Renaud

T34Rules: Use the scale hotkey to change the unit scale. The maps are scaled perfectly for realistic unit scale setting. -Ren

CC2 was a classic. That was the first wargame [in ages] (or computer game of any kind) that really had me excited. Playing the entire campaign from beginning to end was a fantastic experience. Internet play was fairly reliable and I played this a ton on the MS game site (whatever it was called). CC3 seemed to lose something, but there were some user mods that fixed it up pretty good. The maps, while larger, were not quite as interesting as the maps for CC2. Leading a group of troops through the campaign was fun. The scenarios in the campaign attempted to make you feel like you were part of titanic struggles, which really didn't work well with the tiny squad scale of CC. Also the multiplay was bugged for a long time...i finally gave up on it. CM is quite a different game. Much larger scale, true 3d, much more freedom to make scenarios, all around more thorough historical research and accuracy, much more hardcore than CC series. Definitely will not appeal to all. I think some folks may have given CM a bad name by going over to other forums and badmouthing/getting into arguments. Don't know why there would be bad feelings otherwise. -Ren [This message has been edited by Renaud (edited 10-01-2000).]

I'm a big fan of the maps used for these scenarios. They are truly amazing. I've been around the Ardennes and I can say that roaming around these maps in view 1 makes me feel like i'm back there. I also took various measurements of some Trois Ponts area maps I have and the dimensions match up almost exactly with the game map (maybe +/- 5% off at most). Also, the correct bridges are shown as blown for the specific day of this battle...nice touch. Some books I have say the main Trois Ponts bridge was blown prior to the date of this battle, but evidently only partially, so it is depicted here as still standing. After this battle the bridge was subjected to demolition again which completely destroyed it. The actual Trois Ponts scenario uses only about half of the map which is too bad. However, I doubt the AI's ability to navigate the more complex sections of this map. I have yet to confirm if the AI can navigate the Trois Ponts map using a more challenging set of objectives and units. These are the kinds of maps I've wanted to see since the game was released. The only reason I can think of that complex terrain is not represented in the included scenarios is so the AI will provide a better challenge. Another good example of stretching combat mission map editor capability is "THE BATTLE OF SAN MARTINO" by Thomas Klimisch. You can find it at: http://home.germany.net/101-77027/CM/International.html The map gives a good idea of editor capabilities for making mountainous Italian/North African terrain. Practically all that needs changing is the colors and some textures. -Ren

I'd like to cast my vote for a vehicle availability system based on rarity while continuing to base point costs on relative power/usefulness. To me this means units would each have a percentage chance to show up on the unit purchase screens. The %% chance would be based on historical availability relative to all other vehicles for the time period of that QB. So a puma would still cost points based on it's relative effectiveness, but would only have a small chance of showing up on the unit purchase screen and only during those months and years when it was actually fielded. This would add both more fun and more historical flavor at the same time. The fun comes from wondering what grab bag you will have to choose from each game, the historical flavor comes from having to assemble a force out of what a commander might have actually had available at that time and place. I realize this is very much like what was done in CC2 and CC3. It worked pretty well. This is a 'no-brainer' so it's not plagiarazing imho. Also, my opinion on the whole .50 issue about accuracy and lethality when fired from vehicles is that .50's in my experience are hideously hard to aim and control from a moving vehicle. Even the smallest bounce would sent bullets spewing aimlessly. This was my experience when firing the .50 on the move from the M1A1 commanders copula...and the m1 series is an extremely smooth riding vehicle. Jeeps were the most god-awful bouncy contraptions on or off road. You can break your neck in those things at even low speeds. I can only surmise that a pintle or ring mount on a bouncy ww2 vehicle would be practically useless off-pavement. I think a .50 fired from a jeep or halftrack or tank moving off-road is only going to hit things beyond 50m by rarest chance. -Ren

Bruno: The mg42 did lend some design characteristic to the m60, but the final m60 product is quite different. M60 ROF is 600 and the mg42 was 1200 or something. Ren

While we're on the topic of squad sizes... (/me tries unsuccessfully to resist making suggestions for CM2) Will there be larger man-power squad counters, representing say sections or even whole platoons, to more easily simulate the Russian hordes while reducing counter-count? You know, like 20-24 (40??) men in a counter, so larger Russian units could be represented on board. Imagine a Russian regiment attacking a isolated German village outpost (company sized) during the winter of '42. The ground scale of CM would place definite limits on this but I think there is currently a little room for fudging. The platoon idea may be too much but a section would surely be possible. -Ren ***Did some more thinking on this: A typical German Battallion right now is represented by almost 60 troop counters. Using more men per counter you could perhaps have a russian battallion simulated with less than 30. This would be 7 counters per company (6 24-man sections and the Company CO unit) plus a battalion headquarters with all the support weapons (mortars, medium and heavy mg's). This would nicely simulate Russian lack of junior officers and NCO's, leadership training, and radios at all levels below battalion, while at the same time allowing representation of perhaps a regiment at a feasible counter-count. note: The Russian example is not from an actual TOE...just pulled figures out of air. [This message has been edited by Renaud (edited 09-23-2000).]

John: 4.2" mortar HE impacting dry rocky sandy soil makes a tall plume easily visible for half a minute. I was nearby the firing positions and the range looked to be about 5-6km. The plume was really huge, like 100'. It was about the same configuration as the old 2-d smoke sprites. I guess this will only figure in 'dry' weather in arid locations (not CM1) like the mediterranean, or russian steppes. Ren

Slapdragon, are you 'Steve Jackson' the game developer? Just curious. Ren

Jeff, There is no schedule or release date of any kind for CM2 that i know of. However BTS just hired a few new guys and hinted that they were starting early work on vehicles/textures. My totally off-the-wall guess for CM2 is around this time next year. -Ren

It is disappointing that cover is not additive. It seems that in real life being in woods behind a low brick wall would be better than just one or the other alone for both concealment and protection. I imagine bts chose not to allow this due to the possibility it might create of unhittable 'super-positions' existing with certain terrain combinations. Speaking of protection, I sure hope bts adds some other fortification features to later cm's such as log-covered foxholes, bunkers troops and weapons can be moved in and out of (like mount vehicles perhaps), dedicated anti-tank ditches, dragons-teeth, dug out defensive pits and berms for tanks, etc. -Ren

frag: There's no need to wait till the vehicle has reached its destination before telling the embarked troops where you want them to hop off to once stopped. Give the troops a move (disembark) order to the spot you want them to move to while they are still embarked. When the vehicle reaches it's destination they will jump off and move to the point you ordered. Ideally this should be close to where the vehicle will end it's move. For instance, to conduct a pre-programmed blitzkrieg attack on a position with halftracks, move them to the blind side of a house with the infantry on the halftrack already ordered to move inside the house. When (if) the halftrack reaches the side of the house, the infantry will automatically jump out and try to enter the house. They will jump off immediately without waiting for further orders. -Ren

Has anyone else noticed how cool the HVSS shermans look? Anyway, they look scary with those big tracks. I think a big shot from the same aspect as the Tiger II cover would look even more impressive. Very nice artwork on the cd cover and intro screen btw Tom. Tom: I'll be sending you a scenario shortly once I work the last major bugs out. Hopefully it will be good enough to warrant posting on your side. The San Marino scenario is awesome...a map makes the scenario and it's a great map. Ren

guys, This was the first OP i tried and thought I was doing horribly (lost ALL tanks as germans first battle). However in the next battle (at night) I snuck to the far back right edge, beat off the americans and won the Op. I guessed this was because I reached the end of the map. Of course I was playing against the AI so you can get away with things like that. Is this what is going to be fixed? -Ren

I think Combat Mission would move a lot of copies in retail if you could get it on the shelves in a nicely done package and sufficient quantities. I think a publisher could make some good money off it. The problem, of course, is how to get it on the shelves in big numbers. You have to have a major distributor for that, and those are precisely the businesses that would not go for CM. CM is the equivalent of an 'art-house' release in the movie industry. Publishers want things which sell 500,000 copies and more, not CM which might sell half that. Why make $5 million when you can make 10 (or 20 or 100). Look at the half-life phenomenon...over 2 million worldwide. Publishing executives are staying up nights kicking themselves and wishing to hell they'd found that studio before Sierra. Ah well... A big publisher would just gunk up the works with eye-candy at the expense of realism. It's all for the best. Ren

I'd like to try and shed a little light on certain economic realities often overlooked in the quest for economic-equality-at-any-costs. Chupacabra comes to mind but this is relevent for anyone with input on the globalization/UN discussion of property rights (or the elimination thereof). From the great Ludwig von Mises (www.mises.com): 'Now in the market economy this alleged dualism of two independent processes, that of production and that of distribution, does not exist. There is only one process going on. Goods are not first produced and then distributed. There is no such thing as an appropriation of portions out of a stock of ownerless goods. The products come into existence as somebody's property. If one wants to distribute them, one must first confiscate them. It is certainly very easy for the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion to embark upon confiscation and expropriation. But this does not prove that a durable system of economic affairs can be built upon such confiscation and expropriation.' Wildly OT yours, Ren

Wow, that's pretty amazing Echo. It's heartening to know that the classical liberal conception of individual rights is not completely forgotten. My favorite part of the oath is the part about defending the constitution from enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC. In extremis that could mean some gang of power-hungry politicians and their cronies. I'd be interested in hearing the military enlistement oaths of other countries. Any non-US personnel here? My CO in 2/3 ACR E Troop started out a buck private in the 101st and worked his way up to O3. He was a fantastic guy that most of us would have followed into great danger. I remember his WP successor was pretty uninspiring by comparison. Ren

I regard Hasting's book as definitive. It captures the desperation and futility more than any other book. He accomplishes this mainly by relating first hand accounts and quoting letters, comments, etc. of the soldiers involved. Too many D-Day books come accross as dry historical treatises which recycle the contents of yet other dry historical treatises and official accounts. His was the first book on the subject to really look at the nastiness of it with open eyes. I think a lot of people (not the veterans who were there of course) hated him for that, the unvarnished accounts of tragedy and the sense of hopelessness and futility in the hedgerows, for boldly showing just how pathetic and wasteful the reality was. Calling Hastings pro-german is going overboard. I don't remember any indication that he supported the german state's war effort. It's simply reporting historical accounts when you relate incidents of 5 shermans being ko'd by a lone panther, or an infantry company being wasted by incompetent officers. None of his reporting or evaluation struck me as providing an unrealistic portrayal of either side. I think Hastings does the allies the supreme honor of accurately depicting the allied citizen-soldier slugging it out to the bitter end, despite the horror of it all. By contrast you can get a pretty standard account from Stephen Ambrose that is gauranteed not to annoy anyone. A capable writer, but he likes to take the edge off the sordid reality to provide that healthy rah-rah-rah feeling. He also tends to make some technical mistakes like referring to 88mm armed panthers, etc. which is odd for someone you think would be a military facts nut. Basically he's a good guy and a good writer though so I don't want to turn you off Ambrose, I just don't think he's in the same league with Max Hastings. Ren

Keep in mind that optics quality will be ranked pretty low in importance for engagements under 300 meters or so when using high velocity guns...200 or less for pretty much all AT shots fired. At these ranges all that is required is to lay the reticle centermass, maybe a bit above. Shot drop will be insignificant. At these point blank ranges who-sees-who first, rof, turret rotation speed, and crew state/skill are going to be the deciding factors in determining who gets steel-on-steel first (in that order I would think). From what i've seen the german high velocity guns do have an advantage starting at 900 or so meters extending out to 1400 or so, beyond which everyone starts to miss regularly and use up way too much ammo for next to no hits. Optics and associated ranging devices and methodology become an important factor at these longer ranges. However from what i'm hearing velocity is the primary accuracy influence in cm (behind skill of course) and optics differences aren't directly modeled. Ren

Modern US made self-propelled mortar carriers, like the bradley and m113 4.2" mortars, can be dismounted by the crew for set up outside the vehicle as a regular mortar would be set up. I've watched them practice and it only takes a minute or so. Don't know if the wwii ones could do this. I would guess that they could. Germans on the east front used self propelled mortars for tactical mobility in the attack. They would follow close behind the panzers and lay down direct fire on enemy AT positions. In north africa they also used AT guns in the offense by leapfrogging them with the tanks, so any british armor encountered always hit a pakfront which the german armor retired behind. Arguably not practical at CM's scale. Seems like practically every tactic you could imagine, however unlikely, was tried by some participant in wwii at one time or another. -Ren

87-90 Eagle Troop 2/3rd ACR (19K) Reforger 88, NTC*3 rotations. 90 recalled from IRR for desert storm. (or was it 91 now I forget) -Ren

Don't let Disaster@work fool you, scenario making will sneak up on you! Just one more tweak and it's perfect...ok just one more tweak... 10 hours later you are still at it. Renaud

Matt, The Malmedy monument is outside of the town proper, at a more-or-less deserted crossroads. You would have missed it if you went right to the town of Malmedy. Fionn: Don't know why a tourist board would care about switching corners...all 4 corners are empty fields anyway iirc. Ren

So, keep your halftracks at about a 30 degree front oblique angle to the mg's! Oblique angles advantages apply to most all armor of course... Ren

That's quite a tax. I've heard of nationalists protecting their farmers, bricklayers, etc etc, from more effecient foreign competition, but... Are certain European countries actually trying to protect their infant computer-tactical-wargame-simulation market??? (lol) Ren

The .50 cal loaded with armor piercing ammunition can easily penetrate hetzer armor i'm sure from the top and rear. I don't have the stats for the hetzer in front of me so I'm not sure about side penetration...i think it might be possible from a near-0 degree angle, like when the jeep is above the hetzer or the hetzer is tilted. Also, armor has weak spots coded though i think you should see such 'weak spot' hits displayed in detailed armor hits if you have those messages turned on. I know .50 should not be able to penetrate the front at any range/angle...unless some freak thing happens like bullets penetrate a vision port or go down the gun tube setting off the HE round inside. I had a short sherman 75mm bounce 4 times in a row off the upper and lower superstructure of a hetzer from 400 meters. Angle of incidence was probably 20 degrees on the upper super bounces, greater than normal slope on the lower slope bounces.