Mark IV

If you search on "night" you'll be pleased. There are screenshots posted at CMHQ http://combathq.thegamers.net/ [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-10-2000).]

Wardogz: I doubt that I'm alone in saying that, if I thought I was going wait one extra, interminable week for the release of this game (or even one more demo scenario), so that you could tell your friends the graphics were kewl, I would track you down and reformat your hard drive at the very least . It's pretty enough (I assume you're following the updated screen shots at CMHQ). It could always be better and that's why they have a version numbering system. I'm sure by CM3-5 you'll have holographic fireballs, updated stitch patterns on the camo smocks, and rifling marks on the tank shells. My lame old 300s digest everything just fine and they will upgrade mainly to keep pace with CM. But for me this is a war FIRST and a game second, and I would be quite happy to have it NOW!!!

steveo: You are only playing the computer if you selected "1 Player" shortly after choosing the scenario. Then you (hopefully) chose a side (Axis or Allies). The computer is using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to play against you, and occasionally for you. So, you will see many references on this forum and elsewhere to the "AI". Usually AI means the computer enemy, but a sort of friendly AI also manages your individual units after you've given them their 60 seconds worth of orders. For example, if you've ordered an infantry squad to move to a building, but halfway there it runs into an ambush by an enemy MG, the squad may (quite sensibly) take cover and return the fire. You didn't tell it to do this- the AI made your squad act like the little men they are, and react like a real squad. You plot ALL the moves for all your guys, THEN you hit "Go". Then 60 secs worth of sh*t hits the fan (remember, the other guy, or the AI, has plotted his 60 secs worth of mayhem for the same time period, too). You can replay it from many angles and many units' perspectives to track the action, and you should, especially at first. View 4 generally works best for me to follow the general action in the movie. When you've figured out what happened, you hit "Done" to end the replay segment. Now you plot the next 60 secs of vengeance, and you will note the Done button has changed back to "Go". The first Go of the movie is the real nail-biter, when you've no clue what's about to happen. As you get used to it, you will probably find yourself replaying a little less, except when very vital, puzzling, or cool things happen. Then you will want to study them more closely, from different angles. So, what's really happening is that you and your opponent are both scheduling 60 second moves for ALL your forces, then pushing Go and watching simultaneous resolution of the whole shootin' match. The key is not to get stuck in thinking in terms of 60 seconds at a time, or trying to get the whole picture purely from an overhead view. As the destructions say, try to use common sense; what ought to work in real life will probably work in CM. Except don't scavenge for ammo or hope to use dead bodies for cover .

Space: Above and Beyond was a pretty neat series and I miss it (apparently there were only two of us). Of course, a weekly hero who is sometimes grunt, sometimes fighter pilot is a bit much, but I liked the campaign aspect of it and the tactical detail. Then, I liked Starship Troopers, too. Most of it, anyway.

The swastika was also an ancient American Indian device, and was used by Navajo units in the US Army. There was a US Army unit shoulder patch circa 1925- the unit escapes me now, someone here will know, or I'll look it up- bearing a red swastika. Indian units voluntarily discontinued use of the swastika as Nazism's tenets became generally known. I prefer the symbol's inclusion in the game. It's supposed to be symbolic of VL ownership, and what fills the role better? Incidentally, I could not fathom (and I don't think I would buy) an American Civil War game that represented the South with anything BUT a rebel flag. And I'm a Yankee.

Major Tom: The worst thing you can do to a Canadian... is to make him drink American beer. I grew up in Detroit. The lines to Canada were long on Friday night, as hordes of Amis craving beer with actual flavor (not to mention alcohol) backed up the tunnel. Brador, Carlsberg, Labatts- those were values worth fighting for (my taste ran to the Molson Golden, BTW). As for hockey, like I said, I grew up in Detroit. Sorry about that, eh? Go Red Army. PS: If Don Cherry was PM, Canada would have nukes, and they'd probably use 'em.

When the smoke clears from all the above, I would really appreciate a phonetic pronunciation for "amn't". PS: The First Amendment (and the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights) is so cool, it's one of the VERY short list of things I regard as holy. The notion of a forbidden bitmap is, well, foreign (would a JPEG be considered a loophole ?).

Ya gotta admit, the notion of "fanatical Canadians" seems a trifle oxymoronic (NOT a comment on their war record, BTW). Given Canada's relatively placid disposition, the phrase is as jarring as "mad cow". Of course, the best way to set Canadian troops to "fanatical" is to issue a case of Molson and some hockey sticks...

Berlichtingen: How did you do the umlauts? Is that a UBB/HTML thing, or a character set?

I don't think the French Resistance meets the traditional definition of partisans, at least as used by the Wehrmacht. In the East they were faced with large, reasonably organized bodies of partisans, who may have used ambush and hit-and-run tactics, but functioned as military units. They were highly irregular and were composed of non-professionals who faded back into the populace between actions, but could be formidable units in local encounters. The Resistance didn't usually engage in these kind of actions, and weren't a battlefield factor that I'm aware of.

Wow, didn't know about the German KVs at all. Obviously this scenario will HAVE to be included. I imagine ammo choices would be limited for the KV series in German hands. A rack-full of HE? Smoke? I wouldn't think the Germans would have been worried about much armored opposition on Malta, so AP would seem to be kind of a waste of space, unless for use on concrete defenses.

Berlichtingen: I'm curious- what do KVIIs have to do with a German invasion of Malta? Were they refurbing Russki tanks (please God, don't airdrop a KVII on my battlefield)?

dumbo: Two Japanese officers to look at are Generals Yama****a (Singapore) and Homma (Philippines). Obviously both had jobs before the US and Britain joined the war, but these are battles they were closely associated with. Yama****a was just brilliant in the Malaya campaign. He proved that the better part of generalship is preparation and logistics, rather than mere dashing about maps. It's safe to say he couldn't have done it without the British, though. Talk about underestimating... the subtitle to the Singapore campaign should be "Ignorance is Bliss". General Homma ran into far more trouble in the Philippines than anticipated. The Japanese were as capable of underestimating an enemy as the British and Americans. Homma reacted, changed the plan (and sent for reinforcements), and won a total victory. The unusual tactics and daring of Japanese ground forces in this campaign are worth a read.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's interesting to examine the Brits away from the strong American influence they operated under in the ETO and Med<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then you've gotta love Singapore . There's one I'd like to replay with the original OOB, but with ahistorical British tactics and management. Some of the early Aussie actions in New Guinea area are also pretty amazing before they got all the American help (y'know, the relief force we sent down from the Philippines ).

A great Canadian shock action was the assault on Walcheren Island, as part of the Battle for the Scheldt. This story really doesn't get a lot of press but is worth looking up. German gun emplacements on the island threatened the fuel resupply of Patton's rapid advance. The British navy and Canadian assault troops were assigned to take the island (which was connected to the mainland by a causeway). German direct fire took quite a toll on the amphibs and landing craft. Huge rocket-battery craft were used to sweep the beach area, and the Canucks went in. Bloody little business. Interestingly, the island's defenses included a German unit composed entirely of men with hearing disorders from other fronts, mostly the East. They acquitted themselves very well.

Either side is fine, but for the $1000 I'd like a peek at the map and OOB before committing. All other things being equal, the Germans are more fun. Of course, I really prefer playing Japanese. Your infantry does what they're told, they never surrender, and they shoot Marines .

"...from July on, we were to hear more and more of General Patton. He seemed to be commanding a new army on the invasion front- later identified as the United States Third Army. He was reported to be an expert commander of armored troops and something of a daredevil. We nicknamed him 'the American Guderian'". - Leutnant-General Bodo Zimmerman, Chief Operations Officer to C-in-C West and later (Western) Army Group D, in "The Fatal Decisions", Frieden and Richardson. Excellent old book that I forgot in the recent book thread. Also some nice words for FM von Kluge, who probably deserves mention somewhere here. Apparently tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a truce, strafed, wounded, insulted, fired, and finally committed suicide for his considerable efforts on both Fronts. "That is what it means to be a thoroughbred."

Bagpipes totally work. But, Wagner isn't just "opera music" either. Crank the Overture to Tannhauser (damn, no umlauts) next time you rush a treeline, or pop over the rise with your StuGs. Dim the lights and play Siegfried's Funeral as you run the movie for turn 28 (give it time, it's a slow starter). No fat lady singin', just War, Death, Victory, and the gods. Rock on.

Peterk: Very discerning. That would explain it! BTS: "Company Commander" also describes a friendly run-over. A sergeant is wounded, and while being assisted off the battlefield they pass behind a Sherman, just as flak guns open up on it. The driver throws the M4 in panic reverse and kills the poor sarge.

Major Tom: Whoa... the first American shipments began reaching Russia about 6 weeks before Stalingrad. The war had moved back out of Russia before any real second front opened in the West. The fact that a hypothetical second front had to be defended by the Germans certainly helped Stalin- but the Russians were well on their way to handling the Germans before the West showed up on the continent. They WERE winning on their own. They might have been doing even better, if Stalin had not forced them to front-wide counter-offensives in Winter 41, instead of concentrating his forces for a decisive blow in the German center. It's said that Stalingrad had the opposite effect on the two dictators' relationships with their militaries. Stalin finally learned to trust the pros- and Hitler lost all faith in them for good. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-07-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would think that there would be a minimum range at which smoke can block LOS - something like 10 meters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmmh, that's about 30 feet- we've got "Tule" fog around here that'll obscure an 18-wheeler at that range. Imagine the shock of banging into something- then seeing the cross on the side. I'd be looking for the "R" on the gearshift pretty quick. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-06-2000).]

One of the better yuks lately, Foobar. Road rage, anyone?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really like posting these discussions, I just hope nobody is taking them too seriously!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No danger here- after all, it's not real. CM is real. Note that I don't argue that Hitler was any kind of military genius, only that he had reasons to think that he was. The Germans had the same tools as England and France at their disposal to develop blitzkrieg, probably less, yet they were the ones who executed (no pun intended). They probably would have been far less successful and settled for relatively limited gains had the traditional thinking been allowed to prevail (it very nearly did). I would challenge a couple of your points, however: I think the Germans did indeed adapt as the war progressed (they didn't have much choice when giving ground). The great defensive battles in the East are studied to this day by combined arms commanders and they are masterpieces of grand tactical adaptation. Unfortunately it was too late to save the big picture. And I think the Allied did make blitzkrieg attacks, in their own way. War had evolved quickly and they had more material to throw around, so they could be more conservative of manpower, generally speaking. But coordinated air, artillery, and massed armor attacks which strive for rapid crushing victory through infiltration and encirclement hardly went out of fashion in 1940. We quit calling it "blitzkrieg" when it quit being exclusively German, but isn't modern war mostly "blitzkriegisch"? Except for the stars, Guderian would have been pretty comfortable tactically with the IDF in '73. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, after the victories of 1939-40 not too many German commanders, let alone any German (other than a Jewish German) would want Hitler killed, or his regime to end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's really my point. If the German nation and even the stodgiest German officers were swept up in the success, it's not surprising that Hitler himself was. And he was right, way right, to listen to the innovators. It's when he stopped taking advice from ANYBODY that he became a victim of his own success.

I did not state the AP vs. MG case clearly. Here goes: The 88 in the corner of the map was not seriously threatened by the M1919 at the time, though it had thrown a few bursts toward the 88 (at what, 600+ meters?). Most of the MGs efforts were directed at the inhabitants of Riesberg. The 88 had had a good day against the Shermans and was just trying to help out the infantry, by zinging HE across the map at any visible American infantry. When the HE ran out (Americans in deep trouble by now, but still coming) I chambered up some AP and sniped at the MG. It worked. He left. So the 88 crew was not directly threatened, and was firing AP at infantry on my instructions. And the question stands- was that gamey? With maybe 10 rounds of AP left in the bag and nothing else, should they use them to engage non-threatening soft targets of opportunity? I did, but I was angry at the Americans about something else- it was spiteful, I admit...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I actually ran out of HE shells for the 88 as it was busy attacking American Infantry, AP shells do nothing against troops! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've had exactly the same experience, except that the AP was handy in persuading an M1919 to desist and move (don't know whether I caused any casualties). Shell holes appeared all around him and he didn't like it. I wonder if using AP on an MG isn't a little gamey, though. Would an 88 crew use AP on soft targets if they didn't know when the next AFVs were going to show up?