Peter S

Have you gone mad? RANDOM MAPS ARE WHERE IT'S AT!!! Is it just me or am I the only one who detests playing wargames that force you to fight on the same battlefield over and over and over and over again? Am I one the only one who drooled over the vast expanse of unused ground in Prelude to Waterloo's massive Twin Battles map? Am I the only one who cried when Napoleon 1813, with its unlimited replay value embodied in a strategic/tactical gameplay wrapper, was an incomplete bugfest? Is the same thrill there when you've planned your entire troop movements before the battle of Gettysburg even starts? Oh look, it's Little Round Top and it's worth 30 Victory Points! I'll just march a crack division to take it, just like I've done 'x' number of times before this one. I just hope my opponent doesn't put any troops up there... Yeah, real fun the first few times but the minor variations one experiences in countless replays wears really thin. Sometimes I wonder whether these hardcore 'I only play historical scenarios and/or maps' wargamers have some sort of unhealthy ladder competition obsession, or, even worse, an inferiority complex when it comes to facing the 'great unknown'. Take that statement however you like it but variety is the spice of life. As far as CM goes, I would sooner have some poor fanatical psychopath recreate the entire map of Europe and compress it into one file that the game can access for random map selection than have to only deal with premade and/or user created maps. Quite frankly, had CM NOT included a random map generator I would not be so enthusiastic about it, and certainly it would not have held my attention for as long as it has. Random map generators, dynamic campaigns, mission progression 'trees' are the things I look for in wargames and sims. ANYTHING to increase longevity and maintain 'freshness' is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Terrain generating algorithms can be improved, and CM's generator is not so bad when you take into account the precious few computer wargames that have one at all. Oh yeah, I almost forgot... Long live Watney's Cream Stout!!! If none is on hand then gimme Murphy's Irish Stout or Guiness...

That superheavy German tank design, the 'Ratte', if authentic, is perhaps one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen in the history of military vehicle design. Maybe one day when ultra-durable suspensions, small scale nuclear power plants and lightweight rail guns become commonplace on the battlefield can such a beast be considered feasible, but 1945/46?!? Forget it. While it's firepower is impressive, it's rate of fire was probably pathetic. And given the state of gasoline and diesel engines in the 1940s, the Supertank's cross country and road speed would have been equivalent to a snail's pace, meaning it would be limited to operating on more developed roads and highways, further lessening its overall impact on the battlefield. Most importantly, the Ratte is extremely large, meaning even medium bombers would have a chance of nailing it with low altitude carpet bombing using armor piercing ship-killing bombs. Also keep in mind that given the Ratte's obscene cost and high maintenance requirements, it would have been an infrequent sight on the battlefield, attracting unwanted attention wherever it went. Essentially every single tank and artillery shell and air dropped bomb within miles would be directed against such a freakish monstrosity. Heavy armor or not, it would have been knocked out of action before it even reached the front lines... I'd take a couple platoons of Panthers or Tigers over that rolling bomb magnet any day... Lastly, the Maus, Germany's less 'impressive' 100 ton supertank, was another stupid and wasteful project. I would consider the King Tiger to be at the borderline where good sense blurs with folly as far as WWII German tank designs go. A 70 ton tank with an exceptional 88L71 gun was more than enough for the WWII battlefield.

I have news for you GriffenCheng+, if you want to clear BG2 within the next three to six months then you will have to put all other gaming interests aside. Many Bioware employees have stated that there are about 250 hours of worth of gaming if all the subquests are completed!!! So if you want to get your money's worth then stock up on supplies, it's going to be a loooonnngg winter. Talk about a lifestyle altering experience...

From what I understand CM's sales are so impressive that Steve and Charles have decided to abandon computer game development and fulfill a lifelong dream of becoming champion hamster breeders... HAH! Anyway, this question has been asked many, many times (myself included in the ranks). You may ask, but BTS won't tell...

Regarding No. 1: Great, I have no problems with these fixes. No 2.: This 'Vehicle Rarity' feature in CM2 is great as long as you fellows keep it an OPTION! I would sooner have this Vehicle Rarity feature serve as a point of discussion (and/or argument) for prospective PBEM opponents trying to agree on battle parameters than have it permanently limit our purchasing freedom in all Quick Battles. Considering the larger scope of the Eastern Front you fellows might also want to consider adding an option (I stress the word 'option') that would limit a side's vehicle selection to sections and/or platoon sized formations (pertinent to the type of force selected, of course), to further prevent massive gamey 'mixed bag' vehicle purchases in large scale battles. Basically Jeeps should be cheap because they were! Whether or not a Jeep mounts a powerful .50 cal machine gun is irrelevant. Simply put, a .50 cal squad is rightfully more expensive than a .50cal Jeep because it requires 6 soldiers to operate it in the field. Those 6 soldiers need to be trained, paid, fed, clothed, cared for and transported. This is in addition to the bullet belts, spare parts, sidearms AND the .50 cal MG. In comparison, a .50cal Jeep (with the same armament, ammo and spares parts) only requires support for its two man crew and the gasoline and spare parts to keep the vehicle operational. In terms of the 'big picture' a .50cal Jeep was probably cheaper and certainly more cost effective to field than a .50cal squad (especially given the Jeep's extraordinary ruggedness and reliability). The offset to the cheap cost? Jeeps are also much easier to spot and more difficult to hide than a 6 man squad. And while quick, Jeeps are also unarmored, with the exposed crew being extremely vulnerable to literally everything under the battlefield's sun! Allow me to further champion the .50cal Jeep's low cost by using examples of non-combat hazards: potholes, blown tires, high speed fishtailing, hydroplaning, small quadruped mammals that bolt across the road at the last second and spook the driver, and lest we not forget the harmful effects of 'road rattle' on the crew after high speed dashes over crummy roads... Lastly, penalizing a player simply because the side (i.e. USA) he/she chooses to play with had a knack for making reliable and cost effective weapon platforms (i.e. the .50cal Jeep) is wrong. Using this same logic should not the T-34, an extremely successful and relatively inexpensive and effective weapon platform, be much more expensive in CM2 than it was in reality? NO!!! I have said this before on the forum but I urge the BigTime team to not penalize the majority for the gamey sins of the minority.

I think Steve's suggestion is the wiser one: 1) Reduced top speed and acceleration for vehicles who venture off road (as long as the reductions are based on historical performance figures instead of a quick-fix solution to offset 'gamey' tactics). 2) Reduce spotting success for fast moving vehicles. (I thought this was already implemented?!?).

This is going to get me flamed big time. What the hell, call it a rant if you will, here it goes... Why hasn't the Korea War gotten the attention it deserves? Because a more stoic generation of Americans fought that war. Volunteer or conscript, when their country called them to fight in Korea few of that generation (essentially the same that fought WWII) protested the action, and those that did were paltry in number compared to the millions who protested the Vietnam War. And while the Korean War was not broadcast on national TV and radio the newspapers and magazines were still publishing photos and reporting casualties. And media coverage or not, those body bags were making their way back to the States. Many Americans at the time believed the Korean War was a noble cause, if not a necessary sacrifice. Otherwise why else would there have been so little protest to the war during and after the fact? The gov't sponsored propaganda machine was not in full swing as it was in WWII. I find it ironic that after WWII, when the dust settled, people had (and still do) the nerve to call it a 'crusade'. And if this was the case then why was the war against the fascists more nobler than the wars fought against the communists? Why has communism escaped the incendiary criticism that fascism still (and rightfully) endures today? Better yet, if a crusade against 'evil' is a noble cause then why has our nation's past travails against communism suffered from this same sort of incendiary criticism? Stalin's reign of terror alone killed over 20 million innocents and/or 'enemies of the state'. Add in the numbers for Mao, Ho Chih Min, Pol Pot, and Castro and their murder totals positively dwarf all the fascists combined! For what it's worth, I have a Japanese friend who is actually thankful WWII ended the way it did (A-bombs and all) for Japan. He shudders to think what would have happened if the Soviet Union invaded Japan and either took it over completely or split the country in the same brutal fashion it did in Germany and Korea. I guess if you're going to save the world from itself then you'd better be prepared to take on all forms of nastiness, fascist or not... Anyway to return to my 'stoic' argument, simply attend a Veteran's Day or Memorial Day parade and take a look at the WWII and Korean vets; whether in their old dress uniforms or wearing their VFW/American Legion duds those guys still walk tall and act proud. Then watch for the Vietnam vets; casual dress bordering on disheveled, makeshift uniforms made of tattered fatigues, peace symbols and various other buttons and pins decorating their person, in my neighborhood some even ride their Harley motorcycles along the route!?! Why was their struggle any more dramatic or difficult than their fathers' in Korea? It took nearly 10 years for ~60,000 Americans to die in Vietnam, and yet in two and half years of fighting in Korea we lost close to 40,000! Was Vietnam different because it was an 'unconventional' war? Bull. US soldiers in the Pacific fought Japanese soldiers who used guerrilla tactics similar to those utilized by the VC and NVA. Was it a question of difficulty? We killed far more North Vietnamese than N. Koreans/Chinese so it is not a question of the N. Vietnamese being the more formidable opponent. I get a big kick out of the fact that the surviving participants in the so-called 'Forgotten Conflict' to this day haven't made such a big deal about America's lack of recognition of their sacrifices in Korea. And yet many baby boomers, many of whom are still patting themselves on the back for protesting the Vietnam war (is there no end to the overly dramatized anti-Vietnam War movies?) and who consider themselves supporters of human rights, are still declaring the Vietnam War a tragic mistake. Call me cold or insensitive but I think I am dead on the mark with my generation based stoic assessment. Just as the English have lost their stiff upper lip, so have Americans lost their 'take it on the chin' attitude (the baby boomers being the first to display this lack of self restraint). Grandpa wasn't perfect and his certainly wasn't the 'greatest generation' of Americans (I save that for the generation that fought the Civil War, Federal and Confederate alike) but he never took prozoac, read a self-help book or penciled in a visit to the therapist... Perhaps the Korean War is referred to as the 'Forgotten Conflict' because the generation who fought it doesn't feel they need the special attention the Vietnam generation feels they deserve for their war. After all, if you're not complaining, who's going to pay attention to you? In case anyone is wondering, I am a 29 year old Gen X-er, 3rd generation American of Greek & Italian descent.

LEAVE IT ALONE! NO POINT ADJUSTMENTS! Is this gamey 'disposable recon' tactic a widespread problem or has it been limited to a handful of friendly and/or tournament PBEM games? Something tells me that the select few who have encountered this tactic are making a too much fuss over too little smoke. The usage of cheap vehicles for suicidal reconnaisance may have been a rare and unorthodox practice on the Western Front but it did happen (albeit in a less spectacular fashion). But aren't cheap recon units inherently disposable anyway? As to the usage of non-combat vehicles for this gamey tactic; if the fellow wants to waste points on a fast moving target instead more support units then let him, a capable opponent should be able to compensate for this with sound tactics. By the same notion, aren't those gamers who send a SINGLE Hellcat at top speed deep behind into enemy lines to outflank a wily Panther (or two) also stepping outside the realm of reality? Would an allied tank commander be so bold and/or stupid as to do this SOLO, and WITHOUT other armor or infantry support? A lone, open-topped tank braving the unkown (i.e. hidden, Panzerfaust and grenade equipped infantry) in the hopes that it MAY succeed in nailing a German tank or two? A few brave and/or stupid souls might try it, not most. Sounds suicidal and equally gamey, doesn't it? While there will ALWAYS be those who exploit the rules to win at all costs (esp. those in ladder and tournament competitions), these people are clearly in the minority. Please do not punish the majority for the sins of the minority. Finally, allow me to echo the sentiment of others here that American units ought to be a tad cheaper than they are, to reflect America's 'embarassment of material riches'.

YEAH! I do request! Please send those 'Dusty' textures to me as soon as you can! I can't wait to try them out. Thanks John

Hey Matt and the CMHQ/CMHQ Annex gang.... Where are Tiger's fantastic vehicle textures mods? You guys said they would be available today!

What's so bad about Riverdance? As far as plebeian entertainment goes it could be ALOT worse. Come to New York City and see the tripe they call modern Broadway musicals. You can actually hear Gilbert and Sullivan rolling in their respective graves... Besides, where else but in Riverdance can you see a large collection of attractive Irish girls bouncing about a stage? It's that fruity queen in the leather trousers I could do without...

The 75L70 probably made the difference in countless battles where just being 'good enough' wasn't enough! By 1944 Germany's tanks were routinely outnumbered by their Allied counterparts on any given battlefield. Every little bit counts when you're trying to keep the hordes at arm's length... 100/500/1000/2000m 75L48 AP 141/130/112/91 HE 50/46/42/34 75L70 AP 173/160/145/114 HE 69/63/56/45 88L56 AP 145/143/130/103 HE 105/97/88/73 88L71 AP 220/205/188/157 HE 93/86/78/65 This comparison really puts the Nashorn's AP & HE ability into perspective. And do you think Allied tankers would have feared the Panther as much as they did if it didn't have that 75L70? With the scarcity of special AP rounds, improved and/or bigger and better cannons like the 75L70 (within reason of course, unlike that impractical 128mm monstrosity on the Jagdtiger) became a necessity. And the very fact that those Shermans bounced several 75mm AP shells off the hull of that Hetzer says alot about that TD! A Stug with its vertical armor would probably not have withstood that sort of punishment. And a Marder would have been so much scrap metal with the first hit! However, I can certainly appreciate your fondness for the less glamorous equipment. It's definitely nice to play with different toys every now and again...

I've played Quick Battles where my tanks started out with less than optimal ammo loadouts. Other than lowering the numbers of HVAP/APDS and other special AP rounds available in any given tank, I would prefer that BTS leave the ammo levels alone. Perhaps BTS should add an option to the Quick Battle generator that allows you to adjust either side's starting ammunition levels (i.e. Low, Average, Fully Supplied and Random).

Ahh yes, the Hetzer, I forgot about that one. Good call. Its sloped armor really does the trick, whereas the StugIIIG's armor is about as vertical as the Tiger's. And best of all it's a steal at 75 points. Haven't seen or played with the Hetzer too much though. I just got CM and have been playing mostly Quick Battles in Summer 44. I think the Hetzer is available by Fall 44, correct?

Why buy Nashorns? Because YOU CAN! Seriously though, Marders may be more cost effective (almost two can be had for the price of one Nashorn) but the Nashorn's 88L71 cannon is guaranteed to punch through virtually all Allied armor at all ranges. The Marder's 75L48 cannon is good, but not THAT good. On the other hand, if you're going to use 'shoot and scoot' tactics at very close ranges then the Marder is ideal, it's a cheap tank for taking cheap shots. Personally, if I'm going to spend upwards of 90 points for a TD then I'd go for the Stug IIIG; it's got a low profile, it's not an open topped vehicle, it's hide is much thicker than the Marder's and Nashorn's (therefore allowing for the chance of a glancing blow or non-penetrative hit), and unlike the Marder and Nashorn the Stug has a MG (two MGs on the Late model) for pasting soft skinned targets. The Marder and Nashorn having nothing to offer beyond their main gun and can barely withstand a dose of small arms fire and harsh language, let alone a 50mm-75mm AP or HE round.