Michael Emrys

The ancients said that there is no disputing taste. If you don't like CMx2 you don't like it and that's okay, the world has not ended. But I think you might make more headway if instead of slamming a game that most people here are delighted with, you undertake to describe exactly what kind of game you would like. You might get some support. You might also get an explanation for why what you want is not practical for BFC to try to produce. They have already explained in several places why they opted for the path they are on. I don't know if you have followed any of those discussions, but they are not exactly a deep dark secret.
 
You know, it might be the case that one day before we are all dead and gone that some company will in fact produce precisely the game you are looking for. Isn't that something to look forward to?
 
Michael

Indeed. Way back 15 or so years ago when CM design was first being discussed in these pages, I advocated including SOPs because they are so handy and neat. I have on several occasions in the intervening years repeated my advocacy. BFC refused to consider it then and continues to do so to this day. They usually have good reasons for their choices, but I must personally confess that so far I've never gotten clear on what they are in this case.
 
Michael

Composition and organization of units—at any level—are complex issues. To start with, an army must decide what tasks each unit is expected to perform in a prospective war. With that in mind, it can them go about designing units to perform those tasks. When it comes down to designing squads and teams, specifically how many men are to be assigned, there are a couple of things to be kept in mind (actually, quite a few but as some of them do not come into play in CM, I will pass over those at present). Larger (i.e., more men) teams tend to have greater firepower and are better able to absorb casualties and still retain some combat effectiveness, assuming weaponry and the general quality of the individual soldier remains the same. On the other hand, since in larger units the leader to men ratio drops, problems of control of the men under the stresses of combat might be expected to increase. In their infinite wisdom  , the US and Russian armies have decided that for various reasons larger teams are the order of the day. Since leadership goes on in CM under the hood, it remains somewhat mysterious and unaccountable, but its effects can show up statistically over a large enough sample. Firepower and resilience are more directly observable.
 
Michael
 
PS: One thing I forgot to mention is that if a squad of a given size breaks down into more teams, it potentially gains some tactical flexibility. But that might not be a net gain if each team is thus weakened to the point where it is less likely to succeed at its given tasks.

True, however I usually have them acquire only  a modest amount of extra ammo/equipment that I know that they are going to need, since I notice in BS at least they seem to tire a lot more quickly if they are lugging around a Javelin and reloads plus a couple extra AT4s and 5,000 rounds of 5.56mm. It's really a balancing act. If all they need to move is from the IFV parked behind the building where they are going to have to play Last Stand at the Alamo, then by all means have them bring everything in. But if they are going to have to be moving a lot over longer distances, they should travel light.
 
Michael

As has been said elsewhere by persons other than myself, the kind of reconnaissance requiring specialized vehicles such as armored cars or other light armored or unarmored vehicles has been done before a CM engagement begins. In other words, the general location of the enemy is known (he's on the other side of the map). Now it's time to send in the assault forces.
 
In a way this makes me a little sad. Now that bigger maps are become more feasible, I wonder if it may soon be possible to design scenarios incorporating classical recon. That might be something like send a troop of recon vehicles down a long highway to find out if it is blocked, mined, or defended. Or a squadron could be tasked with guarding a flank; it wouldn't necessarily be expected to repel an attack, but to warn of it and impeded it without sacrificing too much of your own force. And so forth. Probes would become the real thing: the object would not be to gain territory or to destroy the enemy, but to make him reveal himself and in what strength. But for these kinds of scenarios to work, the game's mechanism for determining victory would need to be redeveloped.
 
Michael

I'd have to agree with just about everything that John1966 writes. I'd add a few thoughts though. This isn't a history lesson, and I didn't expect it to be one, especially in light on what I had read here. But it would have been nice if it at least shown a bit more respect for real history. For instance, at the very beginning a legend appeared on the screen that read more or less, "In April 1945 German resistance was hardening and becoming more fanatical." Nope, sorry. Once the Rhine was crossed and the Ruhr pocket had been reduced, resistance in the west pretty much collapsed. In the east it was fanatical to the end, but that was because that was the kind of war that it had been in the East. In the West, except for some pro-forma resistance and some small pockets of more determined fighters, the Germans couldn't wait to surrender. Anything was better than capture by the Soviets. The farther and faster that the Western Allies penetrated the country the better because that was land and people that would not fall under Soviet rule...or so they thought.
 
Okay, so it's a tale, a story, a fiction. How well does it hold up as that? How well does it stack up against other movies, including movies in other genres? I guess I would say that it wasn't really bad...but it wasn't all that great either. Maybe I'd give it five and a half stars out of ten. Maybe. In other words, really mediocre. As John wrote, it is mainly a collection of clichés strung together. It reminds me of nearly every war movie I've ever seen, at least of those made in English-speaking countries. But the thing that really gripes my ass, is that its purpose appears to be to make us sentimental about war while claiming to do the opposite. That's just plain dishonest.
 
Oh, just one more thing and then I'll shut up...for a little while. The battle at the crossroads? Nearly everything about it was wrong, both in sum and in its particulars.
 
Michael

Thanks
 
You can always give me a (up green arrow)  
 
I have very low esteem and I am trying hard to get my score up, ( When I first saw them I did not even understand what they were, I clicked on them wondering what the heck are they for)    

Oh, I think it is terrific good fun. I think the most fun I ever had in BN was obliterating an entire German company on turn #2 with a three battery rocket attack. Must have been hell for the pixeltruppen, but I smiled and laughed and felt good all over. Easy victories, that's the ticket!
 

 
Michael

Initially all Shermans came from the factory with the .50 mounted behind the TC's hatch. The thinking must have been that it was meant as an AA weapon and most attacks by aircraft would approach from the rear. So it was mounted in a way that permitted the TC to operate it while still partially under armor. However, by 1944 the Luftwaffe was all but out of the picture and very seldom made attacks on armored vehicles. The .50 was still useful against ground targets and was commonly used thus. At first, it was somewhat dangerous to do so since, as you noticed, someone—usually the TC—had first to climb out of the turret and kneel on the rear deck in order to fire forward if the turret was in its usual position of facing forward. So canny American tankers began rewelding the mounting for the MG ahead of the TC's hatch so that it could be fired with minimum exposure. I think that this modification was eventually also adopted at the factory and new late model Shermans began appearing in the theater in that configuration.

Michael

Mostly true, although some movies are made with the intention of representing real life with greater or lesser success. But yes, for the most part they are entertaining fantasies. But it can also be said that the more these fantasies can be said to resemble real life, the greater their impact can be. A form of "fantastic realism" if you will. I would suggest that a really good war movie would, while not losing focus on the story elements that make the whole thing worth watching, also dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's to make it convincing to the cognoscenti.

Michael

The definition of "nearly there" being some time in the next century or so. See, you have to learn to think in terms of geologic time.
 

 
Michael

Subtitles are your friend. I use them all the time if they are available (obviously I am not talking about viewing in a theater). Contemporary actors tend to be a little—or a lot—mush mouthed, so even if speaking in American English I lose at least a third of the dialogue. And forget about UK English.
 
Michael

This sort of reminds me that in CMBB the Soviet troops used a phrase that always tickled me. I don't know what it meant or even what the actual words were in Russian, but to my ear it sounded exactly like, "I'm a gecko!" I used to smile every time I heard that and I heard it a lot. So I guess you could say that BB made me happy even though it didn't run well on my machine.
 

 
Michael

This sort of reminds me that in CMBB the Soviet troops used a phrase that always tickled me. I don't know what it meant or even what the actual words were in Russian, but to my ear it sounded exactly like, "I'm a gecko!" I used to smile every time I heard that and I heard it a lot. So I guess you could say that BB made me happy even though it didn't run well on my machine.
 

 
Michael

You know, you guys with your agitated questions sometimes put me in mind of someone demanding of his parents that they tell him in excruciating detail how he was conceived, every move, every word, every drop of sweat. How did it feel? Was it the greatest moment of their lives?
 

 
Michael

True. In a very abstract way of lines and circles on a map, I can really admire the German performance in the first couple of months of Barbarossa. Not because I think they were the good guys who should be winning against the evils of Communism, but because at that moment they were skilled practitioners of military art fighting against a foe that was horribly off balance. But I suspect that this is best covered at the strategic or at least operational level. I'm not particularly thrilled to see it played out on the CM battlefield. Granted that some aspects are well covered at that level (such as the matchup of various models of armor), but the whole aspect of logistics—which to a large extent is what won and lost that war—is more or less completely elided in CM.
 
Michael

It all depends on who you are reading. Yeah, there are tons of books printed every year that are basically nostalgic for what great guys we were. Citizen Soldier is an embarrassing example of that. But there has also been a lot of unsentimental (and even anti-sentimental) revisionism written in the last 20 years about the war fought by the Western Allies. That is still ongoing and looks to be for at least another couple of decades.
 
Michael

You're right, that would be total hell, especially as WW II battalions at full strength usually had ~800 men.
 
Michael

I really dig the foliage in the second shot. Beans maybe? Foliage graphics have really improved in the last couple of years.
 
Michael

Rocketman,
 
I wish you the best of luck with this as it sounds like a potentially interesting and challenging problem. But it might just be that the CM system is not yet up to accurately portraying this particular situation. Your call whether or not to persevere with it, but either way...best of luck.
 
Michael

Whew! Hot and heavy are upon us. Let the fun begin!
 
Michael

Maybe in Valhalla. In this world, I don't think you will ever find a piece of software that will work perfectly in every possible situation. This includes the "software" of doctrine and training that period armies used in the real war. Yes, you do not possess perfect control over your p-troops to get them to do what you want them to do every time. But guess what, neither did the real-life leaders and commanders. In fact, we have considerably more control than our real-life equivalents who just had to trust that the behavior of their units would at least approximate their operational and tactical vision.
 
Is any of this starting to sink in yet? The world wonders...
 
Michael

Not really true. Some people have come onto the forum and been instant stars. Their posts are recognizably well-informed and valued as such. Lots of people come on who are not yet well-informed but exhibit an open minded attitude of eagerness to learn. They too are valued as they are the future of the forum. Of the people who meet with disdain, usually the cause is their snarky know-it-all attitude that makes them instantly unpopular. Then there are those who know not and know not that they know not. Those are usually taken by the hand by someone making an attempt to lead them toward the light. How matters progress from there pretty much depends on the personalities involved.
 
I would say not to be afraid to venture an opinion, but do some research and make damn sure of your facts. And don't get sore if you get shot down by somebody who knows more than you. Believe me, it has happened to me too and my 20,000+ posts are no proof against it.
 

 
Michael

Ehhhh, 30% of 600mm is 180mm. Just for the record.
 
Michael

What??? Only a Corvette??? I was expecting at least an Aston-Martin!
 

 
Michael