Bullethead

Well, I don't have this problem so I'll tell you what I do. I'm talking the Windows versino here, don't know if this works for Macs. 1. At the editor main screen, I hit the SAVE button. 2. This prompts me to enter a file name. I do that. I do NOT enter an extension because that happens automatically upon saving. 3. I also let the editor save it where it wants to--in the Saved Games folder. The new scenario then appears on the list when I select Play Game from the main CM menu. If you have saved the scenario to the Saved Games folder, your new scenario appears near the top of the scenario list on the 1st page, somewhere between Quick Battle and the 1st stock scenario. OTOH, if you save it to the Scenarios folder, it appears lower on the list mixed in with the stock scenarios. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

The problem with Diablo 2 as a surrogate is that you might have to wait even longer for it than CM, depending on when you order ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

John raises an issue that's been bothering me as well. Simply put, it's the total inability to area fire into places where you don't have an LOS. I agree that this imposes an unrealistic burden on the defender. I would like to see this changed. I would like to be able to draw lines of MG fire criss-crossing through the smokescreens. I would like to put mortars into the smoke as well. I would like to be able to spray across ground beyond night viz range when I know the enemy is out there somewhere. Would this be abused? Not particularly, IMHO. Squads and mortars never have enough ammo. And while MGs might, this is one of their intended functions in smoke and at night there's the tradeoff with giving away your position. More work for the AI, however. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, I mean in the Quick Battle DYO type games. In those, it restricts you to certain numbers of points in certain categories. There are no attacker points in Fortifications.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (back from checking this). Yeah, I see what you mean. I don't particularly like this, either. My main problem is that before I got to pick units, I had selected "no restrictions" on what I could buy. Yet instead I really was restricted. This does put a damper on freedom in a DYO. The only way currently for an attacker to have a TRP is if the scenario is made up by hand, which means the designer knows the OOB of both sides and neither player can alter it. OTOH, TRPs are quite cheap--a mere 30 points. So maybe they'd unbalance a DYO? ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Spook said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If I was a criminal prosecutor, I would have a far easier time to get a guilty verdict on Clinton for his alleged misdeeds than to charge FDR for treason based on the information that's presented so far. The defending attorney would shred my case with the kinds of inquiries I have posed earlier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, this ain't a court of law, it's the Court of Public Opinion, so the burden of proof and Rules of Evidence are more informal But since you bring this subject up, consider this: 1. The "prosecution" has presented a number of lines of evidence (known pre-war political conduct of FDR, known FDR motivations as to the USSR, intercepted messages from US and Allied codebreakers, etc.) that point directly to FDR's knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack well in advance. FDR's conduct alone is sufficient to prove the mens rea of intent were this a real criminal case, and the codebreaking evidence is the "smoking gun" of the actus reus 2. The case of the "defense" seems to be based primarily on mere assertions that "such conduct is unimaginable." This is a patently false position, of course, because the "prosecution" as already imagined it . Otherwise, the "defense" case has been limited to arguing over the validity of "prosecution" evidence. However, the "defense" has already admitted that FDR had at least SOME advance warning, and cannot deny FDR's conduct. And the "defense" has not offered any "alibi" evidence of its own to show what FDR was REALLY doing with whatever info the "defense" admits he had. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It has NOT been incontrovertably proven yet that FDR chose to "set up" the Pacific fleet, in specific, to be left in the highest state of vulnerability for an impending attack. I am still not yet convinced that FDR was able to conclude for himself, on Dec 6th, that Pearl was the likely target of attack, regardless of earlier 1941 military estimates & studies that FDR might OR might not had been privy to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No case is ever incontrovertibly proven in a court of law--there is always at least a shadow of a doubt because none of the jurors were there to see the alleged events. OTOH, how many in the Court of Public Opnion really doubt OJ really did commit a double murder? In this "case," the evidence is still being debated. But eventually all evidence capable of introduction by the members of this forum will be presented. After that, it's up to the "jury" to decide how much weight to give each piece of evidence. You, I take it, are going to always vote for "acquittal" because you are incapable of being convinced of anything due to your demand for the unattainable--absolute proof. As such, you would have been booted off the jury in voire dire . ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Michael Emrys said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Has anyone tried the Mortar Carrier? It's kind of nice. It's lightly armored, motorized, has an 81 mm mortar, and carries lots of ammo. Only thing, it can only be used direct fire. Since it's a vehicle, there is no way to put it in command. So it can't fire indirectly. Does anyone know if this is historical?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I've noticed this as well and it does seem strange to me. I mean, you'd think a vehicle would be easier to have in command for fire adjusting because of its radios and room for map boards and such. Maybe a possible solution would be to have the mortar team for mortar vehicles be a separate infantry-type unit. Then officers could command it like they can other passengers. This would also kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Some vehicular mortars were dismountable, so having the mortar as a separate unit would allow this. Just give it a "limber/unlimber time" like for towed guns. If the mortar couldn't come out in real life, then make this time longer than the max scenario length. OTOH, unlike towed guns, these mortars, of course, would have to be able to fire while "limbered," where they would also have access to more ammo than if they got out of the vehicle. Oh well, maybe something for CM2 ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Talenn said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I ask because the attacker is never allowed to purchase fortifications. IMO, the attacker should be allow to have certain 'pre-registered' locations for his Arty as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The attacker can buy TRPs as it is now, even though they are on the fortification menu. I've used this feature several times in making scenarios. Now, I've never done one of those DYO things where 2 players purchase units, so that may not be the case in such games. But as far as scenario design goes, there is no side restriction on TRP ownership that I can see. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

FWIW, in the US Marines, the "sharpshooters" are officially called Scout Snipers. They are intended not only to pop people but also find and report things. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

1. Go to the main editor menu screen and hit the SAVE button. A window pops up where you can enter the scenario's name. By default, it's saved in the Saved Games folder, which works fine. 2. Exit the editor, return to the main CM menu, select Play Game, and then pick your new scenario off the list. It should be near the top of the list, between Quick Battle and the stock scenarios, along with any other games you've saved. It will have white text instead of orange, however. 3. Go through the usual process of selecting FOW, starting positions, side to play, and type of game. You should now be in the Set-Up Phase of your scenario. That's all there is to it. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Joe Shaw said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but wait, about two seconds later the M8 just ... blows up. And I have no idea where it came from<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the thing that kills you has not been spotted yet, you won't see the projectile coming. Just BOOM, you're dead for no apparent reason. I remember back with the beta demo I was playing Riesburg for the umpteenth time and had made it into town. My tanks were advancing down the streets a couple houses behind the grunts, happily blasting any German troops who showed themselves. Suddenly, 1 Sherman got killed. I must have watched it 10-15 times from various angles trying to figure it out but never saw what hit it. Nor did I hear the weapon fire. My own grunts, as I said, were in front of the tank and had reached the edge of the town square. No German grunts were visible in the square or the buildings on the other side. So the only thing I could think of was that I'd walked into the LOS of an 88 on the hill on the far side of town. Thus, my next orders were based on that assumption and tried to avoid a repetition. My other tanks hugged walls out of LOS of the hill. However, during the next turn, I discovered the answer. Suddenly there was a puff of smoke beside some bushes out in the square and a nearly simultaneous explosion against a wall beside another tank. But still no visible projectile. Then a few seconds later, a schreck team appeared. Once it was seen, my troops quickly dispatched it. But the FOW prevented me from even seeing the backblast of the 1st shot and I didn't spot the unit until after it had fired the 2nd shot, although I saw the backblast for that one. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Spook said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You just state that FDR wanted war, without citing references or official documents, and expect me to take it for fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, the documents in question have been already cited earlier in this thread. If those are not enough for you, then consider this. All history books are the opinions of the authors after they have looked at the available data. Some of this will have to informed speculation because not everybody involved wrote down his innermost thoughts. Still, you can piece together somebody's intent from his actions, at least well enough to send him to the electric chair beyond a reasonable doubt. So look at what FDR actually did do and consider the range of German and Japanese reactions, and form your own opinion. You have all the things done favoring the Brits at the expense of the Germans. You have what was essentially an undeclared naval war with Germany for much of 1941. Does any of this make any sense if FDR did NOT want to fight the Germans? Then look what he did to Japan. Japan's economy was dependent on imports from us. Cutting off these shipments forced Japan to acquire other sources RIGHT NOW. Taking these territories meant Japan would have to fight us. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I need it established in absolute proof that putting the US fleet in predetermined risk was absolutely necessary to help pull off the "master plan of war."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no such thing as absolute proof. If that's what you want, then nobody will ever be able to convince you of anything. All you can do is look at the available evidence and form your own conclusions. To me, FDR's actions, standing alone, make it obvious he was trying to start a war, first with the Germans and then with the Japanese. All the codebreaking evidence merely adds support to this, but it is IMHO quite substantial support. Basically 2 very strong lines of evidence leading to the same result. Anyway, that's how I see the evidence. You can accept that or reject it. But if you reject it, do not do so simply because it seems "ludicrous" or highly improbable, or even unbelievable. Imposing such conditions rules out the vast bulk of all human decision-making. Just because what somebody did doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean they didn't do it. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Jackhammer said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>hey bullethead you cant have it both ways! you cant say that fdr didnt expect the japs to do much damage to pearl in one post and then turn around and say he needed a fair number of us casulties to justify the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I meant relative to the odd DD lost in the Atlantic to the U-boats. You attack a major base, you are going to have a fair amount of casualties and damage even if the defending force is still viable afterwards. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>as for intel WE (USA) didnt have any besides magic which only read their diplomatic codes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But we had friends who could read other stuff, and they were sending us their data. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the jap strike force maintained radio silence throughout the voyage-this fact is incontrovertible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But the guys back in Japan did not, and various messages said where the fleet was going. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the idea the fdr or any american official would permit a hostile fleet to launch an attack on pearl or any us installation without taking any steps to counter it is ridiculous!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, so the idea of a president bombing an aspirin factory to take public attention off his personal scandals is also beyond your estimation of the depths to which those in power can sink? ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Spook said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are arguing that "Allied codebreakers" pinpointed the Japanese carrier force. But who establishes this as fact? What references? I'm not prepared to accept the statement on face value, nor the allegations of guest speakers on the History Channel. (After the "Ike vs. Monty" show a couple of years ago, I personally lost a lot of respect for THC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look at Marty's post on the 1st page for references. And yeah, THC can be strange. 1 week they debunk Roswell, the next they try to prove it . I just mentioned it as using the same sources Marty mentioned in this particular show. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to your comment on the Enterprise, Bullethead, you'll have to clarify. If what you are saying is that the Enterprise was never in danger of attack, that's a rather strident assumption to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Never said that. I just said that Enterprise wouldn't have been walking into a Japanese CV fleet "hanging around" Pearl for a few days, which was your suggestion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your premise of FDR letting Pearl get hit as it was has to ride on two major assumptions, Bullethead: 1) That he WANTED to have war with Japan right there & then. Is that established beyond reasonable doubt? And why? Think of it. By trying to goad the Japanese into war, FDR & co. had to realize that the Japanese could mass more force, more quickly, against the Philippines and Guam than the US could effectively respond to, unless the US fleet was allowed to steam westward instead of sitting in harbor in early December.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no room for doubt that FDR wanted war with Japan right then and there. During 1941, he deliberately applied various economic pressures to Japan that left her with no choice but to sieze various territories to keep her economy from collapsing. This was recognized at the time by various factions opposed to war, and you can see the recorded debate in the Congressional Record, newspaper archives, etc. And yes, FDR had to have known the territorial consequences of letting Japan get off the 1st shot. These had been expected outcomes to Japanese "1st strikes" since the 1920s. The fact is, however, that none of these losses would seriously affect our ability to wage war, so a strategy of holding what we could while we beat up on Germany would have worked. And this is exactly what happened once war started. That is to say, FDR condemned thousands of US and Allied troops to Hell in the Pacific as if they were pawns sacrificed to take a queen, aka Germany. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>isn’t goading another country to attack you so that you can go to war with another country rather ludicrous? Why not instead, just give the Atlantic convoys tighter and more extensive escort by the US Navy, which would likely bring about more incidents like the Reuben James sinking of Oct ’41?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not many folks besides FDR wanted to fight the Germans, so everything he did to get the Germans to kill Americans was seen for what it was. So everybody got mad at FDR instead of the Germans. There was not, however, anywhere near as much public support for Japan as there was for Germany. In fact, quite the opposite, thanks to all the bad press the Japanese had been getting throughout the 30s for their actions in China. Sure, it does seem ludicrous to goad 1 country into war just to fight another. But if there's 1 thing in life you can be sure of, it's that there's no limit to how ludicrous (or stupid, or vain, or overconfident, etc) people can be. And the evidence is that this is exactly the strategy FDR adopted. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2) That FDR was absolutely convinced that letting the US Pearl forces get surprised & bloodied was the only way to clinch a war with Japan. If the Japanese forces had already entered US territorial water without warning, and they launched their raid and starting flying over Hawaii, the act of war was already consummated. So that being accomplished, why did the defenders have to “stand down”? They could have been alerted to defend themselves, and might have even been in a position to launch a counter-response against the Japanese fleet. Why let the raiders get away clean?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because this would have revealed too much. Both about Allied intel and about FDR's motivations. It's like that problem of having a tiger by the tail--you can't let go. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So did Allied (British/Dutch) codebreakers really have the Japanese carrier force pegged?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As far as I can tell, they did. And as for the Brits' response seeming inadequate by hindsight, remember how our initial force into Korea, the one that got so easily overrun, was called "an arrogant display of force." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was a peaceful resolution absolutely ruled out leading up to Dec. 6th?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite. It had been ruled out months before, when FDR decided to provoke Japan. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And if war with Japan was desired at that moment, what was FDR's planned military objectives? Was it to sieze various Japanese bases, like in the Marshalls? Or interdict Japanese supply lines to the forces that invaded China? Or was the higher strategy just to simply sit back, with arms crossed and the US military in the worst state of readiness, to get punched around for several months just to put the US on a war footing and then to figure out the strategic objectives later on?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this latter is the closest to the truth. FDR had no real interest in fighting Japan except as was necessary to fight the Germans. So if we could just hold on to toeholds in the Pacific and basically contain Japanese expansion, eventually we could get around to beating them. But only after Germany. At least those were his initial thoughts, apparently. Where did the 1st US army overseas get sent? To retake our own lost Pacific possessions? No, to fight the Germans in North Africa. Sure, Marines had already gone to Guadalcanal, but that was only 1 division and was part of the over-all holding strategy. We had to hold Guadalcanal or risk losing even more in the Pacific. So we sent the bare minimum of force there, and it had a long, hard, bloody fight of 8 months, with the strategic decision in the balance for much of that time. Purely a holding action, not really a serious offensive. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It could be argued more effectively that FDR was trying for a state of war with Germany in 1941.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is what I've been saying. FDR really wanted to fight the Germans, but was pretty much alone in this opinion. Attempts at stirring up anti-German sentiment had failed. Hence, incite Japan to get to Germany. Remember, this does NOT have to make sense. We're talking about something a human did. And humans do NOT always, nor even mostly, do the logical thing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, let's play devil's advocate and presume that FDR indeed wanted Pearl to be attacked. Why leave the Pacific fleet there in the harbor to stand as a big fat juicy target that couldn't maneuver in defense? Couldn't the fleet had been put to sea, or even sent back to its San Diego home base?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 2 reasons. First, If you presume FDR wanted the Japanese to attack us, then none of the options you list here are possible. For perfectly sound strategic reasons, the Japanese could not launch their major territory-grabbing campaigns with the US fleet intact. Therefore, they had to knock it out. So FDR had to put the fleet where the Japanese could hit it. Otherwise there would have been no war. Second, without a major attack (and a fair number of US casualties), there wouldn't be the popular outcry FDR needed. Like I said above, sacrificed pawns. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The more I see it argued that FDR wanted the Pearl attack to happen EXACTLY as it did just creates for me a logic path that gets more & more convoluted and complex and with more unexplained gaps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The problem is that you are expecting him to have wanted it exactly as it turned out. This includes the extent of the destruction at Pearl AND of the Japanese conquests afterwards. I really don't think he wanted things as bad as they actually were. But he was willing to accept this as a "worst case" that was still livable, at least to him. And like I said above, it was a "tiger by the tail" situation once he had rolled the dice. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Spook said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But FDR having specific knowledge of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor? Anyone who buys into this allegation had better explain the following issues that don't seem to be broached: 1) What basis did FDR or any Allied intelligence service have that the raid was going to be a strict "hit & run"? What if Admiral Nagumo opted to have a follow-up raid and stuck around for another day or two?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Simple answer: codebreaking. And like I said before, not just by the US but by the Brits and Dutch, both of whom were funneling info to FDR. Something that is often overlooked in this whole debate is that Pearl Harbor was only 1 of a number of major operations the Japanese had going on simultaneously at the start of the war. There were also the Philippines and SE Asia/Indonesia invasions, for example. And the various Allied codebreakers picked up and deciphered a lot of info on these other operations, beside just Pearl Harbor. So basically, we knew the general nature of the whole Japanese plan for the start of the war. We therefore knew that the Pearl Harbor attack was purely hit-and-run because its forces had to immediately go back and support the other operations. We knew the whole purpose of Pearl Harbor was to prevent the Pacific Fleet from materially hindering the operations that were important to the Japanese--securing oil fields and a defensive perimeter around them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2) In such a case, what would've prevented the USS Enterprise from being attacked, having arrived just after the historical raid? If the "foreknowledge" guided an effort to prevent the US carriers from being attacked, why was the Enterprise allowed to get so close to Hawaii?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because "such a case" was known not to exist, this was not as big a risk as you imagine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3) One presumption for FDR letting the Japanese attck Pearl Harbor seems to be: "They'll only be attacking a bunch of old battleships." Uh....why limit to that? With added raids, the Japanese aircraft could just as well had knocked out the fuel storage tank farms that propped up the fleet and the based aircraft. As well as the submarine pens. Had severe damage been done to those, the US sub fleet's ability to interdict the Japanese west Pacific shipping routes would have been hampered for months. People seem to forget just how much historical damage the US subs did in WW2 (LOTS!).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Admittedly, it's hard to really answer this question because it gets into guessing about FDR's thought process, which is, of course, unknowable. As is well-known, 2 things saved the oil tanks and other installations at Pearl. One of these was that they were not briefed targets for the attack, so thus survived the initial strike. The other is that the Japanese got cold feet and canceled their planned 2nd round of attacks with re-armed planes. Had this attack gone in, the oil tanks and sub base would probably have been hurt badly anyway simply because they were about the only things left to bomb. So it was basically luck that we got off as "lightly" as we did. Yet I don't see this conflicting with FDR's foreknowledge of the attack. That he had detailed foreknowledge is indisputable given the intel available and his personal reasons for reading such intel. So he had to have considered some "worst case" scenarios and, nevertheless, decided to allow the "surprise" attack to happen. The question is, why? There are 2 reasons I can think of. The first I have already mentioned: that he didn't think air power alone would cause very serious damage. While this might have been a justifiable, if still incorrect, attitude as to BBs, however, certainly experience had shown what airplanes could do to fixed land structures. However, as has been mentioned by others, it was a common at that time to underestimate Japanese combat power anyway. The other explanation is simply political. But because FDR was a politician, it probably played some part in his decision process. FDR's plan was to incite the Japanese into attacking us, in an effort to go to war with Germany. Given the tendency to underestimate Japanese might, this might have seemed a fairly safe option. However, FDR had no control over how strongly the Japanese would attack. Apparently he hadn't given this flaw in his plan serious thought (no doubt due to his messiah complex). But once he knew from intel how strong the Japanese Pearl attack force was, the political die had already been cast. There was no way he could suddenly issue warnings or otherwise alter his behavior. Not only might this have canceled the longed-for Japanese attack and compromised the codebreaking, it would have been political suicide for FDR. "Oh BTW, I've been trying to make the Japanese attack us. Well, they are, and there's a problem--they're really going to hit us hard..." ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Johnk Kettler said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With only pistols for weapons, though, they're militarily useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I used to think the same, until circumstances forced me to press such crews into the line. Many times in VOT, pillbox crews have played a vital role in stopping the American attack at the very summit of Hill 209, holding the line until the reinforcements arrive. And in a PBEM game recently, a vehicle crew managed to gun down an entire paratrooper squad at a crucial moment. Maybe crews have grenades, too. But in any case, if put them in covered positions where the enemy has to come to them and will only have an LOS to 20m or so, crews usually get off the 1st shot, probably because pistols can be aimed quicker than rifles. And getting off the 1st shot at such close range is usually the deciding factor, because the enemy usually will take casualties, hit the deck, and thus be unable to fire back. So the crew can hit him again. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Charlse said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you guys using v1.01? It helped fix the target "distraction" issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have 1.01 and I have similar problems, but they mostly concern the most experienced troops. Somebody else posted this a few days ago but I only saw the problem myself now. Say I have an elite unit. It gets distracted by EVERYTHING. As a result, it hardly ever fires a shot. It's always switching from target to target as new enemy units appear during the turn, and before it can aim and fire at anything, something new pops up that it thinks is more worth shooting. As a result, it frequently gets killed without firing at all. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd have to re-read the Berlin Pact, but I'm under the impression that Germany was not bounded into declaring war on the USA. Germany's formal declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) is what lead to Congress approving the war versus Germany (and Italy).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've always wondered what would have happened if Germany had NOT declared war on us. Then where would FDR have been? BTW, in case nobody's noticed, I'm not a fan of FDR. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Smack- If you have ANY interest in company/battalion level WW2 ground combat, you simply MUST own CM. All other games in this genre are totally outclassed. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

I agree with John. I'd like improved foxholes and trenches. Essentially, they'd be like bunkers for regular troops, that they could move into and out of, instead of simply something like an immobilized vehicle. Hell, I'd also like to see concrete pillboxes that troops could hide in, too. Of course, this is essentially what light and heavy buildings already are, but it just doesn't look right making a Siegfried Line out of churches, besides the fact that you can't put buildings in the same tiles as woods and such. I have the same problem with dug-in vehicles, as well. If the vehicle can't get out, how did it get in? I thought the standard procedure was to dig a wedge-shaped pit with the sloped part like a ramp, so the vehicle could drive in and out at will. Sure, the Germans often used dismounted tank turrets on concrete bases as a type of pillbox, but that is not the same thing as digging in a vehicle. This was actually a type of permanent fortification never intended to move. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 06-27-2000).]

Marty said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This past weekend, Friday, I think, there was a talk by an author named Sinnet on the CSPAN Book TV. His book has just been published and is titled something like "Day of Deceit - FDR and Pearl Harbor". The author served in the Navy 1942-1946 and apparently has a solid feel for his material.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I saw a show on the History Channel the other day on this subject. It was one of that series done by Roger Mudd. It had interviews with various key participants in the whole mess, including Brit codebreakers from Singapore, Dutch codebreakers from Java, etc. Plus it produced various documents by FDR staffers that Marty mentions in his post. From seeing all this, there is no doubt in my mind that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. All of the information was there for him. And it wasn't something he had to piece together from various sources--the whole thing was spelled out in total in a couple of documents. It was not known just to FDR, either--even Nimitz had at least a strong hunch. To this end he turned down the command at Pearl and took a Stateside job instead just before the war so he'd survive the lynching afterwards and be in command for the actual fighting. This motivation is recorded in his personal papers. As to Aacooper's problem with supposed prescience of carrier superiority, that cuts both ways. How could FDR have known the Pearl Harbor attack would have been so devastating to battleships? He probably thought, like everybody else at the time, that airplanes were no real threat to them, so letting the Japanese take a free shot at them seemed like a safe bet. There was also the feeling that Pearl was too shallow and narrow for torps--it's certainly narrower than Taranto. But to me, regardless of the hard evidence, one need look no further than FDR's personal agenda. Marty is also correct in noting FDR's strong desire to get into the war, against popular sentiment. He was at best a socialist, at worst a commie, and either way a big fan of Stalin--he even sent cabinet members to Russia to study collectivized agriculture with the thought of doing the same thing here. So once Russia looked in trouble, FDR decided he had to fight the Germans to save his idol Stalin. But due to popular sentiment, the US would only go to war if we were attacked first. However, this was beyond German capabilities except for U-boats. So he put US destroyers out to be shot at by U-boats for most of 1941. A few were sunk but this didn't create the uproar he needed. OTOH, the Japanese had enough navy to really hit some of our stuff in the Pacific, and if they fought us, the Germans would probably honor their treaty and fight us also. So he did everything possible to provoke the Japanese into attacking us. This was a project very high on FDR's priority list. So naturally, every time he tightened the screws on Japan, he would have monitored their reaction closely. It is therefore inconceivable that he would NOT have known of the Japanese decision to attack us--that was what he was looking for, after all. And thanks to the codebreaking efforts of the US, the Brits, and the Dutch, all the information was there for him to see. Not only the general decision, but also time and place of the attack. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 06-27-2000).]

What about troop quality? I'm getting the impression that better troops see further in bad conditions. Also, I suspect there is some "under the hood" dust effect on LOS going on. Sometimes I've seen the LOS to an area under HE bombardment be blocked here and there where before it wasn't. Like from the dust from the explosions. Maybe that's why there was no LOS at the end of the turn here? ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 06-27-2000).]

Doesn't a side have a global morale that declines the more casualties you take? And when this global morale reaches some critical point, all your guys decide they'd rather be doing something else? Would not this feature tend to allieviate mass gamey use of sacrifice cheap troops? ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

I think I prefer to attack, mostly because the attacker usually has the most arty . And I hate getting shelled. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Why not? Top as well

In the editor and the DYO unit purchase thing, you see the stats of the unit (at least the major ones) at the bottom of the screen simply by passing the mouse cursor over the unit on the selection list, both before and after you buy it. This works at different levels. For example, on the list of stuff to buy in the left column, you might see "SS Panzergrenadier Batallion (armored)". Put the cursor over this and you see something like "3 rifle companies and 1 weapons company". If you click on the BN to buy it, it appears in the right column, but as all its individual units. Put the cursor over any unit and you get the major unit stats. For squads, you see how many of what type of weapon, etc. For vehicles, you see things like speed, transport capacity, main gun size, etc. It doesn't show you the full in-game stats, but hits the high points ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman