Chupacabra

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351: Would it not be unrealistic for a late-war German commander to send a squad of inexperienced men out on recon, who would surrender to the first American forces they encountered? It's realistic, and INTERESTING too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jim - Again, you can currently simulate this in CM. Give Germans green or conscript units, and they will perform poorly and surrender quickly. I guess my main question is, what are you trying to simulate which CM doesn't currently model? To make Americans break quickly, make the majority green. To make late-war German forces brittle, poorly-trained, and likely to surrender, make them green or conscript. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Pillar - I laughed at the Jim Beam ad, so don't look at me ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351: The study of history is completely based upon generalizing and making assumptions in order to create an idea of the BIGGER PICTURE <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here's a story which may illustrate my feelings on this. I was in 10th grade, giving a presentation in front of my history class. I think it was about American public opinion regarding Lend-Lease. I remember at one point starting a sentance that read "The people thought that..." I didn't get any further, because I hear a low growl from my history teacher: "Which people?" I stopped, and asked "Excuse me?" He growled again, this time a little louder, "I said, which bloody people?" I think I stammered something out and sat down. But I still remember that. The point of the story is that history can involve the study of trends, yes. But the danger lies in over-generalizing, which in my opinion, you are doing. I'm currently studying for an MA in International History, which might help explain where I'm coming from. But if I stated in one of my papers that "American troops broke faster but rallied sooner than German troops, as some sort of national quality, independent of training or leadership," I feel quite certain that I would fail that paper. Again. Training is modelled in CM by experiences levels, and leadership is modelled by you. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Subvet - Again, assuming that the general trend among American soldiers was to break faster but rally faster than soldiers from other countries, to what degree was this due to training and leadership? The American repple-depple system was almost universally reviled, throwing raw recruits into combat formations and expecting them to learn as they go. Well, some did, some didn't. By comparison, some Germans had been fighting since 1939, and IIRC, the Germans rotated entire units in and out of the line, instead of individual troops as the Americans did. It would seem to me that this would lead to better unit cohesion. So that much I'll buy. But I do not buy that this was due to some sort of national quality. This was training and experience showing, which CM models with experience levels. If you can prove to me that independent of training and experience, American units were faster to break and easier to rally than German units, I'll happily shut up and go away. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MantaRay: But I can tell you if we were ever invaded by the Guardian Angels, Girl Scouts, or RuPauls' followers...I have no doubt we would win. Ray<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but Punky Brewster would kick some ass ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

And I'm saying that you had bad luck. I've seen absolutely no difference in how troops of different nationalities, but of the same experience level, perform. None. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Subvet - again, my question is, how do you accurately quantify this? Can you tell me with any degree of accuracy that "American troops were x percent more likely to break than German troops, but were y percent more likely to rally?" Hmm, well, how does this apply to the Americans at Bastogne or St. Vith? ASL may have quantified it, but as I said, I don't think ASL quantified it accurately. I seriously question the kind of sweeping statement which says that "such-and-such nationality was historically better at such-and-such, and should therefore get a 30% bonus." Well, were they all 30% better, or were only half of them 30% better? Okay, well then which half? Why 30%? For that matter, why .0005%? From your example, was every single American soldier quicker to break but faster to rally than every single German soldier? If not, then how do you decide which American soldiers are quicker to break? Well, CM gives you a way of doing that - experience levels. If you want your Amis straight out of repple-depple and green as grass, go for it. I guarantee they'll break faster. You want them to rally faster? Pop into the scenario editor and give American HQ units command and morale bonuses. They'll rally faster. But my point still remains - there is absolutely no way you can tell me with a straight face that all the soldiers from one nation were categorically better or worse than all the soldiers of another nation. Yes, even the Italians had some good formations. IIRC some of the Blackshirt divisions which had fought in Ethiopia were fairly tough and put up a bit of a fight. And unless you can say, categorically, that all Americans were better in this way than all Germans, there is absolutely no historical or empirical basis for adding a feature declaring them to be so in the game. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-28-2000).]

Um, tough break, better luck next time? Nationalities are not modelled differently besides equipment/organization, I feel pretty secure saying that. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Heh. That's the first time I've been accused of being anti-realism My point isn't that realism should be sacrificed for gameplay. My point is that the mechanism for making troops perform comparatively better or worse is already in the game, in the experience levels. And here's a question for you - how would you quantify how much "better" an average British soldier was from an average Italian soldier? Was the Italian soldier 10% more likely to wet his pants and call for mommy? Was the Brit 30% more likely to shout tally-ho, and once more into the breach? I know how ASL went about quantifying these differences, and although I never played ASL, their method seemed to me to be extremely arbitrary. It was sorta like, "Italian troops suck, therefore they get +1 on their suckiness rating, because we say so." Not all Italians sucked. Not all Germans were Uebermenschen. That soldiers from certain countries performed historically better than soldiers from others, I neither doubt nor deny. But to what extent was this due to training (that's where experience levels come in)? To what extent was it due to leadership (that's where you come in)? Even if there is some kind of Italian "suck at war" gene (which I'm not prepared to accept), how do you quantify this? Edited for spelling. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-28-2000).]

I will repost my response from the Polish soldiers thread I think that this whole nationality issue is sorta moot. In pre-designed scenarios, the author can easily make soldiers from different nationalities behave how he'd like them to behave. Want the Desert Rats to walk all over the Italians? Simple enough, make the Italians green and conscript and the Brits vets and crack. Want to model Germans desperately fighting for their homeland? Easy, make them fanatical. In QBs, I don't think it would be a good idea to model one nationality as being intrinsically different from another, because that would seriously hose multiplayer battles. I mean, who's gonna want to be the Italians if all they do is run and quiver a lot while the Matildas gun them down? Also, QBs, IMO should be fairly generic, what-if kinda things. If I want my elite Italian mandolin-pluckers to wipe out a horde of green English tea-quaffers, so be it. My own take. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I think that this whole nationality issue is sorta moot. In pre-designed scenarios, the author can easily make soldiers from different nationalities behave how he'd like them to behave. Want the Desert Rats to walk all over the Italians? Simple enough, make the Italians green and conscript and the Brits vets and crack. Want to model Germans desperately fighting for their homeland? Easy, make them fanatical. In QBs, I don't think it would be a good idea to model one nationality as being intrinsically different from another, because that would seriously hose multiplayer battles. I mean, who's gonna want to be the Italians if all they do is run and quiver a lot while the Matildas gun them down? Also, QBs, IMO should be fairly generic, what-if kinda things. If I want my elite Italian mandolin-pluckers to wipe out a horde of green English tea-quaffers, so be it. My own take. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

The original was in verse, as I recall. Hop to it! Hrm, let's see. A is for Alfred, whose bunker was shelled, B is for Bertram; the Schwerpunkte held. C is for Charlie, who charged with his Sherman, D is for David, allergic to Germans. E is for Ennis, his BAR jammed, F is for Franklin; the pillbox was manned. G is for Gary, who stepped on a mine, H is for Horace, who drowned in the Rhine. I is for Ian, who forgot the code, J is for Johnny, who fell sick when it snowed. K is for Karl, whose wife divorced him, L is for Leo, whose halftrack unhorsed him. M is for Manny, took one chance too many, N is for Nelson, refused to take any. O is for Olaf, who tried to cheat death, P is for Peter, he breathed his last breath. Q is for Quentin, took one 'tween the eyes, R is for Raymond, bombs rained from the skies. S is for Steven, despised by his men, T is for Thomas, grabbed the wrong end of a Bren. U is for Uwe, the guards thought him a Kraut, V is for Victor, who flummoxed about. W is for William, crushed under the tread, X is for Xerxes, who picked the booby-trapped bed, Y is for Yorick, who was shot in the head, Z is for Zeke, who's just plain ole dead. Hmm, the rhymed couplet makes a nice break from Combaiku form. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-28-2000).]

TK421, why don't you copy? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Ha HA! JD Horseface has been the first victim to send me a setup - I commend him on his bravery, however hubristic and ultimately doomed it might be. I will have the luxury of breaking up his sissy German attack in a leisurely fashion. Chupacabra the Multi-faceted, Negus neghast, Conquering Lion of Judah. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Oh, also (told you I'd think of more). I don't think that winning the tank battle is key to winning. I've said this in other posts, but I probably get 50% of my tank kills with infantry. So I don't tend to worry a whole lot about what his tanks are doing immediately since, after all, they're seriously lousy for parking on VLs. Second, I think tactics are often dictated by what role you assign to your different types of units. I think a lot of people see tanks as the main killing arm, while infantry and artillery are there mainly to support the tanks. I'm the other way around. My tanks support my infantry by making it unpleasant or impossible for the other guy to be in a position where he can kill my infantry. In most of my games, my infantry and my artillery do most of the killing. This tends to work well against the folks that see tanks as the queens of the battlefield. They want a decisive tank battle, I don't want to give it to them. I'd rather use my tanks to mess with his movements than take the chance of losing them in a showdown. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I posted this on the main board, but I'll repost it here, with some additions and clarifications. Original text: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think with Meeting Engagements, as with any other type of battle, there's no Sanctioned-by-God-on-high-never-fail strategy. IMO it's a bad idea to resolutely stick to one type of gameplan. So much depends on the type of map you're dealt, what your forces are, what your opponent's forces are, time, weather, number of turns, force quality, etc... In certain situations it is for sure a good idea to go hell for leather for the most defensible terrain on the map, and make the other guy try to beat you out of it. In other situations I think, as you suggest, it's a better idea to hang back and make the other guy commit his forces first. Hell, what kind of artillery support I have often determines what I do for the first ten turns. -------------------------------------------- Additions and random musings: I wrote that what units I've got will often dictate what I do. Here's an example from a PBEM game I'm currently playing - Village, moderate trees, modest hills. The village in the center offer a very strong defensive position. The buildings themselves are in fairly hilly terrain, with patches of trees screening several of the buildings from DF HE. Meaning that troops in those buildings could likely hold out for quite a while, even under a strong assault. My initial plan was, therefore, to quickly move my Panther into a position on a large hill where it could put hurt down on infantry and tanks approaching the town from his side, while I sent a VG rifle platoon into the town backed by a PzIV and a halftrack. I got my other platoons ready to flank. But then I remembered that I'd also bought a 300mm rocket observer. And blowing up towns is about what they're good for, so I held up my town-assault troops and let 'er rip. Although I didn't find this out for a few turns, I got at least a platoon of infantry, and threw a fairly serious wrench into my opponent's works. If I hadn't had that large caliber artillery, though, it would have made much more sense to rush the town, take up a good defensive position, and go from there. Also, I'm not sure that winning the tank battle is the key to winning the game. It helps, but it's by no means vital. Another also, I think this is a style thing, but I dislike using sharpshooters for recon. The way I use recon isn't just to see what the other guy's doing, but to (hopefully) slow him up, force him to muddle up his plans to deal with my units, bring up a tank he didn't intend to bring up, call in artillery he didn't intend to call in. This gives me plenty of time to do what I need to do to bring down the hammer. Um, I'll probably think of more things later on. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Without any real answer, I'm guessing that it has to do with the blanket rules which CM applies to guns - ie, mortars and up. Off the top of my head - guns can't be fired from within buildings, MGs can; guns can target TRPs (to my knowledge, MGs can't); hrm...I'm sure there are more. Again - I have no way of knowing if this is really the case. But it seems to me that crew-manned guns are modelled according to a different set of rules than other weapons. Therefore, it would seem to make sense to exclude weapons to which those rules don't apply. Not sure if this is the correct answer, but it's a shot. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

While we're off topic, let me express my scorn for the Yankees in a ten second silent scream. That is all. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Ah, the assorted Cretins begin to rise - well, more like schlugger flubbily, really - to The Challenge. In case this bit of knowledge escaped your petrified peepers, or failed to worm its way through the three-inch layer of lard surrounding your brains, may I remind you that The Challenge is meant to consecrate the new motherboard on my venerable laptop, which will hopefully be installed by Monday. That's right, Muuuuuundaaaaaay. The one after Suuuuuuundaaaaaay. Muuuuuuuunday. Repeat it several times and you might understand. Maybe. Hell, who am I fooling? The government might as well just number the days 1-7 and even then you pack of wannabe Mowglis would only get it by counting on your fingers. In any case, I won't be able to send files until at least Muuuuuuuundaaaaaay. That's two (1,2) days from now. You know, the bad day when Miss Mommy makes you get up for school after Happy Drool Day. As for what types of games I generally prefer to demolish my opponents in: canned scenarios are fine, I've played very few of them so any given scenario is most likely fine for double blind. For QBs, I'm not fussy, my only consideration is force balance. I usually play with Fionn's 76 rule, but I'm open to ubertanks as long as we both agree that that's the way it's gonna be. Oh, and under 2000 pts each is best for my computer. You may now all go back to banging your curiously gibbon-like heads against the banana tree. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Deep inside the murky recesses of The Original Cesspool, a Challenge was issued. It was a brave challenge. It was a bold challenge. It was, dare I say it, a beautiful challenge. And The Challengewas thus: Come Get Some. It was to be a fight to uphold the divine ideals of Chupacabrismo, and to smite the unbelievers with the pure vengeance of that righteous movement. An epic battle, so that children 50 years hence would climb on their fathers' laps and chirp: "Daddy, where were you when Chupacabra the Mighty issued The Challenge?" And O! how the proud papa would get a twinkle in his eye and a lump in his throat when he recalled that magnificent era, when true heroes swam the Pool. However, shortly after issuing The Challenge, Chupacabra the Many-Splendored embarked upon a portentious journey to a strange, faraway land, where Girls of Spice roamed the air-waves, and beer was Good but Expensive. And while Chupacabra the Munificent explored this land and claimed it for His own, a gang of nincompoop wreckers and socially-malajusted deviants sounded the death knell of the beloved Cesspool. But Lo! a new Pool burbled up eerily from the depths of Hades, as viscous and fetid as ever! But the new Pool was missing something. Chupacabra, the Scion of Justice, was uncertain what, until, with His stupid goddamn computer on the fritz, He had far too much time to think. The new Pool was missing The Challenge. So Chupacabra the Indefatigable marshalled his forces once more. The Time of Trials is upon us. See, therefore, the Birth of The New Challenge! Come Get Some, you bloody wankers. To consecrate the (hopefully successful) appointment with the ephemeral and mysterious Wizard of Technical Support this Monday morn, The Challenge has been issued. All Pool-dwellers who are not too dazzled by the radiant aura of Chupacabra the Luminous are hereby not-so-cordially invited to Come Get the aforementioned Some. No Hamster will be turned away. Verily, all will have their chance to be Clobberized, be it with Shermans or Tigers or even those silly Canuck things. The Challenge has been issued. Are you Hamster enough to accept? Please contact Chupacabra, the Conquering Lion of Judah for more details. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I think with Meeting Engagements, as with any other type of battle, there's no Sanctioned-by-God-on-high-never-fail strategy. IMO it's a bad idea to resolutely stick to one type of gameplan. So much depends on the type of map you're dealt, what your forces are, what your opponent's forces are, time, weather, number of turns, force quality, etc... In certain situations it is for sure a good idea to go hell for leather for the most defensible terrain on the map, and make the other guy try to beat you out of it. In other situations I think, as you suggest, it's a better idea to hang back and make the other guy commit his forces first. Hell, what kind of artillery support I have often determines what I do for the first ten turns. Cheers ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Ever see the Jackie Chan movie 'Drunken Master' (which is, I hear, currently being re-released by Miramax, who will, I'm sure, find a way to suck it up)? I'm sorta like that. Except without the master part. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Andreas, I think I speak for all of us when I say FOR THE INFINITE LOVE OF JESUS, FIX YOUR SIGNATURE!!! ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Same advice as for Hedgehog love-making<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A topic in which you are obviously well-versed... ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I love 2-inch mortars. If you use them as blastafied man-killers, then yeah, they're disappointing. However - they're wonderful for providing supression fire, and can do so without LOS, provided your HQ unit's set up correctly. Plus they can keep up with rapidly advancing squads better than MGs can. IMO they give the Brit and Canadian squads the supression-type firepower which they so desperately lack otherwise. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.