Major Tom

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng: Kinder? GENTLER?! BAH! FEH! I won't have it in the house. Bugger off, you lot. I'm going to hone my hatred in quiet, irritated solitude and you can reach me by mail or carrier pigeon if you must. Kinder gentler thread indeed. Phooey. Peng <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did the pool just get warmer?

Well, I don't want to jump in here, where we know that nobody is wanted , but, I feel that some points must be made. I am just a casual reader of these recent posts on the unfairness of the point system, one way or another. However, I am keenly aware of many people's personality when they defend/refute someone elses or their own points. I can probably name off half the bulliten board, many people here invariably DO have chips on their shoulders (so it was unfair to just label just Jeff). The problem is, is that there are too many self proclaimed 'experts' who feel just because they either fought in a war, or read a few books they know exactly what they are talking about on just about every subject even if it is just remotely related to their experience. Everyone knows who these guys are, and you can be aware when one of them starts posting in a message area that universal logic IS just thrown out the window. They may have valid points, and can back their opinion up, but that doesn't totally mean that what they are posting should be implemented, or is even 100% accurate in the larger scale of reality. What usually happens is that it DOES get into a pissing match, and it no longer becomes 'your information is wrong' but 'you are wrong for actually believing that information'. One thing that I notice too, is that in these pissing matches, NEITHER side is correct, and debates only partial truths and subjective evidence. Steve isn't 100% correct in his statement, yet he isn't 100% incorrect. Germanboy made an interesting prediction in the now locked "Freedom of Choice" thread which didn't fully materialize, but, I could see it happening if left open a little longer. Everyone just has to get over how 'brilliant' they are, and just realize that sometimes they are wrong. Sure, I don't agree with 100% of what BTS does (notably Fourum etiquite and the inability to punish frequent abusers until after their 10th or so 2nd Break) but I do not believe that there is a conspiracy for skewing the game one way or the other. Usually when these posts about 'problems with point value' occur, it is usually posted by some grognard, NOT an average player. They may point out that a Sherman is pitiful against a Tiger I and should have its point level lowered, but, when explained WHY these tanks have their points at where they are they usually accept that. There could very well be problems in the way that points are measured. But before we go jumping to conclusions right away sufficent support by the COMMUNITY, not just a few 'experts' should result in some sort of change occuring. If the general COMMUNITY sees a constant problem then maybe something has to be done. My impression is that the community was satisfied with the point values after the first patch that affected the Universal Carrier point scheme. I don't see sufficent support from my own games, or mass cries from the community that either side is dentramentally inferior to the other. The title "Grognard" has turned into a dirty word for me, symbolic of ingorance and intolerance of other peoples opinions and impressions. It used to stand for knowledge.

I also think that one of the problems is that too many people are playing chance encounter like QB's and expecting results to be historical. Rarely did either side engage eachother's spearheads like CEQB's have them. Usually combat was between two incompatable units (ie. primarily Infantry vs. primarily Armour), not units of equal makeup. Expecting to reflect historical accuracy by starting off playing a relatively unhistorical battle is a game in futility. In this type of warfare, with no defender and 2 attackers mobility is all important. Your troops rarely get a chance to inflict casualties, because they are too slow to engage AFV's. Since the VP's are in the centre of the map, whoever gets there first will usually win (ie. have the benefit of defending with equal numbers of troops as the attacker). In QB's with an attacker and a defender these problems are rarely found, as, roles are clearly defined. Mobility ISN'T the sole requirement for EITHER side, since they both know the goals. Infantry AT isn't quite as effective here, as, they must be manuvered into position, usually within clear sight of their enemy. Defending Infantry AT is extremely powerful, as they are hidden from the beginning, and positioned by the defender in the best possible areas. Possibly players are playing too many even battled QB's, where only mobility plays an important part? Attacker/Defender battles offer for more diverse plans of action, where more military arms are useful. I played a game against Germanboy a while back where I was the attacker and lost all my AFV's to his one Hetzer, yet, still won the game by utilizing my Company of Infantry. This wouldn't be quite as easy in a CEQB, since his forces would be roughly equal to mine, and I was still able to outgun him with my Infantry and supporting 3" mortors. No unit or AFV is invincible. Each unit has its point value measured by its statistics, not just its ability to either kill JUST infantry or JUST armour. There may be a problem with the rarity factor, like the Puma, not appearing in sufficient numbers to warrant a specific counter to be developed, BUT, they aren't uber-weapons. Pumas can be killed by other Allied AC's pretty easily. Sure, a Puma has a chance at taking out a Sherman from a reasonable range, but, if it is up against another armoured car the 50mm gun will only hinder its performance. A single hit from a 20mm, 37mm, 40mm, 50mm etc. will make no difference for a weak skinned vehicle. Sure, a Daimler cannot kill a Panther, and has a tough time against a Mark IV, but, its ability to kill light skinned vehicles is invaluable, where the Puma is only usefull to take out Sherman tanks. Against any other target they aren't as effective. Try to kill masses of infantry with a slow rotating Tiger I turret. See what happens when your StuG's run out of HE during an Infantry assault. CM tries to portray a game of WWII that is fair. Historically, rarely was any battle fairly fought. One side usually outclassed/outnumbered the other. If we are looking for historical outcomes, or historical OOB's for QB's then we are defeating the purpose of the QB. The QB is a jump into a fictional battle, using fictional equipment. This doesn't mean that every Gamey tactic should be used, but, from the nature of the mission the battle is already unhistorical. If you are looking for a more historical battle, try the Attack/defence option. It won't solve the unhistorical problem of Puma's appearing in large numbers, but, it will balance the arms a heck of a lot better than a CEQB.

Hi mom! Hiram, is that turn coming?

The reason that most of the survivors from Stalingrad died, was because they held out too long, became mal/undernourished and died soon after being taken prisoner, or, due to their weakened state before entering the prison. The same can be said about most troops in the Pacific theatre. The Japanese were rarely able to supply their own troops, let along any POW's. Most POWs died because of being ignored by the Japanese (ie. not given enough supplies) rather than being actively murdered.

The BEST shot ever. I had a Volksgrenadier squad throw a grenade at a US 44 Rifle squad, it misses, bounces off the armour of a Halftrack, lands in the turret of a Jumbo Sherman, it explodes killing the squad that was riding on it as well. If only I was typing on a magic computer where everything I type actually happens in CM!!

I perfer Thin Red Line's combat scenes to the bulk of Saving Private Ryan's. Their cast was much larger (so just about anyone could die at any moment, unlike SPR), and the plot was probably focussed better on what it was like to BE a soldier in the Guadalcanal jungle. SPR had too much of a storyline plot (ie. find this kid whose brothers died) which never really happened. EVERY action was contrived to further this plot. In TRL, the action was more or less random, taking an objective that doesn't further the plot, because in reality, thats what soldiers did. They fought for something which they had no idea the importance, or relevance to any larger picutre. In many ways, TRL got a bad wrap. Its long and confusing storyline was a bad attempt at showing the mix of warfare being minutes of high pitched action, and hours of lull and boredom. Actually, I guess it did portray it pretty well, eh?

Well, if civilian soldiers are to be modeled in any CM game, then CM2 should be it. Not necessarily for the Russian contingent, as, they rarely fought in anything other than platoon sized, and they usually just raided. However, the Polish Home Army, which was more like a bunch of civilians given guns, would be modelable in CM. They fought large scale actions against Germans, sometimes with good effect, other times with poor effect. Fighting was much more intense than that between any French resistance group and German garrison/military forces. Also, for CM3, representing the Serbian partisans would also have merit for a CM, large scale game. The Poles, like the Serbians, fit into the CM model, about having prolonged action in large numbers in military-style combat. Other than a few isolated incidents the French and Russian Partisans rarely did anything more than ambushes, which are only one action within a larger CM battle. I could be horribly wrong though...

As Germanboy has been trying to say, there is no single GAMEY action 100% of the time. For example. When a crew is formed from a lost vehicle/gun, they don't ALWAYS have to retreat off the map. They don't ALWAYS have to run from any enemy. They aren't ALWAYS restricted from offensive actions. The problem is, is, that most people are too lazy to think and demand a strict no-tolerance rule just so that they don't have to make an informed choice. Crews have been used to take out some nearby target of opportunity that they KNOW they can handle (ie. a Zook/Schrek/PIAT or Mortor team a few meters away). However, if it was something that they couldn't handle (ie. a squad, tank, far off HMG, etc..) they shouldn't be used. It is a matter of trying to think like that unit. What would the best outcome be? Possibly attacking a nearby unit will result in a better chance for their survival? Regarding the damaged tank gun debate, I don't think that it is 100% gamey or not-gamey. It depends on the situation. If you have a lone tank, in the rear areas with a just knocked out turret without any enemy nearby charging it up will be gamey. However, like the example above, if they are in company with other AFV's (ie. doesn't have to worry about a lone tank duel) they might be able to add some covering support with their MMG against other infantry or AFV's, and add extra targets to confuse the enemy. Even my examples of when or when not to use units in gamey matters aren't 100% written in stone. Sometimes it might not be gamey. One gamey tactic that hasn't really been mentioned much is probably the most important. It is ok for a player to use the occasional 'gamey-fringe' tactic, but, what is really gamey is when one repeatedly uses gamey tactics in order to win against their opponent. ALWAYS having crews as a part of your infantry attack force is gamey, occasionally in times of necessity it isn't. Use your brains to determine when something might be on either end of the gamey fence. If you are in doubt, then don't do it. Stating that the game is made to use every underhanded tactic at your disposal will usually result in many of your opponents having a grudge with you. Gamey tactics can usually only be countered with other gamey tactics. People who play the game for 'historic' value feel cheated when they must resort to gamey tactics because of their opponent. The best bet is to inquire beforehand if you have a 'Historical' opponent, or a 'Quake' opponent.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lacky: How can you taunt the USA with that war? Canada was a colony. Canada wasn't a sovereign nation. Canadian's didn't have their own flag! The war of 1812 was between the United States and Great Britain. Canada's constitution wasn't patriated until 1982! Canada's constitution was written in 1867 and it took 115 years before England allows Canada full autonomy. Some might say the United States lost the War of 1812, other's might declare it a stalemate. Yet, it was Britain who offered peace. And it was the United States who came away from that war with more land than they started with! My non-Anglo-Saxon education allows me to see, understand, and evaluate this war from an outside sphere. Do present day Canadian's realize why Britain asked for Peace? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Canadian Militia took as much part in the war with America as Regular British Infantry. It was as much our war against American aggression as theirs. Our system is a heck of a lot more fluid (ie. able to change with the times) than the American one. We did pretty fine without a constitution. Canadians of the era are no more opressed than Americans were. It isn't about 'Britain allowing' Canada autonomy, but, rather that we choose to finally create something not based directly off the British system. America didn't win the war of 1812. The British/Canadians didn't lose it. Britain asked for peace because they could not afford waging a war for Canada. It wasn't as profitable as many other British colonies, and since they were currently winning, why not end it here? Unfortunately American's trivialize this war too much. They see themselves against the entire might of England, when in reality this front was seen as below that of Spain. Barely any resources were spent, and the most truely amazing thing about the thing is that Canada survived. Battles were usually fought with American superiority in numbers, with Canadians predominantly winning the field. It is an amazing feat, which should not be trivialized.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: Anyone here see the movie Canadian Bacon? LOL...very funny!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was just about to say that The best part was with the US Special forces running through that Canadian crowd, pushing everyone over, with all us Canadian's appologising! And the guy who gets a sprained ankle!!! Never EVER insult Canada's beer. It angered me about Phil Hartman's death. Killed by his American wife. Just goes to show you that American's with guns are dangerous! I also find it terribly humourous when Americans claim that they are anti-Imperialist. Everything about their history is imperialist. Toward the Amerindians, Canadians, Spanish, Mexicans, Cubans, Chinese, Philippino's, Japanese and so on (and all this before the 20th Century!). The War of 1812 was also an attempt at revenge for getting their butt's whupped in Quebec during the American Revolution. Technically, 1812 was the SECOND American invasion attempt of Canada, which also failed. The Americans also wanted to ensure the destruction of the Iroquois, who had claims on much of the US 'Northwest'. It would have really been interesting had the British not been overly generous at the peacetalks and demanded that all territory occupied by British troops remain British territory. America's goal = Capture Canada America's goal = failure Talking about sailor's freedom was only an excuse to invade. Equal enough to Japan's excuse for going to war in December 1941.

The actor who plays JFK in the new Cuban Crisis movie is Canadian. There are many Canadians that infiltrated American movies and TV. Canadian content has extended down south, eh?

I think this movie would be extremely interesting if they actually used German and Russian actors speaking in German and Russian with subtitles. It would make for a more authentic movie, avoiding the entire hollywood garbage by using 'established' actors.

How far away was your Panther? Did it have a LOS on the Sherman? Was it facing directly at the front of the Sherman? Where was the Panther hit? (lower hull, turret, etc...) Was your tank on Hunt? The Sherman has a much faster firing rate than a Panther. Possibly it did the smart thing and actually targetted the greater threat (the Panther)? There are probably many reasons why your Panther bought it. Probably the best thing to do was to manuver it behind the Sherman, so, it would have to rotate its entire hull/turret 180 degrees.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harry Yeide: Tankers were convinced by their day-to-day experiences that sandbagging worked, which was why they did it and Patton had to throw a fit. They had a tad more expertise on the subject of what would save their lives than we do. As for the 743rd Tank Battalion (subject of "The View from the Turret" by William Folkestad), the unit's archived records show that the battalion sandbagged every single tank between 18 and 22 July 1944. Subsequent entries show the battalion re-sandbagging old tanks or sandbagging new tanks repeatedly during down times, so the technique had become SOP for the outfit. Again: THEY concluded sandbagging added meaningful protection. Cheers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but these tankers themselves probably saw a German tank and assumed it was a Tiger I. A Panzer II thought to be a Tiger I firing its 20mm gun, when thought to be a 88mm will not even penetrate a non-sandbagged Sherman tank. Accounts of troops on the field are not quite as reliable as physicists. Possibly there were other reasons why their tanks weren't holed (ie. mistaking Panzer IV's for King Tigers, 75mm guns for 88mm guns) instead of sandbags being the end result? Also, most of these tankers carried 'good luck charms' which they thought would definitely save their lives in battle (with about as much chance as sandbags!). Should CM model each tank having a rabbits foot/fuzzy dice being able to survive direct 88mm hits?

I am not totally against having random turns, but, having a maximum of 10 is way too much. A maximum variance of 2 would suffice. I am in a game right now where we are on turn 16-17 of a 30 turn game. My opponent has just started his offensive using the previous 11 turns to manuver. If somehow the variance left the game over at turn 20, it will be too unfair. That is like losing 1/3 of the proposed battle time. It is totally unfair to the Attacker. Now, having a 1-2 turn variance will result in flag rushes being not quite as beneficial (not knowing if the game will end on turn 28, 29, 30, 31 or 32). HOWEVER, if the attacker makes a flag rush on turn 28 of a 30 turn game, and takes the flags, the defender would probably not have enough forces to push them back off anyway in any possible remaining turns. This would be just as bad for the defender if the turn ended at 30 (ie. the attacker assumes that turn 28 will be the last one). Again, having a variance maximum of 10 will just result in games ending just when both are starting up, usually with the defender retaining all/most VP areas. In a way, I do not see flag rushes as quite as gamey as people make them out to be. If you aren't defending your VP areas by the end of the game, and the attacker has enough to break through, then maybe they deserve to take these VP areas? Just like a defender not defending his flanks, one who does not effectively defend his VP areas does not deserve to win.

First off, my understanding of Artillery in 1944-1945 was that the British/Commonwealth had a much better coordinated system than the Americans. Although not nearly as large, they were able to put down more concentrated fire through direct communication between the FO's on the field, and Corps/Army Group commanders. Especially in later engagements (ie. Operation Veritable) the British were able to concentrate massive firepower even though their total numbers were less than the Americans. Top tank armour cannot be compared to side armour. They were relatively unarmoured and a 0.5 inch shot could probably penetrate some of the biggest German tanks. Combine this into the P-47 which has 16 0.5 inch HMG's then tanks can be pretty chewed up. Hurricane IV's, equipped with 40mm Guns were only used in North Africa and Burma. The last places that the Hurricane (any mark) saw active service was Burma (into late 1944). There were enough Tempests and Typhoons to regulate Hurricanes to rear patrol, training, or sub-theatres. Rockets were very innacurate, but, 20mm armed RAF aircraft, like the 12.7mm armed USAAC aircraft could result in some high numbers of killed German tanks. The main problem, as others have said, is FINDING them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo: Blame cops for a riot, blame the captian for not stopping some nutjob terrorists, blame the "community" for some kids going nuts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sometimes it is at least partially their fault. Aggressive police intervention in an otherwize peacefull protest has more than once resulted in voilence. Sometimes military commanders do act with total incompetence and allows an enemy to score a spectacular victory. And sometimes a community is to blame for edging on children who don't fit in to reach the breaking point. 'Blame' if you call it as such, cannot be labled as only being one person's or the other's. Sometimes it is collective.

The Allies would only have succeeded in Russia due to their ability to replace material losses better than the Germans. I don't think that they could have exerpeinced the same human losses without demanding some sort of truce. Remember, the Germans lost more troops in operation Barbarossa than the US lost in the entire war. The Allies didn't have that feeling of self sacrifice that the Germans or Russians had. Why would we sacrifice 1 000 000 of our people just to invade Russia?

Well, I think that you are right about stating that this isn't the place since Fionn isn't here, but, you probably should not have brought up his name to begin with then. Finding out something, to find out what it is is one thing. Finding out something just to prove someone else wrong is another.

I watched the young Indiana Jones during the actions in Africa and France. These were pretty cool. Probably the best war movie I have seen in a while is "Little Big Man", starring Dustin Hoffman. A very long film, but, very well done. It was a very interesting satirical about the American west during the last few years of the Indian wars. It dealt with a white man (Hoffman) who was raised by Indians and continually jumpped back and forth from living as an Indian and living in the white world. Very interesting film.

Hiram, you there?!?!

Shouldn't it be... "whiny little racist boys, don't ya just live 'em?"

It is beneficial to have this guy post SPAM messages, as, the more he posts, the more his parent's have to pay out. It is VERY easy to track down people. In fact, on another board, one guy (a loser himself) indpendendly tracked down a real loser, found his phone number, and posted it on the board. That is getting pretty extreme, and I think that the Police visited both of those little boys. I don't support any action, but, if his location needs to be found by the authorities, it isn't too difficult for them. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-08-2001).]

Unfortunately, special interest groups like The "USNFSA" tend only to really focus on fulfilling their mission statement, without looking at other factors. This is true of practically all special interest groups. The USN Posesses some rapid fire 8" guns on some of their destroyers. Plus the 5" guns, fired rapidly, can supply a lot of cover. There was a British study done at the end of the war questioning wether high volume of small calibur weapons or a lower volume of high calibur weapons proved to be an effective means in dislodging an enemy from a postition. The Higher volume appeared to be more effective, as, the VOLUME of bangs proved to be more unnerving than the LOUDNESS or crator. A few 16" hits may be devestating, but, they aren't as effective as multiple numbers of smaller calibur shots. Carriers are more expensive, and the loss of one will be very devestating to the USN. However, their roles are much more versitile and can adapt better to changing circumstances. The most modern engagement of surface vessels within a reasonable threat would be the Falklands war. No other modern engagement was as evenly matched. The British had the most up to date aircraft, missiles and tracking systems, yet, suffered severe naval losses to Argentenian aircraft (albiet without loss of a single aircraft and at the cost of several Argentenian A/C). If a ship ventures in close to land they are further increasing their risk. One example is of the HMS London, which was severely damaged by Communist Chinese coastal artillery. The HMS London was a 1930's Heavy Cruiser, heavily modernized in 1939. It's hull was holed many times by 5" coastal guns, and was at a risk of sinking if it did not evacuate itself. Gun armed ships have to get close to land if they are going to be effective bombarders. When they are on the coast, they are sitting ducks. They aren't moving and cannot be very manuverable if they actually get moving due to their proximity to shallow waters.