Leclerc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eba: There are a lot of things that could be done to make CM more realistic that would destroy its play balance as a game. For example, in CM you could give the Alles about five times as much artillery as the Germans and make Jabos about five times more powerful. That would accurately simulate the virtually hopeless position the Germans were in. But it wouldn't be much fun. I think BTS has done a great job of making CM sufficiently realistic without ruining the gameplay. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It will be my last post on this board as I prefer the newsgroup anarchy to the high politness of this forum. I just want to thank you to give an argumented reply to my post, even if you disagree. You were the first and it will be satisfying to let this board on such a last good impression.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: Why Conscript vs veterans is not enought for you<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Simply because problems Soviet faces in the 2 first years with some exception were a almost total lack of modern means of communication, a very poor quality HQ works in recon and planning tasks and the general fear of repression gave to julior officers a great reticence to take initiative rather than rely on carriyng the orders received. BTW, as CM2 will be realistic, by 1943 Soviet army would get 1 minute turns... Thanks for your reply and your much elaborated reply.

I understand better Henri's reaction now... [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 10-28-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Private Pike: I'm not sure that I agree that the soviets couldn't lose. If Moscow and or Lenningrad had fallen in late 1941 there was the real possibility of another revolution with the army just quiting and the soldiers going home. This is what happened in 1917 and I've always assumed it's what Hitler was banking on happening again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Entering leningrad and Moscow is one thing, conquering them another... remember Stalingrad? Even surrounded as Warsaw was in 1939 ( and Warsaw siege was really long), Both Soviet capitals would have been a graveyard for many German troops which would have to face too Soviet counterattacks during Winter.

With any big company product my policy is very simple: 1) I wait the review as many products are now released more or less in unfinished state. 2) Whatever the subject, I prefer to buy from a small company than from a big one, as I know games will have less "design compromises" whose some would like for CM...

1) Without Soviet union USA and GB would have been unable to invade Europe. 2) The Soviet counter-offensive during Winter 41 got very few from lend-lease support. At mid-42, german army was unable to mount another attack on the whole east front and so did go for a southern effort which was possible only by depriving the AGC and AGN of any offensive capacity 3) The lend lease gave to the Soviet a way to specialize in weapon production and eliminate the 2 worst shortcomings of the Soviet industry: truck production and radios. Without lend lease, all Soviet offensives would have been very close of the Winter 41 model: a maximum of 100 km advance in a 250-300 km sectors But the question is if without lend lease, the soviet could have produced as much tanks and artillery? I highly doubt it would have been the case. If so, the Soviet ran after 42 in manpower problems. As the 41-42 Soviet offensive operations were very costly and after 43 Soviet army relied more and more heavily on material strenght, I believe Soviet efforts would have been less numerous, peculiarly in Summer, because of a lack of aerial superiority. By the contrary, The ability Soviet showed in deception efforts from 1942 would have certainly been there, so the German would have been in real inferiority in the key points. 4) In such a case, when germany would have fully mobilized its economy? I guess it would have been close to the real situation, ie at the start of 1943. The armored forces would certainly have in this case a less pronounced attrition rate as Soviet would have had less AT and tanks. Most Soviet efforts would have been countered by "backhand blow" german plan. 5) Obvoiusly, a milder occupation policy would have been an real advantage in Ukrain. But it was simply impossible. Hitler didn't have the possibility to do such a thing. The nazi bureaucracy had to be fed up with "lebensraum" delires. So my conclusions: Soviet Union can't lose, but northing indicates USSR could have won by itself. Sort of stalemate is probable. [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 10-26-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: So you know everything about the squad-level organisation of the Hungarian army in 1943? Or care to do the research? Or know somebody who will do it? Speak Hungarian? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Try this: http://www.freeport-tech.com/wwii/000_admin/000oob.htm The author has done a book about hungarian army for the whole WW2

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark: Some are beginning to ask if there will be a CM2 and what it will be like, from a non-wargamer perspective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maps will be much larger :some will be abosolutely flat( except ravines) and without vegetation ( except cropfields); other will be much forested with rare roads ( Belarus); others will be marshes ( prypiat). Weather will give new effects ( very cold winter, very hot summer, very rainy autumn) and I guess snow or mud effects will be much pronounced. Units will be considerably much numerous and some really unique: partisans, milicians badly equipped and poorly trained, security troops, possibly minor axis troops. Cavalry will maybe be introduced. The number of vehicles will be too greater and the 1941 vehicles are very different: poorly armored for most, slow and unreliable. Command and control and lack of ratio concerns will give very different tactics as units will have to be the nearest possible to leaders; but the Soviet progress and German advantages will still be present. The Soviet morale will certainly be pretty unique as troops alternated suicidous courage and total breakdown ( as much untrained troops). Finnish troops will present too some particularities as self initiative was very real but communications very poor. So the terrains will be much more varied, the troops too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Something tells me you guys aren't serious. You know, not to defend an unpopular position but, there was more than one reason BTS went from 2D to 3D. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but in what 3D would be an enhancement to Civilization or any strategic or opreational wargame ( aside graphics)? I'm sick to see posts thinking a game is better because it sells to the " I don't want to use my brain too much" people. When I play those, I don't ask for realism and I don't too exhale a bad feeling about people playing them. The fact is deepness of a game has nothing to do with graphics. A game can be good by its graphics, but considering a game can be good only if it's 3D is plain stupid.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: Originally posted by Deanco: " I really gotta laugh when you guys get on your high horse about realism. Wanna know why us non-wargamers like CM? Cause it's a deep, fun game that takes a long time to get good at. And you can blow up and destroy things in 3D! And you wanna know what's REALLY funny? All you grognards like blowing up things in 3D as much as us headbangers, but you WON'T ADMIT IT, even to yourselves!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Reminds me guys saying: "how could you watch a black and white movie?" Poor Deanco...if he simply could know there are 2D game simulating strategic WW2... But it's 2D, after all. I hope one day he will realize the game is deep because it's historical...

Too bored to see what this Bulletin board has become in the last weeks. Good bye.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo: 5.) However the primary reason they were used was , they were simply there. Not wanting to waste what was probably a fairly silly unit to have in the first place the soviets made the best of the situation and tried to find a role for them. In this they were successful their most notable acheivement was the role they played in the Stalingrad encirclement. Hope this helps _dumbo [This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 08-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One more reason at the beginning of the war cavalry units remained the primary mobile units for Soviet after the massive loss in tanks and trucks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The other arguement ( and please don't take arguement literally) is that if a simplified clone came out and consumers bought it,that could lead them to look for more detailed and realistic games such as CM.Could Close Combat or the Campaign series have led some gamers to CM? ........Its possible.

Indépendamment des brillants résultats de ton école du rire, je me demandais combien de temps il te faudrait pour te rendre compte entre mon très mauvais anglais et mon surnom que j'ai la meme nationalité que toi( regarde ma fiche). T'es vraiment un petit génie. PS: je sais très bien qu'il n'y a pas de maréchal dans CM et ce n'était pas le sujet de ma remarque, sauf à ne pas vouloir ou pouvoir comprendre. Ce que j'ai appris, c'est qu'il y a maintenant des.... dont il ne faut plus que je me soucie. [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-30-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki: Us wargamers tend to be hard to please and no clone would satisfy me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Loki, I haven't say CM will lose wargamers. I've said consumers, you konw guys buying games for graphics...