Dale H

I was disappointed that no modifications (besides the Suez Canal change) improving the use of North Africa as a viable theatre in which to campaign made it into the latest patch. Maybe the changes needed (see link below) are too drastic but hopefully they will make it into a future patch or into SC2. As things stand now, the lack of the ability to campaign in North Africa trashes the experience for me, making it insufficiently realistic & fun. Again, it is only my opinion & only a game. Thanks, Dale H Slow boat to Suex...

Steve's statement about the rarity of MEs at CM's level makes sense if you think about the nature of combat during WW2. I suspect that statistics would show that on CM's level there were a lot more probes to locate the enemy & assaults to achieve local positional advantage on the offensive side & many positional defenses on the other. It would be less likely for two simultaneous chance offensive encounters to occur. Maybe we should be thinking in terms of prepared & hasty defense, probe, hasty & deliberate offense type of scenarios when making up QBs in CMBB or CMBO. Try reading Macdonald's Company Commander for more insight into the nature of combat at CM's level. Just my opinion. Dale

Ren's comments make good sense. The German Blitzkrieg was designed to employ a combined arms force of armor & mechanized infantry with tactical airpower as mobile artillery to breach a static defense & drive a pincer as fast as possible and as deep as possible to disrupt the enemy's rear echelons. Foot infantry was employed to follow up & engage the enemy forces bypassed by the Spearhead. The use of Blitzkrieg at the outset of the war in the East resulted in the large encirclements (Kesselschlachts) in the early stages. Blitzkrieg became less effective for the Germans as their force quality degraded & as the Soviet quality improved. The Soviets also had their own doctrine for the offensive from the start but were hampered by the decimation of their officer corps by Stalin & by the lack of effective numbers of modern armored & mechanized units to prosecute their offensive doctrine & by the poor training of their hastily gathered conscript forces used in a last ditch defense of the empire against the facist invasion. IIRC, the Soviets relied on a combined arms doctrine from BEFORE the onset of the Great Patriotic War as Zukhov demonstrated against the Japanese. I think it would be fair to say they became masters of an evolved combined arms offensive doctrine by the end of the war. However, the Germans could, even with depleted & informally structured KampfGruppen give back in fair measure as my reading of von Manstein would suggest. I think we were dealing with two different offensive doctrines that evolved as cicumstances dictated, kind of an apples & oranges thing. Just general comments of mine in a non-grog fashion & always open to interpretation & correction. Dale H

September, 1941, near Kiev: Small rear-guard action protecting an adjustment in the deployment of our Panzer Grenadier battalion: 1) Motorized Infantry Platoon 2) 4 X PAK 37x45's All hiding, entrenched in Scattered Woods Enemy force: 3 Red monsters: T-34's! Result: No enemy vehicles stopped or incapacitated & 2/2 PAK crews engaged eliminated "Door-Knockers" indeed; all the shooting did is made the tank crews mad & alerted them to our locations I suppose the Germans did a better job than I did but you got to admire the courage it took to crew one of those weapons against a T34. My crews waited until the last moment when the tanks could be shot at from the side at close range (less than 50 meters) & they did no real damage at all on a few re-runs of the decisive turns. Also, got to admire CMBB for such a great job in re-creating actions like this. Enough said, Dale H [ October 04, 2002, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Dale H ]

I am no grognard or expert but my reading about the Eastern front has told me that the 37 mm PAK was standard issue & the exclusive weapon of anti-tank gunnery units in the Wehrmacht early in the campaign on the East Front. Although they were poorly effective against thick frontal armor of the advanced medium & heavy AFVs they had to fight against, they were employed successfully because they were all that was available & because it was the Germans who employed them ie they were expected to find a way to make them work. I suspect they could be quite lethal at relatively close range to the side & rear armor of the AFVs & they were also small & relatively easy to hide & relatively more portable than heavier calibers of PAK weapons. I may be wrong about this & I cannot guote chapter & verse. I read an autobiography a while back about a German anti-tank gunner in the Crimea with AG South but I can't recall the title or author. Always willing to stand corrected & not trying to pick a fight. Dale H

Also need to be able to get units below North African Med coast cities (eg. Tobruk) in order to attack them. These cities are too hard to capture without the ability to invest them. I suppose it can be done but not worth the effort. I realize the Quattara Depression (sp?) is an issue but the navigable area in North Afrika should have been more than 2 hexes wide, imltho. Would love to use Rommel to try to duplicate the Afrika Korps campaigns but then I agree having Alex be an alternate source of units for the Brits would make sense because historically it was the staging center for gathering troops for the North African theatre from the entire Empire using the Suez canal to funnel them there. Still a great game, regardless. Dale

1) ignore taunts 2) don't believe everything you read (my 'whosis is bigger than yours) 3) RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH; improved armor, industrial prod, jets, improved aaa as axis for eg.) 4) headquarter units are a must (Rommel led my Army Group Center into Russia) 5) be methodical & deliberate; the IA will chop your head off if you recklessly plunge ahead 6) have fun 8) is pomme fritz a french-fried Boche? 9) Vive La France Dale H

Having some problems doing amphibious landings & wondering if I'm doing something wrong. They don't seem to want to unload at all unless in a friendly port. Using the Italians to do some work in the Med (Mare Nostrum) & I can't get them debarked onto enemy or friendly coast once in transports. Was trying to land an expeditionary force onto the Afican coast but I can't seem to do it. Help! Thanks, Dale H

Got the game last eve & having fun; I love this game, both the concept & the implementation. Thanks for adding the Disable UnDo option. Tried to invade Romania after finishing off Poland last eve as Germans & got bogged down. The AI then invaded the Low Countries. Having some fun. I wonder if many realize how hard it is to code a believable AI but I have NO complaints in this regard. Great job. Thanks for the hard work; job well done. I'm a happy camper. Dale H

Drop-dead fantastic! Even the bra ads in the newspaper aren't this promising ;>). Wow! Gorgeous! Stop, you're killing me.... (drools & swallows hard). Obtw, I hope the horsepower requirements to run CMBB aren't going to be too restrictive. thanks, Dale H

The way I look at it: if I lose, the AI cheats & if I win, the AI is pure as the driven snow. Who gives a hoot about the reviews, as long as the game is fun to play? I've been playing Civ3 lately where the AI is, allegedly, a notorious cheat. I still enjoy playing but I would like to be able to play on a level playing field. I will probably buy the PTW expansion for Civ3 so I can play against myself & enjoy it more than I do now when I know the AI is loaded. There is no reason for the AI to cheat in Strategic Command. I suspect the reviewers are under considerable pressure to publish quickly & probably haven't given SC a fair trial but only a test drive. I've played the Strategic Command demo enough to have faith in the AI & the game. Who cares about the critics? Lets have some fun. Dale H

Hubert, Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. You are a class act. Don't let them grind you down. Dale H

SuperTed, I agree. Probably no installer used. Thanks for your help. Would like to hear how others did it though. Dale H

SuperTed, I would like to use the control panel add/remove software means but I don't find the beta demo in the list of programs listed there. Am I doing something wrong? Dale

do I simply delete the beta demo folder to uninstall it? thanks' dale h

Playing as the Allies, I got a message about German sub activity & was able to hunt for subs using the Undo Move function; should not be allowed. Please arrange an option to disable Undo Move or get rid of it altogether. Also, in the same scenario I was trucking along reinforcing the Frenchies when all of a sudden they surrendered. Why? I have previously posted about the naval units in the game: I would urge that they be named surface or carrier "action groups" & sub "wolf packs" in order to appropriately correspond to the land & air units. How about colored dots to represent units on the overview map? I'm still having fun with the game. Just trying to be helpful. Thanks, Dale

Forgive me if this has probably been covered but how about adding colored dots on the overview map to keep track of all units? Also, I have a better time thinking of the naval units as battlegroups arranged around the particular capital unit named, so, how about organizing naval units as surface/carrier action groups & sub wolf packs instead of individual units? Good game concept & I am enjoying the demo so far. Thanks, Dale H

I also apologize for not posting SPOILER; I edited the message appropriately. Hope I didn't give too much away. I've stayed away from the board, mostly, since my 'emperor' post, so I didn't know what spoiler meant, but I do now. Thanks, Dale Kilroy, out P.S. while I was watching the scenario last night I didn't even hear my wife yell until the third time she did in my ear: "Turn the *!#$% thing down; I can't hear myself think".

SPOILER: may contain some info you may not want to read re one scenario mission I've been playing CM since its arrival mid-last week. I had some reservations about the game which I expressed in a previous post (the emperor has no clothes). I regret those comments & would like to say all my reservations are gone. I love this game. I played the small scenario involving three Panthers by Bill Wilder (forgot the name: La Foret? (sp.?)) last evening & I let the Panthers hunt & I was captivated (total suspension of disbelief) by the result. The big cats clawed their way through the Ami's in a most methodical & believable way but all succombed to the weight of the Sherman numbers in the end. I literally gaped at the screen with jaw on the floor through the whole scenario, repeating over & over, "amazing". The Panthers were so believable like I've never experienced in a game before. I watched mostly a ground level to see the big cats roam. The Close Combat series doesn't even come close. Fantastic AI: I never had to direct a shot but let them hunt to their hearts content. Please add my name to your list of die hard fans & accept my humble apology for doubting. Dale Kilroy, out [This message has been edited by Dale H (edited 06-26-2000).]

Just called home & made my wife go out to the mailbox & it's here! Can't wait to get home. I know I'm breaking my self imposed silence but I wanted to share in the joy & fun. Hope I'm welcome back on the board. Steve, thanks. Kilroy, out Dale

Steve, I apologize for the "Emperor Has No Clothes" comment. It was not directed at you by any means or by any meaning. I was trying to point out that concerns raised about the game are often seemingly brushed aside or even put down by others (not you) with unsolicited & enthusiastic responses often without a good basis & certainly without the valid & reasoned response you, the game's designer, always give. I think 'Iconoclast' raised some good questions & I think they were fairly answered by you (at least they satisfied me). I take responsibility for my comment & will respectfully retire & refrain from further inflammatory rhetoric. I think the Emperor can indeed stand proudly on his own - regardless of attire. Dale

Iconoclast In the Reisburg scenario I put an 88 as far up the road as I could just to see what would happen. The 88 took out the first Sherman but was put out of action from 3 unanswered rounds from a Sherman coming into los from just to the right of the road. In the same scenario I saw 3 rapid fire panzerschreck volleys within 30 seconds under withering answering fire. My eyebrows raised over both these events: don't make sense... unless the firing interval for the 88 is a lot greater ...or the panzerschreck interval is very short indeed... or perhaps if the 88 crew is stunned by the first blast & doesn't respond. Never mind the utter futility of employing an 88 against afv's within their answering range. I don't want to rain on anybody's parade either but these kind of results leave me, just as you were left, pondering. Maybe this is not the best forum for these kind of questions because of the 'emperor has no clothes' type of response this kind of questioning often elicits here. I too pine for a los tool. The table of organization suggestion is a very good one also. Kilroy out

It must be very difficult indeed to write routines for the computer intelligence to attack or assualt, especially using recognized doctrine both sides employed. The relative weakness of any computer intelligence on the offensive has been well documented from many previous attempts at computer wargaming on many different scales. While I have not extensively tested the demo's ability in this regard I find playing offensively against the computer's defense challenging enough (a tough opponent indeed) & more, how shall I say..., fair. I suspect there is less doctrine to the entrenched defense than there is to a combined arms offense. I may be wrong about this because I am not a trained military professional but I would cut the computer more slack on the offense than on the defense. I would urge, however, attempts be made to model the doctrine of the armed service the computer is playing when it is on the offense. Kilroy out

Please help direct me to a previous post regarding the answer to this question: How is battlefield intelligence modeled in CM? Do units have eyeballs only (LOS) intel or is there a way for units to share info about units spotted by one unit but not by others? I'm sure this has been covered before. I will attempt to search on 'intel' or los. Thanks, Dale

not here, I agree that if it is a ShootOut at the OK Corral then have at it. I was only trying to make the point that there is a wide gulf between what the sim can do & what happens in real life. There may have been rare instances in WW2 where unarmed or lightly armed crews took on the whole opposing army but I think these are events of bezerkish type behavior (call them heroic, if you like). Most people would honor their own instincts for self preservation or only act if a buddy was in distress. I may be wrong about this & I apologize if I stepped on anybody's toes. I think we should all lighten up a little & accept that the sim has limitations (it is too coarse due to processor & memory limits to cover these kinds of detail). I only speak as a non-grognard who wants to enjoy the game for what it is. Kilroy, out