Leclerc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki: I don't see war gaming staying a niche. Look at the success of other games like Close Combat and Panzer General.Hidden and Dangerous and Panzer Elite also turned a few of my friends into wargamers.As long as quality wargames come out it won't be a niche.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hope so. And I've nothing against low-realism wargames like PG. But the first was published in 1995 and I've not yet seen many new wargamers for the more detailed products. That's not to say such game doesn't have any results, but IMO there will be no miracle. Frankly, I just hope big companies will not put on the market CM clones with better graphics and simpler rules... CM would lose certainly part of consumers. Then all the games you mention are on tactical scales. It would be a shame to see wargames reduced at this unique scale. [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-29-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrD: I got my issue of PCGamer today. 91%, editor's choice!! A quote: "White-knuckled action and extraordinary realism : if this is the future of PC wargaming, then bring it on!" B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First, CM is for sure the best tactical wargame ever made. Now about the future of wargame.... there's one word in your quote deserving emphasis: "action"... If CM would have been an operational or strategical wargame, I'm not sure it would be so much congratulated in these mags. And I don't really see how to put action in strategic wargames. Maybe I'm wrong but a large part of the CM success in mainstream games belongs to resemblances with RTS and Quake games. Of course, reviews don't forget realism and other wargaming virtue of CM. But TacOps shares a large number of them without such congratulations. Congrats to BTS for the game and for the distribution model too. I fear wargamming will remain a niche.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WendellM: Thanks, John. I was looking through the CoW data in the "Century of Warfare Equipment List" file. Sorry if I picked the wrong gun (it's not my specialty). If you know more about the issue Fionn has brought up, please fill us in (especially if we/Fionn are talking about errors already fixed). To me, the current implementation of TOAW seems pretty good, but I'm not certain enough to defend it "to the last man" - just enough to say it's the best I know of. Wendell<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just my two cents... I've long believed TOAW was a good operational wargame. The game has yet IMHO many good ideas, but it falls very short about modelling operational war. It's a game where you can't have any control about supply distribution (even in ACOW supply units are a mere shadow of that) or formation composition ( with units attached for the entire scenario to one formation so even if ne unit goes to the other side of the map it will be affected by formation reorganization). The 2 basics of operational simulation are lacking. And we may look too to the intelligence model where you can't have any idea of the enemy units compsition before combat( and not before attacking them when playing PBEM) TOAW is not only simply a tactical game pushed on large scale and whatever the improvments, the tactical model will be flawed because of the unavoidable abstraction ( all units are for example supposed to fight at 1000 meters) and the errors in the databases. And these errors are too unavoidable: it's after all the work on all military material of our century by one unique man , who is more sensible to some physical data (rate of fire...) than soft factors like national doctrines. Look by example to artillery, currently totally useless against tanks or sharing the same indirect fire abilities between all nations or periods. Last, I don't think the TOAW unit composition gives a significant increase in realism over the old abstract attack and defense factors. Players are overwhelemd with figures which look accurate and complex but frankly, why a unit with 85% of supply should defend better than one with 75 ? More you look more you see under the spreadsheet the lack of understanding of the basics of campign operations. [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-28-2000).] [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-28-2000).]

error [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-22-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborne: Don't know if this has already been mentioned--there are too many postings. In the modern military the grid square on maps is all important for navigation and adjusting artillery fire. I suspect there was something like it in WWII--but not sure. I probably won't use it in this game but I don't see a problem with it. Chris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was in use at least in US Army for sure. Now about the gamey question: of course a grid is a tool unavailable for soldiers in their foxhole. It's less certain for a battalion commander. So once again, the question belongs to the fact in CM you're both the soldier in his foxhole and the battalion commander. I would incline to consider for that it's not gamey. Now I find it's catastrophic for immersion feelings and it's for this reason I don't plan to use them. If switching is added, I will certainly use grid from time to time. [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-22-2000).] [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-22-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by alex127: Only the url for the site was posted. At the time, the Handbook on German Military Forces was not on that site. The last time I was on that site was, I think, a couple of months ago, & at that time those Handbook files weren't there. I think they might have been put up only recently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I downloaded from this site one year ago... But it was then one unique file. You should take a look to the Korean war section. There are some info to small level tactics during a war much similar to WW2 And if someone looks for real infos about small tactics in WW2 take a look at books sold by G Nafziger: LESSONS LEARNED BY THE AMERICAN ARMY DURING THE TUNISIAN CAMPAIGN: Softbound reprint of 1943 original government publication. Single volume for $10.00 plus $2.50 S&H. This work explores the problems encountered by the American Army during the Tunisian campaign, cites specific examples and quotes individuals involved. Very inciteful into the tactical problems that the American army had and how it went about correcting them. EMPLOYMENT OF TANKS WITH INFANTRY : Softbound, A reprint of the 1944 original government publication. One volume for $19.95. This is a reprint of the 1944 tactical doctrine publication issued by the US Army to address how it wanted its tanks and infantry to operate together in the field. It not only covers how combat was to be handled in western Europe, but also provides details on tank-infantry operations in jungle warfare. In addition to the basic publication, the supplement is bound into this single volume. That provides case studies of how various actions were to be handled, including attacks on villages, bridgeheads, jungle operations, attacks on pill boxes, etc. SOVIET ARMORED TACTICS IN WORLD WAR WWII, THE TACTICS OF THE ARMORED UNITS OF THE RED ARMY FROM INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES TO BATTALIONS ACCORDING TO THE COMBAT REGULATIONS OF FEBRUARY 1944 , by Charles C. Sharp., Softbound, $19.95 per volume, plus S&H. If you liked his work on German Panzer Tactics, you'll love this. Filled with data, diagrams, and wonderful stuff for those of you who are interested in how the Soviets fought off the German panzers. SOVIET INFANTRY TACTICS IN WORLD WAR II , By Charles C. Sharp, Softbound, $19.95 + $2.50 S&H Developed using Soviet tactical regulations, this 122 page work examines the tactical employment of the Soviet rifle squad, platoon and company, plus the submachine gun squad, machine gun sections, anti-tank rifle squad, and infantry guns. It contains appendices discussing infantry weapons, signals, target maps, a sample reconnaissance diary, anti-tank defenses, sapper work, and tactical symbols. Range and other details are provided for infantry weapons and there are precise TO&Es for infantry squads, platoons, and companies. GERMAN PANZER TACTICS IN WORLD WAR II, Combat Tactics of German Armored Units from Section to Regiment by Charles C. Sharp, Softbound, $19.95 + $2.50 S&H, This work contains 101 pages chocked full of information. It provides detail son the fundamentals of German tactical doctrine, training, detailed organizations of panzer units for each campaign, and then begins a series of "tactical lessons" drawn from various campaigns, beginning with Poland and examining France, Africa, the Russian front in 1941, the operations during Kursk and facing the British and Americans in 1944. There are numerous illustrations of tactical panzer formations and discussion on ho they were used. GERMAN SQUAD TACTICS IN WWII , by Matthew Gajkowski. $19.95 plus $2.50 S&H. 3¥3 Š The first portion of this unusual work is a detailed review of German squad level infantry tactics using German regulations and American studies. It is highly illustrated,and provides tactical exercises to illustrate points. The second portion is a translation of the German Panzer Grenadier tactics and reviews both mounted and dismounted tactics. Diagrams show the proper deployment both of dismounted infantry and half tracks in combat. The last portion of the panzer grenadier section even provides illustrations and explanations of hand signals used for communicating between half tracks. The final portion of this work is a series of highly detailed TO&E listings of various German infantry companies from 1943 through 1945, including panzer grenadier companies, grenadier companies, bicycle companies and skijager companies. http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/index.html [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-21-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: There are 2 different issues here. Soviet union killed millions of civilians but not during WWII. I just hope you are not saying that germans killed Soviet civilians in occupied teritories due to Soviet deliberate action of goverment. The reason why so much civilian population was killed in China and SU during the war was that Agressors (Japan/Germany) was systematically annihilating civilians. USA and SU did not do the same to GE/JPN In % of civilian population lost Poland would probably take 1st place it lost 1/6 of its total population (6 million)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I almost totally agree with you except Soviet goverment deliberatly raised the once huge civil losses caused by the criminal Nazi policy in order to claim Soviet moral superiority over US during cold war and to mask part of civil losses in the 30'. It must be remembered that USSR suspended publication of census from 1937 to afterwar for that reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Leclerc is correct. Glantz is just amazing I have more of his stuff than I have time to read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And it's a very nice person, always replying to messages sent and trying to help you. I would add to your list "When Titans clashed" which covers all the war on the East Front and is a very good summary of all his work and "In pursuit of the deep battle", a study of the Soviet invention and evolution of concept of operation which truly describe the huge improvement in Red Army during WW2. Now the big question is: will CM2 include the T-35? [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-19-2000).]

above all for making the game you want to make without compromise and with the time needed to release it in perfect state.

David M. Glantz is the best historian about Soviet Army. read "Stumbling Colossus" and you will know why Stalin - the contrary of an imbecile- didn't used Red Army for offensive operations. Purge, lack of skilled manpower for artillery, engeneering, motor repair, wawerings about use of armored forces( tank division suppressed in 1939, recreated in lare 1940), reequipment with modern material were sufficient reasons to avoid any conflict with German until the mid 40's. The theory of preeemptive german offensive in 1941 is simply just crap, either formulated by Russian anti-stalinists or very right-wing western people who just reformulates Nazi propaganda during WW2 ( Germany as defensor of Western world against communism); When you look at the Soviet disposition of troops in the eve of Barbarossa, fact is troops were dispersed, not even really prepared for defense. Stalin wanted to avoid any forard deployement which could have been pretext for german to invade Russia.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Better strap in tight as Max Molinaro's newest picture in his gallery will have you busting your gut with laughter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Will be my wallpaper for some days.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroencottaar: Alright then, is there any other place to order? Because I'm going to have to convince my father to do it, and this site just doesn't look professional.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You should ask him to read the "Battlefront manifesto" on this site. Then, if he's not yet convinced, say him European customers have received thier copy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by howardb: Personally I won't hold a word against any developers of wargames because if it's good enough I will buy it. CM is perhaps the best I've tried anytime (WHEN I SOMETIME GET IT!!!) but it doesn't mean all the others are crap does it? The biggest dissapointment for me was CC3 and 4 because I had so big expectations for them.. won't have for the 5th though. BTS deserves all they can get but I think some on this board is pretty arrogant towards other games. Let's hope BTS has upped the ante in wargames, let's hope the other developers have found out how you can do it. In the end we (the wargamers) are the winners. The thing is that it's so few decent wargames out there that I think it's room for several types of games. Who of you played Over the Reich and Achtung Spitfire btw? They were not CM but I loved them both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. there are 2 "curious" attitudes: - considering CM isn't a wargame because of 3D (pretty rare) - considering any 2D wargame or not wego is just plain crap. But alas....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: But I think wego works just fine at any scale. Also acceptable is continuous-time that can be paused while you give orders, but I prefer turns. Michael [This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 07-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> problem with WEGO is once you gived your orders to your units, you can't modify them. I can accept that for a 4 hours sale as in Atomic VfV and W@W series; I WILL NOT BUY any wego system where I can't give an order to my division until the next day: it would be totally unrealistic. Continous time with pause sounds good but I doubt PBEM possible. Regards, Laurent

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark: I'm just wondering something. The wargame experience of some of us here is solely hex-based (eg, West Front, East Front, etc.), as oppose to C&C, Panzer General, etc. For those that have played on hexes and now play CM, will you go back?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tactical wargames: No Operational and Strategic: Yes. Because 3D has no real value for these scales and Wego systems aren't very realistic when time scale is several hours or days.

There are 2 differences with TOAW: - AS CM is sold only at Battlefront site, we can expect almost all players will come back to the site and so be aware of the patch avaibility. - i'm sure Big Time Software will not make some of the patchs a " new" game to be sold. As much I understand that for TOAW WOTY because the TOAW2 engine gave a real enhancment, as much I'm disgusted by the ACOW release.How to kill an excellent game by a short-minded marketing policy... Moreover, What I prefer in CM is... status of battlefront. Within the time-development limits of big companies, revolutionary projects can't simply give all their results because time needed to polish them doesn't exist. The scope of TOAW needs a development time certainly as long than CM ( ie roughly 3 years). As Norm said the last month, the "tinker" list for TOAW could be made by one more year of work. But he simply can't because of economical constraints. Too bad... even if TOAW ACOW is IMHO a really good one. [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 06-30-2000).] [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 06-30-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuka: Trouble is though that partisans confined their operations to what were basically terrorist attacks. What fun will there be in one or two german units being ambushed by a forest full of french partisans? A stand up fight is unlikely to go the partisan's way without the benefit of heavy weapons/AFV's/artillery<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. Vercors operations in feb-March 1944 were set-piece battle. 2 German division were captured in South west france in August 1944. Last, you will find some real example of FFI/US cooperation during the liberation of Brittany. All these operations come into the scope of CM. regards, Laurent

They aren't included I think... Maybe in a patch?

I've seen the same thing: one of my crew charging an enemy team. And the team withdrawed when my crew came to a few meters before opening the fire [This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 06-28-2000).]

About german army, the best FREE source is currently: http://www.uwm.edu/People//jpipes/start.html Nafziger address( for those wanting to spend money) is : http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/index.html

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/ This one should work, with choice between alphabetic or chronological list. Thanks

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/: a small collection of reports from US army. Some AAR and the Handbook on German Forces of May 1945. Files are in pdf format and some very huge.