WendellM

"Everyone is Tom Hanks!" -- "all of my Brits are Sean Connerey" -- "I also get a 'BOGUS' flag from time to time after downloading the flag mods." Well, that's why they're called "Mods"... They're unsupported modifications put together by well-intentioned players. If you want a trouble-free product then stay with the base game. OTOH, Mods often/usually become the way to play after a while. I judge the current ones too "young" right now, but look forward to when they "mature" (due to comments like all of yours). Patient Regards and Thanks, Wendell

Will, "Amazing what they could do 128KB of RAM (tell THAT to the kids today)" Damn straight! My first computer had 16K of RAM (1981 TRS-80 Color Computer) - much more than the basic 4K model! Later I expanded it to 64K (128K if you count both "banks"). Woo-hoo! It had some pretty good games, too - including a couple of wargames. Though I love the new technology (my 128 megs of *memory* is over twice the size of my first hard drive from 1989), tell me again how modern software isn't bloated and I'll laugh all the harder. You know... Wendell

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>'a portly blue-coated hologram with a moustache walks up and says "welcome aboard."' Wild Bill, is that you... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh, no. That'd be my "avatar" in a EDF naval uniform, but otherwise matching reality . Thank you for confusing me with Wild Bill Wilder, though (a man I deeply respect for all he's done for us wargamers). Wendell --- As for quotes: "Death may be the greatest of all human blessings." - Socrates

"You have to move to win. Offensive is the key to victory. Standard military doctrine." Bloody true-life! [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-15-2000).]

"If you are already receiving fire, hide (ie make em put their heads down) your targeted troops until it stops. Standing up and walking out of a barrage is very rarely a good idea." Good advice! However, we were mostly aware of that, so we had a desire to move out just based on spotter rounds (that sound: "shoo-whap!") You're right, though - sometimes the "evacuation" didn't go right, in which case just "hunkering down" was the only alternative (though more MG teams tend to break under such abuse - based purely on my observation) I'm sure it's chaotic! > The trick is rather to no longer be there > when the shells come in, or even better, > to kill the FO. Heh, you're *quite* right! My job, though, was to a) present other forces to fire on them (not often successful) and to hide my spotter/FO (often successful). While preserving other forces.

Assimilation feels kind-of like swallowing Jell-O. Try to relax and it goes much smoother (the CM Borg is very experienced by now). In your introduction-hologram, a portly blue-coated hologram with a moustache walks up and says "welcome aboard.": Regards! Welcome to a fine wargame with a friendly community.... Wendell

Crossed posts... Thanks, anonymous info-donor = John Waters

I'm with you and would appreciate an answer (small arms aren't my specialty, but many others are wise in such matters). I'm happy just figuring "captured" but more data never hurt. Thanks, (currently-)anonymous info-donor, Wendell

"If you don't move, and OPFOR has brought arty to the party, you'll regret it." Heh, good point Germanboy/Andreas! I've both "suggested" my opponent move by dropping 81mm rounds on him and "accepted his suggestion" when he dropped 81mm on me. It's a very powerful "invitation"! We both agree that we hate 81mm "rain"! Wendell

I'd suggest that you stay away from the US series Victory at Sea. While I enjoyed it as a kid, its amazingly anti-Axis slant renders it unwatchable for me today. I'm no Axis sympathizer, but the Germans and Japanese were humans - this series portrays them in a very negative light. Other than that minor flaw it's OK. The World at War scared the Hell out of me when I watched it as a kid (in part due to its theme music). I've only caught a few episodes since, but those and my memories add up to a pretty good recommendation. I've been meaning to order the reduced-price set on VHS but haven't gotten around to it yet. In your video quest, don't overlook books. There's nothing like raw footage to make WW II real, but IMHO there's nothing like a book to really explain WW II (except a game which you already have). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer immediately comes to mind, almost as a reflex. You can do a Search on "books" under "Search In: Subject Only" to find many more. Good viewing/reading! Wendell

I also remember Chris Crawford's "Patton vs. Rommel" from around 1987. It was a division-level game that I encountered on my old Tandy 1000EX (1.5x the speed of an IBM PC! ). It had true "pre-plotted orders/simultaneous execution" WEGO movement along with morale, and I enjoyed it greatly. I also bought MicroProse's "Crusade in Europe" (another "semi-realtime" game). While both of these were strategic (my preferred scale), I'm enjoying the heck out of CM! Whatta game! Wendell

Interesting observation. In my PBEM games, which are admittedly limited to one partial-newbie fighting another, I've found the opposite to be true. We were both used to fighting the less-than-formidable AI, and so we both had rather over-aggressive tendencies at the start. I managed to curb mine first and won our first two battles (through necessity I was largely defensive in our first battle, but we both maneuvered considerably in the later two). In our third, I was overly aggressive, and paid the price (though it's not yet over and I may yet win, things look grim). This isn't meant to contradict you, just to offer a different view. Wendell

The manual states "under certain circumstances the player might want to split one or more of his squads, e.g. in order to set up outposts in front of his main positions." As long as you're OK with the penalty (realistically) incurred, the manual/rules don't seem to have a problem with it and neither do I. So, I say go for it. For those so inclined, a much more thorough answer is below. All of the below is In My Humble Opinion (which means just that - it's only how I see things, and not meant to forcibly change your views): The unnecessary part of the second paragraph above is "and neither do I": the rules are what matter. What's important is that the rules allow you to split squads, but impose certain realistic penalties for doing so. This is the mark of a good game. As Charles and Steve note on page 166, "There has never been, or will ever be, a wargame that is a 100% accurate representation of 100% of the elements that contribute to warfare 100% of the time." Well said! I think not a whit less of them for admitting this, in fact, I think more of them for it. Any wargame is always going to be a game, not real war. Now, as I see it, there are two ways to deal with this: One is to continue to pretend that the game is real war, with both sides limiting their actions to what could happen in real war. If this were an "umpired" game, then this wouldn't be necessary, since the umpire would disallow unreasonable actions. But, it isn't an umpired game, and so both players must play with only their respective conscience as a guide to "realism." If two players are of similar dispositions, then this is fine. The second way is to treat the game as real war. That is, in real war one is always struggling to do the best for one's side as is possible, given the limits involved. Generally, one doesn't ask the other side if "it's permitted" to take advantage of a weakness in physical reality (represented in wargaming by the rules). One just does so. Thus, if the rules permit an action that is beneficial to one's side, then one should take that action, not ask permission from his opponent to do so. If that action is "unrealistic" then that is the fault of the rules that they both agreed to play under (though perhaps the rules in question should be fixed). Though the rules might need fixing, it certainly isn't the "fault" of one of the players if he takes advantage of them as they are currently written, since both players have agreed to play a game using them. Thus, there are two approaches, both with their merits. There is merit in trying to be reasonable and recreate history as it actually was. There is also merit in trying to act as the actual combatants did, and thus take advantage of whatever factors one can. It's a matter of choice, and one worth clearing up with one's opponent beforehand. I personally choose the second view. There are few examples in history where one side saw an advantage, but then decided that it was somehow "unfair/unrealistic" and abandoned it. The whole point of having rules is to establish a framework for combat, and taking advantage of advantageous elements within that framework is how one wins. If some of those elements are unrealistic, then that is a fault of the framework, and not of the player taking advantage of them. In that case, the framework itself needs to be revised, and that falls to the game's designer, not the players. However, I can understand the first view, and can adhere to it if desired, though I prefer a more "open/honest/make-the-designer-earn-his-reputation-for-realism" approach. All of the above, again, is In My Humble Opinion (truly). Wendell

Madmatt has a section for 3rd Party Mods ( http://combathq.thegamers.net/mods/mods.asp) at Combat Mission HQ. Maybe it could go there? [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-14-2000).]

Nifty! Thanks for sharing. Hopefully the British won't have any hard feelings about the ahistorical "U-571" movie. I'd hate to see Eisenhower state with an English accent, "Patton, old boy, you simply don't have what it takes. Why not let Monty take a crack at breaking the German line, hmm?" More seriously, it's good to see Anglo-American cooperation used to recreate such important history for a modern audience. Wendell

On the other hand, I've successfully moved four Sherman M4A3(75)W's (a mix of veteran and regular, some moving fast) through scattered trees (which the manual states has "considerable risk of bogging down") in Overcast, Damp, June weather. They only went through small patches but some of them went through more than one patch. Not one of them bogged (no bogging on open terrain either, though several of them traveled pretty good distances, including up and down slopes). I did stay out of the lower-elevation areas of the map, though. FWIW, Wendell

"Just want to say from an old retired military man's perspective that this is the best tactical level computer wargame I have encountered." As a fellow player, I'm glad you like what you've discovered. Also, thank you for helping to keep US skies friendly during your service. "Do you guys have any tips on how to balance playing the game and having a life? [...] If you know of any please pass on before the divorce papers become final" All kidding aside, do be careful. Computer gaming seriously was part of the reason my fiancee and I broke off our engagement several years ago. Not the only reason, but one of them, so do tread lightly... Wendell

"Hmmm... what if about 10 of us would try driving past MG placements, the others would fire the cars with .50cal." Isn't this everyday life in L.A.? Sorry...

David, Heh, I like your comparison to MS Word - while I see your point (I *detest* Word), I'm afraid that I can't allow MS's blunders to sour the whole "there's more ways to skin a cat than one" approach. All I can do is state that I respect your opinion, but suggest that my approach allows us both our preferences, while yours would deny me mine: As you might view it: I'm a lazy sot - I suck - I want a roster/OOB. Disgusted, BTS devotes one man-week to shut me and players like me the hell up. That's it. You still have your beloved +/- interface. You can still spend 2 minutes searching for a given unit while I need only 15 seconds. Big deal. BTS got the same amount of cash out of both of us. I'm happy because they listened to me, so I'll spend ~$50 for the next CM. You're happy since they kept your preferred +/- system, so you'll spend ~$50 for CM2. Everyone wins. The alternative is that they ignore the input of dozens of CM players like me and arrogantly retain *just* their current +/- system. The alternative is that they alienate some of their "fan" base. Is BTS stupid/cruel? I think not. I can see why BTS didn't make the roster an initial part of CM. It's understandable. But now, many passionate players/fans have asked for it, at least as an *option*. Only suicidal bull-headedness would drive BTS to ignore their fans and not at least make this much-requested feature an *option*! This is the last I have to say on the subject, which has already been well-discussed. Wendell

"Okay, you've got your list of info panels. You double-click on one to jump to that unit. How are you going to see said unit if your screen is full of info? The list disappears?" That's right. What's the problem? There's the info screen and the main screen. Lots of games work this way. "So where is the advantage of pulling up a list, finding a unit, dropping the list and jumping to the unit? If you want ALL the information in the panels then, as you say, they'll have to be a few to a page - so how is scrolling through pages of info panels any easier than using the + and - keys?" Because then *several* units show up per page, as opposed to *one* in the current system. Say 5 show up per page. So, to get the the 13th unit, I go "[Roster] + +". In the current system, I go "+ + + + + + + + + + + +". See? BTW, I see you've sidestepped the whole "it ruins the game" issue into the realm of "it's not *that* much more convenient". Why not just admit that you don't like the idea (which is fine!) and admit that implementing this wouldn't be a "wedge" that would *ruin* the game? Some of us like the idea, OK? That's all I'm getting at - restated: how would implementing this feature as I've described it hurt *your* enjoyment of CM? Regards (honestly), Wendell

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Adding a roster is the thin end of the wedge. It is an element which is not in keeping with the design of Combat Mission. and earlier wrote: All the information is there, down on the ground. Followed by: Combat Mission is ideal the way it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry David, but I just don't follow this (I'm not being sarcastic). Yes, all the information is there, but right now, the player has to do unneeded "busy work" to get at it. I'm not asking for anything more than is currently available, just that it be better organized. Maybe part of the reticence on the part of "non-roster-ers" is due to what is perceived as desired. You know that status section that appears at the bottom of the screen when you click on a unit? All I want is that info in tabular form, with several units per page (and when I click on a given unit's stats, the map centers on it). I can't speak for others, but that's all I want. That way, I don't have to click all over the map / hit +/- repeatedly to get that info. It's *already* available in the game as it exists now - it's just badly organized. All I want is for what is *already* present to be better organized. Wendell

I would greatly welcome a roster/OOB (preferably a click-able one that would then select the unit clicked). I don't want any more information than is already in the game; I just don't want to have to +/- through all my units to get what I'm looking for. IMHO, it's purely a matter of making the game easier/faster to navigate for the player (though DO keep the current +/- system for its devotees). I've gotta say that I personally can't see why any player would object to this. We aren't playing "Concentration" or Gin Rummy - CM isn't some "memory game." IMHO

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Among other things one of the main points I'm trying to understand better is if the defender in an advance type of op can actually win the op. Especially against a human opponent opponent vs. the "lame" (i.e. fairly non-agressive compared to most human players) attacking of the computer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not too sold on the computer's defense, either. I was new to CM, and thus not really skilled during my first (and, to date, only) operation against the computer. Also, since I was just "playing around" in order to get some idea about ops, I got a bit bored toward the end (the second half of the third battle, and all of the last battle), and took to just selecting all my attacking troops and ordering them to Move toward the enemy. In spite of all this, I still achieved a draw. If I were to replay it now, with what I've learned, I know that I'd do much better. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What do the rest of you think???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It sounds like you have some legitimate concerns. My general (non-operation) experience has been that the AI is rather weak. It doesn't make overtly stupid mistakes, but it's usually pretty easy to beat (once you learn the rules/combat system), whether on offense or defense. My impression is that it's better in localized sections of the battlefield (TacAI), but doesn't have a good grasp of the entire battle ("Strat"AI). Compound that with a multi-battle operation, and I'm not surprised that it falls apart against a skilled human. Creating good AI is tough, and a realistic game like CM makes it even tougher. If BTS could use testing from CM players against possible replacement algorithms to improve AI for battles/ops, then I'm sure they'd have lots of volunteers. Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-31-2000).]

Agreed. This would be very nice for PBEM. Both players know who's going to win, but you don't want to have to take the time to fight to the end, and neither cease-fire nor surrender quite fit what they have in mind. Basically, just assume that the loser is able to move most/some of his troops off the field (handing it over to the winner), maybe depending on LOS/proximity to enemy units, and calculate a score. This isn't an essential addition, but it sure would be nice.

I give up. Maybe a WOC is a COW seen from the other side? I'm interested to know why this is humorous (I do like a good joke). Maybe this is "absurd"ist humor in the philosophical style of Camus (get it?: Ca-MOO). Well, that's all I have - I've milked this thread for all it's worth...