Lambshank

I will be more than happy to take Lambshanks copy of CM:BB since he obviously will not be happy. </font>

I haven't seen any previous commentary on this before (and I searched, so that should mean I pass my morale check), but the CM:BB art (presumably to be used on the manual cover and opening game screen) I've seen here and in the ads at wargamer.com is lame, borderline insulting to the intelligence. The backwards "Rs" don't suggest "Cyrillic", they suggest "illiterate." It's the kind of design element I'd expect from a C&C mass-market type game. I know, it's not the typical grog lament about air-speed velocities of unladen Sturmoviks, but I'll be somewhat disappointed if that bit of amateur typography greets me and shatters the verismillitude each time I fire up the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I guess [this MG thread] is similar to a conversation about cooking Hot Dogs. I can say that fire allows you to cook your hot dogs thus making them taste better. However, If you always eat your Hot Dogs raw you might saw - "aww, cooking Hot Dogs is overrated - I eat my Hot Dogs raw all the time and they taste just fine." I can tell you about cooking Hot Dogs until I am blue in the face, but until you've actually cooked one you will never know what you are missing. Once you eat cooked Hot Dogs though, you will never want to go back to raw. If BTS ever gets full modelling of grazing fire into CM, you will wonder why you ever thought MGs were adequate before. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> or, one may know the pleasures of a pan fried or grilled hot dog, but realize the particular stove or grill one has will take 2–3 years to cook it properly. Given that bounding parameter, one will gladly take a raw hot dog, when what one has been eating before has been cat food. The discussion of tactics and game implementation is fruitful and enjoyable, but I sense no one is arguing that the game as a whole is not “gamey”. What I sense is the argument is whether we've reached a point of diminishing marginal returns, or worse, whether tampering with the balance of nature in a high-strung simulation will result in even more egregious outcomes.

from ASL Vet: quote: (from Battaglia) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would argue therefore that CM models things pretty well (with room for future enhancements) in terms of MG effectiveness. 1 MG vs. 1 squad, whether the MG has them in enfilade or the squad is making a frontal assault, and the squad is going to suffer heavily. Once you start adding more units, the MG can't cope with the numbers. In the former case, men will get by and in the latter the MG is doomed (but the infantry will still suffer some stiff casualties). From what I can tell, this is realistic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course this is just flat out incorrect. The problem is how Grazing Fire is being defined.<snip /> >>I think you're applying the argument that MGs are modelled in a mechanistically unrealistic manner, which is categorically true (even with a generous definition of "realism") to Major Battaglia's argument that the *outcomes* are realistic. Given previous citation of casualty figures in WWII conflicts in Nothern Europe (the time and place modelled by unadulterated CM:BO), Battaglia's assertion is reasonable. The outcomes encourage a player to employ them in conjunction with other units on the battlefield in a manner approximating historical usage. Now, I'm not discounting the value of taking into account a muzzle-to-target cone of fire. Would modelling that add to the CM:BO experience? Doubtless. (Holy processing speed, Batman...). Certainly, this sort of "every object on the battlefield modelled" is the stuff of young boys' dreams.