Dave

When I order a unit to attack a certain unit, I expect it to follow my orders unless: 1. A more immediate threat develops 2. It loses LOS to the first unit The morale rating, level of the unit's experience, how & how much it is threaten by others and it's level of support & in command are all factors in how well the unit follows my orders. This is ONLY a beta demo. I'm sure that Steve & Charles are following the comments carefully and looking to their own testing and that of the beta testers, to see if the units switch too easily from one target to another. Kraut "Just yesterday in a PBEM game, my bazooka started to fire at a stuG from over 120m with less than 20% hit chance. I don't like this at all because it ruined my planning. I wanted to spring the ambush much later..." Did you actually have your bazooka team targeted to an ambush point? Right now I'm playing a LAST DEFENSE game and have a "regular" bazooka, since turn 1, targeted on a ambush point that is 75 meters away. Its turn 15 and a HT has been sitting for a few turns just 50 meters further out from the ambush point. The bazooka team has been sitting patiently waiting.

Bill- "I have played two times now. Under another topic I asked why my troops ignored my targeting commands and fired at other units. I got the answered I expected. The troops make a decision to fire at what they perceive as a more immediate danger. If that happens all the time, why bother to have the option to select a target for your troops. Doesn't game play come down to ordering your troops to go to a certain spot where they will then decide what to do?" DOES it happen all of the time? As far as choosing a target for your troops and them getting a different idea, what is their experience level, their morale, what kind of target did you choose for them, what did they switch to, what was the distances to the targets? If you tell a rifle squad to target a Tiger 100 meters away and a German squad is only 20 meters away, don't you expect (and want) them to switch targets? Would a "veteran" squad be more likely to stay on target that a "green"? Kraut- What did the MG switch to from the tank?

Kraut- What was the experience level of the bazooka team? What was the morale? One team was "green". I'm learning that the "ambush" command is a good way to limit when my units will fire. So far, I've only done it with the bazookas, but it should work with the rifle squads. I agree that squads "seem" to be detected too easily. A good trainig scenario would be to show how easy/hard it is to detect squads that are moving/still/hiding and how the different terrain affects it.

Could someone explain what "phase lines" are, how they are/were used, and how they would be used in CM?

davidernst@home.com

"Fighter-bomber pilots attacked German armor from the rear so that machine-gun bullets entered a tank's hull through exhaust portals and damaged its engine." Sorry, but the book did say machine-gun bullets, not rockets. Either Doubler and his sources are wrong, or right, or it was just a very rare happening.

Fionn - Thanks for the reply. I hope the air attack method, mentioned in Doubler's book (pg. 68-69) was just rare and not an urban legend. I'm enjoying the book and would hate to think it was that inaccurate. It does make reference to Maj. Gen. "Pete" Quesada's (CO of IX TAC) oral memoirs (Section V, 3-5) and the American Forces in Action Series (St. Lo, pg. 40-41). I don't have either of those, but maybe someone else could check to see what they say. Have you tried the Sherman with Rhino teeth against hedgerows? I would love to see a Sherman busting thru a hedgerow!

I'm reading "Closing With the Enemy" by Michael Doubler and came across this: "Fighter-bomber pilots attacked German armor from the rear so that machine-gun bullets entered a tank's hull through exhaust portals and damaged its engine. Ground units found disabled German tanks with little external damage, but with a dead crew and extensive interior damage. Investigation revealed that machine gun bullets had entered the tanks through open hatches, then ricocheted around inside, destroying equipment and mutilating crewmen." Is this kind of action modelled in CM? Also, since there are hedgerows, will any of the Shermans be equipped with cutters and able to bust thru the hedgerows? This may be too hard to do with current hardware/software limitations and it may be considered to be just before CM's time period.

Some day you'll have to post "The List". But not BEFORE the demo! I don't want you slowing down for anything else!

To BTS (Steve & Charles), The beta testers have been at it for a while now. I understand that their "job" is to run CM 1 through it's paces and look for what doesn't work. Have the testers suggested any improvements/additions for CM 2 that you liked? Something that you hadn't thought of, but now is on "The List" for CM 2?

I would be very interested in reading what Oscar thinks the HPS games have that CM doesn't. I've been a long time player of PitS and ToP2, and while I think they're good games, much is done abstractly. The scale of the game (large hexes & units containing several vehicles or many troops) causes this. "Yes, the abstractions may go away, but new issues may rise, like my fears that the 3D world will be unable to portrait the complexity of the real world." I'm afraid I don't understand this. You think 2D can do a better job of portraying the "real" world than 3D? The real world IS 3D!

I find it kind of funny that people are arguing about a game that almost no one has seen, except for some screenshots. Only those who have played the beta can really comment and they’re not allowed to. Oscar – I can tell that you have a lot of experience & knowledge with wargames and you bring up some interesting points. But unless you’re a tester, you’re speaking from a lack of information like the rest of us. From what I’ve been able to get out of these almost 10,000 postings, every inch or pixel IS taken into account when a vehicle is being attacked. When troops are the target, some abstraction is used, since squads are represented and not individual soldiers. How do you place a unit at an exact spot in PitS? I’ve looked through the manual and don’t see how it is done. A PitS hex is 100 meters by 100 meters. This is a huge area, especially for a tank or squad. “Does a commander order, or unit ever decide to travel 137.68m exactly?” Yes, they do. To see around the corner of a building or just over a rise, you would move a very short & exact distance, maybe inches. Certainly not 100 meters, as you would have to in PitS. “To me terrain features in CM like forrests seem poorly portraid, all the same litte 3D trees put as closly togheter as the engine allows.” Are we looking at the same screenshots? I see many different trees, different sizes & heights. I see spacing that changes. HPS is to be complimented for having simultaneous turns; it’s one of the reasons I play it and ToP2. But as long as LOS is based on center of hex to center of hex and those hexes are 100m by 100m, CM’s LOS looks to be much more accurate.

Would the quality of the troops being used in the ambush increase or decrease the chances of the ambush being blown? What would happen with a mix in the quality of the ambushing troops?

Much of this has been discussed before, but I’ll try to add to KwazyDog’s post. a) Besides being from the Alpha version, the screenshots have also been compressed. As we have been told before, these screenshots don’t do justice to the real thing. Steve & Charles have been working on this game for over 2 years, if I’m not wrong. If the computer gaming industry followed their example, “bugs” might become an endangered species. c) Can’t really comment on this one. d) Damage is done & shown to the terrain and buildings. As I understand it, progressive damage will not be shown. Either a vehicle is shown in one piece or destroyed. e) CM1 is Europe 1944-45, CM2 will be the Eastern Front (not sure if it will be 1941-45, but probably), CM3 will be the Mediterranean and CM4 will be Europe in the early years (1939-40). I think I have this right. [This message has been edited by Dave (edited 09-30-99).]

From what I’ve read, I think wounded are modeled, but are either considered to be slightly wounded and still active or severely wounded and out-of-action. The severely wounded/ incapacitated and dead, I think, are in one group. Considering the scope of CM and it’s playing time (30-60 minutes), there would be very little time for intelligence gathering beyond the obvious (The enemy is/was over there!). Prisoners SHOULD be a part of this game. In a 30-60 minute battle, prisoners will be taken, most likely, and they have to be dealt with. This doesn’t mean interrogating them, which could and probably SHOULD take hours, but just getting them under guard, out of the way, and continuing the battle. In a campaign, maybe something could be included where the number of prisoners and their rank would have a bearing on what you know at the beginning of the next battle. If it’s not in there already, I like the idea of getting more points for capturing NCOs and officers.

Steve, Are you and Charles happy with the way the alpha version of CM is performing so far in Fionn & Moon's battle? Is it's performance where you thought it would be, better, or worse?

To Mike D, Just wanted to let you know, as one of those assassins, that the USPS has declared BTS and CM off-limits to our normal handling. Seems they believe that CM will get violence off the streets and back where it belongs, in the computer.

I know that there will be a scenario/map editor with CM, but will there be a scenario generator? Can CM be given a set of parameters (late 1944, US attack, etc.) and then create a scenario for me to play? Or will I have to either play the scenarios that come with it, create my own (doing both sides), or import scenarios created by others? Also, will there be training scenarios included with CM?