Major Tom

The good thing about the way BTS is doing things, is, they can ignore the crazy and irrational demands, and listen to the intelligent and constructive requests. Just because someone says 'it must be in it' doesn't mean that BTS will give any consideration of it. They have stated to have a strict policy of 'if it can't be backed up, its not in'. Plus, they know what their target audience is, they know who bought CM, so, they can determine what computer speeds are required. With all of the ill advised and irrational statements there come about a few good ones, ones that BTS had not thought up before and will implement in the game. However, if we shut down the entire process because we let a bunch of whiners dominate the agenda we lose out on real possible enhancements. This is how things are done, a bunch of crap mingling in with some really good ideas. There is no rule that BTS must deal with irrational demands.

We, as the western nations of the world, are definitely accomplises to the acts of autrocities propegated by our nations. However, no nation is 'innocent'. I think that the rant that many people are on, is that we look at the world through black and white eyes of good and evil. THEY are evil, and WE are good. That is how all nations view their relationship with the rest of the world, which is wrong, and is one of the leading causes to war. We are profitting off of the indecencies of the past, and ignoring our nation's responsibility (even though we weren't alive at the time) is continuing that crime. Every nationality has its dark points, and if we sit back and judge others while refusing to allow ourselves to be judged, then a great inequity of those we have harmed in the past exists. We have come to believe that our nations are incapable of performing evil acts, so, whatever our governments do on the international scene is self warrented by "we can never do anything evil, so, this act, whatever it is, is not evil". This is what creates the Soviet Russia's, Nazi Germany's, Victorian England's, and Imperialist American's. Even if we create some statute of limitations on autrocities, we are currently doing many acts of depravity and oppression, which we aren't being told about, or, are being covered up (ie. US support of fascist regimes in Chilie, Guatemala, pre-Castro Cuba, USSR support of evil regimes of Romania, Poland, UN attack on the population, instead of the military of Iraq, etc...) The victors might write history, but, as individuals it is up to us wether or not we believe or support that history.

Yep, from the David Bowie 1969 hit. No problem, didn't want to insult anyone's beliefs here. PS. I would blame the Democrats for supporting slavery in the 1850's and 1860's over any assumption that political correctness (ie. the process of treating everyone equal and refraining from the use of derogatory symbols and phrases based on religious, racial, gender, or sexual orientation) has 'ruined' morality. Also, the Republicans of the 1850's and 1860's were pretty deplorable as well, they did want freedom for Africans, but, equality was a bit too far for them.

Of course, then you will also get the philosophical theory that humans are also not "evil". People aren't good or evil, actions are. The actions of certain people of the world are evil, yet, they are not in themselves 100% evil, as nobody is capable of comitting only evil acts. Even the most percieved evil human has performed some good acts.

As a Canadian I didn't see anyting wrong with Shadow's sig, in fact, I found it quite appropriate. Canadians are always second guessing and questioning ourselves, why not with our military history, eh? Regarding our current military state, I would say that it doesn't truely matter, as, if we were ever in a state of war I am pretty sure that if we needed anything the US would be more than willing to sell it to us at a good rate (ie. less than they paid to create it). Why should we have a hundred fighter aircraft ready at a moments notice? Why have tanks other than Leopard I's? If we ever get into a situation like WWI or WWII, we could immediately upgrade to American equipment. Unless our enemy was the US...

Lets say that 'Partisans' did work in large numbers in a wide variety of theatres for a long duration or period of war. The next problem that occurs, is, that these partisans will most likely be NOT equipped with Tanks, Trucks, Halftracks, Air and Artillery Support. They would probably be lucky if they had mortors and machine guns. Against them would be a formation either totally suprised (like a German/Finnish HQ unit) or totally superior (like a German/Finnish attack group). I am not sure how battles based on an ambush would work in CM. Since both parties know that the enemy is out there, suprise will be inevitably lost! It would be just a matter for the Axis force to find the Partisan force without blundering on their Ambush. Now, the Polish Home Guard is another story. They were relatively well equipped and organized, plus, city warfare does not require tanks, artillery, etc.. in order to inflict massive casualties in a CM type game.

Actually, I would dissagree about the Old Guard. If you read what happened during Napoleon's return (especially) you will see the Guard more like his personal guard (especially after their defeat at Waterloo). When the army collapsed, the Old Guard surrounded Napoleon to protect him. They were the most 'organized' formation left in his army, and most loyal to the Emperor (ie. only cracked once). Sure, they may have been recruited differently (and more competently), but, their existence was for similar reasons (a force to guarantee the will of the Emperor will be met) and created the same problems that the existence of the Waffen SS did. Instead of draining equipment, the Old Guard drained seasoned officers. Since most of the best and experienced troops were in the Guard, the other formations suffered by poor NCO's. Napoleon and Hilter are similar in their desire for conquest and improving their nation. Napoleon was much more 'enlightened', as he used the carrot over the stick in his occupation policies and never resorted to exterminationist desires. They CAN be compared in some aspects, but, comparison does not mean carbon copy.

How the AH game 'Operation Crusader' handled VP areas, was to give points for each turn that the VP's were held. For example, if the British held Tobruk for 20 turns, and the Germans for 10 turns, the British would get 200 points while the Germans got 100. Even though the Germans held it at the end of the game, the British get more points for holding it longer. This would also aid in the Germans (or whatever) requiring to take and hold the VP's as fast as possible.

The question is, would a battalion sized game based on squads, artillery and armour play partisan warfare very well? These battles will invariably pit squad against squad, with the Germans occasionally having some armour and artillery. Militaraly organized Partisans like in Yugoslavia weren't very prevailant, other than in Warsaw, on the Eastern front. Sure, they were 'organized' but didn't operate in very large formations.

There are no 'national' or 'arms based' qualitative differences between units other than what you choose in the setup (fanatic level/experience). So, a SS squad will = an Army squad, unless you make certain direct changes.

Like many militaries, the Waffen SS was indeed a political representation of an armed force. It was the most loyal and most fiersome formation in the German army during WWII. Much like Napoleon's Imperial Guard, and Hussain's Republican Guard, the Waffen SS was developed as a strong strike force, and bolstering force to keep the regular formations in line.

Of course, it didn't happen much, and only after a long period of refusing Commonwealth aid.

It was a determination of which of the group of British sergeants (from all military arms) would become officers (I think!). They were from all sorts of regiments of all sorts of arms (Army, Airborne, Marines, etc...). A very interesting show!

A better description of Crack/Elite is that they more often 'do what they are told' instead of 'do suicidal things'.

The entire purchase project is gamey. There were many formations composed of veteran and conscript troops. To allow the choosing of different quality of troops is no different than choosing troops of different nationalities (ie. American, British, Canadian, Polish and French) to suit their strenghts. Purchasing American Infantry, British Fireflies, Canadian RAM Kangaroo's, etc. is more gamey than troops of one nationality of different experience. To say that this would be gamey would not be a restriction, based on presidence. I would love to have an Elite King Tiger protected by Regular Infantry. Possibly I want a core of highly experienced troops for a spearhead accompanied by some Conscripts to guard the flanks from counterattack. Saying that this would result in gamey recon techniques is just like allowing a player to purchase jeeps en-masse to be used as recon.

I guess that the comparisons of Lee and Rommel are pretty good. Both of them benefitted from history. Lee was not quite the brilliant strategist as history makes him out to be (Antietam, Gettysburg, Richmond?) just like Rommel wasn't totally brilliant as well (El Alemain, Crusader, Normandy, Tunis). They were indeed competent, but, had their share of war losing disasters as well. Rommel's advance through France wasn't individually brilliant. It was actually fairly boring, except for nearly being overrun by the British 1st Army Tank Brigade. When compared to other armoured Divisions, Rommel's didn't perform substantially better. When Rommel and Lee really shined is when they had everything going for them. They did very well when their supply lines were short (ie. when they counter attacked) but did poor when their lines were longer (ie. when they were counter attacked). Just as McClelland and Auckinlek (SP) weren't able to get a knock out blow, neither was Rommel or Lee. Remember, they both lost in the end.

There is always a decision to be made when purchasing units. One is, "do I want to spend a lot of points on one single unit?" A KT is tough, but not invincible. It is slow, poor turret traversing, etc. resulting in your enemy having a darned good chance in outflanking it and knocking it out. I usually play the Allies, and I have never bought anything more powerful than a Sherman Firefly. I bought a Churchill once, but, didn't take kindly too it. Too slow, and didn't fit with my doctrine. More guns = more possible hits. As many other people say, they like it when their opponent buys an uber tank. It means their forces is more compact, easy to track down, and inflexible.\ Rarely have I ever heard of anyone supporting a KT with sufficient infantry, usually based on the pure fact that they cannot afford enough supporting Infantry!

The arguments posted here are only discussing half of the argument. You might think that an AT gun firing off its AP ammo at advancing infantry is stupid, however, since the Infantry are seen as a direct threat, wouldn't it be stupid to just ignore them? There are many ways in which you can get your units to fire when your enemy are close, or when your enemy is passing you by. Just like the example above, you could creatively turn your troops, hide them, limit their LOS so that they could only fire at close units anyway. Tampering with commands, giving them more detail, will detract from the model that BTS created for each individual unit. Each individual unit's priority is to survive. If they deem firing at long range is better than waiting until the enemy is close, it is their choice. If firing AP at charging Infantry is seen as a good idea, then it is their choice. What if that AT gun didn't fire that AP? Maybe it would have made the entire situation much worse? Possibly your troops couldn't hold the front without the extra disruption? Maybe they would have collapsed more completely, or faster? Possibly the Ambush was just not set up correctly?

Wasn't this topic locked already?

Everyone says this now, but, what if something that you didn't assume would be driving through this ambush marker actually did, and broke through, caused a lot of havoc, then you will be ranting at why your ambush team didn't target it! What if a bunch of Halftracks zoomed through your ambush area, and killed off your rear arty and command HQ's. What if a wack of infantry strolled past and did the same thing? The problem with ambushes, is, that people make them too inflexable. I have rarely ever read about an ambush being solely devised to take out one form of military formation, with being incapable of countering other types. This usually only occurred in desperate situations where the defenders did not have the equipment to kill what was coming. Instead of just putting 1-2 AT guns in a position, put some HMG's and Squads there along with the guns, so that if Halftracks come by, or Infantry, they can be dealt with. Ambushes only really work if your opponent cooperates with your plan. Wrecklessly sending armour without adequate Infantry support is what usually results in successful ambushes. And if there are infantry there, then they will be preoccupied by your infantry, leaving the AT guns to concentrate on their AFV's. Setting up successful ambushes is difficult, as was in reality. Place your AT guns covering areas where you see the best chance of enemy armour going through. If he is short on time you might be able to catch something without adequate support. Also, ambushes aren't meant to last the entire game. Once they are discovered, they will be destroyed.

You can't judge the victor over just one battle, or even a series of battles. Terrain playes an important part in which tactic will succeed over the other, same with the makeup of both the forces. When one knows of your enemies tactic as well, they will do their best to counter it. One battle could be decisively set up to warrant an attrition type player to have an easier time over a manuver type player (heavy woods, lots of buildings, big hills, streams and rivers, etc...). Another could really help a manuver player (flat terrain, many avenues of advance, small hills for covering manuvers, pockets of trees, etc...). This really won't heal anything, but probably just spark more anomosity. It is like trying to debate wether pure capitalism or pure communisim is better. Since neither has been experienced in their pure forms, independent of any outside interference, then we cannot say for 100% assurance wether one can be adequately modeled or is better than the other. Since the debate still exists in the scholarly world, one or two battles in CM will not be able to solve this dilemma. Maybe, just maybe, they BOTH are good tactics for different situations!! Ever think of that? [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 02-14-2001).]

Contrary to popular belief, swivelling a HMG in a lawnmower style firing pattern is not very effective. You tend to miss a hell of a lot of stuff (unless they are walking shoulder to shoulder ala Napoleonic style). In most war accounts I have read, units usually only fired at other single units as well. This sporadic mad firing rarely happened, and only did once discipline was lost. CM models a lot of stuff that we do not see. I have lost Infantry units without seeing a single tracer or shell land near them when in close range with other enemy units. I don't really see anything that needs fixing. If the 12 man squad was able to fire at every target, do you think that the fire from 1 M1 Garand would slow down an entire german SMG squad?? CM does not reward wave attacks, but, shock attacks are well supported. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 02-14-2001).]

A lot of these questions are misleading. To state that the Germans were outnumbered in 1940 does not accurately portray the situation. Neither Belgium nor Holland were eager to coordinate forces with Britain or France. So, in reality, Germany did outnumber its opponents, since they did not operate as an individual Allied army, but, an Allied army, the Belgian Army, and the Dutch army against the Germans. The Germans could take on the Dutch separately, then the Belgians, then the British/French. It was three separate wars all coddled into one. Also, german tanks were better than many french tanks in some aspects (turret design, commonality of radio's, etc...) but they suffered from severe unreliability, weak armour and armament. I am pretty sure that Unconditional Surrender was solidified at Potsdam in 1943.

However, they did kill off the female lead either at the beginning of season 3, or at the end of season 2, and then stuck it out in the bush a lot more. They were based at a more urban field base than during the first season, but, they weren't directly based within Saigon (just within driving distance). I figure it was a good move, since, how much variation could you get out in the bush? Since there were engagements in urban areas (especially during Tet) why not incorporate that? Also, they did occasionally go back to the US, to show first hand the kind of impressions and oppressions that they faced when they returned home. What killed 'Tour of Duty' was that both men and women in America were still unwilling to deal with Vietnam. They saw the movies because of their anti-war outlook (4th of July did better than any other Vietnam movie, barring Forrest Gump...). Blaming it on women alone is not fair. Men also weren't watching 'Tour of Duty'. Also, women have been a long ignored commodity. Basing programs and movies solely on one demographic is cutting into their profit margin. It is better for them to add a female (ala Pearl Harbor, that Sniper Movie, etc.) to get men AND women than just making it a total romance movie, or a total war movie. I would blame this on capitalism rather than female rights. Until a certain market is seen as viable, they will not be producing things en-masse for them. I don't think that Combat! was cancelled due to poor ratings or public outcry. The heat of Vietnam didn't reach its boiling point when it finally ended (after 5 years) in 1967. What killed the show, was that they were probably running out of innovative plot lines, and the actors probably wanted to do something new, or at least not Combat!. A very interesting thing that I noticed, was, that the show ran for 5 years, but, the war in the theatre only lasted 2 years!! Would an all male war show last? No, even in the 1960's, they had to occasionally add women into the plot (just about every episode) to give the cast some variety. If you want a historically accurate war show, especially during WWII, you will also constantly be having new actors coming in and dying off. The only reason that all female shows can survive, is that guys are willing to watch a bunch of hot chicks wander around the TV screen, in lieu of any plot whatsoever! It is vaguely possible, but, the plot will become so dry that it will lose any sense of interest. They can't fight a major battle every episode, nor could they follow the war sequentially (becuase that would put a limit to the run of the series). What Combat! did very well, was, to never state what year or month the episode took place in, one episode they are at the Bulge, then the next one they are fighting in Normandy. Without this, they would have ended the series in 1964. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 02-12-2001).]