Henri

May contain SPOILERS..... . . . . . . . . . Since Viller-bocage is one of my favorite scenarios, after I downloaded the 1.04 patch, I tried it again to see the difference. After about 15 moves, I had Wittmann positioned on the left-to right road at the entrance of town, had destroyed about 15 enemy vehicles, routed the infantry, and had my 3 other Tigers positioned near the woods ready to advance towards the town once enough enemies had been dispatched. I was beginning to think that this scenario was now too easy, since as yet I had no tank crew casualties except for my Pz4, who as uaual had been destroyed as soon as it appeared, since it is located right on the main road in plain view of some AT and British tanks.There had been no untoward shooting at crews. The a Cromwell appeared to the front left of Wittmann's tank and quickly disappeared behind some houses; I ordered him to hunt up the road a bit, since when the Cromwell appeared his flank would be exposed to Wittmann from less than 50 meters. As Wittmann advanced, he rotated his turret backward to fire at some halftracks in the distance to the right rear. When he cleared the houses, there was the side of the Cromwell right in front of him, but Wittmann's turret was pointed to the rear! I ordered him to reverse, because it was clear that the Cromwell'turret could traverse 60 degrees faster than the Tiger could traverse 120 degrees . Wittmann reversed, but the Crfomwell caught him before he couls back up out of sight. At the same time, one of my other Tigers was immobilized. I decided it was time to advance my two remaining Tigers in order to capture the flag in the town before the game ended, but as they began to advance, both were killed within seconds by two Shermans that were probably the last remaining British tanks . The easy victory had turned into a total disaster, I was out of tanks and out of luck. Although Wittmann's turret reversing was perhaps not prudent, I don't think that it can be classified into the "crew-pinging" category. There is no way that the game can be made intelligent enough to decide when to ignore visible targets of opportunity and not rotate their turrets. If tanks were programmed to keep their turrets towards the front when advancing, it is not difficult to imagine cases where this would not be appropriate. The only solution is "standard operating procedures", but this is not feasible in a patch. I figure that I was just unlucky and that is the way the mop flops... . I don't agree that the game is still broken. Henri PS: After writing this, I played the Viller-Bocage four times in a row , and I have to say that I think that once in a while, I found that the tanks DO tend to shoot at crews more than is comfortable, especially when the turret must be rotated away from the direction of danger -less than before, but still too much . So I think that this may be tweaked a bit more AGAINST turret rotations to shoot at units definitely identified as crews from disabled vehicles. Would it be difficult to program in a rule by which tanks would not traverse more than a certain number of degrees away from the main direction of battle (in this scenario, the town) in order to shoot at crews. A function decreasing the probability with angle would be great, but it may be asking for too much... [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-22-2000).]

The Canadians in Normandy were somewhat overtrained and so eager for a fight, and those who went into battle were all volunteers (some conscripts were sent overseas, but didn't make it into combat); they are generally considered to be among the best Western troops, but they also had some of the most incompetent high-ranking officers (with a few exceptions). The most notorious example of poor leadership was when the Black Watch Regiment were sent on an assault over open terrain against entrenched German machineguns; they followed orders without question and marched unflaggingly into the bullets, and were mowed down like chaff -only a few survived, but no one retreated. For an account of the Normandy battles that also describes the Canadian battles, a good source is the recent book by the British offider Reynolds whose subtitle is "The 2nd SS Panzer Corps in Normandy", but I forgot the title and don't have it here. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: .But what should be allowed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here we go again with people trying to impose artificial rules in CM: the players are left free to choose their own makeup presumably so that they can OPTIMIZE their units for the most effectiveness. If a player thinks that he is going to optimize his effectiveness against a combined arms enemy by choosing all Tiger tanks, he is going to be in for an unpleasant surprise, unless the battle is over even and uncluttered terrain.Balanced forces should be chosen because they are the most effective What such "rules" imply is that players must be forced to choose "non-optimum" force compositions in pbem. .It is true that in WW2, commanders didn't always have the "optimum" configuration to go into battle; the Germans, especially in the latter part of the war, used many battle groups especially constituted for a specific purpose. No one is going to convince me that at the battle of Kursk did not occasionally have fights of the size modeled in CM where one or both sides did not have all-tank compositions, or that there were no battles in WW2 where one side did not have any tanks at all! Where were the two promised German tank battalions at the battle for the bridge at Remegen? There is no such thing as imposing "historical" force compositions in random pbem battles in Combat Mission.Historical force compositions only happened in historical battles, and rarely corresponded to "book" force compositions. It's strange that no one has yet complained about the ahistorical relative strength of forces in CM: in 1944 Western Europe, with very few exceptions, the Germans were strongly outnumbered, had much less material and were usually beaten even before the battle began. Maybe historical maniacs should play a few games like that to see if it is any fun... I am not against players who want to play a historical scenario choosing the historical unit compositions that were available, but on the Western front, there wil lnot be many balanced battles. The laternative is to play what-if scenarios: what if the German defenders at Remegen had received their promised Panzer battalions? But then, forget about things being historical or not. The more we try to put constraints to avoid "gamey" and "ahistorical" tactics and forces, the more "gamey" the game becomes. Let's just play the damm game, fer cryin' out loud... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mscano: The capture of the Ludendorf bridge at the town of Remagen actually took place during March of 1945. There was a pretty good movie made on the topic called "The Bridge at Remagen" with George Segal and Ben Gazzara back in 1965. It's available on video and it's on TV once in a while. That might be a good place to start. I think it was elements of the US 7th Armored Div. that took part in the capture. Not sure about the Germans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually I watched it on TV yesteday afternoon.. Henri

Two things (well, three actually): 1) concluding that the game is broken from a single incident is really a bit much ; if (as was the case in the original version) units are seen to regularly act in an unrealistic manner, then it should be fixed, but a single incident should be considered anecdotal evidence which is not admitted in court : In the case mentioned, there were no enemy threats visible, and apparently enough time had gone by to allow the tank to decide that it could rotate its turret to engage the infantry. I don't find this unrealistic. On the other hand, the "rule" for tanks to stay pointed at the last target for a certain amount of time should not apply to crews (but it SHOULD apply to bazookas...). It has been clearly explained by Charles earlier that the historical run up the road by Wittman cannopt be modeled well in the game because in the historical situation, many of the crews were away from their vehicles, which is impossible to model in CM, and surprise can only be modeled by making the crews green. So anyone charging up the road with the halftracks in the Wittmann scenario should expect to have his butt kicked, and should be happy to see that the game does what it is supposed to do within its parameters Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Let me know what you think! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the next train that comes along this track is gonna have a helluva surprise... Yes I know (no train bridges , and it certainly is a nice map. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quango: So I see I notice that some don't take the time to read my points and just jump in to make that 'too complex' argument. Imagine if AoE was turn based!! It would have remained a niche product.. which is what I suspect CM will probably be. Still, as I've said in other posts, is BF don't do it, someone else will! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but that's not all: If CM2 does not have a flight simulator included along with Roger Wilco to allow conversations with the tower and between planes, they will lose a lot of sales , and I bet someone else (probbly Microsoft ) will do it! Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-18-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I have those doubts too, Henri, but the professor exists. He is in the History department, methinks and teaches on Soviet history pre- and postwar. I found him there the night I wrote the email. At least the name bears striking resemblance. If I had not found him, I would not have written the email to Dr. Marino. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoops, you are correct , he is not in the University telephone directory, but he there IS a professor by that name in the online directory in the History Department. I tried to phone him to see if I could find out anything about this alleged Skorzeny, but he was absent.If an admin of this forum can give me the real name of this plagiarist, I will be happy to pursue this further here. Since the plagiarized text was claimed to be from a thesis from this University, I consider that the University's name has been tainted (although I must admit that it is not mentioned too often in wargame forums -does anyone have a more academic-sounding synonym for 'wargame forum'? How about International computer-aided armed conflict simulation forum towards better arms control for peace?) Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: In my reply to Dr. Marino I suggested that he should take it up with the relevant authorities at Laval, I am sure they would be happy to hear about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have serious doubts about whether this asshole actually studied at Laval -at least I hope not .BTW, there is no Professor Lukik or Lucik at Laval University. Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-16-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dman225: Does anyone know how long it takes for CM to ship to Canada? Also on the demo how the hell do you access the menu while in the game (if there is one) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dunno, but if the game was being carried by my lousy Canadians runniong away in my present pbem game, it could reach you in a day ! For the menu, click on the map to unselect all units, then press the "hotkey" button that appears on the bottom of the screen.To go temporarily to the Windows screen, press the escape key or click on the game button on the menu bar on the bottom. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: I hope not. Nothing more boring than watching a computer play with itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one would be forced to use the option of AI vs AI, but I , for one, would certainly appreciate such an option . It is a good learning tool and fun to watch -moreso than watching paint dry... It also helps to make the AI deficiencies stand out, which is probably why they won't do it Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nevres: this may sound stupid, but its a first and i cant find an answer, i started a pbem game but the files do not go as attachments but as text, so were found in the necesity to copy the text to a notepad and then saving the file to the pbem folder, a longer process than the normal save the attachment to the pbem folder, could anyone shed some light on the subject?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Before I discovered the following, the same happened to me as well as a number of other embarassments such as sending the wrong file etc. The problem you describe is that your mail program or your opponent's(probably Eudora) has an option to transmit text files included in the text instead of as attached text files. It is actually faster to zip your files with the free Winzip program (and the files are shorter):. Here is how you can make file exchange much faster (I had to find it by myself). 1) Agree with your opponent on a filename, then use this filename for the whole game changing only the number at the end (filename1, filename2, filename3, etc), independently of the move number or the kind of move.also agree to send zipped files. 2) Make a link to your pbem folder on your desktop by right-dragging it with the mouse so that you can open it with a single double click from the desktop. Put a link to Winzip on the desktop too if it is not already there. Now you can zip or unzip a file just by dragging it from the desktop pbem folder to the Winzip icon. TO RECEIVE A MOVE: 3)When you get a file, click on the zipped attachment symbol at the end of the file, which will open Winzip; point it to the pbem folder. After the first time, it will point there by itself so you don't have to type anything. Tell it to unzip the file which will now be in the correct place in your pbem folder. PLAY YOUR MOVE: 4)Open CM and play your move; when the save screen appears, just change the number of the file name suggested (for example change filename 11 to filename12), and press save. Now go to the desktop, open the pbem folder there and drag the new file to the Winzip icon; you will be prompted to save the zipped file, give it the same name as the unzipped file. Remember it (especially the number) since you will need it in a moment. TO SEND YOUR MOVE 5)Now go to your mail program (say Eudora), open the message that contained your opponent's last move and press reply on the menu. Write a comment and press the attached file button; click to the pbem folder and choose the file that you just zipped. 6. Send the message with the zipped file. Although this may look complicated, it is not, and it is MUCH faster than working with unzipped files, and you will never have the problem of having files joined with the message text. It takes less than a minute for each direction (before and after you make your move). I also find it convenient to create a mailbox for each player, and to immediately move the mail messages there after each move, leaving my in and out boxes uncluttered. Try it, you'll like it. Henri

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but if you're going to charge over open terrain, you better have covering fire to suppress the enemy, and if possible artillery and smoke. Charging a full-strength rested enemy platoon over the open is a good way to commit suicide... Henri

I dunno, I just came back from a convention; when someone at the poolside reception asked whether next year's meeting would be held at the same place, I didn't reply "Listen you lazy bastard, this question has been asked and answered hundreds of times over the past three years, and this is the third time in the last fifteen minutes that I have answered it! Get a clue and go to the website where the locations for the next five years are indicated...". What would you think of somewone who would reply "Look, we discussed that here last year, take a hike and get a clue!" ? Why should it be any differfent here? After all, a forum is a discussion group, and no one should have to "walk" around saying "Excuse me, could you point me to someone who can enlighten me as to which people here have discussed over the past three years the location of next year's meeting?" Just like at any group, new people should listen a bit before speaking out, but personally I don't mind summarizing answers from previous discussions for newbies. Besides, I find the search function almost useless to find specific information about a subject, given that messages are not indexed with keywords. If one is interested in finding a discussion about the thickness of the front armor of Panthers vs that of Shermans, under what words should he search? And then should he have to read hundreds of irrelevant messages about the relative penetrating power of the Panther vs tht of the Tiger? Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti: Well, For the smaller guns which are tasked to you exclusively, I would think you could get away with shifting all ober the place. It'd just piss off your gun crew, but oh well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, gun crews are not there to have fun . I think (I could be wrong) that the limited availability of guns is already modeled in the game by the waiting time and by the usually very limited number of rounds for heavy artillery. I mean, did 105 mm artillery batteries really only have 15 rounds to fire? Besides, there are battles where the situation changes radically from minute to minute, and I am almost sure that artillery commanders did not go about second-guessing forward observers who requested a change of targets. Here is something that happened over the weekend. There was an enemy tank that had just killed one of mine, plus some identified enemy symbols behind some woodsoff to the side, so I called in 105 mm area fire -delay 3 minutes, to force the tank to button up and to hopefully kill some enemy reserve infantry. By the time the first rounds started to fall four minutes later, I had killed the tank, and no enemy units had shown up in the area, which made me suspect that the presumed enemy units were not there any more; however in another are, the battle had heated up and I was taking a beating from enemy infantry bunched up in woods and buildings. Now I understand that some on this forum claim that to shift my fire from its original target where is is not required any more to where 1) I can get much more direct fire and 2) the fire should be much more germane to the situation which has changed considerably in 4 minutes - is a gamey tactic. As I said before, spotting rounds should be subtracted from the total rounds, but a player should be free to put his artillery where it is needed. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS_PanzerLeader: the link to the article is posted at CMHQ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is only one article on CMHQ? Yeah, I thought that post made last week on this forum was really smart and solved a major problem with playing the game; the message is on this board, so no one should have trouble finding it... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: Madmatt, The ZIP format is PC native, not Mac native. Macs use Stuffit. The only reason I'm able to play Wild Bill's personally suggested <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are wrong, I unzip PC files with Mac Stuffit Expander all the time (I have a Mac at work and a PC at home); maybe your version is too old...The newer version of Stuffit even allows making zip files in PC format! Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rattus: Even if CM make spotting rounds use up ammo, I sonehow think that if the cmmdr of a divisional arty btty got an FAO who was constantly changing the coordinates just before the FFE, that not only would the spotter be out of a job but next time the FAO called in correction the response would be "hard luck - we are busy firing for someone who does know where they want the rounds to land!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the game designers, didn't want the players to be able to change the artillery target once chosen, they would have programmed it in the game; but if the game doesn't count the spotting rounds, then it should be changed, cause spotting rounds are rounds, period. And are you sure that in WW2, FOs NEVER radioed in a change of coordinates before the rounds started to fall? I doubt it. Henri

I don't get it: there seems to be a majority of people here who think "If it didn't happen in WW2, it's gamey and shouldn't be allowed"; now I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure that almost EVERYTHING that could happen DID happen in WW2 I'm no artillery vet(some here are, I guess), but I would be surprised if it never happened that some people called in artillery in order to interdict certain areas; I remember reading (but I forgot where) about cases where artillery barrages were fired in order to deceive the enemy into thinking that an attack was imminent at a point. Some seem to forget that a major component of war is deception -and doing the unexpected or the unorthodox; when the Allies planted forged plans for D-day on a dead sailor, and sent an actor posing as Montgomery to Africa, was that "gamey"? You bet! When they created a fake army for Patton in England so that the Germans would expect the invasion at Pas de Calais, was that gamey? You bet! Did the Germans cry foul? You bet. If this trend continues, players will have to announce their plans three moves in advance to their opponents, only attacks no closer than 500 m from the map edges will be allowed, and artillery will only be allowed to fall whee there are no enemy units! C'mon guys, this is war! This reminds me of the scene in the movie "My name is Nobody" where Terrence Young is going to fight a brute twice his size. "Just a minute", he sez, "we have to discuss the rules"! "What rules?", sez the brute, putting down his guard. Terrence kicks him in the balls and levels him with an uppercut, after which he sez, "There aren't any rules!" Now THAT is war! Henri

It might not be as difficult as it first looks, if the maps were generated randomly. The SITUATIONS would vary and would depend on what happened in one's previous battle, but the terrain could only roughly correspond to the historical one -so what? On each day a number of battles would take place and the player would choose where he wants to fight and the otehr battles would be fought automatically. Here's another idea for multiple player games: an operation would be planned with a game on a larger scale, say West Front; then each player would be given command of a bunch of units (say a couple of infantry companies and/or one or two tank squads and so on), then all the players would fight their local battles in CM on randomly-generated maps roughly corresponding to the West Front terrain, and the head honcho would play the units for which they are no players and arbitrate the results. This could allow for Division-size battles, the only unrealistic part being the inability of players to communicate with each other. Since the randomly-generated maps have no rivers, someone would have to create them when they are required (or copy them from an existing scenario). Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oberst Angsthase: I was playing with the Chance Encounter scenario trying to hone my skills at deploying assault guns. Repeatedly my Stugs would get toasted. The last time all three Stugs were positioned so they each confronted a single tank (as opposed to being exposed to 4 or 5), two of them had the drop on their opponents. In all three cases they were killed without so much as scratching the paint on the Shermans. I've used Hetzers and Jgpzrs to great effect, but the Stugs seem to be magnetic to AP rounds. Breathed into the bag, rant complete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God, this reminds me of the years-long argument among engineers on whether Kludge should be pronounced Kloodge, Klooje, or Klodge (discussed recently in IEEE Spectrum magazine). Anyway, since Stug comes from German, I guess that it should be pronounced with the u like in French Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dyslextic: FYI in RW I am dyslexic, so no red marks/correcting on my spelling please <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't worry, bad spelling is much less serious than bad thinking Lots of people (including me) complain about bad memories, but no one complains about bad judgment , which is more widespread and has much more dire consequences [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-11-2000).]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Ianc is the only one who has clearly pointed out one problem with the "player skill" argument, and that is that the mnap does not accurately represent the underlying terrain, as has been pointed out by Fionn a number of times in arguments relating to the not-always bilateral nature of line-of-sight. What this means is that independently of player skill, one will sometime place his tank in a positin that seems clearly hull-down only to receive a shot through the front armor . But the PO, who uses the "real" data, should always get the "real" hull down position. If the computer can do it for the PO, I don't know why it should be so complicated for the computer to help the human do it This is exacerbated by the fact that the game does not allow to measure line of sight from places where there is no unit. If this were possible as in Steel panthers (as I remember, or was it some other game?), it might make it a bit easier to find a hull down position. Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dirtweasle: I think I better move those guys! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh sh*t, I think I just told my opponent what I was going to do on my next move Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-11-2000).]