Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited



  • Location
    Hollister, Ca, USA
  • Interests
    wargaming, sportscar, gaming
  • Occupation
    Microsoft NT consultant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Priest's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. On the one big tank theory... It can work...against lesser players...or in limited combat scenarios. In fact for however good the King Tiger was in the end it was only a tactical success. On a strategic level it was more of a hinderance due to the logistics required to make it function. A personal opinion (and it is just that an opinion) is that super heavy tanks are not that viable, at least not until modern tanks like the M1A1 came about. While the M1A1 is a very heavy tank, it still maintains its speed and agility, and is supported by a robust logistics system. Back to my point. A key tenet in any battle is to gain control of the field and force your opponent to react. In this regard a single Uber tank is more viable on the defence, were its postion can dictate certian enemy behavior. Still it is rare that all lanes of manuever are covered by this behemoth and thus the more manuever elements the attacker has the more he can force the defender to react. Once the attacker forces the defender to move the Uber tank the attacker wins the initiative as the starting locale of the uber tank usually designates an important area and/or approach. The limited manueverability and options available to an Uber tank is even more limited on the attack. Most advanced players will tell you that while in a one and one face off a KT will win versus a platoon of Mk IVs a platoon of Mk IVs is better than a single KT overall. Why? Because the Mk IVs can move and manuever and add three guns to the field. Also it takes three successful attacks made by the enemy to neutralize them. Hence the idea of a mobile reserve comes into play. I suppose that the single Uber tank could be a mobile reserve force but then again it does not have the advantages (number, extra guns, etc) that are listed above. That is some of my basic thoughts, and I do hope we can make a discussion out of this. [ June 17, 2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]
  2. To answer an above question about aggressive players. I think it has alot to do with how you define aggressive play. Simple aggressivness is bad. Mindful and coordinated aggressivness can be good though. Instead of trying to explain this go to CMHQ and read some of Fionn's AARs. He successfully combines an aggresive stance in his mindset and tactics to create confusion and hesitation in his opponents. As I have played him I understand how dangerous this can be. I do think aggressivness does introduce more dangers than a more passive approach but if you can recognize that and integrate those risks into your battle plan they can be overcome and accounted for, although there is a line between aggressive and just plain dumb.
  3. My girlfriend has given up, she just uses it as a guilt trip to get presents.
  4. Or you could spend 15 bucks if it is that important and install another CD Drive.
  5. I have been playing CMBO from day one and no disk wear out yet, not sure what the issue is...
  6. Well seeing as how the Russians used the FT-17 for their MS tanks and the Christie tank as the basis for their BT tanks it would make a logical sense if they used the British concept and basic designs for their own "Landships". The concept was originally British, going as far as the department responsible with tank design and production being more similiar to it's naval counterpart than it's army counterpart in many ways. If you have information that proves otherwise please share, I am always interested in free knowledge.
  7. "At the beginning of the 1930's, when widespread investigation into the field of AFVs ws being carried out in the Soviet Union, the Red Army staff intended vehicles of the heavy, multi-turreted type to operate as a shock force when breaking through enemy defensive positions. This required the use of the "Bronenoster" (Ironclads) of immense dimensions and having extraordinary firepower. Based on the general philosophy of the British A-1 "Independent" tank (a speciman was never actually purchased), the 36.4 ton (37,000kg) prototype of the T-35 was manufactured." - Tanks of the World - MBI Publishing - David Miller - 2000
  8. I am very hungry!!!!!!!! And it is not BFC's fault that you live in Europa either [ April 11, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]
  9. SARD Actually I was on track to go to the Air Force Academy at one point, blew out my knee and was told that it would restrict which fields I could go into within the military. It just happened to exclude what I wanted to do so I moved on. As far as what Sudden Strike and the others have to do with it is that if you ask the greater majority of people in the world they will call them wargames. And they do have a "campaign" system to some extent. Whatever, as I said I wouldnt mind a campaign system per say, I would just want it done right. I simply taking a realistic point of view. We do not understand the situation as BFC does, and since we do not have that perspective then anything other than an uninformed opinion can we pose (which I have stated on every post, this is all just my opinion). BFC is quite aware (again opinion but since this type of thread pops up about once every two weeks and the same people pile in I would say they are aware)and has held the same line each and every time. This may change and if done right that would make me happy. But I will be honest, I do not know what "right" is and my impression is that BFC does not think it can be done or is not interested in doing it. Just my thoughts. I treat CM games as a tactical simulator based on WWII equipment and formations. Anyways I think a lot of people here are thinking that I am insulting with them, disagreeing, and/or flaming them. I am not on any of those accounts. But the answer to this question has already been given, at least as how it pertains to the present (again just my opinion).
  10. I will actually in a lot of ways been going forward in the war. So far I have not played anything after Jan 43 IRCC in CMBB with most games in 41 and 42. Heck CMBO units are lightyears ahead of what I command around the field
  11. Scheoner (forgive me if I spelled it wrong) First off when did I say I did not want a campaign style game or functionality? Simply understanding reality does not signify lack of want. I want a Ferrari, the reality is that I cannot have one. There are a variety of factors that make this so, just like the overall issue of this thread. If I did not want a more in-depth or lengthy campaign mode why did I bust my hump in CPX and CMMC1? Anyhow any request you make is more work for BFC, which means more time, and more attention taken away from the core focus of the game. There is also a risk of feature creep and losing scope of the project. There is also the whole "WE MAKE REALISTIC AND SUPERIOR WARGAMES" thing they have going (I am not speaking for them, just my opinion). All this has been said again and again and again and again. Might it happen at some point? Sure. Likely? As far as I can tell, no. One last thing, if you are so willing to throw reality out the window then might I suggest C&C Generals or maybe Starcraft, Sudden Strike???? Oh one more last last thing, units did not often "Go Away" but there would be no "advancement" on a operational with regards to "experience". And you might fight in Market Garden and then not fight again really until the Rhine, wow two large battles for the whole of the war depending if you got plastered at some point, WOOOHOOO! Not really worth it. (meant to be somewhat extreme).
  12. Entire Campaigns are unrealistic. Even in CMBB terms, so lets forget the war for a minute. Go to www.cmmc2.org and I think there are some AARs for the CMMC1 battle. The units active in combat were so shredded that many would have to be pulled back for long lengths of time or broken up or compeletely reformed. Also having "external" factors on a battle you fight matter means that what you are doing has to matter. The level of impact at the higher level of a campaign is usually not effected by the actions of a platoon or even a company. Maybe a battalion, maybe not. You are talking about a new interface, AI, core coding, existing coding redone with regards to AI, and in essence asking for something (this is the big one) out of the scope of the CM games. You could make the arguement that the Madden football game you bought should include a baseball game also. I mean both are sports right and you have to sim the offseason and you need something to do right??? In reality they are both different sports in the same genre or in other words while both are sports they are not in "scope" of one another. And just so you dont think I am ignoring the whole Steel Panther CCIII thingy, those were meant to be games, CM was meant to be more towards (IMO) the simulation aspect.
  13. I am in love. (With the tank not Noobie )
  • Create New...