Stacheldraht

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anymore proof of that than your opinion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, the histories, memoirs, and documentaries I've seen and read on the ETO. Read about D-Day, the breakouut, the Ardennes, etc.

Other (potentially) good games: IL-2 Sturmovik for WWII Eastern Front and flight sim junkies, Steel Beasts for a hardcore modern armored warfare game. I could list scores of other games for the PC and consoles. One any wargamer should try is Tribes 2, which is probably the most sophisticated shooter out there, and far more tactically involving than even Rogue Spear or SWAT 3.

It may be a ground warfare game, but air power obviously played a major tactical role throughout much of the war, particularly the period and area modeled in CM. I've always felt it's underrepresented the game. Combined arms was the name of the game, after all.

The "best tank" threads are in the Tips and Tricks forum, though you won't find many British tanks listed there [ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Well, there's always IL-2 Sturmovik for the air/ground war

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our fascination with the military side of this war all too frequently overlooks the fact that it was a total war which was waged on civilians with equal ferocity to the combatants. It was a war that gave everyone an equal opportunity to die, and some got more than their fair share of that deadly opportunity as it was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That raises a side issue that's usually ignored: what are the ethical ramifications of wargames, particularly ones based on real events like WWII? The sanitized, extremely selective version of the war you see in CM and other games might arguably do a disservice to those who suffered or died, either by turning soldiers' experiences into commercial entertainment, neglecting the catastrophic effect of the war on civilians, or indirectly glamorizing what many soldiers found repellent and degrading. And for those who dismiss that line of discussion by saying, "It's just a game," that's precisely my point. If you've read or seen much about the war, particularly from the perspective of individual soldiers and civilians, it's hard not to ask these questions, when the suffering and hardships were so enormous.

Regarding the pronunciation: Jagdpanther is like "yahktpahnter" (can't type the IPA characters on this keyboard) "J" is like an English "y" (as in "yes", not the vowel version in "funny"), "d" at the end of the syllable before a consonant is like a "t", and "th" is like "t". The "a" is soft in both syllables.

Attacking the AI will definitely provide the most challenge you'll have against it. Since it's mainly a question of unit positioning and revealing units, the AI doesn't have to consider any broader strategy (though it should, since humans will counter-attack). When attacking, set the map size to small so the defenders can cover it well, and also give yourself a force reduction and the computer an experience boost. It can be surprisingly challenging, particularly compared to what you might have grown to expect from ME's and defenses against the AI, where it's very weak thanks to its human/vehicle wave "tactics."

Speaking of war documentaries, PBS did a great one on the Blitz, with extensive interviews of the people who were there. A very interesting and moving oral history.

Yes, also known as the Königstiger (King Tiger) or Royal Tiger.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No-one cares, they just claim they have the right to argue, when in reality they're hoping that everyone will become convinced of their argument and BTS will cave in and do the impossible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Many people like to discuss (not necessarily argue about) all sorts of issues repeatedly on this forum, regardless of whether they've been raised before or what BTS has said. These heated discussions are a form of socialization and entertainment in themselves for many people, and many of us, as I noted earlier, harbor no illusions about BTS making certain changes, nor do we necessarily want them to make a change, when we broach an issue. BTS will go about their merry way--as they should--regardless of these pissing matches, if you'll pardon the metaphor. Discussions and arguments very often have little if anything to do with making progress, ascertaining the truth, spreading a belief, and so forth. Some of us could care less whether the other people reading this come to our view. (I play devil's advocate quite frequently for the sake of discussion, and don't even necessarily believe half of what I type here, for that matter.) In other words, don't sweat it if people don't want to listen to reason, to BTS, to whatever. It's not hurting anything but people's egos, at worst, and that's only because they make the decsion to take this all too seriously. [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

double post [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Guess where my next $45 is going to go. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More beer [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

http://www.tankmuseum.co.uk/pr-art/pr140998.html http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ipmsuk/armoursig.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you want a challenge, don't play at equal odds. Try something like doing an attack -50%. And use random purchasing for both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's just a challenge of odds, though, not strategy or tactics, which isn't much fun. The TacAI is decent, but the strategic AI is generally pitiful. People should remember, too, that not every wants or has the opportunity or time to play against humans. The game should provide a solid solo experience, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't mean the snide comments about the unpleasant aspects of war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since I believe you're possibly referring to something I wrote, that was not meant to be snide at all, but rather to allude seriously to very real issues in wargame design from the standpoints of aiming for verisimilitude, and the ethical and esthetic issues of portraying real-world violence in a form of entertainment. Btw, what aspects of war are pleasant? It's rather unfortunate on a human level (as opposed to strictly from the standpoint of entertainment) that wargames tend to divorce abstract tactics from the realities that the people involved had to endure. But that's a whole other 4+ page argument that I'm not going to go into [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stacheldraht, make your mind up please. Either you want a community and a discussion (look it up in the dictionary, it can involve people disagreeing, although that maybe a surprise to you), or you want a private channel, where nobody is allowed to quote BTS, because they are the only purveyors of wisdom around here. You can have either/or, but not both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My point is simply this: I prefer open discussion, and too often people try to put a premature end to discussions here by either quoting BTS or saying it's been discussed before. Again, so what on both counts? Repeating or referring to the developers' opinions if well and good, but often people's opinions are merely dismissed out of hand with a casual, "But BTS said...." An important, oft-overlooked point is that by discussing something, some of us aren't necessarily expecting or even realistically desiring that it bring about a change in the game. People sometimes discuss these things hypothetically, rendering BTS' opinion on such and such an issue less relevant in those particular cases. Maybe people enjoy discussing these issues, whether or not they've been raised in the past and whether or not BTS has commented on them. If people enjoy discussing, or even aruging about, their favorite game, let them. I think most of us who've been lurking or participating in this board for some time are quite aware of BTS' stances on different game design and game industry issues, but that shouldn't prevent people from raising the issues again. Someone just might have something new and interesting to say, even if there's no chance of it ever making it into some CM iteration. Perhaps they just have fun discussing it, like some people have fun discussing armor penetration data or the "cess pool." [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

As far as wishing for "realism" in CM or any wargame, be careful what you wish for. Any sort of realism in these games is highly selective. If you wanted more realism, then you'd arguably need a game to depict a man screaming in horror as his leg is blown off by a land mine or as he burns alive in a tank; Germans massacring children and POW's in Belgium or raping, mutilating, and murdering girls in Russia; 20,000 people dying of starvation in a single day in Leningrad; people being firebombed in their homes and watching their children die in front of them. That's part of the "realism" of war that gamers tend to conveniently forget sometimes in favor of neato tanks and tactics.

Realism is a sticky issue with any game. Let's face it, the basic premise of CM, as enormously fun as it is, is inherently unrealistic or even silly: you're some eye-in-the-sky, nearly omniscient commander who can order all your units to move meter by meter, and you can even stop and rewind time The whole game is filled with an enormous number of abstractions by necessity. It's really just a question of what types of abstractions you prefer or think create an entertaining experience.

Slapdragon, you miss my point, so let me clarify. Obviously BTS are the only ones who will decide what to do with their products; I'm not suggesting it should or could be any other way. Also, no one is expecting or asking BTS to waste time answering every thread with some sort of definitive statement. These discussion boards (or those for most games) are hardly just about finding out definitive answers from the developer. Rather, they're about building a community around the game by discussing all sorts of things. What on earth do the Peng threads have to do with the details of CM's game design, or what we might expect in future CM games, or how to improve your tactics in CM? Nothing, but who cares? What's the harm in having discussions amongst ourselves about these matters, even if some of the suggestions contradict or ignore statements by BTS? Who cares? As I mentioned, there's no harm in speaking in hypothetical terms; it can be quite rewarding, actually. If BTS had just sat around saying, "Oh, you know, all the other wargames do it this way, so why should we even think about something new?" then where would CM be? So, why shouldn't gamers talk about what they might like in a game, even if it breaks a particular mold or isn't particularly likely to be implemented by BTS or someone else? Discussing something or asking for something are hardly the equivalent of demanding that BTS do something about it or issue a proclamation on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Go away, go to your RTS game and be happy, but don't come here disturb our virtual reality... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please don't presume to speak for all of us. I also have to agree with one of the above posts, or at least what it intimated: why is everyone so quick to speak for BTS or quote them as if their utterances were holy scripture? How embarrassing. They made a great game, but that doesn't make them infallible or geniuses. Heck, John Romero worked on a great game once. Say no more. Whether or not there's any intention of making a fully real-time CM game or not doesn't invalidate this discussion. Speaking about hypothetical or tangential issues isn't undesirable or uncommon on this board, nor should it be. No one should have to toe some party line. CM wouldn't have been designed with that sort of attitude. As for RTS games, it might help part of this discussion to differentiate between real-time gameplay in its own right and the typical features and conventions of many RTS games. These are two separate things. *** I'd also like to see user-definable turn lengths for CM, insofar as that's feasible. The more options the end user has, the better. *** Btw, the search feature always times out for me too [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

I don't think it's a question of people having a hard time with 3D games per se, as they're prevalent on PC's and all the consoles (even the Game Boy Advance has 3D games). I think the point is that many RTS gamers are used to the classic 2D style (and the game design basics that usually go with that hand in hand) in the RTS genre and don't like change. Too bad, as some of the greatest RTS games, like Homeworld, have been 3D.

You can find official data and diagrams on these and other rounds here: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945 Volume III, p. 509 of the Standard Ordnance Items Catalog.

While I'm busy with mortar trivia, the standard rate of fire for the M1 mortar was 18 rounds/minute, maximum rate 30-35 rounds/minute. If only my crews had that kind of energy!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I suspect their decision is based on the amount of time it would take to dismount the mortar. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the M21, the standard mortar base plate doubled as the mount in the vehicle, so I assume that it could be removed rather easily--i.e., just lifting it out of the vehicle. Has anyone read any first-hand accounts of their use? The mortar in question was the standard infantry 81mm mortar model M1, using the M1 base plate. (See p. 9, by the Adobe Acrobat numbering, of Vol. II of the Catalogue of Standard Ordnance Items: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945 ) Interestingly, the M1 mortar weighed 136 pounds with the base, and each round weighed around 7 to 10 pounds, depending on which type, so you can see why mortar teams move slowly in the game. There was a hand cart (like those little two-wheeled luggage dollies ) that could be used to move it, though. [ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]