The Commissar

I would tell you, but <- I GOT PLACES TO GO So there. Im important too.

Hey BTS, got a question (more of a request I suppose) for you. Do you see the possibility of including a "Berserk" mode along with the other various morale states? Perhaps this mode would not be seen quite as much as the panick modes, but it would be realistic. Plus it would really bring out the intensity and ferociousness seen on the Ostfront. Just to cover my own arse, I dont see any major issues with it at the moment. It won't unbalance gameplay it seems. It would be a cool feature. I dont know about how hard it would be to code. Im guessing this would be the major downfall. I think it is worthwhile to include because sometimes men break and other time they exert themselves to the end. I'm also pretty sure it happened in real life and especially on the East Front, where such an animosity was displayed between the two opposing forces fighting each other. Uh...did I miss anything?

I don't think surrender and overall behaviours are something that could effectively and realistically be modelled. Tolstoy put it quite well, I think, when he said "...the fate of a batallion rests on the man who cries either 'We are Lost!' or 'Hurrah!'...", meaning there are many factors you cannot possibly include into the game engine which could effectively decide the fate of a fighting unit. One man running off may produce a massive chain reaction. The same applies to heroism, the behaviour of leaders, rumors spread by your own government, and even the weather. I think the current system is quite good. Ive captured nearly full squads myself on a few occasion, and then, on others, had my men die to the last. They all had their various reasons. You could argue to infinity about the multitude of factors which would inspire men to surrender or to fight on, but you would never agree on where,when or to whom they would apply. Just my opinion here. --- Oh, and for varioty's sake, I say include the IS-3. If you don't want to use it, dont. If you don't want your opponent to use it, tell him so. Problem solved. [ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

Mlapanzer, Common, updates updates updates! I want to see if the terrible wrath of SM's arty has reached you yet (or if it was even present at all). Who's got the edge so far?

Would be a nice addition, especially background info. I remember when I was fanatically addicted to the Napoleonic wars, and bought Talonsoft's Napoleon in Russia, the read me (although not really a manual) file provided so much information that I did not feel there was a need for me to buy an actual book on the subject. Of course, the battle of Borodino is a lot less complex then 4 years of WW2 combat, but still...general facts and a few key dates and battles would be nice. Instead of pictures of AFV's, just take screens from the game. Just as realistic IMHO.

I think the "anti-forward" people, as Pazner Leader so fittingly calls them, are merely the representetives of the "majority", so to speak. Most people want the East and West front. That's what we think of when we think WW2. When we think Africa, some may recall from distant memory or perhaps an article they read a while ago someone named the "Desert Fox" (probably a gallant American judging by the romantic title). When we think "Early War", we get images of those Pols and French getting run over by the invinvible German hordes of pure dastardly evil. Maybe I'm being a bit biased here, since I admit to not having the same desire or being as familiar with these different fronts as I am with the Western and Eastern ones. Perhaps most of us do want to see the Early war and Desert battles (although that TC covers it pretty darn well, IMO), but it just doesn't seem to show. I don't know...perhaps Im just not listening, but the only thing I keep hearing conversations and fantasies about other then East and West would be the Pacific battles against the Japanese. Am I just down right wrong here? Are all of you just dieing to get to the Desert and Early war but just keep your emotions inside? If you are, I wish I could do the same for CM2...wouldn't be bouncing off the walls then, lol Right-o, I want to hear a coupla comments here.

*sigh* By the time I get to this thread, Steve has left. Oh well, I'll ask anyway in the vain hope of being answered Steve, is there any plans for "house debree" or some such things which decrease that disturbing "a box in an open field" effect you see in every country home (ie: small house outside a city standing in grass). Im guessing this is probably too difficult and needs to wait till CMII Is my dire prediction correct? Thx in advance, appreciate you taking the time out for us hapless junkies!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maxm2: Wouldn't the vehicles look more realistic if they weren't all tan or green?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not really sure if you're kidding, and if you are, do diregard my stoopid self Those tan and green vehicles you see in the 2 screenshots are just models. They do not have "skins" attached to them yet. The skins are textured, colored, detailed, etc. What you see in those 2 screens are just the untextured blocks of polygons that are yet bare of detail. Later on, BTS will create such skins and apply them to the vehicles, producing a realistic result.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: That's simple. The majority of people here are old enough to remember the tyranical dictatorship that was the USSR, the most powerful threat to the "free world", filled to the brim with evil, capitalist-hating communists. Some people (and these are in the minorty) cannot play using these very same forces which would start up the Cold War just like some people now can't play the Germans because they associate them with genocide, Nazism, and evil. Some people just feel they need to associate with the side they are playing as. This is not a problem when you are playing as your own country. In other times, when you are 'forced' to play as a country you know little about, you fail to care as much for what is happening to your men. I have some of this feeling when I play CMBO because I am Russian. Sure, I'll play as the Americans (even though they were the capitalist dogs standing in the way of the great Union I was once a part of), I'll play as the SS (even though they purged so many of my people some 60 years ago) and I'll play as mostly any other country featured. I'm not sensitive like that, just want tp have fun. That's about it. To sum up, some people want to feel for the side they are playing as, and the majority of the players here come from Western Europe/America. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrAlimantado: Could someone please enlighten me to why they rather would like to stay with the west front? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's simple. The majority of people here are old enough to remember the tyranical dictatorship that was the USSR, the most powerful threat to the "free world", filled to the brim with evil, capitalist-hating communists. Some people (and these are in the minorty) cannot play using these very same forces which would start up the Cold War just like some people now can't play the Germans because they associate them with genocide, Nazism, and evil. Some people just feel they need to associate with the side they are playing as. This is not a problem when you are playing as your own country. In other times, when you are 'forced' to play as a country you know little about, you fail to care as much for what is happening to your men. I have some of this feeling when I play CMBO because I am Russian. Sure, I'll play as the Americans (even though they were the capitalist dogs standing in the way of the great Union I was once a part of), I'll play as the SS (even though they purged so many of my people some 60 years ago) and I'll play as mostly any other country featured. I'm not sensitive like that, just want tp have fun. That's about it. To sum up, some people want to feel for their collection of polygons on screen.

I love the way the bottom of the Stug's skirt is covered with mud. That's good detail right there and I hope to see lots of other muddy vehicles in the future. Wish you'd guys show us some of the Soviet AFV's! Enough with the German stuff - we've seen most of it. Too bad it still seems the individual houses have the "a box in an open field" effect. Guess Im still holding out for the whole "debree sorrounding house" thing. Well, you did say it was Alpha *crosses fingers*

Not a bad idea, actually. This way, one could get into better touch with history and really feel for the various formations as they fought battles for you and such.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty: What's more important? A computer game that will soon be replaced by it's sequel CM II, OR a living breathing person... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Explosive Mine Dogs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: .. but what the hell would they do between '41 and '44, shag the French women? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like a game I'd enjoy ! Seriously, East Front. How can you NOT like a game that will include exploding dogs, charging cossacks, and bicycles! I mean common, BICYCLES!!

In one game, when I had some 5000+ points to spend on forces as the attacker, I bought specific "tank rider" forces. I had a full company of Shermans (4 Regulars M4A1's, plus one with 76mm per platoon - I think this is the correct disposition) and bought a platoon of Veteran Rifle men (I was the Americans) for each tank platoon. Well, when my recon established strong enemy defenses and I was generally sure that he wouldn't have much more left, I rushed in the reserves, which consisted of this company of tanks and their tank riders. Worked quite well, too. 15 Shermans of various sorts racing through my own men and smashing into the enemy positions was quite a spectacle. I lost a couple on the way (and their tank rider squads ran off to cover) but most made it. The Vet tank riders hopped off into the gap made by the tanks and wiped up the shocked and demoralized infantry. Not too shabby. Can't wait to do this with my comrads on the Ostfront.

Maybe you misunderstood (or the author of the article did so), but I distinctly remember that 16 meg would be the minium, as opposed to the current minimum of 8 megs. 32, however, is the recommended specs. Unless this changed (and I doubt it did, becuase if 32 was minimum, 64 would be recommended, and BTS isn't making this game for FPS players who dish out the doe for this hardware), the article must contain a mistake.

Louie, I feel the same. A while ago, one kind fellow on this very board suggested an online webpage which was a gigantic collection of wargaming magazines. You needed to pay a reasonable fee to get in. Similar to a regular magazine subscription. I never signed up because I guess Im an old-fashioned type of guy who likes holding the magazine in my hands and reading the articles. Maybe it's just me. I'd find this page for you in a jiffy if the goddamned search function worked properly :mad: Maybe the fellow who suggested it to me (I conveniantly forgot his name ) will stop by and give the link himself.

Ari, Alright then, I will 1) Not much to disagree with there. As Ive said already, Soviets attacked and were halted, and then did not figure Finland worth the trouble taking into account the German threat, and so transfering troops back to where the real war was fought. 2) Actually, Ive already explained that the mention of mountains was a mix-up on my part. And I still find it very hard to believe that the Fins would have done so well against the Red Army if they didn't have excellent defensive terrain, and so this is something I still stand by. Ok, so let's discuss this Isthmus. Fields and roads, eh? Were the Finns sitting in these fields and roads then, waiting to be attacked? I doubt it. In fact, if they had any common sence, they would seek cover, no? Cover the likes of which a tank would have trouble traversing and finding targets in. I've been given a number of websites on this very thread about Fins during the war, but none really detailed the tactics and detailed positions and fights on the tactical level. Tommi seems to have a great deal of info, which he seems to get from books written in Finnish, which I unfortunately cannot read. Are any translations of these available? 3) So if the tanks get past the Finnish defenses, as you say, they are free to do whatever. I wonder what that whatever could be? With limited numbers of radios, the concealment of the enemy, and lack of infantry support, seems all they could really do effectively would be to rejoin their comrads again. 4) Awkward, but true. Roll in a muddy trench, see what happens. No, I wasn't confusing Finnish lines with guerrilla defenders. A line can indeed be held against artillerly. Was done in WW1 with the use of trenches and prepared defenses. I don't doubt the Fins did something similar. That "moon" landscape sounds awful good for hiding in. All those craters must play havoc on detecting the enemy in a field full of deep holes. 5) All true, basically. As for the justification? The strong conquer the weak. The way it's always be, and (perhaps unfortunately) always will be. Yes, Chechnia was a previously conquered nation. Doesn't justify them to steal oil and bomb buildings full of civilians. Controlling large nations is getting easier, IMO. Decent communications, quick transport, its all making controlling your "kingdom" all the more easier. The USSR fell for many reasons, the largest among them that communism is a system of government impossible to achieve and that the USSR was never really communist but a badly ruled dictatorship.

yobobo paid me big $$$ to do this: **BUMP**

Ari, I reply when you get back. Hate getting good conversations halted in the midst of the argument :mad:

Sounds like something I would enjoy myself. A *bump* for attracting attention!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: Their presence pretty much determined that insurgents had to withdraw from "proper war", which they initially attempted to wage, both in 1995 and 2000. Guerilla warfare has as many disadvantages, as advantages for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yet it can be argued that because of this withdrawal from conventional warfare to guerrilla combat is the reason that Russia lost the war with Chechnia. In a conventional war, I doubt that the Russians would have lost or would have at the least suffered less casualties and defeats as they have suffered from the results of hit and run tactics of (usually) small groups of Mujihadeen. I agree with you that guerrilla warfare has its disadvantages. It is difficult to concentrate men and remain undetected, you are forces to wait for ideal conditions in which to launch attacks and ambushes, and your men are forced to blend in with the civilian population or live hidden in the wilderness in order to not be discovered. However, the advantages proved to be greater during the course of this war. This was largely due to inefficient Russian leadership, bad morale, lack of funds and many other reasons all contributing to the poor state of the Russian military. Thus, AFV's lost their effectiveness. When they were lucky enough to survive an ambush, they could provide assistance to the fighting men. These rare occurances (an RPG shot from a hidden position some 50 or less meters away accompanied by automatic rifle fire usually renders an advancing collumn shred tp pieces) were an exception.

Ari, 1) Although this assault or assaults did not completely crush all Finnish resistance, they achieved the objective of concluding an agreement and a land deal with Finland. If this deal was refused on Finland's part, and the USSR high command felt that it still required to be defeated, it would have been. Even if this assault was a group of assaults instead of a single one (a practical theory even without historical evidence, since launching one giant attack would be very cluttered and lead to disaster in the more closed terrain of Finland), the USSR would have eventually dominated Finland, despite losses. That this was not so because an agreement was indeed reached, is obviously a great relief for all Finns who were saved from the grip of communism. 2) OK, let's look at the Isthmus battles and discuss them in detail. Now, seeing as how you are more familiar with the battle(s), I'll ask you exactly in what sort of terrain these battles were fought and if indeed this was terrain in which tanks were useful. As I see it, the ideal terrain for tank warfare would be somewhat resembling the Russian steppes or perhaps the deserts of Africa. Here, with the tank able to cross large distances quickly and concentrate massed firepower upon the exposed enemy (or perhaps their rear or flank), made the tank a very useful weapon. Even in the less open terrains of Russia the tanks still proved their worth, as Russia is a land with much open space. Now, let us discuss the Isthmus area. I assume it is not a steppe or a desert. I also assume some sort of cover had to be present, or otherwise the tanks would simply roll over the infantry, especially since the Finns did not have much AT capability (meaning conventional AT means like guns and rifles). Since I once again do not have a map, I will stop here and await further responce. 3) You said yourself those suits get muddy...perfect for charred earth with broken patches of woods, snow, and other clutter 4) To be fair, quite a few of those countries were part of Russia before the communist revolution. Poland being among them. Looking at how the Soviets bringing the smaller nations under their reign, I see nothing amazing in it. Simply human nature. If you had to fight over hundreds of miles of terrain, with much hardship and loss, to finally defeat the enemy, would you toddle on home and say goodbye to all the nice people you sacrifised so much for? Nah. The USSR was power hungry. If I was in command of such an immense nation, I would be too. Skipper, I will have to disagree with you on tanks having a large effect on the war against Chechnia. Especially the first war. Throught the majority of both wars, tanks ammounted to very little. It was unconventional warfare, after all. A tank is useful when you have an enemy in number, concentrated, fighting a regular war. When the enemy pretends to be a regular civilian by day, and then goes out by night to mine the road or set up RPG ambushes for your armored collumns, that's guerrilla combat. Most battles lasted/last only several minutes, with the Chechens achieving surprise and retreating. Sometimes they pull it off well, sometimes they do not, but usually the Russian forces do not have the time required to call in tank support.

I carry a pocket knife to my neighborhood Walden's store in order to deal with the reinforced super-plastic magazines foolishly attempt to use to stop me from wasting my money. Guess I'm just a cheap bastard that way

Thats what I do with every mag I dont subscribe to/has only one article Im really interested in. No way will I throw away 4-5 bucks for a paragraph and a few undeveloped screens.