jim crowley

Fionn I can't access any of the new (CM) stuff at TGN. Clicking on the three new buttons or the 'go to battle reports' line doesn't achieve anything; it seems to be loading-up, but then nothing! All the earlier entries, up to and including the Demo line; no problem. Any ideas? Cheers Jim

In regard to hits on Hellcats; short description of recently fought battle. Hellcats make their dramatic appearance and take out Tiger and 1 Stug with first shots. Second Stug in scattered trees, not in LOS, on right flank (German). Hellcats spread out and Stug draws a bead on one; fires and gets a penetrating hit to the turret front, but doesn't stop it! Hellcat returns fire; misses. Stug fires again; obtains similarly placed hit which, this time, does knock-out the Hellcat. Cheers Jim

Enjoying the demo hugely. Just a few odds and ends to throw into the query/comment pile. The reference to KIA's, in the final AAR of a scenario, is, I assume, some sort of statistical conclusion based on kill ratios, rather than actual tracked data. Or is KIA/WIA now being tracked during the game (which would be a nice touch, but by no means vital)? In a recent game three Shermans were shown as 'abandoned' and one 'destroyed'. As an experiment I fired at an abandoned one and subsequently 'destroyed' it. Is there a: any victory point advantage to this? b: could the crew have returned to the vehicle (or gun, for that matter)? c: the final AAr indicated 4 vehicles 'knocked-out'. Is there not a distinction between 'abandoned' and 'destroyed', in so far as the former would have a chance of being recovered? (Also it would be nice to have the vehicles named at this point- a bit more interesting and atmospheric than just plain 'vehicles') I may be reading this all wrong, but C&C seems to be limited essentially to platoon level only, with Company and higher HQ's being little more than replacements for lost platoon HQ's. Surely higher level CO's should be able to exert their influence on squads within their command radii, especially if the platoon HQ is panicked or broken? Also, there seems to be no limit as to the distance that the platoons of a company can operate from each other (and presumably, companies of a batt.) And why no C&C limitations on vehicles? Although a tank probably had greater autonomy than a squad it still had to operate within it's command structure. In a large scale tank battle, vehicles going hither and thither would have caused huge confusion, putting a greater strain on C&C I've not played the scenarios that often yet but my feeling, FWIW, is that the delay penalties for being out of C&C are not harsh enough. From a 'gamey' point of view it seems too easy to use split-squads and teams to act as scouts, gathering important intel. at the cost of a little inflexibilty. Just wondered what others, with greater playing experience, think? Is it reasonable to expect a company to clear a defended villge in 30 mins (a la Riesberg)? Urban fighting is notoriously slow and dangerous (look how long it took the fabled SS to clear the Para's out of Arnhem). I'm just a bit worried that CM may be going down the path of the majority of wargames, in making events occur 'faster than life'. Just a thought. All in all though, from what I've seen so far- brilliant! Cheers Jim

I have to admit that, anxious as I was to get hold of the demo, I was also a tad worried that all would not be well. Would it download? Would the download work? And the million dollar question; would it be anywhere near as good as it was being hyped-up to be? How many 'this is the "best","most realistic" etc. etc' wargames have I played in the past; that have all somehow fallen well short of the mark. Was this destined to be another dissapointment? Well, to keep it short. Yes it did download. Yes it worked. And.... it's bloody OUTSTANDING. I take my hat of to you boys; you've done a superb job. As we say in Merrie England, the dogs-b.....ks! The graphics, for a serious tactical war game, are excellent; better than I thought they would be. The sound was a suprise bonus! Realistic and dynamic. Gameplay; spot-on. The whole FoW, uncertainty factor feeling is truly excellent. I constantly heard myself saying things like; "where the hell did that come from?" and "what on earth was that?" and various other unprintable expletives. The whole experience really came alive for me. I,m not much cop with real-time stuff and was a bit worried that the camera-angle stuff was going to be a major problem. Nah! piece of cake. Again much better and easier than I'd imagined. Although I had originall intended to kick-off by testing the strength of the AI, my first game was actually played against my fourteen year old son, who has no knowledge of, and even less interest in, wargames (more of a Quake, Kingpin type) After five turns, he was avidly demonstrating the features of the game to my wife and proclaiming how he was going to beat his dad! So, not only have you made an old wargaming soldier very happy in producing the game he has always dreamed about (and more)but you have a new convert, a real new newbie. I think that this really does presage the advent of a new war-gaming era and hope that you get the commercial success that you deserve from your hard work and dedication. In which case you'll be able to carry on the good fight and produce even more (smiley face - can anyone explain how to do those, please) A quick note here to acknowledge the hard work and enthusiasm of Fionn and Martin, without which this post probably wouldn't have been written. I had originally pretty much dismissed CM as a 'first-person' rip-off with WW2 background, but reading their early posts kept me mildly interested. The AARs and Fionns obvious fascination with CM (given his wargaming background etc.) turned it around and the rest is history. Eagerly awaiting my pre-ordered copy (and CM2, 3 and on) Cheers Jim

Steve, Excellent news! What you described as already being in, is exactly what I was referring to, i.e the important details.(just hadn't seen them anywhere in the sreenshots) You and Charles are obviously way ahead of my thinking on this. And yes, angles and degrees etc. would ony be so much clutter that is un-needed. The can-of-coke thing is, unfortunately, about right as well (sigh). Bil, Thanks for the support. As you say though, this is a battle for another day. (got too shot-up last time to have another go this soon) Cheers Jim

Fionn, Mine seems to have got lost as well, Cheers Jim

Fionn, Thanks for the reply. Broadly speaking I fully agree with you; the 3D and immersive nature of CM will mostly preclude digging into statistics etc. Even in the traditional hex-based games, I don't often bother to check out the details when I'm playing. However (there always has to be a however), CM is being sold, at least in part, on it's attention to detail. Thus we have detailed penetration charts and, within the game itself, pull-down information on armour thickness and slope etc. Now none of this is essential to playing the game and those who have no interest in this info. will no doubt ignore it. (It's highly unlikely that the real-life crews themselves knew or even cared about that sort of info. much less company and battalion commanders).In other words access to this stuff is optional but there are some, self included, who will want to check those details out, at least from time to time. On that basis, given that the game engine is actually calculating all of this complicated stuff- it's already there- why not let those who want access to it, or at least to the more important parts, have the option to do so. Perhaps by using that same drop-down data box. Bobb put it rather well; basically it allows those who require more detail to have it, without deflecting from the basic nature of CM. It also is evidential of the calcs. being done, as opposed to using the ten-sided dice, for those who might doubt (I'm not one - honest). Bil Good point about the battalion commander; I'm sure Lt.colonel whoever couldn't have given a toss about where the jumbo was hit etc. just worried about losing it. However (again!) the player is not just the battalion or company commander, he is the 'everything' commander. Sometime back I advocated the notion of additional command/control, such that you could not control everything all of the time and might not, therefore, be aware of every unit's situation. This was pretty much trounced by all and sundry - control of all units was much preferred. Well you can't have it all ways. If you have control over all of your units then ,IMHO, you should have access to some more of the 'detail' if you want it. The crew of that jumbo really did give a damn where they were hit! Real life AAR's (personal testimonies, company, battalion, divisional reports etc.) are often suprisingly detailed in terms of how, where and when damage- to vehicles and men- was occaisioned (bloody word - never remember how to spell it). Well, thats my two qiuds worth. Cheers Jim.

In looking back over the AAR's, it strikes me that a lot of information seems to have been assumed by the players (or should that be presumed) in regard to hits on, and damage to, vehicles. The destruction of the Jumbo was a prime example. Unless I'm missing something, which is emmintley possible, there does not appear to be any way to accurately ascertain the point of impact of (say) an incoming AT shell, or the actual damage done (if any) by it. Thus if a vehicle is immobilised, the hit is assumed to have hit a track or driving-sprocket or possibly even the engine. At least that is how I am reading it. Now, given that, 'under the hood', the game engine is working through all sorts of esoteric data relating to angles, velocities, points of impact, armour thickness and slope, etc. it seems a shame that at least some of this can't be allowed to see some daylight. In other words, why not a "AT shell hits side turret; no damage" or whatever , during or at the end of a turn or whenever appropriate. Not only would this help the player to more readily and quickly understand what is happening (without perhaps having to go over each shot with a fine tooth-comb to try and trace the path of the shell to impact) but would also give at least a glipmse of what is going on 'underneath' to show that it is really all being calculated. If not, then to the players perspective, it can appear that nothing more esoteric than a ten-sided dice has been rolled, with a 1 being a critical hit, a 2 and 3 a hit, and 4 to 10 a miss, etc. etc. What I am trying to say is don't hide away all that hard work and detail under the hood by only showing it through the likes of the penetration charts; let some of it become more apparent, at least by option , if not by default. Cheers Jim PS If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I apologise in advance.

Just a small point of detail, but I believe that the make-up of a standard British section (squad) was: Section Leader; 1 Sten Rifle Group; 6x Rifle Bren Group; 1 Bren, 2x rifle. Cheers Jim

I,m wondering if the small inferno created by the Panzer 1V's HE shell (turn 30) might have been a bit exagerated. The affected area was (I think) light or scattered trees, in winter. They may well have been set on fire but I can't imagine this turning into a blaze that would cause the sheltering infantry to flee. Perhaps in a forested or scrub area, in dry summer conditions, but not in damp winter. Could this perhaps be related to the earlier house fire caused by tank-fire (I think) which was generally agreed to be also OTT. Cheers Jim Crowley

As I started this thread, just a bit more info. on the reported action of 6 June at Cruelly (Gold Beach). The unit involved was Squadron A of the 4/7 Dragoon Guards. The actual vehicle belonged to Lt. Morrison, commanding 4 troop. This troop was equipped with 2x 75 Shermans and one Firefly. Morisons tank was a regular 75 Sherman. There is no indication of range but for an A/T gun (type unkown) to engage and knock out four tanks of the squadron in quick sucession, presume it must have been within 2000 yds (unless an 88). Morrison's tank was 'turret-down' and he dared not move forward to 'hull-down' for fear of being hit. He directed his 'bracketing' from commanders normal position within the turret.He obtained a hit on the third shot, then fired three more for effect. Cheers Jim Crowley

At the risk of being boring, I would like to raise an issue that I have previously aired on other threads, with a view to creating a straw-poll. Then I promise not to raise it again. The issue is scenario replayability and it goes something like this; Steve has said that there will be 20+ scenarios in the initial release (I think I've got that right); that there will be loads of custom built scenarios to download (I'm sure there will - some of them will be mine) and that, as variety is the spice of life, who would want to play a sceario more than a couple of times. I tend to agree with most of that, but the fact is, that there is a world of difference between a scenario and a GOOD scenario. Or at least what is good to me, as an individual. Now, my playing time is generally pretty restricted, so if I come across a good scenario there is every chance that I will want to replay it, to explore it from various angles. The problem is, that the very core of CM is FoW, not knowing exactly what you're up against or where it is. Excellent, 100%, just as it should be! Unfortunately, once you've played a scenario you are going to know pretty much everything about the oppositions make-up ( other than where it sets-up, perhaps) The implication here is that, not only can you not replay that scenario as it was meant to be played (i.e with uncertainty) but you won't even be able to play it from the opposite side as you will obviously know in detail what the opposition has, having just played as them. In other words, to get the full and intended flavour of CM, you will only be able to play each sceario once, from one side. Unless there is a means (optionally) of having a variable set-up force compostion (either partially random or designer controlled or both). Whilst this may unbalance a tried and tested scenario, it would be at the option of the player and would in no way compromise the basic game philosophy. Indeed, IMHO, it would tend to reinforce it, allowing the player to focus on favoured scenarios whilst still retaining that all-important uncertainty factor. This is quite important to me but I accept it may not be to others (or anyone else for that matter). I would just like to know what others of you think; if it proves to be a popular notion, who-knows? it may even be possible to include it. If not, then so-be-it, I've said my bit and I won't raise the matter again. Thanks for your time Cheers Jim Crowley

Just finished reading an article about a small tanks v. hidden A.T. gun duel at Creully, just off Gold beach, PM D Day. (with similar results to the AT gun demo that Fionn has put up at TGN) What I found interesting, was the fact the AT gun was eventually put out of action by indirect fire from a turret-down tank, using the 'bracketing' technique (the art of landing one shot beyond and one shot short of the target, then halving the bracket and repeating until you hit it). Just wondering if this will be possible in CM? Cheers Jim Crowley

Steve or Charles, With the Beta firming-up and thus the impending release of CM that much closer, I would imagine that, like myself, there are lots of folk who are 'designing ' scenarios ready for the 'off' With that in mind, would it be possible to define more precisely the limits on scenario size. More specifically, how many units (combat or otherwise) will CM support: as a whole; on each side and will attacker/defender be ratioed (i.e. could the defender be battalion-sied, given that the attacker would, by convention, have a larger force)? What is the largest possible map size? And will limits be defined specifically, or dictated by individual PC performance? As a quick aside, is the map made-up of 20mx20m blocks? Cheers Jim Crowley

FWIW just my few thoughts on this topic. No to player control ; Pixman pretty well said it all; wrong scale,un-historic an un-realistic. Yes to variable reinforcements; IMo will add immeasurably to re-playability (more on this in a bit) Yes to player having at least some knowledge of what he might get and especially where it will appear (but not what percentage chance) In the current TGN game the players must represent a GOC of Colonel or above. There is no way that a leader of that rank would have no idea as to what other elements are participating in the overall operation and of their geographical relationship to his own position. Without being told that "x number of platoons, arriving turn X (% chance ?), in the area of X" how on earth could Martin have known that the US were attacking from the other side of town, although that is how Steve envisaged it. What he wouldn't and shouldn't know is exactly what and when he will get them. Yes to my own notion of variable (optional) set-up forces (which together with the already-in optional setup locations and variable re-inforcements, should ensure vast replayabilty. Why do I think replayabilty is important? Well, despite the fact that Steve suggests that there will be loads of scenarios flying around, I think that we will all have our favourites, for whatever reason and will want to spend our time playing and replaying what, as individuals, we deem to be quality scenarios. The problem with this, is that CM's core revolves around FOW. As it stands (as far as I understand anyway) once you have played a scenario once, from either side, the Fow Is pretty much gone and with it the fun and excitement that CM is all about. " I know he (the enemy) only has three tanks and as I've just taken out his third one - well, that means he has none left!" etc. etc. IMHO variables in reinforcements and set-up units as well as set up locations would give constant FOW to replayed scenarios ad infinitum ( and yes, it may alter play balance, but they should be optional, so you dont have to use them) Cheers Jim Crowley

Since I let the cat out of the bag, vis-a vis the Jumbo, I've been wondering about the nature of critical hits within the game system. The notion of the one-in-a-hundred shot/hit must of course be allowed for, because there are many documented cases of such events and it allows for some 'david and goliath' stuff. Does this, however, apply to all weapons systems? In other words does a unit firing a rifle or pistol at an AFV have the same 1% chance for a critcal, as an AT weapon? I am comfortable with the notion of the AT weapon but not the pistol. That is more like a million to one chance. Also it could lead to unrealistic tactics with infantry 'potting' tanks hoping for that lucky shot (I'm not talking about hitting exposed crew, rather a critical against the vehicle itslf). As a rider to that question,is there facility fot infantry to close assault AFV's using grenades, mines etc. and will that be shown graphically. PS please let us see turn 12 soon - VERY SOON Cheers Jim Crowley

Humble apologies to all (grovel, grovel) regarding the Jumbo slip!! Just didn,t think that one through. I'd like pick up on critical hits in a new thread. In regard to the scenario randomiser idea, Patrick has expressed what I was thinking much more clearly than I did. Although it is good to be able to alter existing scens. what I was suggesting was an optional random method of doing so; to retain at least an element of the unknown, not only in location terms but also in unit composition terms. Thus a small alteration might yield one bazooka team, more or less. A large alteration might add or subtract a tank, etc. This might alter play balance in those instances, but IMHO replayability would be greatly enhanced. By having the computer randomly pick one of the alteration possibilities, you could never be certain exactly what you are facing, no matter how often the scen. was replayed. And the basic flavour of the scen. would be unaltered. Once again, apologies to Fionn and Martin - keep up the good work, you're both doing a brilliant job. Cheers Jim Crowley

Just like to start off by saying that 'watching' the unfolding battle over at TGN is becoming very addictive. Well done to everyone concerned. Superb! The scenario being fought out seems to have been very well put together and brings me to the point of this post. The HPS games (Tigers.. Panthers.. etc.) were supplied with a very limited set of scenarios. The Steel Panthers series came with a very large selection of scens. and a flexible battle generator. As a result, I tended to play the weaker game system (SP) much more often, because it presented greater variety. I think the number (and of course, quality) of scenarios provided in the release version of CM will be very important, in allowing players to realise the full potential of a ground- breaking system. To that end , I wonder if there is any possibilty of having some sort of Scenario 'Variator'? What I mean by this is, having played a standard scen. a couple of times, you will generally have a good idea as to units involved and set-up etc. thus the element of surprise and hence replayabilty is greatly diminished. If, however, the scen. could be randomly (or semi-randomly more like) altered by say a small, medium or large amount, at the players choice, the replayabity factor would be greatly enhanced. In effect twenty scenarios would become eighty. Don't know if this is viable (or even desirable to others) but thought it was worth suggesting. Cheers Jim Crowley P.S. How did that Stug knock-out the Jumbo? My stats say it can't be done; not at that range with that gun anyway.

Thanks for that Steve. In addition to the supplied scens and campaigns will there be a 'battle generator' to allow quick creation of random battles (as in SP series). cheers Jim Crowley

Well, I've taken the plunge and pre-ordered on the basis of what I've seen over at TGN in the Battle Reports. Excellent idea and a great way to illustrate the various aspects of CM! The ongoing battle is, of course, being fought-out between two experienced (I presume) wargamers strutting their stuff. What I am wondering, is the AI up to handling this type of scenario, fighting as one side or the other. Or will this fairly complex scenario, where both sides are forced to both attack and defend in different areas, be confined to two human players only? Also is it possible to give an idea as to the total number of scenarios/campainges that are to be included in the final release; the split, if any, between human-only and single player scens. and the types of scens.(i.e. hypothetical and historical)? Incidentally, what scale is the TGN battle, in terms of map-size and unit count, against the average CM scenario. Here's to as early a release as possible Cheers jim crowley

Thanks for the replies. I was fishing to see just what C&C elements are being included in CM and what views folk had on the subject. I am not for one minute suggesting passing control to 'subordinates' on a permanent basis and, yes, I too want to be able to control all of my units.I want to 'wear all the hats'. Just not all of the time. That's simply not realistic. The tactical battlefield was a confusing (as well as a dangerous) place. Battalion and company commanders had a hard time knowing who was where and what they were up to. But they could, and obviously did, manage to get a reasonble grip on the situation overall and direct their troops towards the chosen goals. To ignore this confusion, which was sometimes only slight but often almost total, is to ignore a fundamental element of what is being simulated. I accept that there must be a compromise if the simulation is to be enjoyable as a game, but it seems to me that this area is being all but forgotten. My concept of 'acceptable ' C&C, for what its worth, would be, broadly, as follows: Company command, say four platoons plus tank troop. At the start of each turn check for CC with each platoon/troop HQ. This could be done on a percentage chance if HQ has a radio (90-95% ?) or decreasing percentage for increasing range if no radio (time for runners etc). All in CC? Great! You now wear platoon commanders hats and issue orders to squads (who undergo a similar check) Platoon A, out of CC. Then you can't give orders to those units for that turn. So what do those units do? Probably not much in reality. Sit and wait for orders, fire at any visible enemy, retreat if shot at. That's about all. Pretty much what they would do any way, so no great extra strain in AI. More importantly though those units do not 'spot' for you (as company commander) they just react without your knowledge. They could be ghosted-out in much the same way as previously spotted enemy units. So suddenly you have a less than perfect picture of the battelfield.For part of the time. Next turn CC re-established with platoon A (the radios' working again or the runner got through); once again you can be platoon C.O. Etc.Etc. That type of CC might not be perfect but it would go some way towards simulating the reality of tactical combat. Suppose a squad is cut off and surrounded by the enemy. How do you give it orders? How do you know what state it's in? In reality you can't and don't. In most tactical games - no problem, therefore no reality! Scatter your platoons and squads far and wide; in the real world - toal chaos! In most tactical games, little more than minor irritation. Is that realistic? You tell me. Work out your company or battalion level battle plan using perfect, instantaneously transmitted information from all of your troops. Wouldn't those guys back then given their back teeth for that! Didn't happen though. Not often anyway. Always happens in tactical games. Realistic? Pease don't get me wrong. I think the general concept and the inherant detail in CM is excellent. The graphics are surperb and the overall intent is laudable. But it is being sold on the corner-stone of 'realism' Realism is many things to many people but you cannot escape that confusion and loss of control are an inherant part of tactical combat. If the AI can control all of the enemy units all of the time; if it can deprive you, as player, of knowledge of those units; if it can 'ghost-out' those units at applicable times; if it can counter-mand the fire orders for your units with more practical ones; then why can't it do that for some of your units just some of the time! Sorry for the rant (and length) I just happen to think this is an important and overlooked area in tactical computer gaming. Cheers Jim

I'm new to this board so please excuse me if this topic has been covered previously. I've played all (I think !)of the PC versions of WW11 tactical land-combat games (being my principal area of interest)and was wondering if CM is going to be able to offer something that none of them has been able to simulate to any degree of realism-namely C&C. By and large, the majority of such games offer FoW in regard to the 'enemy' side and, in some cases a limited C&C based on morale recovery/ammo resupply relative to proximity of leaders/HQ's. None of them offer limited control over and limited information about'friendly' forces. For example, take a squad/platoon stuck out on a extreme flank, possibly out-of-sight of other 'friendlies' and with no radio. It spots enemy activity close by (out-of-sight of any other units) In all games produced so far, you as player and CO of the friendly side are immediately and unrealistically aware of that enemy activity, the exact location of your own unit, its precise condition and can order it to attack/retreat or whatever, based on that info. My reading of WW11 accounts, which is fairly extensive, suggests that situational awareness of friendly units and their condition was fairly sparse, in the heat of battle. It was quite common, on all sides, for commanders to lose contact with various elements of their command, often for quite long periods of time. They would, therefore, not have access to the military intelligence that those units had obtained relative to enemy strength and disposition and subsequent decisions were often based on incorrect assumptions. This simply cannot occur in any of the current crop of games. Will CM feature anything of this nature? Apologies for the length of the message. Cheers Jim P.S. Any news on approximate release date?