Mike D

BTS, Ahhhhhhhhhhh............drooling uncontrollably, must have game..... Screen shots looking great, and as always seem to be getting better all the time. Nice work. Don't let any of the naysayers / non-3d converted let you be swayed as far as what you've done. As far as I'm concerned you are right on track w/ the graphics in this game. Mike D aka Mikester

For those that may be interested, In P. Agte's "Michael Wittman and the Tiger Commanders of the Liebstandarte" (just started reading it, but looks like another fantastic book full of great pictures taken by the actual Tiger tank unit crews during the war along w/ first hand detailed accounts of all the battles fought in Russia and the west, by Fedorowicz publishing) on page three and four he makes metion of the development of the Tiger I prototype by Henschel w/ a KwK 0725 prototype gun which apparently had the conical tapered bore toward the end of the muzzle. However, he goes on to say that, "As it used only tungsten solid-shot projectiles and tungsten was not available in sufficient quantities, Henschel called off the experiments". So the tapered bore gun never even made it into the production Tiger I and I'm not sure that I've ever heard that one was ever mounted in any other German tank either. Meanwhile Porsche, who was in competition w/ Henschel at the time to design and build the Tiger I, had Krupp convert the 88 mm Flak gun to a tank gun which was the first German tank cannon to incorporate a double action muzzle brake (would be curious if anyone can explain exactly what this means / does? Reduced recoil???). In any event, Henschel eventually won out in the competition, but ended up using the Porsche/Krupp developed gun which became known as the 88mm KwK 36 L/56 with which most of us are familiar as being the main gun on the Tiger I. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 08-13-99).]

Charles/BTS, Nice treatment on the victory conditions. Sounds very realistic and flexible. Just makes me look forward to this game all the more. Mike D aka Mikester

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......... B*E*T*A Now that's music to my ears. Mike D aka Mikester

Just finishing Steel Inferno. Excellent book. Highly recommended. Mike D aka Mikester

BTS, So which one of your butts (Steve, or Charles) did the AI attacker have the honor of rolling over? It is good to hear that the AI is alive and kicking. While I've long since given up on anyone coming up w/ a truly competent AI in a computer game of any sort in the near future (which explains why I'm not willing to hold up CM's release forever like some folks are for the AI to supposedly be "perfected") I'm certainly looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with in CM. Who knows, if it's really good maybe you'll even sway me from my stubbornly rooted (and IMHO very justified) opinion that playing against most computer wargame AI's is a total waste of time. Until then, I'll stick to using my own "MI" (that's Mikester Intelligence, or lack thereof depending on the situation and how many beers I've had), and kicking/getting kicked by, my friends "AI" in head to head play. Mike D aka Mikester

Steve, Thanks much for the update. This is exactly what I've been looking for in terms of a progress report. Any chance you could do this on a semi-regular basis? If it's not too much trouble please consider doing it like every 2-3 weeks. If it is a major pain in the a**, or is detracting from getting the game done I can very well live w/o it. Thanks again. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

BTS, With the allies superior numbers in aircraft and availability in calling in air support I have the following question in terms of game play balance and realism. How much intelligence / spotting info will the allied player be able to glean once an aircraft flies over on a bombing / strafing run? I'm thinking specifically here about what level of spotting, if any, the aircraft might be able to pick up as it flies over the target unit, and/or, other previously unspotted units. Will woods, etc., help reduce aerial spotting of units like infantry and tanks "hiding" in them? I would certainly think that while an aerial view provides for a great overview of the battlefield that spotting and level of spotting of specific units would be difficult at best when flying by at several hundred miles per hour. My other concern here is how efficient were the allied fliers and communications systems in relaying aerial intelligence on spotted enemy ground units to nearby allied ground units in a timely fashion? I would think that there would be some difficulty in this area as well. In any event, I guess I'm just curious how CM is going to handle this and hope that the allies upper hand in terms of aerial power won't 1) mess up the games balance and 2) will be handled in a realistic manner so that the allied ground forces won't receive an undue and unrealistic amount of intelligence from flyovers of friendly aircraft. I've seen many a game such as Steel Panthers and the like where, IMHO, aircraft gave way too much info to friendly ground troops on enemy positions, units types, etc. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Skip the box and the hype, just deliver a great game and good manual in a shrink wrapped / other "cost effective" packaging. I like it. Keep prices down for us the consumer. I like the sound of that too Mike D aka Mikester DOHHHHH! THAT DOUBLE POSTING THING HAS HAPPENED AGAIN. OH WELL. [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 07-29-99).]

Skip the box and the hype, just deliver a great game and good manual in a shrink wrapped / other "cost effective" packaging. I like it. Keep prices down for us the consumer. I like the sound of that too Mike D aka Mikester

I'm certainly glad that BTS already knows what they are doing w/ CM and is leaving out things like 3d shooter aspects in a game where they quite frankly have absolutely no reason to be in the first place. Maybe in an entirely different game what is suggested above would be great to see, just not in CM. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Along the lines of WP being included in the game I also seem to remember that cannister rounds were included in Squad Leader Series of games if I'm remembering correctly. Seem to recall that at least the Germans had this devasting anti-personnel shell type available for some (maybe most?) of their AFV's and maybe even some of there fixed guns. Not sure if the allies had it too, or not. In any event is it in CM (can't remember if it has been discussed here before, or not)? How does it compare to firing just a normal HE round at infantry. I would think that at longer ranges the HE round would be more effective against enemy infantry. While close in, say up to 100 meters, that the cannister rounds fired by a tank or other gun that had them available would be devasting to enemy infantry. If there is really no difference between cannister and HE then maybe there is no point in having it in the game just as there seems there is little / no point to including WP rounds. However, if there were major differences between Cannister and HE, and it was a fairly common shell in terms of use and availability to the Germans (and anyone else that had them), then I would think it might be a good idea to have it in the game. Mike D aka Mikester

Guess I'm w/ the crowd here that would like to see WP implemented in the game, but only if the following is true / met: 1) WP was actually used to some degree in normal operations by the US/Brit/Other Western forces. I.e. put it in if it really was used and it makes sense to do so. Along these lines I would be curious what the standard load-out for an American / Brit tank was in terms of WP rounds? Did they only have a couple every now and again? Did they have a good 10-12 or more almost all the time? If the "average" tank, or other weapon, crew didn't have much access to WP rounds then it maybe doesn't make much sense to have them in the game. 2) Only if it is modeled correctly. If there really are/were substantial differences between WP and smoke (and it certainly sounds like there are) then these differences need to be accounted for in the game model. For example, if WP was used as an antipersonnel weapon against German infantry then it should have some effect on said infantry in the game if they are out in the open and get hit by this stuff. If both of the above conditions are met then I definately think WP should be included in the game. However, if WP actually was nothing more than another form of smoke (doesn't sound like this is the case), or it is going to be treated in the game only as another form of smoke, then don't bother including it in the game. If it is what everyone seems to be saying it is and it is going to be "correctly" implemented in the game then I think WP would be a very welcome tool to the allies in routing the Jerries out of those nasty hedge rows. On a final note I seem to recall that WP was included in the Squad Leader series, but can't remember if it had any effect on infantry, etc., or was just treated as some form of smoke there as well. Mike D aka Mikester

Steve. I refer to all the stuff you mentioned above as "programming". Sure it's not writing nasty code, but it is time spent in front of a computer screen to get the game done. Next, I would have to say that I agree w/ Ken T's thoughts on this matter. If anything, like some of the vehicles, or other things that can easily be implemented in a patch 4-8 weeks later, is "holding up" the release of the game, then I am also for going ahead and releasing it and getting it into my sweaty little paws that much sooner. Of course things like the main game engine, AI, etc. will pretty much have to be put into the game up front, otherwise you don't have a game I would also like to re-echo what someone else said above that if doing things like making pretty screen shots and movies that everyone keeps asking for is time consuming and detracting from getting this game done, then by all means stop doing them and concentrate on the game itself. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if this discussion group is taking away valuable time from the games final development that you also may want to seriously consider spending less time here as well. It wouldn't bother me one bit if you did just that. Finally, out of curiousity about how many people will be in the initial beta test phase? Are you still planning to have a later test phase closer to the release of the game where more people will be able to get involved as well? Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Fionn, Thanks for the input. Sounds more and more like chance has very little to do w/ use / recover of the LMG in a German squad if the machinegunner goes down due to WIA or KIA. Mike

When? How about now, now, NOW! RELEASE IT NOW RELEASE IT NOW RELEASE IT NOW NUFF SAID. Well someone had to take the opposite position here didn't they? Actually, I would agree w/ most of what has been said above as well. However, at some point there is a fine line between "perfection" (which will never be achieved in the AI, or any other facet of the game) and common sense. Where common sense is, "hey, we've done the best job that we can, the game is 90-95% of what we wanted it to be and isn't full of bugs, etc.", along w/ "we are starting to starve and they are going to forclose on my house so I'd better release this thing and make some $$$ already". What I'm getting at here is that I'm not one to wait for an "arbitrary" amount of time for this thing to come out. Which is what it sounds like alot of others are here willing to do. When you do this sort of thing it just opens the proverbial pandora's box. Well, we can add just one more feature to the game. It won't take that long right? Or, I really would like to spend another 2 weeks improving the TAC AI (which in relative terms is already 90+% as good is it is going to get). Pretty soon there is one change, and then another, and another, and another. Before you know it the game has turned into a fall release, then a Christmas release, and then God forbid a year 2000 release! I know I harped on this some time ago, but at some point the game configuration (what's in and what's out and to what degree are we gong to do what) have to be locked down and you have to get on w/ programming the thing and getting it out the door. I know programming is a little more flexible than the more rigid mech. engineering projects that I'm involved with, but you can't go on forever making the thing "better". You can't spend forever improving the ballistics modeling, AI, or whatever else everyone seems to think is so God awful important. At some point you have to put a wrapper on the thing and get it out the door. BTS, please take the time to do it "right" (whatever this means to you and in keeping w/ some common sense), but don't delay this thing forever trying to perfect it like I believe some (not necessarily even those of you who have responded above) would probably like you to do. But I digress. In the final analysis I guess it doesn't really matter what any of us think because it's BTS's show and they will decide when they are ready to release it and not us. And I trust that they will make good descisions in terms of having the game ready while getting it out in a timely fashion. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 07-17-99).]

Steve, I guess I will have to respectfully disagree w/ the following. That is of course assuming that I'm understanding what you are saying: "Units will try to hold on to their SAW (to use the current term) during a battle. This means if a SAW man is hit there is a chance that a rifleman will pick it up. However, this chance is only a chance. If you don't get lucky, you don't keep it. Until someone comes back to your unit to man the weapon, it is lost." While I by no means claim to be any sort of expert on the subject I believe that common sense and the following excerpt from Gajkowski's, German Squad Tactics World War II (based on 1943 tranlation by the Military Intelligence Service of an actual German training manual believed to be used circa 1940-42) seem to greatly contradict the above statement. Perhaps you are already familiar w/ this book, or perhaps not. In this book on page 2 and 3 we see a description of what I would call a German LMG squad consisting of the following: A Gruppenfuhrer (squad leader) A LMG Soldier 1 (machinegunner) A LMG Soldier 2 (asst. to the machinegunner) A LMG Soldier 3 (mg ammo carrier) And 4-9 Gewehrschutzen (riflemen) one of which is the Truppfuhrer (asst. squad leader) Very specfic duties are laid out for each of the above. The ones pertinent to this disccusion are: Gruppenfuhrer: Among other things responsible for directing the fire of the LMG and if possible the Gewehrschutzern (as you read this work this is one of his main jobs). LMG Soldier 1: Firing the LMG and maintenance of LMG LMG Soldier 2: Assistant of the Richtschutze (machinegunner) in battle. He insures the supply of ammo. He assists the machine gunner going into position and preparing to fire. Then, he usually lies on the left side, or left and to the rear, of the 1MG as much as possible in full cover. He remains lying beside the 1MG if there is cover or fire superiority. He is always ready to aid the machine gunner or if necessary, to replace him. LMG Soldier 3: Primarily resp. for keeping the 1 and 2 MG guys supplied w/ ammo. In a fire fight he lies behind the 1MG in full cover. In any event what I see described here are 3 dedicated MG men and a squad leader that most likely more often than not is right there in the vicinty as well. Two of whom (asst. and ammo dude) are going to be pretty well tucked away when the bullets start flying. Given this, it seems highly unlikey to me that in the event that the 1MG guy goes down (he is certain to draw a lot of fire) that the asst. machinegunner, ammo carrier, or even the squad leader would be right there to take over. So the likelihood that this weapon would be immediately picked up and fire resumed by the asst machine gunner, etc., in this event seems very high to me (i.e. chance that it wouldn't be picked up is pretty darn low) Unless, of course, a heavy artillery round or overrunning tank or ambush takes them all out at nearly the same time. The part of your statement about the weapon not being available until someone (the machinegunner?) comes back to the unit (assumed to only be injured I guess) doesn't seem to make any sense either. Again, if there are 2 or 3 other guys around in the immediate vicinity of the machinegunner when he goes down they are most certainly (high probability) going to pick up this weapon to use it and/or at least recover it. In fact it is the 2MG mans responsibility to do so. And if the machingunner is KIA/WIA and doesn't return it sure sounds to me like someone else in that squad is going to use that weapon in the next round of combat (i.e. thinking campaign game here), not to mention in the current round as well. In any event in the case of the German LMG squad "chance" and "luck" would seem to have very little to do w/ the recovery of the LMG for use in the current battle, or later battle(s). Where luck would come into play is if the Brit/US squad got lucky in waxing all 3 of the MG detail soldiers in the German squad. In the case of the British LMG/Bren squad I would highly imagine the case is similar to the German one above. Only difference I could see here is that the Bren was magazine vs. belt fed and probably w/ lower rate of fire (in comparison to MG 34 or 42) didn't need a third man dedicated to ammo detail. So I would imagine the asst. to the Bren gunner would carry ammo and assist as needed, as well as jump in if the gunner went down and/or recover the weapon for futre use, etc. As far as the American BAR squad goes, I would think that this case would perhaps be more along the lines of what you have described. I.e. there is no asst. or ammo carrier to the BAR dude so he is in effect going it alone except for whatever other squad mates are nearby. So if he goes down I could see that the chance of someone picking up the weapon to use it in the current battle, or recovering it to use in a later battle, would be lower than the German/British situation noted above. Mike D aka Mikester

Rick, My sentiments exactly. MIke

I've always had a keen interest in the Market Garden op as well. However, I've also wondered at times what would have happened if instead of giving all of the airborne, armor, fuel, supply, and other resources to Montgomery for such a major undertaking, these had instead been given to Patton to secure a bridgehead across the Rhine further to the south along Germany's west wall. Not saying that doing so would necessarily have achieved better success, but think if it had. Market Garden occurred in mid Sept., if Patton had started about this same time and made the critical crossing of the Rhine somewhere to the south the allies could have driven straight into the heart of Germany and the war might have truly been over in a couple of months. Most likely no Battle of the Bulge then, etc., etc. Maybe we even beat the Russians to Berlin and prevent them from taking much of E Germany. Of course I'm not so sure in some sense that they didn't let the Soviets take the city since they had suffered so much more than any of the other allies it was probably a higher priority for the Soviets to feel that they had conquered the Germans moreso than the western allies. Not to mention that the western powers probably figured that taking the city would be a bloody affair anyways so let the Russians have at it, right? But in the end Eisenhower went w/ Montgomery's plan so we will never know. Does anyone know if the western allies considered other alternatives to Market Garden before going forward w/ it? I've always been under the understanding that Montgomery and his staff drew the plan up rather hastily (at least by British standards) and that the entire op was on a rather short time table in terms getting all of the troops, air transport, supplies, etc. ready to make the entire thing happen. Probably one of the many reasons that the op was doomed to fail was the quickness in which it was attempted vs. planning it out more thoroughly. Not to mention that the signs were there that the allies would be lucky to pull off such a stunt insofar as the air recon photos and Dutch resistance reports of German armour in the Arnhem area, etc. Makes for some interesting pondering if nothing else. Mike D aka Mikester

Go BETA, Go BETA, Go BETA Now everybody join in and chant along w/ me, Go BETA, Go BETA, Go BETA !!! I know, I'm a terrible pain in the ass, but I'm also impatient as all get out at times. Hope the game is coming along and that we will "see" some of the real thing some time soon....? Mike D aka Mikester

Sounds reasonable to me. I was thinking more along the lines of a "campaign" perhaps lasting a couple of days which is where the replacements question came about in that they might be drawn from company, or battalion rear area units if the situation were desperate enough. Of course, as you say, this is likely outside of the scope of the game any way you cut it. "Replacements are assumed to be going back to their original unit, so there is no change of weapons or quality level." So the returning injured men come back w/ their weapons? Assuming this is true, what happens if they are some of the less fortunate among the injured and they don't return, then what happens to their weapons? Say a squad does indeed lose 2 members during round 1 of a campaign game to injury and one of those members was the LMG/BAR carrier and he is out of the war for good. Is the LMG/BAR lost w/ the injured soldier, or is it considered to be reallocated to someone else in the squad? I guess the same question would apply to KIA soldiers and their weapons. Are they recovered and allocated back to the squad in between campaign game segments, or are they simply lost? If the weapons of fallen friendlies can be "recovered" by the owning squad in between actions in a campaign (perhaps there is a random chance of this occuring say between 30-60% of the time) is there then an additional random chance (say anywhere from 10-30% of the time) that the weapon itself was destroyed or otherwise damaged beyond repair so as to be unuseable even if it is recovered? I know, alot of dumb questions, I'm just curious if the game simulates the reality of a squad doing everything in its power to recover key weapons like LMG's, etc., from their fallen buddies. Especially those carried by their fellow squad mates. Mike D aka Mikester

If the lightly wounded boys (whatever percentage that ends up being) are going to return in a campaign game at some point how and where do they come back? Are they basically treated as an increase to the replacement pool? How are replacements/returning wounded allocated to the units currently under the players command? Do the players choose which squads / teams get the replacements, or does the computer do this for us? Do the wounded return to their original squad (I imagine it isn't really necessary for them to do so, just curious)? For regular replacements, what level of experience, etc., do they come in at? I.e. green, veteran, etc.? Do the wounded come back at some disadvantage like reduced movement, or other capabilities, to simulate their not being at 100% effectiveness? Or are you going to assume that whatever wounded do return are basically at, or very near, full effectiveness? In addition to infantry replacements will their be some pool of replacement / reserve vehicles (i.e. tanks, etc.) available in a campaign game to represent the players company, battalion, or regiment reserves that might become availble during the course of a campaign game? Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 07-14-99).]

Goodness gracious. While I can understand that BTS is focusing on getting the current game out right now. I most certainly hope that CM2 isn't going to take 5 agonizing years to come out. I was thinking more along the lines of 1-1/2 to 2 years after the release of CM1. Shoot in five years I'd be hoping to see CM3! Mike D aka Mikester

Just curious... I know that HVAP must refer to High Velocity Armour Piercing shell and APDS is Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot, right? So what is SVDS?? Never think I've heard of that one. S???? V???? Discarding Sabot??? Mike D aka Mikester

Also, how will we as players be able to "see" the command radius? If I'm in a top down view of the map and select an HQ unit will I be able to hit a key and see the radius drawn on the screen so I can compare it to where the rest of the HQ's subordinate units are located? It would also be really cool to have it somehow highlight the units subordinate to that platoon, company, or other HQ at the same time so it would be very clear which units are, and are not, in CC. Thanks, Mike D aka Mikester