PiggDogg

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Firefly: As for Monty being the worst general of the war, it's such a ludicrous statement that I doubt the originator of the claim was serious. Monty had plenty of faults, but was he worse than the Italian generals in their invasion of Greece? Originally posted by machineman: Certainly not the worst, but probably one of the most overrated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with both of you. Monty certainly should never be counted amonst the worst commanders. Indeed, he was overrated and certainly may not make the best commander list. However, he was pretty damn good and was certainly one of the best British commanders. Richard Cuccia

The relative spotting that was previously described is only a part of what I was proposing above. What I am proposing is more comprehensive than just relative spotting. Cheers, Richard Cuccia

To BTS: For CM3 or 4 - Commander's Relative Command (CRC) Versus CMBO's Commander's Omniscient Command (COC) Let me preface this post. I love CMBO. It is the most fun that I have had on the computer and in war gaming. Also, since about 1960, I have played many, many (most?) of the war games to have come down the pike from S&T, Avalon Hill, etc. So I have seen a 'few' (I have a whole walk-in closet filled with war games going back to Tactics II) war games. In the 60's (back in the old days), I had thought about something like CM, but never expected that it would be implemented at all, much less in a entertaining and fun way. However, to make CM better, I was thinking ... In CMBO and in real life, a commander receives information regarding the battle and his and enemy units (spotting). He then utilizes this information/spotting in order to issue orders to his units to take advantage of this information to crawl on to victory (order transmission). CMBO's present spotting/command structure is what might be called "Commander's Omniscient Command" (COC). COC consists of Commander's Omniscient Spotting (COS) and Commander's Omniscient Order Transmission (COOT). CMBO's COS means that if any friendly unit (yep, even that lone sharpshooter way on the far left map edge, crawling from one stand of tall pines to the next heavy woods) spots something, then the player/commander (P/C) also spots that same something. Obviously, each unit carries a direct radio to the P/C or has a paranormal, telepathic link to the P/C. Even better, maybe the P/C actually sees through the eyes of each friendly unit on the map, sort of like Laura Mars (maybe someone remembers that movie from about 25 years ago). Indeed, quite cool, lol. Further, CMBO's COOT has the P/C somewhat instantaneously (yes, I know that an order execution time delay exists between the command transmission and a unit's execution of same) transmitting an order to a unit and that unit, even if it is multiple hundreds of meters distant from the P/C, receives the orders and executes the order. (Boy, those WW2 headset radios and those Jessie Owens runners sure do work wonders.) Needless to say, such "omniscient" P/C powers of spotting and order transmission are somewhat beyond the realm of this particular universe. May I propose for CM3 or 4 or for the rewrite of the CM code the following: "Commander's Relative Command" (CRC). CRC would consist of Commander's Relative Spotting (CRS) and Commander's Relative Order Transmission (CROT). [sure are a lot of acronyms, eh.]. CRS consists of whatever the P/C can see from his unit's position on the map. Plus, CRS includes whatever reports (via runners, radio, noise, informed wild butt guess, etc.) that the P/C receives. Obviously, the P/C must be personified by a commander unit, platoon or company, on the map. Also, that unit must remain alive and should find a good safe vantage point to view and to receive reports of the battle. It is hard to issue orders if you are wounded or, worse, dead. The long and short of this is that what the P/C sees on the game map is only his estimation, interpretation, and guess of what is going on around him in the battle. This is not necessarily what actually is happening. What the game map shows are the P/C's guesses and estimates which may be right or wrong or somewhere in between. CROT consists of the time delay in issuing the orders to his units, the delay for the orders to be transmitted to his units (by voice, by runner, by radio, by other) , and the delay that the units would have in executing the received order. Also, the local commanders (LC) below the P/C, with or without orders, could, should, and must act on their own as the situation dictates. Further, this LCs could execute, mis-execute, or ignore the received orders as they interpret or misinterpret the orders. In fact, sometimes the orders never arrive because the runner caught shrapnel in the brain or the radios may have broken down. Thus, the CM AI has to be beefed up quite a bit, because (I don't want to be too critical) the present AI is slightly smarter than a box of rocks. Example, if a player slightly mis-clicks a unit's orders to clear terrain slightly outside an intended woods line, that unit will slavishly sit in the open and not use its AI brain and seek the woods cover without less than gentle prompting from enemy fire. Regarding BTS's implementation of CRC, I do not have much idea how difficult CRC would be to code (I guess that CRC would be difficult to code). Also, I do not know if this would be more fun than what we have presently in CMBO. We don't want sales of CM to drop. The more sales, the more CM because BTS makes more money and they can feed their families (and they can buy their villas on the south French coast. Lol, I know way better). Maybe, CRC can be implemented as a toggle on/off or in increments in CM3, or 4, or 18. Just some thoughts and hopefully some gentle persuasion of BTS. Cheers, Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ# 116577632 :cool:

Guys, thanks for the replys. The random QBs are just really neat because each person is given a polyglot of units that sometimes contain bizarre unit combinations. The unknown composition of the enemy force and the necessity to properly use your mishmash of units give one fear and it imparts an illusion of reality. This is good.

Thanks to Maastrictian and Pak40 for your posts. Even though I really don't want to purchase troops and am an inveterate random AI troop selection person, I will be pleased to see how my upcoming random AI troop purchases stack up to your comments. Your comments seem pretty accurate according to my readings. Further, so far, my impression is that the random AI troop purchase goes pretty much according to your posts. Cheers, Richard Cuccia

A company commander may not know what his company may consist of until the night before a movement or just before jump off. The new warm bodies and new equipment come when they come. I submit that sometimes, and probably somewhat frequently for the Germans on defense, a company commander may get a weird mix of units because that is all that 'he is given' by the higher-ups or that is all that he has left. Further, the game has "alt p" to stop the timed setup, so one can familiarize himself with his company during set up. :cool:

Without doubt the Random AI purchase of units gives a more accurate feel to the game. Further, I suggest, that such AI purchase is more accurate. The AI gives you crappe. Well guess what, your opponent gets crappe also. If you and your opponent choose your forces, you won't choose crappe. The AI gives a player many units that most players would not choose for various reason (example: unit x is a better buy than unit y because unit y is too expensive for the points spent, or a Panther is a better/worse buy than a Hetzer). In a random AI purchase, as Germans in a defense, you might get one 50mm AT gun and a few 20mm guns to kill Shermans. Guess what, those 20mms just are not going to kill many Shermans from the front. But you just got to live with it and be innovative in those pesky 20mms use. (actually, your computer men might die from it. Lol.) In real life if you were a company commander, you would get whatever you had left from the last battle. Additionally, if you are lucky, you might get a few infantry replacement to replace your previous casualties. Further, if you are 'real' lucky you might get whatever vehicle or gun that the repair pool sends to you. Cool. If anyone thinks that in real life a company commander gets to pick his force, well, that anyone is 'mistaken'. A real life company commander if pretty far down on the food chain and he gets whatever is available. He just makes do. He just doesn't get to choose a Panther or Jumbo 76 because they are great weapons. He usually gets a Marder or a Sherman w/ short 75. Sometimes, fate smiles on him and sometimes fate does not. Those are the vagaries of war. I just like random AI purchase of units & I feel it is more accurate and is a better gaming experience. Cheers, Richard Cuccia, ICQ# 116577632

Additional ideas (some have already been mentioned in this thread & elsewhere) for CMBB & beyond: (1) Smarter AI [present AI is as smart as a box of rocks]. (2) Units seek & utilize nearby cover without explicit orders [related to smarter AI]. (3) Group way points. (4) An 'immediate runaway if you are shot at' command [yes, I am aware of the 'withdraw' command]. (5) Command for CMBB to cook my breakfast, lunch, & dinner and vacuum the floors [lol]. If these are installed CMBB will be well near perfect. Richard Cuccia, ICQ# 116577632, richardcuccia@home.com

Additional ideas (some have already been mentioned in this thread & elsewhere) for CMBB & beyond: (1) Smarter AI [present AI is as smart as a box of rocks]. (2) Units seek & utilize nearby cover without explicit orders [related to smarter AI]. (3) Group way points. (4) An 'immediate runaway if you are shot at' command [yes, I am aware of the 'withdraw' command]. (5) Command for CMBB to cook my breakfast, lunch, & dinner and vacuum the floors [lol]. If these are installed CMBB will be well near perfect. Richard Cuccia, ICQ# 116577632, richardcuccia@home.com

Aw come on. Someone must have an idea or knowledge regarding this subject. Please ... . Richard Cuccia, ICQ# 116577632

I have played quite a few (many) CMBO quick battles with random 'purchase units', random 'type', and random 'force'. In the at least 50 plus such QBs I have never seen an infantry versus infantry match. Further, I have never seen Gebirgsjagers. How come? Is there any way to every so often randomly get an infantry versus infantry matchup? Further, in 'random QBs', is there any way to get cross matches between possibly infantry versus mech or maybe combined arms versus armor, etc. I know that if I set up an infantry versus infantry battle, the zooks, pzschrecks, & piats become the suicide scouts and pointmen to 'sniff' out enemy positions because you "know" that no enemy tanks are around. I suspect that if one does not know if the enemy does or does not have vehicles, I and my opponents would not be so profligate with the AT teams. Comment time ! :confused:

Sorry to hear about Jack's passing. Unfortunately, with the present technology, we all must go.

Monty definitely does not go on the worst list. However, he surely did bungle Market-Garden. Now if Patton had commanded the 21st Army Group or the Brit 2nd Army there ... Makes one wonder that maybe not "A Bridge Too Far".

Viceroy: "How do you rate Zhukov? I'm curious why no one on this thread has touted his name as a possible contender for best commander. I've seen his name on the worst commander thread which amazes me." >>>>>> Zhukov is near the top of the best commanders. See my two threads in the "Worst Commander". I heartily defended Zhukov there.

kburns24: "Yes, Zhukov may have won many battles, but at what cost? Yes, battles were won and Germany was defeat. Great. He is my pick because of the utter waste he displayed at throwing men and material at the German war effort on the East Front. A great military mind puts into consideration all aspects of a battle. One being, victory at what cost? Zhukov knew that he had millions of men to pull from and he was reckless in his tactics when employing them. I suppose you'll be defending trench warfare and its effectiveness in WWI also? Another great waste." >>>>> Once again, I am no great Russian/communist lover, However ... When oneu fight wars, one beats his opponent by using the assets that are given. Zhukov beat the bar none 'best' army in WW2, the German Army. In fact, the Russians almost, but not quite, did it by themselves. Zhukov used his assets: lots of warm bodies, lots of good, easy to produce tanks, lots of lend lease materiale, and a culture that had a cheap opinion of human life. The Russians bled the Germans white. There was no other way for the Russians to win. If Zhukov had to send 10 Russian to kill one German and had to lose 5 of those Russians to kill the German, his country was willing to pay the price. Zhukov did the best he could with what he had. Zhukov overwhelmed the Germans. No one else (German, American, British, etc.) could have done better with the WW2 Russian army. They could have only done the same: win at horrendous cost. In fact, the Western allies did basically did the same thing as the Russians except with finesse: overwhelm the Germans. The Western allies simply saved the high butcher bill by having and using effectively a whole lot of artillery and a whole lot of infantry killing Sherman tanks. In fact, CMBO shows, in general, that if one is given enough time and if one can eliminate all the enemy's armor and have one mobile infantry killing cannon (a tank) left alive, that remaining cannon will kill the enemy infantry and that side will win. Zhukov certainly was not a perfect commander, but he continuously won in many most difficult circumstances and in most pivitol battles: Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc. He is nowhere near the worst major commander of WW2. In fact, he is near one of the best commanders of WW2. (and I really don't like communitsts, but I can read and understand history.) Cheers

In no particular order: Zhukov, 'Smiling' Albert Kesselring, Bradley, Mainstein, Rommel, Patton, MacArthur.

kburns24: "Zhukov has to be up there as one of the worst commanders. After the Stalin purges, this idiot is given the reins? Stalin wouldn't have had nearly the amount of losses had he not killed his best military minds early in the war." -------- Are you kidding about Zhukov. I am no Russian or Communist lover by any means, but Zhukov is probably one of the absolute "best" commanders of WW2. At every place that he command, he won. In 1941, in initial German rush to Leningrad, Zhukov commanded at that city, stablized the front at the city, and saved that city from German capture, albeit at horrendous cost. Later in l941, Zhukov commanded at Moscow, saved the city from German capture, and, with the help of the Russian winter, he even counterattacked throwing the Germans back from Moscow's front door. Once again, he accomplished it at horrendous cost. In 1942, Zhukov commanded the defense of Stalingrad and the incredible Russian encirclement of the German 6th Army. Granted, Hitler's stupidity contributed mightily to the German defeat, but, guess what - Zhukov won, of course with horrendous loss, but not a horrendous as Zhukov's prior two battles. During the rest of the war in old mother Russia, Zhukov continuted to win wherever he commanded. But actually, after Stalingrad, the Russians could hardly lose barring utter stupidity, which the Russians did not show. Notice that Zhukov and, for that matter, all Russian commanders lost battles and won battles at horrendous loss. Horrendous loss was almost a prerquisite for Russian battle in WW2. The Russians paid the major butcher bill to defeat the best army in WW2, the German. The western democracies of course contributed most of the materiale to defeat the Nazis. The USA, the UK, Canada, Poland, Austrailia and the rest of the world contributed in blood to the Allied victory and I respect and do not belittle their loss. However, have no doubt - the Russians, military & civilians, paid the 'major' butcher bill to defeat Nazi German. Cheers, Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com

For CM2, I would rathar that BTS spend its time on refining the game mechanics and play. I would suspect that implimenting a campaign for CM2 would be tremendously time consuming and that time could be better spend elsewhere. Also, for me personally, scenarios of much more than 700 to 1000 points is too much like work to be fun. Further, (once again for me), large scenarios just take too much time. I just do not have a lot of time to play CMBO/CM2, and I want the time that I do spend on them to be the best experience possible. Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ# 116577632.

Salute to the millions on both sides who died so that two vicious, murderous dictators could try to crush each other by squandering the lives of their citizens. The 1941 leadership of both coutries, German and Russia, should have been executed instead of condemning millions of people, especially the innocent, to senseless slaughter. Shame on humanity. Now, on a lighter note, y'all ready for a weekend of playing CMBO ?????? Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ 116577632

Each and every year, I remember both June 22, June 6, and December 7. I expect that we all know the significance of these dates. Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ 116577632. PS - If you have ICQ, put me on your CMBO list and maybe we can play sometime.

The proposed "Runaway Command" (RAC) is not an advance to contact command (by the way, the advance to contact command seems quite useful). It would be a runaway from contact command. If a unit has been given this command, the unit would bug out as soon as the emeny sights them and would take any action against them. Also, the RAC cuts down on micro management of units which is always a good thing. Furthermore, the RAC is not a "boy-I-screwed-up-make-yourself-invisible-instantly-and-do-not-get-killed-by-enemy" order as Moon & Pak 40 suggested. Col Deadmarsh pretty well had it correct. It is a "I suspect that you will be overmatched, keep your eyes open, if you are overmatched, you bug out - DO NOT hold your ground !!" command. Now, will this RAC be implimented in CM2 ?? I doubt it, but I think that it would be a realistic, useful, & valid command. Cheers, Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com

Mines & spotting them - hit & miss, probably like in real life. Some of my experiences: (1) German engineer squad 'walked' over the expected AT mine site in open terrain: no see mines. Two halftracks drive over the site: see no mines, pass over OK. Third halftrack (fortunately not a precious tank) drives over site and 'discovers' the AT mines the 'hard' way by detonating a mine - cool! (2) a quite usual situation: hidden AT minefield. Halftrack drives over site and is ok. Damn, if a tank/sp gun follows up the halftrack and it 'discovers' the AT minefield the hard way - real cool. It is just the fates of war and, I would suggest, probably is quite realistic. Cheers. Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ# 116577632.

I am quite aware of the "withdraw" command. I use it most frequently. However, my proposed "Runaway" command (RAC) is not to bail one out of "crap commands" as Stalin's Organ suggests. The RAC simply allows outposts, sharpshooters, tripwire teams, AT teams, etc. to have contact and then run or shoot & run. I think that this is a valid possible command for future and present CM. I would think that in real life, a tripwire/etc team would not take unnecessary fire just to await the last 37 seconds of the turn to expire. This RAC, is a good and valid idea. Cheers. Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ# 116577632

I was playing some CMBO recently and realized that there is no "Runaway" command (RAC). The RAC should allow most any unit or units to just jump up and runaway/withdraw (a) if they were getting hammered too badly, ( if they were badly outnumbered and the enemy was approaching near, © if they were on outpost or observation duty and enemy gets too close, (d) an enemy that is near impervious to the friendly unit's or units' fire and the impervious enemy is pounding the friendlies, or (e) some other such similar circumstance occurs. Recently in a CMBO game, I had a couple of small infantry units on outpost duty and they took a good 30-45 seconds of close enemy fire before the turn ended. By the time that I could give my guys the 'withdraw' command, they were dead. Just thinking and suggesting. Any other comments?? Richard, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ# 116577632. :confused:

First to get the nice part of the Brit/Can/Pole Infantry. Their paratroops are tough as nail and can stand with any German infantry. Now the bad part, B/C/P line infantry just doesn't have the firepower to stand with most German infantry (of course, excluding the German security troops which is as bad as the B/C/P infantry. B/C/P tanks/armor are marginally better than the American's and we know of the general problem of Allied tanks versus German tanks. The assorted B/C/P 'funny' vehicles help redress the inferiority of B/C/P infantry. B/C/P off board arty is excellent. The surprising unit is the two inch mortars. They kill German AT & infantry guns like no one's business. Otherwise, they are of marginal value, because they do not kill German infantry. I tend to use at least one 2 incher per platoon and spread the rest out to spot & kill enemy guns. I almost only play random most everything quick battles. These somewhat replicate the vagaries of war. I just live with what the computer gives me & my opponent. I do groan when I am dealt the B/C/P, but I live with it and make do. The Fates speak and I do what they utter. Hope that this helps. Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ# 116577632