 from some mug in a pub. Does it follow that the TV manufacturers should drop the prices of their TVs to $80 to stop theft? As for the social pressure argument, I think that's dodgy. Nobody says you have to tell your friends where you got your copy of a piece of software from. Yes, I know there are retail centres pretty much devoted to piracy. (This is not a flame on Singapore. I've holidayed and worked in Singapore, and have a number of friends and colleagues there). Sure, it is easy to buy off pirates, but it's not compulsory. So if you choose to take advantage of criminal activity you can. But please don't tell me you had no choice. I have dozens of Singaporean students and Singaporean friends who would find that offensive. There are always choices, even in Singapore.

This seems to make sense - it certainly matches what I know of modern artillery (which is terrifyingly accurate). The adjustment/FFE phases you suggest make sense, although I must say I haven't observed the current process critically to see exactly how CM handles this. As for dispersion, what do you think would be a reasonable dispersion for spotted 105mm shells? What about other guns? Any reference material you can suggest here?

Actually, to a surprising extent you can play CM without reading the manual. You'll just miss out on a lot of the cool bits. In fairness to Mr Chown, this is a preview, not a review. And some of his comments he does qualify, like "I've not seen any weapon malfunctions, or AFV immobilisations yet, though I have heard they are implemented" (although he does err in the next sentence: "I'd also reckon that not every destroyed tank does brew up"; they don't). I disagree with some of his comments (eg map navigation is a breeze for me now), but I found it a reasonable preview. Of course I expect the *review* to be fastidious.

No reason to feel bad setting the German AFVs up in ambush positions. Just tell yourself that an officer from another unit in the battalion just radioed in a report on the Hellcats. It does indicate why playing a scenario the first time is mose 'realistic' though. It also helps to understand how RL COs do so many 'dumb' things... ain't hindsight grand?

I think Sten has a point, that it would be nice to know how long a delay will be incurred before making the change. Kingtiger's realism question is a valid one. In this case the player is taking on the role of FO, and it would be fair to say the FO would know how long it takes, so I don't see a concern in that regard. If the targetting cursor had the new time delay as well as range, etc, it would solve the problem. Once again I discuss solutions without knowing how much is involved in coding them.

Dar, I agree, it would be preferable to be able to send your orders with the turn. If the movie is "locked" it would still stop the cheating, but bring the number of dowloads down and speed the overall game speed up. I do suspect it's too big a change for CM1. I'd dearly like to see this for CM2.

I preordered the game months ago based on the discussion on this board. Now that I've played the game, it seems to me that the game is strongly living up to the designers' stated intent. Fortunately (for me) I happen to like their design philosophy and most of the design decisions, and the rest is tweaking at the edges. In short: I have no intention of cancelling my pre-order.

During setup if you use the Move (M) command you are then prompted for rotation. If you wish to keep the current facing, use Place (P). [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 11-01-99).]

Scott, I know you said this was your last post, but I hope you'll respond to this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for those that say they will never take notes... you either have a heck of a memory or are missing data (or are simply not telling the truth).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm one of those "never take notes" people. From my POV there isn't that much going on, at least in scenarios this size. Until I read your post it never occured to me that anybody would take notes. I'm curious, what are the kinds of information you need to write down? (Casualties seems to be one - what are the others?) Another question for you, Hagen and/or The Dude: I'm not clear how having the info in a table/chart would solve the problem. Are you suggesting that it would provide a report on all changes in the last turn? Eg: Unit______Status_____Last turn C2_______8-4________(+2 casualties) C3_______11-1_______(under fire) etc Would you then click on the unit ID and be taken to that unit on the map? Just trying to clarify what's being debated. [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 11-01-99).]

I think the addition of a 3rd level of FOW is a good solution. Mind you, I will never use it. I'm part of the 2.5% who already think players get far too much info and control over their units. If I had my way I'd double the FOW, triple the order's delays, and limit the number of orders a player could give. Still, I do recognise that different people like to play games differently, and if we can all get what we want out of the game, so much the better.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh and one final thing if you have any mouse flickers make sure to switch back to the default windows mouse cursors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's the one problem I just coudn't fix. Richard, you are a genius.

For comparison, in my first game I played the Germans. My Tiger destroyed a Hellcat, with two shells 76mm shells shattering in the meantime. The 3rd Hellcat shell killed the Tiger, and one of my Stugs wrecked a second Hellcat. A few seconds later the surving Hellcat killed the Stug. There was then a 5-7 minute cat-and-mouse game, until the Hellcat wandered into a kill zone I had setup with my Stug. During the middle of this duel an 81mm mortar shell called in to suppress the Hellcat killed it. (At least I think that's what happened - hard to tell with CM's fog of war.)

2.30 am for my first night. And all day Friday at work. I'm fortunate that lectures finished last week, and that all my marking is done. However I did get some curious looks from other lecturers

Beta is "yes" to PBEM & hotseat, "no" to TCP/IP. So who's coming around to my place when the beta hits?

Thanks, Mike 1 & Mike 2. As for source of data, I'd guess I've learned about: 30% from playing TacOps, solo and CPXs (a moderated multiplayer IRC game). Great chance to try things out on a virtual battlefield, and the CPX are a great opportunity to get stomped by professional tankers. Very eudcational. 30% from the TacOps listserv. Full of current and ex-professional military types, historians, grogs, semi-grogs (love that term Mikeman ) and ordinary people with an interest in modern hardware & warfare. The Major is a regular participant too. 40% other reading. I have since been inspired to develop a modestly serious library on manuever warfare theory and contemporary military tactics and hardware. Michael's tip on smoke is a good one, and a clear oversight on my part. Modern thermals make target acquisition through smoke much easier. Just remember in TacOps to turn the OFPOR thermals off at game start. [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 10-28-99).]

home: rockb@ocean.com.au work: rocky@rmit.edu.au (I'm can always play email games with myself )

OK, while on the subject of modern mech combat... This is well-off topic of course, but a) it fills time until the demo, I love TacOps and modern equipment. The following is a quick guide, for the uninitiated, to a few modern weapons systems in TacOps . All gross generalisations (of which there are many) and errors are mine: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Modern mechanised combat is not all that different from WWII - a few new weapon systems, more lethal munitions, and longer ranges, but a good WWII wargamer can make the transition pretty quickly. In TacOps the OPFOR (think: Russian) stuff is presumed to be up-to-date and lethal: modern fire control systems &thermal sights in tanks, improved warheads in ATGMs (anti tank guided missles for the WWII fixated ) and so on. So the following generalisations pretty much apply to both sides. (Incidentally you can "de-tune" the OPFOR stuff if you want to play with a more realistic Russian fitout. Fun, but a lot easier. Recommened for real newbies.) A few comments on some modern battle systems - again, conceptually not really very different from WWII. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tanks: the beasts we all know and love. Strengths: immune to small arms and most artillery, good ROF. Weaknesses: to other tanks (surprise, surprise), ATGMs, inf AT weapons, killing power against tanks declines with range. Typical units: Blue: M1A2 Abrams (remember Desert Storm?); OPFOR: T80 Summary: substitute AT guns for ATGMS and it's pretty much like WWII, with the M1A2 having the edge on the T80. For real fun give the OPFOR T72s - better still Iraqi T72s for a pure turkey shoot. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ APCs (armored personnel vehicles): battle taxis Strengths: transport for the infantry (duh), some fire support (MGs) for inf Weaknesses: armor you can punch a buring cigarette through Typical units: Blue: M113s; OPFOR: BTR80s +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles): descendents of the APC, and before that the halftrack; basically battle taxis but with more firepower (guns and ATGMs) Strengths: almost up to APC inf carrying capacity, guns/MGs good fire support (25mm chain gun on M2/3; 30mm cannon on BMP2/3) against infantry and thin skinned vehicles, ATGMs will kill tanks at longer ranges that tanks can fire at. Weaknesses: armor is pretty thin, and just about anything can (and will) kill them at close ranges; ATGMs take some time to reload Typical units: Blue: M2 & M3 Bradleys (scout and inf carrying version); OPFOR: BMP2 & 3 Summary: great weapon systems, but try to resist the temptation to use them as light tanks. OPFOR tends to have the edge in ATGM range, the Brads a tiny edge in armor and more ATGMS +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Infantry: crunchies Strengths: put them in tough terrain and the little buggers resist getting killed; hard to spot; an inf unit with a radio and arty support is a lethal little weapons platform; can kill tanks at close ranges with AT weapons (which are moderately plentiful in most units) Weaknesses: vulnerable to every weapon system on the battlefield *except* ATMGs, slooooooow Summary: they're groundpounders +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Artillery: long range noise makers Strengths: off-map or out of LOS; modern arty is lethal against everything - TacOps distinguishes between standard HE and ICM (Improved Conventional Munitions: cluster bombs) - the latter *will* kill tanks very nicely Weaknesses: limited ammo (those guns chew up the tonnes); time delays with indirect fire; fire usually needs to be adjusted on to target Typical units: Blue: 155mm, MLRS (Nebelwerfer meets ICM - will devastate a 1km x 1km area)' OPFOR: 152mm. MLR (MLRS without ICM) Summary: just like the WWII stuff for the most part, only a bit faster to get rounds on target and deadlier +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Attack helicopters: nice tank killers Strengths: long range AT capabilities; fast and able to hide behind hills and forests; can often pop-up, kill and go back to NOE (nap of earth) before air defence units have time to react Weaknesses: complex pieces of machinery that don't take a lot to knock out of the sky, and pretty much everything that sees one *will* shoot at it Typical units: Blue: AH64 Apache; OPFOR: Mi28 Havoc Summary: probably the biggest change from WWII - like CAS, but more flexible and a lot nastier +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There is an excellent data base in the TacOps game as well. For what it's worth, it was a TacOps demo that prompted my interest in modern warfighting. Go play.

PeterNZ: modern stuff is easy. Rule #1: everything is lethal. That's it really.

I disagree that it's a waste of money. I had (and unfortunately lost ) a URL to a Marine page that outlined the principles that could be learned from various commercial wargames - and the list was very broad. The Commandant's argument was that anything that helped his Marines find new ways to think about warfighting was a good thing. Marines like games and play games, and it didn't hurt to use games as teaching tools. There was a good article in Wired a while back about Marine Doom. The journalist was very sceptical about how useful it would be, until the Marines waxed him using cooordinated team tactics. He left a wiser man. The deal with Atomic is going a bit further, and trying to tailor the game to more closely approximate real world tactics & hardware. To do a single live fire exercise could cost millions, whereas a decent wargame allows junior officers a chance to fight dozens of battles and take risks they might otherwise be loath to take. Yes, there is a trade off in quality, but that's not a new dilemma either. For the record I have no argument with paying people in the armed services a decent salary either - but $220k isn't going to buy a lot of Marines.