WendellM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fionn is 100% correct. Norm way overweighted the rate of fire and number of units. My understanding of the algorithm was that all the attack values just got added up and compared to the defense values.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I'm all-too familiar with that and the (in)famous Jeep vs. Tiger issue in the original version of TOAW. An unfortunate approach... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This was all changed in TOAW 2 when Norm switched the combat over to a new system in which every weapon "shoots" individually at a target. I prefer TOAW:CoW to TOAW 1 but to be honest most of these problems didn't bother me too much. My problems were in other areas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The new system is indeed much better (not perfect, but what is?). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All in all I like both games (CoW and CM) but my CoW cd hasn't seen the drive since CM showed up in the mailbox lo these many weeks ago. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ditto. Blowing up a single panzer in CM is remarkably more satisfying than blowing up a dozen in TOAW... Still, I know that the strategic/operational "jones" will one day reappear for me. CM will be on my hard drive seemingly forever, though... Wendell

Fionn, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said I could respond either publicly or privately. Then when I respond publicly you tell me I shouldn't have?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, what I said was "If you'd prefer to address them in a provate [sic] email (which will *remain* private), please feel free." I never said "Oh, make the content of this email public if the mood strikes you - and be sure to misrepresent it" (which was my first reaction upon reading what you'd posted). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You SPECIFICALLY make it clear that I can address the issues in private email if I wish. To me this makes it clear I can also address them publicly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, I can see where you could see that as implied, though it's not what I was going for. However, that's fair enough. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not a mind-reader AND I've never come across ANYONE before who has made an issue of referencing an email to a relevant discussion. I think you're just a bit pissed off that I had some valid concerns and are looking to get back at me or something since I really can't see anything wrong with referencing an email and adding to discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off, I always welcome valid concerns. I went back and wrote a public apology once I saw how many issues you had with TOAW. Only when your "email" comment fully struck me, did I add my "P.S." And, I'm not "looking to get back at you". I felt that when you posted that my email "intimated [you were] singling out TOAW cause [you] felt it was some threat to CM" was a misrepresentation, and that, since I had made those remarks in what I considered a private email, you were presenting a slanted view of what I had actually written (I hope you'll see that I was actually being polite in my initial email). However, I now see why you could have considered them public OR private. Anyway, this has blown up way beyond its original purpose (a discussion of an operational/strategic game worthy of CM). I'm willing to admit that my "sense of privacy violation" was a misunderstanding if you'll admit that your perception that I accused you of "singling out TOAW because you felt it was a threat to CM" was a misunderstanding. Both of these seem to be mistakes that I'd be more than glad to put behind us (too much "ink" has been spilled already). I can't believe that a fine, computerized, tactical WW II game could be the (indirect) cause of this - it's kind of silly when you look at it, and I'm fully willing to admit that half of the silliness is my fault. I know that you're not a "jerk", Fionn, and, believe it or not, neither am I. I'm sorry that this incident happened. So, friends? Or, at least, not adversaries? Wendell

Gregory Deych wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Speaking of older documents, who exactly holds copyrights on things like that? Do you need to have permission to copy portions of OOBs and TO&Es, etc. etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My (less than certain) understanding is that, in the good ol' US of A, citizens have full rights to all unclassified government documents (since they've paid for them with taxes). The government printing office or retail printers can charge fees for the materials, printing costs, and any shipping, but the information itself is free. Witness the USMA atlases: http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/dhistorymaps/Atlas%20Page.htm and the Handbook on German Military Forces (you'll need Adobe's free Acrobat Reader to read - http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html): http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=351, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=352, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=353. While these are available as retail products, they are also free downloads in the US (I've heard some stories of non-US surfers having problems connecting, so your results may vary). Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).] [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

Apologies, Fionn. It seems you have more justifiable (and serious-sounding) issues with TOAW than I was aware of. So, what's a better alternative? Thanks, Wendell P.S. (the reason for the edit): "Wendell in his email intimated I was singling out TOAW cause I felt it was some threat to CM." Err, the whole reason I went to email for that was to keep it private, because I was unsure. If I'd wanted to make a public issue of it, I would have. Also: 1. You've misrepresented my concern, and 2. going public with someone else's private email is just bad etiquette, period. But since it's been brought up, what I wrote was: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sorry if it seems we're on opposite sides of TOAW. For me, I don't see it as an "anti-CM" product, but rather as "+CM". Anyway, I'm writing to let you know that I really do appreciate all the work you've done for the wargaming community. [...] I have some questions about the issues you've raised with TOAW. If you'd prefer to address them in a provate [sic] email (which will *remain* private), please feel free. To be honest, what bothers me is that I see two games I consider great (CM and TOAW) and one reviewer/ueber-player (you), but there's a conflict between one and the other. I'd really like to know why.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please note that I'm only quoting my email, and not Fionn's replies (which remain private). [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leclerc: TOAW is not only simply a tactical game pushed on large scale and whatever the improvments, the tactical model will be flawed because of the unavoidable abstraction ( all units are for example supposed to fight at 1000 meters)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK. I've seen several complaints against TOAW, both here and elsewhere. Could you please suggest a better program for operational/strategic combat? Again, I'm not being sarcastic, but genuine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Last, I don't think the TOAW unit composition gives a significant increase in realism over the old abstract attack and defense factors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh, here's where I'm inclined to agree with you. I liked the old game, Empire II, which allowed for the direct application of attack/defense/movement factors you're describing. I've never been too keen on TOAW's use of "real" squads/units (mostly 'cause it's such a pain to look them all up - I'd like a "shortcut" to be able to just assign values). Still, I see what Norm Koger was going for, and it's a worthy (though IMHO a bit lofty) goal. ANYWAY, the whole reason I brought up TOAW was because Airborne was talking/wondering about a "better" operational/strategic system (presumably one that matched CM's improvements over traditional tactical games). I suggested TOAW, which Airborne was (re)acquainted with. That leaves the open questions: 1.) What is the best operational/strategic WW II system available today (especially if TOAW is ruled out, as seems the current fashion)? 2.) How could this be made better (along the lines of the improvements CM made to tactical wargames)? For me, Command Decision had a lot going for it conceptually... Heck, it was possible for Germany to win by not invading Poland (thus not causing WW II) and devoting her resources to improving her industrial base for an economic victory! Now, there's a creative grand strategic game... However, I feel that many players might feel cheated if their opponent did this, so let's hear your answers! [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 7.5cm PaK Fionn is talking about (I think) would be the PaK 40 which would fall under the 75mm Anti-tank gun category which is 44 (kinetic). Norm took a big beating over the 50mm v. 75mm AT ratings the first time through. He corrected that in CoW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, John. I was looking through the CoW data in the "Century of Warfare Equipment List" file. Sorry if I picked the wrong gun (it's not my specialty). If you know more about the issue Fionn has brought up, please fill us in (especially if we/Fionn are talking about errors already fixed). To me, the current implementation of TOAW seems pretty good, but I'm not certain enough to defend it "to the last man" - just enough to say it's the best I know of. Wendell

Fionn, I'm not being sarcastic, but please let me know of any game that accomplishes more than TOAW does at its scale. Really - I'll look into it. In the case that TOAW *does* have some problems, what is a better solution for operational-level combat? I'm serious, I'd really like to know. Your example states: "ANY game which tells me that I'd be better off using a 5cm PaK vs an IS2 than a 7.5cm PaK has some SERIOUS issues." I'm not sure what you mean (really). In TOAW:COW, a German (1941) 50mm PaK has an anti-tank value of 24 (kinetic) and an anti-personnel value of 5. The 75mm German (1942) 75 mm PaK has an anti-tank value of 24 (HEAT) and an anti-personnel value of 8. I think I see what you're getting at, since the IS-II had anti-HEAT armor. It looks to me like the Germans designed their 75mm to fire HEAT rounds, which the IS-II was specifically designed against. Thus, the "old-fashioned, dumb" kinetic 50mm rounds might have been more efficient against it. That's a possible impression from the game - what was the real-world performance of the 50mm kinetic vs the 75mm HEAT? (I'm not up on this issue.) In the event that you have proof that the 75mm should be better than the 50mm vs. the IS-II, have you passed it along to TOAW's designer, Norm Koger? (That could help all involved.) Seriously, I know that asking questions is sometimes a way of indirectly "flaming," but this isn't the case. I respect your opinion. I believe I first encountered you regarding your work on Fighting Steel, a game I still like. While your (IMHO, somewhat biased) comments on CM have lessened my impression a bit, I still have great respect for your judgements (the reason I even mentioned you in my recommendation of TOAW). Thanks, Wendell P.S. "Then we get into the screwed up supply issues, bugs which made aerial and naval forces pretty impotent when it was first released etc etc." You know that these have been fixed for a while right? Just like CM has been fixing its initial problems, right? (OK, this comment is a little miffed - but complaining about initial-release bugs seems petty to me.) [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

I consider PC Gamer to be the best print source for PC game info/reviews in the US. Note that that's IMHO, "print," and "in the US". That's a large part of why it's the only print magazine to which I subscribe. That said, I thought Trotter's review for Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord was right on the money, except for listing Multiplayer Options as "None" instead of "PBEM": maybe e-mail isn't considered "multiplayer" these days (or maybe it's just a typo), but I sure have been enjoying PBEM. Generally William R. Trotter's reviews/columns are of value to grognards/serious players. He usually knows a good design when he sees one. One of his previous columns drew fire for suggesting that grognards were too picky (I know what he's driving at, that's why I buy somewhat marginal wargames), but I also believe that the market (even one as small as the grognard market) must have standards, which is why I don't buy "below marginal" wargames. However, more often than not, his column is a positive source of games worth looking into (if not necessarily to buy). Anyway, I consider him to be the wargamer's best friend in print when it comes to PC games, and thought he was right on target with his CM review (except for the PBEM issue previously mentioned). The overview as printed in the magazine: 91% (Editors' Choice - defined as "We're battening down the hatches and limiting our coveted Editors' Choice Award to games that score a 90 or higher. It's not easy to get here, and darn near impossible to get near 100. Games in this range come with our unqualified recommendation, an unreserved must-buy score.") HIGHS: Real warfare in 3D; lots of features; forces you to master real tactics; splendid manual; great fun. LOWS: Currently, there is no TCP/IP mode; some graphics compromises. BOTTOM LINE: Fresh, and innovative; breathes new life into tired and increasingly cranky genre. "...our unqualified recommendation, an unreserved must-buy..." Not bad, huh? Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborne: What we really need is for some company to make another attempt at better operational/strategic WWII events. Updates or revampings of West Front, Pacific War or Third Reich immediately come to mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd strongly suggest The Operational Art of War from Talonsoft in this regard (either Wargame of the Year Edition, or, much better: Century of Warfare version). Fionn may gripe about the TOAW system (as is his right), but I and many other gamers consider the latest version of this game system to be great for operational-level scenarios. (CM is unparalleled for tactical.) IMHO, Wendell

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mensch: "...to execute the patch ... " this is what he said, and in most computer languages it means applicating the programme or starting it.. he did not state he did not have time to "extract" the patch....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I really shouldn't get involved, but the grammarian/rule lawyer in me forces me to. It's a self-extracting file (at least the PC version): cm103.exe. ".exe" stands for "executable." So, in order to "extract" the patch, one must "execute" it (and then apply it by replacing files). Anyway, Juardis got the list, thanks to Desert Fox, so he's happy. Presumably we all have the patch, so we're happy. So, everybody's living happily ever after. The End.

Also sprach KIA: "I'm not sure which mod pack makes the erroneous (sp?) update." The only sound pack I've installed is Mad-Dog Mod Pack newsoundmod.zip (the 6/25 version), and I've noticed the changed sounds. Thanks for posting the .wav filenames - I'm going back to the originals. Sorry, MadMatt, but I like the "burp" sounds better (the new ones sound a little too much like a dog chain rattling to me). However, the rest of your mods (sounds and graphics) are great. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

GI Tom, The readme helps with the first part: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. Note the following files contained in this update: - Combat Mission.exe (application file v1.03) - "New BMP" directory, contains 1720.BMP through 1729.BMP (10 graphics files) - 00002080.WAV (sound file) 2. Replace the old "Combat Mission.exe" application file with the new one. (NOTE: If you already have v1.01 or later, you can skip steps 3 and 4). 3. Move the CONTENTS of the "New BMP" directory into the "BMP" directory. Make sure you move the ten files INSIDE "New BMP" into the BMP directory - do not copy the "New BMP" directory itself. 4. Move 00002080.WAV into the "WAV" directory. If you originally did a "minimum" install and don't see a "WAV" directory, then just create one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For "2." above that means overwrite your old Combat Mission.exe with the new one (either drag-and-drop or copy-and-paste). Your old shortcut should still work fine, since the new file has the same name as the old one. For the PBEM aspect, here's what worked for my game: Load the PBEM file in 1.00/1.01, Alt-S save it as a regular game (during an orders phase). Quit and apply the patch. Start 1.03 and load the regular save as email game, then give orders and click GO. It will then prompt you to save as normal PBEM file. Good luck! Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-27-2000).]

"why the pbem format change?" I don't know. The good news is that my opponent and I were able to update our current 1.01 game to 1.03 without too much trouble. It's also easy to have both versions available, in case you're in a mixed-version set of games. So, it's not really a big issue.

I tried an experiment. If you run the patch .exe and specify your current CM folder, it will put the "cm v1.03 update" folder there. If you try to run the new version in *that* folder, it will (after asking resolution desired), but you'll only have Quick Battle. Maybe something like that happened.

I have a feeling that when you "installed" it, you might have just unzipped it. It puts its contents into a folder called "cm v1.03 update". Make sure you copy the CombatMission.exe from there and use it to replace your old version.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Martyr: I have to admit to something strange in my gaming history, which is that I spent a lot more time reading board wargame rules and imagining scenarios than I ever did actually *playing* wargames. [..] I spent of plenty of time with the manuals. I would read the rules and examine the counter statistics even if I didn't know anyone who wanted to play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That sounds quite familiar. I enjoyed reading the rules of games like Russian Front and Pacific War, and playing around with a few "situations" to get the hang of the mechanics. It always amazed me how that could bring a better "hands-on" understanding of a given battle/war than many books on the subject. I had a few friends who liked to play, but usually not the more detailed games - mostly stuff like Axis & Allies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As you can imagine, computer games were a godsend for me: a ready opponent anytime! [...] In fact, for me one of the great pleasures of a new computer game, even now, is opening the box for the first time and reading the manual (the thicker the better).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. I just wish there were more hard data in the manuals as well as a better explanation of just how the rules work. CM is an interesting exception. The game data are real-world data and the rules are real-world behaviors (in theory). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think I'm just about ready to try my hand at PBEM, which, believe it or not, I have *never* tried. Once I jump in, though, I guess my problems in finding an opponent will be over.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had only tried PBEM & networked games a few times before CM, with mixed results. I'm playing my second CM PBEM now, though, and it's very enjoyable (though slow). I'm glad to have the ever-ready AI for some quick action (or blatantly unfair situations no human opponent would want to touch ), but the game really comes alive when you're facing another real person. Have fun! Wendell

I don't know about Airborne's drivers for his V3 2000, but I, too, was having trouble with smoke on my Voodoo3 3000 AGP (you could see the whole square "texture" as well as the smoke it contained). I installed the 1.05.00 WHQL drivers from: http://www.3dfxgamers.com/drivers/voodoo3/voodoo3_win9x.stm The high quality smoke now works as it should . Since these drivers are for "Voodoo3 2000/3000 AGP/PCI" they should work for you, Kuroth. Good luck! BTW, this thread probably belongs in the "CM - Tech Support" forum.

Have you guys tried searching the "CM Tech Support Forum"? Just a suggestion. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=8&SUBMIT=Go

"how do you save your pbem game as a normal save game?" Alt-S during an orders phase.

A US Army field manual (FM 21-13) I have from 1952 lists the range as 365 yards (presumably maximum, not effective), with an effective killing radius of 10 yards. Since almost all other weapons shown are WW II versions, I assume the rifle grenade is as well. Wendell

Forty's British Army Handbook has an August 1944 TO&E for an Airborne Division that lists 46 2-inchers and 56 3-inchers. The 3-inchers are shown distributed 4 each to mortar platoons attached to the HQ companies, but I don't see the 2-inchers. The description lists the 2-inch as a platoon mortar which could be carried into action by one man (plus some ammunition). It also mentions that it could be fired horizontally for street fighting. They remained in service 25 years after the end of the war. Weight 18.96 lb., bomb weight 2.25 lbs., range 100-500 yd., ROF 5 rpm. Wendell

I've only split a squad once and didn't recombine it, so I haven't seen it myself. However, the new 1.03 readme mentions: "Split-squads' casualties are tallied correctly in the after-action report."

Hi, Mike, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Vol 13#6,I think<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, fellow old-timer, but Vol 14, #5 is as far back as I have (and that's a reprint). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A great H2H game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I fully agree! The suspense of what the Bugs would send up next against you was great (the reverse, as the Bugs, was a tense management game of exposing your limited resources only when and where they could do the most good). [obCM: not unlike the Americans vs. the Germans (hey, I'm trying to stay on topic )] <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe AH still had unopened copies on their web site for sale last time I checked a few months ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, copies seem to still be available at http://www.hasbrocollectors.com/product.cfm?product=133 - search for "STARSHIP TROOPER" $35 as opposed to "STARSHIP MOVIE" $30 (as near as I can tell). Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-20-2000).]

I was unable to find a more modern version of Lightbody's and Poyer's Milspeak (a then-$6 paperback with 4,000 WWII and then-modern entries expanded, but not defined). The best I found was at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557506809. It's 300+ pages(!) but runs $28 and there's a somewhat cautionary review there (well, MilSpeak didn't "define" the terms either). Also, I can't tell if it includes WW II terms (I'd be wary). It looks like asking is better all-around . [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-20-2000).]

Around a decade ago I bought a 91-page booklet © 1986: "MilSpeak: A Dictionary of International Military Acronyms & Abbreviations" compiled by Andy Lightbody and Joe Poyer. Quite useful. I'll let you know if I find a more modern source.