BasilD

I bought the game as it was only $25, and its not bad, although its no CM. The variety of new commands and support options make it a step above PG II which was a nice game in its time. I like the force pool concept vs the core units method employed before. Basically you can tailor your force to the mission at hand: it you are trying to take Kiev for example you'll want extra artillery and shock units...

To everyone who was annoyed that I didnt send a turn for a couple weeks, sorry my ISP died and in the end I was forced to go to another provider. All new turns should be in the mail now... ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Wellll, I'm baffled by the people who can't deal with a Jeep recon force. In my experience, if the Jeep takes one MG burst, the guy jumps out and the jeep goes careening into a ditch. What?! people don't have MG positions? All I see jeeps as being is a waste of points, unless you need to tool your flamethrowers or other slow such guys to the front, and in that case Im sure not reconning around like an idiot. As for the T8, Humbar, and T20 these units maybe could use a 5 point increase or such, in that they can take anything short of a 20mm cannon shell. But by the same token, I definitely agree with the people who argue that the Allies are already inferior to the Germans in point by point value for vehicles. I don't know about anyone else, but I've played some 2-4 game series with opponents who's play and written exchanges I enjoy. I can think of more than one person who with I have won every game played as the germans and lost every game played as the allies. Not that I haven't won as the allies or lost as the germans but I'd venture to say 60% of my wins are as the germans and I ALWAYS switch off sides or offer to when I replay someone. I'd really be curious to see someone analyze on of the CM ladders' results and see just what the percentage of German vs Allied wins is. Offhand I would not be at all surprised if it was 60-40 germans. In any case my point is that any point increase is just going to take away one of the only advantages the allies have left: superior light armour. I strongly feel that already, for play balance purposes the cost of most allied tanks should be reduced by about 10%, but as it is now the imbalance is not that great. Still, it exists, and not just in armour. Another problem is that the Allies do not have anything close to the flexibility in infantry purchases. But thats not the subject here. My proposal, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it that I've seen, perhaps even its already in the game, but why not simply make a distinction between wheeled and tracked vehicles in terms of on-road and off-road movement? Simply give wheeled vehicles a bonus on roads, and a corresponding penalty(ies) off road? The idea of making spotting ability lower at high speeds also seems viable. Anyways I'm sure ive missed something but thats all I can think of at the moment. Oh yeah, just a general suggestion but using random weather or time can really even things out for the allies... ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Hate to do this but the phrase very unique is completely improper: unique means "one-of-a-kind" and not "unusual". However this mistake is made so commonly that I suppose the very nature of the word can be considered to have been changed thru misuse.

I often recommend hardware purchases professionally and accordingly try to keep up on all the latest hardware. I have to say that for that system, I would go with the 32 meg GeForce2 MX. You can get one for about $120 on the net, and its a much faster card than the Voodoo 3000, plus it supports FSAA and 32 bit color. It does NOT support hardware FSAA, only the Voodoo 5 does so, and by all reports the quality of the FSAA on the Voodoo is a bit better. The Nvidia card uses "super-sampling" which means it say renders internally at 1600*1200 and then converts the output to 1024*768. Honestly tho I dont think that card+CPU has the horsepower to really use FSAA well anyways, I would just play at 1280*1024 and enjoy Also if you don't have 128 megs get it. As a side issue, alot of people imo spend too much time and money on their graphics card and cpu, the 2 items that age the fastest on their machine. A wise investment in a really good monitor will last you 5 years, and likewise a really good set of speakers can last just as long if not longer. A cpu lasts maybe 2 years and a video card not even that really. I've never yet spent (tho I've been damn tempted to get a GeForce2 GTS) more than $120 on a video card,and no moe than $225 on a CPU. Instead I spent my money on things like a Hitachi 19" 753 which is truly a great monitor and I anticipate having it for a long time. I also heartily recommend the Klipsch Pro-Media 400 speakers, they have sound quality better than many $1500 systems and are basically so loud that its impossible to turn them up past 5 without permanent hearing loss Likewise the Soundblaster Live gold I bought 3 years ago is still as good of a card as can be bought now. All these items will still probably be part of my system 3 years from now when that $250 Geforce GTS is collecting dust or in the trash. I'm still using my G400 since its 2d is peerless and the 3d runs all the games I like to play well except maybe UT which i rarely play anyways and it does run fine in 800*600 16 bit. Cm runs good in 1280*1024 but if I were to play a 3000 point game Im sure Id have to switch down to 1024. Good enough for me. I may not buy a new card until DX8 ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Another interesting interview has surfaced, though perhaps not as much so as the last one. But it does have the latest, albeit vague word on imping TCP/IP! And I think I was the first to spot this interview (again?!) Anyways go check it out! www.maccentral.com/news/0009/21.playmakers.shtml ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity... [This message has been edited by BasilD (edited 09-22-2000).]

Runs fine on my G400, but before I switched to Matroxs new 'beta' drivers I had some crashes. I only have a 16 meg vanilla card but it runs CM at 1280*1024 albeit a bit choppy scrolling on large maps.

I'd be curious to hear people's guesses as to which leaders/nations are responsible for the following statements. #1: "One answer to this problem would be to say: we should not ask the UN to do what it is not equipped to do. Our answer should be: let us equip the UN to do what we ask. We need better machinery to ensure UN peacekeepers can be rapidly deployed, with the right training and equipment, the ability to project credible force, and missions well-defined by a well functioning headquarters. To meet this challenge, we must also more effectively deploy civilian police to UN missions." #2: "We need UN forces composed of units appropriate for more robust peacekeeping that can be inserted quickly, rather than whatever the Secretary-General's staff has been able to gather from reluctant member states. This means a new contract between the UN and its members. We must be prepared to commit our forces to UN operations. The UN must alter radically its planning, intelligence and analysis, and develop a far more substantial professional military staff. When the moment comes, a field headquarters must be ready to move, with an operational communications system up and running immediately rather than weeks into the deployment. The Brahimi report is right. We should implement it, and do so within a twelve month timescale." #3: "Respect for each other's independence and sovereignty is vital to the maintenance of world peace. Countries would not be able to live in amity unless they follow the five principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence and strictly comply with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. "Matters that fall within the scope of sovereignty of a country should be managed only by the government and people of that country, and the world affairs should be handled by the governments and people of all countries through consultation. . . . The world is diverse and colorful. Just as there should not be only one color in the universe, so there should not be only one civilization, one social system, one development model or one set of values in the world. Each and every country and nation has made its own contribution to the development of human civilization. It is essential to fully respect the diversity of different nations, religions and civilizations, whose coexistence is the very source of vigorous development in the world." It gives some insight on who in this world seeks to control and manipulate internationally and who does not. ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Well Iggi I just noticed that too. Doesnt seem overly unrealistic to me...CO radios FO with coordinates, the FO radios the mission to the battery, battery prepares the mission. FO runs up, recons the target, and sends in adjusments? As for why you wouldn't run in and call a mission, well that really does depend, doesn't it? Sometimes running around can be damned hazardous as opposed to hiding back in the woods. I'm always a bit paranoid with my spotters, especially that 155 mm deal I spent all my points on Plus sometimes you dont need/want such a tight pattern... ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Elijah: Uh er ups I meant Sherman not Sheridan I was damn tired by the end of that endless post and it was a 2 pint'er And I didnt really mean to make it sound like I didn't like yah, just some of your comments were a bit over the top for my tastes. Jackson was great, but his personal quirks (which ended up getting him killed when they really needed him alive) raise a ? Forrest was a good commander, didnt really think about him... Hehe sheridan what was I thinking at 4 in the morning ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Well, fueled by a nice glass of Guiness, I'll jump in here and toss out a few opinions. JP is out of line of course in 90% of his comments, but honestly he doesn't bother me really. Granted thinking such as he displays is what causes friction and even wars, but people like him who display such ignorance just arouse in me the desire to take them and show them how it really is, not flame them up. Guess thats the teacher in me. Curing the world of ideals that he has displayed won't be solved by yelling or shooting or anything such; you just end up with the next generation brooding around on past greivances, plotting their revenge (ala germany post WWI). The people that do bother are people like that that plagurist fellow that likely aren't ignorant, they are just ridiculous arrogant asses. They really should be knowledgable enough to know better. That's probably my personal bias against hypocrisy. Still Pieper is noncupatory and unproductive as far as the forum goes, maybe he should be banned but that is not my domain to judge its BTS's. JP reminds me of the kid at school who no one paid much attention to until he discovered that if he acted disruptive and inflammatory he got way more attention than any of the productive folk. As such, by replying to all his mishmash of commentary you are reinforcing his behaviors... Regarding the debate on Germans were better etc. I think my points stated on a previous thread were cogent and no one sought to argue with them, but I will addend the matter here with some points I left out before. Strategy and tactics is but one part of fighting a war on the scale of WWII. If that's all there was to war, the Germans may well have prevailed (except for the indisputable fact they would have been nuked to dust if need be as I pointed out before), but there is more to war than battlefields. Logistics are crucial to success; if you dont have food and bullets you aren't going to win the war, not to mention the effect proper supply has on morale. Simple luxuries like cartons of cigarettes helped propel the allies to victory (not to mention provided RJR and crew a nice customer base but thats another tale). The allies certainly won the war here. As Churchill shrewdly reiterates many times in his history of WWII, the TOA where the war was won was the North Atlantic. Without the flood of supplies from America (U.S. as well as Canada), the English would have had little in the way of combat effectiveness, and the Soviets, who often faced supply obstacles, would have been significantly less effective as well. In my opinion, Germany's best (perhaps sole) chance of victory was by winning the war here: instead of making Panthers and Tigers they should have been churning out U-Boats and training crews with the utmost speed and priority. If Britain's lifeline had been severed, and the US had not been able to amass the huge storehouses of material needed for D-Day the war would have been strikingly different, in addition to the ramifications on the Eastern front. Another aspect of warfare I have not seen discussed on this forum is espionage. Here too the allies won the battle. More often than not, the allies had the jump on the axis: the decryption of the Omega code (If I recall right thats what it was called), was a tremendous coup, the allies in many instances knew much of what the Germans were up to on both a strategic and tactical footing. This proved a huge boon for the allies and markedly contributed to the success of their efforts. On the other hand, the Germans, while they had some successes, failed at critical junctures. For example, they needed to know and should have known where and when Overlord was to take place. If they had, they whole operation would likely have been a catastrophe, and perhaps they could have used the to force peace with the West, although I doubt it. Churchill would simply not have allowed it, even if American public opinion favored it. As an aside, the same goes for the Pacific theatre, the Japanese were handily defeated on this front: for evidence Midway and their corresponding inability to break the Navajo codes. One more aspect where the Germans have been historically lacking is in the field of diplomacy. They decidedly misgauged the British will to fight after the fall of France, and this proved costly indeed to Hitler's hopes of European empire and the subdual of the Soviets. On that matter, once again there was a serious miscue: instead of maintaining peace with the Soviets and knocking the UK out of the war they engaged in Barbarossa, the effects of which most if not all here should understand. I will say Hitler was very shrewd in his pre-war machinations, but alot of this is attributable to allied floundering. Not directly pertinent, but significant I think, is the corresponding failures in diplomacy before WWI. England actually made overtures of alliance to Germany at the onset on the century, but in arrogance, short-sightedness, and the desire to be preeminent in Europe, Germany rebuffed England, and so ended up fighting many nations with correspondingly little help. England and France were never historical allies, much to the contrary, but necessity forced them into alliance. As a note, the historical Anglo-Franco emnity proved to be one of the major causes of Hitlers ability to expand his influence prior to WWII. Anyways, I think we can envision the huge advantages Germany would have had in the eventual conflict if Russia and France had had to fight her if England had been neutral or even allied with Germany. Another point I would like to make is that Germany's greatest successes took place when they had a diplomat of the finest caliber to compliment their industrial and military prowness. With Bismarck at the helm, they expanded from a significant but hardly dominant principality to the strongest nation on the continent. With a leader of this stature, who knows where Germany might have gone in the 20th century. But then, Bismarck wisely considered warfare as a risky and uncontrollable arm of diplomacy: after 1871 he chose peace and prosperous co-existance with thr rest of Europe. Wars are simply not fought merely on battlefields. As for the final issue, Elijah i'm a bit hesitant to contest you since Elijah has been my handle in other venues and times, and you complimenting me on my last endless exposition. However, you've been something of a troll with the South-North thing and furthermore I think you're wrong on alot of things At the same time I respect someone who stands firm by his convictions, even if they are incorrect. I personally think Lee was a good general, but significantly overrated. Alot of the credit for his success must be directed to the fact that he had a superb group of generals under his command. Jackson was a tactical genius, and my vote for the smartest general of that war goes to Longstreet. He knew what was best for the South and best for the men under his leadership: find the best possible place to fight defensively, array your lines in the most secure fashion, and force the enemy to expend itself attacking that position. And if I were to vote for who was the most innovative and historically influential general of the Civil War, it would be Sheridan: it was he who introduced the concept of total war that vividly caricterized the huge conflicts on the 20th century. Granted his ideas were questionable from a humane standpoint, but the effectiveness and innovation cannot be disputed. Thus ends the post to end all posts ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Those look real nice, certainly beats those little green plastic guys I had as a kid...But then again at $28 you miss out on the fun of digging in behind your earthen ramparts and avoiding at-all-costs the simulated flamethrower aerosal can assault ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Yah who takes their CD out anyways Actually I heard that the cost of manufacturing the jewel cases is significantly more than the CD itself. Moving parts and all. ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Mmmmmm Belgian beer is the best in the world in my opinion. When I was there I made a point of visiting the Liefmann's brewery. No running around looking at dusty old guns for me, just dusty beer bottles On that topic thanks whoever recommended the 16 yr Laghulin, its a superb scotch. Still not sure whether I prefer it to Laphroig humm, maybe a taste test... ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

Humm 54 men one squad. How is it then that I have to play you in the so-called "lesser player tourney " ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...