Mark IV

Uh, last time I was in Hong Kong they were selling Microsoft Office CDs for earrings, $3 a pair. Visio, Autodesk, Corel, and ANYTHING else ever made were pirated and available, cheap, everywhere. If guys with that king of clout can't stop it, I don't think BTS should waste their time. If it was on sale in the US it would be a different story, but that's what von Schrad's van is for. How many guys in Shanghai have been hankering to try their hand at WWII, anyway? I don't think BTS is losing too many sales dollars to pirates in these markets, 'cause they weren't going to buy it anyway.

Haven't heard from BTS officially on it in a long time. The cognoscenti periodically reassure us that BTS is aware of the popular interest (how could they not be!) and are looking for a "safe" and effective way to do it. It probably beats out dead bodies for total number of requests (though not for controversy and spilled electrons). And they made it in. Dontcha think scavenging for ammo is more important, though? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002028.html ... and many like it.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! You are the ONE MILLIONTH person to ask for this feature! Stop by the front counter on the way out for your complimentary FAQ and "Search" T-shirt!

Anyone interested in nuclear weapons should visit http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/ . Cary Sublette's history and theory of nukes is as good as it gets on the net. The German's were using a flawed theory of critical mass and were never even close, BTW. Like the Russians, they put the whole thing on the back burner due to more pressing concerns. And until the Trinity test, nobody really knew if the damned thing would even work. Until then, nuclear weapons were just a bunch of guys in a room, talking.

I would spend roughly 300 minutes (or 5 hours) playing just this one scenario. 5 hours! Listen, when your woman leaves you, your teeth stink, you don't know what time it is, you're thinking about moving the refrigerator because it's 8 feet from the computer, and there's a coffee can to pee in under your computer desk, THEN you can come cryin' about 5 hours a scenario. Meanwhile you just sit there and plot, bucko. (welcome aboard )

Loved the hamster theme. Try a Wespe- crew scatters like cockroaches at the first sign of light, with a sprinkle of infantry squad fire at 500m+ (time to Abandon: 1 second. Twice.). They are true one-shot wonders. To answer herbjorn: The best I could find in Dec. '44 was a Wehrmacht Sturmgruppe, with 7 K98s, 3 MP44s, and SMG, and 2 LMGs. SS Motorized Inf. had 4 K98, 3 MP44, 1 SMG, and 2 LMG. SS Panzergrenadier had 2 K98, 3 MP44, 1 SMG, and 2 LMG. BTW, I did not have a big problem with the Wespe performance in terms of realism. Some wargames allow ridiculously great involvements of heavy artillery in direct fire in the front lines, but AFAIK this was a rare exception to the norm. I do think they should have stuck to their gun under the relatively insignificant circumstances. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 07-15-2000).]

Augustine is very much alive in any discussion of war crime theory and legislation (see? this IS on topic). His thoughts on "just war", the theories of proportionality, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, are still cited (the one about just wars being fought by "competent authority" has sadly fallen victim to the times). I don't think he required preservation by the Arabs, though. He remained "nihil obstat" during the Middle Ages. Aristotle certainly isn't in any danger of being banned, but he just isn't as important anymore. Since the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution we haven't really needed to go back to the source, because information grew exponentially from his foundation. I have a fair bit of Greek (in English) and Roman literature hanging around. I suppose a society that is close to outlawing insensitive histories, tobacco products, and repeating rifles might theoretically pose a threat to the classics someday. I guess your real concern is that they will perish through ignorance- but I'll bet the same percentage of the populace (professors and students) reads them today, as read them 2000 years ago. The average Greek probably just wanted to know when the chariot race was on, and what's for supper.... nijis: We will continue to disagree about the benefits of British colonialism. They WERE better than the Turks (lower body counts, more benefits). But if we widen the scope of Pillar's question even more, where in the last 200 years is the civilization that has progressed to the level of western civilization, without western influence? Are we wanting our cake and eating it too? We want the bennies of the west with no strings attached? Or is there another way? Yemen doesn't sound much like paradise to me... The whole spiritual-agrarian-anarchy-less consumptive "answer" to western values (so beloved of tenured professors and undergrads) is really tedious. It always makes me want to set up a large Quick Battle with lots of armor.

I would like to say thank you to the Arab culture which, in the golden days of Islam, preserved philosophy AND mathematics AND many classic works while developing their own unique, vibrant, and beautiful culture. You can see some of its finest examples in Spain, where Islamic imperialists brought order and beauty for centuries, ruling in enlightened splendor over ignorant and curiously-colored barbarians (called "Europeans"). The debt that western culture owes to the Arabic world is usually acknowledged in history texts, at least at the college level. If they had stayed a little better organized, all Europe might be Islamic now. They stopped themselves, more than the mythic (but still cool) Chuck the Hammer. That whole bit about when the British got involved in the middle east makes me smile, because the bad guy is determined by when we decide to start our history... how do those rascally Turks fit into this hagiography? The modern Arab world might provide a good test: which Arab nations are better-off and worse-off? Are the more westernized ones better off, or not (culturally relative trick question, I guess)? Are the best-off nations those which adapted the most from colonial rule? Not if you're an Imam!

You do need to check your version number (don't know how long it was in shipping). If you received the 1.0 you can get the 1.01 patch which will bring you up to date. http://www.battlefront.com/products/worldwar/cm/index.html

Originally posted by nijis: On "benevolent" British imperialism Well, I'm waiting for some turns back, so: I said "fairly benign". I live in a country, Egypt, where the British did indeed build the railroads... (snip)... on several occasions they screwed with the workings of what originally looked to be a very promising parliament... (snip)... the way was cleared for an army takeover which has led to half a century of military dictatorship which, among other things, does a piss-poor job of maintaining the railroads. See? They built the railroads- good. They also appeared on the Egyptian scene because the country was bankrupt under its former system. Mohammed Ali Pasha was hardly an indigenous ruler (Albanian servant of the Ottomans, wasn't he? The Brits replaced the Turks, after all, and more benignly so). A parliament? Sounds British to me, and another damn good idea. Pity it didn't work out, but there wouldn't be one in the first place without Brits to emulate. So the British finally left, and are replaced (eventually) by Mubarak. Coulda been a lot worse, I'd say, especially compared to some of Egypt's previous rulers. This is a gross oversimplification--there's lots of reasons why Egypt has the government it does, most of which is the Egyptian elite's own fault--but the British didn't help things. Well, I think they really did, if you back away from it a little. The institution of the rule of law is the thing England has always done best. I think Egypt should send them a great big thank you card for that alone. If you've got a choice between infrastructure that gets old and has to be replaced, and your own indigenous political system which hopefully evolves and gets better, I think most nations would choose the latter. That's not a choice Egypt had, nor does most of Africa. In places like India where they were in for the long haul you might find that the British left behind workable political institutions, but in Africa and the Middle East that's generally not so. They were in India longer. As I say, they WERE imperialists. Or Sudan -- the Brits decided to make a single political entity out of an Arab-Islamic north and a Christian-animist south whose main historical link was the slave trade. Go figure why this might not work out. Egypt was the one who claimed all of the present Sudan as "territory" after their forcible conquest of the north in 1821. A British-Egyptian army was required to deliver the "nation" from the Mahdi, as you are probably aware. Egypt took the Sudan, and the British took it from them, after they took Egypt from the Turks. And they all pole-vaulted a couple of centuries forward thanks to British imperialism, and now they have it all back, and may do as they please. And we can sell them stuff.

Pillar: You're probably already aware of the CIA World Fact Book, but FWIW: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ This is a great resource- I use it all the time- and please don't be put off by the source. Africa will have to go through some stages, and the biggest problem Westerners seem to have there is impatience. We explain the deal, and can't understand why everyone doesn't immediately quit being counter- and self-destructive, and start being western. I know everybody doesn't "want to be Western" but they sure want the toys and all that goes with the dolce vita, and that's part of the problem. Now all the cultures on earth measure progress by wealth and toys, rather than by how many people have the means to create and manage their own wealth. Even the ones who follow the Marxist ticket are "being western" in the attempt to accumulate material goods by following an essentially western ideology. In one sense, Goebbels had it right: capitalism and communism are two different sides of the same materialist coin. I have no idea how to peacefully convey valid and successful values to Africa. Some contend that the values "Africans" already have are just as valid as any other (as though they were one person!). The cultural relativists think we should just keep hands off- but send checks every month. I would like to think there is a better solution, but it all seems to come down to native leadership. You can only help them help themselves, through their own leaders. The other solution is probably unacceptable in this day and age, but being an imperialist, I still think it would have been better to just colonize the place, keep order and educate, and turn it back over to them when they have a functioning market. Then we can sell them stuff. The British really wrote the book on (fairly) benign imperialism, and we USians have subconsciously been avid students of our cultural forefathers. Yes, it's insensitive, but it is a fast-track to success. Oh, well, didn't think that one would get a lot of support. I just wanted to make sure all the options are on the table.

My own OBA has an HE/smoke round mix, so why wouldn't the AI's? Also, in the demo, the mortars would continue to fire at an area with their smoke rounds if their HE ran out before the end of the turn. I don't think I've seen this in the release but I really haven't had enough time to play it yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sonic: has anyone noticed how easy it is to drive a Sherman M4 around occupied Paris without inf. support and live to tell the tale!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 07-13-2000).]

Check. One of the easier poll-votes ever submitted. Click, check, back.

Speaking of useless weapons: they should have included a Wespe or two- they'd be right at home. I've tried them twice. Each time they got off one shot (from hull down in scattered trees), encountered returned INFANTRY fire at ranges of over 500m, and abandoned within one (1) second. They must be "manned" by pacifist nuns. Think of them as one-shot disposable 150mm Panzerfausts. Or a single large and expensive mine. Back to StuH for me.

Believe it or not, CM is the ONLY thing I have ever ordered via credit card over the net. Most other stuff I shop online, then call the 800 number. Works fine- no downside (except terminal music on hold, which is a "no sale" situation after about 45 seconds).

Not too many valid comparisons between the all-for-nothing ACW and the Vietnamese guerilla war- but destruction of the enemy's forces was still key. This was not accomplished in VN. We left, instead. They occupied. This has been done to death here and elsewhere, but I believe both the solution and the defeat were political, rather than military. If you feel there is a valid analogy to ACW, bring it on. Should the (Confederate) South have gone guerilla? Could the Union have dealt with this? Or, if we had destroyed the NVA and occupied North Vietnam, would we have lost militarily anyway? Could they have prevailed without an organized military force? I don't need another lecture on the politics of Vietnam, but if you are contending that the destruction of the enemy's fighting force was not the key to winning the military "conflict", then what was?

If you have to keep moving and can't spare any watchdogs, you can area fire on their location (since you can't target them) with passing units. YES, the casualties cost you victory points, but it seems to keep them in line. It's interesting to issue them Move orders- some listen, some don't. Makes target selection easier.

Chickenhawk: Dunno how many forums you've been to, but this is the least "disturbed" I've ever seen. We get exercised over how many angels can dance on the turret of a StuG*, but we're all really enthralled and in love. This is the wargamer's dream come true. If you can even ask a question like "give me your overall opinions as to historical accuracy", load it, you'll love it. We're just kvetching about the fine points now, so we can say BTS put in "our" pet feature, and because some of us love to argue, and because no one will talk to us in any detail about WWII in our daily lives like the people on this board will. BTS has been incredibly responsive, as any Search will show (try "Dead Bodies"), and they continue to amaze. Anybody here, tell me if I'm wrong, can I have a witness!!! *Uh-huh, it's a trick question.

The maneuver part was getting your lines where they had the greatest advantage over the other guy's lines. These are very large lines we're talking about, and the best movie can only show the effects of battle and maneuver over a couple hundred yards, at best, at any one time. Sherman was fighting a logistical, and in some ways psychological campaign, but it wouldn't have been possible without the rest of the Union forces having bottled up the bulk of the Rebs' fighting forces with head-on conflict or maneuver threat. The "threat" part doesn't translate very well into movie footage, since it consists of the enemy commanders' perceptions and reactions without much gunfire. Massed formations were the ACW equivalent of MGs. A bunch of guys is trying to take a key piece of ground, and it takes a bunch of bullets to stop them. Sans MGs, you volley fire with multiple, disciplined ranks armed with single-shots (for the most part) to keep that wall of lead up. See the movie "Zulu" for a nice (but breech-loading) depiction of the idea. Picture an MG42 with a footprint 50m wide by 25m deep. Clausewitz formalized what good generals have always known: the key to victory is the destruction of the enemy's forces. Destroying their "will to fight" is part of the process. ACW was actually all about maneuver, but not on a scale that can be fully appreciated in CM or movie terms, except maybe in View 8. It set standards for aerial reconnaissance (balloons, though they were used before), intelligence, rail transport (motorized infantry), repeating and automatic weapons, artillery for sure, intelligence-gathering, and even small-unit tactics. Screening and recon were major parts of a commander's ops. The evolution of tactics from 1861 to 1865 was rapid and trendsetting- the lessons learned by foreign observers are evident immediately in their own subsequent conflicts (Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, Victorian wars [Garnett Lord Wolsley was a Victorian much taken with Stonewall Jackson], etc.). Cavalry, if it wasn't already clear, lost its ascendancy for good, and turned into armed reconnaissance- an extension of the infantry. Like most wars since the Industrial Revolution, tactics and technology had to keep pace with one another, and the process was rapid and intelligently driven (for the most part) in ACW. It wasn't a 4-year snapshot in time, but a very dynamic period in warfare for the whole world to watch, and they "went to school" on us. The standards and methods of Warfare changed a lot in those 4 years. Compare tactics of both sides at 1st Manassas/Bull Run with those of the later war. Vicksburg made the Euros gasp at the obstacles that had to be surmounted, and the engineering feats that had to be effected. Haven't even gotten to naval warfare....

your viewpoint is right on the waypoint and you can rotate around that ...which is already pushing the realism envelope, and therein is the problem. This regards the fine line between combat sim and war game. Real people and vehicles don't create "waypoints" to move a couple hundred meters- they just go there. They cannot see what they're going to be able to see, before they get there. They can guess pretty intelligently, but the only way to be sure is to go there (or send someone else there first). The waypoints are required to convey your wishes to the units, but pre-visiting them for FOV purposes is about as far as I would want to take supernatural effects. Drawing a projected LOS line is just going too far. This has some impact on the great hull-down move debate. How could you designate a target spot (relative to your desired hull-down position), if you have no LOS to it in the first place? Answer- it would have to be spotted by a friendly first, or be a prominent terrain feature (road) that would be on any map.

LOL Reminds me of the Dilbert where the oldtimers talk about having to program in ones and zeroes- dilbert says, "you had zeroes?"

Member = 30 posts. No replies necessary.

Isn't that what auto-surrender simulates? If your global morale gets much below 15%, the computer will capitulate for you, which models the battalion (+ or -) saying "the hell with it".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carentan: it's a scuffed-up cassette with the holes covered by scotch tape.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You got a cassette??? I've been loading these punch cards for hours! Pretty watermark, though...