Major Tom

Did I hear the word, obsessed?

Wow, David Aitken can make Bauhaus appear with a single phrase... What other magical powers do you posess? I have the power to make an entire battalion disappear!! Of course, it is my battalion!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ksak: Your legitimate concern is exactly the reason that the object of my scorn is any recognition of even the concept of "gamey." CM comes with a set of rules built into the game engine. While it would be unmistakedly dishonest to modify the game engine it is preposterous to me that any claim would be made that playing by the rules, all the rules, is somehow contemptible, if not slightly dishonest. There appears to be a priesthood of forum participants that consider those that play to win (by the rules I add) as so beneath them that they are not worthy of sharing a PBEM. And that without even a clear definition of what may or may not be gamey in any given situation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are absolutely right Ksak, and if you don't buy an indulgence now, you are forever going to be stuck in CM purgatory with only jeeps to fight off King Tigers!! ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY CM CULT!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Not in my opinion - but you would have run into a couple of AT assets if I had defended against you. Accusing somebody of map-edge hugging in CM because you have lost IMO shows that you are a sore loser and a bad tactician. If the map-edge provides cover for an approach it is your job as defender to take care of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah HA!!! GOT YOU!!! That's what you are doing in our PBEM game!!!! No wonder I haven't seen your troops for 9 turns! Might as well surrender now, I am sending a lot of Jumbo Sherman's your way, along with Crack airborne infantry, and a nuclear bomb. Is that gamey? I have used the 'side-hugging' strategy a lot of times in games. In one of my games, both of us did the same strategy, and bloodshed resulted. A good commander can see the best possible routes an enemy can take, and even better commander will actually DO something about these routes!

The hands look great!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: (edited to insert a smiley for the sarcasm-impaired - not you Jeremy) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn you!! You ruined my only chance of gaining the entire bulliten board to hate you and cause you to loose track of your troops in our current PBEM resulting in your untimely defeat!! You blew it up!!! You are a dastardly opponent indeed!! Damn you all to hell!!

Sweet!! Is this going to be a retrofit of all of the Infantry BMP's? Wow!

Had an engagement with Andreas a while back, and lost 2 Shermans and 1 Armoured Car against his one Hetzer. To this day I don't know what killed it, either my 3" mortor FO's or my PAIT sneaking up behind it. It also might have just abandoned itself after it was surrounded by my infantry after killing all of his in a spectacular firefight. Whatever it was, it is now dead. Let us never speak of the Hetzer again.

I thought a 'Thin Red Line' was going to be about the engagement on Guadalcanal where the 1st Marine Division was holding on, by a thin line of troops, not about US Army replacements engaging on 'mopping up' operations. I perferred TRL's action sequences to SPR's, the bunker assault was Hella-Cool!!

I hope everyone got the sarcasm in my post on the guestbook. I am pretty darned sure that that King Tiger wasn't Brown Dye #23, probably a lot closer to #24 . Alhough I don't use your Hampster mod, (because my opponents make me laugh enough when playing CM) I will definitely use your Tiger mod. I am pretty sure that all those loser 'delinquints' (ie. NON-CM delinquints that is!) who frequent your website are just pissed that the site was only about Hampsters crawling down foxholes, and not other oraphus'. The best way to get rid of these guys is to drive them out with ridicule, unless that's what gets them off, then you drive them off with police.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Benny Manieri: You don't like shooting people??? WTF??? What do you do for a living??? Are you a goddam kindergarten teacher???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Manieri, shut up.

Yeah, well, to get back to the original quesion... Crack and Conscript troops will NOT always behave like Crack or Conscript troops just because they are Crack or Conscript troops. Crack troops have a better chance of going through with the orders you give them, Conscript troops aren't. That doesn't mean that 100% of the time Conscript troops will retreat at the first sign of a Kubelwagen, nor will Crack troops hold up against an entire battalion of M4 Shermans. Sometimes, your Conscripts might overrun and destroy a platoon of regular troops while crossing an open field pounded by artillery, and sometimes your Crack troops will break at the first sign of an advancing balied out enemy crew. You just got unlucky, your crack troops rolled snake eyes and the Conscripts got a Seven, or possibly even an Eleven. Man, I feel all weired by typing "Crack" so much. It is like I am typing on a drug abuse website.

Actually, only the Spitfire V was rendered obsolete by the arrival of the FW-190. The Spitfire IX was quickly developed and was considered to be the equal, and most probably the superior to the German design. As in any war, technology proceeds at leaps, with one side gaining the upper hand through a development until the other side trumps them with their own counter.

Nuke first, pick of radiated skin later... Might as well have given these troops some blankets to hide under for the good a trench would do them. It is kind of interesting, as, that the goal of these hordes Russians will be the very civilians and land nuked by NATO weaponry. I guess the NATO theory that Germans were better served if they were exterminated then have to deal with communism!

The more packed the guys are in the Halftrack the better chance that one hit by a MMG will kill a bunch of them.

Unfortunately, CM does not represent everything that could happen in a historical battle, currently no game can. Crews weren't necessarily acting on commands, but their own initiative. It was their decision to retreat or to attack. The circumstances of this being able to happen were due to experience, morale, casualties, enemy strength and circumstance of the course of battle. In most circumstances the crews will probably retreat. Most players will retreat their crews either off the map, or use them as rearguard/prisoner wardens. Possibly crews should be completely under computer command (either behaving aggressively or passively, determined by the factors I mentioned) UNTIL they get in the command radius of a HQ unit (ie. MP's). This might then result in complaints that too many of their squads went on suicide missions, or, broke and fled when they were needed most. There is NO good solution that will meet the desires of every player. Personally, I see Crews constantly used in offensive actions as gamey. Their occasional use, to exploit an immediate opportunity (ie kill the Zook that nailed your tank or to accompany a platoon to make its numbers look larger) is not gamey, but, grouping all crews together to act as a human wave IS gamey (ie didn't happen). There are many accounts of groups of crews being used in prepared defences, but, I have yet to hear of a group of crews performing as a major part of an offensive.

Theoretically, EVERY year is a millenium from some possible starting event.

Uh, Kamikaze's were on the most part ineffective. Only a few planes used on Kamikaze missions could have a bomb load or reach sufficient enough speed to cause damage on even moderately armoured ships. The reason that they did so much damage is that they primarily targetted weakly armoured Essex class CV's and unarmoured Destroyers. 21" and 24" Torpedos, which are carried in just about every attack submarine are fully capable of sinking any ship afloat, even the venerable Iowa class battleships. One 24" Torpedo ripped a gaping hole in the side of the North Carolina, which had the same belt armour as the Iowa. One torpedo nearly sent this ship to the bottom. Also, the armoured protection is only stated as MAXIMUM, which covers only around 40% of the vessel. Most of the ship is relatively unarmoured. Here's an example of the vulnerability of obsolete warships to modern weaponry. The ex-USN CL Phoenix was sold to Argentina, and quckly sunk by ONE 21" Torpedo fired by the RN Submarine Conquerer (?) during the Falkland war. It was fully escorted by the most modern vessels of the age. Sure, it armour wasn't quite as thick as the Iowa, but, it just goes to show that even armoured vessels are vulernable to modern weaponry. It only takes a 500 kg bomb correctly placed to sink a Battleship. The technology to sink the Iowa's is well over 60 years old.

Subtitles would be cool. ARE YOU THREATENING ME?!?!

This is the third posting about proposing removing turn limitations. The vast majority of people are for retaining CM's current system of turns, or possibly asking for a randon 1-2 turn difference (5 turns is a bit much!). The elimination of an end turn (I think that this will be the THIRD time I stated this!) is that the attacker can spend ALL of the time that they wanted to prepare their assault, they will not be pressured to rush their attack (like many in history were!). Each of these small battles were dependent on other small engagements. Possibly if this hill isn't secured in 15 minutes then another unit will be cut off, have their flank exposed, or worse. Without a time limit the defender will gain absolutely nothing in setting up forward defences to delay the attacker. The ONLY goal of the game will be total annihilation. RARELY on a tactical battlefield was annihilation of the enemy the primary desire (Not including Vientam, which proved that this tactic wasn't going to win a war). The goal of a mission was to secure a certain piece of territory within a specific deadline, the tactical annihilation on the battlefield was secondary. Many games can be won by the defender suffering heavy losses, but, denying the VP areas to the attacker. This would mean that the only way a defender could win was to annihilate his enemy (hard to do with only 50% of the attackers points!).

CM1 1944-1945 West Front CM2 1941-1945 East Front CM3 1939-1943 Medeterranean Front CM4 1939-1940 West and East Fronts

Darn, I was looking for the berret and gave up They would look really cool with 'arms' badges on them!

Increasing the length of battles in operations does only serve the attacker. There are MANY games in CM where a person who suffered at the beginning was saved by key delaying actions slowing the enemy advance so they couldn't reach their objective, or, cut off and destroy their remaining forces. CM Battles and Scenarios have been playtested to determine what length of turn will suit the plot of the Operation. These Operations are designed urge the players to follow a certain storyline. Lengthening these turns beyond the correct length suitable for the map size and number of units will unbalance these scenarios. Removing turn limits entirely will make the game too long, and battles too tiresome. It only really serves the people who take joy not from just winning, but, also beating their opponent into the dirt. Check out the Ideas on Time limits thread. Removing a time limit will give the person who is attacking unlimited time in which to start their attack, giving them an unrealistic infinite amount of time to take an objective. In reality, there were limits imposed by their own commanders, as well as enemy reinforcements. What would the point be for a defender to delay the attacker with ambushes if the game ends only when the attacker says so?

The problem with this, is, that Operations rely more on a time limit than individual Battles. Since there are no objectives no time limit will allow the guy with the upper hand in the part of the operation to clear out ALL enemy resistance before the next part begins. The time limit is supposed to simulate the time restraints of achieving whatever goal of the battle. If you lose the time restraint you lose a feeling of urgency or necessity of planning for the specific part of the battle. All attacks will be liesurely, severely hampering any defender. Games will drag on so long both sides will lose interest. Also, what would simulate the end of one part of the operation and the beginning of another part? I am sympathetic to a variable limit (ie. turns don't always end on turn 30, could be turn 28 or turn 32), but, the elimination of time limits will only skew the game and probably make it less interesting to play. I don't agree with those who argue for no time limits just so they can totally annihilate their enemy, by this time the game is over. Rarely did each side agree on anything, and commanders didn't like the idea of pulling back even a few feet, unless it was to straighten out the line in a desperate situation. My understanding it, that troops get reinforced between battles in an operation, tanks can get repaired, and so on. These raids were seen more like capturing important bridges or bases, and are very well modeled by CM already. Just create a big map, with small numbers of units a long game (ie 60+ turns) and a few bogus objectives. Fast and light vehicles will be very important in covering and securing these goals.

Give yourself some time and experience. When I first started, back in December 1999, I was getting slaughtered left and right by the multitude of German Panzerschrecks in Chance Encounter. Playing this as the primrary demo for almost 1/2 a year in PBEM was a real asset to fine tuning infantry and armour tactics. Eventually, I learned how to utilize US Armour so that they will survive against German AT and Tanks. Keep them, actually ANY AFV, away from forests/builings that might have enemy troops in them. Panzerfausts aren't that spectacular either. Most of the German Platoons substitute Panzerfausts for Panzerschrecks. Panzerschrecks are much better for armoured ambush, as, if discovered you only lose a 2 man team, not an entire squad. A few losses will really sap the strength of a German squad, while British/American squads can tend to take more casualties and be more effective. Sure, the Germans might have a lot more interesting AFV's with different types of weaponry, but, put those specialized halftracks up against something they weren't designed to fight and they won't last long.