themaltese

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Sorry, couldn't let this one pass. The French did not have better tanks (a common misconception). What they had was better armor and bigger guns. What they didn't have was 3 man turrets (or even 2), viable communication or mechanical reliability ('cept the Somua and possibly the H-39). These factors far outweigh armor and gun. Also, France is slated for CM4 (2 being Russian Front and 3 the Med)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with you in part. True, reliability is an important issue, but it's only just slightly less important than armor thickness and gun quality. If reliability were as important as you suggest, then would you also believe that the Sherman was a superior tank to, say, something like a Tiger (which was plagued with mechanical problems)? ***As a side note, I feel that the most superior tank of WWII was clearly the Panther. It had an even balance of armor, reliability, and gun quality. As for the French... Both Guderian and Rommel (in describing the German run across France) were completely forthcoming about their PZ I, II, and III's inability to stand against the French R and H series tanks. This fact led to German troops developing quite innovative tactics in defeating French armor until the introduction of PZ IVs. Here are some quotes of interest from Guderian's "Panzer Leader" and David Fraser's "Knight's Cross: ...Rommel" that further elaborate both your and my views of what made the French tanks superior to the German PZ I, II, and IIIs. Guderian: "France possessed the numerically strongest tank force in Western Europe... We thus faced superiority in numbers, to which was added the fact that the French tanks were superior to the German ones both in armour and in gun-calibre, though admittedly inferior in control facilities and in speed." Rommel: "The German armour overall was heavily outnumered by that of the French army; nor were French tanks technically inferior. The battle would be decided by the skill and energy of the leaders of the panzer divisions, and by the courage and stamina of their troops."

Hey there Admiral. Manx (and soon Rommel22) posted 2 scenarios and an operation of mine "Maltese Pack". I was wondering if you can include these on your site? Should I send them to you, or can you just dl them from Manx's site? I'd like to put them up for review. "This Town Ist Meine" is meant to be played as the Americans, and the other 2 as the Germans... Let me know. Cheers

Yes, when IS CMBB coming out? The Russians are going to be quite the challenge I think. More specifically, I think Russia is going to be quite the challenge. After having read books by Guderian and Carius, I figure that CMBB will be quite the mud slinging contest! :cool:

I agree, Slapdragon. The Pacific theater with it's island hopping campaign was, for the majority, a carrier war. For CM to do the Pacific, there would be invasion after invasion of different islands. On a different note, I can't see why BTS can't apply its engine to some other "theme" involving a lot of ground warfare.

Wow! :cool: I'm happy! It looks like I got my wish too. I'm really looking forward to combat in the early phases of WWII... Can anyone tell me if BTS plans on just sticking with the WWII theme though? Steve? Charles?

Hello everyone. I thoroughly enjoy playing CMBO, and I'm looking forward to CMBB... I know that this topic has been saturated, but I'd like to see one of these three "themes" for CM III: 1) CMFF (Combat Mission Fall of France) I know that BTS has explained why they went with beyond Overlord, but I still think that the combat between the Germans and French + English was quite challenging to say the least. The French, believe it or not, had superior tanks to those of the Germans. The Germans took France only because of the combination of their new style of warfare (blitzkrieg) and ingenuity of their soldiers and commanders. Putting in nice fortification tiles to simulate the various "lines" and forts would be awesome! 2) CMMK (Combat Mission Medieval Kingdom) As I stated in another thread, I used to enjoy playing Lords of the Realm 2 by Sierra. Although CM's 60sec engine would not be appropriate for this, in my opinion, if it were modified to something like 4 hrs or 4 quarters per day, it could work. Overall, this would be a fun game. Finally, 3) CMRE (Combat Mission Roman Empire) Again, as I stated in another thread, I used to also enjoy playing Caesar III. Now, if BTS were to just focus on a combat game between the Romans and their various enemies throughout the ages, I think there would be another really nice game. What do you guys think?

My very first post was on this topic (campaigns and medals). I mentioned that before CMBO, I enjoyed playing West Front. I really like the campaigns that can be played and the promotions that you and your units can earn... However, not long after having posted that first post of mine and aside of a few supporting comments, I was quickly exposed to the now infamous negative vibes that seem to have affected good people like Manx and Tiger. Overall, BTS has explained in great detail why they feel that campaigns and promotions are not included in the CMBO model, and I respect and understand their rationale. However, personally, I would still like built-in linked campaigns like those in West Front. Alas, you can't have everything...

Actually, you know what I'd like to see? How many of you have played Lords of the Realm II by Sierra? Archers, macemen, swordsmen, knights, sieges, and castles... I used to love playing that game. It was fun and involved player strategy. Unfortunately, it has a crappy AI, and the actual "engine" itself (by today's standards) is rather antique. Although the naval game sounds cool, I don't think that it would be as cool as applying the awesome CM "engine" to a game around an era of castles and archers. A Roman theme would be pretty cool too. Plus, just think of the mod possibilites!

'Nice scenarios! I'll sit down this weekend and try to make it "across the Reich" :cool:

Thanks Manx! 'Glad to see that you decided to stay in business! :cool: Have fun on your vacation! I spent a lot of time designing those scenarios... Have away at 'em guys!!!! Cheers

For crying out loud! Those that would complain about your site, Manx, are ignorant idiots! When one looks at the basics, your site is not about WWII, it's about CMBO! I am a military historian by hobby, and I don't visit your site to get or criticize information that you posted there about WWII. I come to your site to get "stuff" to make my very scarce time of relaxation in playing CMBO a better or more pleasant experience. I've put together a few scenarios... Are they historically accurate? Hell no! I've got a problem with historically accurate scenarios... they are history, and hence, I know all the "surprises" and outcomes involved. What fun is that? Hence, I like fictional scenarios better. To me, they create a more realistic perspective in that you don't know what you're about to encounter (similar to what troops went through during WWII). Now THAT makes a challenge! Those of you that would come to Manx's site as a resource for WWII, please just go elsewhere to gather your "accurate" information about WWII. Otherwise, if you want "stuff" for CMBO, I hope you are all intelligent enough to be able to discern between what you want and don't want for your game! Keep up the awesome work, Manx, and don't ruin your vacation by wasting your time thinking about the ignorant and arrogant remarks made by a select group of idiots! [ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: themaltese ]

...all very good points. It is impossible to achieve perfection, hence it is impossible to satisfy every consumer. What sets military games apart from the others is the fact that most of them are either based on or have a setting in actual, historical contexts (such as WWII in the case of CM). Unlike some futuristic shoot'em up with phaser blasters and plasma missiles, games that have a base in reality (history) are more difficult to do a good job designing simply because the programmers are bound by historical constraints. The other programmers can ignore such contraints in that no one has actually ever seen a "Freakathion battleship with twin plasma bolt launchers, a photon battery, and Algordian defence grid" nor does anyone have any reference to this Freakathion battleship participating in "the great Galaxy War". Such programmers are free to use their imagination and can defend such with that excuse (it's MY imagination). In the case of history, it all happened, but how each of us remembers it is another story, and THAT is what gets people up in arms when someone does a lousy job in representing history (this is true not only in the software field). For example, when I went to see "Saving Private Ryan" in San Antonio, I spoke to this old man after the movie who still had tears streaming down his face. 'Turns out he was/is a WWII vet, and was crying because the movie made him feel like he was there again. He had told me that "after seeing that Hollywood spectacle of a movie, D-Day, I made it a point to never see another WWII movie. With this one, I made an exception, and it's about damn time that someone had the guts to show the world pretty darn close what it was like". All things considered, BTS has done a wonderful job in trying to satisfy everyone in their development of CM, and for the most part, consumers that have bought CM have been satisfied with the product.

Hey there! 'just sent you an email at your new address -- I sent you "Two Bridges For the Fuhrer" (-: Your site looks fine with IE 5.5 . Cheers,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I apologise too for my presumption in criticising your idol, Rommel. How prescient of you too recognise that I style myself on Monty. Always better to style oneself upon a winner, don't you think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL Monty, a winner? Monty didn't beat Rommel, Hitler did. Also, there's that little floundering escapade that Monty performed just after D-Day. Read your books about that! What a "brilliant winning" performance that was! Not to mention, was Monty well respected by both sides both during and after the war? Messages like, "...mit Rommel an der spit!" (with Rommel at the lead) sent an electrifying morale boosting wave amongst the Germans, and a wave of caution and fear amongst the British. For crying out loud, the British even had to issue an ORDER to diffuse the superstition around Rommel being some kind of bogey-man or something! Churchill even publicly mourned Rommel's death with praise. Oh, and let's see, I'm counting at first glance 7 books that I've got on Rommel, a few on Guderian, several on Patton, but I don't recall ever having wasted money on a book on Monty... (albeit, I think there are one or two out there). Rommel and Patton were by far the best, all round field leaders on the Western Front. They both led by example, and never asked of their men to do something that they themselves would not do. Of course, all this is my opinion, and I'm sure it's shared by others as yours is shared by others as well. Back to my original subject in this thread... my question has been more than answered by intelligent individuals arguing both pro and con for having a grand-campaign and medal awarding setup in CMBO. Yes, there is a demand for having these features, but I see that there are a lot of complications involved with implementing such (as some of you have pointed out). Perhaps, if those of us in favor of such features keep posting threads on the subject, BTS might take another look at this concept and other great ideas like a "co-op" mode as suggested by Gyrene in another thread. For those of you that resort to comments like "do a search" and justify them, perhaps you might want to send your resume to Microsoft and work for their Knowledge Bank (FAQ) site. Like this, everytime you receive an email asking a question or pointing out something, you could always use your answer "do a search". [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: themaltese ]

I never stated that my opinions are worth more than others', and I most certainly never implied that. Also, I never implied that anyone is all-knowing on the subject of war. Yes, WWII was a terrible thing. So terrible, in fact, that to this day we're still trying to figure out why and what happened. We've got veterans, we've got memorials, we've got books, videos, ...., and games. Combine all these forms of media and focus them on one subject (such as WWII) and one may have a BETTER understanding of this titanic event, but still a long shot from TOTAL understanding. As for my "alleged credentials", you can go see for yourself the tanks at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, visit the B-17 Sentimental Journey and the He-111 that the Confederate Airforce still flies out of Phoenix, and visit the Champlin Fighter Museum where, back around '89 I had a most memorable conversation with Erich Hartmann (highest ranking ace in history with 352 kills) and Adolf Galland (fighter general) in the vicinity of a VERY rare fw190-D9. 'Kind of funny that at that time, I was only about 24 years old or so, and here were these two Knight's Cross winners joking about how one of them actually received 3 Knight's Crosses as a result of a quality of diamond feud between Hitler and "Her Mayer" (Goering). So, let me not digress too much here, but my previous post was a response strictly to Mr. Fox and his attack on my person rather than my idea. I am by no means lacking in education, and I am by no means an arrogant and patronizing person. I respect opinions, but have no tolerance for just plain stupid remarks. [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: themaltese ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You may have some sort of problem empathising with the experiences of others and require this "feature" in a game to enable you to do so. Rest assured many of us do not, whether it be reading a book or listening to the Last Post yesterday at the dawn service. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that such a flimsy simulacrum of reality as a computer game can remotely convey the realities of the experience, however vicariously you may wish to feel it. By implication you suggest that people round here may have an inadequate respect for bravery and self-sacrifice or insufficient understanding of the horrible reality of war and require a computer game to teach us such things. Such a comment would be moderately insulting if it weren't so ludicrous. Indeed, from your comments regarding cowards, I would suggest you are more in need of education. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just too much hot air coming from Simon Fox here! When someone has to resort to such petty ad hominem attacks, it kind of makes me wonder if Mr. Fox can read and interpret things in an educated way, and respond in an educated way. FYI, I never suggested anything by implication. All I stated was an opinion that was not designed to accuse anyone of anything, but rather to JUST state an opinion. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that... but I don't take to patronizing, hot-air filled, self-rightous, pompous, Montgomery wannabes stating so much rubbish that I'm the one that needs to be educated (especially coming from someone that has to nerve to state that Rommel's actions in leading is men from the front was "silly"). My perspective of realism in CMBO is not as good as that of someone that actually served on the Western Front during WWII, but alas, I was too young (not even born) to have been there. I DID however take the time to study the subject (and if you'd read AND understood my second entry in this thread) you can easily see that I took the time to talk and visit with some very prominent figures in WWII. Not only that, but I took the time to visit a LOT of memorials and parks to actually see a Sherman, Tiger, me-109, fw190, B-17, He-111, and more up close! I've even flown in a B-17 (Sentimental Journey, with the Confederate Airforce in Phoenix, AZ) I even had a very interesting chat with a former Sherman gunner who was staring at the Tiger on display in front of us. He told me so much about how 15 Shermans would go out, maybe 1 or 2 would come back. His tank came back several times simply because "luckily, every time we ran out, we never came across something like this (pointed at Tiger) that had any ammo left for us after having taken out almost everything on the field". So, for further realism while I'm playing CMBO, I know what the real deals look like up close, and I add to those images the words of the soldiers that I spoke with. But not everyone has had this priviledge, so pardon me if I have a little say in stating my opinion on how the game could be made just a tad more realistic. Yes, it is JUST a game, but when you have other people (as shown in this thread) that were sorely hurt when they lost their highly decorated crews in other games that offered such things as decorations and campaigns, even by simple reasoning, anyone can see that bears a strong resemblance to the real feeling of losing commrades in war. Again, let me underline that this bears A STRONG RESEMBLANCE to the real feeling, and that I am by no means implying that it a substitute in any way. In both cases, it is a feeling of loss, period. Oh, and by the way Mr. Fox, that's DR. The Maltese to you.

Okay, now I'm seeing some very interesting arguments both for and against what I was inquiring about. Obviously, there is a demand for perhaps creating some grand-campaign function within CM. What I propose is a system of promotion, and medals be awarded to your character and units surviving certain lengths of time or reaching a certain number of objectives. If you look at CMBO, it is in itself a "grand-campaign". However, there is nothing that should stop the development of "grand-campaigns" within the scope of the Western Front. If such campaigns were to be developed, I would be thinking something like "Patton's Drive North", "Race Across France", "The Big Red One", or "Battle of the Bulge" (each one containing a series of scenarios forming a campaign, and containing several of these campaigns to form the grand-campaign). The promotion system that I would propose would start you off in the first scenario of the first campaign as a figure with rank of your choice. In designing such, you could go in two directions here. Let's say that you decide to start off as a squad leader or something. One perspective could be that the scenario would be very small and would feature just your squad (this would really suck, though). The other perspective could be that the scenario size remains constant no matter what rank you pick, but your command is limited to the rank that you've selected, and the AI takes care of the rest of the guys. This would be a cool option in that you would act as an independant force within the range of your army. Say that the overall objective of the scenario is to take 3 towns and a small marker. Your orders, as a squad or platoon leader, could be to take the small marker while the major force (controlled by the AI) takes the others. As you progress through the scenarios (and your character remains alive), you could be promoted to a higher rank and thus gain control of a greater force. Also, your character's presence in the vicinity of certain troops should affect their morale or fighting spirit towards the positive side (effectively, CMBO does this already in a way with squads receiving additional benefit by being within command range of an HQ) so it could be done. Hence, if you're a leader like Rommel (who led from the front), your troops will probably fight better than if you sat in the back watching your men die. Overall, as you and your units progress, you and your units (say the HQs of each unit) could receive awards for remaining alive and having reached particular objectives in a certain amount of time. This could all be done, but I'm not a programmer, and hence do not know what would be involved in creating this addition. I think it's a nice idea, but I don't think BTS would commit to it (like several of you have mentioned already).

VERY interesting idea! I especially like the idea of generic markers until you can visually verify a friend or enemy. Hopefully BTS takes this under consideration.

Thanks Juardis (Jeff)! Your response makes sense and is the type of response I was looking for. I agree with you about this not being feasible for scenarios, but it's definitely feasible for campaigns. At least if we had a figure on the field representing us, and the game continuing depending on whether or not this figure is still alive at the end of each scenario in a campaign, I would make do with that. That would separate the chicken-s**t commanders who hide waaaaayyy behind their troops from commanders like Rommel and Patton who led their men from the front. I still think that CMBO is the best ground warfare ever to have come about! It's amazing how far we've come from those silly 2-D games, huh?

Greetings to all my fellow armchair generals. I posted a simple comment and question and, apparently, I got a majority response ranging from absolute sarcasm to mindless, sign-of-the-times, buzzword rhetoric "do a search", to the more mature understanding that, indeed, all I did was make a comment and ask a question. So, let me address the sarcastic remarks first. I am extremely interested in military history with emphasis on WWII. I have visited Normandy, I have visited Bastogne, I have visited Tobruk, and I have visited a lot of places were lives were given with the utmost display of courage on both sides. I have spoken with 2 survivors of the BISMARCK. I have visited with 3 Knight's Cross winners, spoken with 1 Medal of Honor recepient, spoken with survivors of Omaha Beach,and I have spoken with Rommel's driver in Africa. NOT ONE PERSON that I know that went through the HELL that was known as WWII would take kindly to comparing medals to chocolate bars! CMBO is a game, but a game that prides itself on realism. All I did was mention that I liked the idea of having "careers and medals" in West Front and Panzer Commander, and asked a question as to whether or not there was a demand for this addition. Which brings me to "do a search". I can read, and I can understand that the designers of CMBO did not feel like putting in these features because of their own reasons. However, I ASKED the QUESTION as to whether or not there is a DEMAND for this feature? Going back to the basics of business, SUPPLY is controllable (in this case, from the developers of CMBO), DEMAND is not. My question was on the DEMAND side, and perfectly legitimate. If the guys at TalonSoft, SSI, and Microprose put this feature that I'm asking about in their product, did they do it because THEY felt like it was a cool feature, or did they do it because there was a demand for it? I like the features of careers and medals in games for TWO very justified reasons: 1) to add incentive for one to reach and continue to reach objectives, and 2) to add further realism to the game by making a player think twice about sending his own figure or men to their deaths. This day and age of saving where you left off at a good point, or using multiple lives to continue after you got your head blown off in a previous game, creates an illusion that only detracts from realism. On a last note, to prove that I'm right, I challenge you that are owners of games with "careers" in them (i.e. European Air War, Panzer Commander, West Front ...)to play the game with the knowledge that, if you die, you're dead and your career is over, period. I am more than positive that you'll notice, in realizing your own mortality, you'll play a little differently than if you were playing for the hell of it, and knowing that "Awh, no problem, I'll just fly that again with my re-incarnated butt." It's safe to be in our chairs, right, to play these games and fire-off wise-ass remarks? But if you take one moment in any game where you feel a fear of losing your own in-game "life" (which may give you a ever so slight picture of the hell soldiers, sailors, and pilots went through in wars) and you perform some act of courage like landing on Omaha or bringing your single tank's gun to bear on an advancing column of enemy tanks to protect a retreating column of your own soldiers, and then "living" through this incredible act, quite possibly, you may develop a better respect for bravery and self-sacrifice, a lesser respect for cowards, and a better understanding of the horrible reality of war.

Hi there! I am totally awestruck at CMBO! I was once a great fan of Panzer Commander, West Front, and East Front II. Now, CMBO combines Panzer Commander and West Front to a degree that's got me 100% addicted. When CM2 comes out, East Front II will be a thing of the past too! I do have one issue with CM, though, that I miss from the other games -- careers and promotions. It was a satisfying experience in both PC and WF to be "rewarded" with a medal or promotion after smashing my opponents! Is there a demand for incorporating careers and promotions into this already beyond excellent game? I, for one, would really like to see this addition. themaltese