Stacheldraht

Unless they've changed it since I last used it, ICQ is needlessly complicated by secondary or unwanted features, as someone mentioned above. IRC is much easier, all told, though it's obviously not quite the same thing.

I know noTHING! Sorry

Info from the US Standard Ordnance Catalogue of '44, Chamberlain and Ellis, and other sources: The US M4A1 mortar carrier was built around the M2 half-track. Unlike the earlier M4 model, where the mortar could be fired from within the vehicle only in "extreme emergencies," crewmembers could fire the mortar from inside the M4A1. It had a rather limited traverse of 600 mils (33.3 degrees) and elevation of 40-80 degrees. The mortar pointed to the rear. The M4A1 was provided with a .30 caliber MG mounted on the skate rail around the rear compartment or fired from outside the vehicle (not modeled in CM). Unlike the M4A1, where the mortar was fixed to point rearward, the M21 mortar carrier (based on the M3 halftrack) had the mortar pointed toward the front of the vehicle and could traverse 60 degrees. Elevation was 40-80 degrees. The mortar could be removed from the vehicle and fired from the ground like a standard mortar. CM doesn’t allow the mortar to be removed, sadly. The vehicle had a rear pedestal mount for the provided .50 caliber HMG, and the HMG could also be fired from the ground with the provided tripod. (Another feature not modeled in CM.) [ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ding - round one of the old chestnut. In the left corner, the forces of reason. In the right corner, the horse worshippers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, but which side would that put me on? Seriously, I'm neutral on the issue, though I don't think something so prevalent should be written off out of hand. Both the Germans and the Soviets had horse cavalry in WWII, and horses were used extensively as pack animals. The Gebirgsjäger also used mules and even camels in that capacity. Of course, we don't see the commonly used motorcycles, either, but we do (happily) get lots of extremely obscure vehicles in CM, nonetheless. Remember, too, that CM does have gun tractors and so forth that players use, so please don't say that guns are all towed into position before the game begins, because that's just not so. Of course, BTS has stated game design reasons for excluding horses, which is another matter entirely, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with historical matters. [ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Quite right about RTS games: the better ones really do involve tactics (though not the sort you find in CM, generally). Nevertheless, you're barking up the proverbial wrong tree by mentioning either RTS games or shooters here in anything approaching a favorable light. You'll find that many wargamers seem to play wargames (or CM) exclusively or aren't much in tune with what's going on outside the genre. There are a number of happy exceptions, of course.

The complexity of CM wouldn't lend it self well, if at all, to fully real-time gameplay. If you look at most RTS games, they're quite a bit simpler than CM in many regards, which makes it possible to handle so much happening at once without a break. Of course, many RTS games also allow you give orders while paused, which comes a bit closer to the CM system. [ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In short, horses have no place on the battlefield – they are for transportation, and their work is done by the time battle starts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Battles didn't always conveniently take place after both sides had set things up just to their liking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually they don't even huddle in ditches like sensible people, instead they decide that since the battalion has been 70% erradicated by a still quite viable defense, the logical thing is to see how the other 30% does trying to crack it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite true, alas. I recently was the recipient of a "valiant" last-ditch AI attempt to overrun my positions, using--get this--an arty spotter, a couple mortar and MG teams, a couple HQ units, and two or three squads--all tiptoeing blithely through the tulips as they were mowed down. Artificial unintelligence in this case [ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I always thought that the StuGs had lousy gun depression - at least the G onward. What's the depression angle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> -6 through + 20 degrees main gun elevation, 20 degree total (hand) traverse for the StuG III Ausf G and StuG IV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At the moment a force of infantry can take on a mechanised force in a well balanced battle. If the game scale changed I think it would be very difficult to maintain that balance <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, balance would need to be altered on most fronts, no pun intended. Infantry could still fight vehicles, though, thanks to fausts, schrecks, zooks, PIATs, Molotov cocktails, the kitchen sink, etc. Clearly, though, a single platoon, with each soldier represented, couldn't take on a Panzer company. The number of vehicles in a battle would need a proportional reduction to address that issue. It's true too that certain weapon systems wouldn't be as relevant at a reduced scale, but others, including the myriad personal firearms, would gain in significance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It would be especially good for modelling house-clearing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My thoughts too. That's an area CM is sadly deficient in. With the reduced scale, you could move troops through each room, choose which window to fire from, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you reduce the scope to a FPS it wouldn't be CM it would be Operation Flashpoint or alike.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, it would be vitally different than a real-time first-person shooter such as Operation Flashpoint. I'm thinking of a game that in all of the most important respects (hybrid turn system, interface, detailed ballistics model, historical accuracy, tactical complexity, diversity of units, etc.) would be just like CM, but with the scale altered to cover individual men and vehicles, instead of using the current somewhat broader scale of individual vehicles and squads/teams. I think a game like that would present many new and interesting tactical challenges without becoming a shooter. (There are already tons of excellent ones there; Medal of Honor: Allied Assault looks like it will be a very entertaining one using the roughly the same time and theater as CM, btw.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Isn't that what GI Combat is promising? Only in real time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure, but I thought that game was axed (?). I just play Tribes 2, SWAT 3, or Rogue Spear for a real-time tactical experience akin to that. A hyper-detailed We-go wargame a la CM would be another matter entirely, though.

Just to clarify my point, I meant that I'd like to see not merely every individual soldier represented in such a game graphically, but actually have the game scale altered to the level of individual soldiers and vehicles. (Yes, I know we have the latter already, and the massive entertainment arising from that feature is precisely why I'm thinking along these lines.) That is, you'd control each man in each squad or team separately, yet still within the confines of cohesive groups (some sort of C&C issues would encourage that, surely). Imagine getting to position each soldier behind specific trees, rocks, walls, doors, and so forth; choosing standing, crouching, prone positions; etc. Basically, a hyper-detailed CM. Naturally, ethical and esthetic issues of realistic presentation clashing with respect for the people who fought and died in these engagements would arise. Those are the sorts of issues that should be dealt with anyway in wargaming and in gaming in general, in terms of graphic depictions of violence using increasingly realistic visuals and sound. [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

I just played a large-scale QB where the Canadians had a fighter-bomber that nailed one of my Hetzers on the first turn and later immobilized, in a very inconvenient place, my one AA asset, a Wirbelwind (meant for troops in this case, actually). Happily, my Wirbelwind seemed to chase off the plane, as it never returned after turn three or so. [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but I believe the beauty of Combat Mission is the we-go system, I just wouldn't have stayed as interested in the game if it weren't for this unique compromise of turn-based and real-time strategy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To a fair extent, I agree with the core of this statement and think the We-go system is the most significant thing by far about CM from a broader gaming standpoint. It could easily be applied to a host of games, military or otherwise. As a fan of shooters, too, I've also imagined a reduced-scale CM would feature the We-go system, historical fidelity, and basic interface conventions coupled with a top-flight 3D engine and represenations of each individual soldier and vehicle. Essentially a wargame with shooter like elements or vestiges. Imagine, perhaps, something akin to Operation Flashpoint with the We-go system, for instance. That would be amazing. It would offer the tactical complexity (likely increased with the more detailed terrain, actually) and intelligence of CM with the added raw emotional inolvement of a detailed 3D game with a shooter's scale. [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Plus, experimenting with different force mixes also allow us test out tactics and what works best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It also allows you to delve into the little details of each unit, particularly vehicles, and learn all their quirks and how they handle different types of opposition, terrain, and so forth. That's fun in its own right and also leads you to ponder how well the vehicles are modeled in the game, if the real-life counterparts could have been employed more effectively, and so forth.

Fwiw, the Nahverteidigungswaffe on the Panther fired 26mm smoke, signal flare, or anti-personnel grenades. It was fixed at a 50 degree angle but could traverse 360 degrees.

I'd like to second the request for deeper maps so proper defenses in depth can be established. Please make mines and wire realistically cheaper too. One way to make defense QB's more balanced is to select a small map and perhaps reduce the attacking forces a bit. *** Hand-picking QB forces may not be realistic, but to me it seems very much to be a grognard approach: it lets you explore the subtle nuances and abilities of different units and force compositions. Sure, these compositions may not be rooted in history, but that's half the fun of playing a wargame: playing "what if" and exploring and creating tactics. [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Fwiw, the StuG III Ausf G was 2.16m high, which is quite low compared to many AFV's, but you can see in pictures how they could clearly get the lower part of the hull behind a hill or obstacle while still exposing the gun.

It loads slowly but seems to work--tons of great info there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I lift weights for 30 minuets every day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dancing and lifting weights at the same time--impressive!

I recently had a depleted German HMG team kill/wound the remaining three or so men in an American rifle squad that rushed them in a building. I guess the Germans hit the Amis over the head with the MG barrel

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But are you actually going to make it impossible to operate? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The question is, what would a hand grenade do to the steering wheel and column, gear shift, pedals, fuzzy dice on the rear-view mirror, etc. I can't imagine they'd survive a direct blast.

Don't forget, too, that a number of the HT variants in CM are loaded with mortar rounds, flamethrower fuel, etc. Boom.