David Aitken

Looks like the Padlock Fairy (bald variety) has paid a visit to my favourite thread. Huh, give us Steve back – now Steve knew how to lock up a thread. Madmatt just doesn't have any style. David No Jeffs were unintentionally harmed during the making of this post

Freyland wrote: > That doesn't quite answer the question Dave. Yes it does, but it maybe doesn't dig up as much dirt as you would like. I refrained from detailing the exact circumstances in which Fionn was banned because I have reason to believe that doing so would present an imbalanced version of events. David

It is too late! I am mortally wounded! I have effected my escape from the US vs. Russia thread, but I fear my efforts shall have been in vain! Hmmm... this emotional blackmail thing has potential. Anyway, it's rather amusing to voice one's objections to a proposed addition to CM and wait for the flames to roll in. It's one of the few ways you can get into a fight here without starting it. ------------------ Also I would just like to say to David that your as thick headed as a pull of stout. – jshandorf

I would just like to thank Andreas for correcting the Commissar's technique as the latter joined in the mob bludgeoning me with verbal sticks and other hypothetical hard objects over in the US vs. Russia thread. I shall now proceed to run away and cry. David ------------------ Also I would just like to say to David that your as thick headed as a pull of stout. – jshandorf

Jeff Heidman wrote: > You are coming so far from left field I do not even think there are grounds for a discussion. It's like arguing with someone who finds light bulbs morally objectionable or something. Bruno Weiss wrote: > No doubt the American Revisionist for Sociological Wargammings Interference of Parental Entertainment Safeguards (ARSWIPES), will probably protest in front of the Supreme Rulers if not the Cosmic Council over this. The Commissar wrote: > As many others have made clear by now, your arguments are perposterous! Simply perposterous! GreasyPig wrote: > I guess we all know where you stand on "Cock Fighting" jshandorf wrote: > Also I would just like to say to David that your as thick headed as a pull of stout. Frankly people, you come across more narrow-minded about being denied something you want, than I apparently do about the proposal of something I object to. Thankyou Mark IV for the civilised response. I knew I would invoke this kind of reaction. I don't really care whether you get a US vs. Russia scenario or not. Even if it's a bad thing, it is trivial in the grand scheme of things. But I stand by my reasons for objecting. I admit to taking CM more seriously than many, just as a playing style and my way of approaching the game – I have posted about it before. That probably contributes a lot to the fact that I do not like the idea of hypothetical extensions to the Second World War at all. Here's a suggestion. Try putting yourself in a position where US vs. Russia or Britain vs. France would unsettle you. I'm not looking for converts, I just think it's a good idea to look at things from a different angle, instead of offering a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who presents an alternative point of view. David (edited because I forgot to include jshandorf's considered and intelligent contribution) [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 12-11-2000).]

MantaRay wrote: > Ok now I see just how much class you have. Really. > Were any of my friends killed???? Well I lost 2 close friends in Mog and had a friend dragged through the street and beaten and shot, do you think that fits the bill? I also had another friend die in a training excercise, so I guess you wouldnt count that eh? Thankyou, that is exactly what I was wondering. > One word of warning though. Next time you ask a Veteran if they lost a buddy, use more tact, or you may find yourself in deep trouble. What part of "Were any of your friends killed?" was tactless? I think you are more concerned with what you perceived to be the tone of my question. I was being serious (as opposed to condescending or sarcastic) and I said so. Now, considering the loss of your friends, would you say you are emotionally removed from the scenarios concerned? If someone were to base a computer game on the circumstancial events, would you not regard it as having something to do with you? Would you not be concerned that they might trivialise the events or mislead people about the reality of the situation? Major Tom wrote: > If indeed the devil did side with Churchill, would you have any qualms about the British going to war against Hell after defeating Germany? Hardly a credible analogy, but I take your point. There are no innocents in Hell. Churchill may have objected to communism or the Soviet régime, but I doubt he wished death upon Russians in general. Jeff Heidman wrote: > I contest the very basis of your claim. How is that morally objectionable? The very idea that fighting a conjectural battle with conjectural units base upon actual vehicles and weapons having any kind of moral relevance is preposterous. Our difference in opinion is apparent from your choice of words. You mention vehicles and weapons, but not men. We're not just talking about some scientific study of the technical merits of the opposing forces' equipment – we're talking about simulating a war. > Allies DID fight each other in WW2. The French fought the Brits, the Italians fought the Germans, etc., etc. They had their reasons to fight and they did. What I object to is staging battles where the combatants had no reason to fight or chose not to. > You are taken what is, in the end, a game designed to entertain people way, way too seriously. Did BTS create CM completely out of their heads? No, they took a historical scenario with existing countries and sought to simulate the conflict accurately. A program designed for entertainment should ideally be entirely fictional. When you base it on actual events, you are courting moral issues. > A hypothetical conflict between two former allies AFTER WW2 would be no different than a hypothetical conflict between the US and USSR in 1980. I would make a distinction there. Basing a scenario in the 1980s, there are numerous political and logistical leaps necessary to bring you to the conflict. As such, the hypothetical and fictional nature of it is all too obvious. What we are discussing here is taking the situation immediately at the end of the Second World War, and saying "Right, let's say the US declared war on Russia and everyone started all over again!". You can place that scenario in an exact time and location, with the same people who in reality had just made it through the war and were hoping to rebuild their lives. > Last I checked, CM was not modelling any real people. I think they are just lines of code, little 1s and 0s. They are morally neutral by definition. You might as well say that a book is morally neutral because the letters that comprise it are too. Okay, I'll take the credible part – CM may not model specific people, but it does model people of particular nationalities in a particular location and historical scenario. This is quite enough to be morally accountable. Mark IV wrote: > Testing tactical hypotheses is valid and bloodless against any "Orange" force. This whole "more sensitive than thou" argument is hypocritical, to the extent that it draws some arbitrary distinction between battles that never occured between historical combatants, and battles that never occured between non-historical combatants. Major Tom wrote: > To state hypothetical situations that had a VERY good possibility of occuring is not an insult to veterans. It is just as 'insulting' in regards to your statement, to state what would happen if Japan and Germany won the war, and would they fight it out. This was also very possible and commonly thought and debated over. Jeff Heidman wrote: > Why is it morally objectionable to pretend to kill people in a war never fought, rather than "pretending" to kill people in a war that WAS fought? Combat Mission simulates Second World War battles. It recreates events which occurred, or creates events which are very close to those which occurred. It models, not real people, but people who can be very closely attributed to those who took part in the war. It simulates the death of these people and the destruction of the battleground, be it a particular town or an indeterminate patch of countryside. In all these things it is morally accountable. There is already a question mark over the morality of CM in itself. As you might imagine, I am happy with historical wargames, but there are doubtlessly many people out there who are not. I think that CM and its ilk are acceptable because they remain true, or very close, to historical events. Given any battle in CM, you can quickly sketch in the actual historical background. Why am I pretending to kill Germans? I am restaging the fight against Hitler and fascism. Why am I pretending to kill Britons? I am recreating the actions of Germans called upon to fight for their country. Of course there is nothing wrong with saying "what if...?". But in my opinion, acting out "what if" using the aforementioned 'people who can be very closely attributed to those who took part in the war', is where you cross the line into bad taste. You enter no man's land. What now? Do we consider what might have happened in reality, if the US had declared war on Russia? No, CM can't simulate that. You can no longer place your battles in reality and history – all you can do is just simulate two historical armies killing each other for no reason. David

HANDY HINT You have just selected the MOVE command. Why not try some of the following: RUN – like MOVE, only faster CRAWL – like RUN, but lying down QUIT – like CRAWL, but with folder icons

Take a look at this thread... Why can't LMG42's run? David

:USERNAME: wrote: > Look I have a Logitech 3 button scroll mouse and it allows re-assignment of the buttons. It does not allow the option of the Tab being one of tehse re-assignments! Well go tell Logitech their software sucks.

A Arabian wrote: > what DID happen to Fionn? He was involved in a clash with Scott Clinton. The matter of who is ultimately to blame is a subject of controversy, but I believe there were existing issues between the two both on and off this forum. David

The Commissar wrote: > From what I can tell, you are personally offended by the possibility of such a war. Nope – it takes a lot to offend me. But I find it morally objectionable to take the combatants of a historical war and pit allies against each other. Yes, it's just a computer game. But doing so would destroy any semblance of respect for those who suffered during the war. It turns the whole thing into a big military circus. > you cannot say you dont want something made just because it contains something you dont like. Yes I can, as much as you can say you do want something made because you would like it. > If everyone had to abide by the personal feelings of every single person, games like this would not be made No, they would be made, but they would have to include every feature under the sun as a togglable option. Including pitting allies against each other. MantaRay wrote: > Ummmm, this is war, and since it is a game, how the hell are you killing many extra thousands of people? To quote myself again, with added emphasis: > You're talking about pretending to prolong the war, and go ahead and kill thousands more people and wreak even more destruction. MantaRay wrote: > I served 10 years in the military, participated in Desert Storm, Somilia, and many other smaller engagements that you will never hear about, and if someone wanted to do a scenario or game based on them, why in the hell would I care? During these conflicts, were you crippled? Were any of your friends killed? Were you, or anyone close to you, raped or tortured? Was your hometown razed to the ground? I mean that seriously. > And since this game doesnt model social or political aspects of war, someone who lived or fought in WWII may even think, "Boy, for a second there in 1945, I thought Patton was gonna start WWIII." Someone safe at home in the US, maybe. I can assure you that someone in Berlin or Moscow would not regard the possibility so casually. > Well, it would be the same war, combatants, and in the same theatre. The troops are already there............. ... and half of Europe, Japan and various other countries is destroyed, millions are dead, the economies of the Allied countries need to wind down from a war footing, and the Axis countries need to rebuild what is left of their homeland. To say that the troops are there is poor justification for arguing that they could or should start a new war. > But the whole issue revolves around would this add to the game. In my opinion, yes it would. Of course it would add to the game. Whether the addition would be desirable or respectful is another matter. David

The Commissar wrote: > An option just for fun, or better yet, to test whose forces were really superior, would be fantastic. > Come on, don't tell me you never wanted to know how the war would go if something like this happened! [...] This is a perfectly sound and educational tool for acting out this scenario Sorry, this is not true. The result of such a conflict would not be decided by the technical specifications of the combatants' hardware. It would be a political and social matter. To defend such a function in CM as 'educational' is a weak argument. > You don't like the idea, don't play it. If I were happy with that solution, I wouldn't be posting here. David

Chris5110 wrote: > How about the way Gen. Patton saw it ( at least the way he was portrayed in the movie ). Where just after Germany's surrender. The US and soviet forces slug it out. There is currently another thread on this subject. US vs Russia in CM2. David

MantaRay wrote: > Ok you dont want it, that is fair and I respect that. But please tell me how people "who suffered through WWII" would be shocked (or maybe a better word is horrified; in the context used) at the thought of the US vs. the USSR? I quote from my original post: > You're talking about pretending to prolong the war, and go ahead and kill thousands more people and wreak even more destruction. MantaRay wrote: > This is a game still, and most of the scenarios people play are not really all that historical. So if you only wanted to play "historical" games, that means QB's are a bad idea also. From my post again: > When you play CM, you are safe in the knowledge that you are re-enacting historical events. You can place your battle at a particular time and place (even if it is a fictional scenario). In other words, same war, same combatants, same theatre, but an indeterminate engagement. David

M. Bates wrote: > Surely this is a problem with the engine! > Why can't two groups of opposing soldiers face each other at a distance without them wasting ammo! Soldiers in CM will not fire unless they are within effective range. At long range only the squad support weapon will fire, for example. It's not wrong for men to open fire if they see the enemy maneuvring. If you were them, would you want to try and disrupt or demoralise the enemy while he is preparing to engage, or wait until he's right on top of you? In certain circumstances the behaviour of your men will be helpful; in other circumstances it will screw things up for you. This is true of all different kinds of behaviour, and is realistic. David

What a boring topic. There was a far more interesting thread on the very same subject a mere week ago (insofar as I deigned to grace it with multiple of my very own contributions). =P Charles: Suggestion for changing the GO! button.

Am I the only one unsettled by the concept of hypothetical wars? When you play CM, you are safe in the knowledge that you are re-enacting historical events. You can place your battle at a particular time and place (even if it is a fictional scenario). But the US going to war with Russia, or – oh dear – Britain? As someone who takes great interest in the Second World War, and appreciates CM more as a historical simulation than a game, the idea of this makes my heart sink. In my opinion, this would be to trivialise the war (or any other), and the incomprehensible impact it had on the world. I know it's just a game, but to me it would be morally wrong to simulate conflicts which never happened, using historically accurate men and equipment from real countries. What is important is not the power of a given tank, or the strength of a given soldier. What matters is what really happened. I think anybody who suffered during the Second World War would be shocked at the suggestion of "Patton at the Gates of Moscow". You're talking about pretending to prolong the war, and go ahead and kill thousands more people and wreak even more destruction. To detach CM from its grounds of historical credibility would be to turn a simulator into an exercise in offensiveness and bad taste. Sorry for the rant, but the idea worries me. David New map!

deanco wrote: > intro movie from hell, etc etc etc. Ooo golly, pet hate. How many games look like the developers have spent more time on the intro movie than the rest of the actual game? I watch movies once and then switch them off. Hardly worth the effort – put it into the gameplay or graphics or something. David

Bruno Weiss wrote: > I didn't realize each soldier just aimed at whatever moved and popped off a round. Glad we cleared that up. I accept what you're saying, but it is difficult to apply to CM. The game does not give you the level of control of a squad leader. You are the commander, and you give orders to every squad on the battlefield, but the concept of the game is that the squads may not, or may not be able to, carry out your orders as you intended. The point I am making is, what happens if you give a 'hold fire' order to a squad, hit GO, and then the situation changes and the squad is overwhelmed by enemy infantry? Should they continue to hold fire? When you Hide a squad, you are saying 'hold fire and conceal yourselves'. When you set up an Ambush, you are saying 'hold fire so we can spring a trap'. But a Hold Fire command would be to say 'hold fire because I say so'. When you're relying on the squad to interpret your orders, this kind of command is just asking for trouble. You already have the ability to "(direct) fire at selective targets and not (fire) when desiring to avoid incoming fire of superior strength". But squads will not sit there and take fire without handing it back. If the enemy can see them, the enemy will fire, and your squads will return fire, so the simple solution is to keep your men out of LOS of the enemy. David

I'm afraid I can't sympathise with anyone who wants a software developer to expend time and energy modifying their program because he is unwilling to use his computer properly. Here's an idea Lewis. Get a four-button mouse for your PC, and it should have software which allows you to assign commands to each button for each program you use. I have one for my Mac, so I'm sure you'd be the first to boast that PCs can do much more. David

Sounds like your personal preferences, Lewis. You can't make the mouse do everything, so I'm afraid you'll have to make friends with your keyboard. I for one rarely use 'lock to unit', so I would not want it to be a major command. David PS. Of course, there are other issues involved here. If your mouse is so much easier to use than your keyboard, that suggests the latter is maybe in a bad position. Just remember that PCs never used to have a mouse, and Windows is still controllable without one. A mouse is just a pointing device, and it's not practical to make it do anything but one or two simple secondary commands. New map! [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 12-09-2000).]

Chief wrote: > Less artillery. Damn but FOs burn through rounds quickly. Harassing fire is used during lulls in fighting, or to disrupt enemy lines of communication to the rear of the battlefield (off the CM map). Considering that in games of CM, your objective is to capture terrain or destroy enemy forces within usually 30 minutes to an hour, the kind of barrages available to you make sense. Anything slower or wider than a Wide barrage would do the enemy very little harm. Also, the volume, power and endurance of fire depends on the kind of artillery you're using – some only lasts for a salvo or two (German rockets, for example). > Why do I get to know the quality levels of opposing troops? This has been discussed before. The information may be removed in CM2, but it is not unrealistic to have it. It is possible to gauge the experience of enemy troops by watching their behaviour. > I find that I regularly run squads out of ammo in the course of a 30 turn scenario It is totally realistic for your men to run out of ammo. The best way to preserve it, is to keep your men out of sight of the enemy until you are ready to attack. If the enemy fires at your men, or if your men have a good LOS to the enemy, they will fire back. Also, do not order squads to engage targets at long range – this is what machineguns are for. Concerning reserves, keeping squads back would not be a good idea. A platoon needs all of its squads to be effective, so a reserve should comprise full platoons. David New map!

Bruno Weiss wrote: > I have to go down as one of those who find no reason for the lack of, and every reason for the inclusion of, a hold fire command. Currently, troops in CM usually obey orders (Hide and Ambush in this case), but when in doubt, they will err on the side of self-preservation. Men are only ordered to hold fire in specific circumstances – usually to avoid drawing attention to themselves (Hide), or to spring a trap on the enemy (Ambush). They are not ordered to hold fire when the situation is unclear, because what happens if the enemy suddenly materialises nearby? They have no choice but to disobey your order, rendering the order useless. Hold Fire is not a practical command in the CM environment. David New map!

Croda wrote: > I'll take compatability, you can have your little Mac revolution. Ooo look, a conformist. Steady on Croda, you don't want to bring down the government or anything. Oh wait, you don't have a government.

Before anyone else jumps on the bandwagon, go read this thread: A Case For Full Squad Representation David