Andreas

Well well - this must be one of my more 'successful' threads. Pretty much one of the few I am embarassed to have started too. No PBEM would be a bummer, but I'd still buy the game. No surprises there, I guess. But since Steve has not said anything about no PBEM, I guess the chances of really not having it are pretty slim. As for Steve's style, he is clearly not a natural diplomat. I do think that despite him sometimes losing his temper, we are better off than we would be if we had something like this, for example. (Randy's Blog - "Tarted-up press releases" and "Dad does Disco" was how Lucy Kellaway described it in her column today, singling it out as the best example of why execs should not do blogs). At least from Steve we get an honest view of things, and he actually does get into a debate about things. Like all good grogs, he does of course think he is always right and has a short fuse, too. The reason why I would still buy any Mac-compatible CM product that BFC put out is that I know they will produce something that I would want to play. Prior to CM, I had never even considered playing PBEM or TCP. So I could not have argued for or against it if I had been offered the choice. The same now - I have no idea what they are going to do, but if it is anything near as good as CM-BO/BB/AK are, I know I would want to play it, no matter how. I think those people accusing Steve of hubris, or arrogance need to imagine something. Imagine a world where you have never played CM in any of its incarnations (i.e. pre-2000). The next five years never happened in the CM universe, you lived a sad life without it. Tomorrow, on 1st March 2005 they publish CMBO in its original form, warts and all. Would you buy it? I would. I know others who would too, because today there are only two games that are better than CMBO at doing squad-level computer combat. They are CMBB and CMAK. Then the whinging about the graphics would start, of course If Steve and his colleagues are proud of what they have done, or think they know better than we do, it is because they have shown in the past that they actually do. Given the choice, I would want to have the best computer-playable combat simulation there is, regardless of how I can play it. If it is that good, I will find ways to play it. I trust BFC to give me that simulation. Anyone accusing them of dumbing down (as Mike implicitly has done), has not read what Steve has said. They are going to make the game more, not less realistic. Remember the last time that happened? It was the move from CMBO to CMBB in the area of infantry modelling - anyone can recall the amount of stick they got for the game not being 'fun' anymore? or the lack of explosion waves? That probably did cost them some sales too. The decision to put 'Cemetary Hill' on the CMBB CD? Put at least one customer of playing and probably buying the next game. Or why not make CMAK a mythical all things on the west front game with King Tigers and Cromwells? Again a decision to go for historical realism instead of purchase appeal. We have been around this block so many times. It does not get more interesting at each new iteration. So far BFC have delivered perfectly playable, 'yep that does it for me' products that are far from perfect, but that do what they say on the tin, and that (sadly) after almost five years still have no competition. I get off my soapbox now.

Yeah, I am sure those tankers in their Cromwells thought every day - "Mark my words, I says. I don't mind no Tigers, but if it wussn't for this lack of egalitarianism, we'd be in Burlin already, I tell you." Or sumfink.

No thank you. I want an operational layer, where I move battalions about. So at most Corps sized. None of that strategic namby-pamby.

There is no such thing as the cumbersome test. If there were, we would have a magic eye to figure out LOS in CM now. There is a fine line to be walked, between making the game playable, and making it realistic. BFC want to add to realism, and they have come down firmly on that side when the LOS tool issue was raised. Too firm for many players who would prefer such a tool. The same happened with infantry modelling between CMBO and CMBB. There is no doubt that the new infantry modelling in CMBB would have failed any imaginary 'cumbersome test'. So, don't invent 'tests' that never existed, even when you think you are just talking about the interface - that is clearly not the case with what units and the commander can see. It is not an interface issue, but a core modelling question. The concern that Jon raises is a valid one - and BFC have acknowledged that concern in the past, AFAICR. Instead it would be an interesting discussion on how far realism can be pushed, both in terms of technology, and in terms of customer satisfaction. There maybe* diminishing returns from some point (witness the PBEM discussion), and at some point these may well turn negative (if it was technologically feasible, would you like to have olfactory sensations?). *It may of course also be the case that while some customer groups are dissatisfied, including radically different features would open up whole new customer groups that never before would have thought of buying CM games. Even while staying true to realism, i.e. not by selling out to the RTS space lobster crowd.

Thanks Jon - I am sorry I asked the question after reading through it. I knew there had been some discussion, because of Seanachai's thread, but it must have gone on while I was in the UK, so I missed the whole, err, fun.

Can someone point me to what Steve really really said on PBEM in CMx2? Thanks a lot. Andreas

I have yet to locate the OS X CD. There was no OS9 installed on the machine, so I can not test that.

Evil HDD eye.

Wish I could do that. It crashes after about 0-10minutes of doing anything (including nothing). so there is no way I can burn CDs of data from it. I'd end up with a range of ugly coasters. But I found a chap who will have a looksee. If it is a logicboard failure, it'll be a case of the dustbin for it. That'll teach me to buy anything with an "i" at the beginning from Apple (had issues with an iMac I once owned too).

Not under warranty, but I'll see what I can do to get it fixed. Thanks a lot Wicky.

IIRC (it is a while that I read on the battle), if the armoured elements of the Wintergewitter force had stayed committed in the breakthrough for a few more days, the Soviets would probably have cut them, and the whole of Army Group A off in an encirclement that would have made Stalingrad what Quatre Bras was to Waterloo. That is regardless of the question of whether they could break through in the first place. I have my doubts about that, even with Tigers. By the time Wintergewitter became an acknowledged failure, the Red Army had just moved another formation inbetween the city and the relief force. I really do not think that the presence of any tactical weapons system would have changed the outcome here, since the problem the Germans faced was an operational one.

Is this hinting at a difference in the two armies' tactical agility in the snow? </font>

Okay, I have had a bit of time this weekend, and was trying to put things together. Turns out that I transferred the mod files onto my laptop. My laptop has a system crash (Mac OSX 10.3.latest - if someone can tell me what 'system failure CPU=0 Code 00000001 (corrupt stack) means, email is in the profile), and there is no ETA for fixing it. In fact, I may have to erase the HDD to fix it, with all that is on it. On my old machine, which I have reactivated now, iDisk is not working anymore, for reasons totally unclear to me. That means I can not update the .Mac homepage with new files, even if I were able to rescue them. So, after all that, all I can do for the time being is to publish the link to the .Mac homepage as was in September. Some of the mods may not be last version, and quite a few are not on it (e.g. the buildings, but I believe these are on CMMODS). All the scenarios are unfinished and should not be played if that bothers you. I also have no idea what the DL limit for a Mac homepage is, but I guess I will find out. Here it is anyway: Linky poo

Morning you tossers.

Why does that remind me of von Lucke's story of having to convince at gunpoint the commander of the 88 battery near Caen of the beneficial nature that shooting at tanks might have?

Bah humbug. Everybody else: -3 Finland: 257

What do you mean? I had it zoomed in to the area above the bridge, but then got a warning note which I couldn't interpret, and the screen went white... </font>

From memory,I do not think that view is correct. The Red Army had probably already re-allocated its main maneuver forces by this stage, after being surprised by the size of the bag in November. That he did hold on certainly had an effect early on, but by late December that must have been a fairly minimal effect. The key to avoiding the loss of Army Group A was in particular the re-allocation of 6.PD from Wintergewitter after it had failed, but this could still have been undertaken if there had been at least a partially successful breakout. Of course, the whole Army Group A problem only occurred because they were also ordered not to withdraw for far too long. Regarding whether the breakout was feasible, and whether there would have been horrendous losses, or whatever. In the end, 2% (plus flown out wounded) of those who were encircled at Stalingrad survived. Any solution that produces a better result would be preferable. So if 90% of the army dies while breaking out, you still end up with 400% more survivors.

That would be because it is not in Nordrhein-Westfalen, but in Rheinland-Pfalz. Think Alberta/Sakatchewan, and you get the idea.

Well - so riddle me this. How many more men could 6th Army have lost if they had tried?

Already got that for the UK.

Better than 6th Army by not breaking out. 6th Army lost 100% of its men, while Napoleon managed to salvage something.

He certainly was not prepared to fight to the last Field Marshall. Grenadiere however are a totally different matter.

The relief effort never made it to 6miles (10km). It stopped 48km away from Stalingrad. Paulus was ordered to stay put, but could of course have ignored the order. He chose not to. It is however clear that the holding effort of 6.Armee tied down sufficient Soviet forces to make it possible for Army Group A to escape. The Soviets had a lot of trouble reducing the pocket while continuing their drive west, not least because they thought they had at most 90,000 men inside it. OTOH, the Germans needed to choose between the relief effort, and making an attempt to stop the Red Armz rampaging through its rear areas (as 25th Tank Corps was about to do during the raid on Tatsinskaya). They had only (barely) sufficient forces for one or the other.

No. The situation was quite different, as was the outcome. The Wehrmacht of 1944 was still vastly more capable than the Red Army of 1941, making life for the (itself vastly more capable) Red Army of 1944 more difficult than it was for the Wehrmacht in 1941. In terms of outcome, the Wehrmacht lost its 1941 campaign in the end - one of the reasons for this was a total ignorance of the logistical requirements for conquering the Soviet Union. So the Germans did not "manage". They never got into Moscow, but the Soviets got to Berlin - they did a lot better in terms of outcomes. I hope this makes sense.