Major Tom

One day affordable computers will be fast enough to warrant 1 to 1 representation for a battalion's worth of troops. The AI will also be a lot smarter and more complicated. If CM2 is to come out at any reasonable time it will probably not have these aspects. It could be possible for CM3. Computer technology is progressing at ever faster rates. When I bought my P133 5 years ago it cost $3,000.00 Canadian, now a top of the line computer doesn't get past $2,000.00. Upgrading is even cheaper (upgraded mine to a P500 for $400.00). However, with all those High-Resolution mods and with anything over a Company of troops it gets a little slow (not much, but there are laggs). I would say that what people propose here would be possible for a CM down the road. Having each squad member represented doesn't actually mean that we would have to, or even get to control each individual. Possiby we issue a squad an order, and we visually see what we currently don't in CM. That is what I predict the long term future of CM to be.

CM is based off the single battle idea. Rarely would a single unit get to participate in every cool action as well (like SP allows them too). Plus, as has been stated earlier, after just about every CM battle your force is severly depleted, with at least around 50% replacements (unless you get REALLY lucky). The only thing that might remain the same are your Platoon commander names and possibly one or two your tank commanders. By the 2nd or 3rd mission probably no commanders will be the same. It makes no real sense to have these campaigns if you aren't going to get anything out of them that you could get through playing standalone games or operations.

The only problem with this idea, is, that not everyone 'killed' is dead. Most are actually just wounded. So, we would then have to have sprites of guys crawling or hobbling back to the rear, and then someone will want to be able to target these guys, and then capture them and so on... The only reason that dead bodies are included is to mark off where squads/crews were destroyed, so you can see their 'kill-history'. Frankly, with all of these extra dead bodies around, that would totally wreck this idea, as, you will have so many things to click on you won't be able to keep track of where one unit died when compared to another! Then comes the step of gore. Whats next? Flying bodies, bits of troops scattered around, men running on fire and bodies scattered everywhere and CM2 will have to have a violence warning! All those 15 year olds who play CM1 will not be able to by CM2. Won't anyone think of the children!?!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guru: I would hope that the people on this board would stop the stereotyping of people who are "twitch-game junkies". I personally love both strategy wargames as well as many first person shooters, whether the game requires reflex and coordination or not. Perhaps I'm just growing tired of people who enjoy one genre of gaming being condescending towards a different style of gaming which doesn't toot their horn. I sort of understand the way it is meant in this thread, but please in the future can people be a little more considerate in their stereotyping? Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry man, I guess I shouldn't have badmouthed Wolfenstein 3D like that. My bad!

Rob/1 did start it, but, Maximus could have just ignored the bugger. Where's the Principal when you need him?

Actually, one of the problems about French Armour wasn't dispersal, but, over concentration. They had just as many all armour formations as the Germans (4 Armoured Divisions, and 3 Light Mechanized Divisions, actually Heavy Tank Divisions). The problem was, that the French grouped their armour into too large formations without significant Infantry support. Their Armoured Divisions had maybe a battalion of accompanying infantry. Their Mechanized Divisions were much better, around a brigade of Infantry. Most of their armour never engaged the German armour, as, it was concentrated in Belgium, outflanked and defeated without fighting. Lack of Radios were a severe handicap, but, in the few Tank vs. Tank battles, the French and British proved themselves able to fight 1 on 1 with their German counterparts. Allied tanks, on the whole for 1940 were better, but, had less future for upgrading as the German tanks (ie. their turrets were too small, or mass construction too difficult). Reliability was just about the same, but, more French tanks were lost because of unreliability because they were retreating. The Germans could recover all of their broken down vehicles.

You can get away with it with the trees, but, sprites for troops would be like going back and playing Wolfenstien 3D!

I do sort of understand where you are coming from. Jumping into CM from PzGeneral or SP is a big step. However, asking Steve and Charles to sacrifice reality purely for fun, would be like asking one Degas to paint a bunch of Dogs playing Pool, or a portait of Elvis. He might sell more copies, but, he has sacrificed his integrity.

Thats what operations are for...

I seem to remember that China did eventually become Communist, and did ally with Russia in 1949, even with the bomb... But, due to cultural and historical differences, they could not remain as allies. I sort of don't understand how the use of the atomic bomb coincides with curbing the spread of Communism in South East Asia... I am sure that most people didn't know of the effects of the bomb, I am sure most people today don't know the full effects. However, they were fully aware at the awesome potential for destruction, and knew that virtually nothing could survive its impact. They knew it was big, thats why they dropped it then demanded Japan's surrender. You may have to do something that is the right choice for that certain event, but, that does not make it morally right. There is a difference. Do I believe that Truman is evil for proposing to drop the bomb? No, he heard of a weapon, and decided to use it. But, do I think was it morally right? No, because nothing in war is morally right, unless it is something like refusing to do something extremely morally wrong (ie. killing POW's).

Who is qualified? Can we not judge anyone in the past just because we haven't walked in their shoes? We feel free to judge the Japanese, and the Germans, even though they were under the same stress to make these important choices. We can't just sit back and look throughout history and accept the actions of everyone based on the fact that we weren't there or we weren't them. We deserve the right to second guess, to question, and when we don't we just blindly follow, agree and become ignorant. Asking questions and second guessing doesn't hurt, especially after 60 years. Everything else I am flexible on, I don't think that dropping the bomb SHOULD NEVER have happened, I just don't believe that it is a morally correct choice. Do I lose sleep knowing that atomic bombs have been used and are still around? No. I just don't see any way to morally justify. They were militarily justified, but not morally. Possibly the US, Britain and Canada never had the intent of a genocide, but, it is at least an unintended one.

Civilians got off pretty lightly in the American Civil War. Rarely were civilians rounded up and shot. Property was targetted over people. There were bruital massacres in human history with entire cities sacked and cultures destroyed. I don't deny this. But it is not a valid moral excuse to explain warfare today. Military targets for nuclear weapons range from Armoured Divisions to Ball bering factories. The definition of a military target has changed over time to include civilian production (which can, in the case of war, be changed to a military purpose). If we deem it illegal for a military force to shoot civilians, then why do we deem it OK to intentionally bomb them? Why have laws in war at all? You are definitely correct about why Germany and Japan did not use chemical weapons against the Allies. We won't ever know if England would have used anthrax or not, so, our points here are really speculative. Did the war end because of the bomb, or, was the bomb used at the end of the war? We will never know that for 100% sure either. So we can't say for sure that it ended the war. I accept it as another unfortunate incident of a horrible war, however, I don't believe that just because we did it to end the war, that it is morally acceptible. I do believe that we do retain the right to question any difficult choice in history. This is what historians. If we stop questioning history, we stop questioning everything. Genocide / the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation. Are 100 000+ deaths in one afternoon considered to be a mass extermination?

Jumping to the end of the discussion, so, I am not sure wether this has been stated yet. You can't just look upon the M4 and the Panther (or tiger, whatever) and feel free for an equal comparison to take place. It is like comparing in 1940 the Panzerkamphwagen II vs. the Matilda II. To understand where the Allies were and the Germans were on the western front in 1944 you have to take a look at the history of armoured warfare during WWII. In 1939, the Germans had sub-standard, poor quality tanks. They were mostly of ill armed and ill armoured Pz I and II tanks. These were supplemented by some new designs (Pz III and IV, whose early marks were of poor quality as well). They were supplimented by attaining a variety of Czech tanks. All that they encountered as an armoured force in 1939 were Polish 7TP (?) tanks. These were, on average, better than the German light tanks (Pz 35, Pz I and Pz II). The III, IV and 38 tanks were just as good as the 7TP. Luckilly for the Germans, the Polish only had around 150-200 modern AFV's. France 1940. German tanks either met their equals (British Cruiser Sieries, French Samoua 35) or met their masters (Matilda II, Char B1 bis). The Allied light tanks were also better than their German counterparts. The Renault and Hotchkiss tanks were better than their German counterparts (their guns = the calibur of German Medium tanks). The British Mk VI, was probably about the equal of the Pz II, and definitely the superior to the Pz I. The main problem about French tanks was their poor turret layout (the main reason for the Germans not just producing French tanks after 1940!). The British Matilda II's were captured in too few numbers, and were too complicated to be copied. The reason for German success was tactics over equipment, plus the Allies didn't field their heavy tanks in large numbers. By 1941, the Germans had met little in resistance of enemy tanks, primarily due to numbers and deployment. HOWEVER, in response to meeting the Allied heavy tanks (Matilda II, Char B1 bis) they started designing the Tiger. When they went into Russia, they yet again were met with superior AFV's. Russian medium and light tanks weren't very good (compared to their western counterparts) but they were better than the German's light tanks, and the Russian medium and heavy tanks were infinitely better than any German, or even Allied tank of that time. The Allies had only the Panzer I, II, III and IV to fight, which their present tanks could defeat in battle. So, in response to meeting heavy tanks, in large numbers in Russia Germany set about a way to counter them. This was in 1941. The Allies didn't encounter the Tiger tank until late 1943. The Sherman tank was put into production in 1942. At that time it was as good, if not better than any German tank on the field (around the same time as the introduction of the Panzer IVF2?). So, the Allies, unlike the Germans, didn't encounter any armour they couldn't defeat, or had any trouble in defeating until 1943. It took the Germans 2 years from first meeting heavy Soviet armour in large numbers to get their own out in the field. It took the allies less than 2 years from first meeting heavy German armour in large numbers to get their own out in the field. Necessity is the mother of all invention. The Allies didn't need a replacement of the Sherman until they met Tigers in late 1943. The Germans had to have a replacement for their Panzer III and IV tanks as early as 1941. You will notice that throughout military history, that when one side creates a weapon, the other creates something to counter it, and so on. In 1944, the Allies were at the point where they met something 'new' and had to counter it. This is why Allied armour was 'sub-par' to German armour in 1944.

I am not out to offend, nor have been offended either. Just stating opinions. One of my opinions is, that civilians should be left out of war. Wars are usually initiated by politicians. Wars are usually fought by soldiers (volunteers or conscripts, but in uniform). Women, children, and non-combattants aren't directly taking part in these wars (unless they are partisans). For over 200 years, since the Napoleonic wars to the end of WWI Civilians were not seen as a direct target to win wars. Only until WWII were civilians targetted again. There IS a difference between these weapons and conventional weapons, as, their only realistic use is to kill civilians. Atomic weapons are virtually useless on the battlefield, so are heavy bombers (as was seen in Normandy). They are genocide weapons, little better than gas chambers. Frankly, I would be rather upset knowing that my military was wasting lives and resources to destroy unimportant enemy resources (ie. unimportant to winning the war). Bombing Dresden did nothing to further the Allied victory, just like bombing London did nothing for Germany. When France fell in 1940, or when Germany and Japan fell in 1945, they could very well have used poision gas in their V-2 rockets, or submarines, or on the battlefield, but, they chose not to. You CAN make the choice to use these weapons of indiscriminate and mass destruction. What truely saddens me, is the knowledge that Britain was fully prepared to use Anthrax on German troops if they managed to land on British soil. Not only would it unleash the most deadly genetic warfare device into the environment, but, would probably have killed more Britains than Germans. We were the 'good' guys. We shouldn't be the ones droping atomic weapons, or preparing to use genetic warfare. Those were something that the enemy did, at least in all those propaganda films. If we are no longer questioning the way can win the war, do we have the moral justification for winning it?

One piece of footage that struck me as odd, was in Midway (during the Japanese raid on the island) you see the top of a US Battleship cage-tower getting nailed by a bomb or something and an explosion on it. The one thing that I cannot get over, is, the use of incorrect footage. TBD's were seen as SBD's (using the same footage, over, and over, and over...). SBD's and TBD's were seen as F6F Hellcats!! Carriers were seen as modern USN carriers, etc... By that era, the creation of model vessels to represent actual ships was fairly competent. There were many other movies, made even earlier that had more realistic ship scenes. Also, Midway seemed to be more of an appology for having the US lose at Pearl Harbor. It seemed slapped quickly slapped together. I really liked 'Tora, Tora, Tora' because it spent a lot of time on little details. Midway just seemed rushed. Although it did take into account some issues (ie. Japanese civilian internments, the little discussion at the end of the movie on why the Japanese lost, etc..).

I believe that dropping the Atomic Bomb does not compare to bombing the heck out of Iraqui soldiers. The Atomic Bomb was dropped on a Civilian target, and the targets chosen were done so to maximize civilian casualties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively untouched in the conventional bombing campaign, and refugees from other Cities went there in droves. Dropping the Atomic bomb on these cities have just about as much wroth to ending the war as did bombing Guernica in the Spanish Civil War. The bombs themselves probably did not end the war, as, conventional bombing was more devestating, and Japan showed no visible signs of cracking under that pressure. The USAAC B-29's could fly at such a high altitude that they were out of range from both the Japanese AA and fighter cover, so, losses were very low. They could have conventionally bombed Japan and done more damage without suffering as many casualties. HOWEVER, through the bombing of England, Germany and of the Shelling of Leningrad, it was long proved that bombing alone (of any sort, be it conventional bombers, Atomic weapons or V-2 Rockets) served only to solidify the resolve of the population. The exact reasons for Japan's surrender are hazy, but, most accounts do not support that the Atomic weapons were primary in Japan's surrender. Their merchant fleet was destroyed, leaving their population on the verge of starvation, their cities were leveled and their armies virtually weaponless. The use of atomic weapons, and the immediate destruction they created phaled in comarison to the destruction already experienced. The only thing it did, was to make America the first, and only nation ever to drop a weapon of mass destruction on a civilian population. I have never agreed in the use of any weapon on hand should be used in order to defeat your enemy. Invariably, this use of Strategically bombing civilians, poison gas, rocket bombs, etc. only serves to piss off your enemy and make their resolve tougher, or resentment after the war long lasting. When the Germans used poison gas in WWI, the Allies were soon quick to follow, and war just became more hellish. Also, there were plans to drop the bomb on Germany if they were still in the war when they were developed. HOWEVER, there are many more complications of dropping it in Europe over dropping it in Asia. Many allied nations and armies were located VERY near where they were dropping it, and had they miscalculated the actual effect this thing could have, they might cause the deaths of many of theirs and allied soldiers as well as enemy.

I think that the impression of 'liking' to kill either a German or a Japanese continued on into combat. One thing that I noticed through a lot of photographs was the mutilation of Japanese corpses where this did not occur with German dead. Also, German war dead rarely were seen in American pictures, while Japanese dead were routinely photographed. Many pictures show US troops standing over a dead Japanese, looking kind of like hunters with a trophy. Not to say that all Allied solders fighting the Japanese were treating them solely like animals, but, it is easier to look upon a dead German and 'see' an American dressed in German clothes than it is to look upon a dead Japanese. So they could relate more to the German dead, so, they treated them more tactifully. In a firefight I don't think that there is any sort of 'like' or 'dislike' of killing one's enemy. It would probably usually come down to instinct and training taking over, and you rarely ever were face to face with your enemy, or there long enought to contemplate wether or not you will 'like' to kill them or not. The best way to judge any of this racial hatred would probably be through pre-battle and post-battle accounts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JediJobu: Now if an MG or a mortar, and maybe even a AFV is abandonned, would there be a chance for capture for bonus points or even use against the abandonned crew. there's not much to known how to use a .50, feed the ammo and pull the trigger... now there's a consideration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It didn't take much to wreck a gun or spike a mortor. Put a mortor shell in backwards, or, throw away the HMG's barrel, and you have a useless weapon.

Yes, the US did execute at least one soldier in WWII, I think for desertion under fire. I saw a Historic-Movie, starring Martin Sheen about this a few years ago (it was fairly old, pre-Apocalypse Now). It was based on historic fact. I can't say wether or not any other US soldier was executed. I think that this one was solely based on sending a message to the rest of the troops, other than enforcing a strict code of military operation. It reminds me of that other movie, done by the same director as "Dr. Strangelove" about the French army in WWI.

I think it can be warranted by the 'extreme' event of the disabled and unarmed sherman sitting there waiting to get killed, but, does this lone and probably rare situation come about all that often? A wize commander will also ensure that their slow support weaponry aren't in positions where they can be overrun easily, or totally without Infantry support. Place a few Squads with your support guys, and they will take care of anything that springs up. Also, withdraw your support weaponry if you see a major attack developing close to that area. They are only good at long ranges anyway. Abandoning weaponry wasn't looked to kindly upon in any army. Unless it was a total rout (ie. Falise) commanders will ensure that their heavy weaponry is brought back in a retreat, as, it could be immediately usefull in a counter attack or as a rearguard. Just watch any reasonabley historic movie, and you will see the HMG weapons being withdrawn slightly before the infantry force moves out. Even the "Green Beret's" with John Wayne got this right. Althought they did abandon and spike the mortors. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-14-2000).]

It seems like we had this discussion before. It seems like this disscussion was locked before. Just leave the CM board to CM stuff and play your anti-PC rhetoric somewhere else. Does anyone else think that a moderator will post... "I am going to lock this up for obvious reasons?"

That website makes me want to vomit in terror. One thing that I did notice in my quick skim of the 'history of the "WR"' (all in simple to read big letters), is, the big gap of anything happening in the world from 100 A.D. to 1000 A.D. Now, I am pretty sure that SOMETHING happened in that era... Gee, what could it be... Could it be the technoligical, architectual, cultural and religious developments of China? What about the religious and cultural developments in the Muslim Middle East? What about the fact that our present day alphabet, used to create that website, is from Arabia? Just because us Europeans were sitting in hovels harvesting filth for 1000 years doesn't mean that the rest of the world was... Just about every point that I bothered to read there was a pack of total lies. In fact, they took the complete reverse of virtually every historical event. It is amazing what unemployment, a few cases of beer and a lot of brain damage can produce.

The only problem people could have, is, that the SS guy does not look to be Waffen SS. Either he is in dress detail on home leave, or, he is an SS camp guard (nobody in their right mind would wear that red/white arm patch in combat! No matter what their devotion!) Other than the SS guy, I would have to say that everything else there is totally potential problem free.

Never mind... Looks great for your first mod!! [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-13-2000).]

I would like to see a Pacific War theatre, but, perfer Euopean theatre stuff. More mixed formation battles (very few tank battles in the Pacific, barring some engagements on the Philippines in 1942, Japan vs Russia 1940's and 1945, a few sporatic encounters whent the US invaded some Islands [7 Japanese tanks vs 8 US tanks on Tarawa!]). Usually, Pacific battles were very one sided. There are some exceptions (8th Australian Division vs 2nd Imperial Guards Division in Malaya, 26th US Cavalry vs 48th IJA Division in the Philippines, 7th Australian Division vs South Seas Detachment in New Guinea, Imphal 1944, Leyte 1944, Guadalcanal 1942-1943) The battle for Manila was pretty intense, but, very one sided. 100 000 Philippino Civilians died, due to Japanese executions and American Artillery. There were some horrific battles, but not to the scale of Stalingrad (maybe 20 000 poorly trained IJN survivors from sunken ships vs 2 professional US Divisions). Regarding the racist slang and anti-political correctedness. I tend to notice from those who profess 'down with political correctness' are individuals who aren't really affected by it. Most of you are probably straight white males (get the irony?), who, like on the Dennis Leary song, could care less about equalizing the world and ensuring that everyone is treated equally, since, being straight, white and male you have a distinct advantage over everyone. It is up to the Japanese wether or not 'Jap' is derogatory, it is up to the Hispanic wether or not 'Spic' is derogatory. It isn't up to us.