WendellM

This may well be a troll (I haven't encountered "Dr. Brian" before). But on the off chance that it's sincere: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Okay, if I've "offended" any of you that are Germanophile, I apologize for expressing my opinions regarding Nazi Germany. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I am something of a Germanophile, but I share your disdain for the Nazis. My German "leanings" are centered in the 18th century, but also go back to Roman times and into post-reunification times. The deplorable "swastika years" are IMO some of the worst that nation was ever forced to live through (by some of her own people). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe your families weren't touched by the wrath of darkness [...] JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE A CERTAIN RACE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm... Do be careful not to condemn all Germans "just because they are a certain race" based on what part of one generation of Germans instigated... And as for my family, I have a (living) great-uncle who was an American medic at Normandy. I also have a (deceased) great-grandmother who was an immigrant from Germany around the turn of the century. They both matter to me. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-25-2000).]

Ooh, a little bit of Soviet-style revisionism : The 8/17 1.04 readme lists: "* Large guns like the 88mm AT are allowed to use the rotation order (this was a bug)." The 8/24 1.05 readme lists: "* Large guns like the 88mm AT are allowed to use the rotation order (this was a bug)." and the earlier entry in the 8/17 1.04 section has been deleted. No biggie (and listing the actual corrections under the patch in which they were actually fixed is the correct approach). I just (tongue-in-cheek) find the sliding of the fix from 1.04 to 1.05 amusing in a historical context. What's next, the reprinted manuals not mentioning Colin "CoolColJ" Chung or Fionn Kelly? In case I need to explain, this is meant as a joke - the Soviets continually "retouched" history to match what the current regime wanted viewed as "facts." Thanks for the patch.

My horror story is my recent PBEM match against Fionn Kelly. We'd gotten off on the wrong foot in this forum (my fault), and he suggested a game. My experience has been that such games usually provide a way for players to get to know one another in addition to playing the game itself, so I agreed (once I'd finished up my other PBEMs). I took a nice attacking American force (4 rifle platoons, a weapons platoon, 3 Sherman 76's, and 4 81mm mortar spotters) against his defending German force in early '45. As I advanced, I saw his three defending wooden bunkers, which naturally curtailed my advance. While my men went forward as best they could in the woods, I moved a couple of my tanks up against the bunkers. Heavy German artil began falling on my rearward guys in the woods, suppressing them and causing casualties. My two tanks managed to take out two of his bunkers, but were KO-ed by previously unseen Puppchens. During all this, several of his SMG squads advanced on my rifle squads in the woods with disastrous results. And if this were not enough, a flamethrower SPW 251/16 moved into the center to roast two of my squads. After 10 turns of a 40 turn game, I was forced to sue for a ceasefire, which was graciously granted. Incidentally, I did get to know Fionn much better as a person, and found that he isn't as gruff as he initially seems. In fact, he's a pretty interesting guy, and I'm richer for meeting him. I'd played a few other PBEM games before this one, and it was a real wake-up shock. I'd generally won before, but I was completely bested in this encounter from start to finish: humbling, but quite instructive - I learned a lot. Wendell

Thanks, Feuhrerguy Those are rather concentrated on the US side, though they're quite welcome (I already have a WW II German tape). Any UKers/Poles are welcome to contribute... Wendell

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Spotted Armor:smoke Spotted infantry:HE <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've seen an odd result when both armor and infantry are spotted. I was playing a "tactical what-if" scenario with the AI's attacking American infantry force against my defending 1000-point Heer armor force in a village in March '45. I had an MG team, two rifle platoons, and three arty spotters, but my main firepower came from my three Panthers. I used 1.04. The early game went as you might expect. The AI moved his force closer, staying in woods. I opened up with my off-map arty as he closed. Once they ran out of ammo and he began moving against the village, I opened up with my MG and rifle squads from the two-story buildings and moved my Panthers out to fire on his infantry. This resulted in the expected "meat-grinder" with infantry advances being disrupted by mixed rifle and tank MG/main gun fire. He was moving up to within 200-100 yards of my front. After a few turns of this, the AI started firing smoke at me - all over my Panthers and buildings. If these had been HE rounds they might have surpressed/injured my infantry (some were in light buildings). With all this smoke, I expected an infantry charge to take advantage of this, but that never came - just light moving up of infantry squads. One penetrated into my center, but was destroyed within a few turns. Around the same time, a lone Platoon HQ charged one of my Panthers and was gunned down a turn later. Later, the AI fired a line of smoke right in front of my Panthers. I scooted them up past it and continued fighting. The Americans didn't use this to charge, just to make a partial and leisurely advance of his rearward forces toward nearer woods (perhaps two squads did make advances toward my line, but were easily repulsed). Eventually the smoke cleared, and my rifle units opened fire again. Still later, the AI again fired a line of smoke in front of my advanced Panthers. I found a few more-forward spots for the tanks to move to in order to keep firing. Again, the Americans only partially advanced their rear units into nearer clumps of woods - no big charge (again, only around two isolated squads moved on my line). During all of this, I never received an HE barrage. That smoke had to be coming from units capable of firing HE, but all I got was smoke. As it was, I ended up winning a total victory when the AI surrendered (I was still in a defensive posture). If either (a) HE had been used to suppress/damage my infantry, or ( the AI had taken advantage of my smoke-caused blindness with a simultaneous advance of his overwhelming quantity of infantry, then things probably would have been much different. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-24-2000).]

No T-55s seem to have been involved, only T-34s (AFAIK). The M-48 did show up late, though: "the M-48 (also known as the Patton) did not enter combat in Korea until the last year of the war." (Sandler's The Korean War: An Encyclopedia)

Nifty, thanks! You might also post this on the TacOps forum, since it deals with modern combat (I could do it myself, but wouldn't want to take your credit). BTW, the second link needs a little edit (the final "." is causing a problem). No biggie - that seems to happen about half the time a link is posted.

Hi Bill, I haven't done is myself, but the thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum5/HTML/000196.html touches on it. Good luck, Wendell

Griffin, I'd previously read what you referred to (I think) and found it again: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008972.html Though Fred may well be right, he's not an "official" source (what we're looking for are official statements - unless I found the wrong post). The best match for "official" in that thread was Fionn, who stated that "[the patch will contain] tweaks and fixes.." Regards, Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-17-2000).]

Babra, That's a nice, well-written suggestion. I know that I'd tend to run away from whatever just blew up my vehicle (unless cover toward it were very close by). I also would like to see this checked out (whenever BTS gets a chance).

My initial feeling was toward the Germans. As stated above, their "toys" are cooler, plus they lost (playing the side that won and winning is less "impressive" than playing the side that lost and winning ). Also, I have lots more WW II German books than Allied... However, my initial PBEM opponent lives in Germany and thus has preferred to play the German side in our three games. Our first one had me as the British, and though I won, I wasn't comfortable with the "weird" equipment (my learning about WW II was in an American-centric environment after all ). In our second battle, my Americans did quite well. Our third is an early US tank vs. German tank battle, confirming my worst fears about US armor (but I'm making a rally, though it may be short-lived). So, I must confess that the Americans have really grown on me, and I now generally prefer them (though the Germans are a close second). Though their armor is poor (at least early on), their large squad size is a plus. I'm also more familiar with their equipment than the British/French, and there is a certain built-in identification when commanding one's actual nationality. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-17-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The password file would only see if the PW was there. If not, it would jsut ask the player for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right, and that would be a time/effort saver. What I was getting at was that sometimes you want a different PW for each game, and it would be nice not to have to remember which one went with which game. The possibility of multiple PW files, each tied to a game, would do that. As for why there are few comments on this thread, my guess would be that most folks are more interested in fixing the "real" (unit movement/combat) portions of the game first. This isn't meant to dismiss your ideas, but those are the core issues, while your (useful) ideas are more at the periphery. Regards, Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-17-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Has anyone read any other posts that hint (by Steve or Charles) of other tweaks and fixes we might see in the now upcoming v1.04 patch?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, when I cut up a chicken to cook for dinner last night, the innards spelled out "1.04" (either that or "Carthage", I'm not sure). This must be a sign from the gods than the new patch is underway. Seriously, thanks for the post. Pooling any official mentions of it in one place makes sense, since BTS is so busy with actually doing it that news of it (understandably) seems somewhat scarce.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>thank you. I guess I should have read the documentation (It must be in the library file of the CD).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're quite welcome. It's on page 9 in the "Guide - User.pdf" file. I would have replied sooner, but your question initially stumped me. I checked "real world" sources for "Combat Team" but had no luck (which didn't surprise me - my military library is mostly 18th century and WW II ). Only once I thought "maybe it's mentioned in the manual" did I find it myself... As for whether the US Army uses it for training, my understanding is that Canada, New Zealand, and the US Marines use it at least semi-officially. That's all I "know" and I could well be off-base at that. While wandering around, I found http://www.battlefront.com/resources/tacops/ ("found" might be too strong: it's mentioned and hosted right here on Battlefront.com ). Just in case you haven't seen it yourself, it's a nifty resource.

Phil/Andre, While I admire your global viewpoint (really), this seems a bit like ranking haggis consumption (no offense). The USA is so well-known for producing and buying game software (its only competitor might be Germany) just as Scotland is the main producer/buyer of haggis. What's my point? Well, I do find it quite interesting to see what other nations are buying CM, so your poll is well done. It's just that since the USA was so "sure" to win that maybe breaking down its entries by State might have provided more drama. In any case, cheers and thanks! BTW, my entry is: Alabama, USA Thanks again, Wendell

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: To correct any errors , I don't PBEM so thats not an issue for me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Paul, you've gotta try it at least once! This is from a PC-gamer who hated almost all his previous PBEM/Internet gaming experiences. Playing CM against another human (assuming he's a respectful, reasonable one, as my two opponents have been) is great - much more involving than the AI! Well, I won't pressure you. I know that my opinion of remote play used to be pretty low, and I still certainly like the AI for quick battles. But I now know that nothing beats facing another respectful human player: the tension-meter goes off the scale (in a good way). Regards, Wendell

I'm not certain if this answers your question, but here's a quote from the TacOps User Guide: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most scenario titles begin with the words "Task Force", "Team", "Battle Group", or "Combat Team" followed by a play tester's name. "Task Force" scenarios usually feature US forces of battalion size or larger. "Team" scenarios usually have US forces of less than battalion size. "Battle Group" scenarios usually feature Canadian forces of battalion size or larger. "Combat Team" scenarios usually have Canadian forces of less than battalion size.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wendell

Ignore - double post. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-16-2000).]

Well, this thread has gone to hell/off-topic (with some justification). But, let's start over ("there is no spoon" = "there was no second post" ): <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So the games been out for a while now.. Whats going on with the TCP/IP support? Is it currently being worked on??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did a search ("TCP" - Entire Message - Any Date - User name: "TIME" - Partial Name Match Acceptable) for an official (BTS) response, and this is the latest I found (from 7/31/00): <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We're just so furiously busy with updates, interviews, shipping, manual editing, TCP/IP, etc., that we haven't had much time to post to the boards. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's the lastest official word I could find (though I may have missed something). So the best I can offer is that work is still (furiously) progressing. Any additional hard info is welcome. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-16-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. In PBEM games, have the interface request your password as soon as you open the PBEM file, rather than waiting a bit, putting in your password, then waiting a bit more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, you can "blindly" type it in while the "loading 3D graphics" message is displayed and thus save a few seconds. I only learned that from reading this forum. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1a. Allow users to put a password into a file on their system, and then have the program look there first for the password. I know I use the same PW for all my PBEM games<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not a bad idea. However, my opponent and I like to review the battles from each other's viewpoints, so we exchange passwords at the end of each game. With this situation, that wouldn't work since each battle needs its own PW (unless using 4. below). But, your idea is an interesting option. Maybe there could be a PW file for each PBEM game? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. Have a "trusted" PBEM mode to speed things up between known opponents, if they want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Assuming you're not just talking about passwords, but about the "movie" step, I've seen that idea on the forum before (perhaps by you? - I'm not sure). It's a good idea that would reduce PBEM exchanges (from 3 per turn to 2). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>6. Allow the option to have the system assign a file name and save your PBEM file automatically using some convention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some folks (like me ) seem to like saving the entire battle for later review (unique filenames) while others consider this a bad idea. A standardized, automated method (that either increments a turn "suffix" or doesn't, depending on preference) would make a good option, if only to establish some default naming convention - there seem to be several (though no one I've seen uses "PBEM" ). I'd view the types of refinements you describe as something for CM2 since there are more-pressing issues for CM patches (IMHO). However, you've expressed some good ideas that I'd like to see implemented eventually, especially 1a (if each game could have a PW file) and 6. Wendell

"Now everybody hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" or some ****..." Heh, even at that, von Lucke, thanks for the info - very useful...

Jeez, Elijah I've done my best to give you an honest apology. I realize that my earlier post might have seemed a bit "over the top" though it wasn't meant that way. I have *nothing* to do with the Mods on CMHQ. I was just tryimg to help (even from my first post, though I admit that it could have been perceived as "non-friendly"). Maybe you don't realize it, but I'm practically bending over backwards here to make amends. I've said that I'm sorry, and have intimated that I'd like to "shake hands." Believe me, I've learned that quoting phrases and taking an injured tone won't win sympathy on this forum. Actions count more than words. I'm offering you an honest hand of friendship here, by admitting that my previous post sounded like it attacked you, when I state that it wasn't meant to. So far, you've made two posts attacking me, but I'm willing to overlook them since you're a newcomer to our friendly realm. Please accept my handshake for what it is. I really don't mean you any harm, OK? Wendell

"See, these are the responses people get angry about. [...] The last two responses, however, served no purpose but to pad egos (I know more than you)." Eek! Sorry, but that really wasn't my intent. I truly wasn't "lording" any superior knowledge over you. I tried a few mods a while back - they only partially worked - and so I went back to the base game, so that's what I suggested. I apologize if I sounded "superior." Sorry, I don't know the specifics of what is wrong with your mods - I doubt anyone on planet Earth does except for the guy who compiled them, and maybe even not then... Really, I am sorry that the Mod didn't work for you, and I don't think you're a "moron". However, all I can offer is to uninstall the Mod that's giving you trouble(that's what I did), then hunker down like the rest of us waiting for a better one to come along. Most of us here really do try to be helpful (that was my true intent). I apologize if it sounded heavy-handed (and I can see how your took it that way) - that wasn't my aim. Sorry if my post came off as "snide" (not my intent), Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-15-2000).]

"I'm trying to determine what makes the best maps under the random map settings." IMHO, hilly, forested, "buildinged" settings are great for infantry-heavy fights. OTOH, gently-sloping, lightly-forested, rural areas are best for tank-heavy fights. I usually go for "clearish" weather, but worse weather would benefit infantry I think. This probably isn't realistic (units didn't traditionally have a choice where they fought or the weather during the battle), but these conditions make for the most satisfying battles, IMHO. Wendell

I imagine that all of BTS's efforts are on refining the current CM/creating new versions. That isn't to say that you're dead in the water. Several projects like this have gotten off the ground thanks to dedicated players who are also programmers. It might end up being an external project that only interfaces with CM via scenario files (not a bad idea, actually), but it's possible. So, even though this might be too much of a "niche" product for BTS, I say don't discount the "programming" players of CM. They may be your best bet. Wendell