Brian Rock

How about "is shipping"? That not only covers the CDV shipment that has gone, and the US shipment today, but it also covers future orders for the next few years. That would give Matt less web-changing and more Dom drinking time. (Although to be honest I can't see him doing champagne. More of a hard liquor guy I figure.)

Mike actually said the game was "simplistic", not "simple". There's nothing wrong with simplicity, and a simple game can require sophisticated and complex strategies. Iolo mentioned Go as an example. I learned the rules easily enough, but have never won a game. "Simplistic" is more about something being oversimplified, which usually isn't so good, and tends to produce dull games. So while I agree that SC is simple - which is one of its strenghts - I disagree with Mike about it being simplistic.

I'm raising hell with the air fleets in the demo. Here's another thought - what about making air effectiveness vary by range? So if effect the longer the distance the less ordinance that can be dropped. This would help to simulate the variety of different ranged aircraft, the fact that more sorties could be flown over shorter distances, etc.

Admit it - you're going for the record, aren't you? What do people think about Hubert taking away (or seriously limiting) fighters' ground attack abilities?

A bulk order for me as well: SC, TacOps 4, CMBB and Airborne Assault. I shall not sleep this October.

Ah, but we are using our grog powers for *good* instead of *evil*. This isn't an "are the #307 2.7cm Amperfield sprockets adequately modelled in SC?" type of debate. It's whether a particular game effect is far too powerful compared to its historical counterpart. I think the history matters. As for game effects, the solution I'd currently favour is tone down the air firepower (fewer casualties but more hits on supply and readiness), and increase the damage done by ground units to still make breakthroughs possible.

I think Bruce70 is right, Doomsday1 - I believe that SirReal was referring to husky65 (what is it with the names with numbers, BTW? I feel like I'm playing Bingo with grogs). Like Bruce70, I don't think husky65 is trolling, although I do think his debating style is unnecessarily aggressive. I'm consciously avoiding engaging in a flame war. For the record I found your contribution interesting and useful, both in terms of adding another slant on the historical data, and for your thoughts on the game. So there. [ September 18, 2002, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]

Superhero, shouldn't you be posting at the Freedom Force boards? Of course there's probably some guy named PanzerNaziBot posting over there, so I daresay it will balance out. And welcome.

I've obviously missed the launch of CMBW (Combat Mission: Before Waterloo). Where can I download the demo? (Actually the Napoleanic digressions are interesting, but I wonder whether they belong in the General Forum.)

What got me interested in modern combat was: a) a CPX AAR, closely followed by the TacOps demo. I had a passing interest in modern combat, such as hypothetical WWWIII board games, but mainly at the divisional/corp level. Somehow I stumbled across one of James Sterrett's AARs of a CPX, and thought it sounded like great fun. I tracked down the demo (this was back in the Arsenal days), downloaded it, and was immediately hooked. I knew very little about the units, but it didn't matter. I learned what the units did from the game, and now I actually find modern equipment far more interesting than the WWII stuff.

Good idea.

Send an email to sales@battlefront.com Clearly something is wrong. Normally BFC orders go out promptly (eg the TacOps 4 CDs started arriving days ago, and it was only released last week), but hiccups do happen.

Husky65, I'm not quite sure why you need to get so heated up over this. It's just a discussion about a game. Never questioned. In conjunction with ground forces, yes. Indeed airpower, in conjunction with ground forces, can destroy corps and armies. Not the issue. Scale, circumstances and history. Scale: I can destroy a platoon with one well-placed bomb. It doesn't follow that I can just as easily take out a company with three well-placed bombs, a battallion with ten well-placed bombs, and so on. A larger formation not only means more targets, it means a much larger footprint. They are vulnerable, but not to the same degree. Circumstances: All of the examples put forward have involved air in conjunction with ground forces: [1]Cobra: air and ground forces [2]Montelier: air and ground forces [3]Falaise: air and ground forces History: It never happened. I'm still waiting for an example of a corps or army destroyed by air power alone. OK. I promise to weasel better in future. Dude, I was conceded it was possible the first time you posted it. I'm still not sure it's correct. Why? 1) We know there was ground fighting after the bombing. 2) Elsewhere Bayerlein puts losses due to air at 50%: It was sufficient to limit American advances until the following day. When did I exclude the effects of bombing? My very first post on this subject put it at 50% damage. Husky65, the Panzer Lehr was not destroyed. It stayed in the line for almost two weeks before being reorganisation and refitting. I am not, ever have, and probably never will argue airpower has no combat effect. The point I've been arguing since my first post is that airpower alone - note the "alone" bit - did not destroy corps or armies.

I'm having trouble believing this. The German 19th Army lost 2,100 vehicles in total over eight days at Montelimar, and at least one source attributes most of this to the 75,000 artillery rounds fired by the Allies. http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/36division/archives/montelim/montelim.htm http://members.aol.com/cog143in/Narrative.html Pilots are notoriously bad at accurately estimating kills. http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html [ September 17, 2002, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]

Operation Gomorrah isn't an example of a combat unit being wiped out by bombing. It's an example of a city being strategically bombed. I'm not questioning whether the Allies could drop bombs - they did - I'm questioning whether they ever destroyed an entire army or corps. And I'm simply amazed that having read the article you think that "the Panzer Lehr fought virtually to the last man among the shell holes and craters of their division" doesn't imply action against ground forces. Nor is this the only article that relates to ground combat: Now Bayerlein's original quote may have been solely in reference to the bombing. I don't have the original quote so I don't know, but based on the quoted article it is not clear. Perhaps, but belief in decisiveness!= proof of destruction. Let me say it again, show me evidence of an army or corp being destroyed by airpower.

I don't agree. The full paragraph from the website I found with the quote reads as follows: Note the time sequence: </font>[*]The USAAF drops 4,000 tons of bombs</font>[*]The Americans attack, and the Panzer Lehr "fought virtually to the last man"</font>[*]Then the Baylerlein quote that "After an hour I had no communication and all my forward tanks were knocked out. At least 70 percent of my troops are dead, wounded, crazed or numbed". http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/13.htm Let me clarify I don't have a problem with the strategic bombing model. My question is about the ability of air power to destroy entire corps and armies. I'd be interested in any specific examples. In the meantime, for your reading pleasure, two links to papers about the effectiveness of battlefield airpower. The first, "Attacks on German ground combat units in Normandy" is rather skeptical, the second "Battlefield Air Support A Retrospective Assessment" presents a more complex picture of strengths and weaknesses: http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/2spr90.html

True, to a point, although I it's fair to ask how feasible that outcome is. (Of course, since it's his game Hubert might decide to put in level 9 flying laser tanks, at which point historical considerations become moot.) Not necessarily. It proved that a single already damaged division - not an entire corp or army - was capable of losing 50-70% of casualties to air in unique circumstances. It doesn't necessarily follow that what can be done to a division can be done to an entire corp or army, nor does it follow something happened that happened once in exceptional circumstances can be repeated regularly. By analogy, suppose I buy a new car this week. That proves it is possible for me to buy a new car, but it wouldn't be reasonable to conclude that I this proves I can buy a new car every week. [ September 16, 2002, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]

I'm guessing the reason you want this is to have the game unfold more as it did historically. Presming this is desirable (and I'm in the "why should I be forced to repeat mistakes?" camp, although I recognise you did suggest this is an option, not the default ), this seems kind of a strange way to do it. Why? Unless the German is keeping up with the historical timetable the German player suddenly has to cope with potential invasions from the Norwegians, Danes, Greeks and Yugoslavs. Not quite the outcome I imagine you're looking for.

Hey, 50%, 70% - what's 20% between friends? It's not clear that the 70% was caused entirely by airpower. Let's presume that it was. To put this into context they were hit with 4,000 ton of bombs on that one day (July 25). http://www.forces70.freeserve.co.uk/Panzer%20Lehr/Panzer%20Lehr.htm The shortest turn in SC is one week, the longest one month - project those casualties forward for 1 week of operation Cobra style air attacks and you are looking at combat ineffective in one turn.

It's funny, I really disliked the CMBO approach when it first came out, but I got used to it. When I first used the CMBB approach it threw me, but after a few weeks I preferred it. Moral: I think a lot of this is a question of getting used to things. Of course if a toggle can be easily programmed, that solves the problem, but we need Charles to advise if that's as simple as it appears.

But the big question is does CMBB correctly model the armor penetrating qualities of the rifle fired fascista? Or is this just me trying to pretend this question is on topic for this board?

I like the sound of the way things are progressing here. Isn't reasoned dialogue a wunnerful thing?

Disclaimer: my comments are based on the demo. I'm still waiting for my SC/CMBB/T4 combined order to arrive! My early impressions are that air power is too powerful. For example Operation Cobra, the heaviest concentrated application of airpower in WWII I can think of, produced perhaps 50% casualties. I'm basing this on comments from the CO of the Panzer-Lehr Division, Gen. Bayerlein http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/gerob/pzdiv/lehr.html I am not aware of any units that were destroyed (by which I mean made combat incapable, as opposed to annihilated) by air power alone.

I've got a bulk order coming: TacOps 4, CMBB, Airborne Assault and Strategic Command. God, I love this company!

I liked it better when there was one board as well. I understand the rationale for the split, but I don't like it. Maybe they'll merge them again in a few months.