Dr. Brian

I'd be more succinct. Combat Mission is: A game. Combat Mission is not: A real life simulation. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

The M1A1 Abrams MBT... and the M4 Sherman (all models). ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: In Recce a vehicle moves slowly, stoping to listen and senting its crew forward to look over ridgelines etc. It is looking the enemy and also trying NOT to be seen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hans, I see your point, but, the game already has an inherent built in reece command. You see, the action (i.e., scenario) is assumed to happen after the reece has been completed, and reported back to HQ. Assets have been allocated, etc. That's why they give you a scenario briefing. And just like reece, sometimes it's right, sometimes its wrong. The game, as I see it, represents a point well past the early stages of an engagment. Units are already at the Lines of Departure ready to jump off. After all, the scenario is done in a few turns (avg. = 20). Reece happens 3-4 hours prior. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: I think I will embark upon designing several MEs sans flags. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, how about making VLs different for each side, AND, make them unknown to their opponent. That way, you're only guessing at what his "true" objectives are. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanE: Yes, this is a game. But when a player EXPLOITS known game limitations in an effort to win, that is gamey. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess this is the part I don't understand (not just about you, but everyone that makes "gamey" play negative). To me, no rules were broken, and he played the game, within CMs rules and limits. There is nothing wrong with that. He used an option that was available, and won. Traits exhibited were cleverness, resourcefulness, and proper execution, at the right time. Seems to me, he has a great grasp of military strategy by meeting those criteria. Oh well. Let's agree to disagree. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanE: Answer this question: If a player feels the battle is already lost, why order a last turn attack on a VL? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One would order a last turn attack on a VL in order to win the game. After all, it is a game, and the object is... to win. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanE: Bonus question: If a player is capable of launching a "massive" assualt on the last turn, why would that player be convinced that the battle is already lost? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why/ He perhaps took to many causlties thinking he could not win? Ask him. But, he was smart and clever enough to see his mistake, and use an excellent tactic his oppoenent did not account for. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanE: This is why I do not like gamey tactics; they teach players the wrong way to try to win battles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand your "complaint," but as I said, it is a game. To me, this doesn't "teach" much (from actual combat). There are rules, and limits in every game. And, to be honest, a good "commander" will EXPLOIT every option in order to win. He did that, so hats off to him. He did well. If you want "realism" one should do the "real" thing and get shot at (not for everyone though, especially me! ) and become a major or general, or dictator... Point is, he saw he could win, and used his game peices at his disposal to accomplish that. His oppoenent didn't. Good game by his part. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PershingII: my troops try a massive assault and i win. is this gamey? tnx. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. You played the game well. Excellent use of forces to win a scenario. If someone complains about it being "gamey," don't worry too much. Just tell them, "duh, it's a game! Of course it's gamey" The only time I wouldn't use that tactic, is when you need the forces for the next day/scenario in a campaign game. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Oh well, hopefully they gave it good reviews.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They gave it great reviews... and actually, both computer gaming magazines gave it great reviews. Five stars, etc. However, I know, and you know, it is great. BUT how can he give it a great review, when he actually hasn't played it? Which, is obvious from what was written... Thoughts? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Thanks for the reply!!!! Doesn't it make you wonder if they ACTUALLY played the game, before they reviewed it? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

I hate to post this, but I can't find any information in the CM Manual, and I just read this. Computer Games. No. 121, December 2000. Page 134. "Both platoon and company headquarter units have bonus factors for morale, stealth, combat and command radius. A unit in command will react quicker, quieter and rally faster than one out of contact. Headquarters can also substitue for dead forward observers (a common occurrence) in calling for artillery" What the HELL are they talking about? Can someone tell me how an HQ can spot for a FO? I know they can spot for on-map mortars, but this, I just don't recall reading about. In the same article, it also states, "In cities, houses provide perfect ambush sites for sniper and anti-tank teams. Troops can go up to four stories to set up observation posts" Now, I'm wondering what game they are playing. I can only go to the "top" floor or "bottom" floor. Are these guys playing CM, or what? Thanks in advance, and pardon my ignorance if I missed something. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Thanks Tom… Guess I'm gonna have to click on each unit, and see it's crew status. I'd love to "get the hell" out of there, but the second round usually kills me. The armor duels really don't exist too much. Penetration is way severe, IMO. I haven't had experience in a real armor duel (thank God), but it seems a little too easy to kill and AFV. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: Either way, it's not modeled in CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hopefully, the answer to my question will put this topic to rest. Okay, if it is not "modeled," why is it noted on the screen. More specifically, what is happening in GAME terms (as it is not in the manual). Has my ability to fire decreased? My ability to move? My ability to spot? By what percentages has it decreased, if any? The manual is lacking here, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

So still, the question remains, does the game model subsequent shots weaking armor? It's not in the manual (which is very vauge). ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Andreas, thanks for the description on flaking. However, after it happened, my AFV still continued to function normally. That's why I asked, what effect does it have on game play? Anyone have thoughts on/know this? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Are the damages we see on the screen accurate? For example, when I click on a AFV that has been hit, it says hull penetration, etc. If Fog Of War is what the game is after, knowing if an enemy AFV is knocked out and how it was knocked out, is not always true. On that twist, I saw a message that said internal armor flaking. What the heck does that mean with respect to the functionality of the AFV? Is it more susceptible? What effect on game play? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

At first, I liked the idea of a radius, but after reading more of the posts, although i still like it... it's making the game not a game. I guess this would fall into the "realism" debate. The point is, this can never be "real" and it is a game. We, the player, have way too much control and knowledge to begin with, as we can move each and every peice, can see each and every little peice of terrain, etc... something a real commander would not have access to. It's a game, just like chess. My 0.02 zlotey, but I'm more in favor of allowing us to micro-manage our troops as we do now, otherwise, it's not a strategy game anymore, and I may as well find a war, and do the real thing (not a good idea). Thoughts? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: As aka_tom_w mentioned, this could play well in the Russian front where German C&C is better than the Russian. Players would have to follow realistic tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Iggi, I don't think this is a true statement, if it's a blanket statement. The Soviet's early war units suffered from C&C, mainly due to doctrine and troop ability, and a commander's ability. Is anyone suggesting Soviet units have a different C&C radius just because they are Soviet? If so, we need to clear up any misconceptions about the Soviet front. As the war progressed, their units became better. By late 1942, their mechanized infantry were smashing across the steppes outside Stalingrad, moving rapidly and keeping the Germans off balance (i.e., Uranus). As each year passed, quality became better.... But, by late in the war, the Soviets came to master C&C, able to react quickly to any new development the Germans would throw… on strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Concurrently, the Germans started with great ability, but, as happens in war for the losing side so often, it gets diluted and the goes from good to poor to bad. This can be reflected in the troop quality. Good troops, like Soviet Guards and mechanized infantry have higher quality and therefore larger radii. Poor troops like the early 1941 post-purge units, have smaller radii. Likewise, the battle tested 1941 Germans have higher radii due to their experience. As the war progresses and scenarios reflect the poorer German units from late 1942 (some will argue 43 on) on, German units will have smaller radii (on average). So, in conclusion, there is no need to represent Soviet troops with their own C&C radii (it this is being suggested). It should be based on quality…. thoughts? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Wow. Excellent. I like it. What's even better is the recommendation to have better quality units to have larger radii... so that it reflects their ability to stay w/i command range longer. Let me ask, how does BTS respond to comments like these? Is this one "do-able?" ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger: Run: To bring a squad from cover A to cover B, often followed by a sneak order so that the enemy will loose LOS to the squad. Also to enter close combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Markus, that was a big help. Thx! About this, how do I engage troops in close combat? What range does it occur at... sadly, none of this is in the manual. Thanks for your input too! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

That sounds believable. Wish it was clear in the manual. Thanks for your input! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

btt

Sneak vs. Crawl What's the difference? Which provides the least chance to be seen by the enemy? It seems, to me, that crawling would, as it provides the smallest silhouette possible. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: BTW, I have not only the Avalon Hill version of the game but the original Yaquinto release.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michael, I knew there was a publisher by someone before Avalon Hill, but Yaquinto was not it. Wasn't there another? "Something"-Line Games maybe???????????? Right on though, that game with an umpire was awesome. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

If you would ever be interested in a non computer naval wargame ... one of the best, was also one of the first. That's FLAT TOP. It's a great play still. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

T-34, late models (43+) with FT. Also, T-34/85. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!