Stephen Smith

I have a suggestion for an improvement to the cm engine. I would like to have a key or button which would allow me to highlight the portions of the map which are within my Line of Sight. This might be done for an individual unit (i.e. select a unit, hit the button, and either everything that unit can see is highlighted, or everything that unit cannot see is shaded), or it could be done for the entire friendly side (i.e. hit the button, and all areas of the map which are not in LOS of a friendly unit are shaded). Why? I find it frustrating that I don't really know what my units can and cannot see. In other words, because I have the 'God' perspective, I can see the whole map (i.e. I can see all the terrain on the map). But my UNITS cannot see all of that, and cannot see enemy units on all the terrain that I can see. Thus, the visual cue that the game gives me when I look at the map (that I can see an entire town, that I can see all of the trees in a patch of woods, that I can see the terrain behind a hill, etc) is not the same as what my Units can see-and what my units can actually see is often hard to determine. This came to light when I was playing "Fear in the Fog" last night. I place units in reasonable defensive positions, but during game play, it turns out to be that the range that units can see is actually about 85 meters-thus a unit in a house overlooking an open field actually can't SEE into that open field-he can only see 80 meters out. This is also especially noticeable when you have units moving through, looking into, or out of, trees. Our computers don't draw all the trees in the forest (to reduce polygons) so the forests appear more 'open' than they really are, and it is difficult to really tell what your units can see (i.e. where LOS ends) when forests are involved. I wouldn't expect this function to be on all the time- I would just like to be able to hit a button during the orders phase and, with the shading (or highlighting), be able to see how far into a forest I can actually see, whether my units in a building can actually see an important intersection or not, whether there is a gap in my defenses, etc. I would then turn the shading off when I give orders to units, and it would be off during the action phase as well. Steve

Deanco- I ****in' agree with you, you cool-assed mother****er. Goddamn words aren't offensive by themselves, its how they are used! In this post for instance, this ****ty first paragraph shouldn't offend you in the least (you or anyone else-anyone who IS offended is just some kind of close-minded religious fanatic)-I'm agreeing with every ****in' A thought or idea you have ever had in your crazy, totally awesome, little head! But THIS paragraph, where I disagree with you, and think words by themselves can be offensive and inappropriate, should, by your logic, be banned. Not because there ARE any offensive words (since there aren't), but because there are offensive 'intentions' (i.e. that I think you are completely wrong in your view towards foul language). So do we ban intention-I intend to disagree with you, or the status quo, therefore I should be banned (after all, its not the WORDS that are offensive, its the motivation behind the words)? Or do we agree on standards of behavior and speech that we should all ****in' go by, dude? Steve

Huge maps. I don't know how huge (10x10 km?) but huge. My own interest is NOT to have huge maps on which to have huge battles -rather, I want more maneuver, and more long term decisions (attack down this road, or that one five kilometers away? When do I commit my reserves to one road, knowing that when I do, they too far away to support the other road? etc etc). Huge enough to allow me to use scouts and scouting vehicles to probe the enemy defense in order to find weak spots. Huge enough to have multiplayer, with each player in charge of a battalion+ (say brigade vs brigade with six players). Steve

Iron Duke, Def Bungis- Unbelievable! I too was in 2/67 AR. I was an LT in A company, left the bn just before the gulf war and went up to Bde. I spent the war in Bde S-4 (future ordnance officer). I can't even remember the bn commander just before Merritt any more (LTC Charles Carson/Colson/Colby/something)? I got out in '92, and am now in the Guard. Steve

1) Many of the responses here don't really address the original question (i.e. Why did warfare TACTICS of old involve lining up in two lines and firing at each other?). Much of the discussion addresses strategy and even operational maneuver rather than tactics. I have always wondered the same thing about line warfare, and though I'm not sure, I have some ideas. Imagine if an army DID fight with WWII/guerrilla tactics-i.e. hide behind rocks and stones, or spread out more, or operate in groups of 10 (squads) rather than in groups of 400 (battalions? companies? I don't even know), while the other army operates with traditional line tactics. Picture it on a map or even a wargame battlefield. One army would have a long, sparsely populated line. Say an army of 1000, with one squad (10 men every 100 yards)-thus the whole line is 10,000 yards. The other army, using traditional tactics, has 100 men every 100 yards, for a total battle line of 1,000 yards. Again, picture it on a map. The traditionally organized army can attack 1/10th of the WWII/guerrilla force at a time-in essence, whereever it chooses to fight, there will be 1000 soldiers fighting against 100 opponents. By trading fire, one side will put out 10X the lead that the other will each time it fires, thus incurring more casualties. If one or the other side decides to charge, the traditional army will have 10x the number of soldiers available for hand to hand combat. The WWII army will inevitably lose. If that army tried to reinforce the main battle area (presumably, with the battle occuring in 1/10th of its line, with 9/10th of its soldiers left out of the fight, that army would want to do SOMETHING), it would reinforce at the same low density of soldiers-each time new reinforcements arrived in the battle area, they would be defeated by the high volume of fire. My guess is that what defeated those old tactics was not the higher accuracy of weapons, but the higher rate of fire. If the soldier in the WWII army above can fire once before the traditional army closes to bayonet range, the traditional army will win (one volley between the two sides, then charge with hand to hand at 10:1 odds). But if the WWII army can fire twenty or fifty or 100 times before that traditional army can close to bayonet range (i.e. a machine gun), it pays off to hide behind rocks, spread out, and use WWII tactics-those ten guys can put out enough lead to defeat the 100 guys in close order drill. 2) Assassinating leaders: What does international law say about assassination of leaders during wartime? Legal or illegal? If it is illegal, how is that defensible? It would imply that it is perfectly ok to try to kill privates in the army, but it is illegal to kill generals or presidents (i.e. commanders in chief) in the army. RHIP? Steve

Well, maybe not literally 'no more patches.' But I think you need to be careful about patching-the more patches you create, the more versions of the game that will exist, the more compatibility problems that will arise, the more play balance issues that will arise etc etc. When TOAW came out, patches soon followed, with nauseating regularity, so that eventually user made scenarios were literally unplayable. As I recall, there were something like 16 versions of TOAW, not including purchasable upgrades. I found it difficult to download and run scenarios off the net, it would have been difficult to play against other people because it wasn't clear which version they had, scenarios became unbalanced because of new supply rules, etc etc. Improvement is a good thing; but I suggest you improve only occasionally (as a rule, perhaps one patch every six months?). The game has been out all of three weeks now, and there are already two patches out-I consider this a disturbing sign... Steve

Another idea to simulate the Russians: put in a huge delay for orders (say 1:00, 1:30). That way, your units are very non-reactive, and it would actually pay to give them orders spanning several turns (i.e. give them orders to move through three or four minutes of distance)-if you don't-if you try to give them orders every turn-you end up moving every OTHER turn due to the harsh delay penalties. Then, make only company commanders and up as 'leaders' with a delay override benefit. Thus, your forces will be a slow reacting-straight forward attacking, monolithic mass, with small pockets (surrounding the company commanders) of quicker reacting forces trying to hold the whole thing together. This may not be THE solution-just food for thought. Steve

BTS: "No idea on map size." Hmm. Could you ask the game designers that question, then? Seriously. Was this a legitimate post, or were you just tired of answering the same question over and over again? I find it incomprehensible that the designers of the game don't know the maximum map size, so I'm looking for a rational reason for the above response. It was answered to be 4km maximum length about three weeks ago-is that still accurate? Steve

Death Traps is the book to read on the subject. One reason it mentions is that before America got into the war, there was a philosophical debate amongst American generals as to how the tank should be used (and thus how it should be designed). The winning side (Patton actually supported this) thought the tank should be primarily used after a breakthrough is accomplished-against enemy hqs, support units, etc- as a quick, mobile attack force (essentially armored cavalry). Tank destroyers and infantry tanks were expected to be used for the actual breakthrough. Reality didn't live up to expectations (save for during Patton's breakout/pursuit in August, 1944), and Shermans ended up doing alot more of the grind-it-out tank on tank dirty work than was expected. By the time this was realized, assembly lines, spare parts, and overall infrastructure was geared toward the Sherman, and its heavier replacement (Pershing) was destined to take a year to reach combat units. Steve

Hmmm- While I am not a programmer, I am an engineer, so I will take a stab at a guess... The game is probably limited in size by the amount of RAM one's computer has. A map of a given size will take up a certain amount of RAM, the units (the polygons, or drawings of the units) will take up another quantity of RAM, and the AI (influenced by the number of units) will take up a third quantity of RAM. Thus, though the largest map size possible is 8 square kilometers (and 4000 m on a side) it would still be possible to 'crash' one's computer with a map within those limits-to create so many units that the map + unit polygons + AI demands = more than my computer's RAM (so a battle with 300 tanks on a side might not work-depending on my own computer's RAM). By the same token, it is probably possible to make a REALLY REALLY huge map given an average computer RAM, if you want to play one tank against one tank (i.e maximize map RAM, minimize polygon and AI RAM so that the total is still less than my computer's RAM). I can further assume that the map editor probably has some kind of input for width and length. The map editor then creates a green rectangle of the input size (which you then edit with roads, houses, forests, hills, etc). Since these are justs numbers (i.e. input 1200 for width and 1400 for length, for example) used to create a green rectangle, I would think that the 'limits' (8k max, and 4000m max for a given side) are actually additions to the program-there is nothing to 'test' to input a 10,000 for length or width rather than a 1,000 for either. And I will again compare it to East Front-it asked for an input for the length and width in hexes-if you chose a length x width which were too large for your computer, the RAM was exceeded, and the map was never created. If it was not too large, the map was created. So my question remains unanswered: why does Combat Mission have these artificial limits on the 'width' or 'length' inputs for map size? Why not let us create maps that might be too big for our computers? Or determine the largest map usable for our own computers? Or allow the people with more RAM the ability to create larger scenarios? My guess is: if people create maps too large for their computers, they will crash them, and then BTS will be getting complaints from people who don't understand that the problem is that their computer is just not big enough, and BTS doesn't want to deal with those complaints. But am I correct? And my second question is: if I am correct, then it should be possible to 'crash' one's computer by having too many units on the board at one time-thus, is there a 'unit limit' just as there is a 'map size limit,' and if not, why not? Steve

I know the maximum map size has already been discussed (although I admit it was either changed so many times, or there were so many different answers to the question, that I don't really know what it is). I have a different question: why is there a maximum map size (imposed by the game software) at all? I understand that the bigger the map, the slower, more choppy the game will play the longer the AI will think, etc etc. But why not let the users of the software determine how slow and choppy we want to play? What was the purpose of limiting the map size, when each of us will bump into a limit based on RAM and computer speed anyway? (as an example, with the East Front map editor, I once created a map of about 300 hexes square. I never played on it, and it may have been so slow as to be unplayable, but nonetheless I COULD construct it if I felt like it). And since I brought it up, what is the maximum map size? And is it a maximum height and width, or a maximum area (with a maximum area, I could create a long narrow map if I wanted). I also get the impression from previous posts that the maximum size of a scenario map is actually smaller than the maximum size for an operational map. True? Steve

As a follow up. Even if artillery is too responsive in CM, I don't feel that it necessarily should be changed. The artillery may be too responsive, but EVERYTHING is too responsive-you as a battalion commander have too much power to relocate individual squads, mgs, and vehicles. In other words, if we change the artillery responsiveness to be realistic (say make it a 10 minute call for fire procedure), but leave the individual maneuver elements unrealistically responsive, then the game will be imbalanced anyway- squads will be able to outrun the artillery more than was historically possible, and artillery will be more ineffective than it historically was. I think the best you can hope for is an accurate 'feel' to the game-does artillery do what we want it to do (i.e. is it a powerful but delayed weapon that can be used to destroy or disrupt enemy defenses, does it require some prior planning, etc etc). Steve

Re: the time to get steel on target for artillery. I have never been an artilleryman, but I have worked several times in battalion TOCs-last fall, I worked in the OPFOR TOC at the CMTC (a maneuver training area in Germany). I am not familiar with the procedures that FOs use to communicate information to the gun tubes, but I have seen the information logjam in the TOC. Based on that experience, I would say that the 2-3 minutes, or 90 seconds (or 45 sec), to get steel on target are minimum times on ideal circumstances-times on a firing range, with no higher headquarters oversight-in other words, the time for the FO to communicate to the firing battery, for the firing battery to input adjustments into their computers, and for the guntubes to fire a round downrange. Outside of a firing range, a fire request has to go through the battalion TOC and through the FSO-an artillery captain who checks the operational map to insure that no friendlys are in the area (ex. scouts, COLT teams, helos on the flight path between the guns and the target, etc). He may also check with the OIC of the TOC (either a battle captain, or more likely the battalion XO or S-3) to make sure that the gun tubes shouldn't give priority to some other target or anticipated target. This organizational delay is probably greater than 2 minutes (even if the technical delay of communicating, orienting and loading guns is not). This organizational delay will depend upon whether the battalion being supported has priority, whether the battalion is on the attack or defense (and thus whether the target is preregistered or not), whether the battalion TOC is being inundated with other communications at the time, whether the radios are working, whether the FSO is competent, whether the artillery tubes are moving at the time (on the attack artillery battalions generally leapfrog, so that only half of them are available at a given moment), whether the artillery tubes are in the middle of a different barrage at a different target, etc etc etc. On the other hand, I have only experienced this delay in training-as someone pointed out, in wartime, many of the safety concerns will go out the window. Bottom line: I suspect that 45 sec, 90 sec, and even 2-3 minutes is pretty optimistic for even modern day artillery-even if the rounds can technically be sent within that period, the organization will slow things considerably. As a SWAG, 5-10 minutes sounds reasonable. Steve

?Considering the source? C'mon, Matthew. We may not like each other, agree with each other, or like how we express ourselves, but you have to admit that I've been reasonably witty in the way I've chosen to say things! Even the syncophant stuff-I could have just said "Ugh, Matt, quit being an egomaniac." But the indirect method, even back then, was pretty creative. Stephen.

10. Poor girl, she'll never get a man..Oh Wait! There's that petty little English boy! 9. Pardon me, Ma'am. If you're looking for your nose, it was just sighted in Saskatchewan. 8. Mmm, mmmm. That girl must lie all the damn time! 7. Lucky she's fat, or she'd really be ugly! 6. Whatever you do! DON'T SNEEZE! 5. Hey! Who brought the canoe? 4. That chick is like a BB gun. If you don't handle 'em right, they'll both poke your eye out. 3. I never thought it possible, but there's a girl who could really benefit from leprosy. 2. Why does that girl with the honker always date pre-teens? And, number one,...... 1. Hey, Big Nose!

Desert Fox- Are you sure about the numbers you stated? (or perhaps I am misunderstanding which diameters you are referring to..) You stated the sabot round was an arrow with a diameter of 4-5 cm. Did you mean the penetrating arrow had a diameter of 4-5 cm, or the initial shell had that diameter, with the penetrating arrow being a smaller core? If I recall correctly, the sabot round on the M1A1 was about that size (6-8 cm) with the depleted uranium 'arrow' being about 1 -1 1/2 cm in diameter (about the thickness of your thumb). The whole shell weighed about 45 lbs, and was around 2 feet long (all numbers are VERY rough and based on memories about 10 years old). Steve Steve

Alright Fionn- I'll clear the air, and only post now when I have something very specifically game-related to say. I apologize for posting the way I have. I will be very specific; I do not like the adolescent mood of this post, that mood was not always there, it really arose when you and Mad Matt got active. I was wrong for posting in the same manner, and it won't happen again. I think you guys have made one of the best web sites, and unquestionably the best game page web site,I have ever seen. But I think your enthusiasm is, well, adolescent. I don't like Mad Matt's personality; I think every time he posts, he does so to attract more attention to himself than to the game. I didn't like the way you guys were treating CPT Manieri, and I said so (admittedly, indirectly, and again, I apologize). I don't like the way you pass off your words with 'I had a death in the family, so my own words aren't my fault.' Unless you are Bill Clinton or 14 years old, that type of excuse just doesn't cut it. I didn't like your response to my disagreement with you. I admit it-I sniped at you in the SECOND post. Again, a wrong move. But in the first post, I merely disagreed with you (reread it and see for yourself)-you actually started the sniping war this time, Fionn, with a snotty attitude toward a simple disagreement (which, as it turned out, depended upon a misunderstanding and a confusion between 'berserk' and 'fanatic' by myself, Josh, and you). Everyone is not going to agree with you all the time, Fionn. Grow up and get used to it. Sorry for not being more direct in the past. Sorry for being petty and sniping. Sorry for not saying precisely what I want and moving on. So I do so now. I thought the discussion board was great before you guys got here. You came, and you have created a remarkable web page, and an active, exceptional community. You have milked and nurtured alot of enthusiasm-and I am thankful for the screen shots, stories, scenarios to come, and everything else. But I just don't like the way you guys behave, and I think the tone (though not the volume) of the discussion has degraded. When I read a post labelled "Mad Matt's a great guy! Come read his latest update!!" I get sick to my stomach! Perhaps there is some kind of generation gap (I am in my mid-30's). It never occurred to me to come to the discussion page and read about Mad Matt's girlfriend's nose, or your family-I thought I was going to read about the game! I see this as a discussion-not a community! (my community is made of of people I actually know). Again, perhaps I and older people see the web and computers in a different way than younger people. I'm not expecting to change anything, I don't want to get into a flame war. I'll repeat: sorry about my own adolescent postings in the past. I won't do it again. I don't promise to agree with everything that is said here, but I will disagree in a better tone. Steve

Fionn- You are correct. I had mixed up 'berserk' with 'fanaticism.' However, it is quite obvious how and why I did-Josh's original post did the same thing. Where did I get the idea that fanaticism has to be temporary? I'll quote the original post (you could go back and look it up yourself, but I'm sure you are too busy insulting CPT Manieri for not doing the very same thing). "A sense that they had somehow cheated death, so it became less terrifying...enraged by the combination of the deaths of so many of their buddies...he had never seen such rage by an entire unit." Josh was obviously talking about temporary battlefield insanity-what SL called berserk, what I originally thought he meant when he said 'fanatic,' what he actually did mean when he said 'fanatic,'. He was NOT talking about really devoted soldiering (like the two tankers)-soldiering to the point of death because surrendering was not an option (like SS on the Eastern Front), or really skillful fighting(like marines, SS on the Western Front), as your post discussed. Steve

Actualy, I would have to agree with JoshK that his example (if it was accurately described) WAS fanaticism, while Fionn's several examples do not qualify. Fanaticism, it seems to be, would be the temporary insanity of a group of people-they are battle-raged, or shocked, to the point that normal psychological limits (fear of death) don't enter their minds. If the case that Josh described is accurately described, it sounds like the unit (whether it was a whole battalion or just the initial squads landing on the beach) was fanatic-they lost their normal fear of death. That is quite different from Normandy-at Omaha beach, the Americans DID do what those paratroopers could have done-they cowered on the beach for hours (from about 6:00 until 2:00 in the afternoon). That is the whole point of Josh's example-those paratroopers COULD have cowered, been ineffectual, etc. But instead, not only did they continue with the mission, it sounds like they did foolhardy things while doing so (the one guy scaling the wall of the fortress or whatever it was). And the other examples (wounded tanker calling in artillery for three days, KV tank in place for two days, partisan group travelling and eating berries for a month)-they weren't temporary. They may have been fatalistic, and willing to keep fighting when most of us would have quit, but they weren't fanatic (as a comparison: the Squad Leader rules that cover fanaticism don't merely make a fanatic unit merely unbreakable-they make that unbreakable unit CHARGE the enemy and engage in hand to hand combat!). Steve

CPT- I just read your last post (concerning what is in the manual). Before I had opened the topic, I made a bet with myself; people are going to make fun of him for essentially no reason, its going to be an embarassing/meaningless conversation, etc. I was not disappointed. I thought I'd give you a little advice on how to relate in a board like this. First, you have to realize, the board has deteriorated to the point that it is, in tone and mood, not that different from high school-its actually hard to believe that the average age is 38.06, isn't it? There are three definite social strata: the cool guys (Fion, Mad Matt, some others) the class clown (you), and the vast body of yesmen/sycophants, who will do what it takes to seem 'cool' to the two cool guys. Apparently, what it takes, is to humiliate you. Second, you are the class clown. The masses will humiliate you for asking the same types of questions that other people ask, for trying to introduce new topics, for bringing up anything-not because your words necessarily deserve it (as I said, you ask questions that plenty of other people ask), but because that is the way high school works (you are sixteen? Perhaps this board is a good lesson for you-you NEVER escape high school). Even the cool guys will humiliate you now and then, because, that's what cool guys do. Third, given these facts, the only real solution is to leave the board. The board is dead on the water right now. Perhaps it will revive once the game is released, I don't know. My advice to you is to let the kids play their games, monitor the board, but don't participate-you will NEVER be taken seriously (again, not because you don't deserve it, but because that is what cool guys and sycophants do) no matter what you say. I would advise, if you do continue to participate on the board, get a new name/user id. That is your only chance for respect. Best wishes, Stephen

"btw, the problem with Dutch was not that it was about Edmund Morris, as that technique of biography through a foil is generally accepted, but that his involvement with Reagan was entirely fictional, but he didn't bother telling anyone." Hmmm. I'm not convinced of this. I haven't read the book-I've only read several reviews/editorials about the book. My impression is that EVERYBODY knew that Edmund Morris' insertion of himself into the biography was fictional-and they disliked the book anyway. In other words, the source of their dislike was not the deception (the fact that edmund was in the book and didn't tell anybody that it was fictional)-rather, it was simply the awkward way in which he inserted himself-that the fictions represented by having his own fictional character 'bump into' Reagan throughout the biography called into question other statements of the book (which were probably factual). In other words, by introducing a fictional character, it opens the doors to introducing fictional events, fictional quotes, fictional attitudes, etc, and the reader has no way of knowing which was which. Stephen

Within the last year, Edmund Morris (sp?) published a biography of Ronald Reagan. It was terrible. It wasn't terrible because it was poorly written. It wasn't terrible because it was funny or not funny. It wasn't terrible because it was particulary accurate or inaccurate. It was terrible because it had evolved into a biography not of Ronald Reagan, but of Edmund Morris!! It was off topic and thus irrelevant to most readers. How does this relate to CM? Madmatt- I don't give a rat's ___ how you got your nickname, or that you were fat as a child, or whether you are funny or not. In fact, I don't care in the least about you!! I come here to read about CM-not about a difficult personality. The rest of you- I also don't care in the least what kind of punk rock music you like. I don't care whether we are having a love=fest over some of the participants on this board ("oh, fionn, i love you so" "oh, me too! I love him too" christ). It wasn't long ago that people apologized for being off topic when they discussed other tactical WWII computer games! If nothing new is occuring with regard to CM (which is, of course, absurd-there is plenty of stuff to talk about concerning CM) just SHUT UP! Stephen

Matt- Grow up. Steve

My computer runs the demo's fine. However, they are silent-no voices, no battle sounds, etc. It is a brand new HP Celeron 500 Mhz. I don't know the sound card off hand. I'll look it up if you are interested. Stephen

" the M1A1 can fire with great accuracy while moving at 50 mph...." I suspect there are two myths expressed in this sentence. First, that the M1 can fire at great accuracy at 50 mph. Second that the M1 can move at 50 MPH. I suspect there is some propaganda/army recruiting exaggarations that cause these two perceptions of the M1 to remain (remember the commercial that showed an M1 going airborne as it drove over a bump). I was an M1A1 tank platoon leader in Germany in the late 1980's, and was on a brigade staff during the Gulf War where I was (oddly enough) able to drive the M1A1 across the flat, sandy desert as fast as it could go. On training ranges, we would fire on the move, ONLY while driving along a flat, gravel road, at about 15-20 MPH. And out in the desert, I had the opportunity to drive the tank as fast as it would go, across sandy, almost billiard table flat, terrain. It maxed out at about 25-30 MPH. I don't know for sure that the above are the maximum limits of the M1A1'S performance, specifically 1) in training, we were undoubtedly under more safety constraints than would apply during war-I am sure that the M1 can track at FASTER than 15 mph, and can track along terrain BUMPIER than a gravel road. But whether it could track at 50 MPH cross country, I seriously doubt it, and 2) it may have been that the engine of the tank I was in had a governor (which I have read about, but never experienced as a PLatoon leader while on active duty) or was underpowered for some reason. Perhaps (even more than likely) the tanks could go faster than 30 mph. But I doubt that they could go 50 mph under any but very controlled circumstances (and even then the tracks would probably be torn up, and extensive damage to the tank would result). As for firing at 50 mph, I doubt it. It may be possible, it may be possible on a blacktop parking lot, but in general, I doubt it. Steve