Major Tom

I never really used smoke much, until one of my PBEM games. I managed to move almost an entire company of troops across a previously bullet swept field by using 2 well placed smoke charges. However, I got cocky and ran up an extra platoon just as the smoke dissipated, they were slaughtered!

Pirate, you saying that CM will be better in Real Time would be just like someone else saying that Command and Conquer would be a better turn based strategy. I have come to notice after all of my multiple game playing (Master of Orion Series, Command and Conquer, Civilization Series, Total Annihilation, etc..) that the best replay value has always been on the turn based ones. You can just do more in a turn based game, you have more control. Indeed, I respect your liking of Real Time strategies, I also do enjoy them also, but, each of these games has their limits and good points. Real time loses in it's complexity whereas turn based lose a little realism. It is sort of a mute point, saying that I would like this game if it was something that it isn't. However, I do respect your freedom to like RT strategy games. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-25-2000).]

DC, just because about every nation did something similar doesn't make it right. Frankly, even as a Canadian I am distressed by our treatment of the Amerindians. The way the Americans and Canadians treated Japanese Americans or Japanese Canadians was also untolerable. I mean, imprisoning someone who is just as loyal as everyone else only because their family history had some lose connection to your present enemy is totally and absolutely pathetic. Where do we stop? If it is ok to genocide Jews because they did it in the past (In Theory) whose to say that someone else (African American or Amerindian) doesn't have the justification to take all your property, sell you into slavery and kill you for looking at someone the wrong way. You are borderlinging on a very dangerous topic here DC, if I were you I would be offering appoligies for your uneducated remarks and end it here. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-24-2000).]

There is the general morale level, that being the one you see at the bottom of your screen. However, what you are talking about has been taken care of by BTS. If a unit is being fired on by multiple units in different locations (In front, to your left and behind for example) then their morale suffers (as they are surrounded, or outgunned and aren't feeling too keen).

Wow, are you serious DC 228 or just suffering from severe CM withdrawl? Don't worry pal, we've all been there. After a while, even Stalin starts looking like a kool dude and Ronald Regan like a good actor and a wize President. Actually, Hitler was a political genious, and he should have left it at that. He managed to defeat all of those nations (Poland, France, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Denmark, and Greece) mostly because they were all politically divided, and were invaded separately over the span of 2 years. Sure, Czechoslovakia and Austria were political masterpieces. If you can overlook Hitler's evilness, such as the Persecution of the Jews, Gypses, and any other undesireable along with waging a massive war of aggression he is pretty loveable, with that fuzzy little mustashe and the geeky greased hair. However, when I tend to see the Nazi overlords on documentaries (Hitler, Georing, Gobels, and the Skipper too) they appear to me as gangsters, or petty theives. They just give that appearance to me, just plain trash.

I have some really great graphical games which fully use 3Dfx. Starfleet Command, Mechwarrior 3, Heavy Gear 2. However, I have probably spent more time on the Demo for CM than all of these. Good graphics only take you so far. Great gameplay can take you farther. I have been playing the graphically poor Pacific War since 1996, but, it has a wonderful strategic engine. TOAW has good looking graphics but isn't quite as refined. Sure, better graphics would be interesting, but, save this for later versions, or a CM upgrade when the average computer speed is a P500 vs. a P75 or less. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-24-2000).]

X-Com, drool. I must have played that game to death! The best part of it was it's comedy. X-Com 2 was kind of lame. X-Com 3 Apocalypse was neat for its non-turn aspect. Once I saw that, I could never go back to the old versions. Soldiers at War came out a while after X-Com 3. Bought the game, played it through, but, I just missed the action that X-Com 3 offered. CM, to me is like X-Com 3 + Soldiers at War with a realistic twist. I have to say that TOAW is the most versatile Macro-Wargame I have seen. You aren't restricted to a single battle or theatre of war. Anything you want you can create. However, some of their representations of weapons and their power was very off. And their Aircraft and Naval representation isn't very great either. CLASH OF STEEL came with a warpack CD containing this game, Pacific War, War In Russia and a spinoff of Pacific War (some carrier game). This was very abstract yet interesting. Another good Wargame was Carriers At War. My very first Computer Wargame was North vs. South which ran on my 386sx many MANY years ago. Wasn't a real wargame, but, the closest I got to one.

I have to agree with Steve here. I just saw a documentary on the US 100th Battalion, part of the 442nd (or 422nd?) Infantry Regiment. The Battalion/Regimental Commanders appeared to be sensible blokes, but, the higher up in command the more that they thought they knew how to run the war, resulting in uneccessary casualties. Even thinking back to the "Thin Red Line", the American high commander was constantly rubbing it into the face of his subordinates if they didn't follow orders. Another instance, the Canadian 1st Battalion of the Black Watch, part of the 2nd Division was ordered to advance across a field without any flank support or artillery. Yet, they did it with tremendous casualties. What CM allows us to do is to make up for this ineptness, I am truely interested in seeing how the CMMC runs. I just have one question about the German military. What of Hitler's insistances? His orders of "No retreat". Are these handled differently as they are mostly directed towards the German Military High command having no guts in disobeying Hitler (or having the guts and being promptly removed). What would the Squad/Platoon commander say if such an order that they knew was militarily unwize? However, Hitler did say give no ground, but, in many occasions ground was intelligently given, so I am possibly arguing a mute point.

Actually, there were many patrols made by light skinned vehicles. I have a picture of a British patrol passing by a previously unsuccessful patrol of a halftrack. Using light forces, such as Halftracks and Scout Cars was a tactic. After the enemy was found in the area a more sensible scouting operation was conducted. Another CM tactic which I have come to discover is that in combat in close quarters it pays to be on higher ground. They tend to have higher kills than those at the bottom of the slope, even if it is a small one.

Still, the more realistic the wargame, the better the feel for it. CM is a spectacular wargame for it's realistic programing and very realistic graphics. Having 2D models or EGA graphics would only serve to detach the player from the game. I am pretty sure that later versions of CM will take full advantage of technology. Even if it is just a wargame.

One of the things one of my friends said when he saw the smoke is "There going to improve it for the release version, right?" Well, today one can with the 3D Cards and all have the transluscent and realistic looking smoke. However, as Steve and Charles have said, making smoke more complicated at the present time will slow down the process of the game too much. Many Wargamers don't have the big and expensive machines that most people who play shootemup games have, as previously they weren't graphically intensive. What BTS is doing is to ensure that individuals can still play this game on lower level computers. I have a P233 with a 3D effects card and the Demo runs fine. They don't want everyone to have to go out to buy a new computer to play their game. Possibly as an upgrade, as the average computer speed increases so too might the graphics and real-quality of the game. Possibly in a few years we can have everyone in a squad represented in CM? They could do that now, but, only the 12 Richest Kings in Europe have the computers that could run the thing.

Movies and show like that of "Combat" or "Saving Private Ryan" tend to show the Allied forces as superior in squad level tactics. Indeed, if all of these German casualties took place for the little Allied loss of life in these short movie engagements I could not forsee the German army in retaining its cohesion after a few weeks combat. Almost every episode of "Combat" had 1 American die to every 20 Germans. It can't be said that all German formations have the best squad level training. Indeed, many of their regular and veteran units were better trained. Many were extremely poor units. No matter how much training an individual recieves cannot overcome inexperience. This is what most of the crack German units had over that of the Allies. By the time of 1944 and the landings at Normandy most of the German troops, the average-good troops have experienced some years of combat on the continent. The British had many years of desert warfare, but, this is totally different to warfare in a temperate zone climate. The American's only experienced combat in Tunisia and in Italy. Indeed, those forces, British, American, Canadian, French, and Polish in Italy spent most of their time there (except for the US 7th Army) and were only transferred out by 1945. Most of the troops that landed in Normandy were very well trained, but, most haven't seen combat. Some were in France in 1940, but, that was 4 years ago, the war and equipment changed much since then. The only action that the Canadians who landed in Normandy experienced was that of Dieppe. And most of those who participated were still in France in POW camps. The Allies were forced to pack 4 years of temperate zone combat knowledge into 1 year of combat. The Germans have been fighting on the Continent almost straight since 1939. There were many good German units who also didn't see combat until Normandy. There were also many good Allied units whose first combat was Normandy also. Doctrine is only as good as those who teach it. By the book officers did exist for every army, but, there were probably many horrid German NCO's and Lieutenants, plus, there were probably many imaginative and versitile Allied contemporaries also.

One neat thing I would like to see implemented at a later date is a full movie of the entire operation. After the end of the game a movie file would be created allowing an individual from both sides to see the entire gameplay from either their own FOW, their enemies FOW, or no FOW. Seeing 30-60 minutes of continuous CM gameplay might take a while, but, for the odd battle it will be very interesting. You can pause, restart and even move the camera around just like the turn movies, except, it is one long deal.

Well, one way you can do this, but, reverting back to trust, is, (works pretty well in CE) to move all of your reserved units into the two wooded corners. You can align your troops in a defensive ring (In case an enemy sneaks through) but this should hopefully remove the tac-AI problem. AFV's couldn't really be modled this way (they get stuck in trees), but, you could position them behind a patch of woods. Of course this leaves these troops locked out of the battle until they have been released from the game. They have to make a long trek to the battlefield also.

One thread that this board seems to be missing is one on basic military tactics. The Panzer Tactics thread is a good start. It deals a lot on what you should do as a tank commander. However, there are more military arms to consider here. Infantry, Artillery, Light AFV's, Troop Carriers, etc... Many individuals who play CM do not have the squad level military tactics experience that many other people have. People do learn a wack load from AAR's PBEM's and even against the AI, but, not every strategy is encountered. I know that there are many good examples at Fionn's and Maddmatt's CMHQ, but, how about some of us mention our successful, and even unsuccessful strategies. Having ambushes made up of a varried number of troops to counter multiple enemy threats. HQ's to give the unit good leadership, Zook's or Schrecks in case of AFV's, squads against a close enemy attack, and HMG's to keep infantry at bay. How to successfuly attack with AFV's and or Infantry with and without artillery. How to defend a postition, do you recommend having a long connected line of troops, large and independent groups of troops, or, smaller yet mutually supporting groups. Things such as these many CMers have been fussing over. I guess I will start it off by mentioning one of my tactics, which I believe is a military practice. Wherever I can, either at the edge of a forest, or in a high structure I usually put some sort of unit (A HQ unit, or Squad) to keep an eye on the entire length of front. This is defensive and offensive recon, as, you can spot out any enemy movements as well as some enemy positions that would have otherwize been blind to you. Use HQ's, as, they have their own command rating and can vacate out of an area ASAP, or quickly move to a better vantage point. Also, keep them hidden, or, so that they won't fire on the enemy, you want to see him, you don't want him to see you. Now, none of these will really give away something imperative for PBEM games, as, many people already are aware of such tactics. If we all are aware of these military do's and don't's games of CM will end up being more challenging, and therefore more fun. One of my don't's is to NEVER get cocky with your troops. If you wipe out the enemy AFV's in a few turns don't go charging up with your tanks and infantry thinking you have won the day. Many times have I done this, and seen this happen resulting in a reverse of fortune. Infantry AT is just as deadly, sometimes even moreso than a tank or tank destroyer. You can hide a zook, schrek, or faust in a small patch of forest, a church, or even a shell hole, and just one shot can end the life of a AFV. Do your attack with the same caution you would if you knew that there were 4 Shermans or StuGs waiting for you. Sometimes a well positioned Squad can wipe out a careless Platoon.

Gee, this topic will be talked to death. I feel that it is ok to cheat defensively, that is, to hide your troops and AFV's from the enemy. I don't think it is ok to cheat offensively, to target the area with Arty when the troops appear out in the open. This not only happens in Last Defense, but, if you have enough initiative you can interfere with the other reinforcements in the other battles. With the actuall game coming out soon there will be an infinite number of scenarios, we probably won't have to worry about this much then. You can even have multiple battles on the same maps with different units without much trouble in this sort of cheating.

My favorite wargame will have to be Pacific War, then War In Russia. I never tried the Close Combat games other than one demo, didn't like it. Tried the Panzer General stuff, but, didn't take to well to it either. Combat Mission is the first Wargame I tried where one is a tactical squad commander over that of a divisional/Corps/Army commander.

Have a cool book here Blitzkrieg: Armour Camoflage and Markings, 1939-1940. It has many color drawings of just about every tank used in those first two years of war by the French, Belgian, Dutch, Polish, German, English, Italian, and Russian. There are some neat pictures of just about every tank, many of them are abandoned, spiked or destroyed. (even some pictures of destroyed German equipment with French troops inspecting it!)

Kool PanzerLeader. I actually saw this thing on a website a long while ago. Been trying to find it as it was very applicable to CM. Thanks!

1) I don't really understand this question. US forces had Regiments of 3 Battalions, and there were 3-4 Companies per Battalion, so, each battalion would have A, B, C, and possibly D company. I wouldn't see them getting as far as J company. 2) Possibly, either the book is wrong, or that the 29th and 352nd were freakish divisions, or, size varied and 4 was the average, or BTS was wrong. I would doubt the last assumption and I would probably assume that it was just an average of typical formations. 3) I don't know? 4) You can call whatever unit whatever you want in the scenario briefing. However, you could not rename the Battalion HQ to be 1/422 Battalion of 29 Division, at least we haven't been told we could. Plus, CM isn't really meant to be Divisional sized. It is limited by the size of the maps, and average processer power, plus, you would not want to have to deal with a divisions worth of squads (200+ !!). 5) I don't think by 1944 that there was a typical German formation in practice. 6) You can't split any command unit, or else half of it would be a command unit, and the other half wouldn't (there is only 1 commander). 7) Ammo redistribution? No. It has been dealt with on numerous posts.

The Tetrarch wasn't used very much because it was too thin skinned. Even for the Airborne.

Actually, isn't Goliath a big talking dog? "I don't know about that, Davey."

Actually the Zero was a good plane, but, it had its major faults. It was too light, could not take a pounding if you were unluckilly to be caught by the heavy gunned allies. The Japanese also didn't put too much Ammo in their aircraft. The Zero had 20mm cannon, but, they could not use it too much in fear of running out of ammo. The Hurricane and P-40 were probably the equal of the Zero, if they were all flown by the same experienced pilot. The problem was, that Japan has been at war since 1937, and had scores of veteran pilots in the Pacific in 1941. The British who were fighting since 39 didn't see the far east as a high priority. Sub standard planes and pilots were all that England could spare. The Americans were caught off guard in the Philippines losing a vast majority of their fighters on the ground. The Dutch East Indies air force was just in the middle of modernizing, recieving Buffalos and Hurricanes and didn't have enough time. The Main allied problem was that they didn't know how to fight the Zero, and other manuverable Japanese fighters. If you tried to fight them on their level you would be out-manuvered and shot down. However, if the Allies used hit and run tactics (their planes were heavier and faster) they can usually shoot down a plane on one run and get out of there before they can react. The Zero was a fearsome aircraft in the hands of experienced flyers. And Japan had many of them until 1942.

Were these Goliath's little remote controlled things? I remember seeing something that the German army had something like this. Is this what you are talking about? I would tend to think that they would not be used enough to warrant them being included in CM.

I saw an interesting, yet short, show about the German campiagn into Russia. There were some neat shots of actual anti-tank guns engaging Russian armour, indeed, it looked like I was watching a turn in CM. But, from what this, and just about every other book and or movie about the German invasion of Russia it states that the German Military was very good to the Russian civilians. So, good were the Germans, and so bad were their previous Russian overlords most of the population was willing to raise up in arms with the Germans! It wasn't until after the army left and the occupying SS troops came in when the attitude of the population changed. This goes for Kharkov and Kiev. Stalingrad and Leningrad don't really fit into this scenario, as, they were never fully occupied by the Germans, and long durations of combat between ARMIES was the result of the multitude of deaths. Leningrad was shelled to all hell not because of it's civilians, but, of it's military. If Leningrad was occupied the army would not have gone around shooting civilians, and raping women, that was for the Russians in 1944-45. Stalningrad was reduced to rubble as the Russians and Germans had to fight for every single house. They didn't call for 150mm shells to fall on a house cause they expected a few civilians to be hiding in the cellars. The Japanese, however, were much more bruital. They massacred tens of thousands of people with BAYONETTES. You can't get much more personal killing someone with a knife. Dresdon, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all non military targets, yet, the USAAF bombed the heck out of these places. If a German soldier was caught raping a civilian they could be court marshalled and executed. In 1944-45, Russian soldiers had an unwritten agreement with their commanders allowing them to do such things. Remember, history is written by the victors, very few books are about the allied autrocitices. It is easier to send out your young men to kill an enemy who is percieved as evil. A lot of history is actually propaganda.