Hamstersss

-Deep inside the Oval Office- Clinton: Dude, you gotta blow up a boat! Gore: Um, Bill, that would be depraved not to mention treason. Clinton: Chill out man, hit the bong and you'll start to see it. Gore: Bill, you're the President of the United States, you really shouldn't be smoking the killer ganja anymore. Frankly, I won't touch it. Clinton: Dude, just try a hit. Gore: Weeeellll, ok, just one hit. 24 hours later Clinton: Dude, I told ya so. Go kiss some widows. Gore: Ya baby, ya! ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Mantaray, those kinds of sacrifices are fine. Those aren't features for gameplay, they're features for performance and/or closer release dates, which is completely understandable. If, however, Steve posts, "No 4x.50 because it was just too powerful," then that, I think, goes against the design philosophy of CM and the reason I bought the game. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Meeks, my man.... Was that post for real or just an elaborate joke. No, I'm not trying to flame you, I just cant grasp your concept. You really think a computer game can simulate the fears and anxieties of a company commander in combat? He has to order men forward to certain death. Guys he has trained, coddled, disciplined, joked with and worried over like they were his sons, whether they liked him or not. He lays awake at night going over the plan, the organization, the fire support, trying to find a better way, one that wont cost his company so much. Then the next morning the attack falters and he has to move forward to the point. The PL is dead and the lead squad leader is refusing to move forward. The enemy is strong and its certain death for anyone who crosses that road, that field or that street. He has to make a decision. Does he threaten, cajole, humiliate, go first or just give up and claim the objective unattainable? Every company commander would decide differently and it happened a hundred times a day for weeks, months, years. And each decision decided who won, who lost, who was the best, who was mediocre. Can a game simulate that? I dont think so. Unfortunately I think "computer analysis" (numbers) is beginning to take precedence over "human analysis" (common sense). And it'll be those poor company commanders and their charges that will pay the price.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Scout, I was trying to trim down your post to the essentials but it's impossible, the damn thing is about as tight as a drum. To answer you, in a word, yes. It won't be a game, either, it will be a simulation. Right now we can't build a computer that can play a good game of bridge (Or go, both incredibly complex games) but with quantum computers and nanotech, this thing will be possible. Couple this with advances in genetics, where we have been finding more and more that cowardice, heroism and other aspects of humanity are more nature than nurture. Add to that a further understanding of chaos theory in relation to weather, which has proven to be amazingly similar to simple societal interactions in social insects and yes, we will have the capability. This is not science fiction, nor is it idle imagination, this is the next step in humanity's attempt to understand it's world. We've started small, with mathematics and basic chemistry, but when Newton showed the math for cannonballs people reacted in the same way as you did, Scout, yet we used that math to put satellites over the world. If Moore's law (Processing power doubles every 18 months) keeps on track, 20 years from now we will be looking at machines on the scale of 10 quadrillion instructions per second, discounting advances in Q-computers. Programming languages will not sit still either and neither will grognards across the world. I may have the date wrong but there is nothing inconceivable about any of this, it's just a matter of putting all the rules into a construct and then standing back. Do I think the human psyche is unknowable? No more than others thought the human genome was unknowable. Do I think that history is unknowable? Only if it relates to matter in a quantum singularity. They won't be able to predict the future for a long time but with all of the yardsticks in history, some of them reliable, some less so, we will be able to tell the past accurately. Imagine someone describing CM to you twenty years ago, a game on the personal computer built by two guys. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: I think Josh raises valid points. However, I ALSO think that most of these things are an issue of gameplay balance contrary to BTS' ignorance. We all know how devastating artillery can be, even in small numbers and with spotters. If every platoon leader could do this, and even if it was uneven and poorly directed, the sheer volume of fire would totally devastate the foe. Same thing with the half track. The machine gun it has now is deadly as it is. 4 machine guns cut everything in it's path tp ribbons. Yes, it was indeed this way in real life, however, it doesn't make for balanced gameplay. I know, i know, we like realism. Sometimes however, a line has to be drawn in the sand between what's playable and what's totally realistic. Just my 2 cents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The moment BTS comes on here and says that they sacrificed realism for gameplay (Rather than more features for a closer release date) is the day I lose a lot of respect for BTS and CM. CM is about realism. It is a simulation. Saying the Quad .50 shouldn't be in there because it's unbalanced would be like saying the KT shouldn't be in there because it's unbalanced, it would be crap and we know it. The points are nice and QBs are fun but the gameplay is great because of realism not in spite of it. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

I am not playing devil's advocate nor do I think it would be funny to argue about a post about arguing but I think there's more to it, Scout. You see, the old-line traditional view of history is just as you describe it, all the information is biased and you can only follow the most general trends, making more and more inaccurate abstractions based on them. There is, however, a new school of thought regarding history and the study thereof, and that school wants to treat it like a science, rather than an art. Anyone who has read Guns, Germs and Steel should know whereof I speak. You see, games like CM are the way that these things are set to rest. Basic, impartial information like weapons characteristics, the psychological effects of war and the effect of slope, thickness and quality in armor, are just the start. When we add census information, applied tactical theory, psychological breakdowns of the commanders and individual troops as well as a thousand other tangible, hard-science details, we will finally be able to come to a conclusion. When, twenty years in the future, we watch a total simulation of WWII, at 99.99999% accuracy, we will be able to know, as far as basic human understanding is concerned, what went on. That's why we argue about the numbers and the depth of unit representation, because without ALL of the pieces the simulation is flawed. CM is not and will never be the total simulation I refered to but I propose our attraction to it and games of its ilk is because we see a steady progression toward that goal. So I think that arguing about every aspect of WWII is healthy and commendable, just as I think Steve jumping in here to say, "No, we will not simulate the effects on troops of French food vs. German food vs. rations, dammit and I'm locking this 250-post thread!" is the perfect wrecking ball so that we don't go so far into the argument that we lose our effectiveness in it. Because there are things we can accomplish with these arguments. We will not suddenly hash out the code like an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of workstations but, once in a while, we will uncover an unnoticed but necessary and doable addition that will advance us a step in our goal toward producing that total simulation. Human beings are ultimately rational and what we think of as destructive irrationality usually turns out to be sensible actions that have incredibly complex or convoluted goals. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-12-2000).]

Well thank goodness we know what all the 2nd-string board members think. Keep us informed guys and if any of the starters get injured, remember that you may actually go into the game. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Croda, what are you doing out here? And what the bloody blazes are you doing in The Peng Thread? That's no place for vermin like you! Get in the Cesspool right this instant! ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead: Just wanted to post here before this thread dies out. {Smiley Killed)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't worry about the Cesspool being surpassed by the Peng Thread, if you read it carefully it consists of the same three twits posting short and stupid replies back and forth to each other. I understand they're lobbying to change the name from The Peng Thread to The Peng Tea Party. If you look closely at any of the waning periods of the Old Pool, you'll notice posting habits exactly like those. It is quality, sir, with a dash of insanity and a pinch of bloodthirsty singlemindedness, that you must look for in your posts, not, as the Mormon Househusband thinks, quantity of posts nor, as King Windbag thinks, the quantity of words in a post. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daveman: Perhaps Elite Airborne units could be used to model Rangers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rangers should be used to model Rangers. The argument is that they did not engage in those kinds of actions enough to warrant their inclusion in CM, as I understand it. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: It was over a year and half ago since I last looked into the Rangers, but from memory the TO&E was the same as a standard rifle unit. The difference was in training and employment. From what I know the Rangers were used for the landings and that was it. Plus, they numbered only a few battalions for all theaters. See... Elite specialist troops were not to be used as cannon fodder infantry. Airborne formations often broke this rule, but they were complete divisions so that makes sense. Specialist battalions would be wasted if they were tossed into the frontline as standard infantry. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So how were they and other SF deployed? Also, what of the Allied armored infantry that was mentioned? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Fair enough, but what were their OOBs and TOEs? Or did they vary too much? And also, what about the arguments regarding the Rangers being a combat unit large enough to be modeled as well as the missing Allied Armored Infantry? Are they really so similar? (That was not a rhetorical question, by the way) ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-12-2000).]

There's a great NZ sound sound mod on CombatHQ now, it changes the Brits to say things like: "Hey, he hit my leg or somefink!" "I'M GONNA KILL U CARZY KRUAT!!" "NASDFGKJRE ALPVXOP XHPAWEJ!!!!!!" ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

I can't believe I'm the one saying this but can we please stay on topic, just for once? I've read where people say that certain American and Allied squad types were left out, such as the aforemention Armored Infantry, and I've also read BTS's conclusion to keep special forces out of the game due to their lack of use. I don't want to argue whether or not these squad types should be in the game (Yet...) I just want to know what their makeup was. Also, what was the OOB and TOE for the underwater demolition teams? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Well, to add one to the list. Brandenburg Commandos. I remember playing Three Sixty's series "V for Victory" and several of those modules had Brandenburgs in them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What was their squad makeup, armaments, platoon organization? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-11-2000).]

Ok, so what squad types are missing from CM? What are their OOBs? To start it out, I'd love to know the makeups of: Commando Squads Ranger Squads German Special Forces Squads Other Special Forces American Armored Infantry Squads I know next to nothing about these so the more information the better. I realize this has been discussed before, so let's try to keep this in CM terms and scale. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Hey Pillar, how'd you find out about this? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

I commend PzKpfw 1 on the wording of his first post and think those who have dragged the discussion down have acted childishly. As far as tactical issues, I'm not enough of a student of WWII to provide an worthwhile opinion. Doctrinal issues, however, have an immediate effect on CM. If there were other squad types, etc. that the allies could use, I would love to have access to them. This is the only gripe with CM that I have. If, however, these squads never existed, then it's ok with me that they aren't in CM. There are 12.7 million different types of Axis squads and only 2 different types of allied squads. If this was the case in WWII (Once again I demur to the experts) then fine, however if it wasn't, including these additional squads would make the game more fun for me and, hopefully, others. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark: But you did not tell us what the truth is did you? Not that I really care but you are going telling how important you are with your so-called secret but in reality, you are an insecure person who wants attention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow, thanks Dr. Steve. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Come here, boy! Come on! -Whistle- Excuse me, have you seen Croda out anywhere? He seems to have slipped his chain in the Cesspool and is posting amok around the forum. If you find him, don't get too close, as he is quite rabid. If you have any Barbra Streisand music, it will calm him down and make him flatulate a little less. Also remember to hide your stuffed animals don't mention anything about threads that will soon be locked, because he loves those things. -whistle- Heeere Croda! Come home, boy! ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Croda go home, your sponsor has been out looking for you all day! ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Well this has ruined my day. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Now I know how Shandorf has been killing all my troops... Seriously, this is bad news, can we get some kind of explanation here, warning signs or something? I agree that public dissemination doesn't work but I would like to hear from BTS and I'd appreciate a little more info. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Back, back, you fiend! ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Croda, you wild SOB, you're one of the funniest guys on this board, now get back in the Cesspool, you little twit! ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Could it be the Cesspool reached critical mass and destroyed the forum??? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Is it? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein