Brian Rock

My theory: i) if you are a good ASL player, and you're good because you are a rules lawyer, you'll justly die a horrible and painful death in CM. ii) if you are a good ASL player, and you're good because you've learned how to use fire and manuever with WWII resources, you'll stomp a lot of opponenets flat in CM. The mechanics are quite different, but sound tactics are sound tactics. I expect that, once they've adjusted to the CM mechanics, serious ASL players will do very well.

Indy - I couldn't think HPS fans are jerks because I'm one too. (Of course I could still hate myself for being a jerk... but we'll ignore that for now.) Although there are things about the games that drive me nuts (hexes, interface, a few other points), there's a lot about the games that is brilliant. They're still on my harddrive, and I've been playing with PITS the last month. On the whole, and espeicially considering the age of the games (five years or so - they're VGA DOS games) they hold up well. To compare them to CM is a bit pointless. Different concepts, different design philosophies. It's like comparing Point of Attack, TacOps and Brigade Combat Team (spot the modern warfare buff) - all good games, quite different models and design decisions. There is not problem. We're not talking Highlander here: "there can only be one". Fionn's right when he says "even if we all bought every GOOD wargame which came out in a year we'd only be adding a half-dozen games to our shelves". Finally I'd like to make the point that the HPS guys are decent people, who don't try to take a "we're the best they all suck" attitude. Sometimes well intentioned fans can do the objects of their fandom a disservice.

Dumb rugby joke from last night - Yoda the rugby coach: "Kick or kick not. There is no try." It was late, I was well into the mulled wine, and I don't particularly like rugby. That gives me licence to make really stupid jokes.

Yes, the demo link is fixed. The Mac demo will probably be a week or so - seems a few bug crept in the Major is having problems finding. I highly recommend this game. Graphically it isn't comparable to CM, but gameplay is brilliant - enough that several militaries around the world have licenced it for training (Canada, New Zealand & the good old USMC). It is similar to CM in that it uses 1 minute turns with simultaneous execution. Anyone with an interest in modern combat should have this. I've been playing it for years, and it's *still* great.

I can answer your last question Billy: no. The infantry certainly weren't too keen to be on top of a tank when the shooting started, but they would ride tanks in areas where contact with the enemy was likely. The Soviets used tank-riding inf more aggressively, but that's a thread for CM2.

Are there any engineer squads commanded by Dilbert? Assault engineers commanded by Alice? I'll probably be stuck with ones commanded by the Pointy-Haired Boss. Ditto aaronb on rationale for dopey comments. [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 10-23-99).]

A friend of mine who was an NCO in the Rhodesian Army (when there was a Rhodesia) told me the "run throught the ambushers" tactic was SOP. Reckoned it saved his unit on a few occasions. So here's my question: in CM what happens if an infantry unit tries to move through an enemy infantry unit? Do they bounce, get stuck in hand-to-hand, or can they pass through?

That URL should read: http://www.stratics.com I found this out the hard way.

It wasn't just Sten who misread this then! Now I understand the original post, that the layers make it possible to add more subtle changes. All I can say is: I am *really* looking forward to playing with the editor.

Another voice from the gallery about Panzerfausts and smoke trails. If they don't have them I'd prefer to leave them out. The backblast would be cool, but I'm sure that's more programming trouble than it's worth.

I know it's a loooooong way out, but any chance of CM4 covering back to '36? Love to fight the Spanish Civil War. OK, it's not quite WWII, but that's just being pedantic...

Can't see this working. For a start, imagine a hill that is at level 18. Set the shellhole at level 0 and you end up with a very deep well. Even the idea of the shellholes being current terrain -1 has problems. For a start I don't think the maps allow for dynamic modeling of major terrain features, so this would probably require a complete recode. Secondly the shell holes are smaller than the minimum size for a terrain square (20m?). It would be nice to be able to see depth in shellholes, but I think this is a CM2 issue, if not CM3. [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 10-21-99).]

Thomm, I don't think Fionn meant any criticism at all. For example note his words: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FWIW I think the kneeling state is being improved but I'm just saying that while Martin and I played neither of us looked at the kneeling and said UHOH !! BIG problem...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In other words it is an improvement (as evidenced by the fact it has been added to the code), but until you pointed it out he simply didn't notice.

kingtiger: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 10-17-99: This is the worst software purchase I have ever made... I am ripping the crap out this pig due to total lack of playability. 10-20-99: PG2 is the most addictive game I have ever played... It is truly a challenging diversion and promises to engulf a lot of my time over the next couple months. Now I reiterate my apologies for having slammed PG 3D Assault. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL. I admire your openmindness and honesty. You've almost got me persuaded to give PG3D a go.

Bless you, my boy. Bless you.

Does the AI have varying degrees of aggressiveness? For example, in one play might it take a cautious probing approach, and in another push forward rapidly?

Pak40 I was never a big fan of the PG games myself, but loved Risk. I tend to divide my games into three categories: * simulation wargames - accuracy realism is a key criteria (eg TacOps, Falcon IV, Harpoon II) * fun wargames - gaemplay over realism (eg X-Com, Master of Orion II, Star Fleet Command) * everything else (eg RollerCoaster Tycoon, SimCity 3000, SimLife) There are enjoyable games in all three categories. I don't think there is any reason to pick games that are exclusively from one category. C'mon, admit it - don't you have at least one dopey wargame that you like but are embarrassed to admit to? There are a few I could confess...

Oscar, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You don't rock Brian,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ha. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, just because TS can't get things right the whole hex system is wrong?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. The world is not made of hexes. They are a useful abstraction, and a reasonable approximation, but flawed nontheless. They work better in some situations than others, but produce too many curious artifacts for my liking. The one mentioned in my previous post was just one example. I also find they don't work very well for simulating linear tactics. There is the movement-rounding effect Fionn mentioned. I could go on, but it doesn't matter. You will continue to like them. Fine. I don't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>>IGO-UGO systems produce strange outcomes too. PitS is no more IGO-UGO system than CM is, neither is any HPS game in the series.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know. Relevance being...? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>>in TAOW (or similar games with adjacent hex based combat systems) an attack to the north or south is... Who's talking ADJACENT? In PitS units (can be quite a bunch of them) engaged in close combat occupy the SAME 100m hex. Also most units can engage at very long ranges, so there's not much adjacent combat taking place in PitS compared to TOAW's operational scale, I'd say it probably works pretty same as CM does... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is annoying. You are defending PitS against a criticism I did not make. Oscar, you seem a bit fixated on defending HPS games. I clearly said TAOW. I also said I have played and enjoyed HPS games. Why do you think I'm attacking them?

*Big sigh* I've played the HPS games. I thought they wre good games. I've played CC1 & CC2. I thought they were good games. I will play CM. I expect it will be a good game. Sometimes discussions about games take on theological dimensions, as much a matter of faith and values as logic. And almost as much flaming as a good inquisitorial party. Almost as bad as debates about operating systems, only worse. Nah. Nothing is worse than debates about OSes. Anyhow, CM's 3D combat environment will allow higher fidlety resolutions of combat than any other system presently available. It's approach makes possible a more realistic approximation because it accounts for a wider range of factors, in more detail, than any other system, bar none. Note this is a relativistic statement, not an absolute one. Whether it does it to the inch or the pixel or the atom is irrelevant. As for 3D visuals vs simple graphics, that is purely an issue of taste, and not subject to logic. I play both. Issues such as interface are more objective, but until I've played CM I can't compare. I can say the HPS interface is awkward, but useable. I believe HPS are addressing this for POA2 (which I will buy in any case). I do share Fionn's distaste for hexes, because they are a high level of abstraction. To mention just one point, in TAOW (or similar games with adjacent hex based combat systems) an attack to the north or south is more likely to succeed than an attack to the east or west. This is ludicrous. IGO-UGO systems produce strange outcomes too. Units that sit and watch entire corps rush past without reacting, and so on. Now these games may be fun to play, but they could provide better respresentations of the reality if we moved past these abstractions. How important this is is up to you. I know of at least one reviewer who finds attempts at realism in a wargame a *failing*. His argument is that a wargame cannot be completely realistic, ergo realism is an invalid desing principle, and would someone please give him all the formula and tables so he can micromanage the game mechanics. I believe CM will do an excellent job of approximating WWII battles. I also expect it to be fun. Once I have played the game I'll be able to have a meaningful discussion on how the details compare with other games.

Your comments about the 37mm in the PTO are quite right; it was better suited for that theatre for various reason. The quote I gave was actually from Sicily.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Funny note... even though the 37mm AT gun was a joke by even 1941…<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Consider this (from the US Army’s Combat Lessons (Number 1) May 1944, pg 28): Miscellaneous Comment (Various Small Infantry Unit Commanders): "…37mm AT gun: Very mobile. It’s artillery; good against anything - vehicles, pillboxes, personnel, houses. Gets in faster than the mortar. If I had to throw away any heavy weapons, the ‘37’ would be the last to go." Most wargamers tend to be overly fixated on tanks, especially big German ones. Don’t let the "AT" in "37mm AT" deceive you - there’s a whole bunch of stuff to shoot at on a battlefield.

Would there be any merit in an optional "advanced" setting that didnt' give % to hit or to kill? Reasons for: 1) real crews didn't have computer working these things out for them 2) it would add another level of challenge/difficulty 3) it would make it easier/more likely for units to take low PK shots (there is some anecdotal evidence this was relatively common - eg Shermans engaging Panthers at long ranges where they couldn't penetrate) Reasons against: 1) The current system abstractly represents the crews/soldiers experience/estimation of chances for hitting and killing 2) it makes the game easier for people who haven't memorized the chance to hit/kill for every weapon fielded in the war 3) it keeps players from wasting shots in low PK situations As you can see, the reasons against this are pretty much the converse of the reasons for.It seems as much a design philosophy issue as anything else. Comments?

I think the main change Thomm is suggesting is the different angle of the back feet and the sharper angle of the leg/knee on the soldiers. I think the shadow was mainly to indicate the angle of the ground relative to the figures. Seems to me polygons would be the same if we ignore the shadow. Thomm's adjustment does look better to me. The figures look as if they are resting more of their bodyweight on the back leg. And yes, I am aware that we are being *very* fiddly - in practice I suspect the difference would go unnoticed most of the time.

One of the computer techs on staff had a bit of computer gaming experience, but until last year had never played a wargame. I introduced him to CC2, and we'd stay back after work and play a few games. I found out he not only had no wargaming experience, he knew next to nothing about tactics or anything military. So I'd stomp him flat; the first few games I'd be routing his entire force for no losses. Then we'd have a "Lessons Learned" chat about the game and play again. Funny thing about intelligent people. They tend to learn fast. Between his experience in our games, the debriefs and a bit of extra-curricular reading he started to get his act together. By game 5 or 6 he had learned about ambushes, fields of fire, flank attacks, and a whole bunch else. By game 7 or 8... Suddenly I was the one getting stomped flat, like a pancake in uniform. I had never seen such rapid progress before. It was impressive, fun and humbling all at the same time.

Waiting for: 1) CM (this is a surprise to all I'm sure) 2) Armies of Armaggedon:WDK 3) Driver 4) Rising Sun 5) Surprisingly little else Actually, I'll probably add Theme Park II to the "waiting for" list, depending on how it turns out. TPI didn't quite work for me, but RollerCoaster Tycoon was a blast for quite a long time, and TPII is looking good on screenshots. I'd also add Road to Moscow if I thought it would ever get finished. Playing: 1) Starfleet Command 2) Colin McRae's Rally 3) EverQuest 4) East Front II 5) CC2 (esp with the east front hack) I've only been fiddling with the last two as WWII fill-ins until CM comes out. Kind of like methadone for wargamers, only less satisfying.