Brian Rock

When fighting infantry, few things keep them off the tanks as well as a few MGs. Faster rate of fire and can cover more ground. Against the Japanese US tankers sometimes had to resort to spraying each other's tanks with MG fire to sweep the tanks clean of enemy inf. Try doing that with HE or AP and you're probably going to upset your buddies.

Lokesa, I *love* that idea. I also agree that most AARs should be short, concentrating on the highlights. I regard the current Fionn-Moon game as an exceptional case, more "CM-by-proxy" than a standard AAR.

I got together with another Aussie and we put four copies on order - one for him and three for me. Overkill or what? I have at least two hot prospects already, and another 5 or 6 warm ones. Needless to say, I am very confident my friends will like it. With any luck we'll put a second order in.

That's pretty cool. Damn. It is really getting hard to find things that haven't been thought of. However I am working on a really impressive list of obscure East front stuff for CM2.

I appreciate Dar's concerns. Heavens knows I've found bugs by - how shall I put this? - "inadvertantly operating outside the programmer's design parameters." OK, ok... doing dumb stuff. I don't expect many problems here ( of course they should still be looked for), but the kind of testing I'm especially interested in is trying to break the game's design concepts - using ahistorical tactics to beat the system instead of winning within the "expected" rules. I can't think of many games here doing the historical thing wasn't a good way to lose. I am really sick of being punished for playing with appropriate real world tactics and getting trashed by players (or AI for that matter) that does weird sh!t. I think this kind of testing will be interesting. The beta testers seem to have pretty good historical and background knowledge, so I suspect they'll be able to do a good job here. Even so at the end of the day I'm sure some bugs/oddities will slip through. This doesn't really worry me, because I expect they will be marginal or exceptional situations, meaning 99.x% of the time the game will work fine, and once identified I fully expect they'll be fixed.

That's ok Lokesa - don't. I find good AARs are both interesting and educational. I wasn't suggesting they be compulsory. (Incidentally the most instructive ones can be from the less skilled players. The lessons are often more - erm, dramatic.)

Would it be possible to play CM and run ICQ or IRC at the same time? That way you can nuke your opponent and gloat over it simultaneously.

Herr Oberst: Agreed. AARs are best when they provide more than a simple description of gameplay. I prefer those that recap the starting situation, tell the "story" as if it were a report of a battle and not a game, include comments on the commander's perceptions and decisions, and have a "lessons learned" section at the end.

I question the assertion that engineers removing mines is out of the scope of a CM battle. In fact unless the defenders are dolts defensive minefields should be covered with fire, so the really tactically important minefields are *only* cleared under fire. Either a) minefields can be cleared, or units have to use the "clearing by driving through" tactic (not recommended), or c) minefields become impenetrable barriers. There are numerous cases of engineers clearing minefields - and indeed erecting bridges under fire. Now I wouldn't suggest simulating the entire "approach to bridge- begin construction - finish bridge - drive vehicles off other side" process within the span of a single CM game. That could take many hours. Still, a part of this process could be simulated. How I dunno - maybe put a victory flag halfway across the river, and the US player has to build part of a bridge to reach it.

Fionn - if you have a chance (so many games, so little time)it would be interesting to redo the FJ scenario with half squads. It might also be interesting to double or triple the defender's frontage and redo the action with squads and 1/2 squads as well. PS when you're finished shoot the US CO for total ineptitude. Frontal assault across open ground against a prepared position - sheesh

I take a slightly different position from with Steve, Fred and Rick. I've played in "higher level" CPX games similar to the ones Fred describes - the games are resolved in 1 minute turns, but decisions can be 10-15 minutes between player turns. Reports are text based using IRC. Players command with a keyboard and a map, with an umpire receiving and implementing orders from a team of subcommanders. Fog of war goes through the roof, friction is SOP and micromanagers perish. I love this, but recognise they *are* an acquired taste, and some players hate them. Personally they have been the most intense, interesting and enjoyable land combat war gaming experiences I have ever had. That is not to say it is a *better* approach to a game - it is just *different*. I still like a more traditional hands-on-doing-the-lot game as well, and they have many advantages. It's apparent to me that CM is better for the latter approach, and I expect it will do this superbly. One of the realism vs game trade-offs in this is a higher level of C&C, but given the game design concept it is pretty well unavoidable. The overall outcomes still seem pretty close to the mark, so I'm not as fussed with the abstraction as I am with a few other (superfically) similar games on my hard-drive.

Would the characteristics of swamp/marsh allow players to simulate flooded areas(eg as in Operation Veritable?)

New thought on airstrikes: Will the Allies be able to use airpower against against stationary targets? It seems Ninth Air Force was doing this during the Normandy campaign: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Pilots of fighter-bombers armed with 500-pound general purpose or 260-pound fragmentation bombs quickly became adept at attacking enemy-held foxholes, pillboxes, and hedgerows, sometimes within 300 to 500 yards of forward American elements. Ground commanders favored an air preparation over artillery if they could be sure that the aircraft would be on time and if the infantry could exploit the psyhcological shock effect wwith a follow-up attack." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(Scales, _Firepower in Limited War_) Comments?

I think the unlimited ammo could be a problem too. I suspect the reason tanks generallty didn't run out of ammo was because they would tend to use it sparingly. With unlimited ammo there is no need to conserve, and I Dano6's scenario of a tank spraying 12,000+ rounds is not impossible. It's also not clear to me why this would be information overload. Of course this discussion has to pop-up with the beta version only days away. ++++++++++++++ Ooops - my message hit just after BTS's reply - seems they addressed most of the points. Heh. [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 09-16-99).]

Q: Uh, if you were a Sherman tank commander, what would you do? A: a) Change pants Regret skipping Sunday School, or c) Burn. The correct answer, of course, is: d) Wake up from nightmare and swear off cheap wine. This is clearly a trick question. It would be impossible for a Sherman tank commander to survive long enough to get this close. What do I win?

Agreed. Probably 90-95% of the time I can't be bothered whacking in a music CD. But I get quite irritated about the 5% of times when I do want some music and can't because the game is needs the CD. CM may be a bit different in that I want to hear the game sounds during the playback phase, but I wouldn't mind my choice of think music during the planning phase.

I would strongly endorse this feature. I've often wondered why more companies didn't adopt it. I agree with Mike: it gave players a chance to try (limited) multiplayer play without having to buy two copies, and in any case often prompted people to go out and buy their own if they liked it. At least that's how it worked in the labs here.

Survivability of recon units is a problem in real life. A similar discussion came up on the TacOps list recently. A few people noted that in the game scouts major activity was recon by blowing up. A few of the cav guys said the same thing tends to happen in the field (eg at the NTC) - the first time you spot the enemy is when they shoot at you, and they don't tend to shoot unless they expect to hit. Not my idea of a good job.

I still find them intriguing. FWIW, I don't fuss so much over the piccies - sometimes I don't even wait for them to download. Interesting how people's interests vary. Thought Fionn and Moon might like to know they still have fans.

FWIW = "For What It's Worth". On this board it could be "Focke Wulfs Is Wonderful"... still, on reflection, I like Lokesa's better.

Will it be possible to set up a scenario with damaged vehicles in it? I know understrength infantry units can be created (after a fashion), but can't find a reference to vehicles. I can think of a number of situations where this could be appropriate - after an area has been heavily shelled, breakthroughs into rear areas, chasing down routed units, overrunning the repair depot, etc.

More on the subject of tanks using indirect fire, from _Tank Aces_ (Ralph Zumbro). From the Korean War: "About noon, as the head of the column neared the top of a high hill, Dickson again halted them, warning of enemy tanks dug in and camouflaged on either side of a narrow pass that they'd have to use, through a low hill in the distance, which was part of the next ridgeline. ...He radioed the tankers to use their own guns as artillery and take the T-34 under fire. The enemy tank was dug in on the reverse, or far side, of the next ridge, and with the pilot spottting hits for them, the Shermans of Nordstrom's platoon began to send shells over the hill. The tankers didn't really expect to hit anything, but after only ten shells, heavy black smoke began to belch out of one of the positions, and Dickson called off the fire mission. (239) In a chapter on the use of tank using indirect fire in Viet Nam: "One of a tank's lesser-known capabilities is its ability to act as an instant artillery piece. Up until the advent of the Abrams tank, every American main battle tank carried an elevation quadrant and azimuth indicator that allowed it to drop shells with great accuracy anyplace within the range of its gun." (p300) He quotes First Lt. John Mountcastle, whose platoon took part in a number of these missions: "The use of tanks in an indirect fire role was certainly not a new idea in 1967. Tank guns had augmented artillery fires in WWII and Korea. I was aware of this, but was still surprised when told that my platoon would be the test unit for a new and challenging mission... The firing tables for our 90mm high-velocity guns proved to be no trouble for the artillery advisors..." (He does note their first firing mission was against targets 12 km away - a bit further than the standard CM map) Unfortunately the book has no specific examples of tanks providing indirect fire from WWII.

Why would the dead guys need to be polygons? Couldn't there be a small splodge instead of a 3D figure, more or less the way craters are done? I'm not big on the gore per se, so it doesn't have to be highly graphic, but being able to look at a battlefield and get a sense of where the fighting happened would be good.

I've read about tanks being used for indirect fire, in WWII, Korea and even in Viet Nam. The US Army used to issue gunnery tables to tankers for just this purpose. I can track down some references if you like, althought the "a lot of work" line implies "delay of game". Which is bad.

Moon: interesting comment about the ASL:CM conversion. If you have a moment (not at the cost of delaying your AARs that is) , could you give a few examples?