Pixman

My last comment on this -- promise. First of all, Steve, thanks for the quality replies. I am in full agreement on the subjectivity of a lot of what we are talking about. Looking back, I am sorry that the example I pulled from SL was the American penchant for breaking early and rallying early (according to Avalon Hill). Like you, I am much more inclined to give the Americans a bonus for mechanical ingenuity which would manifest itself mainly in two areas: 1) to fix broken equipment faster; 2) to be more likely to use captured weapons (assuming available ammo). I do hope you will give this some more consideration for future releases, especially since you are already randomizing some behaviors. I think a very strong argument can be made that a) an American MG is less likely to break than a Soviet one and that the Americans could likely fix theirs more often. Compared to the Germans, this may be less of an issue, so maybe you would just penalize the Russians in this regard compared to the Germans rather than rewarding the Americans relative to them. In old SL terms, the Germans and Americans might repair an MG on a roll of 10 or higher while the Russians would require boxcars. This would obviously be easy to simulate in CM at virtually no cost to development or playability. I know you have already thought about this a lot and I hope you will think about it even more! I think your inclusion of a "fanaticism" trait will address the inverse relationship between morale and training/experience that I brought up in my last post. I just hope you will facilitate use of this beyond the Soviets -- i.e. Hitler Youth, Ghurkas, Partisans, defense of Capitol (Berlin/Moscow), etc. I really do believe this will add a lot to the flavor of the game. Lastly, Steve, you talked about CM randomizing factors in squad behavior. Can you elaborate on that please? What kind of things will be randomized? Is it just a matter of when unit "A" will break compared to unit "B" under the exact same circumstances? And likewise for rally? This sounds very promising. Maybe someday, BUT NOT IN THIS THREAD I PROMISED ALL OF YOU, I will convince you to go the next step of varying the probability distributions for those random events based on nationality and situation. However, I am not holding my breath. God I love this place. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Once again, thank all of you for the exellent and well thought out responses to what I intended to be a simple question about a simple (possible) enhancement to the game. The "can of worms" argument is moot because everyone seems to agree that "something must be done for the Soviets", at which point the can will be open. We can't have it both ways -- either there are national characteristics (on average) or there are not. But, please bear with me for a moment here, because I think this discussion may be able to head down a more productive track. Brian Rock's quote of, "in-group variance is greater than between group variance" really pushed my mind in the direction on this topic that it should have headed to begin with. Namely, that there are certain human behavior characteristics that can be modeled in the game and that I contend will vary somewhat with nationality -- among other important causal factors. We are dealing with two worlds here -- the real historical world and the CM world which seeks to simulate it as realistically as possible within technical limits. The first question is whether there were national differences in the real world (again -- ON AVERAGE). If the answer is no, then there is no reason to proceed to CM's world. But, at least in the case of the Soviets, we seem to collectively conclude that the answer is yes. I, for one, totally support this conclusion. So, the next question is, do we want to try to reflect that reality in CM's world? It seems that we do to some extent. How will we do that? By modifying the leadership model to incorporate the communist party influence? By making every soldier in the Soviet army act differently than his Nazi counterpart? Or by introducing some human behavior characteristics that are randomly applied based on a statistical model. It is this last avenue I would like to pursue. For example, let's posit a characteristic called "fight to the death". And let's stay within a national group for now -- the Germans let's say. Steve brought up Hitler Youth -- great example. From what I have read, these guys would have a pretty high "fight to the death" probability factor. Would all of them fight to the death? No, but more of them would on average than their Wehrmacht conterparts. To what can we attribute this? Experience -- no. Combat leadership -- no. Indoctrination -- an emphatic yes (trait shared with the Vietcong, NVA and Japs by the way). My question is, does CM have the tools, as currently designed, to accurately represent Hitler Youth in combat? I'm sure you could modify them to be veteran or elite to get them to be more likely to fight to the death. But would this be accurate? Technically, they should be Green troops. But does anyone reading this imagine that they would behave the way Green GIs would? Also, if we made them veteran or elite, wouldn't they then get undeserved bonuses in other areas like marksmanship and unit cohesion? To pose it in statistical terms, can CM vary "fight to the death" in a positive direction while varying marksmanship in a negative direction? Or will the two always be positively correlated based on the unit's quality rating? If the answer is the latter, then I believe what I propose would be an improvement to game play. Whether in CM1 or not is not the issue. I am talking about what is ultimately possible, not just for this release. Now think about game flavor. Let's look at Martin and Fionn's battle and assume that CM currently modeled the unique human qualities of Hitler Youth. If you were in Martin's shoes and you discovered that Kampfgruppe Student (holding the town) was comprised of Hitler Youth, would you change your tactics? Even if not, can you not imagine the different way the battle for the town would go? Leave everything else the same and replace the Falschirmjaegers with Hitler Youth. Different battle. The same can be said of Soviets based on context. Will a Soviet squad invading Finnland fight as hard as it would defending Stalingrad? Or a German squad invading Norway vs. one defending Berlin? Probably not. I guess what I am asking all of us, and BTS in particular, to consider, is that there should be another layer of reality modeled into CM (pick your release). That layer is human behavior based on factors other than military training, combat experience and leadership. While not denying the extreme importance of these factors and the belief that CM will model them superbly, I contend that behavior may also be strongly influenced by situation, culture, nationalistic indoctrination and the like. When the Germans fight the Americans, is the only difference between the two armies equipment quality, equipment quantity, and experience? Are the German soldier and the American soldier the same on average, they just wear a different uniform and speak a different language? Personally, I believe the answer to both of these questions is no. I am not talking about one being superior, just different in how they react to situations compared to the other. That may sound too "soft" for those reading this who live in the world of hard numbers and facts. But, to quote Don Quixote, "Fact is the enemy of truth". And the truth is that WWII was fought by men from different nations with different backgrounds and belief systems. It was not fought by automatons that are identical no matter what uniforms they wear. CM has done the best job in wargaming history of distinguishing the unique qualities of each nation's equipment from the other. Is it so unreasonable to consider investing a tenth of the energy it took to do that into distinguishing their men too? Is it harder to do? Yes. Does it require a different type of research and referencing? Yes. Would it enhance game play to the point that it is worth doing? In my opinion, yes. Thanks for indulging me this long, somewhat tangled, post. . I hope my complex writing style has not obscured the valid points I tried to make. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Thanks all of you for the quality responses. I did not have my heart set on having national distinctions in morale. I did think it added some interesting flavor to SL. The Russians with "berserk" ability really made for some fun in the streets. I think there is argument for national differences. The Japanese and Vietnamese are an extreme (even more extreme than the Russians) example of this. I think for the most part you have the mechanics in place already for the breaking part of the distinction (veteran vs. regular vs. conscript). Using these tools, it is easy to make an American squad more likely to break overall than a Wehrmacht squad. However, on the rally side, I would encourage you to consider making Americans a little more resilient. Do I have any hard evidence to support this? Maybe not. But I do know that there are certain human characteristics that made this country what it is. And my reasoning mind tells me that these characteristics filter down to the GI level on average. Likewise, there is a lot written about Germans eager to surrender to Americans once the going got tough in 1944 - 1945 (i.e. less likely to rally). It is easy to admire the Russians in defense of their homeland because we have empirical evidence of their pluck under pressure (just ask Napoleon). But God help the force that ever tries to invade this country because I believe it would get ugly quick and not many would return home to talk about it. The American gene pool is comprised of the most daring and determined offspring of the countries from which they emigrated. Even though today we may be a bit soft and spoiled, in 1945 that was not the case. A lot of those GIs, I'm sure, were not eager to stay in a hot firefight just to liberate France,etc. But, once they broke, I'm confident that they quickly figured out that hunkering down in the woods would not get them home any quicker. So they got back up and fought -- and fought hard. Just my two cents, but I hope you will consider some national distinctions for CM2. It can only add spice to an already savory game! ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Steve: I know this battle is keeping you very busy. I posted a question in a thread titled: "Nationalities: Morale/breaking/rallying" that you may have missed. If you get the opportunity, please respond. If the near beta release work has got you too swamped, no problem. Based on what I have seen so far, I know you guys will get around to answering me eventually. Thanks for all you do. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Doug: I trid to clear this up with Steve once. He has been responding to a lot of mail and drinking a lot of beer (aren't I the pot calling the kettle black?! ), so let's forgive him this time. One more time Steve/Charles -- we want to know which enemy units any one of our guys can see. NOT, which enemy units can see one of our guys. Please don't give me an excuse to drive up to Maine and draw a picture!! You both are great. I am just laughing because I was wondering how long it would take for Doug to come back on and figure out that his question is still not quite answered. Our breath is officially baited. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Fionn, Fionn, Fionn!! Executing Arty teams? Shame on you! Seriously, it is tough to take so much punishment from a hidden enemy. Now we know that Stalin was correct. Just thank God you are not facing the Russians, the whole town would be kindling by now! I just want to say that I am in full support of your decision to concentrate all arty on the town. Based on Martin's success, it will have to be quite devastating. If you think about it, he has used it only in places where he could reasonably expect you to be in high concentration, i.e. the town and the wooded roads. The only place you can be sure he will be in high concentration is the town. Smart move. Good luck with your advance mein Herr. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Ditto Mikester -- with a little less emotion. I am just so very glad it was not, yet again, the StuGIII that became immortal by firing the shot that blew out the door that splintered in pieces that flew through the air and struck the track between the wheels immobilizing the tank sitting next to the house that Jack built. I am starting to believe that Martin's best strategy would have been to drive all five of his tanks as fast as possible toward the exits from the woods and immobilize them across the roads himself. At least then they would have served some purpose. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Lol, Fo4!! Henri, maybe you missed it. This type of post is supposed to go in the thread for Steve only. We are up to Steve #3 now. That way the two players can feel safe to peruse the rest of the board without gaining intelligence. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Lokesa, yes I think you are correct -- Lt. Stahler. He was definitely a 9-2. As I think I said in another thread, I too loved Rise and Decline of the 3rd Reich. Sounds like your brother needed some time limits imposed on turns. Do you agree with me that a good computer simulation of that game would be awesome? Sorry guys, know this is off topic. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Steve, quick follow up on Doug's question about LOS in the now closed previous thread. You answered that there is no way to know what can see your units other than being fired on or jumping up and asking, "hey can you see me" (cute by the way, ). Understood. But I think Doug's question was, can you tell what enemy unist any one of your individual units can spot? This is an important distinction. Thanks. Nice job on keeping up with all of this by the way. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

My question is regarding the effect of nationality on morale related behavior. It comes from being an old SL guy. SL spent time talking about the different traits of Germans vs. Americans vs. Russians and modeled those differences. The profile of the common GI was that he was "first to break and first to rally". They simulated this by having the unbroken morale number on the counter be "6" vs. the "7" that appeared on counters for Russians and Germans. However, when the squad broke and you flipped the counter over, the broken morale (the one used for rally checks) was higher for the Americans than for the other two nationalities. So, on average, they would break quicker and rally quicker. Assuming the SL profile of each nationality is somewhat accurate, does CM model any of this? ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Steve/Charles: Thanks for the nice reply. All of what you say makes sense. I would not have said anything at all if it had just been the Jumbo. I was pretty good in statistics and understand the fallacies associated with generalizing the results of a small sample (one scenario equaling 5 minutes of time at this point) to the whole population (all possible future CM games). In my mind we were never making that leap but I can see how you might infer it from our posts. Why I commented: The StuGIII had just toasted another hull down Sherman a minute before the Jumbo and is starting to look a bit like Super SP Gun man. The resulting joint probability of all the events that would have to take place for the SP Gun to take out two tanks in that time period would have to be very very low indeed. You already gave us roughly 12.5% for the Jumbo to miss twice, which I agree is not much below the Mendoza line. But then start degrading it from there to factor in the probability of misses by the other Sherman and then the probabilities FOR the SP gun to hit BOTH tanks and then -- the kicker -- a critical hit on the Jumbo at 1% as well as a first hit kill on the Sherman and.....well you are better at math than me I am sure. But my guess is the resulting probability that the StugIII would be alive right now is .0000 something at best. But my worst fear, and I'm sure yours at this point, is that the little bastard is going to go toast another Sherman and then shoot up the town . All of that said, to be completely honest, I can recall back to my SL days when it seemed like every scenario there was one AFV or stack of squads that seemed to be made of Titanium. And the squads were always led by Sgt. Stahler, lol. We were totally superstitious about it. It would piss guys off to no end, me included, that these super soldiers would seem to just wade through the board killing everything in sight, while defying all of the statistics. Maybe that's why I'm a little sensitive about it -- bad memories of dead GIs in the streets. It sounds like you guys are confident in your stats. If you are, then I am. The tweak to keep the Jumbo pointed at things that might kill him sounds like a good fix that, in the scenario at hand, would poke holes in the little StuGIII and be done with it. One question about LOS: You say that the Jumbo could not see the StugIII, so it shot at the town. And it did not see the StugIII right away because it was looking at the town and the gun came up behind it. Okay, but Martin could see the StugIII because it was spotted by somebody in his army, correct? This is the unavoidable issue of omniscience for the player because he has the combined LOS of all of his troops. But the omniscience does not filter down to the unit level correct? Meaning that, in order for the Jumbo to even know the StuGIII exists, he has to be able to see/hear it himself -- no matter who else in the American army can see it? Is my understanding right? ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

I just want to second Mikester on following the posting protocol. This one should clearly have been in the thread for Steve's eys only. Or maybe a question in Fionn's thread along the lines of, "Were you surprised when Moon's MG crew surrendered so quickly?" No offense intended to Fatherof4 here. Just don't want to set precedent that leads to a trend. But, since we are here -- Steve I did not see an answer to Father's question at the end of his post about points for surrendering units. I'd be interested in knowing how that works too. Thanks ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Steve, I'm with Ben about the Jumbo knock out. It just seems like that StuGIII can wade in and knock stuff out at its leisure. Did Martin not have interlocking fields of fire between the Jumbo and the Sherman that got knocked out prior to it? If so, and even if not, wouldn't the Jumbo get off the first shor two. Furthermore, shouldn't it be much more likely to hit first given that it is hull down and was not previously occupied shooting at something else? I know the Sherman had a lot of weaknesses, but I thought target acquisition and rate of fire was one of its strengths. And the StuGIII does not even have a turret! However, I do recognize that it has a very low profile which would make it a little harder to hit. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

I'm having the same problem as Lee. Help!!! ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

If I could pick one subject to be handled by the industry (given that CM is already on the way), it would be a strategic level WWII game. I'm thinking of something along the lines of Avalon Hill's "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich". Modeling economics, SAC, ASW, Lend-Lease, Murmansk convoys, diplomacy, technology, etc. -- as well as military strategy -- makes for an excellent game. Third Reich is the only game I have played that modeled the difficult trade-offs Hitler faced in trying to stay viable in North Africa with so many other demands being placed on his resources. When you factor in the unreliability of the Italians it gets very interesting indeed. Anyway, this would require an engine quite different from that of CM. However, Impressions is working on a strategic engine to handle the American Civil War (CWG3). Based on the quality of the 2 predecessors ( to Steve), I expect them to do a good job with the strategy engine. Maybe they would be willing to stretch it into a WWII setting. Might just be wishful thinking. That is a nice idea though -- BTS cranking out tactical, front line games like CM and Impressions cranking out strategic, global games like a WWII equivalent of CWG3. A feller can dream can't he?! ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Nice work guys! You anticipated my question about units' vision vs. mine. I guess what you mean is we can see the terrain but, because we need our units' vision to spot the enemy, we cannot see enemy units that might be in that field. Makes sense. Couple of questions: 1.) When you say, "they'll have to wait until morning", I assume that means in order to see anything from where they are. They could move into the field in the dark and stumble upon something, yes? I know that is not advisable, just want to know if it is possible. 2.) If it is possible, what are the negative impacts of night movement on unit cohesion, morale, command and control, etc. if any? As always, thanks. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

I have goose bumps!! I'm with Mike, Doug and the rest of the clan. Let us know when that beta puppy is available and we will stress the s--- out of it, lol . You guys are awesome. This has been better than any Christmas I remember waiting for as a kid. And I have not even opened the presents yet!! Thanks for all you do and let us know how we can help. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

With all due respect Chris, locking this thread will serve no purpose other than to waste all of the effort people have put into it so far (and I am speaking of others much more than myself). As far as I am concerned, all Steve or Charles has to do is make a final determination on WP and then the issue is closed. While the issue is open, the thread should stay open. I will be happy with whatever decision is made. I just think the ammo was a legitimate part of the war in the bocage, albeit uniquely and narrowly applied. The concern about creating unrealistic scenarios exists whether WP is included or not. To me the most persuasive arguments for leaving it out would be that it is hard to model, would seriously encumber the interface, or would significantly slow down the release of the game. So far I have only heard reference to the interface issue. Having or not having WP will hardly make or break the game. I don't think anybody here thinks it will. But if it does not cost much to get it, why not have it? I am just so glad that we have the luxury to kick around a nuance like WP instead of something more serious like,"will there be smoke" (or "weather", or "night fighting", or "command and control")? But, since all of those things, and many others, are already in the design, WP seems like a pretty good topic. This thread is a sure sign that we have come a long way. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Steve, thanks for the response. I think I understood all of your points before, but they are certainly clearer to me now. The point I was trying to make was specifically regarding fighting in the bocage. I do not refute that WP was not commonly allocated in the war overall, but it seems to have been more prevalent in hedgerow country. I strongly concur with not wanting to make it overly available compared to historic reality. But I figured you could make some allowance depending on where the scenario is being fought, i.e. Carentan peninsula = WP available; Arnhem = WP unavailable. I will join the troops trying to gather more evidence on this subject although I sense that it may be too late to get WP into version 1. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Steve, to quote The Lion King's Zazu, "sorry to bust your bubble" , but I have to chime in with Zack on the CWG2 PBEM thing. I have never progressed past the 13th turn or so of a large PBEM battle. I think it is tied directly to the "ghost unit" issue. Ironrod contends that the problem is caused by units routing out of the LOS of the enemy. Apparently the enemy sees a "ghost" unit at the last hex in its LOS and saves it as such on his computer. From that point forward the files on each computer are out of sync. When this happens in PBEM it locks or gives an error message and quits. Out of the 50 or so people I know well on WON, I believe all have pretty much abandoned PBEM. By the way, to this day Ironrod says they do not know how to fix the "ghost" problem. Maybe we just need to have "Unchained Melody" playing in the background, lol (Demi, where are you?.... ). I know this is not a CWG2 site. I just wanted to point up why Zack's question is a major concern. PBEM is a great option, especially if you can switch back and forth from TCP/IP to PBEM as you are planning in CM, which is very cool. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

KwazyDog: You're a fairly young fellow. Storm Over Arnhem came out circa 1983. Avalon Hill title. It received many accolades and was very popular. It may be the first and only time they abandoned the traditional hex-map approach, choosing instead to divide the city into sectors. Of course they did that to accentuate the block to block city fighting (or should I say demolition?) that characterized the struggle. I never played the game. I gave it to my sister's boyfriend as a Christmas gift though -- he loved it. In my own way, I love him (don't read that wrong you phobs out there!) because he turned me onto wargaming. It was AH's Waterloo, a true classic. We spent a few winter days in their cabin in Vermont "Duke"ing it out over the Belgian plain. I was Napoleon and learned the classic "soak off" technique before he did. Consequently, I took Quatre Bras early and routed him badly, cutting off Blucher's retreat from Ligny. I have been hooked since. As I recall, the ladies (my sister and my girlfriend Natalie) were a bit incensed at how engrossed we got into the game, lol. Not much has changed since. My sister and Brad have been split now for almost 15 years. Sure wish I could hook up with him again to get into something like CM. He was a great guy. Brad, if you are listening.... ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

KwazyDog: Why are "Blonde" jokes so short? Answer -- So men can remember them. My wife is a blonde and she could not wait to tell me that one. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Cool!! I cannot believe it is that close. Living in the world of missed deadlines, scope creap, shifting priorities and the general problem today that nobody is willing to give their word on anything -- much less keep it, I am impressed with your candid assertions Steve. More power to ya! ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

Hey guys: Having pretty firmly established myself as a functionality over aesthetics kind of guy, I have to admit that this latest set of shots blew me away. The winter landscapes really "ice" the cake. The depth of the scenes is definitely coming to life. I thought some earlier shots looked a bit flat by comparison. Maybe it is just the sharper contrast and shadowing provided by the snowfield. I am very much looking forward to the night and weather shots. Keep up the good work. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.