Henri

It's incredible that with all the mesages here, no one has mentioned the ONLY knows statistical study of the effect of artillery on tanks; the US Army did a similar study, but it doesn't distinguish between AP and artillery. The study in question was "A survey of tank casualties amongst armored units in Northwest units", by the British. "Dmaged" in the report means being made unable to continue participating in the battle, so I presume that it would include disabled guns and track hits when on the offensive. The study shows that only about 3% of tanks casualties were due to artillery. From this it is clear that artillery in CM is much too effective against tanks: in some battles, I have had more than half of my tanks immobilized or suffering gun hits, and I would guess that overall, the ratio is certainly over 25% in CM. This is certainly one of the most unrealistic aspects of CM A photograph and discussion of the above report is found in the Talonsoft West Front manual. Henri

Hey, did anybody notice that that the nearest soldier in the start-up Combat Mission screen is Vic Morrow from the "Combat" TV series? I wonder who the others are? Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: Even if we overlook the Borg spotting issue, and even if you pull out some 1 in a million incident of it happening, it is not the norm, which again, is what CM is trying to simulate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here we are very close to agreement, and I respect BTS' attempts to make the game as realistic as possible; but why should only battles that satisfy some kind of "norm" be allowed? Good WW2 commanders in WW2 were those who could continually befuddle their opponents by deviating from the norm, such as when Rommel in Africa drove his force between two British forces against every principle of war; he had correctly guessed that the British would be so surprised by this unorthodox maneuver that he would have time to take on one flank at a time, and he turned out to be right, as in most cases. It seems to me that enforcing some kind of norm in CM is a guarantee that every battle will turn into a slugfest (despite my good intentions, it turns out that most if not all of my pbem battles turn out to be slugfests, with me on the losing end ) Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: Henri. I KNOW that you can tell the difference. You just want to debate for the sake of debating. You have a right to your opinion. There are situations where jeeps would move beyound the front line, but I challenge you to find an example of a jeep leading the charge of a front line combat situation, so that he could expose enemy firing positions with his certain death. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Note that most messages that proclaim the impossibility of some action or other (usually related to recon on this thread) have part of the sentence pointing out the INTENTION of the player carrying out the action. Although I am not a defender of the jeep recon, as I have pointed out many times, I feel compelled to point out the indefensibility of claims that any specific action was never done in WW2. As to pointing out any specific occurence of anything, this thread has amply shown that any such proof is immediately dismissed as "out of context", usually with a qualifier that if I can't see the difference, I am either stupid or a troll. Back to the main point, any game prescription that involves one player making a judgment about the INTENTIONS of his opponent is ridiculous, because no one can judge the intentions of another person. This is compounded by the fact that in the example that you mention, the "gamey" player's intention is not to get his vehicle killed, but to gather recon information. Not to mention the fact that most of the vehicle crews are NOT killed when the vehicle is destroyed. So to put the discussion back on keel, the real issue is not the player's intentions, but whether or not some specific vehicle movement is historically correct, and whether or not gameplay should be constrained by what is deemed by some or most to be historically correct or incorrect. Although Popsky's Army is a special case, it IS a historical case, and it clear to me that if some of the suggestions regarding slowing down jeeps and making them unsuitable for recon were implemented, it would disallow scenarios simulating Popskys attacks on protected convoys using jeeps. As I have said before, I have never used jeeps for deep recon myself (and I don't know anyone that has -the true practical issue regards the use of armored vehicles) because there are other vehicles that are more suitable in the game, but I am getting a bit weary of the jeep being used as a whipping boy, and my point is that EVEN for jeeps, one should never say never. Henri

I think that the "value" to a player of any given unit depends on the scenario, the circumstances, and a lot on the playing style of the player.Of course everyone supports correcting any bugs that affect the physical capabilities of vehicles, and it is true that you can control to a small extent player behavior by encouraging or discouraging the purchase of specific vehicles. On the other hand, going to far can have unpredictable effects on the game, especially with respect to play balance. For example, let us say tht you make halftracks so expensive that no one would dream of using an empty halftrack for recon; the in a scenario where a player has to cross long distances with infantry to reach the objective (for example in Fionn's Alpha AAR), the attacking player is put at a serious disadvantage, having to make a choice between sending his infantry on foot and perhaps not even reaching the objective in time, or spending all his points to buy halftracks with nothing left to buy tanks and other support vehicles. (This is not a good example, because in this scenario the units are already given by the scenario designer). It seems fairly obvious to me that any action to make fast vehicles more difficult to buy is going to bias all attacking scenarios in favor of the defender. Henri

I hate to sound like a defender of the jeep recon, but I was just reading how one class of British jeeps was equipped with 3 machineguns, two of which were Vickers double-barreled machineguns. Now I wonder why they needed that to carry food and medecine behind the lines? I guess I should go ask members of "Popsky's Army", who were part of the British long-range recon force equipped only with jeeps and trucks, and who went about ambushing German convoys Someone shoulda told 'em that was "gamey", and if I had been the Germans, I would have refused to play with them... Henri

I think BTS should be commended for trying to improve the program as much as possible and to take into account player suggestions on how to do it. However I am afraid that trying to make a program "smarter" than a player is an extremely difficult if not impossible task. I am afraid that I have no idea of how it can be done while avoiding undesired side effects, but if they want to try, they have my full support. Just one example: suppose you make halftracks more expensive to buy or to lose in order to discourage their use as recon; but then you are also discouraging their use as transport, which is what they are for, and you are also discouraging their use as MG support for infantry, for which they were sometimes used. As a consequence, you are discouraging mobility in combat, and biasing the game in favor of the defender, which is not the intended result. However if a way can be found to resolve all those difficulties, kudos to the programmers. Henri

Ask him if the Humvee is a gamey vehicle, and if not why they designed it so that it can hold a machinegun... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: I havent seen ONE post from pro-house rules people that urges forcing people to play pbems in a restricted way, EXCEPT if you insist on playing people who OPPOSE the tactics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't want to be provocative, but I could quote many statements here to the effect that NO ONE should use gamey tactics, to the extent of saying that players who wish to do so should go play some other game (since the new version of Pacific War has just come out, I'm considering it . This has been my point all along, I have repeatedly said that I have no objection to people agreeing among themselves to ANY rules they see fit, but that I DO object to the implication that those who do not are some kind of cheats. If we all agreed on that, there would be no strong difference of opinion. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: It would be a good idea if you could get your men to not fire through a non-burning vehicle or bunker, but you can't (the TacAI takes over and will do so in any case). So much for that argument... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God, so now the GAME is using gamey tactics!... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Henri, But if we do not constrain Combat Mission based on WWII, what do we constrain it to? You suggest here that we shouldn't hinder "maneuver", right? Well, why not make that Panzerkampfwagen MkIVh have anti-gravity capabilities? I mean, it can maneuver a lot better if it could fly over terrain. And think of all the tactical possibilities it would open up to the player. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You misunderstand what I mean by maneuver: maneuver is not simply movement. Maneuver is the process whereby one preempts, disrupts and dislocates the enemy by means of the cycle of observation, action and reaction (which is known as the Boyd cycle) that is carried out faster than the enemy is capable of following.There is no simple short definition of maneuver because there are no rules about how to carry it out, and whole books have been written about it.It is not a simple concept to understand, but I just want to make it clear that it is NOT movement for movement's sake, although movement is usually an important element of maneuver. For example, an extreme example of maneuver warfare that had no movement at all on the part of the attacker was the famous case of the ancient Chinese general who sent a thousand of his soldiers facing the enemy armies to simultaneously slit their own throats, throwing the opposing horrified army into a panicky retreat! Was it "gamey"? Was it against established "rules" of warfare? You bet! "...All patterns recipes, and formulas are to be avoided. The enemy must not be able to predict your actions. If your tactics follow predictable patterns, the enemy can easily cut inside your OODA [boyd] loop. If he can predict what you will do, he will be waiting for you." William S. Lind,in "Maneuver Warfare Handbook", p. 7 I hold that "house rules" are incompatible with the above predicates of maneuver warfare, because the criteria of such rules is whether or not it was accepted practice in WW2. I hope that this makes it clear that I am not endorsing PzIVs that can fly nor opposing programming vehicles that drive at realistic speeds; again I repeat that I am not opposing ANY programming changes whose purpose is to make the game more realistic. As I have said already three times, the game is what it is. If I fail to make this clear I apologize, but I am at a loss on how to explain it more clearly (but I am willing to try...). Henri

Most casualties in WW2 came from artillery, so it IS deadly (dome kinds are much more deadly than others -60 mm is a bit more than a nuisance, but 150 mm accurately targeted on a bunched-up platoon is curtains for the whole bunch), and it is possible in CM quick battles or user-made scenarios to have an ahistorical amount of artillery. If your opponent has been buying too much artillery, he must be lacking something else, so figure out what that is and exploit it. There are ways to limit the damage.The first one is to spot the observer and to kill or at least to suppress him. As it happens, artillery observers are extremely vulnerable in Combat Mission, and it is very disheartening to see one of your 120 mm observers go down without firing any of his 90 shots (in one pbem, the very first artillery shot from an opponent fell right smack on my 4.5 inch artillery observer and routed him) So if you spot a suspected artillery man, turn that machinegun on him and let him chew on some lead. That is why my own observers are usually kept behind the lines, and as a result there is a long delay (minutes) before they can bring fire to bear and the fire is much more inaccurate when the observer does not see the targets.If you let the enemy mortars get a line of sight on your bunched up units, you are going to take a beating.Force the opponent's observers to get behind the lines. If your infantry units are in halftracks, leave them there when artillery is falling, they are much less vulnerable in an armored halftrack than in the open. Woods are a particularly dangerous place for bunched up infantry, because a nearby treeburst from artillery can practically wipe out a squad or a platoon. Keep your units as far away from each other as possible. but be aware that this is a tradeoff against concentration of fire. If you are too dispersed, your squads will be attacking piecemeal and if they are grouped too closely, they are vulnerable to artillery. Buildings offer good protection unless they collapse over your unit, which will practicaly wipe them out.Sometimes you are safer behind the building than in it, especially if an enemy tank is purposely shooting at it to bring it down. The Germans in WW2 had a trick where they would retreat from fortified positions being assaulted as soon as the artillery began to fall, then hurry back as soon as it stopped, thus meeting the assault with unfazed troops.This requires good timing and is probably not possible in most cases with this game. This may not be as useful as you would like, but the main point is to watch for the enemy's FO's and to kill them before they can do too much damage, to move fast in unexpected (but safe) ways, and to pray... Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 09-26-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: he problem is that *you* are defining what is realistic and then opposing our efforts to make what *we* feel are changes to make CM more realistic. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Three times in your last message you claim that I oppose changing the PROGRAM; I have repeated time and time again that I do NOT object to changing the program code. So once more, I DO NOT OBJECT TO CHANGING THE PROGRAM CODE for whatever reason (presumably to make the game better). This misunderstanding may come from early on in the discussion when I asked whether slowing down vehicles to make them easier to hit might make it more difficult than "normal" to transport units through contested terrain.I only meant that if a vehicle could do 30 mph in real life, it should be able to go at that speed in the game. You also accuse me of wanting to force my style of play upon other players; I clearly said in my last message that I do NOT object to players agreeing among themselves to play in certain ways, but that I object to those who say that EVERYONE should play according to such rules.I don't know how to make this any clearer that I already have. As to the statement by you and others that programs are just rules anyway, I guess I didn't make myself sufficiently clear when I quoted Lind's statement that "Warmaking has no traffic with rules". This does not mean that there are no rules in war, on the contrary, it is an indictment of the fact that most armies DO fight according to rules, and the widespread mentality according to which war MUST be fought according to certain rules and Lind's statement is an invitation to adopt the necessary mentality for maneuver warfare which is incompatible with this idea of fighting battles according to rules. Now you can keep repeating until you are blue in the face that since programming is nothing more than a set of rules, there is no harm in extending additional "house" rules to make the game even better, I respectfully hold that this is a matter of opinion, although I understand the point of view perfectly. We all understand that in discussions, points of view shift slightly, which can be a cause for confusion; as Oscar Wilde put it, "Only milestones and idiots never change their minds".In retrospect, I probably made a mistake in the early posts in playing the Devil's advocate and appearing to defend the "jeep" zigzag recon, although I DID say that I had not and would not use it myself. Finally I see this forum as an opportunity to discuss not only points about CM itself, but also some of the deeper issues of warmaking that have bearing on playing the game. If this were a Panzer General forum, we surely would not be having this discussion, which is a tribute to the quality of the game.Yes, the discussion does get a bit heated sometimes, but as they say, if ya can't stand the heat, get aoutta the kitchen... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Henri wrote: The armored car tactic you described did not happen in real life because donctrin and humans would never allow for such thing. If you ordered an armored car driver to race off into unknown territory so that you MIGHT get a shot into the rear of a Tiger you would be drummed up on charges and busted to the rank of private. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yeah? How about the time in Africa that Field Marshall Rommel jmped into a vehicle and "crossed the wire" into Egypt on a recon mission with a single thin-skinned vehicle? Was he busted to private? Was this gamey? This horrified his staff, especially that he got lost behind the wire and had to sped the night meters from passing British military traffic. You are whipping a dead cat by insisting on my alleged opposition to making changes inthe game to make it more realistic -make whatever changes you want. I DO have objection to forcing players to play in a so-called historical manner by additional rules that are not programmed into the game. Let us assume that CM is a perfect historical simulation (which it is not as you admit); the main use of a historical simulation in my view would be to try out modifications of historical situations in order to try out what-if situations.If your position were accepted by all, then this would be impossible by definition. The argument that 20th century players don't know any better what to do than did their WW2 counterparts assumes that the latter always did what was BEST, which is ludicrous. As described above, even geniuses like rommel occasionally made disastrous mistakes. Our difference of opinion does not lie with whether or not you should try to improve the program: it lies in whether or not players should be constrained to follow so-called historical tactics when the game mechanics cannot constrain them, and it lies to some exten on how good a simulation of WW2 combat mission really is. My position is that there are a lot more unrealistic things in the game compared to which deep recon with armored cars pales, and that it is an illusion to claim that this will be improved by adding layers of player rules. Adding expressions like "plain and simple" and "period" at the end of messages don't change the facts at all. Finally, although we have some slight difference of opinion, I appreciate your participationin the discussion. Rest assured that if you don't reply to every one of my rants, I will not assume that you agree with me Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: My fear is that CM2 will be a simulation only of the attacks and counter attacks. the style is fine for CM1, but having two opposing forces at each end of map and then "ready, set, go claim the middle ground!" won't cut it for CM2. The potential is there for a good Eastern Front simulation, but changes are needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It has been suggested that th problem can be resolved by making th eSoviet forces more "stupid". However the Soviets didn't always fight according to this stereotype. for example, as early as 1941, Katutov was sent deep behind enemy lines with his battle groups who played havoc with the German advances. his most famous coup of course was the almost total destruction of th 4th Panzer Division's tanks in an ambush on the road to Moscow. So how will the same game model battles like Katutov's exploits and the combat-inept units in the 1941 disintegrating front lines with the same units? IOt will be interesting to see... henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Belles: P.S. I'm not saying anything against CM; it's a great game; I just don't like shooting at what looks like real guys. If that doesn't bother most of you, that's great!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then I guess it is safe to suppose that you don't play Rogue Spear online, where the individual sodiers are each controlled by an individual player... Lat Saturday my son came to the house and took over my conmputer for the afternoon and bgan to play Rogue Spear online; when I told my wife that the other people that her son was shooting on the screen were real people, she almost had a fit Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Unlike the Jeeps, the Armored Cars are being used according to their designed specifications. The problem is that their application is not realistic. Just like we can't prevent people from using Jeeps in unrealistic ways, we can't prevent the unrealistic use of Armored Cars. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure that this was your intention, but this is an admission that the game is so imperfect a simulation of reality that "rules" of what players can and cannot do are necessary to make it realistic. This has been Tom's main point all along (and has been denied by some, so I am glad that your last message has cleared up at least your own view on the subject). The argument that something "was not done" has to be supported by more than historical precedent, otherwise the player is simply being forced to play according to some stereotyped idea of warmaking. For instance, when Rommel first used 88 Anti-air cannons against tanks, it had never been done before. If no one had done it in WW2, your above argument would entail that it is 'gamey" and that therefore it shouldn't be done in the game. I fully support changes to the game programming to correct errors such as vehicles having the wrong speeds. But my view which I hope I have clearly stated is a Zen-like attitude that "The Game IS What It Is", and that I refuse to have my play constrained by someone's opinion of what is correct tactical doctrine, since I follow Lind's principle that "Warmaking has no traffic with rules". Of course others are free to play according to the any rules including those of of pinochle if they are so inclined. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: True Blitzkrieg only lasted for the first two years of the way, and for a year of Russia. In fact, Blitzkrieg is no longer considered a viable tactic because it depends on the enemy going into shock on you and doing nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There have been many studies of Blitzkrieg tactics since WW2, and none of them describe it in the way that you do. In fact the essence of Maneuver warfare (which is what the Germans used) does not depend on the enemy's doing nothing, but in striking at his weak points and disrupting and unhinging him. Contrary to popular opinion, this was also Soviet doctrine, but early in the war (with a few exceptions), they were unable to carry it out because Stalin's purges had decapitated the Soviet General staff. In the last couple of years, the Soviets could do it as well as the Germans. Good references on Maneuvr warfare are The Art of maneuver by Leonhard, and Maneuver Warfare handbook by Lind. Soviet doctrine in WW2 is well described in When Titans Clashed by Glantz and House. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oriion: Is thae gameplay similar? I love TacOps. Does that mean I'll love Combat Mission? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, they are somewhat similar except of course CM is WW2. If you like Tacops, thre is little doubt that you will like CM. Henri

For a bit of comic relief, here is some very recent experience where I was on the receiving end of what some would consider "gamey" tactics (map-edge hugging and fast recon); for the benefit of my pbem opponents, let me say that I have absolutely no objection to what they did. But I kicked myself in the butt for getting caught with my pants down. In this particular pbem, a particularly tank-heavy operation over terrain with a lot of wooded and especially scattered trees terrain, I as the Germans had to assault the US holding a town. So I moved forward massively with two Schwerpunkts, not too much bothered by glimpses of enemy armored cars and halfracks moving rapidly along a road along the map edge on my left, since I had more thanks coming up from the rear in the center. Very soon our tanks spotted each other, and a vicious firefight erupted where I got first blood as I missed a tank and hit another unseen tank behind it. But that was the end of my good luck, and after a couple of exchanges one for one, my opponent destroyed all three tanks on my right flank and two tanks in the center. Suddenly an armored car appeared behind my tanks and killed one before it could react; I quickly tried to regroup, but as I did so, another enemy armored car picked off another of my tanks from behind. I sent three tanks after the ACs to the rear and made a move to my left hoping to catch his forces there on the flank, but a Chaffee killed two of my tanks in succession as they came within sight of each other. Finally I had a single immobilized PZIV left, and I could see at least six remaining enemy tanks all around. I offered to concede the operation, but my opponent convinced me to continue until the next battle of the operation. Believe it or not, the immobilized tank killed 4 of the enemy tanks as they approached piecemeal from all directions, as fate probably rolled on the floor with laughter. My infantry was in tatters as enemy infantry supported by tanks ripped them to pieces. When the next battle of the operation began (a night battle), I was relieved to see that I had a sizeable bunch of new tanks. My opponent apparently tried to repeat his flank run, but two halfracks running at full speed ran smack into my group of tanks that were getting ready to advance. He said that he was satisfied anyway because they had given him the information about location of my forces. I did a mapedge run of my own with an armored car, who right now is aiming down the tailpipe of one of his tanks who was coming up behind the halftracks. Gamey tactics? Maybe according to some, but it sure is fun!... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Hehe. I agree with Steve's view that the Historical Wargamer (HWG) viewpoint should override the Videa Gamer (VG) viewpoint when a decision must be made, but I also realize that this may alienate many CM fans at some point. Any thoughts on this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just a small nitpick; I object to the characterization of those who don't like rules as video gamers; my motivation is to leave the player as much freedom as possible for creativity in a game whose scale and object-oriented victory conditions tend to push all battles to attrition slugfests. it is always dangerous to try to pigeonhole people, but here goes anyway. I do agree with you that people tend to fall into two classes, those who want their games to look as historical as possible, and those who like to put more emphasis on creativity, either because they object to additional constraints, or because they believe that the game already has so many unrealistic aspects due to programming limitations that adding additional constraints is useless frills. But even this may be a gross over-simplification. And to make things even more complicated, there are the underlying debates among the military themselves about the best techniques for warmaking, plus the debates among the artificial intelligence community and others about the limits of simulations' ability to model reality. Finally there are the game programmers themselves who want to make the game as good as possible and understandably tend to be defensive about what may be interpreted as criticisms of the game. One thing that everyone finds difficult is avoiding characterizing the opinions of those who disagree with them with words that have negative connotations*. As Einstein once put it, everything should be as simple as possible, but not more. Henri *Which reminds me of the story when a member of parliament said that half of the members present were idiots (meaning members of the other party), and was forced by the President to apologize for his unparliamentary language or be expelled from the room. So he said "I take back the words that said that half of the people here are idiots; half of the people here are NOT idiots!" he was thrown out, but it was probably worth it...

I usually play with trees off and with a grid, which is absolutely necessary to see small dips in the terrain, My usual magnificationis 3, but occasionally I go to 4 to see the overall situation or to 2 or even 1 to see terrain better. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Henri: The gentlemen's rules we're discussing are those that constrain a player such that he follows the natural laws that are not enforced by the game engine. If a player wants to use ahistorical tactics (those that go against historical doctrine), and those tactics follow that laws of nature, then great! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I only mentioned my qualifications because I have been told a number of times during this discussion that I don't understand what a simulation is. For the record, that does not make me any more authoritative than anyone here. Then great, we don't have a difference of opinion; I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but what I object to is FORCING players to follow certain rules of play because they are ahistorical. Many participants in this discussing object to ANYONE using tactics that were not used in the real world, and I am glad to see that you are not one of them. And just to make sure, I DON'T object to two players agreeing to ANY rule for the purpose of their own play, but I do object to the implication by some that this is some form of cheating. For example, it might well happen that two players would agree to play a game to see how infantry would fare in a suicide charge against entrenched machineguns in order to determine how many it would take to overwhelm the defence. I don't have a problem with that. Like Tom and a few others (we seem to be in a minority) I DO object to homemade rules to enforce someone's conception of what are legitimate tactics, mostly because it is against the fundamental principles of maneuver warfare, which is to continually look for ways to surprise your enemy by doing the unexpected. With over 300 messages inthis forum, it is understandable that for any of us, it is difficult to remember what somebody said 200 messages ago. As one of my professors used to say, we don't say exactly what we mean, and people don't understand exactly what we said, and so on. His conclusion, which I disagree with, is that there is no point in discussing anything. henri