M Hofbauer

it was rather usual common practice for western allies to have the white star as a universal identification of allied forces. British units would either have no national insignia or the white star, but never the red-dot-white-circle-blue-circle "hitmehere" kokarde (the one they had on their planes) on their tanks in WWII. so, nothing wrong with the cromwells. hope this helps, M.Hofbauer

note: even if you do not read that whjole post, please read at least point 3 (emphasized) below!!! ok, I remember now a major thing that I wanted to suggest to BTS. Now hear me. Everybody talks about h2h play between humans. I think it was Talonsoft's otherwise very unimpressive IMO Eastern Front that had the ability to play AI vs AI. This was ridiculous for that game, but I think it would be a nice option for CM that wouldn't take too long to implement since CM simply has to do for both sides what it currently does for one. I can see two major applications for this: 1. in large scenarios, it is often a neverending frustrating job to painstakingly plan and implement the orders for a gazillion units down to the last PIAT somewhere. Now, the idea would be to have the computer AI make a move resolution, just like it does for the AI enemy, and then lay out all these given orders and paths out to you as a suggestion that you can tweak in certain aspects that you want to be done otherwise etc. Or you might agree with it one turn but not in another turn. Thing is, it takes away a lot of the routine planning of e.g. ordering reinforcements forward who have exited way in the rear on some very long twisted forest road. 2. it could be advanced into some sort of RPG game where you are given command of a single vehicle or platoon of vehicles and are part of a larger force that you cannot command, you only take part in that operation with your units. The movement paths etc are all shown to you for all friendly forces, so that you see what your commander is going for, but the other units' orders are "oranged", i.e. you cannot change them. You can only order your vehicle to take part in that battle. point 3. finally, the major application that I see for having AI vs AI play is the ability to fully simulate the game and forces by the AI without your interference. as in a quick battle, you might wonder, how does this type of force fare against this type of force, so right now you go and pit these two against each other hot-seat or vs the AI. However, then you are influencing this by giving orders to at least one of the two forces. It would be great to see how the AI does, how the forces perform when left to their own. The AI plans the orders for both sides, and then you go and execute it. In essence, it would be like a war movie where you determine the actors (even this could be left to randomization if you want) and get to see the movie in 1-minute increments that you can replay as you wish. You could sit back and enjoy watching the great TacAI of CM at work. I would love that! in reply to the other posts in this thread: Talenn, yes you might remember me from the CC series. However, I would not consider myself to have been especially active on the RealRed forum, although I indeed was happy enough to be able to have the opportunity to help Ron with his great mod in some negligible small details / side issues. Yes, I think the after-battle analysis thing is probably personally my biggest issue I would wish to be looked after. Right now, and as explained already above, it is somewhat of an anticlimax to have made all this intricate planning etc. every turn, and then the enemy surrenders (or the game ends otherwise) and you get this somewhat undetailed, general debrief. I agree with you on the issue of total squishing being undesirable, But this was indeed an issue mostly with cc1; I am right there with Jarmo on the cc1 tactic of going on a squishing spree with the rare german armor should you get it; I remember one of the later scenarios where a road was running up-down between two hedgerows, and east of the eastern hedgerow was an open space witn no cover and german MsGs waiting - the assaulting american infantry would cluster behind the eastern hedge. You had a Puma or some other german 8-wheel AFV and I would keep racing it up and down on that road goiung squishsquishsquish among the horrified fleeing american hordes.... . RMC correctly describes the issue of infsquish in the cc series. I agree with your assessment of silly OOBs and that fewer tanks meant beter games, however I think that the 15unit-limit has a certain justification as it would be hard to manage much more in a non-CM like RTS game. Thanks Juju for confirming my suspicion. Ack. All these hours of trying to remodel that island encounter where XXX corps was stopped for naught gaffertape, so I guess brewing them up just makes sure they don't get repaired. I further assume then that it does NOT matter in terms of repair-/returnlikeliness whether friendly forces are located at or near the immobilized/abandoned enemy vehicles? Anyways, when played the Villers-Bocage OP I noticed that often my Tigers were merely immobilized and in the next battle these immobilized Tigers returned to the map as knocked out/abandoned. This was unfortunate since some of these had been immob'ed in prety opportune locations overseeing quite a bit of map with their stuill functioning armament. Runyan99, I agree weith your #2 but I think it would be even more important in connection with this to finally fix the LOS thing for these vehicles. Right now they're translucent and offer no cover or concealment at all, it seems. guachi, you remember correctly but exactly the opposite - I asked for the smoke trails to be left out (they initially left streaks of smoke trails just like missiles), and a higher arc for the PzF projectiles. And indeed BTS did a great job modeling them, I am very satisfied with the way they are modeled now. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 08-01-2000).]

Mikeydz, I am impressed. You ran it 140 times? wow. Interesting results, too. I think the result of hitting 1 to 1.3 men at 150m distance when running under fire for 30secs seems a little bit too low. But maybe it seems so low because we only see three men running through the open with no cover, while actually cm might account for spread, firing-line hunched running from spot to spot etc. and small opportunities for cover in an abstracted way? RMC, but that 2cm had probably already travelled quite a few kilometruv, eh? Unless a german capture party entered the Liberator in-flight (KG200??) with hand-held MG151/20 and shot the crewmembers at poit-blank...but seriously, even if fired from a fighter, I would guess that the projectile fortunately must've had spent most of it's inertia before it hit that man. A 2cm in full flight, even if it does get stuck in the limb (which is unlikely at anything near Vo/Eo) carries enough momentum/inertia to tear the limb off.

to your original question whether there were standardized german bunkers: yes, there were. may I direct the atention odf the audience to chapter V of the Handbook on G.M.F.; it shows different discrete models of bunkers. The one mentioned above incorporating e.g. the ubiquitous french APX turrets was called Panzerstellung. The type for heavy artillery pieces is called the model 685, the version for AT guns was the type 630, there's also a smaller version without so much support stuff called casemate type 677. Interesting to note is that these concrete bunkers were standardized to have 2m of concrete both on the top and sides, and this norm also applies to the AT gun bunker. The coolest thing however is a thing called "mobile steel pillbox", astandardized, self-contained pillbox unit for one machine gun and two crew. "Mobile" because it was a complete unit weighing 3 tons that could be transported and quickly installed anywhere into a fitting hole ion the ground. armor 5" at the front and 2" at the sides. There are pictures showing it being handled by a crane. But I guess those standardized types made up only a small portion of the bunkers, I agree with the others here that a myriad of individual constructions from fortified positions to big bunkers existed. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

like several others (guachi, silencer et al) already pointed out, yes, 50cals damage/kill german armor. The armor penetration of the 50cal is well over 25mm below 100m. But the question remains - did BTS model this realistically? can the 50cal kill tanks in CM? check the pictures below, where a StuG fell victim to my T-8 recon vehicle which has exclusively one 50cal as its armament: no wonder, since the StuG's rear armor is a mere 20 to 30mm. unfortunately, the StuG was revenged and the T-8 was punished on the spot by a 2cm Quad AA gun which killed my T-8 right after it had killed the StuG ... I hope this answers the question in the subject line. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer P.S.: one thing that seems a litle odd is that while the 50cal is apparently modeled correctly by CM, it is still treated as a machine gun, so you don't get the detailed hit / kill information you would get from main gun rounds firing/hitting; the StuG simply changes from active to knocked out after being hit by the 50cal. [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 07-30-2000).]

Q: what has happened here? : A: this is what happens when 2cm and 3.7cm weapons engage moving infantry targets. I am sure many of you have seen this happen to themselves before, But the sheer frustration to see infantry run before your 2cm weapons virtually untouched made me post and investigate this. First, here is a series of shots to show what happens: american crew running in open, targetted by german light AA piece. the shell impacted just far enough behind the moving soldier so that he isn't affected by the blast. I jumped ahead several of these impacts which always occur right behind the soldier. he is about to enter the woods, when another round impacts right behind him. final pic in this series: with another round impacting behind him, the american soldier finally reaches the safety of woods with blocked LOS/LOF. and this then is the result of this, a chain of craters tracing the path of the unharmed target, at a distance of 80m to 100m from the firing gun: Now, of course, this isn't an isolated incident. This problem was the main problem of a battle I created where american infantry tries to attack an AD site which is meant to engage allied aircraft and shield the light german tanks which in turn engage the americans. The AirDefense site has several 2cm, 3.7cm and quad2cm guns pieces. The whole area in front of the AD site is criscrossed with such paths of inconsequential craters. It is also not limited to 2cm gun pieces, but the same effect takes place when 2cm-equipped AFV's like the Pz II Luchs (I don't understand why CM calls it Lynx while it keeps all the other german Raubkatzen armor names in german??). I have thought about it, and it seems they just don't lead the target, and the blast is not big enough to compensate for that. Machine Guns seem to suffer less from this. I am not saying they (2+cm) dont work at all, but they have noticeably little effect IMO, making the quad-2cm (on SdKfz 7 and in the Wirbelwind) anything but the infantry-duster it is often said to have been. I _am_ aware that 2+cm guns have a lower ROF than machine guns. Machine guns are probably indeed more effective vs. infantry, especially at closer ranges. So the first result, that machine guns are more effective than 2cm guns against infantry, might very well be ok, but the second result in CM, namely that it is much better for infantry to be moving or even running than staying in one place taking cover, I am not so sure about. The 2cm/3.7cm seem to be leading alright against moving vehicles and aircraft; they don't seem to lead vs. infantry. What do you think? A little bit puzzled, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer picture: FlaK pieces seem to do better against aircraft at 350mph at 1km than against soldier walking at 10mph at 100m...

I agree with v.Schalburg, and disagree with the earlier posts of KiwiJoe - ever since the III/F8 the StuG was essentially equipped and designed to be an anti-tank weapon not a support mobile gun. Completely agree with Mannheim Ubertanker in that the few supertanks strategy is risky - once put all my money in a KT and 5 seconds into the game its main gun was damaged from a HT's 50cal machine gun (!). war's hell! It seems with the wide range of possible results in CM's great engine it is oftzen a matter of personal experience, bias and superstition as to what units are considered good or bad. Personally, I feel ok with the StuG, but I have absolutely lost any confidence into the Pz IVs. Stuarts kill them all the time, they die like flies. And with 80mm hull and 50mm turret front armor, puting them hull-down seems to make matters only worse because it "seems" (again, might be just me seeing things) the enemy tanks aim directly for the turret's thin 5cm armor which means they are dead FAST. I admit the Hetzer is beter than the StuG in my experience. As of the ammo loadout of the StuG, smoke was usually not part of the regular loadout at all, they were only loaded for if the upciming mission specifically called for it. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Dear BTS, dear fellow CombatMissionaries, as I had hinted earlier, here is my personal verdict on CombatMission. As I am aware that you as the gentle reader might be asking yourself "why the f should I care about that guys opinion?" I also included into this post some observations and points that I hope catch your interest nevertheless, and as always I am very much looking forward to your opinion on these issues. Overall, it is simply a _g r e a t_ game. I have played numerous campaigns and many battles now, all of them single player against the AI. The AI of the artificial enemy as well as the TacAI of your own vehicles during the execution phase are both _amazing_. The armor/firing physics model is _stunning_. The game itself, and I wonder about this myself very muich since I am usually not a turn-based nut, is _very_ addictive, and I happened to play whole campaigns in one piece all day/night, maybe you all know this "let's just see just one more turn" syndrome. The game plays very well here although I have a very substandard computer, and there are no software bugs / crashes etc. So far (which is quite far). I have always been a person that limits his choice of computer games currently used to very few, I would play games like civilization (c64) or M1 TP (amiga) or Harpoon or SteelPanthers (pc) for quite a while and nothing else. For the last years I have exclusively followed the CloseCombat series ever since the original cc1 (I am well aware of the tensions between the CC and the CM community; I do not know how things are going recently since I haven't been part of the online community now for quite some time; personally, I think both game systems can coexist peacefully. Both are very well serving their purpose: I would hate to have CM be fully real-time, as it would be too confusing/complex etc. to me with all the 3D. On the other hand, limits to the CM engine inherent to the §D and all like the abstraction of infantry does not apply to cc etc. pp. I like both games, and will play both in the future.) Now, I will add CM to my game favorites, and this despite the fact that I am a person that _hates_ 3D games because they usually give me motion sickness and headaches. CM passes ok since it's execution phases are interrupted (to avoid the unfitting term "turn-based") which gives me the room to have my orders issued as fast as I want to, as detailed as I feel like it, and gives me the choice to roam around the battlefield visually as fast and from the perspective I want. To sum it up, I am very very satisfied at this product. I would like to relate some things that I noticed. Some of these are notes that are meant to improve upon the game, things that I think would increase the gaming value of CM even more IMHO. Again, the game is ok as is, this would just improve upon it. Other notes are simply observations I found noteworthy. All these comments refer to the unmodified game with patch1. 1. There is a whole shlew of vehicles modeled in CM, a kudo to BTS for that (the german trucks however look rather generic/american to me, I cannot remember having seen such a model, it is definitely not an Opel Blitz, looks rather like an american truck). However, the icing on the cake would be to have a small description of the vehicle within the game / in a seperate helpfile on the CD-ROM (a la cc1 / cc2's helpfile) / or as part of the manual (a la M1 Tank Platoon). The thing is, although I would consider myself a person which normally knows its way around WW II, I never knew anything about the T8 Recon Tank except that it was an exotic (or so I thought) subvariant of the Stuart. I didn't know (and am still amazed about this today) about the widespread use of this vehicle as portrayed in CM. A small descriptive text including e.g. the number of vehicles produced would have helped me enormously. Don't get me wrong, I find the data presented by CM in the data window for each vehicle to be excellent (see note 2); but why not have a small equipment presentation to go with the game? the casual gamer would find this immensely helpful, and even I would like it as a reference resource. I am sure someone with the knowledge like Fionn or similar could have been found (or could still be found for CM2) on this rather knowledgeable board willing to write something up. If you take the time to model all these vehicles so very well, why not crown this by including a small reference/description section. 2. The information window on the vehicles is great. However, I would like the data displayed for the vehicle to include the vehicle cost/value it has for the game system. I mean those values one pays in these instant-action type battles where you can manually choose the units involved by "buying" them, and I assume the game also uses these scores to determine victory conditions etc. 3. FOW includes the very nice feature that many kills are simply listed as "unidentified vehicle". Also, often you literally don't know what hit you(r tank). This is very good. However, after the single battle or the OP ended, it would be nice if on that post-battle overview map these "unidentified kills" were changed into the respective units, and to take this even further for armchair-post-battle analysis, it would be very nice if knocked-out units would, in their kill page, add a line on whom they fell victim to, example: "M10: 10 infantry kills, 2 SdKfz 251/1; knocked out by unit V-34 Panzer IVH". This would be great for post-battle analysis, and since the data is there in the game and only withheld (and rightfully so) _during_ the game, why not reveal it with everything else _after_ the battle. 4. While on the subject of the post-battle screens, I find the debriefing slightly disappointing. IMO, the post-battle statistics are very important and one of the main "rewards" for the player who has gone through what can be a very long campaign. Right now, CM doesn't even differentiate between a Kübelwagen and a Königstiger (or Jeep and Pershing) since both are simply listed as "vehicles". It would be very nice if this number could be broken up at least into the categories "vehicles", "AFVs", "TDs", "light", "medium" and "heavy armor", or something like that. The final score of 20 vehicles to 20 vehicles looks balanced but might include exclusively tanks on one side and a convoy of jeeps and trucks on the other side. Since CM determines missions like "destroy" based on kill scores, it would be nice for such scenarios to have that score displayed to see for yourself exactly how well you fared. I voiced this concern earlier with the demos but IIRC back then the answer was that that was not the final thing. 5. while speaking of post-battle, I found it rather illogic that the surrendering side still has my teams as prisoners. I know that someone mentioned this already. a related thing is that it seems to me that there are no captured vehicles? 6. It would also be nice if CM showed the passenger capacity during the purchasing phase for quick battles or for scenario design. Passenger capacity is shown for trucks and transports but unfortunately not for armor and AFVs. 7. the game specifically allows for setting knocked-out vehicles afire by firing at them again. in a campaign, they reappear in the next battle - do I have to set them afire again? how is this really counted, how much difference is there for the game in terms of merely abandoned vs. knocked-out vs. burned-out? 8.this set-afire target order at an already knocked out vehicle btw is ignored if the vehicle has to turn to face the target: if you have your tank facing away from the to-be-set-afire target tank and give it the targetting order, the fire order will be ignored /cancelled when the tank turns around in the resolution phase. 9.one thing that is sorely lacking for #7 but would be very useful in other situations too would be that you are able to have multiple targetting for one vehicle, just like you have multiple waypoints for movement orders. Say, you have this Pz IV and there are 5 knocked-out /abandoned allied tanks standing around that you want to set afire. Right now, if you want to hit them again this would take you five minutes even though it actually only takes 10 secs. per target. The ability to set multiple targets which are serviced in sequence would be very helpful, also for selecting several "live" targets where it is obvious that many of these will be first-shot kills. Or say you have half a dozen infantry squads charge your single team/vehicle, then it would be nice if each of them could be fired at after one another with quick bursts to make them all hit the ground instead of one getting pinned and the other 5 running over you. 10. which takes me to the point of machine guns in general. since they don't "spray" but rather fire in bursts (similar problem with infantry firing) more like a single-shot weapon, it is easily possible in scenarios such as Arnhem that whole squads cross the street unharmed/unfired-at between two bursts. Add to that the relative inefficiency. I had one time where a british squad walked up to a Puma right in the middle of the street, no cover whatsoever, sat down 15m in front of it, had two bursts fired into them seemingly without major effect, until they thought better of it and walked away again. I know that infantry squads are "abstracted" and so is the terrain, so there is the explanation for the above situation that part of the squad would have taken cover to the sides, behind (invisible) trashcans etc., still it simply makes a strange impression. 11. sniper ammo seems a little bit too low IMO. sure, they weren't meant to be mass-destruction devices, still their supply seems to low IMO. 12. the inability of vehicles to run over infantry leads to completely helpless armor when they are out of ammo, and infantry can freely walk up to them, around them, attack them etc., a very ridiculous/absurd situation, I had a situation where three JPz IV/70 were being chased around for several turns by american infantry in the open!, they always had to escape from the evil enemy infantry walking around at free will between the tanks; although it might seem cruel, it nevertheless is very realistic to have the tank simply drive them over. May I quote the Tigerfibel: "Männer vom Tiger! Sparen! Nützt den dicken Panzer aus! Ran! Walzen ist billiger als MG!" ("Tiger Crewmen! Conserve! Use the thick armor! At them! Squashing is cheaper than the machine gun!") 13. ack! the old common-held wrong belief stated in the manual (sorry couldn't ignore that one): the manual (p.71) suggests that the Schürzen were introduced as additional armor to help against AT rifles, and as a side-effect help to predetonate HC warheads; if anything, the _opposite_ is true; they were specifically meant to predetonate shape-charge munitions, the fact alone that even mesh wire was used to construct them shows that they were not meant as additional armor. They were thin sheets of unhardened/untreated metal; if they helped to protect against the PTRD or PTRS so be it the crew would like that but that was not the intention. Also, the fact that they were regular installed at areas where the regular armor was clearly sufficient for any AT rifle (such as Pz IV flanks) round also proves that they were not meant to counter the AT rifles. 14. ok now you got me... seems that I can't find my other paper with notes right now...mea culpa... I remember it had all the odd things that I found so very interesting...like, tales of how stray and ricochet rounds landed smack into another unintended target, or the nasty tendency of M3 halftrack's .50cals to damage main guns of tigers and kingtigers...how Bazooka and Panzerschreck teams would occasionally set afire the building they are in when firing their weapon...oh yes now I remember two more things: 15. I LOVE the tile based system of the maps, and the random generating etc. However, I think the size of the individual tiles is just a little bit too big to really model the fractal european shape of terrain; likewise, in the manual BTS claims they left out the ditches beside the roads because they would be so small/shallow that an infantry squad wouldn't fit into them anyhow. IMO this is simply not true; a depression of even a dozen inches will provide a prone infantry man with valuable cover, and IMO such ditches were more often than not of such or better quality. You might argue that the scope of CM is company / brigade sized engagements anmd who cares for such detail, but it is this tactical level of whether there is or is not a little rock or depression which will give a soldier cover that will determine his individual fate, and even large battles consist of many such individuals. Really, if CM used smaller tiles, the tiles would be even less apparent and instead of simulating little creeks, ditches, paths etc. into one type of field tile they could be modeled which would turn the abstract method used know into a WYSIWYG one. 16. while speaking of the scenario editor, there is one thing that I am not quite sure of. I like it very much, it reminds me of Peter Fisla's excellent cc1 editor. However, when I created a scenario loosely based on the Market Garden operation of XXX Corps adventures trying to open the island road between Nijmegen and Arnhem, something weird seems to have happened. It took me quite a while to do the 3km stretch of terrain, the force setups, that infamous StuG that held them up so long, etc. pp. Then I saved this custom scenario to the default location. Then I played it. When saved the game during battle, I used the description of the operation for my save file, and saved to the default location. Now, it _seems_ to me, that CM uses the same file format for custom scenarios as well as save files, and unfortunately also the same default location, because it overwrote my custom scenario that I had so painstakingly created earlier. Or am I wrong? Anyways, maybe you find some of these observations interesting, or agree or disagree with some of them - I am interested to know. Again let me emphasize that I like the game very much as it is already, and I wish you all happy CM playing, and thank you very much BTS and the helpers for a great game, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer P.S: oh, I have found one more very interesting thing. What's also interesting about CM is that with all it's complexity it also succeeds in modeling that war creates most bizarre chaotic occurences. In one late 1945 stock scenario I was facing the americans as a german. After the battle was over, close inspection of one of the two enemy M10s that were killed rather close together in a mortar barrage revealed that one of the two got a "kill" credit for killing the other M10:

The creator of that scenario just happens to be non other than the Grandpappy of Design himself, Wild Bill Wilder and you should consider it an HONOR to even play one of his masterpieces yet alone try and offer any suggestions to him. ------ I must admit I have heard that name before, yet that his merits carry no inherent infallibility; now, I am not saying his scenario is completely bad, no, I really liked it, like I said above, it played well, but if I had a choice between a poor scenario from a famous designer and a good scenario from an unknown or even unliked designer I'ld still prefer the latter (again, I am not saying his whole scenario is bad - but the reinforcement placement _was_). I see that he made several scenarios, one thing peculiar about his scenarios is that unlike other scenarios he doesn't say which side it is designed to be played from, but maybe that is because his are recreations of historical engagements. --------- A designer can't specify the EXACT location that units will arrive on. --------- oh yes he can. there is a little marker in the editor that you put on the tile where you want the reinforcements to arrive. --------- He can specify the edge but the AI CAN and WILL move them around somewhat. --------- he might move them around a few meters if there are a lot of troops in that reinforcement-batch, but I am not talking about a few meters here and there, the reinforcements in that batttle were designed to appear right in the map. There was no need for that. ---------- Reinforcements do not drive on to the map. This is on the 'LIST' and has been for some time as a feature to implement. In v1.03 the AI has been tweaked somewhat so Armored units will favor roads as there reinforcement entry point if one is nearby. ------------ as I said before, it is absolutely no problem for a scenario designer in CM to introduce reinforcements in a realistic, minimal-invasive way. On this map too there were roads leaving the map at remote, hilly wooden locations of the map. If you make a place with no LOS to the map's main areas themselves it is as if the reinforcements really do arrive as in real life. I know about the instant appearance problem that's why I try to keep away from map edges. Whether the reinforcements appear _on_ or _beside_ the entry roads then is a very minor issue IMO. --------------- The location of those units on your flank is used as a device to instill confusion and surprise. --------------- LOL.. oh yes that worked fine! there are few things more confusing and surprising than having four 60-ton monsters materialize in front of you / immediately around you - out of nothing! ---------------- The timing and makeup of those Germans was setup so that just as you are clearing the town or beginning to make headway forward, these tanks appear and switch the balance of the game back towards the defender. ----------------- oh, they failed to do that. I guess it surprised the germans as much as it surprised the americans to suddenly find themselves facing each other. Indeed, had my progress been slower, they would have appeared with some of my assault-supporting armor _behind_ them...but for their luck they had already moved away again... so this placement is just as unfortunate for the german Tigers as well... ------------------- In order to accomplish this Bill has set the reinfocement point slightly in somewhat. ----------------- I fail to see how the chosen position, quite a bit into the map and without cover, accomplishes anything but surprising everybody including the materializing Tigers. ---------------- This is offset to an extent by the fact the the Allied reinforcements enter the map very far forward. ---------------- yes, just the same, they are beamed into the battle just the same strange way, behind / before houses several hundred meters into the map. Now, again, tell me why this has to be done that way? if you let them enter the map in Elsdorf or at sdome other edge of the map one or two turns earlier you would have them at the same location at the same time, but in a more realistic manner. ----------------- Bill was trying to use the entry point as a way to have a large force come in ready to roll and fight. ----------------- or ready to be toasted and fried. Again, this placement of reinforcements is as risky to the reinforcements than it is to the allies. It's a chance thing for whom it is more unfortunate. Either way, it is highly anti-immersive. ------------------ In normal play of this scenario the allied recon elements are usually toast long before those tanks appear and in testing of this I never had any allied units on the flank when the tanks appeared. -------------- There is no "normal" way to win a battle or war, you do what works best, faites votre jeux, and besides that I was under the impression that scouts were used to scout ahead of the own forces and make quick dashes in the enemy rear, reconnoiter etc., not participate let alone carry the brunt of a full frontal assault where theys are lost fast. I love the way CM models scout vehicles' speed which is much of their ticket to surviving engagements (i.e., by retreating out of these engagements fast ) anyway, my post was not meant to spoil anything for anybody, or create a hostile atmosphere, sorry if any of it was perceived that way, I found it half funny how the Greyhound suddenly found himself surrounded by beamed-into-place german tanks out of nowhere, and half worth warning future scenario designers to not make such mistakes in choosing reinforcement points _in_ a map if the same can be achieved by moving them into the scenario from an edge, preferrably unseen at first. I was also not aware that there was a scenario forum installed by now, sorry, I hadn't been here for...hmm..couple of months? anyway, I wish you all a very nice CM-enriched weekend, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

WARNING! the following contains spoiler info re. the Elsdorf March 1945 stock scenario (this spoiler warning inserted due to request at a later time) x x x x x x x x x I bought CM and played it a bit by now (ca. half a dozen battles), and I really must congratulate you BTS and THANK YOU for one of the greatest games ever. It is GREAT GREAT GREAT! but I will leave the kudos and the evaluation to a later post of mine, right now I just wanted to tell you something that has happened to me today. we had discussed the problem of instantly appearing reinforcements in the past, and having played with CM's scenario editor I must say that really with good scenario design it is no problem to have the reinforcements introduced into the game in a realistic maner. However, playing one of the default scanrios that came with CM, bad scenario design led to enemy reinforcements appearing in a most absurd way. Battle: Elsdorf, March 1945. I was playing as the americans. Below you can roughly see how my forces (blue) were employed to engage the enemy (red) and eventually take the VLs, which consisted of the town and two woods. It all went rather well. I had one Greyhound flank the enemy to scout the enemy rear and positioned it in the rear of the enemy-held village to cut off any escape route for enemy crews or decimated infantry squads trying to escape to the enemy rear. hile positioning the Greyhound back there, it even managed to take out a flame Hetzer that was positioned in the village, from the rear. As I said before, it all went well, and the Greyhound was happily blocking and engaging routing enemy infantry. I knew from the scenario briefing that sooner or later a bunch of enemy armor was supposed to enter the game, but I figured that with the superb way that CM models the survivability that lies in speed for vehicles such as the M8 I should be able to retreat it into safety once the Tigers came. Now, the right yellow circle shows where my Greyhound was positioned when suddenly two Pz IV, a Tiger and a Kingtiger (yellow dots) plus one or two platoons of infantry suddenly beamed into place and my little Greyhound found itself suddenly surrounded by instant heavy armor, and he was right in the middle of it. See picture below: Now, some of you might say that this would provide me more with an opportunity than with a problem. Indeed I was wondering what I should do, if I should let the Greyhound take a side shot against a Pz IV otr maybe even chance a shot up the KT's rear. Also, I had positioned quite a force in the village already that was in a position to take advantage should the german armor turn to face the Greyhound. So I faintly hoped that the mysterious appearance and sure death of my little Greyhound was not completely in vain. I eventually decided to let the startled crew of the Greyhound make a run for it and engage the left Pz IV while doing that. But it didn't even last 3 seconds into the turn, because the accompanying german infantry made short work of the Greyhound with Panzerfausts. Nevertheless I was able to cope with the enemy with an M4A3, a M7 Priest and a M26 from the village who had originally been supporting infantry house-to-house fighting in the town when the mysterious appearance of the enemy meant that they could engage the enemy armor (they had no other choice but to engage the enemy since they could not retreat into cover anyhow). And in short time the Tiger and the two Pz IV were lost in a fire exchange that cost me the M26 and the M4A3. I was able to retreat the Priest and prepared to flank the remaining KT from two sides. Part of this required transitioning of a Chaffee and another M26 around the woods to the north of the village (upper edge of picture). When that force travelled along the road, suddenly a second batch of four Tigers (yellow dots) appeared right in the map where the left yellow circle is. The M26 managed to take out a Tiger before it was killed, and two turns later another Pershing together with a 155mm barrage killed off the remaining three. Still I was furious about whoever designed that scenario. Both times the enemy reinforcements did not appear at the dge of the map, much less out of sight/behind woods or elevation, no, they appeared right there hundreds of meters into the map, at places that would very likely be occupied by american forces at the time of arrival. So I would like to post this as a reminder for all the future users of the fabulous scenario editor (I did some scenarios already, too) to take extra care of realistic introduction of reinforcements into the battle. Reinforcements are a kick for any scenario, the salt and spice, and carefully planned successive reinforcements can have a very captivating and immersing effect as much as random, uncertain reinforcements create an effect of uncertaintly and variation. If however they appear instantaneously right amidst enemy troops they wreak havoc with the same immersion and realistic atmosphere of the game, as could be seen in this example, because aside from the reinforcemnts thing it proved to be a well-playing, entertaining scenario, ruined only by those reinforcements. yours sincerely, and thanks for a fantastic game, M.Hofbauer [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 07-15-2000).]

hi y'all, haven't been around for a while. was just stepping by to see if there's any info on the release date of CM (btw the game runs fine by now). what an interesting thread. Much said, and much I would like to comment on. In "historic order" (no pun intended): Desert Fox: Actually, I´d say "Ohne Kläger keine Klage" ( no suit without a plaintiff ) actually, I know it as "wo kein Kläger da kein Richter" (where there's no plaintiff there's no judge) but yours is true just as well. BUT - it applies only to civil suits, sort of. It's called "Legalitätsprinzip", it means that the Strafverfolgungsbehörden (Polizei und StA), the administrative/government responsible for persecuting criminal acts, *have* to investigate and bring to court any illegalities; this is opposed to the so-called Antragsdelikte which are only dealt with if someone (usually the injured party) applies for governmental action. The laws concerning the swastikas at hand are in public interest and therefore independant of the plaintiffs in above's proverb, but admit that it still holds true as regards the fact that if nobody notices /brings to the attention of the authorities, then of course there's no lawsuit. phoenix: And really, how is it breaking the law? Is it against the law for a private citizen in Germany to download a picture of a swastika?? yes, it is. Import of symbols of anticonstitutional organizations. §86a I Nr.2 StGB. Maximum penalty three years prison. Is it illegal for them to change a file on their computer? yes. Will the police arrive at the house and confiscate the computer should some "informant" let them know what is going on? yes. Desert Fox: Even if german gamers get a censored version and have to download some bitmaps it is their own decision and with doing so they are doing nothing illegal or are violating any laws. incorrect. It is said downloading of nazisymbols which constitutes an import (=introduction into the jurisdiction of the german criminal law) in the sense of §86a Abs.1 Nr.2 3.Alt. StGB that is illegal and carries a penalty of up to three years. I admit though that in the isolated case of a gamer that negligently fails to comprehend what he's doing and simply DL's a game, as a first time offender he would be simply fined or the court might even consider not fining him inaccordance with §86a III i.V.m. §86 IV StGB (negligable guilt). But I wouldn't count on it. Fionn: My opinion is that just because something is a law does not make it right. LOL...well, I guess you are right, it's just that literally it's not true, because actually law officially defines what is right and what is wrong. But I know that you mean official law versus morally/ethically right, because later you write "Remember that Martin Luther King, Ghandi and many others broke many, many laws. In fact they purposely broke laws to show how ridiculous those laws were." Still, I wouldn't advise a single citizen to break a law if he feels it is wrong. Laws usually aren't made without some reasoning behind it, and chances are, simply breaking it will not help you. If a law is wrong, the citizen has means to topple the law, in germany e.g the constitutional complaint to our federal constitutional court, it's free and surely a better way than simply breaking it (if you break it, of course in a court case resulting out of your offence you would still "incidentally" (technically speaking) review the law in question by the constitutional court. If a car is there it isn't an encouragement to rob it yes and no. If you leave it unlocked, it is considered to be an encouragement and the insurance company will not have to pay you. Maschendrahtzaun: Chnaging a file is not illegal. Importing NS symbols using the internet is. Do you understand? The chance people will be caught is low. agree with the objective content of your first sentences (btw, cool nick *g*, but shouldn't it be "Moschn-drohd-zäun" ? ;o) ) Otherwise, re. probability of being caught, I am not sure on all this. It is hard to make a prediction on how official reaction is. chances are, and that's how it should be, that they don't care about it at all. then again, every once in a while some over-eager district attorney has his McCarthy-fit and goes to great lengths. Even then, the technical abilities vary from state to state. I think, technically they would be able to intercept/filter any downloads into germany from BTS' servers, also we repeatedly had cases were ISPs were forced by court rule to supply their connection protocols which would be automatically searched for any conections to BTS. But I think the probability of it happening in reality is limes 0. The chance pirates will be caught in Singapore is also low. Is that OK too? I wasn't aware that singapore would have such lenient copyright laws. Personally I always thought singapore had about the toughest laws around for anything. phoenix: As an American I find that totally unreasonable. Regardless of Germany's history. My view is that the government has no business deciding what games I can buy or what symbols are displayed on them. hmm...but your country has restrictions, too. I remember I once (like, 10 yrs. ago) knew an american SSgt who lived in the neighbourhood. He was fascinated by german TV commercials. He was fascinated by bare woman breasts. he said they would never have anything like that in the States. I was puzzled why not. Im afraid that I would like to see the US's First Amemendment extended to all countries. most, actually practically all, countries have a constitutional right equivalent to your first amendment. In germany, it is the articles 2 I (general freedon to do anything you want) and 5 I (freedom of speech etc.) GG. Thing is, just like in your country, that right is not unlimited, rather it is restricted by other peoples' rights. Like, my freedom to say a bad word to you would be limited by your right to have your personality respected (this resulting in the institution of the criminal prohibit of insult). here, you have to weigh an individual's interest in having swastikas displayed on your computer versus the feared / perceived by the government problems of A) insulting victims of the Nazi regime by having post-war germ,an public have these ssymbols go unpunished, having children become accustomed to a symbology they should be wary of by having it also displayed on toys and games wetc. pp. The democratically elected body parliament decided against the former (interest of player to have it displayed) and for the latter, introducing a law that banned the usage of that Nazi symbology. Fionn: This ties into my whole life view wherein if I SEE something wrong occuring I WILL step in and try to help prevent it it's nice to see that you are such a person of principle, and I mean it honestly (and I know Fionn that you know it). I used to be that way, but somehow have dulled. I just don't have the energy anymore to fight against every injustrice I find every day. It's a sisyphos thing. I just don't care anymore most of the time, it's just too much. Every once in a while, I feel like one has to resist, but most of the time, I just don't care anymore even if I feel injustice (the parking ticket, e.g.). It used to be I almost couldn't sleep when I perceived injustice. Nowadays I just say "oh well...". It's sad, actually. AND ties in with why I AM (still am) so dissapointed by the majority of forum members unwillingness to do anything about what I feel was unacceptable behaviour directed at me on this forum. haven't been around too long it seems, I am most interested, what happened? Did somebody insult/flame you? Fionn: I'm not comparing myself to them BUT I am saying that I see what I view as a reprehensible law restricting the rights of conscientious adults and I amn't going to sit by and do nothing about it IF I have the power to do anything about it. Lastly, I simply don't agree with the law. I disagree with it to such an extent that I feel it is a "bad law" and as such amn't willing to obey it. but do you think it's up to every single person to judge whether a law is "good" or "bad" and consequently whether it should be obeyed or not? clearly not, we are not to judge, what if the murderer was up to decide whether law applies to him or not? as long as we have other means of questioning a law, we should not simply break it. If that law existed in Ireland, would you think the same way? if your answer is "no", then that would mean you simply don't respect the customs of another country. if your answer is "yes" then you have my respect but you live dangerous, dontcha ever let them get you ;o) I think the German censorship laws are, in the main, "bad laws" and it would be good to see them destroyed. from the previous you might get the impression that I am vehemently infavor of those laws. Let me tell you that I was very much thinking along the same lines as Fionn, even more. it was back when I was younger, had more time and was building plastic scale models. Here I was, working for half a year to a year on some superdetailed, superauthentic, superresearched 1:72 scale Fw-190A-8 or Me 109 F-4/b, but then it would have a bland rudder without the Luftwaffe swastika (mind you, it was there as a national identification symbol, as the official german national symbol, not as some Nazi party insignia). I mean, realism and all, stenciled maintenance decals and such, yet a major element of the aircraft was missing. I found out the reason you couldn't obtain them in germany (they were cut out from the decal sheets in the kits) was due to that law that prohibited nazi symbology. I was enraged. I even found a supreme court rule (BGH 28,397) where Matchbox was convicted of §86a because their aircraft plastic model kits PK-171 and PK-83 had swastika decals in them (this was 1979). Being a serious modeler I was enraged even further about them calling the model kits "toys". Only with age ;o) am I now able to understand fully how they meant it. Seeing them as toys, they didn't want children to grow up, becoming accustomed and uncritical to the symbols on their favorite toys. Had the kits been small, limited production run high-price models, they wouldn't have been called toys and consequently it would've been ok to include the decals. I see their point, although I am still not sure if that law is ok. It is only ok to display nazi symbology in a socially adequate context, such as scientific-historical etc. Having them in a game is clearly not ok since game=entertainment ~ toy in their reasoning. Personally, I have come to live with it, I just don't really care anymore. If I still had the time to do serious modelling, I would probably try to obtain the decals buying them over the internet from some overseas hobby shop. If for some unfathomable reason it would be intercepted and I were accused of importing nazi symbols, I would have the opportunity I always wanted to point out the flaws in the old court rule, maintaining that since it is a historical, authentic model striving for absolute realism, it is not a toy, rather a historical piece of reproduction etc. I would, however, be hard pressed to defend myself would I be caught importing what these overly liberal ppl would surely call a "nazi game" (which it clearly isn't but I guess you get my poit about them jumping at the swastika). Want to label me a criminal and censor me for that? IIRC that's something the NSDAP did to people who disagreed with its "bad laws". Fionn, every country/society labels someone who breaks it's laws a criminal, that's how a criminal is defined. It's not an NSDAP thing. Perhaps Germany hasn't come as far as it thinks as regards freedom? Now THERE is a little something for you to think about Fionn, I think this is not fair. I think *you* know very well (I know you do ;o) ) about the history of germany, and I think it befits it good to be very self-conscious about it. Part of that is having laws that limit the careless use of national socialistic symbology. You might be for it or against it, but we still have a lot of freedom even w/o being able to have swastikas displayed on bumper stickers. Try to see it this way: if you were living in a neighbouring country that was a victim of german terror regime, like, Poland, or the czech republic, or if you were a jew who lost family under the germans, how would you think if the germans didn't have such special rules regarding the use of that very symbology that stands for german teror and their suffering? DasBoot: What would the punishment be, if you were caught playing the illegal CM i Germany anyway? Would the judge bring out the ruler and smack you with it, fine you or throw you in jail technically, the maximum penalty would be three years of jail. However, as I pointed out above, this would never be exercised in reality. If you were just a casual gamer, with no nazi or criminal background, and just so happen to be caught playing a game that has Nazi symbols in it, my best guess is that either a) in accordance with §153 StPO the district attorney would not further pursue your case "due to negligable guilt" if he thinks what you did was not bad enough to warrant a court case he would acc. to §153a StPO not further pursue the case if you paid a small fine (thinking it was bad enough to warrant some kind of reprimand but not a court case) c) acc. to §86 IV StGB the court would decide to not further pursue the case if they are convinced your guilt is negligible d) you'ld be convicted of §86a II StGB and be given a fine (i theory § 40 StGB anything from 10 DM to 3.65 Mio DM ;o) ) any of the above, jail is clearly not an option. Major Tom: Indeed, the sign is only after the fall of Hitler seen to be an evil device. It is still used by some Budists (I think). It is a religious sign, a national sign. what you are referring to, the oriental sign of good luck etc., clearly differs from the Nazi swastika in that the Nazi swastika is slanted, while the religious symbol is right. This differentiation was done intentionally by Hitler himself, who created the Nazi party flag hinmself in 1921 or 1922 IIRC. Whatever it's origins, it is now ladden with associations stemming from the Third Reich. Finland had made use of the swastika as a national symbol, totally free from any ideological meaning, long before the Nazis used it. However, after WW II they decided although their insignia had nothing to do with the Nazis, they discontinued it because it would remind ppl of the Nazi swastika. btw. indeed Major Tom you are right when you say that there are restrictions in the US, too. If one is used to certain restricions, they don't appear as such to him, while the restricions of other societies are unfamiliar to him and therefore he perceives them as restricting freedom that he is used to. Moon: Anyway, although the law remains unchanged, it is much less strictly enforced now than years ago. It is much easier now for moviemakers, for example, to get the original symbols into their movies, even if the movies are not historical. Just saw "Blues Brothers" a few days ago - a few years ago the section about the american Nazis would have been cut out. one of the exceptions to the general prohibit on the use of nazi symbology is according to §86 III any "piece of art". Movies could be considered works of art (movie directors would argue that they are ;o) ), and indeed movies are exempt from the prohibit, as long as the movie isn't showing the symbology in some attempt at glorifying the Third Reich or so. Unfortunately, PC games are regarded as pure entertainment only, and it's impossible to get the OK to display NS symbols. Indeed, agree with you. Maybe, some day in the future, the law will be revised, if ppl feel there is no need for it anymore (but looking at the former GDR which consists to a frightening large part of skinhead youth I doubt it). Theoretically, since the game will be sold over the internet, BTS and BF.C would not have to care much about German laws. I am not too sure. If they actively, knowingly sold the game containing NS symbols to germans, one could argue they would, how do you say, "aid and abet" the crime the german did by importing the game. Same would apply to Fionn with his honorable intention of providing the files for germans for DL. Of course, they'ld be safe as long as they don't set a foot on german soil. Again, I am not a specialist on thses things. Not sure how real the persecution of internet "crime" such as this is, if anybody even cares about this at all. Might innocently ask a colleague district attorney about this (generally asking about a theoretical problem involving internet etc. ;o) ), and make sure that whenever he visits me, I'll have my CM hidden ;o) yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 01-08-2000).]

the literal translation of girls! live! with "Mädchen! Lebendig!" makes no sense because "lebendig" means "alive", and unless you consider the germans to be necrophiles, there wouldn't be anything special about alive girls. good idea, though

Some really amazing and important though rather anticlimactic revelations there. Your research is obviously not finished yet, but I asume it's safe to say that common perception incl. all wargamesgreatly over-rated this weapon's effectiveness. Wonder what BTS's stand on this thing and your findings are, since IMO if your info is correct it is too powerful even in CM (it is most unrealistic in the cc series) (no offense intended, just my subjective impression). Didn't they say somewhere back then that they modeled it after some info they have? maybe you should get in contact with them to compare your findings. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

...and now for something not completely but a little bit diofferent. There was another thread on bazookas way down but I came there too late, it's already closed up. So I will add what little I can in *this* thread as it's also related to this matter. 1.) as regards Bazooka range: the zook's sights were creviced (words?) up to 300 yards (M9), but 200 yards are usually given as maximum practical range (M1 and M9 incl. subvariants). 2.) as regards the AK / StGw-44 (MP43, MP44) issue: common perception by now has it that although Kalashnikov was influenced by the general format / proportions / layout of the StGw, and agreeably look strikingly similar in outward appearance, but the two wepons differ internally (breech mechanism). Timofeyevitch personally always denied any influence the StGw might have on his invention. Btw he *did* benefit considerably from his invention. 3.) as regards the CETME / Heckler&Koch G3 +subvariant's relationship to the StGw-44: the CETME/G-3 weapon family's, by that meaning especially the roll-delayed receiver/breech mechanism (wording?), is associated and can be traced back to the essentially (meaning as regards that famous receiver/breech mechanism) identical Mauser Gerät 06 H, that became known late in the war as StGw-45 M, and *not* the considerably *different* StGw-44. not meaning to smartass, just wanted to contribute / clear this up. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

as a preface, I am still fighting my computer system, but after repeated BIOS fumbling, several different sound-card trials (I now ended up having to buy a SB Live! card), reinstalls etc. right now (this may change again) I can play the game. During the time when under different and mostly unfavorable performance conditions I nevertheless played CM every now and then in all scenarios from both sides, I too have yet to lose a battle. I do realize though that things can indeed go very wrong, and you can lose against the AI, it just hasn't happened yet. I might have lost one of my first battles where on Last Defense my german tanks were surprised by the sudden arrival of the US tanks if the game hadn't crashed then. Nevertheless, some notes: Fionn, you wrote: "7. Your usage of tanks vs the US Hellcats and using HTs to target-fixated them is a bit gamey BUT it does illustrate that the game DOES model target fixation. Target fixation is what kills most tank crews and most pilots and in WW2 quite a lot of fighter-bomber pilots died from flying into the ground due to being target fixated. So, when the Hellcats see your HTs they fire at them. How STUPID would you say the AI was if it WOULDN'T fire at HTs? Like any good commander the AI wants its tanks to kill whatever they can see. If your tanks come out of woods and kill the AI then that's just bad luck AND something that happened more times than you or I can count in WW2." Target fixiation ok, but only for the guner, please. Because - that's what makes all the difference between a poorly designed tank (early WW II british and french) where the commander also has to double-act as loader and maybe even gunner in that cramped turret as aopposed to a properly laid-out tank where the commander can concentrate on his job, which is exactly the opposite of "target-fixiation": he has to keep situational, tactical awareness and be on the lookout for other threats/targets (among other things). He assigns certain targets to the gunner. Then maybe indeed that gunner will get fixiated to that HT he wants to blow up, but not if the commander which noticed a Tiger coming up had told him of that (I don't think target fixiation of a gunner goes so far as to override a Walther P-38 or a Luger P 08 / an M1911 Colt stuck to your head). you also wrote that: "1. YES the tanks in a tank platoons only had ONE radio which was set on the tank platoon frequency. Command tanks are special and rare. (company commander toys basically ) The ONLY ways infantry could communicate with the tank were as follows: a) shouting to the tank commander." Indeed, which is exactly what is reasonable to happen between a squad located besides an unbuttoned StuG waiting behind a street corner. Not likely to happen all the time, but not far out. One thing that puzzled me was an incident where the AI Hellcats (which btw never crossed the river in any of my games) who were *buttoned* and facing 90° aquired my unbuttoned StuG that I had advancing out of cover faster than the StuG, which was pointing in their direction and *was unbuttoned* and not engaging any infantry or anything. Happened twice (I was lucky with the first Hellcat). It seems those Ami tank commanders did their job well in aquiring new targets in contrast to that StuG TC/crew. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Fionn, I forgot to mention it in the post/picture description. I am pretty sure it is the opening for the coaxial maxchine gun. There were two kinds of Saukopfblenden for the StuG III G (late), one which had that opening and one which doesn't. Coincicdentally the one with that opening is found on StuG III G's with the coaxial machine gun. That there were even late StuG III G's with the Saukopfblende without a coaxial machine gun serves to show that the coaxial is not such a sure thing and indicates that it was much rarer in the even earlier versions (=without Saukopfblende). But I have got to admit to BTS that pictures of StuG III G's with Saukopfblende almost always show the one with the opening and those with no opening are rather rare so I think BTS was right to model at least the LATE / Saukopf -StuG III G with the coaxial MG. Just my opinion, of couirse, since I am not a tank grog. sincerely, M.Hofbauer

arg, you misunderstood me. Of course I know the remote-controlled external machine-gun mount on the late StuG (though I agree it's more popular from the use on the Hetzer). What I meant is that I have never seen the same type of edgy shield used on the *regular*, *non-remote-controlled* *early* flexible external machine gun mounts of the StuG. I mean I am not saying that there wasn't I am just saying I never saw it, I associate the early StuG III external MG immediately with the characteristic flat MG shield which we can see in pic.b You yourself wrote that your "StuG III G (early)" has "coax, no nahverteigungswaffe, only the external flexible MG with shield" so if I understood you correctly then you mean your representation of the early StuG III G has *no* remote-controlled MG. But in the game it shows the wedge shield of the remote-controlled MG. I am guessing / I realize that you probably just used the same graphic representation to show both? Now, to show people wandering into this thread what we are talking about: pic. A: late StuG III G, showing the round Saukopfblende and the external, remote-controlled MG mount pic. B: early StuG III G with the characteristic edgy mantlet and flat, non-remote controlled MG I find the aspect brought forward by Mr Cunningham's very important that the crew of a non-coaxial, non-remote controlled MG-equipped StuG (btw how can an external, flexible machinegun be "co-axial"? co-axially aligned to what?) would have to unbutton to engage infantry with the flexible MG. Obviously they couldn't if the enemy infantry is close by just like in real life. anyways, everybody have a nice day, sincerely, M.Hofbauer

speaking of the gunner shield, I've never seen one of that edged-ones as in the game before. The ones I have seen so far were rather flat. Enlighten me please as I am intrigued. sincerely, M.Hofbauer

To me it seems there's a misunderstanding here. The way I understood Scott Clinton he meant that the amount of writing about the tanks doing that is out of proportion to the real ocurrences of these incidents in reality because they appear especially spectacular / spectacularly cruel. If I understood you correctly, you seem to have thougt that he was referring to (p)reviewers, critiques and general feedback of the game. Either party correct me if I am wrong in my comprehension of your posts. Btw I disagree with Mr Clinton. The intentional use of vehicles to kill infantry was(is) very real and frequent / ubiquitous IMO. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Markus, Read the AARs more carefully. At MANY MANY places I metaphorically kicked myself for taking losses. Fionn, I know you did that. I enjoyed your and Martin's AAR *very much*. Read my post, I didn't mean to say you ignored your losses. But I think the way CM shows (or does not show) casualties lessens the feeling of loss. I think a graphical feedback on your forces would still increase that awareness of one's own mistakes etc. Ps. Markus, re: the " a casualty here, a casualty there" point.. In WAR combat commanders HAVE to make those decisions. That's war... Sometimes you DO have to accept casualties to cross a field and a wargame must simulate that... But Fionn, that's exactly my point: "a wargame must simulate that". I don't want to, how do you say, "flog a dead horse", and yes the game can be played without it, I am just stating my opinion that I am in favor of some form of feedback, gorey or not, on casualties. greetings, Markus Hofbauer [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 11-05-99).]

Mr Clinton, > I wasn't implying that using those crews was not going > to happen in a game. Did I imply you implied that? ///well I thought you had misunderstood me that way. anyways, it's cleared up now. > I meant to say that IMO such a use for these > crews would not be "gamey". Yes, I read that also. IMO, on the scale and in the manner it will surely be done, if allowed, it would be gamey. ////But does the possible wrong use of a feature justify ignoring the very real presence of such armament? it is the same argument as carried by the anti-gun lobby. guns are bad because people can abuse them to do bad things. Ok. how about screwdrivers? how about ... pencils? even a pencil is a potentially dangerous weapon. Do you have a car? Don't you think cars should be banned because after all they can be uswed for bank robberies, drive-by shootings and just plain everyday vehicular manslaughter. In a game with a finite number of turns…with specific objective areas that can determine either victory or defeat when occupied for a single turn…the excessive use of EXTREMELY valuable trained crews in a desperate, unrealistic, human wave assault on the last turn of a game can and does happen /// aha! but think about it - isn't it the game here that is "gamey"? how realistic is a battle with a set absolute number of turns after which it doesn't matter how exposed battered ill-placed etc. your troops areas long as you hold those VLs? ...in Steel Panther, Steel Panthers 2, Close Combat 2, Close Combat 3, etc. All games that allow you to do EXACTLY what you want to do…arm crews with historical weapons that were really there only for self-defense and TRUE emergencies. ///No they weren't. As I have stated above, the machine gun crews were expected to actively take part in fighting, which was why they were armed with small arms and part of a machine gun squad. In fightings like in Stalingrad there weren't those nice, clear front lines where you could say "but this here is 400m behind the forward units and the front so this is safe and support-team only area. No enemy infantry allowed. NO! these machine gun teams were the support element of the maneuver tactic of the infantry. They were not only *CLOSE* to the fighting, they were *PART* of the fighting. I can only imagine that either you have never played these games head to head or for that matter any miniatures based game of the same type. Well, I have played countless gaming systems devoted to WW2 and modern warfare in the past 30 years. EVERY ONE of these systems that allowed crews to carry their historical weapons was abused, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. ///but that is YOUR problem not mine. I mean, this sounded offensive but wasn't meant that way, what I mean is, it's your fault if you play with such opponents who abuse a feature. I only play with people that I know rather well and which I trust. Is it the car's fault if you are driving in the backseat of someone who drives crazy? If he drives crazy, you can't say "all cars should be banned" or "driving is dangerous" - I say "choose with whom you drive". > I see no difference between giving such teams an -here's > that ugly word again- *abstracted* close defense > value and equipping them with rifles/SMGs. > The "invitation to gamey use" Not necessarily, it depends on how this 'abstracted close defense value' is implemented. ///I agree that it remains to be seen how this is done, yet I maintain that if the crew is able to fight it can still be used in a gamey way the same way it (in quality, not in quantity, I mean, in tendency but admittedly not to the same degree) would if it had regular small arms. I maintain that I find it wrong that we should have the unrealistic and ridiculous fact of 6 men having to stand around an empty MG 42 with hands in their pockets waiting for the odd straggler 1-man infantry unit to kill them off just because of the possibility of an abuse of armed crews. at any rate, there are ways to discourage their "gamey" use (which I still maintain would not be gamey) on the advance. Give them bad values for their weapons, or make them more prone to become pinned/panicked / likely to surrender etc. Impose a special penalty for losing those units etc. pp. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Scott, you misunderstood me again it seems. I wasn't implying that using those crews was not going to happen in a game. I meant to say that IMO such a use for these crews would not be "gamey". granted, the 6-man MG crew was not the movement but the support element in the german infantry close combat tactics. Nevertheless they actively participated in engaging the enemy, I mean, engaging them directly as opposed to a neutral, clean / sterile back-area "support" team. I see no difference between giving such teams an -here's that ugly word again- *abstracted* close defense value and equipping them with rifles/SMGs. The "invitation to gamey use" (that, as stated above, I question itself) argument goes for a generic defense value the same as it would for a rifle. I hope you get me right, it just strikes me as ridiculous that there should be 6 men being able to do nothing but picking their noses all day once their MG42 ammo is gone. Oh yes, while we are at it, same thing with forward observers. And another thing, when I played that last defense map: I wanted to have my entering fresh american infantry squads lay down suppressive fire onto some germans in the open before the town. All I got was a "Out of Range" which I couldn't believe. We are talking the M1 Garand here. surely you are able to shoot further than the 500+m had in that incident: the sights of the M1 Garand weren't adjusted up to 1,200 yards for nothing. Sure, you'll say now that re. *aimed fire* you probably wouldn't hit anything in excess of 600m, but nevertheless three squads of american infantry should be able to lay down quite some suppression *area fire* at that range. I mean, even if the *abstracted* firepower value for the team would be very low, it would still ensure that I could use them *at all*. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Mr Clinton, obviously in your statement "BTS makes the assumtption (correctly IMO) that it would be damn difficult to hit anyone with a vehicle in combat. The men would dive aside, etc." you are ignoring that it was SOP for especially russian tanks to kill infantry by driving over them. You probably never heard (rather, read) of the Todestanz of russian Tanks rotating over german infantry foxholes to kill the inhabitant(s). No doubt very cruel but highly effective in subdueing the otherwise hard to eradicate entrenched infantrymen, something impossible in cm. In one game I had a Hellcat drive in front of and over a german machine gun team - that btw was happily blazing *through* the tank into some infantry far away (realistic scale and all) - doing nothing to them. The germans seemingly weren't even scared, and rightly so, for the tons of steel did nothing to them. I once had a StuG chase an american HQ unit and instead of injuring them thy simply shoved them aside (though it didn't appear to be gently in the movie they weren't even scratched) out of their path. This goes in line / hand in hand with BTS's "clean war"/p.c. attitude towards bodies on the battlefield (see other thread). Even if not realistic, and not that you have to agree, but you have to admit it's at least consequent. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

It appears the approach to do a "clean", violence-free war game seems rather hypocritical. Or, rather, isn't a "clean" wargame an oxymoron? War - absolute violence that causes endless suffering, something to be entirely avoided and despised; and "Game" - entertainment, joy, laughing people, amusement etc., something to be desired and enjoyed. Anyways, I guess you now what I mean. BTS's approach is no doubt noble, and I *am* fully aware of the inherently morally problematic nature of wargames (it is increased when also taking into account the inherent moral problem of portraying national socialist troops when making a WW II wargame). Nevertheless, to show casualties would be not only realistic but also add to the game. I do not mean to criticise the parties in the AAR, but when you think about it, don't you think / get the impression that they handled infantry (representing human lives) rather carefree / carelessly / negligantly (not sure of the right words here, hope you understand what I am trying to convey)? I do not blame them. Did it never even once happen to you too that in the result screen you were (even if only a little bit) surprised at how much casualties you really had? Did you never underestimate the actual losses (for both sides)? Seeing CM's abstracted infantry and blood-free batlefield, where the only losses occure in detail numbers, you easily get the attitude "A few losses here, a few losses there, well, it's war and we are bound to take losses. You can't fell a tree without creating chippings." etc. I think the graphic representation, as shown in the image above by Thomm, does a lot to bring home on you the reality what consequences your negligent or even intended endangering of your infantry has to them. You would get more "feel" for your infantry and their vulnerability. You wouldn't be so easy to sacrifice them. Apart from that, blood spots (or any other type of casualty mark) IMO *do* help to account for disappering units or the debrief-question "what happened to...?" or "just how effective was my artillery onto that unit in the wood" or "how effective was my machine gun covering that sector etc." I do not revel in gory detailed violence. But to create the illusion that war is clean is also wrong. So both arguments cancel each other out. What remains is the benefit for the game that it would have. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

I know this is moot since BTS is apparently not interested in implementing this but nevertheless I felt I wanted to clear something up with regard to Doug's post. Doug: I am, not talking about wrecked/fleeing crews of a destroyed weapon. I am talking about the incident where the odd straggler FO or infantry squad leftover stumbles around in your rear. Once they approach your (mind you, fully functional) support teams, a - for example- mortar teamhas no means at all to defend themselves. First of all, I am not so sure if the employment of a 60mm-mortar crew or the crew of a machine gun for real fighting is so game as many seem to perceive it. Come to think of it, I *am* sure that it happened fairly often. Even if it would be considered gamey- I am not sure if the phobia of "gamey" use of crews justifies leaving 4 to 6 healthy men standing by their weapon and having nothing but their bare hands should enemy infantry come close by. Well, actually I *am* sure it does not justify this but what the heck. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer