David Aitken

Wildman wrote: > I'm pretty sure the "Thin Red Line" describes a stand of some Scottish Highland Regiment in the Crimean War. Wow, that was almost as timely as the Spanish Inquisition in the countroom sketch.

jshandorf wrote: > If you pull the pin the grenade will pull away quite easily from the spoon and if it doesn't then guess what? The grenade doesn't fricken go off! So in your state of incapacitation in lieu of the next injection of loud bangs and spurts of blood, you didn't notice what he was doing to the grenades with his bayonet? (Sit down, bauhaus! bauhaus? Ah hell*, he's not even here...) *copyright Peter Sellers

The Thin Red Line refers, literally, to a thin line of British soldiers wearing red uniforms. There is a famous painting of them. I've no idea what it has to do with Guadalcanal. I guess the author, as an American, felt obliged to vandalise British military history. =)

Croda wrote: > Thin Red Line? What a horrendous sack of rat crap that movie was. Characters sucked. Storyline was buried with Hoffa. I've seen more intriguing coloring books. > As for Gladiator, it was a great movie, even if it was too mainstream for you. A great movie?? Geez, I sat in the cinema watching Russell Crowe do a (in my best Aussie accent) You Murdered My Family And I'm Gonna Be Slightly Displeased About That for a few hours, and left wondering when Scott was going to make his point. And where did he get the idea that Romans spoke with posh English accents anyway? I have one bone to pick with The Thin Red Line, in viciously misappropriating its title from the British action at Balaklava. Otherwise, it knocks the shaky cameras and rough-grain film off Saving Private Ryan, and even stands up to A Bridge Too Far in being a completely different kind of film. Kids these days... not interested in anything where someone doesn't shout or fire a gun every five seconds or so. =P

Good good, and how could I forget Anthony Quayle??

Wildman wrote: > I shall now proceed to tell you all who you are. In case you didn't know. See, there really is no point in going to college. Considering the effects of three years of sex and drugs, you might as well never have gone to high school either. As Placidboy ably exemplifies. Geier wrote: > In fact, if Eddie Izzard had been cast in Gladiator with his James Mason act, Gladiator would have been a better movie than FOTRP. Agreed. > OTOH, if Robert Shaw had been in FOTRP it would have been a far better movie than Gladiator. It all evens out you see. But... but... okay, I've got nothing against Joaquin Phoenix (he was half of the reason I bought 8MM, even though I didn't like him in Gladiator and hadn't seen him anywhere else – the other half being Nicholas Cage and the remaining three-quarters being Catherine Keener), but Christopher Plummer was the ideal Commodus, and you can't shake a stick at Alec Guinness. By the way, don't you mean FOTRE? Oh! oh! while I'm on the subject... a great example I saw a few days ago of the rule "think of a good acronym first and then fill in the words". It was VOTE, Voters Organised Towards Empowerment or something. But nothing beats FIST – Future Infantry Soldier Technology. =)

Hoopenfaust2 wrote: > Its a game!!! > The new explosions add a little drama. pritzl wrote: > there is nothing wrong with a perference for realism. It's not a case of preferences – BTS are striving for realism, so I wouldn't expect them to put anything in purely for the "wow" factor. Realism aside, I was sad to turn off HQ Smoke with the old explosion graphics, but now I'm quite happy not to have them.

Personally I hate it when journalists make sweeping generalisations, but they do it all the time, even in the most highly respected broadsheets. They just do it so that you look and say "hey, what does that moron think he/she is talking about?", and want to read the article just to confirm that you're smarter than them. Mission accomplished. However, as the saying goes, no publicity is bad publicity. Gamespot have nominated CM as "Best Game..." – the suggestion that "...No One Played" it is clearly a figure of speech to anyone with their brain switched on, so it doesn't reflect too badly on the game. Better for them to suggest that it as a good game that sold badly, than not to mention it at all. Personally, I am very ready to check out something that sounds interesting, and as a non-conformist, the suggestion that it is unpopular is of no consequence to me. I only want to know whether it's the kind of thing I'll like or not. So, better for someone to hear the suggestion that CM is unpopular than not to hear about it at all. It provokes curiosity. David

CM newbies should read up on the following threads to prepare themselves for the inevitable. (Some classic posts, by the way.) =) Dear Steve No System + No CM = No life David

Croda wrote: > my new Home Theater System and DVD player kick ass. Gladiator never sounded so good. Gladiator? How original... "hey, I've got a DVD player, what shall I do now...? I know, I'll watch Gladiator! For heaven's sake, man, get a real film. A Bridge Too Far, The Thin Red Line, or even Being John Malkovitch. Gladiator is "Historical Epic + DVD for Newbies". By the way, The Fall Of The Roman Empire covers similar ground to Gladiator and is a far better movie. =P

New HE explosions (only appear if you enable High-Quality Smoke (shift-I)). I preferred the old explosions – the new ones seem more garish and inkier. I'm not sure whey they were changed. That said, I use Fast-And-Compatbile Smoke, so I don't normally see the explosions. This issue has been raised before – you are correct in that overwriting Graphics 13 will delete your winter modifications. If you have a copy of ResEdit (download from Apple), you can just copy the new graphics without replacing the file. David

Back to the top, so everyone can see dNorwood's piccies. =)

Jumbo wrote: > Too bad. I thought CMBO was a historical simulation. I expected you to pick up on this. By "historical action" I mean something which actually happened. A quick battle generates random terrain, and the units you pick could be found anywhere in the theatre at that time, so there's nothing to distinguish it as, say, a battle in the Ardennes. > How could the ideas that I and others have possibly be unfair? Unfair to whom? I'll try and lay this out as clearly as I can. You are requesting the ability to choose in a Quick Battle, not a high quality force or a low quality force, but a mixture. Consequently, any right-thinking tactician will be inclined to pick experienced pivotal units (a Crack forward observer or sharpshooter, for example). It will also be logical to choose inexperienced units as cannon fodder. This does not imply sending them to die, it simply implies using them in the first wave, where they can quite possibly make their mark – but where they will also be the first to go, and will not be greatly missed, and will blunt the enemy's teeth in the process. Then more experienced units can be brought into play to mop up. What I am getting at is, allowing unrestricted force experience will simply lead to the use of specific quality troops for specific roles. If you tried hard, you could avoid being unrealistic in your choices – but in doing so, you would be disadvantaging yourself. Whenever you buy forces in a QB, you are looking to get the best value for money. In an unrestricted QB, this entails distinguishing important units from cannon fodder, and is immediately unrealistic. By restricting you to a limited experience range, the game ensures that you must treat all your troops equally. Fancy picking up a Crack spotter? Sorry, you can only have Conscript or Green. Feel the need for some expendable grunts? No use, you're stuck with Crack or Elite. And there are situations where expendability is the key. Think of artillery barrages – simply hoping you don't lose too many men. In a QB you can soak up enemy artillery with Conscripts, and because it's a QB, you know that you have the forces left to defeat the opposition. You could never risk that in reality. Taking away the boundaries would just blur the whole concept of force quality and flatten the variation in a QB. > Besides, whom do you consider a fanatic? I use the term in reference to people such as you and me, who care about military and historical context, rather than just playing a fun game with Second World War tanks. > Even if the host enabled what we're asking for, it would be gamey, not tollerated, AND a fools errand because they would find out quickly that it wouldn't work. All conscript infantry coupled with a few elite AFVs? Are you kidding? What else are you going to have? Conscript AFVs with Elite infantry? What do you class as gamey? How do you know if your opponent has a "gamey" force make-up until the game is over? And why exactly doesn't it work (I have explained why it does above)? To use this feature at all would not necessarily be gamey, but it would be impossible to tell whether your opponent was being gamey or not, and it would also be impossible for you to pick forces which would be obviously not gamey and would simultaneously offer you some chance of success. > Not much choice equals not much freedom. BTS restricts choice where they believe it would negatively impact the accuracy or realism of their creation, or distort its concept. This has come up many times before – people say "Oh, but this doesn't affect you – you don't have to use it!" – but it would affect everybody who plays the game, because it would dilute the concept. And believe me, Combat Mission is borne out of a very clear and well thought-out concept. > So, David I'll ask another question that you'll probably ignore. Bit of unnecessary reverse psychology... > If they (meaning the experience/ morale of the individuals/ units who fought WW II) weren't all the same, why do they have to be the same (or just restricted to two choices) in CMBO? Because that is the best way to ensure that Quick Battles are both fair and credible. The QB generator is designed for challenges and skill matches, not for re-enactments. If you want to recreate a given scenario, use the map editor. The fact that you know the units involved does not detract from the fun – the fact that you have carefully tweaked the scenario enhances the fun, because it's a real challenge to get the best out of the units you've picked in the specific terrain and circumstances (and there are many, many ways units can be tweaked in the editor but not in the QB generator). David PS. Apologies to Fionn, I am reminded that his "rules" are not intended for historical accuracy, but to ensure a balanced QB game. Jumbo wrote: > Right now, we have Fionn's short 75 & 76 Panther rules. Toss in rarity for AFVs and you see that players strive to make their CMBO experience historical and enjoyable. Your example actually reinforces not your argument but mine. Fionn's "rules" recognise that, while there is nothing ahistorical about Royal Tigers and such appearing in a QB, this can potentially create an unbalanced game.

Jumbo wrote: > It presupposes responsibility and being accountable. Unfortunately, it seems like those two ideals are shunned all too often these days. If you're implying that BTS preventing you from combining Elite and Conscript forces in a Quick Battle is a restriction of your freedom, you're on the wrong track. Freedom is about choice. You can choose to buy CM or not. As you have chosen to buy it, you are accepting the vision of BTS. You are free to make suggestions to them, and they are free to agree or disagree. What I am doing is explaining what I understand to be the logic behind the way the game is. BTS spend a lot of time thinking about everything they program into the game, and gathering opinions from those in a position of authority – and as such, they tend to have a lot of support for the results. Think about it. Why have BTS imposed the restriction you are complaining about? What is the logic in that? What they have done, like so many other things, wouldn't even occur to most programmers. Imposing a restriction has been a deliberate choice, and they have done it for the reasons I have explained. As such, they are unlikely to change it back just because someone wants it different. David

Jumbo wrote: > As it stands now, we cannot simulate an accurate action in the Battle of the Bulge Quick Battles were never intended to simulate any kind of historical action. They simply generate a unique map for a generic clash between Axis and Allied forces. If you want to simulate a given battle, you should be using the scenario editor. > what I'm hoping for is to have the power of the scenario editor merged with the power of the QB and let the scenario editor (or human players) pick the forces, map, etc... They are two distinct functions for two distinct purposes. If you want to recreate a battle under specific circumstances, use the scenario editor. If you just want to play a game, but not one you've done before, use the Quick Battle generator. I think most games of CM can be categorised as either historical, where you are playing to test the outcome of a given scenario, or competitive, where you are playing to test your skill against your opponent's. As I have said, competitive games need to be fair, for general consumption and not just for the benefit of fanatics. For those who care more about the details, the scenario editor is very easy to use – and can even generate terrain for you like the Quick Battle function. A Quick Battle is just that. Choose a few parameters and bingo, you have a unique scenario to play. The editor can also generate scenarios quickly, but the process is less foolproof and the opposing forces are not necessarily equal. If you want to test out particular historical circumstances, and you trust your opponent, the Quick Battle function is not for you. You can throw together a custom scenario nearly as quickly, but it will have all the idiosyncracies you desire. To make the Quick Battle function any more versatile would be to ruin its functionality. > Freedom is always good. Afterall, it is worth risking your life for to get. I think you've got your concept of "freedom" a bit out of perspective there. David

Juju wrote: > Meaning, that crews can ONLY move in a limited arc, and ONLY to the rear. Been suggested before. What happens if your crew is on the forward edge of an open field? Their only option is to run across the field instead of moving forward to cover and then going around the side. And of course, what if their vehicle was taken out from the rear? They can only move straight into the enemy's arms.

Tiger wrote: > One solution that may please everyone would be to place all crews under AI control for the remainder of the battle. Not likely. You need control of your crews to get them to safety. Having the AI control them would be to have them operating in a vacuum – they wouldn't notice friendly troops or the actual battle, only whether enemy troops were nearby.

Jumbo wrote: > Along side? Shoulder to shoulder in the same foxhole for heaven's sake is what I mean. My point exactly. If you had free reign in a Quick Battle, you would be limited to picking at least a platoon of low quality troops to fight with at least a platoon of experienced troops. However, your example is not of an organised formation of low quality troops, but simply of available second-line personnel jumping in to reinforce the regulars. This would have the effect, as I have explained above, of maintaining a single unit, but of lowering the overall quality. So when in a Quick Battle you choose Regular troops, this is as likely to represent mostly Veterans with some Green reinforcements, as it is to represent entirely Regulars. In other words, what you seek is already modelled, and this is explained in the manual. > Some German conscripts from eastern Europe used the attack in the Ardennes to look for a way to surrender (if it could be done safely). It was a big concern of Hitler's before the battle. They were along side of elite SS troops -in the same fields and forests. CM does not model encounters where half of the men on one side are trying to surrender. It models battles where everyone has the conviction to fight. In such circumstances, the good and bad units would usually be integrated, as I have explained above, because segregation is weakness. David

Jumbo wrote: > Cooks and clerks fought along side crack Airborne troops The question is, what would you define as "alongside"? If this is to be relevant to your Quick Battle request, there would have to be, say, a platoon of paras fighting with a platoon of rear echelon troops. I would take it to mean the rear echelon troops reinforced the para units, which is the point I am making. Also, just because the troops you mention are second-line does not make them conscript, or even green. If a unit fights well, this would be translated into CM as having a higher experience (this issue has been discussed in relation to other subjects). This example would only be relevant if (1) the second-line troops fought independently of the veterans, rather than simply reinforcing them, and (2) they did not fight well, ie. they deserved being called conscript or green. I would not take either of these to be true. David

Jumbo wrote: > Do you also suggest that we throw out the ability to historically simulate WW II combat just to have some sort of platform to compete upon -no matter how bland or non-historical it may get? It is not necessarily historically accurate to have a combination of troops of completely different skill. In any given offensive, there will probably have been inexperienced troops and veterans involved. But CM simulates small engagements, usually involving a single unit (ie. a single platoon or company with support from artillery or armour). It would be unusual for a veteran unit to be fighting alongside conscripts. In these circumstances the newbies would be spread amongst the veterans, creating a far more effective unit. Otherwise you have a limited number of veterans ready to be ground down, and a bunch of conscripts who are of no use whatsoever. If disseminated, the conscripts can add weight of fire to the veterans' assault, and the veterans can boost the conscripts' morale and motivation. This is detailed in the manual. A veteran unit may not be all veterans – it may be part more experienced troops and part newbies – the result is the same. CM allows you to have units of different quality in a Quick Battle – Elite and Crack, Veteran and Regular, Green and Conscript. Contrary to your assertion, however, I believe that to have a combination of forces at opposite ends of the spectrum would in reality be very unusual. David

ChrisB wrote: > Geez, kids today needs so much elbow room. Kids today will sue you if they don't get enough elbow room. =) If the poor GIs don't have room to flex their legs, they'll develop Deep Vein Thrombosis and drop dead from blood clots as soon as they dismount. =P

Historical accuracy and gamey tactics aside, I say, whatever you do I'll give you a good seeing to. If you buy Royal Tigers and nothing else I'll knock them out. If you attack me with a horde of bailed crews I'll mow them down. If you send your crews out scouting I'll hunt them and shoot them. In other words, no matter how "gamey" someone's tactics are, that doesn't mean they have an advantage. =)

Phoenix wrote: > I wanted them to stay the hell down and crawl up to the edge of the woods area in preparation to storm a few buildings. In woods, Sneak is the best form of stealthy movement – there is no advantage in hugging the ground as cover is abundant (and crawling through woods is bloody slow). I suggest using crawl (and would only use it myself) when seeking to hug the ground, either to escape from incoming enemy fire while in open ground, or to avoid showing your troops above the level of a wall or a wheat field (and possibly brush too). In other words, hugging the ground is for safety rather than stealth, and it would often be a good idea to end it with a Hide command so that your men don't pop up at the end and give the game away. David

They're just trying to push their new "online wallet" rubbish by forcing you to sign up to see stuff other people post. Don't fall for it, people! They just want to know exactly where you go and what you buy on the internet! dNorwood, feel free to e-mail me the pictures at david@reckoning.demon.co.uk and I'll post them Big Brother-free. =)

Do you have a "passport" Jon? (I'm damned if I'm signing up to any Microsoft scam just to access their web pages.) Edit: My browser is trying to connect to login.passport.com for every image, which suggests you need to be signed up to view them. Goody, I can have Microsoft watching me wherever I go. [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 01-02-2001).]