Sgt. Spiff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: ...or at least, that's what you'd have to think to fire one of these bad girls. Trust the Cold War to produce something so unbelievably stupid. Man, if you think Puppchen use is gamey now, think of how people would use these things <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh... Heh... Heh... I first saw this little gem at the Atomic Museum at Kirtland AFB. The Davycrocket was my favorite. My second favorite was a small device that was intended to be dropped by paratroopers as they decended into the LZ. Supposedly the nuke would clear out the LZ. These things make me wonder just how much the troops using such devices were taught about radiation. Actually I suspect that a 0.01KT device would have been reasonably safe at a mile. Unless the bomb was designed to be "dirty" it is quite plausable that the radiation yield could be very low. I'd guess that the main effect of the bomb was from concussion.

I have to say that I respect Mr. Trotter for his response to the letter he recieved from an offended veteran. It was apparent to me that Mr. Trotter felt that he had crossed a line and needed to issue the apology. Whether or not the column in question was offensive is not so much the issue as the fact that Mr. Trotter felt obliged to make an apology. In my opinion not enough columnists are willing to back off and make such an apology, too often the response is to attack. I think it takes a bit of personal fortitude to come back with a response like Mr. Trotter did. BTW, I first took serious interest in CM after reading Mr. Trotters review of the game. Personally I find his wargame reviews to be extremely valuable in choosing which computer games to purchase. Mr. Trotter has both saved me from wasting my money on some real turkeys and also has turned my on to some excellent games I likely would have passed up otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: If you want some good infantry heavy scenarios go over to Col. Klotze's sight at http://w1.312telia.com. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the URL. I'm sure I'll be looking for extra scenarios soon. I wonder if the Russian front version of CM will be more tank oriented? I remember that with the close combat series I loved "A Bridge Too Far" but never got into "The Russian Front" because the game went from infantry oriented to tank oriented. I think that part of the difficulty I have is in the scale of these tactical games. To really do an armored battle justice you really need room to maneuver. The TalonSoft West Front / East Front series seemed to have a more appropriate scale for armored operations. At least I liked the tank heavy scenarios better in that game system. In CM the scale of the battles seems too closed in to really accomodate armor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by citizen: I'm with you. I'd be happy if there was an option for historical rarity in purchasing units. It's unfortunate that some players don't use the "lesser" armored vehicles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like I said, I'm still playing the scenarios. Still have not tried a QB game. One thing I like about the scenarios is the fact that they seem well researched and thus (by definition I guess) the force mixtures are historically accurate. Nothing beats the tension (and resulting satisfaction upon victory) of pressing home a methodical infantry assualt on a town or capturing a woods line, using mortars and machine guns to cover the advance. I've found that the pacing of CM makes me pay much closer attention to how I setup for an attack. Don't get me wrong, I like the tanks plenty. I just like to use them in support of my ground pounders, particularly in the close terrain found in CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM really shines with this kind of warfare, where you have to mainly play "the grunts", tank-heavy battles seem more like chance-heavy battles ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, tanks always seem too fragile to me. One lucky hit and they are toast. Infantry are much more rugged, they take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.

How many folks out there besides myself prefer infantry battles to tank battles? I'm still working my way through the scenarios in CM and I have yet to select one that put more than 2 or 3 tanks on my side. I get the feeling that most folk playing the game go for tank heavy battles. Further, it seems that everybody likes the heavy tanks in the tank heavy battles. This is a phenomena I have observed in WWII wargaming since my micro armor days. Most everybody I played miniatures with collected the heavy German and Russian armor. Most battle fields were chock full of king tigers, jadpanzers, JS-III's, etc. Panthers were about as small as it got. I was the only one in our gaming group who could field so much as an infantry company. Actually I had full motor rifle divisions for Germans and US, painting 1/256 scale infantry figures was real fun by the way. Sometimes I think I supported CnC's production of medium trucks. So does anybody else find the infantry action more interesting? Or am I alone on this one? I love playing with an infantry battalion and making use of all the assets. Toss in a couple of tanks for close support and you've got a ton of flexibility.