Panther131

SS Steel Storm by Tim Ripley. This book is wonderful in that it contains a perfect balance of well written accounts of great battles (kursk) and stunning black and white photo's. This book is one of my favorites and is a WWII collectors must. Amazon.com link is here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076030937X/o/qid=986426331/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/002-1202074-7122401

Lets cross our fingers for CMII. I really hope so.

Anyone know if "Winter War" has been released on DVD yet? Also, is there any news of an improved version of "Cross of Iron"? I remember hearing talk of an improved and updated DVD of this supposed great flick. I am ready to purchase this but have heard that the translation is bad and not up to snuff. Also the U.S. release is "full screen" instead of "widescreen" If not a revised & improved version of "Cross of Iron" will a european DVD version work in my DVD (american) player? Is it possible or will I need a decoder of some sort? I would rather have the "widescreen version".

Dan E: None at all

Wow, its an Apple II.

Now thats what I call good research. Thanks rexford. BTS...I probably should e-mail you. I did not mean to be out of hand when posting my arguments against armor point allocations in 1.1 So if I was out of hand, I apologize. I do not think I stepped out of bounds but I may have leaned in that direction All in all, I was just trying to clarify the reasons given for change. I wanted to understand it more then I did and that is why I asked so many questions. I too am retiring from (I feel that this is wrong...) with out any further evidence to back up. I hope you all forgive me if I was out of hand. Thanks to rexford, I now know how to present a case to BTS for proposed change. Thanks rexford, and thanks BTS for one of the best games ever made. My hats off to you.

Posted by Slapdragon: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I want to clarify that Panther is definately not one of the ones who were braying and muling earlier. He has consistantly made useful arguments. Nor is he in the prove it BTS group. In my eyes, he has the highest reputation. He merely did not agree with me (and others). That said, I do not think Dan-E meant anything either. The nerve gets touchy when it gets burned so often. Everytime I see a "Make Germans More Powerful" thread I want to scream, and the "Make Shermans more powerful" threads likewise get my goat. Sometimes though it can be innocent, or even a well reasoned argument. It is just you have seen the same thread 10 times before, know the trolls will pouce on it asking for hover tigers, and that the Rexfords (or someone who owns more than just a copy of Hunnicutt) will be drowned out by those trolls, so you react with a knee jerk that is possibly not warranted in all circumstances (but sometimes clearly is).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Slapdragon. I also feel your pain...it is frustrating when a axis lover and a allied lover get into a shall we say, lovers quearl? I enjoy rexfords posts very much as well, and wish we did not have to enter the "I am better then you " mentality of discussion. But that can be discussed in another thread Thanks for all who posted informative / logical and interesting posts involving this issue.

Dan E: Don't get your pants wet. I was merely asking for the links to the discussions not "demanding" them as you imply. Geesh...I know alot of people are tired of this and that in this disscussion. But after awhile it seems people just want to squash you for uttering a single word. Geesh. Also, as slapdragin mentions, there are a few people asking BTS to prove the change. I am not part of this. I was simply asking for the actual discussions prior to the change, as BTS had mentioned taken place. Nothing wrong with this. In prior posts (Dont know if you have read them Dan E.) but I never asked BTS to prove anything. I have always taken the stance as to try and understand something with more clarity and soemtimes I like to ask questions to clear stuf up. So STOP with your "stop making a stir" b.s. at least aimed at me. You could say that I should read the reasons BTS stated originaly, well I have, twice. Sometimes you might have questions to clarify certain areas of the reasons that may seem "grey"

Ok...BTS, I would like to see what kind of discussions were taking place before the betas and 1.1. Do you have a link for a thread on this or was it all in e-mail? I did a search, but found nothing.

Go ravens. I hate the Giants. I am a Jets fan by blood.

posted by BTS: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree that both sides can abuse historical availability of the big stuff. However, the Allied player is a lot harder pressed to deal with German heavies than the other way around. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And now the german player is more hard pressed to deal with allied armor. So what is really fixed here? I cant prove this to you but I can give you my gut feeling. I have played, and in 95% of tcp/ip games I have played, the one with the last tank wins. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Look... if you want a battle with 10 Jagdtigers in it play a QB with different options. Sheesh... it is really that simple. The changes we made only affect one very small slice of game options and in no way shape or form discriminate against German players in favor of Allied ones. Well, at least not the way we are being accused of. The Germans had a distinict advantage before and now it is more even. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeesus....who is talking about rolling out 10 Jagdtigers? My god, this is ludicrous. Who wants that? It is obvious that if one wants 10 Jagdtigers they will play an armor battle? No? I dont understand this statement becouse IT IS OBVIOUS we are talknig about small 1000 point ca me's. I dont see the relevancy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Until a Rarity system is in place, there will be no elimnation of "gamey" unit choices. However, it does reduce certain balancing problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And it increases others. So in a sense my idea that this does not helps decrease historical accuracy is fairly right. If you essentaily change to less armor, but add more mechs for axis this merely changes th units you use, but does not decrease historic accuracy...In fact some may argue that it is less so...considering the extreme rarity of the pumas. Panthers were made in the 1000's (6000), and that panthers were used often in normandy. Geeshh...I wonder how many panthers were on the western front then pumas? Anyway...I do not have anymore time right now to write this post, I will leave it as is and continue later. Thanks for your time

Egaaaads!!!

Wait BTS, one thing. You have given examples of individual units being changed. And this is good (of course!). Sound examples of armor accuracy of specific units quantify change. But how is lowering the entire force pool quantified? This is what I am after, not the individual units. As I see it, when adjusting an induividual unit its price will rise with its effectiveness on the battle field. So in effect, by changing an individual unit, the force pool is changed as well. Yet there is a huge change in the force pool. This is the part that I dont understand. If individual units price change, in effect, changes to the force pool are made as well. Why is there an additional force pool amount change? How does one quantify a change in the an entire force pool? This is the part I do not understand. (sorry to be a nag)

Ok I guess I am wrong...My mind just does not work that well in scientific thought. Never has never will...unless I start applying myslef in a physics class. Sorry to BTS if I have upset them. Yes I love German armor, but only becouse I think their designs were beautiful. Their armor has personality something the U.S. seems to lack. (JMO) But this does not mean that, that was the basis of my argument. I guess my mind works more artictically then scientifically. Plus I would be such a lazy scientist and a bad lawer too So in the end I give up on my alien theories and say the hell with it... I like a good fight when I see one...I guess I got a little carried away. Just trying to serve and protect so to say. I like doing that once and a blue moon. I did enjoy the aruments with slapdragon though as he always had something (fairly ) relevent to say and always had lots of conetent. (even if I disagreed with him. Well the way of the....gun? So BTS (Steve) ...sorry, you win...I am no german armor specialist, and do not have the ambition as rexford so incredibly does as he gives us mass amounts of armor infromation that amazes most of us...well...hope all is forgiven and now we go back to sanity until the next UFO passes overhead. Toodle Dooo.

Posted by Slapdragon: [quoteExcept you are being selective in your memory. Rexford comes up with a good reason why the 17lb is modelled wrong, and illustrates that reason with data, sources, the whole bit. BTS listened and is making a change to the 17lb. Another person just last week wanted the 76mm upgunned but only offered two tables from Hunnicutt, both with known problems, that did not match the physics model. That US 76 did not have its power increased. The only reason it seems the Germans are getting turned down more is because they get 9 in 10 posts requesting increases with no basic.

Posted by BTS: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Like Slapdragon said, unless someone comes up with a better mouse trap we aren't changing a single thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee BTS...who came up with the point change from 1.05 to 1.1 in the first place? This is what I do not understand. Yes, I do understand that there were alot of complaints about "germen armor too abundent, but know there are plenty of people complaining about not enough german armor points. Surely it was not a just a couple of forum participants that gave you a price point suggestion on how this "better axis armor" can be softened up. My point is, it seems as though you have changed the armor points becouse of X complaints, but you refuse to look at the Y compliants and just say that it aint gonna happen unless somebody comes up with a better idea. I dont get this. It is you game so naturally you can do hat ever you want with it, but it sees pretty clear that you are looking at it from one side. After all, I can only speculate that the changes made came from with in BTS.

Polar: I had trouble understanding your post in its entirety. Either I can't read well, your spelling / train of thought misguided me. Anyways...not all people who believe in UFO's are kooks. You dont believe in UFO's? Ummm...My assumption was based on looking at the reason (stated by BTS) why the change was made and then looking at the actual change(s) made. IMO, I did not see any difference or improvement made. Only that the the units base allocation changed, that means just different units are to be used. No change in balance, and no change in historical accuracy. To me 1.05 is just as accurate as 1.1. And 1.05 is really pretty balanced. Funny thing is, now that BTS has weighed in...why is that when an allied player(s) complains or makes some noise BTS says ok...we will change that. "the allied player cries " german armor is too heavy; german armor is to good; lower thier armor points" It is done. However when a German centric player says "this point reduction is unfair" it is considered whinning and all sorts of other "german armor lover" type things. Gee...one side says german armor too good, the other says hey we think allied is now too good...now what do you do? How can you tell what is right? I still believe at the very least that I am right about BTS wanting to get more people to play more balanced in terms of sides. ie: There are too many german lovers. Lets face it, when using the germans, people could get KT's in 1000 point battles, and you would see a lot of german players, even if they did lose with that KT almost everytime.

Posted by Wolflord: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Guess what my idea is...put QB CA MEs armor points back the way they were. Heh, I can imagine that if this was done all the people who are advocating the 1.1 change by saying that there really is no difference, would bleat and moan till their eyes pop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You should check my post on why BTS possibly changed the armor points allocation. It is really just my assumption at this point. But I do believe I am right. Until soemone can prove me wrong on this, this is what I will believe. I am not an poster of the "my tiger should be better then it is" type posts, but I am one that has thought long and hard about the change in point allocation in ca me's. Its in the points allocation redux by philisitine Quite honestly though, I believe I am right, and that BTS hasnt yet even posted one comment on the whole issue, only proves to me that something is a bit fishy. Check it out, I really think it's quite interesting. But hey, I'll probably get flamed for this. [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-21-2001).]

Yes, but I believe that BTS designed CM for 2000 point battles. Only when the cry went out for larger point battles was it added. Nonetheless, I am still learning the ways of being a great commander, so I do not want to over confuse myself with large point battles. I will make my way up to this however. With 1.05, in ca me, I could afford a panther for tank support and a wespe or a hummel for infantry support. Now, in 1.1 you can only buy 1 panther and no other support vehicles in "armor'. Of course there are halftracks to use for infantry, but that is another matter.

Actually in a sense I agree with you. I dont have the time or energy to make a long post about it but in general what you have said is true. Especially for those 1000 point battles. (a typical QB allotment)

Uhh...its easy too forget stuff like that when allies have a 50% advantage in armor in combined arms QB ME's. And of cousre, everyone likes german armor more then allied! Of course!

Slappy: Personally, I think I have with my last post. I would like to see someone address my post. Would be interesting. Although I get this feeling that somebody will start flameing. Anyway, my argument really cannot be proven, I dont see how it could. However that being said, it seems to be the only logical answer left, and I doubt BTS would admit it if I was right. I just do not see that much of a difference in play balance or historical accuracy from 1.05 to 1.1. The only thing left I can see (The only motive that I can see) is what I stated in my above post. Being that, the only motive I see left for wanting to change the point allocation for german armor is simple: too many people in CM like the germans. It really is that simple. You have said it yourself in so many words and I think we can all agree with that. I really do belive it was done to "tone down' the german armor lovers on this forum. (my two cents) And I really cannot prove this too you. It is the only motive left, after contemplaying the differnces in 1.05 to 1.1. Well we will see. Like I said, it seems, that the changes from 1.05 to 1.1 in point allocation just merely shift unit selection while not really improving anything in play balance or historicalness. Consider that, now a german player will use tons of mechs (if gun happy) and pumas at will while only 100 or so were ever made. How does this sound like impoved accuracy. To me having 1 King Tiger tank on the battlefield in a 1000 pt me does not sound historicaly inaccurate. But I guess BTS does. Anyway, again, I do not see any problem with allied/axis armor differences.(ie my tabk should be better then yours type of argument. I think the modeling and the technical data is modeled fabulously. I have never cry wolf becouse I had lost a "superior" tank to an inferior one. (Though its hurts )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Runyan99 I think I like this one better than the "battered" one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No way. The battered Panther A is the sweetest mod out there. IMHO.

The "german armor is skewed" topic is one thing, but point allocation is another. I would love BTS to weigh in on the armor points1.1 redux thread. I have never claimed that german armor is not up to snuff. I think its more then admirable and works great when used in the right way. However when will BTS weigh in on the the more important thread? I am tired of this kind of thread as well, but there are good points being made / brought up in the other armor points 1.1 redux thread. I am not even quite sure why BTS has even entered this pointless kind of thread, after all there is no scientific data backing up this "allied armor is too powerful, but I have nothing else to say except I lost a Tiger to a sherman 75". Geeesh!!! Come on, check out the real thread.

Computer game: Castle Wolfenstien - the original on the apple II. Does this count as a war game? Console: Combat - for atari. (I think) Boardgame: Risk. And before any of these, army men the real deal...playing with plastic army men with my friends.