BloodyBucket

While we are at it, imagine the fun modders could have making soundtracks for movie replays. Can we have a Sam Peckinpah slow motion button? How about a Spielberg handheld camera effect? Credits at the end while the camera pans over the field! A whole new arena for threads..."And the nomination for best supporting fire in a supporting role goes to...(the envelope, please)..."

Of course, the ultimate would be playback with the ability to take over at any point. "If only I'd zigged instead of zagged. Let's see what would of happened if I had done this..." Sigh. I know it ain't going to happen any time soon, and IF the movie playback makes it into CMBB that is just one more bonus twinkie in the old lunch bag. I confess, I would buy it no matter what. I feel like a cheap date, but what a game!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Rooster: can someone explain how member status is determined? Ie. junior member vs member etc. I read the FAQ but didn't see it. Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have to put up with the musty and cranky old regulars for thirty posts. Welcome aboard. I still have questions that I have to look up in the FAQ or the manual, or ask the keepers of odd knowledge here on the board, and by now I should know better.

My father told me that they ran a three man recon team, consisting of a BAR, SMG and a rifleman. The BAR was for long range shooting, the Thompson for security and the rifleman was sort of the guide. The men were selected as being suitable for the roles assigned, the goal being to eyeball German positions in static situations and shoot any targets that presented themselves unawares. Mortar crews and officers were favored targets, but my father said that anyone unlucky enough to be out of a hole at the time was selected (that is, stretching or relieving themselves. Ah, the glory of war). He also related a story about a proper recon he was a member of prior to the Bulge. In response to reports of tank noises and troop buildup, division sent out a shiny G-2 major to take a look. Anouncing that he didn't see any Germans at the company CP, the major was told that the enemy were across the river. A patrol took the major across the river in a small boat, where he again announced he didn't see any Germans. Told that the Germans were several hundred yards further along, the major, outranking everyone else, ordered the patrol to return, much to the anger of the infantrymen. When inquiries as to the results of the patrol were made, the response was that the major had reported that the men were overtired and jumpy, and the Germans were making noises to spook them. For security on a normal patrol or march, those who were new or in the bad graces of the officers or senior NCOs walked "point" and located the enemy. This duty was rotated as a way of sharing the danger, since contact usually meant death for the "scouts". One of the good points about being a BAR gunner, according to dad, was that you weren't asked to "scout".

Interesting. When I run a multiplayer "team" game later on, I was planning to make platoons with panicked HQs, or maybe that had taken casualties, unable to communicate to the company HQ for a turn. Perhaps a bigger morale "hit" for HQ casualties?

If I recall correctly, the official BTS word on this is that the squad is the base unit of CM and this will not change. That is, you can't get specific beyond splitting the squad, as this would soon get into the realm of tracking and directing individual soldiers. If I don't recall correctly, I apologize in advance, but the above sounds right to my aging brain.

Courtesy costs nothing. Many things can put one out of joint. A death in the family, stress from work, etc. Even if offended, often extending a little courtesy in return will defuse an antognistic situation. If someone is being rude, I try to remember that they are either having a bad moment that I can't begin to fathom or they are by nature unpleasant, and can't help it. Either way, rudeness in return is uncalled for. Of course, I can't say that I have been treated rudely on this forum at all.

Rat- The two scenarios mentioned above are the only two I know of. You could always make one yourself, I am not a good scenario designer but I have fun playing with the excellent design tools that come with CM. Welcome aboard and have fun.

Just a line to let you know I enjoy your mods. Thanks. Good luck.

I remember this debate back in the 70's about the morality of board wargames. I know it must seem quaint now, but the idea of making the cardboard counters for SS units look different than the counters for other German units was somewhat controversial. My MOVES magazine Nr. One, circa 1972, has a round robin debate on "The Rommel Syndrome", where players of board wargames really think that playing the games makes them real world military strategists. The cry of "It's just a game!" has been raised before. Redmond Simondson, 30 years ago, said this: "Mr. Patrick wants to take a large part of that fun away from people. He wants them to keep uppermost in their minds that what they're doing is a sham, an abstraction, an incomplete model of the real thing. What a boring, priggish idea." Hobbies create passionate advocates, and that is part of the fun. Yes, it is just a game, but I enjoy the game very much. A little rational suspension of disbelief goes a long way toward making any entertainment more entertaining. I don't need bloody graphics, but I don't discount the value of what we boardgamers called "chrome" in the gaming experiance. I am satisfied with the current level of bloodiness in CM, but do not sneer at those who want more spice in their own stew. After all, I am one of those goofballs who enjoyed the medals awarded in Close Combat!

I have heard that it was not uncommon for well intentioned French civilians to put flowers on the mounds the Americans left behind them with white crosses marked "Latrine Closed 6/15/44" or somesuch date.

Gentlemen: I can see both sides of this arguement without casting aspersions on the motives of those making the case for realistic graphics or "clean" representation of casualties. A completely authentic version of CM would render the player emotionally unhinged after an average playing time of six weeks, if you believe some sources on the capicity of humans to endure constant combat. That would be nasty. On the other hand, to be a game about war there has to be some elements of war in the game. That there should be some thought given to the horrors that the game represents is a healthy thing, but I for one don't think that requires a gory casualty graphic. There can be an honest interest in the contest of combat without a morbid interest in the horrors of combat, but always with the thought in mind that real war, in a word, sucks. Before CM, the Close Combat series got a lot of time on my playlist, and the slightly bloody casualty graphics did not bother me, yet I didn't point to them as making the game more immersive. I don't think it dishonors the dead to remember WWII through gaming, if the simple fact that games are fun and war is awfull is not cast aside. To forget the dead and the survivors is more of a sin, and if gaming is a way to keep those sacrifices in the minds of the current generation, that is not a bad thing. I understand the desire of some gamers to have an authentic experience. I don't think that makes them bad people. I do know that it was common practice for soldiers to put a shroud or somehow cover the dead when possible, and for BTS do do the same sort of thing with a "clean" casualty graphic doesn't bother me.

The casualty BMP should be replaced with smiley faces from the board. Thus, a terrible battle could look like this:

I am going to have a three hour block of time to use CM as an example of a commercial computer game that can be used as a tactical training tool for my reserve unit. My plan is to have two machines on a LAN. Two teams of players will generate a plan for each side using info from a situation brief, and then execute that plan in the game. After the game, there will be a critique. The scenario should be fairly simple, with clear objectives. It should have some elements of combined arms, some variety of unit types, and have a good historical feel to it. Any nominations for an existing scenario?

Thanks for the book referal and thanks to JasonC for the info. I think that the security platoon will do nicely for my little scenario. I am trying to give both sides a little variety to make the players think about proper employment of units with different capabilities, without being ahistorical. The basic plan is to give each team of officers a situation brief, have them come up with a five paragraph order and try to execute it within the game, and have an after action critique. We will have two "moderators" with CM experience helping each team use the game. I was thinking that since I have a three hour block of time, a company sized infantry fight with a little armor support should be about right. The game will be played on a LAN, I almost wish we could do it by e-mail so I could have the turns to review afterwords, but some screenshots should do it. Any ideas for an existing scenario that might fill the bill? I was thinking of "Wiltz", but for a first game I think a more rural setting might be the ticket.

Thanks. I am designing a scenario to introduce a group of officers to CM, and I want to give them a mixed force to make them think about employing green troops, and since it takes place in June of '44, they seem the logical choice.

Any of you grogs have info on the sicherung units in the game? I am thinking of using a platoon of them in a scenario as "second rate" green troops, and was just wondering if this was accurate. A search proved futile. I'm guessing they were used for rear area security and for anti partisan type work, but I have no solid information to back it up. I am assuming that they would be composed of men not up to frontline duty. Would they be used for local defense? Thanks in advance.

Miles of roads were built during the American Civil War with saws and hand axes. I think modern man has become so used to power tools that we forget what is possible without them.

*Whew!* For a second I thought the thread was "Chains Saws and German Prisoners".

A search here with the time set to November or October will give good results. I second the recommendation for Der Kessel. An excellent site.

I use +4 because the larger units are more likely to intimidate my opponent.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Interesting posts in this thread; I especially like the first hand accounts of bazooka and PIAT use. "every tank a Tiger" - too true!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Strictly second hand. I sat my father down with a video camera running and a bottle of Jack handy. Three hours later, I had most of his memories of the war recorded. He came close to tears recalling two close friends who were a bazooka "team", he couldn't remember the names, but he remembered how one had died trying to retrieve the body of his comrade, and of how they always looked after each other, even in death. That is the only other bazooka story I heard from him.

Eat 'till you're tired, then sleep 'till you're hungry. This fitness routine isn't so complex after all.

I have heard one old vet say that they often fired bazookas at infantry when they were in buildings or fieldworks. He also told me how he took out a tank with a bazooka from a small basement window during the Bulge. Since the backblast prevented firing the damn thing in the usual manner (small room), they wedged it in the window with sandbags and fired it remotely with some sort of Rube Goldberg string arrangement. Hit the tank (Model unknown, he thinks every tank he saw was a Tiger) in the roadwheels and when it bogged the crew was coaxed out with gasoline. Try modeling that in CM!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Renaud: Thanks for the weapon info. I didn't know they still made them. It would be nice to have a M1 made during or around WWII for the historical value, but I could live with a new Springfield if it saves me a lot of $$$. Ren<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not too long ago there were quite a few Garands that were surplused from South Korean service, mostly WWII vintage that were making the rounds. I got a nice one, recrowned the barrel and it shoots great. Cost about three years ago was $500. I still see those rifles at Big 5 sporting goods, but for about $100 more nowadays. Even if you get one with a tired barrel, a new barrel of average quality is better than the ones that were made in WWII. Most of the Garands I have seen surplus have a fair amount of wear at the muzzle, since you have to clean them from that end. The U.S. Government used to sell surplus Garands, but this was privatised during the Clinton years. The CMP is the new agency. You can find them Here Good luck. I love that Garand of mine, I only wish I got to shoot it more often.