WendellM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philistine: Take a look at the game Armies of Armageddon: Wargame Designer's Kit [...] Someone was doing a Starship Troopers conversion [...] the Bug's tunnels will be a bit tricky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I bought that game several months ago, with my own SST conversion in mind, as well as an Ogre conversion (though I haven't gotten around to either due to the number of wonderful, distracting titles coming out - like CM). AoA: W2K is a good game that's wonderfully configurable, allowing the creation of both new unit stats and (2D) graphics. CM probably has a ways to go before reaching this level of editability (AoA has been around for several years after all, in some form or another). It would be nice if someday players could easily create their own "CM"-type "universes". Until then, I await CM: Eastern Front and (less-realistically, though it'd be a dream come true, CM: The Bug War). BTW, the full text of Heinlein's Starship Troopers novel is available online (in English) at a Russian-language site in Israel (O...K... ): http://www.neystadt.org/moshkow/iso/HYNLINE/troopers2.txt. (It can sometimes take two or three loadings to actually connect). Though I own two printed editions of the book, being able to computer search the text makes it much easier to find what I'm looking for - the file can be downloaded/saved (it "claims" to be a .txt file, and it works as such, but it's "really" an .html file). Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-20-2000).]

Oh, man, I can just feel the deserved padlock coming down on this thread from the divine hand of Charles/Steve.... (even though we've all had fun, it's deserved)

"instead of reading messages from the top of the list, start reading from the BOTTOM." Henri, I've encountered what you're talking about (I don't refresh between readings, so it wasn't as bad, but the overall effect was the same). In any case, I tried your technique and it works!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Oberly: I recall someone wrote an article for 'The General' which outlined a way to play solitaire by randomizing Arachnid play(we used to have to devise kludges like that before there were computers,y'know )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that's why I'd (half-seriously) love to see BTS put SST on the back burner (after all major WW II theaters, of course). I believe you're referring to the "Alone Against the Bugs" article by Rick Mathews from the 1983 Vol. 20, Num. 4 issue of The General. If you don't have it, I could mail you a photocopy gratis (my email address is above - this applies to any other boardgame '76 SST fans, since back issues of The General are now tough to find since Hasbro has swallowed AH). Your point that computers could automate all this is more reason for it to be done by BTS or others. Damn the inferior sludge that Hasbro is passing off as SST: I want my "bacon fry"!

Heh, it seems there are several "grognard" Starship Troopers players here . Lately I've been re-examining the TO&E given in the book as compared to the 1976 AH game's (as strange as it may sound, partly due to CM), and have some rough notes on the subject (http://www.bham.net/users/wendell/midiv.txt) . Comments to "wendell@bham.net" are quite welcome (encouraged in fact).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some of y'all may love it AS MUCH, but none more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well then, I'll class myself in the "AS MUCH" group. I'm a huge fan of the book, and am also a fan of the very good Avalon Hill game (the original late-70's version that was true to the book, not the totally different late-90's movie tie-in). In fact, AH's SST was my very first wargame back in 1980. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, then, I had to endure the indignity of that truly HORRID Verhooven movie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here's where we differ somewhat. I was appalled by the early reports of the movie (mainly "no power armor?!", and the promotional bits I saw on TV also turned me off). I didn't go see it, and only bought it on video due to boredom. I approached it with very low expectations. But, I was pleased with the inclusion of several book details that I just knew would be changed/cut: the main character is Johnnie Rico from B.A., not "James Ridgeport" from L.A., the Rodger Young (hull# 17[7]6 - a nice nod to Heinlein, I thought), History & Moral Philosophy class, public floggings, the whole issue of citizenship(voting) only for veterans... But, to my surprise, they were included. Now, I grant you that there were many (many!) changes. But, the overall effect still felt "right" to me, and mostly true to the overall "sprit" of the book (maybe a bit more cynical, but it was made in the 90's, not the 50's). In fact, it's become one of my favorite films. I've watched it about as many times as I've read the novel (the far side of half a dozen). I can truly see where a fan of the book could be turned off by the film, so I make no attempt at "converting" you; instead I simply state that I do like both (the book more, obviously, but the film as well). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>now HASBRO is planning to eviscerate my M.I. with their dumb-as-dirt looking RTS game...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now, to me this is an entirely different issue. I initially had hope for the CGI "Roughnecks: Starship Trooper Chronicles" (hey, some sort of power armor at last!) until it became another toy-selling franchise with no correlation to the original work (neither the book nor the movie). Similarly, the upcoming Hasbro game doesn't look appealing. So, I, too, draw the line at the film, but behind it rather than in front of it. That said, the book is truly great. I wish to everyone who has only seen the film as much joy in discovering the book as I had discovering Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep after seeing Blade Runner (an excellent film, but the book offers vistas not explored). obligatoryCMcontent: A true-to-the-book Starship Troopers would make an excellent CM 6 subject (I think that's where we're up to). Wendell

Cute post, Joe. All I can say is that Netscape Navigator email isn't susceptible to those nasty ILOVEYOU-type viruses (at least at present...) - only Microsoft products like Outlook (which nestle in all cozy-like with Windows itself) are. For me, the further away my email reader and browser are from my OS, the happier I am. obligatoryCMcontent: Besides the fact that the above issue could remotely have an effect on PBEM, neither the Panzer IV nor the M4 were susceptible to email viruses (hey, it's technically true). [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-20-2000).]

In brief: yes PBEM is "better" but I hope the AI continues to improve. I agree that PBEM games are more challenging. Well, I've only tried one, which I won due to some luck at the beginning, but the experience up until the very end was much more suspenseful knowing that there was another human mind directing the opposition. While I, too, have found the AI rather easy to beat, it still wins sometimes (largely depending on the equipment both sides have: several Shermans vs. a couple of high-quality AT guns/Panthers often yields predictable results ). But, I must say that I can play many AI games in the time it takes to play a single e-mail game due to limited "play windows" in the real world and my (limited) experience that an average turn takes about an hour to complete: each player takes around half an hour on average to view the movie from several perspectives then compose his turn and attach it to an email with some relevant text. So, I'm glad to have a reasonably competent AI to enjoy quick gaming fun with. I haven't yet entered the realm of handicapping, but that's the next step (I've been more interested in evaluating the AI's merits on a level playing field). I'd be pleased if improvements in the AI were made so that such artificial measures weren't needed for a more challenging game, but I fully recognize how hard it must have been to make the AI play as well as it does now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Noncom: I consider it an obvious point that war always carries a horrible cost in lives and property. In some sense, both sides always lose "something" in a war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree fully, but have found that there's some risk of being perceived as a "war monger" when stating that you're a wargamer. On more than one occasion, I've gotten the reply "Oh, so you must really be happy when there's a war going on." Actually, I think that wargamers generally have a better appreciation of the horrible costs of war than most. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mental excercise? (tactics and strategy) A way to explore our common roots in history? Why do we wargame? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For me, both to learn more about what past wars were "really" like (books are good, but actually dealing with some of the real issues is better) and as an enjoyable mental exercise. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-20-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I almost broke my CM CD in two myself<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Eek! A tragedy narrowly averted! [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-15-2000).]

Jarmo, Philistine's recommendation sounds better than mine: I plan to pick it up myself . At $25 (regular price) it covers many weapon systems in addition to tanks (including small arms, warplanes, artillery, ships, and submarines) and seems highly regarded (4-star ratings, though it's mentioned that some important equipment is missing). In the event you still want the little $8 ($10 retail) tank book I mentioned (255 small pages, a bit less than 8.5 cm x 12 cm) its ISBN is 0004722825. BTW, thanks, Philistine! Wendell

Sorry about your screenshot troubles. My Voodoo3 works if I hit PrintScreen then paste into Paintbrush (or Photoshop). That's all I can address, since that's my only card. Don't know much about mines, but I did lose a Sherman when it ran over a Jerry AT mine, so they do work (FWIW, the manual says anti-tank mines won't be set off by infantry, maybe that's the trouble?). Good luck, Wendell

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess I should just buy something like "Tanks of WWII". Anyone know a good book like that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately no, it's the only one I know of, but that little book's the best $8 I ever spent . I'd love to see a "Useful Vehicles That Weren't Tanks" follow-up! (FWIW, I did splurge for Jentz's two-volume hardback set Panzer Truppen, which is much {much, much} more thorough for the Germans, but if I had to spend that kind of tender for every nation, I wouldn't be able to pay my power bill, much less have a computer to run CM on ). Sometimes a cheap, quick overview is great! Wendell P.S. It just occurred to me that you might be using "Tanks of WWII" in a generic sense, rather than as the actual title of the 1995 Collins/Jane's diminutive paperback. In which case (for a starter English reference), I recommend the 1995 Collins/Jane's paperback, Tanks of World War II (you saw that one coming, right?). It doesn't have all the variants of a given tank, but is a good, cheap introduction to the major types on all sides, and at $8 you can't go wrong. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-15-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some day.. Some Day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite true. I well remember playing Aces of the Pacific in the early 90's. The opening CGI movie had a nicely detailed P-38 zooming through realistic clouds and I clearly remember thinking, "before too long, that level of quality will be available in real time". Well, that came true in the late 90's, with European Air War and several other flight sims (actually, what's now available is better!). It won't be too long before tactical wargames can achieve that level of realism (there'll always be a lag due to the higher number of models that ground wargames require over flight sims). It's something to look forward to, which CM has already given us an early taste of. A toast to the future! Wendell

Below are a few excerpts from Alan Clark's Barbarossa to attempt to capture some of the feel of this war: p. 181 - Regarding the German situation in the battle for Moscow Those who could still eat had to watch "the axe rebounding as from a stone" off the frozen horse meat, and the butter was being cut with a saw. "One man was drawing his ration of boiling soup at the field kitchen [but] could not find his spoon. It took him 30 seconds to find it, but by then the soup was lukewarm. He began to eat it as quickly as he could, without losing a moment's time, but the soup was already cold, and soon it would be solid." p. 206 - OKH orders to commanders of rear areas In line with the prestige and dignity of the German Army, every German soldier must maintain distance and such an attitude with regard to Russian prisoners of war as takes account of the bitterness and inhuman brutality of the Russians in battle [...] fleeing prisoners of war are to be shot without preliminary warning to stop. All resistance of the prisoners, even passive, must be entirely eliminated immediately by the use of arms (bayonet, rifle butt, or firearm). p. 222 - From the 1942 diary of Wilhelm Hoffmann (267th Regiment/94th Division) September 1st: "Are the Russians really going to fight on the very bank of the Volga? It's madness." September 8th: "...insane stubbornness." September 11th: "...Fanatics." September 13th: "...wild beasts." September 16th: "Barbarism... (they are) not men but devils." September 26th: "...Barbarians, they use gangster methods." October 27th: "...The Russians are not men, but some kind of cast-iron creatures; they never get tired and are not afraid of fire." pp. 227-8 - From a Russian soldier of 3rd Company/42nd Regiment/13th Guards Infantry Division (under General Rodimtsev) regarding Stalingrad We decided to raise a red flag over the building, so that the Nazis would not think we had given up. But we had no red material. Understanding what we wanted to do, one of the men who was severely wounded took off his bloody vest and, after wiping the blood off his wound with it, handed it over to me. The Germans shouted through a megaphone: "Russians! Surrender! You'll die just the same!" At that moment a red flag rose over our building. "Bark, you dogs! We've still got a long time to live!" shouted my orderly, Kozhushko. We beat off the next attack with stones, firing occasionally and throwing our last grenades. [...] From behind a neighbouring block stocky German tanks began to crawl out. This, clearly, was the end. The guardsmen said good-bye to one another. With a dagger my orderly scratched on a brick wall: "Rodimtsev's guardsmen fought and died for their country here." Wendell [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-15-2000).]

Are you using assault boats? The AI can't use them. If it's an operation you're having trouble with, see http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007312.html [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-15-2000).]

Thank you, Seanachai. I'm glad you see where I was coming from, and I appreciate that you took the time for a follow-up post (which was very well said, with several good points). Perhaps one day our forces will meet on a field of honor... [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-15-2000).]

There's obviously no comparison between CM's superior graphics and TacOps, and TacOps doesn't have the hyper-realistic physics of CM. But, TacOps is still an excellent game. It's certainly worth picking up for any players who don't have it and are interested in modern combat (especially for its price). That said, CM is simply a must-have, no question. You mentioned the AI being a little weak (which it is - it's not stupid; it puts up a reasonable fight and can win, but it's not the toughest). However, even with that minor niggle (which is made up to a large degree by the fact that you don't have to do anything to make the AI work with any scenario you create, it just does), CM is the all-around best tactical wargame yet. I've been having great fun playing around with all the neat weapon systems and putting together quickie scenarios to try out different tactics. Wendell

Dan, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since the game lets us use crews any way we want, then we should all be using them as advance scouts and the like?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If that's beneficial, the game doesn't restrict it, and you want to, then yes. Why should players be forced to limit their actions? That's the whole point of game rules. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since the game lets us turn FOW off without our opponent knowing (I know it used to but have no idea if it has been "fixed" in the final version), then we should all be playing our email games with FOW off?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yikes! I didn't know about this. That needs fixing, since I imagine FOW is something players usually agree on before starting play. But right now, since it's unenforceable, I must say yes (unless you really trust your opponent). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is just my opinion, but using such tactics that are allowed only because the game is not programed to prevent them is what I consider "gamey".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *Sigh* That's because the game needs fixing. If you and your opponent want to set up house rules, that's fine. But, as I see it, if a game allows an action, then it is by definition a legal action. If that action is unrealistic, then the game should be considered unrealistic until it's fixed. That's how it worked in board games, and that's how it works in computer games. IMHO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess you can call me a sucker because I don't try to manipulate the program to get a win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where is the line between "manipulate" and "play by the rules present in the program"? Again, if the game allows unrealistic behavior to be used, then the game is at fault. Players shouldn't have to second-guess their actions - that's what the rules are for. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And to clearify, I do keep a mental track of what I have seen of the enemy in the terms of actual units. But I hadn't even thought of counting points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One could say that that's being "lazy gamey" instead of "industriously gamey" Look, I'm not comfortable with the position I'm "defending". I also value historical value over rules-lawyering. For what it's worth, I don't count points - that's too boring for me - but since it's an allowable action under the current rules, I feel that it's legal to do so. As I see it, one reason we gamers buy a game (at least a big reason why I do) is to get an outside, impartial set of rules that define combat in an era. Otherwise we could all just make up our own rules as we go (at least back in the boardgame era). So, to me, it's important that the rules be realistic and only allow reasonable actions. If they don't, then they're "bad" rules to some extent, and need fixing. Maybe your standards for game rules are different than mine (not better or worse, but just different). If that's the case, then maybe you don't see the function of rules as being to only allow realistic actions, as I do. To me, CM is a generally wonderful set of rules, which I love, but has a few problem areas that need fixing to prevent unrealistic play. That's all.

"mine was in red, white and blue USPS priority envelope approx 8 1/2 by 11 (sheet of paper size)" Same here. Also, don't have a heart attack when you open it and don't see a CD - it's inside the shrink-wrapped rule book . [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-14-2000).]

I myself haven't really had a problem keeping track of which vehicles were carrying which troops, but then again I haven't ever more than five carriers in a scenario. If there were more, then I can see where a link on the Info display would be handy. Of course, I also think that a brief, global list of all units you have would be helpful. Maybe not a fully detailed OOB/TO&E, but *something* to avoid having to +/- through dozens of units. Please, *some* sort of clickable list... Wendell

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really feel sorry for the average Russian soldier. The only thing as dangerous to him as the Germans was his own side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right, Michael. In the early period, it was like "STAVKA wants us to do WHAT?!" Later, things became more balanced and then in the Soviets favor. A thoroughly fascinating war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All the Ukrainians/Byelorussians(etc., etc.) I know have problems with the USSR being described as "Mother Russia".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right, of course. I simply let my enthusiasm get the better of me with 'Rodina' talk. There's just something infectious with Soviet propaganda of that time than makes you want to believe in the Great Patriotic War .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>it was, in fact, the Russians who bore the brunt of the fighting and could credulously claim that they won the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn straight! As tough as it was for my American pride to swallow, I had to accept the facts. This led to a whole new appreciation of the Soviets vs. the Germans as the main theater of war in Europe, which is why my interest in the Eastern/Russian Front is my only rival for my attraction to the suicidally overmatched Japanese. Man, but that six-year period, 39-45, really captures the imagination! [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-14-2000).]

I'm really looking forward to the real WW II, the Russian Front, as opposed to all this fringe stuff. Yeah, Normandy, the Bulge, etc.; it's all interesting in its own way. But every gamer worth his salt knows that the real WW II battles took place on the Russian Front! This isn't to take away from the current CM. The parade of the minor nations (USA, UK, France, Poland, etc.) is very interesting, but only when great Mother Russia is represented will the game be complete. Da!