gunnergoz

My initial impression was that the airstrike was somehow underwhelming. Don't know if they are still being tweaked in the game, or what. Then I thought about it a bit more. Certainly the evidence from the Falaise Gap was that tac air fighters were very deadly against ground targets, but at the same time I don't know how many kills there were per pass, per aircraft. On the other hand, actual WW2 gun camera footage I've seen had results consistent with the game video...one or at best two hits on ground targets per pass. I suspect that I was just being over-optimistic in my first expectations, and upon reflection, I think the game results are probably fairly realistic.

Except we solved our problems amicably and won, and they never did and lost. I even recall reading about how frustrated Patton was at one point over fuel going to Monty's forces. That was Ike's call, made in the name of inter-allied cooperation, so I'd say it was far from a crippling problem.

Er, how old is the missus? 16? Actually, mine is formerly from Ukraine: when she got here she didn't even know who John Wayne was, let alone other US actors. But now she can almost recite the Godfather movies from memory. Still doesn't cotton to John Wayne, though...

My vote is still for the X-Com meets CM game. Greys vs. Shermans, what a hoot.

Complaining is normal. With this crowd anyway. I think we're well into complaint mode and the game isn't even here yet. As we were taught in the navy, "A b!tching sailor is a happy sailor."

This crowd loves to revel in its misery...BFC is just giving them what they wanted. If they surprised us and popped a new, ready to go game on the market before we knew about it, we'd probably faint dead away and then complain that we were deprived of the beta-period-blues.

Very well said. However, there is always room to discuss the right and wrong of things...and much is relative to the situation. Take your example...Afghani goat herders, on their own turf, are not killed by American soldiers, definitely in harm's way during a mission. We don't know if the goat herders called in the Taliban, but even if they did, they were doing what Americans would do if they saw armed Taliban in a US neighborhood. It's tragic that the team members died this way and I regret the loss of every American fighting man - I'm a veteran, though not of combat, and my father was a combat veteran. But at the same time, war is war, as you say, and things happen in war that are hard to understand or accept by those not there at the time. Let's just say that I'm proud to belong to the country whose fighting men took a chance one day to save some civilian lives, and possibly paid for that decision with their own lives. It was the right thing to do. After all, if we just go into "Injun country" and shoot everyone in sight, pretty soon there are going to be few places that are not "Injun country." We train these professionals well and respect them for the job they do. But when they start taking the easy way out and shooting first, we can hold them - and/or their leaders - accountable. And should they die in battle having done their best to live up to American values, then they really are heroes beyond measure.

Anyone else here think that decent health care is a human right in a civilized society?

So its easy to live forever then; don't exercise, don't blow your nose, drink decaf, let the old lady do all the sexy moves, and douse your food liberally with olive oil so there's no strain, no pain. Sounds like a plan. Now if I can only stop watching the news so as to avoid the startle/anger thingies, I'll be set.

sburke- I probably should have clarified my meaning by stating no "official" US orders...here I was thinking of those issued, as you noted, above regiment level - more at the level of division, corps, army and higher. Regiment and battalion commanders were in many ways front line commanders and their behavior was usually left to division commanders to supervise and regulate. Much above those levels you start getting into the "politically correct" army command and management and there the policies about prisoners were pretty clearly conservative of life. Privately, commanders at those levels could probably well envision what was really going on in the front lines, but they could not do anything unless actual reports reached them to act upon.

In all my reading, I've never, ever seen an "official" US "no prisoners" order at any time, anywhere during WW2. What went on at the small unit level was never officially sanctioned. The leadership might have looked the other way once or twice, but if something came to their official attention through channels. action was taken against the perpetrators. The only thing is, there was little reporting of such incidents, such being the pressure of peers and circumstance. Late edit: Halsey's famous "Kill Japs, Kill Japs, Kill more Japs..." sign was not official policy, but more of a battle cry. But the Pacific war was unique and there was much less humanity shown there by both sides. Still, I know of no Allied direct orders to kill prisoners, even in the Pacific.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "combat power." There are no numerical "combat factors" in the real world. And I'm not going to get into what-if's. The Hurtgen was a meatgrinder and part of the reasons the casualties were as high as they were had to do with the bone-headed management of resources at the Army and Corps level. "Much better?" They did not need to be "much better" only better at what they did.

With all due respect to your dad and his service, MikeyD, I suspect that many of those stories are apocryphal; my dad was a GI also and he had his favorite "latrine tall tales." I'm not saying it never happened, only that it seems a bit dubious. Why? First, because there were so few Japanese taken prisoner in the first place. Second, if they survived combat, capture and the trip to the rear, their care and treatment was pretty well regulated and managed. There was a lot of effort taken to get intel from these prisoners and to induce some of them to cooperate actively in getting their still-resisting companions to surrender. That's not to say it never happened, but I suspect the telling of the story at the time was cause for much glee and humor among GI's. As for similar stories about VC and NVA captured in Viet Nam, "accidentally falling" from US evacuation helos, well, that's another thing entirely...

Actually, if you do your homework, you will find the 82nd and 101st in particular did perform on the average better than ordinary leg units. There were several reasons for this: - They were composed largely of volunteers - These volunteers were inculcated with a belief that paratroops were special and different - They were trained for a longer period of time than many infantry troops, particularly in field exercises - The training included a lot of focus on independent operations and tactical maneuvering while isolated - Personal initiative was encouraged - Once committed to combat, they were usually withdrawn after a while to regroup, replenish and ready for their next assignment, thus benefiting from refresher breaks that were uncommon for line infantry divisions. When I say that they "did perform better" I do not mean to say that they were infallible but simply that they did an outstanding job under conditions where ordinary infantry units might have faltered. This was, after all, what they were trained for and expected. For instance, when the night drops over Normandy scattered the two divisions and intermingled their forces, the airborne troops took it in stride, made extemporaneous fighting units and carried on until their regular organizations could be re-established. Not many line infantry units could have done that. The stand of the 101st at the Bulge is legendary, but the 82nd did yeoman service on the Northern shoulder too. There the two divisions fought as regular infantry, but they did so with determination that was not always present in line infantry outfits. If I had to say what made the WW2 US paratroopers different from line infantry, it would be the combination of preparation and attitude before being committed to battle, confidence and self-reliance once committed to battle, to which you have to add "combat smarts" after surviving and moving on to the next battle.

SOME Marines almost made it to Pointe du Hoc (sp?) when it looked like the Ranger assault there might falter. As I recall reading about it, Marines from the ship's detachment based on board the cruiser which was the local capital ship, were readied to go ashore to lend a hand via Higgins boats, when the venture was called off because they could see the area had finally been taken by the Rangers. If they had gone, it would have been about two platoon's worth, so no major contribution, but clearly they were itching for a fight. I still have the book somewhere, it was quite a read. BTW one of my high school teachers was a WW2 Marine and had the mis-fortune (?) to be assigned to the ETO instead of the Pacific, to his intense frustration. The only person he ever shot was a US deserter trying to escape from a stockade in England, and that was apparently with a load of rock salt from a trench gun.

My two bits: They were hell on wheels when it came to gunning down civilians, where ever they served. And I'm not talking about the death squads, just the line SS units. They had a generation of well-brainwashed youth to pick from and they used them up. The Germans had lots of competent fighting units, but the truly elite SS formations could well be the only ones that could properly be defined as competent fanatics. They were fighting as much for the idea of National Socialism as much as they were fighting for the Fatherland. Of course, when the chips are down, soldiers fight for their buddies, squad mates and unit, but these guys had a special elan that let them shrug off casualties and come back for more. You might call it resilience bred of a certainty that they were specially chosen, had a destiny and a rep to keep. Thankfully, not all of their formations were like that, but the half dozen or so that were true blue, were really extraordinary in their ferocity and aggressiveness. It took a lot of good men getting killed to put down Hitler's mad dogs. Let's hope we never see their like, again. That's my opinion, yours may vary depending upon your medication levels.

(swish of silenced rotors overhead)

Michael: tell us the truth: was that you on the grassy knoll? Putting up stickers?

BFC has class, I'll say that.

I saw the thread title and assumed it was spam about "herbal enhancement"...

I have the perfect solution! Delete all buildings from CM:N and all subsequent follow on games! This way everyone is happy! You can shoot your panzerroomdestructowaffen from anywhere you like! (ducks and runs)

Heresy!!! Get the pillories and stocks ready! Grab the tar and feathers!

I remember being a passenger in the car of a young Italian lady who was spending the Summer in California. She was driving (a Fiat convertible, no less) on the freeway and was straddling the Botts Dots that demarcate the lanes. After driving this way for a while, I asked her if she was going to get in one lane or the other. She replied, no, those nice dots help me drive in a straight line.

"Like Combat Mission?" I've played computer games since the 1980's but never ran into any game like it unless you count the tactical portion of X-Com or Close Combat, both of which preceded CM. Since then I've tried other games but few have the charm or staying power of CM, or the ability to pull you into the action in the same way. Then too, I'm a sucker for WW2 so that helps. Oh, and did I mention that they do it justice and have respect for their subject matter and for the people who buy and play their games? That's a biggie too.

It will get here when it gets here. Sheesh, its like this on every forum before a new game comes out...the 5 year old in everyone comes out to play. Which isn't to say I'm not one of them.