Mikester

I was one of those nuts that pre-ordered on the very first day that you could: May 7, 1999 (according to email BTS recently sent me when I updated my Credit Card info). Phone call to CC agency confirms authorization for $53 charge was made yesterday on my account. Must have happened late last night since when I checked earlier in the evening there was no new info on my credit card purchases. One of the lucky batards that lives here in the USA as well. Am expecting to get game by Friday (Sat. at the latest) assuming it ships out today and USPS doesn't lose it somewhere. Have been waiting for the game literally since "day one". Started reading about it back when it was still Avalon Hill's project and it was still being referred to as Computer Squad Leader or something like that. They had a blurb on it on their website and a link as I recall to Big Time Software's web page. When you went to BTS's webpage there was some more info there on the main page. Couple paragraphs about the game and a picture of the front box cover artwork from the orginal Squad Leader boardgame. There was no Battlefront.com, this forum didn't exist, and I'm not sure Steve was even working on the project at the time. My how things have changed since then. Best part is all of us are going to "soon" be enjoying one of the best wargames ever produced. My hat is off and congratulations to Charles, Steve, and the entire CM team on a superb achievement in the history of computer wargaming development. Mikester out. [This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 06-14-2000).]

Ahhh, Herr gut Doctor. Now I "see" better where you are coming from. Mikester out.

Please make it available sooner, rather than later so I can get it downloaded at work and transferred home. Thanks, Mike D aka Mikester

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrD: On the other hand, we're all assuming that the tank knows there's a tank behind that building. Just about the only thing unrealistic about CM is that if one unit can see an enemy then all units can see it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DrD, Actually, I believe you are incorrect. Just because one of your units spots an enemy unit, and it appears on the map, doesn't mean all of your other units on the map can actually "see" it. You see all spotted units, because you are in the omniscient position of the computer player. Your boys on the ground though, can only actually "see" what they can trace a valid LOS line to. I could be wrong, but I think that's the way the game works. Mikester out. [This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 06-13-2000).]

It has begun. The troops are being loaded into the transports. In a matter of a scant couple of days they will ship out. A few days after that, the first shiny bright faced copies of CM will land on the beaches. CM will finally be in my grimy little paws. Hoooraayyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe the hour is finally upon us. Mikester out.

Havn't had a chance to read the book yet. But have heard it is very good. The movie was terrible. Don't even bother renting it to watch at home, much less paying money to see it in a theatre. Like someone else mentioned above, one of the few movies that I've ever been tempted to walk out of before it was done. Mikester out.

Uhhh, Steve, So did the manuals come in? Perhaps they are there and you guys are busily assembling manuals and CD's together so that you can start shipping on Wed.? Or, are you loading up the Weasel and heading over to kick the publishers a** since they didn't arrive? Mikester out.

FWIW, I've started several PBEM games of VoT as both the Axis and the Allied player. No problem starting either way. Mikester out.

CyberFox, Nice start on the scenario download pool. Keep up the good work. Are you going to have an area to upload scenarios for us out here to post ours? What about some type of rating system where players that have played the scenario can rate them. Maybe post the number of reviewers and the average score they've given the scenario/op? Liked the pics for the ones you've posted too. Gives us some sense of what the scenario will be like. Thanks, Mikester out.

Dunkirk was an interesting chance lost for the Germans. I believe it was in a book I recently read and also on a documentry on the Fall of France I saw on TV where both pointed out that the failure to capitalize on the Dunkirk situation and deal a huge blow to the Tommies was, you guessed it, once again due to Hitler. German ground commanders and forward units were pushing in earnest toward Dunkirk to deal the death blow to the Brits. Suddenly, they receive orders from Army high command to stop in their tracks. They stopped in total disbelief. Why? Hitler and others had decided that Herman Goering and the Luftwaffe should be given the honor of bombing the English out of existence. As a result, many of them escaped, albeit without any of their tanks or heavy equipment. But they did live to fight another day. Mikester out.

Maximus, et. al., In a word, I believe the answer to your question is yes. This was discussed a long, long, time ago, but I do seem to recall that squads that were not at full strength between battles of a campaign would possibly (small random percentage chance probably) receive back some guys in form of WIA's returning to action (only lightly wounded I'd assume) and/or possibly a few replacements (probably from the motor pool, etc.) that might be sent up to help out. Mikester out.

Charles, Just some thoughts on where you might want to concentrate your efforts in promoting the game. Many people read the online and magazine game reviews to find out about new games and/or help to make their decision as to whether to buy a given game, or not. Some of them make their game purchasing decisions based almost solely on reading several such reviews. And there is already evidence here on the board in a recent post that at least some of these guys (was it the Wargamer?) are giving out old/erroneous data in regards to CM. I would therefore think it would behoove you to make a press release, or whatever it takes, to make sure these guys have the real, pertinent, and up to date facts on the game so that they are giving their readership an informed opinion about your product. You obviously can't (and for that matter shouldn't) try to write their reviews for them, but you can try to insure that they have the correct facts and details about the game in order to accurately relate what the game is, and isn't, to their readers. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Keith, Ahhh, good facts once again come to clarify the situation. I hadn't really thought much about the trucks and mechnanization of Soviet forces. So the good ole USA did help out more than I thought. But in the end it acted like more of an accelerator to ending the war rather than a deciding factor? Would you agree with that? Having motorized/mechanized infantry would indeed have made a difference. Especially in practicing the "advanced" tactics of Blitzkrieg in reverse on their German creators. Which in turn as you point out would certainly help the Soviets to fight more efficiently and take more ground in a shorter span of time. Thanks again for the input. That's one of the great things about discussing things here. Eventually all the facts get fleshed out and brought to the surface if the discussion goes on long enough. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

My guess is no. There always seems to be some sort of incompatibility or other such programming issue that would result in BTS having to make a special version of the patch for the demo vs. the one for the real thing. And I somehow doubt they are going to spend their time doing this, unless there's something so bad in the demo that they want to have it fixed to not ward off potential customers. Mikester out.

Jager 7, Good fact finding. Guess I should expect such things from a guy that's in the Marine Corps (I assume Gny? stands for Gunnery Sargent?). Me, I'm rank amatuer historian of WWII for about last 25 years. Unfortunately, read a lot, and forgotten too much. Especially when it comes to trying to remember where I read it, exact figures, etc. Case in point is I can't even remember the exact city in the south that Hitler sent the Panzers down to help take. Is it Kiev that's south or the Prippet Marshes, or is it some other large city down there? I think that was it, but I'd have open a book to double check, or look at a map. You are right though. The Soviets would have come out on top one way or the other. Only question would have been how many more millions would have died and how long would it have taken if they hadn't gotten any help (lend lease) and/or US had never entered the war in Europe. My guess is that if the US had never become envolved the English would have continued to fight in the Med. on a limited basis. Probably would have defeated the Axis in N. Africa. Maybe even went ahead and invaded Sicily and perhaps Italy on their own. But that would have been a pretty tough road to go down alone. And like in Russia, it would have taken longer and cost more lives to accomplish the same tasks that were accomplished w/ American help. Chances of them (English, Canadians, etc.) launching a cross channel invasion w/o the American's was probably pretty low. All in all US involvement in Europe probably accelerated the end of the war there by 2-3 years is my best guess. Fact that they did end up becoming envolved probably saved millions of lives on all sides as well. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Thanks for the update Steve! It's greatly appreciated. Mikester

Jager, Yes, the US war production did have an impact. My point is that most of that impact was felt by England and others allies in the west and in the Pacific. What did get sent to the Soviet Union from USA probably didn't amount to much in the overall scheme of things as they unfolded on the Eastern Front. In my view (perhaps mistaken) most of the US Lend Lease aid went to, and was of the most benefit to, England. From what I've read and seen on TV I have little doubt that US aid to England helped keep them afloat in 40-41. This most certainly was not the case in Russia. We did not save the Russians by sending them anything. What we did send I'm certain did help to a given extent, but if we'd sent them nothing I somehow doubt that it would have mattered that much in the final analysis. The most important thing that went to the Soviets was probably food. Especially in light of the fact that the Germans conquered the bread basket of Russia when they took the Ukraine. But in my estimation I doubt the food aid made much diffrence either. Stalin and company would have simply taken what food they did have and given it to the troops and let the civilian population starve first if we'd sent them nothing at all. He had no regard for human life whatsoever, be it Russian, or otherwise. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would do this if it had come down to feeding the troops and carrying on the struggle vs. a few civilians starving to death. I would also still argue (without any real facts to back up my arguements unfortunately) that the overall percentage of what the Russians did receive in aid really didn't amount to much in comparison to what the Russians provided to themselves via their own means. Agreed, it had to have helped. But in the end the Soviets would have perservered either way. With the aid, things were simply easier, fewer people (civilian and military alike) probably died, and the war was probably somewhat shorter than it would have been otherwise. But in the end Germany had to strike and win in 1941. After that opportunity was lost the Great MeatGrinder of the Soviet Union simply chewed them up and spit them out. As for Italian campaign drawing troops away from the Eastern front this is true. But look at the total number of divisions deployed by Germany in Med. vs. number still in Russia at any given time and the greater bulk of their forces were still in the east. In my view it was not until the invasion of Normandy that the ratio of German divisions in the east vs. those they had committed in other areas really had to shift and, alas, by that point the war was already really over. The other thing to bear in mind is that the Germans raised new divisions as the war progressed and if memory serves me correctly always had (at least on paper) roughly the same number of division committed on the Eastern front as they started with in June 1941. On the other hand, the Soviets were able to field one new division after another in the east and finally simply outnumbered the German paper divisions. Especially since most of the paper divisions were not up to full strength anyways for most of the later part of the war. There was simply no way the Germans could stand up against such a force. In summer campaign of 1944 on the Eastern front entire sections of the German line simply disintegrated and the Russians had, for the most part, taken the Germans back to where they had started in 1941 by end of 1944. It was simply a matter of time before the Soviets accomplished this in my view. Lend lease aid and opening of a second front first in the Med. certainly helped speed the war along. As did strategic bombing of Germany by the RAF and USAAF. But when it really comes right down to it that's all these things did. The didn't make or break the final outcome of the war in Europe. That was decided when Hitler proceeded with attacking the Soviets and failed to go for the jugular vein and knock them out in 1941. After that, Germany's fate was sealed. It was only a matter of time. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Let me state that I'm writing this very quickly and from memory, so some of my facts (or lack thereof) may not be totally correct. In my view there were no real true turning points in the war. However, it is faily obvious as others have noted that Germany had the war to win or to lose in Russia. 1) As noted above, they invaded too late in 1941. Partly due to waiting for the weather to improve so that they wouldn't be slogging through the mud (the entire German concept of Blitzkrieg is built around speed among other things after all), and partly due to the Balkan's excursion which most likely definitely delayed the invasions even later than what the spring rains would have. 2) The Germans and their allies had one chance to conquer Russia and that was in 1941. After that, it would be too late, the Russians would pull their act together, activate more and more units, etc. So why did they fail in 1941? a) While they had a plan of battle, it was perhaps, too generalized. And in my view, definitely too spread out. Russia is an enormous country and as you invade it from the west it opens up. There are more and more kilometers of front to cover for every kilometer you drove deeper into it. The only real chance Germany had in my opinion to overcome this was to make one concerted effort with a strategic schwerpunkt aimed at Moscow. As it was, they advanced on more or less of a broad front and while they made tremendous progress they eventually overworked and tired out there formations while they were bled at every turn, overstretched their supply lines, etc. Due to Hitler's meddling after the invasion started, the plan wasn't followed anyway. For example, he diverted very important Panzer formations from Army Group Center (driving on Moscow) to Army Group South for several weeks because of problems with AGS's progress. There were various other shifts of units during the 1941 campaign that also caused problems of similar nature. Needless to say advancing on the broad front and then shifting units about from one "hot" area to the next didn't help where it counted which was taking Moscow. These delays proved costly in the end when the Soviet winter came into play. c) The Russian hordes could not be overcome. Poorly led though they were, and sacrificed like lambs, there was almost no end to the number of men available to the Soviet army. In Dec. 1941 with most German units well below authorized strength, if not nearly totally bled white, the Soviets launched their first winter counterattacks because they had raised and brought in fresh units. While the Germans eventually brought in fresh units themselves, they could never keep up w/ the Soviets in this regard in the long run. 3) The Germans were not as well prepared as they thought they were. German tanks were inferior to the T-34 and some other Soviet tanks. While the Soviets didn't have as many of these available at the outbreak of the conflict, they did rapidly start to produce more. Much more quickly than the Germans managed to design (or at least finish designing) and deploy tanks such as the Tiger I and Panther. They were also not prepared for, or for that matter knew how to fight, in a true drawn out winter battle. The Soviets on the other hand were quite capable of doing so and proved it on any number of occasions. 4) The Germans were too overconfident. They had yet to lose a campaign in the war and had every reason to believe the backward Soviets would fall just like the others. They thought the Russians would simply fall over like a house of cards before them and that they could simply waltz into Moscow in a matter of a couple of months. Needless to say, they seriously underestimated their opponent. 5) Germany simply did not have the resources in terms of men, material, production capacity of everything from bullets to tanks, petrol, etc. to fight a prolonged war in Russia and have units tied down in guarding France and fighting in the Med. For this reason alone, as someone else stated above, I strongly feel that the Soviets would have beaten the Germans even if D-day landings had never happened in Normandy. In fact, I'd postulate that by the time they did happen, the Russians had for all intents and purposes already taken irrevocable control of the war on the eastern front. Why do I say this? Look at what happened. Shortly after D-day in Normandy the Russians opened up a huge summer offensive and drove the Germans back in several key areas, surrounding or destoying whole divisions of irreplaceable tanks and men of the Wehrmacht. Retaking Kiev (or was it Minsk?) in the process, etc. They were already well on their way to driving the Germans back to where they'd started in 1941 by the time D-day rolled around. Make no mistake about it. And if one thinks that America did much to help the Soviets in any real tangible terms that made a major impact I would be interested in the details of what we did. I know we sent some Sherman tanks over, food, ammo, and I know some aircraft were sent too. But think about it for a minute, how many of these American aircraft, or tanks, do you ever actually see in any photographs of Soviet hardware on the front? Or for that matter hear about in any first hand accounts of battle reports or in books. The answer is very few. So in my view, to think that the Americans "saved" the Soviets and helped them turn the tide on the Eastern front is bordering on almost being laughable. Heck, the Soviets had perhaps the best all around tank of the entire war in the T-34 and aircraft that could stand toe to toe with most anything that America produced. What did they need this stuff for anyways? Granted, I'm sure what we sent the Soviets via Murmansk and whatever other routes were used helped (and maybe much more so than my understanding of the facts allows), but to think that Pearl Harbor turned the tide of the war in Europe is really stretching things in my view. Especially when it comes to the eastern front. Think about it, the Russians fought pretty much alone against Germany for nealy 3 years from June 41 to June 44! Until June 1944, the Americans/English presence was only felt in a small way in my view in the side-show of the Med. Theatre. N. Africa really didn't mean much in the overall scheme of things (another of Mussilini's messes actually). Sicily was nothing but the doorway into Italy, and once in Italy the narrowness of the front and rugged terrain meant that it didn't take very many units to defend the area. Point is that not very much of Germany's resources were required in this area. So in my view, by the time the Western Allies finally invade Normandy, in many respects the war was already over. The chance to win in 1941 in the east was long past. Germany had been bled white in terms of men, material, etc., on the eastern front in three years of fighting there and really had nothing to show for it (not to mention Anglo/American strategic bombing which I do feel did have a definite impact on the final outcome of the war). And when the Western front finally is opened in Normandy they then had a third active front to fight on and their fate was sealed. Turning point? Hmmm. Pretty much isn't any one or two single turning points. Especially in the ETO. Pearly Harbor certainly wasn't. It was the beginning point of the battle in the Pacific, so by it's very definition cannot be a turning point there, while in Europe we have already seen above that the true impact of the American involvement there really came too late to be of much value in determining the final overall outcome. Most pronounced turning point I can think of was the Battle of Midway in the Pacific campaign. That was the one single battle that all but broke the Japanese Navy'ss back. Like Germany, they couldn't really replace what they'd lost and stretched themselves out over thousands and thousands of miles of ocean. And in that one single battle they lost 4 of their key aircraft carrier assets that allowed them to project any sort of force over all those miles they'd conquered. And if America's true might was observed anywhere, it was felt in the Pacific by Japan. While there were most definitely those that helped such as the British, Dutch, Australians, Chinese, etc., it was the enormous power of the American Navy, Army, Aircorps, and Marines that carried the day in the Pacific. Without these forces the Japanese would probably still control much of it today. Wow. If that wasn't a huge bunch of rambling then I don't know what is. And no smilies either! Hope I didn't tick anyone off. Just thought I'd throw in my $1.98 worth. Mikester out. PS: Here's two good questions for you to think about: 1) What would have happened if the Germans had actually taken Moscow in 1941? Would Germany have really won in the east and "conquered" the Soviets, or would they (Soviets) simply have kept on fighting and eventually persevered anyways? 2) What language would most Europeans from the USSR to the Atlantic (less perhaps England) be speaking today if the Americans hadn't entered WWII? Best guess, you got it, Russian. [This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 06-12-2000).]

I have no comments on this subject other than to state the following: 1) This discussion has been somewhat interesting and to a certain point, even entertaining. 2) I'm glad Steve didn't shut down this thread for reason 1 above. 3) NOW, for the love of God, please BTS, release the game! So that this non-sense will be ended and this thread can die it's own death in due course. (Down Mr. Winky. He tried to slip in there, but I beat him senseless with a big stick.) Mikester out.

Meine Deutsche sprechen ist nicht so gut. (spelling probably isn't all that hot anymore either ) Guess I'll have to stick witht he English "dummies" version. BTW, Moon, sight is looking good. Mikester [This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 06-09-2000).]

Steve and Charles, This is "something" (more like somethings) that I'd like to be considered, if it's possible, in a future patch and/or CM2. I realize this request probably sounds trivial, but when it's something that you have to do constantly it gets to be a bit more cumbersome. First: It would sure be nice when loading a PBEM game if the window that pops up to choose the file to be loaded would a) appear in the middle of the screen, be larger than what it is right now (when playing multiple PBEM games it sure fills that folder up fast), and c) be able to save the "settings" I have to always rechoose each and every time I load a PBEM file for how to display the files in this window. What do I mean by ©? I typically change the file window display to show all details and then select the modified/date column heading so that they appear in chronological order. Reason I do this is that it simply makes it easier for me to find the PBEM files that I just saved from my email application since it forces the list of files currently in the folder into a single column vs. the normal multiple columns and the latest PBEM files downloaded will always appear at the top of this list using this approach. Makes it way, way, easier to find files, especially when playing 3, 4, and sometimes even 5 different PBEM games at the same time. Second: It would also sure be nice when the above window pops up if it would default to the PBEM folder. Right now I don't believe that it does and everytime I start the game I have to go muck around and set the directory to the PBEM folder. Again, if this could be saved in the persons user profile file this might help. Thanks in advance for listening. I realize some of these things might be limited/controlled by the Window's OS, or other factors. But if they arn't, it would sure be nice to see some of these things changed since it is something that the player has to deal with constantly and I'd much rather be spending my time playing the game vs. trying to get the right file loaded. Mike D aka Mikester

I also expect that the map size issue is somewhat related to the hardware you and whoever else might be playing your designed scenario have and what it can handle. Some folks may not be able to handle the max size maps since their hardware would cause the screen to have jumps and glitches as you pan across it, etc. I would venture to guess that those with the min. hardware requirements (especially weak graphics cards) might have trouble with the max. map size indicated by Mikeydz above. Especially if the max size map is filled with dozens upon dozens of units which also contributes to the equation. Also, I believe sometime back Steve and Charles had indicated that they were not sure if hard limits on map sizes and numbers of units were going to be enforced or not. This depended on some programming and other related issues if I remember correctly. However, Steve's response above indicates to me that at least for the max map size issue that they may have decided to 1) have no imposed limit and/or 2) the limit is so large that you'd really never practically be able to design a sceanrio that was playable that would exceed said "huge" limit. Mikester out. [This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 06-09-2000).]

buddy, et al, In another thread here today Steve indicated that they are hoping/planning to receive the manuals into their warehouse on Mon. If that happens he said that those of us here in the states might have about a 50-50 chance of having the game by next weekend as shipping would commence early to mid next week. You certainly will not be receiving the game by this weekend for sure. Mikester out.

Thanks for the clarifications Steve. I've been kinda wondering myself about the final details of how you guys decided this stuff is all going to work as well. If I only had that darn manual, then all would become clear. Hopefully next week, or early the following week, that will be the case and many of our questions will be answered. Mikester

Scott aka PK, Yes, I believe Steve said in another thread a few days back that they had gone ahead and charged those whose CC expiration date was about to come up. I believe they are not starting the bulk CC charge process for the rest of us until late this weekend or early next week. I pre-ordered on first day last May that you could. Checked this morning and my CC still hadn't been charged. Will make big post here when it has been. Mikester out.