Mark IV
-
Posts
1,993 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Mark IV
-
-
I think most of the computer WAR GAMERS already know about it- they're just waiting. Combat Mission swept comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical like a platoon of Ferdnands when the demo was released, but there has been little more to say about it since, other than (you guessed it) "when's the release date?" Most of the on-topic chatter moved here
.The challenge now might be to attract other serious gamers to the wargaming genre. CM has enough visual appeal to stimulate the interest of folks who haven't tried wargames, and is accessible enough to reward those with any aptitude at all with some success.
Lots of people have a sincere interest in WWII history, but think war games are either "silly" or too complicated. The same people may spend their lunch hour blasting demons to gel with chain guns, or building sim-civilizations, etc.
Close Combat reached a lot of those people, because it was Microsoft-propelled. Can the CM Cult do the same, by word of mouth-net?
-
-
A post from BTS on 11/24/99:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>we ...changed the way Hide works. Your units now won't pop up unless under very dire threat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Both Sneak and Hide have apparently been tweaked since our demo.
Mark IV, student of the Search function
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-26-2000).]
-
Thanks. But re: fighting superior tanks, unless something has changed in the Gold version, you can not specify what type of round (other than smoke) the tank will fire- this decision is made by the TacAI, nicht wahr?
-
A Greatest Wargame thread has to at least mention Steel Panthers. The combination of historical accuracy, graphical immersion, and playability was breakthrough stuff, IMO.
Recognizing well its flaws and shortcomings, you still have to give it credit.
"CLANG": buttoned.
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-26-2000).]
-
UL = Underwriter's Laboratory. Test & certification service for electrical and electronic devices. In Europe, a comparable service (or rating) might be CE, though they are more concerned with emissions than electrical safety.
UL has a distinctive logo-sticker, which many inspectors require before electrical widgets can be installed. Basically the sticker says the device conforms to standards and will not burst into flames or cause the user to fuse in normal operations.
-
-
For what it's worth, the New York Times says that Stephen Ambrose's WWII museum will open on this year's D-Day anniversary.
Called the National D-Day Museum, it is supposed to have special emphasis on amphibious assaults including those in the Pacific. The focus seems to be the Higgins boat, which was built in the New Orleans area.
http://partners.nytimes.com/00/03/26/news/national/dday-museum.html?Partner
-
Some nice pix. One of the thumbnail links didn't work (the one for the minefield/signposts, and that's the one I really wanted to see); the others were fine.
-
"Soon after midnight, a Tiger, one of a number of the 501st Heavy Panzer Battalion following in Peiper's wake, approached the [stavelot] town square along the street leading up from the bridge over the Ambleve. Men of a platoon of Company A under First Lieutenant [Murray] knocked it out with a bazooka fired at close range, and the great carcass blocked the narrow street. As two following Tigers tried to turn into even narrower side streets, they had to back and fill to make the turns, leaving them vulnerable to Murray's bazookamen. Well-placed rockets knocked them out."
- one of several descriptions of Tigers lost to bazookas in "A Time for Trumpets", Charles B. MacDonald
-
Point taken, DF. It's been increasingly obvious anyway. UBB should have killfiles.
I was only seeking to preserve my status as a humorless, anal sycophant.
I also feel compelled to speak out on behalf of slugs and slime creatures everywhere, whom Fionn has maligned through odious comparison.
Despite their lowly nature, they do not feel compelled to call attention to themselves, the web equivalent of carving one's name in bathroom walls.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...zealots...weenies...You people ... maybe they will give us a cookie...Heres a clue...Anal people...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry about the lost "humor". My concern is that you really ARE communicating effectively.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I want heros to jump on grenades too and win Medals of Honor<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Be your own hero, as the saying goes. I will proudly sponsor your nomination.
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-24-2000).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lets get real<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This implies that someone is either out of touch with reality, or not being totally honest.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not gullible <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gullibility also implies that someone is attempting to fool you.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am being fed sugar-coated updates<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This suggests that you are being manipulated, and that "bad news" is being concealed or "spun" for your benefit.
I cannot understand your wanting to do business with such untrustworthy people. Maybe the game is no good and will never come out. So what? It's BTS' game, not yours; you haven't paid a penny but you got a free demo worth more than most of your other games (whatever they are).
No offense may be intended but it's certainly not surprising that some people find this tone and its implications offensive. Why not just post a thread asking when the release date will be? If they wanted to answer this they would have done so already.
Since squads are representations rather than individual soldiers, it would be unrealistic to show individual grenade-catching and returning; nor was this common or effective enough to bother modeling. Or so would be my guess.
-
HTML is bad enough, but NO .pdf, please
! What a useless format. I have the full Acrobat and I still say it's useless. -
I think it was over before Stalingrad. Sure, the Germans achieved tactical successes in 1942- but did they still have any serious prospects of crushing the Red Army?
The Russian pipeline was filling with tanks, planes, men, and experience. No way could Germany have kept up. Their only hope was a quick victory and they missed it. From then on, it was all numbers.
-
GriffinCheng: A reply to your thoughts in the same spirit...
We are exactly the same as imperial Spain and England. We are crushing Asia, not with pikes and cannon, but with Disney theme parks.
However, now that the notion of economic imperialism has been raised, I look around me as I type, and nearly everything I see is from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc., including the thing I'm typing on and the thing that made the coffee I'm drinking.
If Disney theme parks are American cannons, all of my appliances are Asian infantry!
If this is economic imperialism, balance of trade statistics show we are losing the war! -
I would vote for November 1941 as the turning point. When the offensive on Moscow failed, the possibility for a successful blitzkrieg evaporated and the initiative passed to the Russians. The weight of time, manpower, and production capacity on the Russian side in what really became a war of attrition made the outcome inevitable from that point on.
The Red Army went on the offensive in early December, 1941. The Germans were exhausted and had sustained losses they could never make up. It is a testimony to German field commanders that they performed as well and as long as they did. The veteran Wehrmacht that walked over Europe was really destroyed by Spring '42 and was never quite the same after that.
I think the Germans could have theoretically won the war against Russia prior to that point. It could be argued that their failure to prepare adequately caused the subsequent failure at Moscow, and thus the operation was doomed before it began. But by failing to smash the Soviet state and the Red Army's will to resist, their doom was sealed.
And having once started the war with Russia the only alternatives were total victory or abject defeat.
I believe that England and the US also received a badly needed boost from the German failure at Moscow. The myth of German invincibility was shattered and serious aid to Russia began to seem worthwhile.
Western aid in serious quantities wasn't reaching Russia until a couple months before Stalingrad. We tend to give too much emphasis to the US role in Russian resistance.
For what it's worth, I don't think light anti-tank weapons for Japan would have made much difference to the outcome of the war. Did the Nazis refuse a Japanese request for them?
And of course, the Japanese did tussle with the Soviet Union in the east, though before the German invasion. They didn't like it and they weren't going back. They were organized to fight a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy for which their "crappy" weapons were just fine. After Midway they had bigger fish to fry and were not about to stomp on the toe of another giant.
-
Berli, how do you win a defensive war (not battle)?
Just curious, mind you.
-
GriffinCheng: Yes, it is very easy to criticize any US administration for being "weak" on Taiwan.
We see ambiguity as a strength on this issue-we don't want to be committed to nuclear war at any cost, but we want the PRC to be unsure of our real intentions. They know we will commit to some level of defense for Taiwan, but how much? That is up to each president to decide.
I think we could sink the Chinese fleet in the straits if we wanted. But would we? That is for the PRC to guess and each US administration to know, or decide. That's what makes it interesting. We can back out if it gets too hot, or launch (whatever) if we feel like it.
There is no US advantage in committing before the s**t hits the fan, and we would only lock ourselves into a suicidal or destabilizing situation by saying one way or the other ahead of time. If you think about it this is world-class poker at its best. No fun if you're one of the chips, I agree (and strat nuke, aren't we all?).
China is already publicly committed to bringing Taiwan "back" at (almost) any cost. They cannot back down from this position, so we would be very stupid to commit ourselves to a position from which we also cannot back down; otherwise, Mushroom City.
Most "military types" probably don't think Clinton has the b*lls to face China down over this. I, for one, think he has b*lls to spare, but is an amoral, pragmatic, opportunist. If I was China (and Taiwan) I would consider this carefully. Timing is everything.
Better to wait- see what the next administration's like- in both the US and Taiwan.
I don't like Clinton but Taiwan is just a stick to beat him with- I can't see any US president handling the current situation much differently. What that president would do at "crunch time" is when you find out who you really elected.
-
Lorak: This thread is too far off- shove off.
Actually it's fascinating, and would be a blast to game (come, come, we're past having to apologize for puns, here?). Fionn needs a hobby in his life....
I agree that Chinese control of the Canal would be a pain in the arse, but I don't see what direct impact that would have on a Taiwanese invasion scenario. That sucker's gonna be fast, one way or t'other, and if we were to the point of having to reinforce with Atlantic assets it would already be essentially over (and there are two ways to get there). Possession is 10 parts of the law in Taiwan.
In the event of total war with China, sure, the Canal's vital, but I think some sense of perspective would prevail over a Taiwan invasion. An occupied Taiwan is a lost Taiwan. It's worth fighting for, but there wouldn't be any Iwo/Inchon/Normandy-type effort once it was physically occupied by PLA. For example, if we had grabbed Cuba (without the nuclear thing), would the Russians have mounted a trans-atlantic amphibious invasion to reclaim it? I see these situations as strategically somewhat analogous, while recognizing the cultural difficulties in the analogy... The Panama Canal is no longer as strategic as it was in WWII, and would be a bitch for an Asian power to defend.
We need to quietly (as possible) help the Taiwanese help themselves, encourage negotiations, and generally buy time. The only real-time tactical help Taiwan is going to get from us is naval and air, and short term I think it might be enough.
As an aside, it's interesting that our Israeli allies seem to be providing a good deal of high tech assistance to PLA. Good to know our technology has two routes to Asia, in case the copiers break down at our nuke labs! On the other hand, maybe that provides a window into Chicom operations we wouldn't have otherwise.
The NK dual-invasion scenario should fill the Pentagon gamer with dread, except... that would really allow us to take the gloves off, too.
Now, if Fionn were at the (western) controls this might be seen as a real opportunity for US, but with leaders who need to get re-elected and no particular militaristic inclinations this has got to be the nightmare scenario.
Technology could stem the tide in the Taiwan straits, but Korea has a lot of fixed-bayonet we're-here-and-you're-there massed armor/infantry kind of country which is WHY IT WOULD MAKE SUCH A GREAT CM SEQUEL.
Ahem...
Our clear legal obligation and unambiguous treaty obligation is with Korea, moreso than Taiwan, but it (SEATO, whatever) is really one theater. We would have to go to the mat for Korea.
If Taiwan were a grand tactical factor in the Second Korean War, China would face a level of escalation that they would not otherwise face in merely reclaiming a "renegade province". So it might not be in their best interest to combine the operations, since it would justify a greater US commitment that might outweigh the local tactical benefit.
GriffinCheng: A 10 km "clean" nuke airburst anywhere near Taiwan would give the Pentagon and the rest of the world a screaming ****fit and California would DEFINITELY file a class-action suit on behalf of all marine life in the area.
This would be a VERY ballsy move because we have things in the sky that spend the whole day looking for just such events. It is ILLEGAL to set off nuclear weapons even in jest, and seriously, even the PLA knows that would change some very serious rules.
I sincerely hope that the counter-revolutionary nests of spies and capitalist running-dogs are able to change some minds in the PRC before such dreadful idiocy comes to pass.
As a taxpayer, I expect a lot from my nests of spies. And peaceful capitalism is working out really well over here, lately.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>South Korea has seen computer game shops, called PC rooms, prosper over the past year, with 13,000 opening for business, and professional gamers emerging as new social idols.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
CM = Chick Magnet?
-
There were Taiwan scenarios in SPII (set in 1999!). Since they mostly involved US armored units with M1A2s against the PLA, I don't think they're very realistic, but there were some hellacious urban assault scenarios... but by the time PLA has massed armor forces on the ground in Taiwan it's probably over anyway.
Griffincheng: Doesn't EMP require a nuclear detonation to generate?
BTW, if China's experience with precision missile delivery is anything like ours, their first attempts to use them in a tactical situation with hostiles may be disappointing. Come to think of it, they've already had some direct personal experience with our precision delivery systems
!Pentagon estimated China will have all it needs to pull off a successful invasion by 2005. Of course, ALL public statements are meant to be read.
-
NT is your (our) problem. My "old" IBM 380Z, PII-300, 64 Mb RAM, ran CM just great.
As long as you're in NT you're screwed for the DirectX reason. There have been posts about Win2K workarounds here, if you search, and if you can secretly upgrade to it. Otherwise, life is bleak on the road, indeed. NT is definitely a horrible choice for laptop users, DirectX being the least of your problems.
-
The US 7th Fleet and LA class subs do not require foreign regional basing of any kind.
US ground troops are a much trickier matter, but it doesn't look as though they'd be required (except, perhaps, for specialists) anytime soon.
However, if Taiwan was physically lost I don't think the US would/could do much to regain it, as the fait accompli would render the argument moot.
Taiwanese missile bases do seem pretty well prepared for PRC missile attacks. And satellite reconnaissance should theoretically yield advance notice of Chinese amphibious plans (it would be difficult to prepare an invasion on the order of DDay+ and escape photodetection).
Japan would keep a pretty low profile if/when the matter went "hot", though the fall of Taiwan would not augur well for the future of Japan or South Korea. Remember the good will France gained by closing an eye to the occupation of the Sudetenland, et al?
The idea is to outlast the current regime in China- not China itself.
How can we make CM a huge success?
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
Def: You serious? Humor takes many forms, here, lately...
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical is a (the) Usenet newsgroup devoted, more or less, to historical wargames for the PC.
Assuming you're genuinely curious, and don't normally frequent newsgroups, you could search for it on www.deja.com. And believe me, the CM demo got the best buzz a game could in that very tough forum.
Folks there are as hot for a CM release as we are here (lots of crossover, I'm sure). They are also the most likely to rip on: poor documentation, bugs, ahistorical shortcuts, bugs, patches, postponed released dates, bugs, lousy game editors, unfulfilled promises, bugs, ditzy AI- you get the idea.
Some hope, and some fear, that CM will be... the Grail. Most were just plain impressed.