Neutral Party

It's said that President Eisenhower was deeply shocked to discover that almost half of Americans were below average intelligence Joe

Major Tom Excellent post. No offense meant but I had a good laugh about the bonsai charge - all those wittle twees. Maybe the Germans thought they were in a production of Macbeth and Birnham Wood had come to Dunsinane. Sorry eh! Joe

kevi That's a very interesting analysis. Here's another perspective. There is no doubt that Stalin was adept at maintaining his own position as the leader of the Soviet Union. This seems to me to have been his main preoccupation in the period leading up to the "great patriotic war". In order to achieve this goal he arranged the liquidation of those he perceived as potential threats (e.g., almost the entire politburo after Lenin's death, Trotsky, etc.,) and contrived a society where any signs of individuality, initiative and tendency for original thought were stomped on. This policy was applied with particular severity to the Red Army. However, the qualities that enabled Stalin to keep such a tight grip on power in the SU were of limited value when engaged in war with an external aggressor. The level of preparedness, initial disposition of Soviet forces, armored force doctrine could hardly have been improved on - by the German General Staff. Forgive me if I don't believe that this was all somehow part of Stalin's grand design to take over the world. Your bottom line is the Russians won the war and aquired nuclear weapons therefore Stalin was a great strategist. Presumably if they had lost and the Germans had won then Hitler would be the worlds greatest strategist. Maybe they both should just have tossed a coin and saved everyone else the hassle. In my opinion the SU won the war by a feat of almost unbelievable self-sacrifice, much of which entailed getting themselves out of the very deep hole that Comrade Stalin's grand strategy had dug for them. In this they were aided very substantially by the material support of the Western Allies (primarily the US). There is however no doubt that Stalin was a more succesful delegator than Hitler, probably because his initial experiences were of catastrophic defeats rather than easy victories. This, together with Hitlers vacillation from August to October 1941 is probably what saved him in the end.

Well the best thing Stalin did was leave it to Zhukov. Aren't we all glad Hitler did not follow that pattern. As for the Brits getting Hitler to attack Russia. This would be very clever if it was true. However Hitler had to attack Russia in the same way that a small dog has to attack the postman - it was in his nature. He would have attacked Russia no matter what the Brits did. Joe

Given the caveat that questions pertaining to "who was the best..(x)" where x = (general, boxer, nosepicker etc.,) are intrinsically pointless and only of interest to sad buggers with nothing better to do , I think people are overly dismissive of Montgomery as a commander. It is true that he was slow (o.k. plodding), methodical and came across as very arrogant - when he claimed that whatever happened (even if was relatively disastrous) was all part of his master plan to win the war. However these qualities were perhaps those required by the British at the time of El alamein - given that they had been run ragged by Rommel. At this point in the war Britain desparately needed a victory and that is precisely what Montgomery gave them. Although of small import militarily, it had an enormous impact on morale on the home front. It also meant that politically, Bernard Montgomery became close-to-unremovable. One must also bear in mind that the British were generally ultra-cautious when it came to commiting their army to battle and had to be pretty much dragged kicking and screaming to the Invasion of France, to the intense frustration of the Americans. This was partly related to their experiences in the Great War, which left a massive scar on the nations' psyche, and meant that massive numbers of casualties were politically unacceptable. It was also partly a product of their traditional approach to continental warfare which was a peripheral strategy of "nibbling at the edges". Montgomery was devoted to training and preparation and was, on the whole, parsimonious with the lives of his troops. For the British, this was a welcome change from the likes of Douglas Haig and his ilk. In terms of the intial post, I think that Montgomery has to be up there with the other "greats" (Zhukov, Eisenhower, Marshall, Nimitz, Kesselring, etc.,). Very entertaining thread. Joe P.S. re: members and junior members - I am inclined to agree with Marx (Groucho not Karl) that I would not wish to be a member of any club that would have me as a member.

If possible, I would like the manual to be ring-bound so it can be opened flat without pinging shut again and I would like a good index so we can find things easily. Now what should be in it? Some tutorial scenarios would be very useful. I know CM is relatively intuitive but there are layers of complexity. One tutorial could introduce some basic training (orders, movement). Others could be more “advanced training” (combined arms coordination, ambushing etc.,). Sort of like the way Descent Freespace or I-War structured their tutorials, although of course I realize there is no similarity between these games and CM. Tactical hints would definitely be useful (IMHO) also full explanations of what all those funny heart and lightning bolt thingys that appear for HQ units actually mean. I agree with Carentan wrt historical ballast although I wouldn’t rely on Ambrose for what to think about the involvement of troops other than US - maybe Keegans 5 armies in Normandy Another addition perhaps as a html file on the CD rather than in the manual would be a list of links to relevant web sites – I’ve come across very many interesting web pages by following the links provided by the contributors to this board. Best wishes to everyone for the new year. Joe

... now if it had been 100 jeeps

This is because your reinforcements have arrived and you cant see the panel. You need to click on the ok box (on the panel you can't see) in order for the game to continue. Its not a problem for axis in LD coz you don't get any reinforcements. Click around (a lot) approximately at middle screen level 2/3 way down and eventually you'll hit it (bit like arty really). Joe

The thing about remembrance in general and Remembrance Day in particular is that you’ve got to be alive to remember. Dead soldiers don’t remember, but their comrades who survived do. So of course do their mothers and fathers, brothers and sister, sons and daughters. When the war is over and the exhortations to patriotism and heroism fade, the politicians move on to other things. Unfortunately it is not so easy for the victims - they have to pick up the pieces. How do men, some barely boys, who’ve seen the horror of war readjust to “normal life”. Some can’t. From what inner depths do shattered families find the strength to go on. This began as a day of contemplation and grief for those left behind after the butchery of their loved ones by old men with mustaches larger than their brains. I still get so f*****g angry when I see the “Earl Haig” poppy appeal (a British thing) - one of the biggest butchers of the bloody lot. Maybe we should take the advice of W.Owen and endeavor to “not repeat with such a noble zest, to young boys ardent for some desperate glory, The old lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.” Joe

Very well said Fionn. God knows where you get the time to do all this writing. One thing that struck me from your article was that scene of the bocage country near Caen. It looked so beautiful and peaceful (though not for long I expect ). In fact it looked significantly better than the landscape views in the beta demo. Was that my imagination or has there been a major tweak ? Joe Blimey! just noticed the sky too [This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 11-10-99).] [This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 11-10-99).]

For the set of circumstances described you would lose one game and win one game, so your average will be 50%. I suppose some may think this could be a useful cheat mode if you play two persons simultaneously, both of whom you expect to lose to. It is very possible that the two individuals who you "play" will have a satisfying experience. In contrast, you will derive no pleasure from the experience other than that of a naughty child who didn't get found out. In my opinion the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility. Joe

How about squirrel-cam for view 2. As seen by a frightened squirrel from the top of a tree. For view 3 spyug-cam in memory of the dainty european sparrow (as I'm sure you're aware, spyug is Scottish for sparrow) that flits around at medium height looking for nazi helmets upon which to crap. For view 4, what about jabo-cam as seen from the cockpit of a P-51 looking for nazi tanks upon which to crap. Joe

When I saw this thread I thought it was another one about dead bodies Joe [This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 11-05-99).]

NCrawler's cheery comment was "Personally, I would rather have my head run over by a 45 ton tank than to be burned alive." I would be most upset to be asked a question to which this was a rational answer Joe

About the status screen. IMO both sides have a valid argument here. On the one hand there is the opinion that the screen is only an easily accesible summary of data that is available elsewhere but requires a tedious procedure to get it. On the other hand there is the argument that the presence of this summary screen is not only uneccessary but actually a negative and retrograde step in terms of the overall game dynamic. I can see that a compromise solution would be to have the OOB screen as an option and I can also see that these viewpoints are strongly and honestly held. My own personal opinion is that the information at present is pretty much just right. I think the tactical decision-making should be made on the dynamic movement, fire and discovery information that we get from the replays. It is this more than anything else that sets the whole tone of the game for me. I don't want to use an OOB summary that is updated in real-time as the basis for playing the game because I think this will be more mechanical than intuitive, will lessen my feeling of immersion in the situation at hand and, in general, will be less fun. One of the best aspects of this game for me (my god it's still just the demo) is the sense of letting go of the numbers (I trust BTS) and, as Obi-Wan might say, using the force. Joe

Royston said "Buying Combat Mission just makes no fiscal sense." This is an interesting pespective and one that bears some examination. My feeling is that buying any half-decent computer game is actually quite "fiscally prudent". Let's say you pay 50 bucks for a game. This should keep you occupied and pretty much incommunicado for a minimum of 3 hours per day for a minimum of four weeks - unless of course you are hopelessy addicted to buying computer games and need a new fix every few days. This is time well spent because you would otherwise have to fill it by spending money on things like food, clothes and trinkets for your wife and self-destructing plastic musical instruments for your children. Now that's just for any old semi-decent computer game. Most of the posters here would probably say that combat mission is better than this because they have already lost entire days playing the free demo. Just think that if you get two lost days for a free demo then for 50 bucks worth you will get 50/0 which is an infinite amount of fun (financially speaking of course). Just my 0.02$ worth Joe

I had this happen too. It's because there's a panel that comes up to let you know your reinforcements have arrived, but for some reason (ati ?) it's invisible. You have to clck around in the lower center of the screen till you find it. Everything works okay after that. Joe

Come on guys. You all know what will happen when the demo comes out. Everyone will start whining for the finished article. Joe