Major Tom

I guess it will be up to someone else to padlock this one, eh? Should have renamed the title to... Election Day(s) Special At CMHQ!!!! It is really too bad if Bush gets in, because his horrid past on environmental issues (in Texas) transferred to the Presidential scale will have a lot of effect up here in Canada. Plus, Republican's see us Canadians as Communists and try to make things difficult on us. (like not let us trade with Cuba and stuff) At least Bush isn't of the same calibur of scarity as the Canadian Alliance candidate Stockwell Day! I would really liked to have seen a 21st Century introduced by a Nader US Presidency. Either that or Martin Sheen.

While playing against Goanna in Reisberg (Back in the day) I managed to knock out his two 88mm's with 3 60mm Mortors on the reverse slope of the large hill to the right of the town (looking out of it). He was trying to get me with his 88's, but, I was in such a position that any direct fire would impact on the hill, while my mortors could lob shells with impunity. There was very little cover on this hill as well. Although, if he did have his 81mm mortors nearby I would have been in a lot of trouble. High ground is KEY. Especially if you are in a deeply wooded area. Place your troops defending high peaks, and your enemy will have a tough time cracking this defence.

Sorry, didn't see what he put as his e-mail address. You do have a right to be miffed at R-S, but, not Madmatt or Slappy-D.

Lewis, RacistsSuck posted... "I think this kind of rascist **** should be punished quickly and severely." I don't see anything about shooting, just punished like 'a warning', 'banning' etc... Maybe you received an e-mail from him directly with something to do with shooting, but, WE haven't seen any of it. What Madmatt basically stated, he disagrees with the 'means' but likes the 'ends'. If you can't understand this then I suggest you go and take some basic English classes. Anyway, what you posted about your friends father was totally uncalled for. You posted in a hostile, rude, and unprofessional manner. There was no reason to post this jerk's opinions on black people. You can't qualify what he says to be the truth, but, you post like it is. Madmatt was also very kind to you. He reprimanded EVERYONE for their dumb-doings, not just yours. Frankly, I think your remarks to Slapdragon were very childish, rude and pathetic. He was VERY kind to you in these posts and you just respond in a tone like a 6 year old. Racistsuck's actions are uncalled for and extreme as well and Madmatt stated that it WON'T be tolerated. No matter what the cause. What more do you want?

Again, the argument SHOULDN'T be wether or not the Rumanians, Italians, Hungarians ACTUALLY PLAYED AN IMPORTANT PART. The question should be, are they important enough on the SMALL SCALE to warrant representation. They didn't take part in any notable offensive action, in fact, I can't think of one action! At Stalingrad they only took positions formerly held by German troops, when attacked they immediately crumbled wherever they were stationed. Occassionally in 1941 the Russians held. The weak German Axis forces never held on a CM level scale battle. It isn't worth all that effort to produce battles with forgone conclusions.

Damn daylight savings time! Lousy farmers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: As usual, my disclaimer about being a neophyte when it comes to the Eastern Front, but I thought there was a very well regarded Italian army that fought the Russians to a stand still? Was this not the case? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was the Italian 8th Army. It was well equipped, and fairly well trained, but, Italy had absolutely no reason to send troops to Russia. Historically, I doubt that Italy and Russia had ever previously, or afterward had any major dealings with one another. Their economic, political and military goals were not at all affected by one another, and only fought eachother through chance (Italy's alliance with Germany). Italian Armed forces could barely fight off British equipment, let alone Russian equipment! Their weapons were the bottom of the barrel when compared to Russia and Germany, but, when compared with the rest of the Italian army they were well equipped. There was absolutely no motivation for the Italians to fight the Russians, unlike the Germans, Finn's, and even the Rumanians and Hungarians. The 8th Army was virtually destroyed in the last part of the Stalingrad operation.

I would have to say that a Sherman 75 and a Sherman 76, used correctly should be able to knock out a lone Tiger used correctly. Possibly there is an error in your tactics? There is another post which is harping on (which this one spawned from!) the relative weakness of German tanks, due primarily to poor tactics by the German tanker. Not every tank engagement had the Germans massively outnumbered by Shermans and they were all swatted away like flied. There are many accounts of good German tanks getting lost in large numbers to just Allied Infantry supported by only a few tanks! You still aren't listening to the other factors involved. The Shermans can hold more ammo, their turret rotation is faster than German tanks, their reload time is quicker, and their 75mm gun is better for killing infantry. Should we just ignore this on the sole fact that it can't go 1 on 1 against a Tiger? Then we will have German commanders complaining about the inability of the Tiger tank to kill of infantry when compared to the cheap cost of the Sherman tank and demand that their tanks be cheaper... My point was, it isn't just about tank vs. tank. These AFV's have other jobs as well, and you can't ignore these strength's and weaknesses just because they don't immediately apply to a tank vs. tank shoot out. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 11-02-2000).]

You can't rate a tank's power solely on its abity to kill another tank in a flat, head on head duel. There are other factors, as Steve pointed out, like tank speed, off road capability (ie. chance of getting bogged), turret rotation and ammo reload times, Infantry killing power (the Sherman was better than a Tiger for this!). Possibly using intelligent tactics one could kill off a Konigtiger with three Shermans pretty easily, virtually guaranteeing 2 surviving Tanks. Now, the Price of the Konigtiger should NOT equal the 3 tanks, as, the 3 tanks were proven to be vastly superior (using competent tactics). I don't see anything wrong with the way that German and Allied tanks are priced, I do see something wrong in the typical tactical use of them. Remember, there aren't JUST tanks on a battlefield. You don't always have to kill a tank with a tank, use Infantry occasionally (I find they are easier to use vs. a tank, and the risk of loss is much less). Tanks were originally designed as Infantry support vehicles, it is innane to think that the sole purpose of these AFV's are to kill other AFV's. Regarding the rarity issue. It could be possible for a 1945 game to allow the Germans to use 4 or more Tiger tanks in a specific Quick Battle (Designed Scenario's should be totally free from the rarity issue). It should be random, to a certian point. You shouldn't always be guaranteed a specific number avalible, or not avalible on a certain date. Possibly the battle was in a place where there happened to be a lot of Tiger tanks.

I don't think that the argument should be were the Italians, Rumanians and Hungarians important for the German cause. It SHOULD be, could the Italians, Rumanians and Hungarians be fairly modeled in a CM style game. The answer is no. Usually they were TOTALLY outclassed by the Russians, even in 1941. You might say that the Russians were totally outclassed by the Germans in 1941-42, but, at least they had some good weapons and sometimes put up strong resistance! Imagine fighting as the Russians using equipment the Germans wouldn't use in 1941! Modeling a Rumanian battalion in action against Russian forces would be a forgone conclusion. They rarely lasted. The German Allies rarely had any tanks, and it would be constantly battling with poorly equipped Conscript troops. This is primarily due to training and equipment, which the Rumanains, Hungarians and Italians had none of. The Finn's on the other hand, may have been short on equipment, but, would be considered an extremely powerful enemy, due to their high experience. There are many notable small and large scale battles with the Finn's winning, but, I can't think of a single one won by Rumanian, Hungarian or Italian troops. They were rarely used in an attack function, and were only put in the front lines when German troops weren't availible for defensive duties.

Sorry to harp on the 'rarity' aspect, but, I think that there is a better way to model rarity than just upping the price. What this invariably does, is, reduce the number of other items in the formation, rather than reducing the use of that particular vehicle. If someone really likes the Tiger, and sees its usefullness they will always buy it, even though it might not be economical. A better way in measuring rarity, would be to restrict the actual choice or number of vehicles allowed on the field. Possibly you can only have a maximum of 1 Tiger on the field for a particular game, with another one at the same time and same place (another game though) not allowing you any Tigers. This would be sort of like creating a random QB with the AI selecting your forces, however, you do get to choose your force, but, certain restrictions exist regarding the avalibility of rare units. As Steve said, pricing is all about the quality of the vehicle/unit. Upping the price of a unit in contrast to its quality will only serve to mess with the fairness of the game. Instead of making the vehicle rare to buy, what happens is their force is proportionately weaker due to the purchase of this specific unit.

Actually, the Philippine Division, which was actually a US Army division (Also known as the 12th Division?) surrendered at Bataan in 1942. The most US Soldiers surrendered in one engagement was either after Bataan, or after Corregidor.

Actually, in a game against Germanboy I was dismayed to discover TWO well placed minefields. He didn't have enough men to cover every defensive position, so, he placed two AP minefields in positions best suited for supporting an advance. One of my platoons was ravaged by a minefield in a small patch of woods I deemed pivitol for capturing his main stronghold. Unfortunately I lost a PIAT group, and around 3-4 infantry. He also positioned a minefield up on the peak of a hill, where I lost 2 more guys. Minefields AREN'T supposed to wipe out entire formations, but, what losses they do contribute are sufficient enough to warrant their use. Placing them in key positions can sway the outcome of the game (I did eventually win, but, after LOADS of casualties and having to drastically change my plan by not being able to utilize these mined positions).

I am a big Star Wars fan, saw Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi when they were first released (albiet I was just a little preschooler at the time!) and I can rightfully say that I detested Star Wars Episode I. When I saw it, I had the same feelings I had when I saw Thin Red Line 'When is it going to get back to the cool shooting'. Other than the lightsaber fight at the end, I cared for absolutely nothing else. The characters were hollow and uninteresting. They were totally one sided and lacking of any sort of personality. I didn't care when that one Jedi died, and wouldn't have cared if Obi-wan died. Star Wars IV (the first one) was great because it spent most of the story on character development. Lucas screwed up by trying to diversify Star Wars I too much. He tried to make it appeal to the Disney Crowd as well as the Army of Darkness Crowd. He succeeded for the first part, but lost out in his second. He knows that the feedback from fans is generally negative, and supposedly he has taken this into account for the next movie. Jar-head will be supposedly less annoying (I am actually curious at the fact that screams of racism weren't brought up, with the stupid aliens being based off of Jamaicans). What was the point of C3P0 or R2D2?!?! It was totally unecessary to add them, and they were only included to say to hardcore Star Wars fans 'hey look! something from the good movies! so this one must be good because they are here!' We can criticise something if it totally spits in the face of presidence. Return of the Jedi had the Ewoks, but, it made up for it through constant action, and characters you generally cared for. Ignoring this for the sake of 'its star wars, so it gots to be good' is allowing it to slip into an abyss of crappiness. Read a Timothy Zahn (or Zhan?) book, these are probably the best renditions of post Star Wars literature ever produced, possibly even better than the original movies. I'm a big Star Trek fan as well, and I can rightfully say that movies, I, III, V, VII, and IX were total crap.

Regarding the 1940 French aspect, the reason that they were harder to rally was purely due to a certain situation, that being, their lines were broken by the German spearhead. Without this factor the French forces in 1940 would have been easier to rally. It wasn't there to begin with. This is just what happened to the Germans after the breakout of Normandy. Most German units caught by the Allies were too disorganized to resist. Is this a national feature? No, but a situational feature. Stick any nation in the strategic position of France in 1940, and Germany in late 1944 and you will get generally the same result. I stated this point around 5 times now, and you seem not to notice it. BUT, the problem with instituting these national factors into the game, as hard-coded, is that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to sway from this. You wouldn't be givent the choice to make an SS unit fanatical or not. The question you SHOULD be asking, is, is it possible to create units to follow the standards deemed. And the answer is YES. You can make a German unit more flexible by making their HQ's experience greater (thereby they get more 'command' bonus'). Logic states, that a more experienced/trained HQ will be better able to control their troops in battle. You can have an official doctrine in place, but, if the troops aren't trained in it, or, are smart enough to use it, then it is pointless. You can make a worn out and useless veteran unit by placing its readiness at exhausted (most units at low morale were usually physically exhausted by over extension).

I don't know why, but, I think I am siding with Maximus on this one. There was some difference between the Allied (not just American!) and the Iraqi troops encountered on the Frontier. The Iraqi were not only Conscript troops equipped with old stuff, but, had to endure constant bombardment before even seeing their enemy. However, this can be represented by CM, through starting off the troops at an exhausted level of rest, and to make them 'shaken' (this can be done, right?). That will make them resist at the same level they did historically. So, it IS represented in the game, it just isn't universally imposed. Regarding his pro-Americanism, just take a look at all the smileys. I am pretty sure this time he is joking around with the rest of us, eh? What Dupuy has done, was take a lot of small engagements, figure out their results, combine them together to see a 'national' result, and then tries to miniturize these large results in order to work for every small result. You can't work this way, since, every small action has many independent factors from another small action. These factors are included in the after action reports and blended into his general conclusion for a nation's behaviour. However, these independent factors (such as weather, level of rest, enemy powerfullness, level of surprise etc.) really mean nothing when you are trying to figure out one nation's ability against another's. You CAN'T take a general (and a statistic like 1.3 for Germany, 1.0 for Allies, etc. IS GENERAL) and make it a universal. German's weren't always 1.3 better than the Allies, sometimes they were 1.5, or 0.5 in certain engagements. When you average(d) out the grade you recieved on all of your school tests, and it was 80%, you didn't get 80% in everything. Some things you got 90%, and others only 70%, possibly you never got an 80% in your life? But, your average is 80%... Kill ratio's do not determine the ability of one nation's troops over another. The Allies had GREAT kill ratio's against the Germans in the Western Front campaign of 1944, yet, you still claim that they are 0.3-0.1 better than the Allies. The problem with your argument, is, that what you are demanding IS included in the game already. You can make one side weaker or stronger by fiddling with experience, rest, supply, platoon HQ bonus', etc. The only difference is, that we aren't FORCED to use them for every scenario.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Also read about my new toy! NO! This one doesn't blow up with air...Sicko <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is it one of those gel filled ones, for better life like sentitivity?

Actually, the Japanese had poor organization, and were usually outnumbered. It would be kind of neat for the British to suddenly break on turn 10, sit down and have tea. Americans stumbling around because of massive hangovers and VD infections during their last leave. The Germans will stop fighting the Allies and go around to each house, root out some civilians and shoot them. The French will just surrender before the game even starts. The Canadians will wander around, baffled at the lack of snow in July. Leaving the Poles to do all of the work.

Don't you mean he's a Canadian stuck in Canada? (Extra Smiley to trump regular smiley for the extreme humourless)

Your argument against using other factors, such as exhaustion isn't a very strong one. Ever try to get a unit rested up from EXHAUSTED? It takes a LONG time. Remember, the average CM game is only around 30 minutes, so, the few minutes spent resting your troops will be CRITICAL. You seem not to be able to register the fact that the national modifiers do not always apply. There were some BLATANT examples contrary to the popular assumption. Having universal national modifiers WILL NOT ALLOW for any 'exceptions' to occur, since, there will be these odds of fanaticism ALWAYS ingraned within the unit. You really didn't read the post about the comparison of the 12th SS and the 89th Division, did you? He stated that it is impossible to accurately tell the quality of a unit in regards to general facts about its performance. You have to take into account what it was up against. I read up on the 12th SS Division's encounters with the 3rd Canadian Division, and much of the success of the 12th Division was due to the fact that the 3rd Division was without adequate artillery and air-cover. Plus, the 12th Division was fairly tactically incompetent, sending Panzers without infantry support, and vice versa. Sure, they were genrally fanatical (25%) but their success was also due to the fact that the 3rd Canadian Division was unprepared to take on a strong defensive position. From what I understand, the 89th Division was caught moving into position, and by the full weight of around a Corps worth of Artillery. Put the 12th SS in that position, and we might be debating about the relative crappiness of the Waffen SS right now. In regards to such things at fanaticism with with the Japanese (this doesn't REALLY matter since there is no CM Pacific War planned). He said that the Japanese should be able to get up to a MAXIMUM of 75% or so of the units getting fanaticism. This doesn't mean that EVERY TIME you see the Japanese 75% of them will be fanatics. It just allows you the choice to make them so. The problem with your argument toward national averages, is, if we find repeated examples of this average not occuring, then it is impossible to implement as a blind policy. We have found repeated examples that not every soldier or unit from one nation will behave the same way in every situation following certain criteria. The way that BTS created the scenario editor, was, to just have the ORDER OF BATTLE an entire separate entity from EXPERIENCE or QUALITY. You could have a mixed unit of Veteran, Fanatic Volksgrenadiers, and Green Waffen SS if the situation called for it. To implement a general national qualitative factor for EVERY unit will only serve to seriously limit the qualtity of gameplay, and be a detriment to historical accuracy.

The problem is, you can find experts to prove just about any theory. The goal of a historian is (we are all historians!) is to get the closest possible to the truth of a matter. We read up on ALL of the history in order to get toward the truth. We ourselves aren't experts, but, like you, we draw on the work of other professionals out there. It is a matter of working out which professional theories are the best related to reality. Plus you add in a segment of your own judgement and awareness of the present world in which you live in now. I used to believe that each nation had such differences, but, as I researched more and more into historical events I came to the conclusion that humans aren't that predictable. It does come down to predictability. Not every person will react the same to a specific doctrine of training or cultural history. Not every unit (ie. SS or Japanese) was able to get to that level of fanaticism. In regards to the Japanese, there were MANY units that broke and fled at the first sign of the enemy (the 65th IJA Brigade in the Philippines was a horrid unit, and many new formations in China and Manchuria broke, fled and surrendered when the Russians finally attacked in 1945). Placing a generic fanaticism level for all of the Japanese would be un-historic. Plus, the very weak nations that you stated should have low morale are only percieved as such through misguided historicism. The French, Polish, Belgian, Dutch, and even Early Russian formations put up some brilliant fights against overwealming enemies. The reason for their general collapse was primarily due to poor strategic planning and individual events, rather than the general quality of ALL of the troops. Generalizing an entire nation based off of individual actions is not very accurate. You have to take EACH action, on a case basis to determine the quality of the troops engaged. PS. Don't take Germanboy's personal comments too serious. He's a German stuck in England. That situation would bound to cause anyone to have a short fuse

But there is a fanaticism factor incorporated in the game. For proof and how it works... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000693.html I would suggest everyone check out this post, as it pretty much covers everything that has already been said. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000556.html The same arguments that National variations are too general were posted multiple times here. The argument for National morale variations was effectively deemed impracticle and virtually impossible to fairly emulate. The ability to reproduce the state of mind of troops, and their ability is already in the game. Its aspect can be changed and modified by the Scenario Designer, and is not hard coded. The problem about hard coding things like this, is, that a Scenario designer is restrained from doing anything other than the average, when we all know full well that the average rarely ever occurred.

Personally, I don't see where the pro-nationality morale people are coming from. I see NO historical evidence to prove Dupuy and the others correct. If you want to make French/Russian/German/Etc. troops that surrender quickly, make them Conscript, and/or make their exhaustion rate very high. I can cite MANY examples in the 1940 invasion of France where French troops held off superior forces. Even within the 9th Army, I think that the 51st French Division (one made up entirely of reservists) held off the German spearhead in the Ardennes until attacked by the full weight of a Panzer Korps. Most of the French POW's occurred at Dunkirk (where they surrendered only AFTER they ran out of supplies, amunition, and territory to defend), Lille (just like at Dunkirk, when everything ran out). The large number of POW's were usually picked up when units ON THE MOVE were over-run by German Mechanized units (ie. caught off guard). In virtually EVERY straight up battle between the French and Germans they BOTH fought with furosity. The determination that the French will surrender in droves, or were more likely to surrender in a CM Battle scale game is WRONG. IF you feel it is neccessary to represent a particularly poor units behavior in a battle, just lower their experience down to the bare minimum, and/or make their exhaustion rate very low. RARELY did ever a Veteran/Elite/Regular unit surrender when they weren't unsupplied or exhausted. They surrendered when their supply level was very low, and they did not have the physical energy to continue fighting. But don't make it so that a force will be CONTINUALLY handicapped, that is extremely unrealistic. Most of the German troops in Normandy were captured in the Pincer movement at Falise, or on the run to the German frontier after the Normandy breakout. You negate the fact that most POW's are usually gained when one force is quickly moving in an advance, and another force is retreating. Stragglers in convoy are virtually impossible to get organized into an effective defensive force. When over-run they capitulate. CM doesn't represent this part of War, just the battles that take place. The power of Generals to command usually only affects the ability of formations Division size and higher. Battalions, and KG's usually have some freedom from a generally disasterous plan. You create your own tactical plan in order to take a specific objective. It doesn't matter what Monty's big plan is, all that matters is your small part of it. Lowering troop ability in a Tactical game, because of a larger, invisible and non-existant Strategic game is not neccessary. Brucer, I mean nothing at all like what you propose. If you want a French unit to be relatively weak, just make it Conscript and exhausted (like I said earlier). This will result in their general ability to sustain conflict lower than that of a regular unit that is well rested. Proposing that there should be national morale rates during dates would be like limiting an entire force to use a certain experience type of troop on a certain date. What if a Scenario designer wants to represent an event where the Germans held out to the last man in a 1945 battle? (which DID happen a lot) This would be virtually impossible if their general morale level was lowered to a point where they were more likely to surrender than fight (no matter their experience or level of rest and supply). LEAVE IT UP TO THE SCENARIO DESIGNER to determine what the strengths and weaknesses of certain troops are. You can't measure everything by numbers and theories.

I am pretty interested in what Steve and/or Charles might have to add to this. I pretty much think that experience and morale cover all the aspects about a unit's ability to sustain itself under fire. Not every unit surrendered when it was deemed to be 'hopeless'. The problem with these national morale things is that they tend to over generalize. It is a historical myth that the French army was weak willed in 1940. The main unit that was pierced and destroyed by the German Blitzkrieg attack was the 9th Army, probably the worst formation in the French army. Its best units put up wonderful fights (most fought better than their German couterparts), or, were nullified by being cut off. So, generalizing all 1940 French morale as shaky would be incorrect. The Italians in Ethiopia but up a brilliantly determined fight. Both the Allies and the Italians experienced heavy casualties in this engagement. Ranking Italians as sub-par in morale would also be historically incorrect. Were the British always very hard to break? What about the easy fall of the 18th Division in Singapore? The collapse of the Gazala Line in 1942? The fall of Tobruk in 1942? Etc... Did every American force stand against all odds? What about the rout at Kasserine Pass? The destruction of the 103rd Division (?) in the Ardennes? Were German formations surrendering en-masse late in the war? What about the dogged defense of Germany (as many Russians were killed in 1944-45 as there were killed in 1941-42). German resistance stiffened the more they were pushed toward their homeland, not the opposite as has been proposed. The reason that the Allies captured so many formations, is, they were totally cut off, without supply and equipment and could offer no resistance at all. Your documentation, or whatever generalities have been put forward will only serve to paint a distorted picture of how the war actually went. Just because ASL, this guy Dupuy, and a bunch of social theorists say some things doesn't make it the total undeniable truth.

Actually I would truely say that there aren't any concrete definitions between nationalities abilities to fight, beyond that of Morale and Experience (already incorporated in BTS). Most of the French troops in 1940 collapsed easily because they were of poor quality (the good quality French forces were outflanked and eliminated not thorugh direct conflict). So, to say that every French formastion should have a tendancy to fall, no matter their experience, is unrealistic. The reason that the Italians faired so poorly is actualy a multipe number of reasons. 1. The relations between the officer and soldiers were non-existant. There was a BIG class difference between the two. Would you fight for a commander who you don't believe in? 2. The number of Italian Divisions outnumbered the amount of modern equipment. in 1941, there was enough modern equipment to fully equip around 20 of the 60 Italian divisions. 3. The Italians in WWII were fighting their historical Allies, and Allied with their historical enemies. Italians are VERY connected to England, and have a close relationship with France. They absolutely hate Germans. To measure a typical Italian formation correctly, you would have to rate them at around Green experience, with very little ub the ways of modern equipment. You will find that battles would be very historical. They shouldn't ALWAYS break in battle, nor should Americans ALWAYS hold like they did at Bastogne. You can't measure factors like this in a game, since, they, like experience and morale, change from engagement to engagement. Having these aspects as fixed occurances will only serve to promote historical myth and propaganda.