Dar

Does anyone have any figures on the production and distribution of the MP44? If I remember correctly, the special of German small arms of WWII on the History Channel's "History of the Gun" series on Sunday night mentioned around 300,000 were produced, but most of them weren't distributed due to bombing, oil shortages, and the like. Sounds like about the same thing happened with the advanced Panzerfausts (100, 150). I agree, though, that any unit equipped with MP44s and MG42s would have been a VERY tough nut to crack! Martin, taunting us with features of CM that you enjoy on a daily business while we suffer and beg for just one measly little AAR is very cruel! Dar Steckelberg

Whoa, hey! Don't get me wrong--I never suggested the Kar98K was a crappy weapon! It was a damn fine weapon, and you can be sure that the German military wouldn't have used it for 47 years if it were anything less. However, it is a bolt-action rifle, and I would much rather have had a semi-auto M1 than any bolt action anyday. I agree that the BAR can not be compared with the MG42. However, being able to distribute more firepower to each member of the squad rather than concentrating it in one crew-served weapon makes a squad more flexible in my opinion. And I agree with your statement about morale and training. From a raw firepower perspective, though, I feel the distribution in the American squad was a better practice than the concentration in the German squad. However, the Germans, being on the strategic defensive from '43 on, with much more experience, and outstanding NCO training, pretty much compensated for any possible advantage in firepower the Americans may have had. Dar Steckelberg

Hey, I *love* you Canadians! It's great to have a neighbor whose liberal policies require taxing the populace into oblivion, so we can see what will happen if we elect Gore! Dar Steckelberg

That is an interesting point. My own opinion is that the American squad is much more suited to offensive action with its complement of light, semi- and full-automatic weapons. While the American squad did not have as powerful a central weapon in the BAR as the German squad had in the MG34/42, they did have a better base of firepower with the M1 as opposed to the Kar98K. It would seem to me that this allowed the American squad leader more flexibility in establishing a position or breaking the squad into fire and movement sections. As a German squad leader, one would always have to base your position on the strength and field of fire it lends your primary weapon. Yes, the MG42 was an incredibly effective and excellent weapon, and much better than any automatic weapon the Americans fielded. However, my opinion is the lack of a base infantry weapon with a higher rate of fire than the Kar98K for supporting the MG meant that you were putting all your trust in the MG when faced with an opponent liberally equipped with semi-automatic weapons. Of course, this is all just conjecture. I'd appreciate reading other people's thoughts on this. Dar Steckelberg

You can also search this forum. There's a wealth of info from the past year or so that this forum has been up. Dar Steckelberg

Then it's settled--We'll give you Canucks Clinton for Ontario! Deal? We'll even throw in Hillary and Chelsea to "sweeten" the deal. What would you give us for the Gores? Dar Steckelberg

I second that. I cut my eyeteeth on Avalon Hill's "Tactics II" and "War at Sea", which are about the cardboard equivalents of PG. Jumping into Advanced Squad Leader right away would have made my head explode! If the PG genre helps introduce more computergamers into wargaming, so much the better! Dar Steckelberg

Hee, hee, hee! I have to agree with you, Herr Oberst! It does grate on my nerves when I have to decipher my own language. I also wish people would stop making up their own plurals for German words--either look it up and get it right or just anglicize it by adding "-s". It seems everybody thinks you just tack on "-en" and, voila! It's German! And while we're at it, I hate those people who try to look sophisticated by dropping "you and I" into their sentences everywhere (in "real" life, not in this forum). It's "with you and me"! "With" is a preposition! Get a clue! </rant> Dar Steckelberg

Steve: You convinced me a long time ago about the complexity, hardware demands, and design constraints that make representing individual soldiers prohibitive, so I'm not going to be harping about that here. However, I do have a question about tracking infantry casualties using the three man system: Since larger weapons' projectiles are tracked individually, does the complement of a squad have a direct influence on the size of target it presents? Is there some invisible target area represented by the three-man squad that shrinks as casualties are incurred, or does a slug actually need to impact one of the figures? It got me to thinking after someone just posted about grazing fire--If several full-complement squads are crossing a field and get caught in a crossfire between two MGs, what do the MGs need to hit? The center of the squads? Some invisible man-sized target representing each man but stored internally? Thanks, Dar Steckelberg

Is there something more scientific to this than just tracking every slug? I was excited to learn that every bullet coming down the barrel will be tracked so that you can set up a decent crossfire, but what additional tracking is needed for fixed, traversing and plunging? Thanks, Dar Steckelberg

Just wanted to add my $.02 about practical knowledge gained from gaming. I know I became quite the geography whiz at a young age from playing Avalon Hill and SPI games. After poring over the map of Europe in AH's "Third Reich", I was running circles around my classmates when it came to locating where Cyprus, or Luxembourg, or Sardinia are. "The Russian Campaign" was another good one for learning Eastern Europe geography. When I meet someone from Odessa or Riga, I know right away where they live. Of course, I don't tell them that I've overrun their birthplace with Panzers many times...but you get the idea. Playing "Sid Meier's Gettysburg" before I actually went out to the real battlefield was also very educational. After playing that several times, I believe anyone could walk onto the actual battlefield and find their way without any guide or map whatsoever. Dar Steckelberg

Just wanted to add that there is a very interesting article about the sinking of the Japanese sub I-52 in the Atlantic (yes, the Atlantic) in the new <u>National Geographic</u> that you WWII-savvy folks might want to check out. This sub was carrying around $15 million US in gold on its way to France from Japan and was sunk by American planes using sonubuoys and acoustic homing torpedoes in mid-1944--which I had no idea where in use that early! A definite must-read for you all-encompassing WWII students. Dar Steckelberg [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 09-19-99).]

Buddy: They don't list flail tanks, but I do recall them saying elsewhere that Shermans with the hedgerow cutter attachments would be included. The Schwimmwagen isn't listed. They do list the Kuebelwagen (the VW "Thing") and the Kettenkrad (tracked motorcycle), but no Schwimmwagen. It should be fun to see what bicycle infantry will look like if they include them in the later CM covering the early war years. Dar Steckelberg

(oops--wrong thread--Never mind!) [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 09-17-99).]

They do list several FlammPanzer on the "Resources" page for Combat Mission on the main Web site, so it looks like you'll get to play with them in CM1. What I would love to see, though, is that Churchill engineer assault vehicle with the huge--what? 280mm?--gun that is included in CC2. Man, do I love that thing! It's kind of like the Allied equivalent of a Sturmtiger. More fun than a wrecking ball! If it *is* in the list, and I'm ignorant of the nickname it's listed by, please let me know. Dar Steckelberg

Sounds like a deal, Rhet. By the way, I think the billy goats should have flamethrowers instead of Panzerfausts after careful consideration, because trolls can regenerate. Is "Combat Mission Meets Dungeons and Dragons" a future release? I want to pit an SS PanzerGrenadier battalion against a legion of orcs! Dar Steckelberg

Thank you, Sage, for backing me up on this! I was beginning to think I was a lone voice in the wilderness after this and the Beta testing threads! I *knew* there had to be someone else out there as demented as me. Dar Steckelberg

Fionn, With all due respect, "stupid" things <u>do</u> need to be tested for. It's the stupid things, like putting up a textbox with the prompt "Enter a number between 1 and 10" where you need to test for: boundary cases (1 and 10), boundary +/- 1 cases (0 and 11), and "stupid" entries (Granny's first time on the computer, so she types "five"; Joe Bob hits the Escape key; Wilbur closes the dialog box using the Control Box menu, etc.), that will bite you in the ass on occasion. I trust that the game will be of good quality. However, I also don't think anyone can just dismiss testing on a whim. There are a lot of people who will do "stupid" things, either accidentally or purposely, and it's best to do it purposely while you're still in testing. I am not saying "CM is going to be crap because the Beta testers aren't following a detailed test plan." I'm saying following a test plan would ensure that it is the quality product it appears to be. I will not follow this up in this thread, as I do not want to appear to be degrading the product or those involved anymore, and I think I've said enough on the subject. I do hope in future releases, however, that a more structured approach to testing be adopted. Dar Steckelberg

Thanks for the answers, Martin. I need to emphasize, however, that not much can be taken for granted when testing. For example, you and I both know "they're soldiers, not monkeys", but the computer does not know that unless you inform it. And if I were handed a Beta, I'd try moving that squad between two multi-story buildings, a multi- and a single-story buiding, a building and some forest, a tall bridge and a building, and so on to ensure that they're always soldiers, and not monkeys when condition X is in effect and Y = 3. Another example, if vehicle A is knocked out by vehicle B at close range, there's a building on fire behind A, and A's crew bails out, would the crew enter the burning building to escape MG fire from vehicle B? Are there exceptions? My testing experience, from several years' development experience and two internships as a tester at Microsoft, supports the concept that structured testing doesn't mean just reporting the bugs you find, but also reporting the areas where you didn't find them. If no one reports a bug allowing the player to pile five squads into one halftrack, does that tell you it doesn't exist? Or does it tell you that they didn't test for it? Without structure, you don't know. Dar Steckelberg [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 09-16-99).]

I live in the States, and, boy, do I wish we had the mass transit Europe has! If only we had the trains and rail infrastructure they have, instead of having to choose between driving and flying only. For intermediate distances, high-speed trains are the way to go! I'd love to see a bullet train between Chicago and NYC bring back the good ol' days of the Limiteds' rivalry between the NYC and Pennsylvania Railroads! *sigh* Sometimes I think I was born a century too late. Thank God I have diversions like CM to keep me from dwelling on it too much! Dar Steckelberg

My questions for the playtesters run more along the practicality and reality boundaries format. Such as, what happens if you tell your vehicle to go into a house, a water tile, through a stone wall, off a map edge, through another vehicle/wreck, through burning terrain or, better yet, to park in burning terrain. o What happens if you have a squad on the 2nd floor of a building and a level 1 LOS obstacle adjacent (building, short woods)--can they be ordered to move on top of it? Should they? o What if you order seven+ squads to the top floor of a small building--are there stacking limits enforced? o Can you order friendly units in good order and in plain, unbroken sight to fire on each other? o Can you order a vehicle to drive off a cliff? o Do vehicles move in reverse at realistic speeds? o Can units above/below each other in a building or on a tall bridge shoot at each other? In other words, I hope the testers will not just be playing game after game for look and feel, but putting some methodology into it. Not to insult their intelligence, by any means! I was just a little alarmed, though, when Steve mentioned there was no structured test plan. I'd freak out if there were vehicles doing equally top speeds forward *and* backwards, or if I ordered a squad on the 2nd floor of a building to move into the woods next to it, and they jumped out the window and walked across the tops of the trees. It's those little things that make testing such fun! Dar Steckelberg

Great plan, Martin! No sense in exposing your men to long range fire from AFVs you can't hurt. You should be able to unleash a world of short-range, automatic hurt from cover when he moves up his infantry, and you've got enough AT teams to cover several avenues if he brings up any of the vehicles. I like it! I'm pullng for ya! Dar Steckelberg

Damn--I wish I could remember where I read this, probably one of my Time-Life WWII books. In Spring of '45, an American unit called on the German defenders of a village (I believe it was one of the Ruhr pockets) to surrender. Well, as several German infantry units were turning in their weapons and assembling, three Jagdtigers come rumbling up and assemble in a parade-ground line. Then the crews climb out and assemble at attention in front of the vehicles, while their commander addresses them with a brief speech, then goes up to each man to say a few words, shakes each man's hand, and then presents himself, the crews, and the Jagdtigers to an astonished American officer who watched the entire procession. Can you imagine the feeling, though, watching those three behemoths clanking towards you? Could you help but wonder, "Gee, I hope they don't change their minds about surrendering at the last second!" Dar Steckelberg

That reminds me of another good ACW quote, this one the last words from a Union general upon visiting the entrenchments near the front and being warned by a soldier to stay down because of sharpshooters: "Don't worry, son. They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist-" Dar Steckelberg

Yeesh--Sounds like a prime area for your Beta testers to target. I'd rather not see it put in then risk screwing up any existing code and delaying the release! I can understand Charles's reluctance 100%. How many scenarios do you really encounter where your guys have room to play under the bridges, anyway? If it does work, though, I'll have to recreate the Three Billy Goats and the Troll Under the Bridge scenario, and give the goats Panzerfausts. Dar Steckelberg