Puff the Magic Dragon

Jester I have also noticed that some members are just try to affront other members when they notice that they have no better arguments. You know, like 'hey, whatever you say, we all know what a..-kind of person-..e you are, so who cares that you are right'. This can be very annoying & frustating. I know about a janitor from the Dep. of Justice who do so regulary here. I guess some people haven't figured out that we don't live to be important. We only live to enjoy the trip

John :confused: I thought the answer is 42?

Tanaka First, you bring a big 'problem' of CM to the point: infantry is in princip simulated like a vehicel. I guess that's much more important then anything else. But why complicate things? Do we need each man displayed on the screen like in CC? I don't think so. It wouldn't make things easier or more realistic. I also don't see opportunitys regarding movement orders or position the units. But how about the weapons? Well, a tank or gun can fire for example 5 times in one minute. But this abstraction of infantry fire is absolutly unrealistic, and indeed it produces several problems like the known MG issue. I guess the only way out would be to simultate each single rifle, pistol, MP etc. A 10 men squad can fire in 10 different directions on 10 different targets. And not only 5 times a turn, during the whole turn. An MG can cover a whole area with fire. Mh...BTS fix of something . At least in the next engine. [ February 03, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Okay, I read a bit more about FTs in the Wehrmacht. I must change my point of view (from the earlier threats). The truth is: - The (Wehrmacht) FT were indeed organized as troop: troop leader, FT, assistent (yes, three men). The reason is simply that the FT were not always taken to the front. If it were needed, the special troop were build. It was a special weapon for special jobs. If it was not needed, the FT was left at the camp, so the men could be used in a more sensefull way. - as said, FTs were not always used as part of the platoon, they were only used when they were really needed. So it would be unrealistic to combine them with the squad. But for that reason it is also unrealistic that the players are forced to purchase them in QBs together with pioneers. What would make sense whould be a pioneer platoon with FT troop (and 1 less man in each squad) and a pioneer platoon without FT troop (with full squad). - The soak off factor: you are right, Steve. But the soak off factor IS already modeled in CM. When an FT squad is hit, the assistant always dies first. And other then a MG or Zook, the FT is not a weapon that can be quickly taken from a dead man's back by the assistant. Beside that, as you said by yourself, no one was lucky to carry the FT, so the assistant wouldn't be very enthusiastic to be the next primary target of the whole frontline. Eat this, Steve .

Status quo: units change there moral only when they get under fire. I wonder why. I have often read that soldiers already fill their pants when they only see tanks moving in. We can also assume that the crew of the 'gamey recon jeep' isn't amused when they must move into enemy territory - doesn't matter if the will find the enemy or not. Just two examples. I hope you got the point I guess that's something for the engine rewrite.

Scipio said it hasn't happened the first time. What makes him tired most was the reaction on his plea for an excuse, and the reaction of the board admin. Sensitive? Hey, we are talking about an artist Language? IMO especially because here are so many different cultures, the admin should be more sensitive regarding the language. 'Sod' is maybe harmless for Americans, bud deadly for Turks (just an example). Well, it's not my board, I'm only guest [ February 01, 2002, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

I know Scipio personaly and talked to him. Scipio has followed Madmatt's proposal, made in a threat a few weeks ago. In short words: if Scipio is not able or willing to take personal insultings by the community, especialy on this board, he shall leave. So he did. That's really bad. First JohnS (aka Tiger), now Scipio.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: I still think that .50's should be more effective against light buildings and wooden bunkers though, at least to the point of reducing their cover factor for the people inside. Gyrene<hr></blockquote> Why that? A ruined building doesn't loose so much cover as you might think. The total destruction of Stalingrad helped the defenders more then the attackers. Similar the Monte Cassino battle. AFAIK, the abbey was completly destroyed by the Allies, but never taken. Destruction produces chaos, chaos makes spotting harder.

Steve I hope you Charles has not forgotten the map generator bug that creates such funny roads [ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

KwazyDog This is cruel!!! I guess I won't sleep for three nights cause I have seen this beauty If all models in CM:BB will look this way, it means the end of the mod community - at least it will though to top this!

Something that has been completly ignored yet are victory conditions in Operations. We have no VL flags there (why not??), but it doesn't seem to be a simple rate of casualities like in a scneario without flags. Has someone already figured out how it works?

I think, how many different mods of each type do the folks want to see or produce? Look at the uniform mods, how many Wehrmachts uniforms are already out now? Maybe some people are tired to do the 10th PzIV, or they are looking forward to CM:BB already. About myself, I exchange my mods only if I find one that is really better then the one I had before. And I guess we are at a point were maybe more is produced, but not much that is significant better. I personally would lose motivation when I try to do a mod and see that it won't be better then another one that's already available.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: Hey easy, Steve isn't our local lexicon.<hr></blockquote> He is not??? Damned, I thought he must pay a beer when he is wrong for the third time .

Priest Good points. I must confess, I play to win. Competetition is fun. Victory is joy. From one point of view I hate this bean counting, but on the other hand it is necessary to know where you stand and if a risk is worth the price you might have to pay. Points are maybe not the best way, but as I already said, I can't find a better one - the current system simply works. An example - at the beginning of a battle I ran into a bulk of tanks, they completly destroyed my left flank, made a lot of points and took two VLs. In the center I took also two VLs, and destroyed a minor infantry force, but Ilost most of my tanks and I can not attack with my infantry over the open (snow) terrain. In CM terms the battle was lost for me (I guess a minor). In reality, we both would try to get support and attack the opponent with superior forces. This would of course need more time then the CM battle offers, so in princip, the battle would simply stop now. But in game, my opponent tried an attack, I had some luck and now he is also out of tanks, must advance over open snow terrain and he gets a bloody nose. With some more luck, the battle will now end as minor for me. So it's like in real life. He underestimated a risk, now he must pay for it . Berlichingen I can't rate the C&C before I have seen how it works and the effects it will cause, so please excuse that I don't answer that question . I don't expect missconceptions, I'm just curious how they solved this question - without doubts, the Russian casualties were extreme, IIRC they lost 10-12 Million soldiers, Germany on all fronts 'only' 3-4 Million. I still think that the (plain) Sherman is a piece of crap , and the Panther is godlike compared to it, especially since I killed 20 Shermans with 4 Panthers .

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I assumed that if the flag was German, there was "no contest" so to speak. All the flags have been German for the entire course of the game. How then, does the American player have 24 percent of the score?<hr></blockquote> I agree, Steve must be wrong again ! I always thought that the vicotry, while the battle is running, is calculated by using a) the known VLs the known (+ estimated?) enemy casualties c) the know own casualties

Xerxes I see it vice versa - a typical CM battle is a typical 'each day' fighting. Walker Indeed it is a secondary question. Men fight and die in war, doesn't matter if they were crews or infantry or whatever. But we should give them a historical realistic electronic death , and if crews influence the general tactic in an inhistoric manner, then a change of their abilities should be considered. And if you refer to incorect sbellling...I have an excuse, I'm German . I don't know about the others [ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: But when you see the new simulation of command and control you will understand why it was that such forces, in real life, were often defeated by smaller German forces. <hr></blockquote> Well, that's what I meant . I just wanted to express HOW CURIOUS I AM and how mad I'm getting while I wait for my new favorite toy Needless to say that I can't discuss this issue before I have seen the new C&C

Steve Let me jump back to something I said earlier. I understand that the importance of casualties can be negated with VLs in scenarios. But how about QBs? IIRC, the Russian had more men and material on the battlefield, but there typical tactic were 'overrun' without any care about the casualties. Poor soldiers was send on attacks without arms, just to test the German defense. The expected lifetime of T-34 were less then two weeks. A saying was 'Monday build, wednesday on field, friday dead' (or similar). I wonder how this will be solved. If the Soviet tanks would be just cheaper in pp, they would always outnumber the German tanks. This may be historic, but I think it won't work in CM. Or was decided to ignore the Soviet majority, because the player is not expected to act so stupid like the Soviet leadership?

Slapdragon I mean things like 'these rather rare examples of extreme idiocy'. Or 'every half baked conversation' was also not very diplomatic. Or things that were said to a German child in another threat. Well, just my opinion. Keep in mind, enough lies were told about dragons by people like 'St' George - the truth is, we are honorable and friendly! Redwolf I agree to Slap. The idea is interesting, but hard to realize. Not to mention the following discussions about 'justified values'!

I knew I would trap myself when I mentioned the 'til the last men' thing. Slapdragon Have you ever considered to stop using bad words? Even if some people don't deserve something better, it is not a must in public, and it turns interesting discussion into flamewars, and someone will lock them up. This would be sad Binkie Well, as I said...no one lives forever. I assume I just had tough luck. Steve Good to hear. Not all my prayers were wasted

Slapdragon I'm not sure if I understood this right. 17 minutes from the first tank was shot till the last gun was taken out? 17 minutes from the beginning of the counter attack til the last gun was down? Do have this details available? Michael I also assume that they first need some time to organize - as we know, tankers have no Panzerfausts when they jumped out of the tank.

Steve Arrgh - you mean I'm wrong?!? Blasphemy! . Well, okay - it was only a hidden beck (CAMPAIGNS CAMPAIGNS ) Well, you are right, indeed there was only one time I really was surprised, and that was the threat I have mentioned above. There was a very detailed description...I can't find the threat anymore. IRRC the Allied player had two tanks ~50m away, the Axis player only a hidden crew ~70 meters away, verified after the battle result was calculated. The battle ended with an 51(axis):49 draw - the big problem was that only because of this a player lost the round a tournamnet. Maybe you know how the VL control is determined?

Redwolf, this was only an example. Just want to show that a sucessfull scouting crew can save you much more points then you risk. Even if you only let them move over no-mans land, a MG may pop up and shoot them, and you answer with a barrage on the dicovered position. Anyway, that doesn't answer the question of realism.

Well, that's more then I expected. But let's calculate. A crew with three veteran survivers - you risk 24 points. You use them as scouts, and they stumbled into a wood with a hidden AT. At the end they were killed by an MG. But now you don't loose one or two tanks, each worth 150 points or more.

The weakpoint of CM is IMO the small focus. Yes, I think the victory conditions in the battle works. It has some flaws sometimes - let me remind you on the threat about an Axis occupied VL, only held by a crew vs two Allied tanks closer to the VL then the crew. Yes, I think the comparison of casualties is a good and simple way to determine the victory on the battlefield (At least I wasn't able to find a better one) But only if you don't leave the scope of CM. You know the cliche of 'Hold the bridge to the last man'. Well, my forces were destroyed and in CM terms I was defeated. But if you leave the borders of CM - you have stopped the advance long enough, reenforcements were able to approach, and in the end the whole operation was a success. So who (except my dead pixel heros and their cathode-ray mother ) cares that I have lost the battle? I wonder what BTS will figure out. Stratic Doodads? [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>