Mark IV

It was a generic term for almost all German MGs (including 34 and 42). The aircraft MGs in WWI were often referred to as "Spandaus" also, but it was just the place of manufacture. I have some old action books about WWI from the 20s and 30s that refer often to "twin spandaus" on the Fokkers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Next time you propose to recreate the Somme, please do let me in on it too, so that I can plan for it as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Alas, that reference will be quite beyond Meeks' comprehension. His knowledge of military history is somewhat stunted, like the man itself. He has confessed to me privately that he thinks Chancellorville was Hitler's birthplace. You will need to seize him gently by the pancreas and lead him to pictures of WWI to explain the reference. DON'T show him pictures of horses, they confuse him. PS: I have another short CMless trip, back Friday, and then I'm going to find a scenario to send you. If you can lose to Meeks I can only surmise that you're getting worse.

Nasty bugs? The beta was more stable than any wargame I ever owned (not to mention microsludge office)... I couldn't believe it was free. LD was really my favorite, from either side, but I'm sure I played Chance Encounter far more, like the rest of us. Those three beta battles probably got more ink than Waterloo. It's fun to search topics and run across threads from before last Christmas... the old handles, controversies, speculations, and occasional flames... I know a lot of those guys are still around under different handles (after the First Great Board Crash wiped a lot of them). That was when "sycophants" were the rage (long before the hamster craze), the dead body debate was in full swing, and breathless anticipation was in the air. People predicted the demise of the PC gaming industry if the game wasn't released within a week. Panzerfausts wouldn't target. We voted on the TCP/IP exclusion almost a year ago (and boy, am I glad it went the way it did!). Wonder whatever became of Schrodi... not. The first arch-villain of the BBS. I'm right around a year with this game and board and I still can't believe how good it's been. More than a game... a way of life!

Be nice, now (before we're led off to the 'pool), he posted one of the classic potential sig lines of recent times: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>i put no units whatsoever in for the allies, and they still have a 88% lead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Buggy bastard, isn't it!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty: Why? You afraid I might steal some of your men?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can steal me, Kitty. (Send picture of boat and motor.)

Quick Battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by securityguard: i didn't understand a word after the first sentence, but im sure its something rather stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, it's the formula for bloody cold fusion with common kitchen materials, of course. Tip the docents and they'll help you along. Anyway, define "rather".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gorilla: Weird big thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gorilla, at the Washington Monument: Tall pointy thing! At the ocean: Big wet spot! At indoor plumbing: Gawl-leee! At Meeks: Illiterate boor! ------------------ Let me start of saying that Combat Mission is a WARGAME. -Maximus

...but if Meekses had been Indians, we could all be touring the President Custer Memorial right now. Conversely, had Meekses been horses, the sporty Ford Camel would have swept the country by storm in the 60s. Hope the subject line drives you sane. Lord knows the Brick has failed. Yes, yes, the padlock please. Securely about his ankles now, there's a good fellow, and now on the count of 3... (wrists left unbound so's you could count along)... splash!

http://www.acronymfinder.com/ And of course, http://home.att.net/~mike.bandor/megaterm/megaterm.htm ------------------ Let me start of saying that Combat Mission is a WARGAME. -Maximus [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 10-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: I remind you of that old saying oft attributed to Abraham Lincoln (A better calvary commander than Custer, just like 99% of the population, regardless of what that midgit Sheridan thought)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good lord what a dolt. Please tell us you can't have children (of course a bar of Irish Spring can't conceive, so we're probably safe). Your comprehension of military history needs to begin much further back than ACW, I fear. Try filling a jar with red ants and black ants, and observe the results. Wear the victors in your hair. Repeat. After a few decades of this we can work up to troglodytes vs. mammoths, and in a few centuries you may begin to comprehend a few fundamentals of armed conflict. Only one greater Genius graces this board... ------------------ Let me start of saying that Combat Mission is a WARGAME. -Maximus

Originally posted by Major Tom: The Iraqi were not only Conscript troops equipped with old stuff, but, had to endure constant bombardment before even seeing their enemy. Many Iraqi units would have had the CM equivalent of Regular or Veteran status, and not just the Republican Guard. This is a nation that has been in constant battle, large and small, with ample opporunity to train troops, including under fire. There were still officer and NCO veterans of the rather large war with Iran, and many guerilla and counter-insurgency ops during "peace" against Kurds and other heavily armed minorities. I don't think the majority of Iraqi troops were really Conscript level (in CM terms- technically, most American soldiers in WWII were "conscripted"). 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. Exactly. Regarding [Maximus'] 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? MT, you've been around here long enough to know... you're accusing him of subtlety? 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. Bingo. Opposing an automatic national characteristics modifier sure ought not to be construed as some form of political-correctness, but rather the recognition that the game already provides every mechanism required to simulate historical reality. The organization and armament of the units is the most important national factor, and these are already there. The rest is up to the gamer. FWIW, I believe that there are cultural and occasionally even genetic differences between "nationalities" and I think most everyone here recognizes that. But the degree of manifestation and dispersion of such traits over an entire population would have a very wide swing, and as has been pointed out, would be impossible to quantify. That some nebulous set of "traits" (if they could be quantified) would be evenly represented in a given company from that population is highly unlikely, particularly when individual leadership (or armed commissars) play such a vital role in any unit's performance. However, every scenario designer has the ability already to infuse any theory or impression into a unit's attributes. Even if all this were factored in, the individual player's style has more to do with reflecting realistic national performance. I doubt whether many players of the 1941 Russians in PBEMs would care to emulate their tactics precisely; part of the challenge is to change history by out-generalling one's historical counterparts. And even looking at averages, the "average" 1941 Russian unit differed significantly from the "average" 1944 unit in performance, which means they learned the same as the rest of us did (including the Germans). So I guess "national characteristics" are pretty dynamic. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 10-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: What's the point? You're buying obsolete equipment. And why do that when the newer stuff is less than double the price.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This ignores the fact that older machines cannot possibly take advantage of 32Mb graphics capabilities. Voodoo 3 is a fine card which vastly enhances the performance of CM over the stock 4 or 8 Mb cards that a lot of 450 MHz and earlier systems came with... and there's no sense in paying "less than double the price" for capabilities one cannot use, without a $800 CPU/motherboard replacement along with it. The old PII-300 would last me another 5 years as is, playing CM alone... and it would be pointless to throw another nickel at it. The next upgrade will be a whole new rig and until then the Voodoo 3 was money very well spent.

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Custer was a fop, we all know it... regardless of the historical record to the contrary, and an unbroken string of victories over Rebel forces of superior size... but then, I don't really know anything at all This is the lamest comeback in the crippled history of the pool. "We all know it", uh-huh, how bout some insights from "they" while you're at it? Ibid, anyone? The last commander, and later the historian of the Michigan Cavalry, James Kidd, put it thus: "Custer was a fighting man, through and through, but wary and wily as brave. There was in him an indescribable something, call it caution, call it sagacity, call it the real military instinct- it may have been genius- by whatever name entitled, it nearly always impelled him to do the right thing." Phil Sheridan held him in the highest regard, as you should know. That his whole reputation now rests on the consequences of one hopeless but inconsequential Indian battle, and its deeply political aftermath, is a monstrous injustice. I may be blonde and elderly, resembling a yellow Lab undergoing chemo-therapy, but I know a psuedo-ACW-grog with a personality disorder when I hear its distinctive thump under my tire. Frankly, I find your love of the North and your use of a Nazi weapon as a moniker a bit suspicious. You like the jack-booted oppressors, don't you? Hyu-huh. I wear a tie every single day, to work, in California, because it is the metaphorical jackboot of the latter-20th capitalist oppressor, and here's a full Windsor in your face, rebel untermensch nambanjin fellaheen gweilo bastard. If you think the MkIV is some kind of sinister Ueberweapon in CMBO, yer gonna love the horse-drawn IGs. It's one of my national characteristics. Well, well, now it all becomes clear. Scrappy underdogs aren't for you, eh MarkIV? You make me sick. Sick! I like the crunch you make under my spit-polished Rockport. Keep working for the clampdown MarkIV, because in Appendix B of the Cesspool it says: MarkIV: First one up against the wall when the revolution comes.

If Meeks actually has a job, why can't it prevent him from posting slanderous, uneducated drivel about George Custer while the rest of us are trying to work? What sort of job permits you time to post, but not to research? Admit you get your ACW information from the back of a Wheaties box, and you'll hear no more of this matter from me. Persist in your delusional comic-book notions, and expect the Brick of Knowledge upside your steeply-sloped cranium. And stop bothering the Very Serious Posters outside of this thread. As for the rest of you, I got drunk instead of looking for your turns yesterday. Bummer. I deserved it. You will too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: ...Custer was little more than a fop and a gloryhound more concerned with having his picture taken than executing risky or brilliant strategic or tactical maneuvers. The idea that JEB Stuart being killed by two Union cavalrymen puts Union cavalry on par with Southern cavalry is patently false, rather it displays that throughout the war the North killed an enormous number of general officers, far more, proportionately, than were lost in the North.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are quite wrong about Custer's ACW career, though this thread is probably not the best place to complete your education. ( snarley for the humorless drones who may not be familiar with Cesspool etiquette). Stuart's demise was but one incident (more symbolic than material) in the very real Union victory at Yellow Tavern. If you are really ignorant of Custer's (and the 1st Michigan's) ACW exploits, and really buy the gloryhound-only interpretation of his career, you are missing a lot of good history. And if you feel dead general ratios are relevant, the numbers might have been a little less lopsided if the CSA had refrained from shooting their own. To spare this thread further embarassment and digression I shall deal with you in the appropriate forum- you know the place. My work here is finished.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by brucer: We all apply our own mental modifiers to explain such historical results... we just disagree on the size of the group that allows for acceptable generalization... But if we can generalize about 1,000 people, why not 20,000?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In CM you only need to generalize about 30 people, at a certain hour on a specific day. And if we can generalize about 20,000 people, why not generalize about the Free Polish (only two divisons in theatre) or Canadians (three) or Texans, or Holsteiners, or Lowland Scots in CM? Not to say, "all this country's units are Green," but saying "these units here tend to be higher on the quality scale, and these units here tend to be lower." Because generalizing about 40,000+ people regarding something as nebulous as "quality" is pointless? Because CM doesn't model divisions? Because within a division there are always good-better-best units, in different areas of proficiency (a team that is in the best physical condition is not necessarily the best at tank gunnery)? Assuming we don't want to make troop quality completely random, and take it out of the CM equation altogether, we're really just debating at which level you can safely do so. You can do it to the platoon (maybe even squad) level already. It still sounds like what is really sought is a further tweak for Quick Battles, so "national characteristics" is still painting with too broad a brush. Actually, native accounts of the Little Bighorn indicated a lot of cavalrymen in that hopeless situation effectively gave up and more-or-less waited to be killed. I have a fair amount of literature on LBH and would be interested in a source for that. I was thinking more of the Indian Wars in the Great Lakes area at the time that I wrote, but I believe it would apply across the board. Is it your feeling that white soldiers surrendered as readily to Indians as they did to one another in the ACW? Before we digress too far, the point is that the same group of soldiers will behave differently in different situations, depending on the situation. Some cultures are sufficiently alien to the European experience that modeling them would require some new factors- both the Japanese and the American Indians might be examples. Of course neither appear in CMBO, and the tweak for Japanese might be as simple as allowing a Fanaticism setting of 85%. Remember that could be applied to Green or Regular troops, so they wouldn't be Uberjaps, just crazy bastards. I wonder how the experts would have rated the Japanese national characteristics in 1904, just before they drove Russia out of Korea and Manchuria? I believe the conventional wisdom was that they were "little monkeys" who would collapse completely before disciplined white troops. Of course, the British and Americans disregarded that and subsequent successes because, of course, the national characteristics of the Russian troops were inferior. Their own troops would never break before non-white doll-sized invaders, because of their inherent superiority. This made the loss of Malaya to inferior numbers of Japanese troops really hard to take, not to mention the Philippines and the rest of the South Pacific. Historians have drawn a link between the much higher percentage of gun ownership in the 1850s in the southern states, and their early war performance, which man-for-man certainly seemed superior to their otherwise equally untrained Northern opponents. Many have concluded Southerners as a whole regarded and handled war differently, largely due to subtle but ingrained differences in their society and culture. By this standard, the "national modifier" for Americans must be enormous. All American squads would be +xx over all SS units (and every other European unit, except maybe those of the Balkans) as we have always led the world, by a lot, in private ownership of firearms. Then the "emphasis on parade-ground drill" and "school-room indoctrination" modifiers would have to be offset by the "entrepreneurial spirit" and "no class distinctions between officers and enlisted" modifiers. See how slippery the slope? And all this just to avoid using the scenario editor's existing ability to model quality, condition, and fanaticism to platoon/squad level for a specific clash? Meeks: On the subject of generalizations, I gotta say that the Union fielded some outstanding cavalry by the end of the war (granted they often fought as mounted infantry). Who dispatched JEB Stuart, the Reb cav legend? Why, the 1st Michigan Cavalry at Yellow Tavern, led by the Yankee cavalry legend... George Custer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351: Do we say that yes, there were differences between nations, but they are too hard to quantify and leave it out of CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They didn't. It's in the scenario editor. Your retort (after the first few times this was pointed out to you) was "I'll send you my copy of the game, and you can personally adjust all of the scenarios and PBEMs I currently have going." All? Sorry, but it does seem you are given to generalizations... The average German soldier was no more likely to pull the stunt with the bazooka than you or I. The much smaller percent of German soldiers in scenarios who were SS (dunno know about your PBEMs) weren't much more likely to have done so. A lot of fanaticism attributed to the SS came from actions on the Eastern front- where surrender equalled certain death and possibly torture. Compare to American soldiers, who in the Civil War would surrender when the situation was hopeless, but who would fight to the last cartridge and beyond against Indians, for the same reason. Same guys, different situations. The same might be said for WWII Amis fighting in Europe vs. the PTO. Or any other group. What "national doctrine" modifier would account for units of the 28th ID reacting so differently in the Huertgen battles (some collapsing completely after a few rounds of artillery, others fighting with Homeric fortitude)? Anyway, it sounds like what you really want (based on your quote above) is a Fanaticism setting for Quick Battles. That would certainly be easier to implement, though you may have trouble finding opponents.

A P-38 shadow should be distinctive...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: But that of course begs the question - has anyone ever in the history of wargaming voluntarily chosen Volksturm units? If so, to which mental institution is their mail to be addressed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Institute for the Criminally Insouciant Fresno, CA I bought them to hold a village while employing SS for the "active" defense- against Peng. I won.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu: Yes, let someone else pay for it: good Port is expensive...Still working on the Lagavulin myself: the very nectar dripping off Hera's teats that is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aye... just had the Lagavullin 15 in Atlanta; cleared the palate, and then a Talisker. Nothing like a good hotel bar for the old scotch smorgasbord (to mix national characteristics). I don't like Oban as well as I used to, I find. As for Porto, I'll drink it, but I prefer a nice dry sherry anyday. I was keeping Dry Sack in business when it wasn't cool. It's probably still not cool, and I'm still keeping them in business. Hmmm... now I'm inspired to head out and pick up some bottles. Perhaps then I'll send you a turn (if I can find it).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351: The Japanese squad isn't any more competent in battle, as you WOULD GET IF THEY WERE ELITE, but is more likely to become FANATICAL in battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The same would hold true if you substitute "SS" for Japanese in that sentence. So make them Green or Regular, with Fanaticism set to All Troops at 50%. There is no national modifier that could possibly apply to every company that nation fielded. On "any given Sunday" a strong unit can break, a so-so outfit becomes heroes, and so forth. I don't know why you would want to relinquish the freedom of the scenario editor to such an arbitrary, unrealistic, and unquantifiable number.

The Brit 2" mortar team can run, though they tire easily. I believe they're the only mortar which can.

Here I am, back after 3 horrid weeks, and the Pool has become the Scrota-Shandork chat room, and has nearly fallen off page 1 (cause? effect?). A bunch of squirey newfs and no-name spit-mongers have supplanted the truly vile denizens of my beloved cistern, and a sad thing it is. I've some catching up to do, but let's hope there was something more worthwhile than the last couple pages. Can't turn my back for a minute...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Admiral: There were some interesting battles from the African campaign, and some featuring Japanese troops. The basic unit was the company, though...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Japanese were allied with the British in WWI and sent a naval squadron to the Mediterranean. There are Japanese sailors buried in a British military cemetery on Malta, of all places. They also seized Tsingtao (along with a British regiment) from the Germans in a nice litte amphibious assault, and some no-name German-held islands, like Tarawa, Saipan, and Tinian.