Stacheldraht

Fwiw, on p. 145 of Belton Cooper's Death Traps he describes tanks being used as artillery in the fighting around the Siegfried Line: "Just prior to the attack, all the [3rd Armored] division's tanks were incorporated in the division artillery fire plan. Each tank platoon was given an aiming point and the proper elevation and deflection of its guns to strike specific target areas. Excess ammunition was stored alongside the tanks for use during the initial barrage. After the barrage, the tanks could move into their attack positions with a full load of combat ammunition. The tanks firing as artillery gave the division a total firepower of thirty-six artillery battalions."

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>So whatever you ask, best tank, best gun, best artillery makes only sense in the combination of all arms. <hr></blockquote> On defense, at least, both the positioning of the guns and when you decide to reveal them make all the difference in the world, too. You can turn seemingly weak assets into powerhouses that way. One 75mm Pak might not be great, but four or five of them acting in concert, and using the element of surprise, are You can really catch someone off guard by using guns in ME's, too. People usually expect them only on set defenses. Btw, if you want a good resource on German guns, check out German Artillery of World War Two by Ian V. Hogg (Greenhill/Stackpole, 1997). Almost 300pp. of detailed info and photos: Flak, Pak, IG's, railway guns, coastal defense guns, etc.

Dunno. I haven't followed the mod scene closely for some time now

For those not already familiar with it, the U.S. Army Military History Institute offers a bunch of .pdf (Adobe Acrobat format) files dealing with WWII. One of the standouts is the three-part Handbook on German Forces. The lengthy section on tactics (in part II) is particularly interesting, covering offensive and defensive operations, with extensive details on fortifications, minefields, arty use, AT asset placement, smoke screen use, city fighting, etc. Both the nuts & bolts and the general concepts are covered clearly and with illustrations. (Mod makers might want to check out the drawings of mine warning signs, too.) http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945

Another vote for Death Traps. That's required reading for anyone interested in the nitty gritty of WWII armored warfare. Lots of interesting details and observations from a man who knows what he's talking about from first-hand experience.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But CM is a tough nut to crack for your average reviewer. They try to rate it using classic criteria such as graphics, sound and gameplay (oh yes). I think many will agree with me that CM can hardly be described adequately in those terms.<hr></blockquote> Not entirely, but CM is a computer game after all, and it shares a vast amount in common with its brethren. It does use sights and sounds to help recreate battles and provide players with vital info. Those things are important and should be reviewed along with other aspects of the game. Part of what sets CM apart from other wargames, after all, is the 3D terrain and units. Because of LOS alone, the former is a vital part of the game design and not some added eye candy. Either way, just because CM is an outstanding game doesn't mean it should be exempted from tough critical judgement all around. Most would agree CM's graphics (even with mods) don't compare to most games released today. That fact certainly doesn't ruin the game by any stretch, but it's still something to consider. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If he was confronted today with the unprecedented world of mods, scenariodesign, tournaments and campaigns, discussion forums and web sites that has sprung up around the game, I think he would sing a different tune.<hr></blockquote> Reviewers should review games out of the box (or the shrinkwrap in this case) without regard to third-party addons. Not everyone who purchases a game will know about or have access to those things. As someone else noted, downloading MB after MB of mods isn't easy for everyone, assuming they even know they exist and know where to get them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Get yerseff a Voodoo5 5500 for bargain basement prices. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Generally, it's unwise to buy parts from a manufacturer that's gone out of business (e.g., 3dfx): no support or new drivers. Up-to-date drivers are very important for vid cards.

Athlon Tbird 1.1 GHz, boatloads of memory (dirt cheap now), 32MB GF2 vid card, surround sound, lots of other fun stuff. That's pretty much a mid-range computer nowadays, judging by what Dell, Gateway, and the other big OEM's are selling so cheaply now, let alone Alienware and other niche, high-end manufacturers. (The time is economically right to upgrade, folks.) If you have the cash on hand, there's little good reason to be running less than a 1GHz proc or GeForce card of some type if you're at all interested in gaming. Here's another vote for a CM game that can scale to take advantage of decent hardware. [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no way to argue that on any level beside the moral level and that never solves anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ?? Tell that to philosophers, ethicists, anyone associated with religion, lawmakers, etc. Morality, as complex as it admittedly is, provides the basic if not ultimate criteria against which many people gauge their actions and those of others on a daily basis. In fact, there have been and are times/cultures where moral considerations are the foremost ones when any issue was raised. These were the first ones to which critics resorted when judging art or entertainment. As for solving something, we're not talking about mathematical equations here, but rather differences of opinion most of the time. Those can't be solved, only resolved. [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Like I've said before, in essence: this forum can get as petty and vicious as any other, it's just that most posters have a bigger vocabularly than you might find on some other forums. You rarely see people resorting to outright vulgar insults here, but 25-cent words or stabs at logic can't disguise a lot of the sour maliciousness that stands behind many posts. CM is wargaming's greatest hope, atm; it would be great if this place were more welcoming to gamers of all stripes. Better to save the ruthlessness for the CM battlefield [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The trouble started when some people, namely Fieldmarshall, Echo, deanco, Stacheldraht, Rommel22, Mord and yourself, became upset that anyone should present a counterargument to their desire for more explicit graphics<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the record, I never said I wanted to see more explicit graphics in the game, nor have I been upset by this thread or people arguing in opposition to points I've raised. My discussing an issue or espousing a point or view doesn't necessarily mean I approve of it or believe it, btw. I am disappointed, though, by the tone that some posters adopt in this forum, making this a frequently inhospitable environment, particularly for newbies or those just voicing a dreamy "what if...." I'd genuinely love to see more people involved in CM and wargaming, but some people in the CM community can take a very heavy-handed and insulting approach towards those who voice opinions they dislike or voice them in a manner they find untenable or inappropriate. *** Btw, there's in interesting column by William Trotter in the latest PC Gamer about the idea of increasing wargame realism by factoring (un)acceptable casualty counts into final scores, something real leaders deal with on political, practical, and moral grounds, particularly when the media are watching.

Out of curiosity, regarding the horrors of war in gaming issue: One could argue that wargames (such as CM) are disrespectful to those who lived/died/fought through the events and/or are socially irresponsible not because of any gore that's included or excluded, but because these games reinforce the notion that some parts of war are valuable for entertainment or commercial purposes and/or that the machinery of war is somehow worthy of interest or veneration. A lot of guys around here seem to want to enjoy the tactical and technical aspects of warfare as entertainment, compartmentalizing them away from all the other inextricably linked elements of war, such as death, suffering, morality, etc. It makes you wonder if that's a healthy or morally beneficial attitude to adopt or encourage, either individually or socially. Someone could unfortunately make arguments that when the visual representation of violence or the "human elements" are stripped away, all kinds of perverse and morbid subjects could potentially be just fine and dandy subjects for games. In fact, there have of course been plenty of games involving killing, theft, etc. I read a news story once of how some Neo-Nazis created a concentration camp management game. (Not sure about the veracity of that, though I wouldn't be surprised.) In "real life" mass killing and destruction are generally frowned on by most people under most circumstances. I.e. war is "bad" and peace is "good." (Yes, I know there are many nuances and exceptions here.) How justifiable or laudable is it, then, to take part of that and make games (or movies or books) out of it? Again, I'm genuinely curious what others think on the issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>that if I posted a picture of myself with a buttplug dressed up as Baby Spice, I would drasticly improve the quality of the discussion of the main topic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe we could use that as the casualty marker I was just making an observation regarding preferred discourse methods in different communities. You can see on this board and in this thread how widely accepted "discourse rules" seem to be lacking; lots of people are (enjoyably, it seems) talking/shouting at cross purposes. It's hard to say one guy is right or wrong when they're both using different standards of evaluation. To me, these sorts of arguments look more like meta-conversations that are really thinly disguised pissing matches/king-of-the-hill (male) dominance games. The real issue isn't gore or graphics but who's "right" and can "win" the debate, proving their supposed supremacy in the community. Cave men stuff, basically A lot of fun, though. [ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Just a couple observations: We--well, most of us--know that the casualty markers in CM do not represent a stack of corpses, and that casualties aren't the same as dead soldiers. Nevertheless, the marker is currently represented as a dead guy sprawled on the ground. It's easy to see why someone might make questionable assumptions or draw questionable conclusions based on that. Also, the idea mentioned earlier of different types of visible damage to that marker isn't so far-fetched. It could represent the type of damage (i.e., indirectly point to a unit or type of unit that dealt it, for tactical information purposes) by illustrating either what caused the majority of casualties to the squad/team or what caused the final ones that made the squad lose cohesion and tactical relevance or efficacy. *** For those who believe that an appeal to logic or reason somehow finalizes or "wins" an argument, please note that in many past and present discourse communities, appeals to logic can be viewed as misguided, improper, weak, deceptive, etc. More important for many groups in many circumstances are appeals to authority, empiricial evidence, emotion, intuition, popular opinion (or prejudice), tradition, (divine) inspiration, etc. Not that some of these necessarily apply well here Nevertheless, these sorts of appeals often carry far more weight than reason in a variety of circumstances.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>respectful cross <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would open a whole other can of worms Maybe a little tombstone that reads "Here lies Dieter Hermann, rudely run over by a Sherman"

It's painfully evident to anyone who frequents this message board that there are a few posters who habitually try to push/preserve their own narrow vision of what CM is or should be. They tend to employ the thin guise of logical argumentation to mask their maliciousness, or arrogantly assume the role of unappointed spokespeople for BTS in order to shoot down ideas that don't strike their limited fancy. Apparently, some posters want to see CM/wargaming/this board maintainted as their own little club. Those who dare raise an issue that these persons have weighed in on before are quickly told to do a search (that function doesn't work for some of us, no matter how long we wait, btw), or are told that BTS said such and such so forget it, or that's not what CM is about so get used to it, etc. That's an embarrassing and detrimental bit of provincialism that does no one any good. As an aside, it's no wonder wargames have been dying out when even their purported fans are so eager to tear down instead of build up. This is not the sort of welcoming community in which a newbie would likely feel comfortable. [ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, this is not a game about war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I want a refund, then. I thought it was about World War II Seriously, I understand your distinction, but remember that CM does try to represent actual historical battles. When you've read historical accounts, memoirs, oral histories, etc. about or by the individuals involved in these actions, the game doesn't as easily feel like a combat simulator that has nothing to do with the actual war and the people who died in it. I can't help but remember pictures of and details about actual individuals who died in these battles when I play certain scenarios. Now their memory, in CM at least, is reduced to little animated guys in a computer game. "Sorry that you had to kill and be killed for your country or principles, and sorry that your wife and children were left behind to lament your death, but now I'm going to have a little computerized fun based on the event that got you shot to death." How would these men or their families or comrades feel about this? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>anything that goes into CM goes in for the purposes of entertainment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps, but the SS are in the game, and they're far from entertaining, even if just depicted abstractly as a computerized fighting force. The question I'm curious about, fwiw, is whether it's appropriate to take historical incidents, specifically those involving warfare and other tragedy, and strip them of morally charged, sensitive, or emotive issues and take the remainder as material for entertainment (designed to generate profits). I'm genuinely curious about what others have to say on the matter; I'm not interested in vicious arguments, but rather honest debates on the topic, for any who are likewise inclined. I certainly don't think, btw, that BTS or anyone here would like any game to be disrespectful to anyone involved in WWII, but I don't think these arguments are so unimportant as to warrant being ignored, as it seems one or two people in this thread have suggested or implied. And just because they've been broached before doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't bear renewed discussion and analysis. Flames or ad hominems are a different matter, naturally.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Trying to develop the 'human' element is pointless, and actually disrespectful – CM is a game, and to try and make it a 'war simulator' would be impossible and ridiculous<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One could well argue the opposite: treating these tragic events as a game is disrespectful. People killed, suffered, and died for ideals, for their nations, for the families, for their self-preservation, and often for no good reason at all. Using those events for entertainment purposes is arguably where the disrespect lies. And for the record, I don't propose or endorse anything that would detract from those people's lives or deaths. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Emotional response to what we are pretending to do – wreaking destruction and killing people – would be entirely realistic, but totally out of place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The issue here is that CM's realism is of an extremely selective sort. Depending on what that realism should ideally entail, it may be either appropriate or out of place, as you say. I for one question the appropriateness or desirability of taking something that inherently involves killing of human beings (i.e., war) and trying to depict just a portion of it for entertainment purposes, devoid of "the nasty parts," so to speak. (Which is not at all to say that I have any desire to witness the carnage of war in any form, though I think it of the utmost importance that all be aware of it to help avoid it.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This would only be the case if every casualty were accurately depicted, which is not going to happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It could in a future installment of the CM series. Obviously, I'm talking about hypothetical issues since CM isn't going to be patched, from what we're told. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is innaccurate because it cannot be accurate within the scope of the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ditto the above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The kind of people who would dismiss CM on the basis of its graphics are not the kind of people who are likely to appreciate the underlying accuracy, or indeed buy the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You'd be surprised. Many serious/hardcore gamers with an appreciation for strategy or wargames have an appreciation for the importance of any game's audiovisual presentation. Furthermore, when one sees graphics of relatively low quality when compared to other games, one's likely to assume (often justly) that the rest of the game's quality likewise suffers. Clearly, there are exceptions, and I'm obviously not advocating that one judge a book by its cover. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So the distinction I make between necessary and unnecessary graphical effects, is whether or not they provide accurate and useful information. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The larger question is what is desirable, not merely absolutely necessary. I understand your distinction, but one has to be careful of a reductio ad crapola Were tanks to become untextured white oblongs with a little rectangle on top to depict the turret, you'd still know it's a tank. They could just have a label on screen that says "Pz. IV H" or whatever. It would work, but it would detract from the experience. This isn't a wholely abstract intellectual endeavour like chess, nor should it be. I think most here would agree, though not in extent.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but a bitmap of a 'dead' soldier with blood or bullet holes or whatever is simply unrealistic and unnecessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, it would be highly realistic, for obvious reasons: killing, injuries, and death are central to warfare. Granted, the details of each soldier's injuries don't necessarily directly impart tactically relevant data, but seeing the effects of the battle in more personal and realistic terms could, arguably, make real effects on players' tactical decision making. (I.e., they might be less inclined to send more men into the meat grinder as if they weren't men at all. Many human lives were at stake in WWII, after all.) Also, visual depictions of the appropriate wounds would let you know what type of enemy unit caused the casualties, which isn't always clear as it is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is conveying inaccurate information<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How is information about casualties inaccurate? It would only be inaccurate if the game were to somehow display or not display visual or other data that mislead you about the number of casualties, what caused them, and/or when they occurred. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can argue that it improves 'immersiveness', but then so would no end of graphical fluff which BTS could have wasted their time programming. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, one very easily could argue that it improves immersiveness. Please be aware that immersiveness can be or is a major or even central feature of the gaming experience for many gamers and games. That immersiveness works on multiple levels, both emotional and intellectual. One is not inherently better or more important than the other. Clearly, among many CM players there's a real interest in the presentation of the game, given the enthusiasm over graphic and sound mod creation and use. Not all of us see these things as "fluff," as if what we see and hear somehow made no difference in our experience of the game. Happily, CM isn't abstracted to the point where we just see streams of 0's and 1's scrolling down the screen. I can see how that might appeal to one or two people, but I can't imagine that group would be more numerous. It's highly debatable that BTS "wastes time" by implementing the graphics and sound of the game or that they'd be wasting time by improving those major and absolutely vital aspects of it. These would only be improvements, not detriments, and it's quite clear that they wouldn't come at the expense of hard historical data, given BTS's stance on such issues. It's also clear, based on personal experience and numerous anecdotes that I've read on this board, that the visual presenation of CM, particularly "out of the box," has turned away many a gamer. That has a real effect on the sales and popularity of the game. That fact alone means these things aren't "fluff," but are actually quite important on a number of levels. [ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Therefore a 'dead' bitmap constitutes pure eye candy and is irrelevant to the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Visuals in general, btw, are most certainly not irrelevant to any software program that is primarily based on visual interaction, let alone the 3D depiction of realistic or historical physical objects (e.g., terrain, tanks, troops.) CM would not at all be the same game if weren't for those latter features, in terms of both the game system and its emotional impact on the player. Imagine CM with a 2d overhead map with hexes and unit counters, or a "3D" version with stick figures. A) It would suck and it would not be the same game on a number of different vital grounds. [ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

There's an interview about CM2 here: http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2775850,00.html

It's no secret that the CM community has its share of loud-mouth know-it-alls. Please don't let them do more harm to the community and wargaming in general than they've already done. Imagine an enthusiastic new player coming to this forum and to the various fan sites. Then they ask a question or submit a mod only to be mocked, flamed, snidely ordered to "do a search," etc. That's just going to drive gamers away from what these "grogs" view as their own sacred preserve. That's a real shame. Manx, please keep up the great work in supporting CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve has written some lengthy posts on sir support on page three and four of the new SMG proposal thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the link. Interesting arguments there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>which they see more as a walk over for US forces<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tell that to the Marines.

Another vote for the PTO. Korea would be interesting too. It's really sad how neglected that war and its vets are, not that making a game about it will change much.