sage

I captured 10 in the Last Stand game when I played as Germans. I just blew past the defenses, without really worrying about killing, just supressing them. When bypassed units seems much more likely to surrender. Funny that. Sage

I'd be interested in seeing an option which would limit the amount of time that could be spent viewing AND giving orders in a turn. This would be hardcoded in to keep the tension level high for single and multiplayer games. I think it would be keeping with the spirit of FOW etc... Sage

OOoo!!! I really dig the "Your OOB" idea. I keep losing teams. I'd love to be able to pop up a quick "scan it for status" report like that. Especially if I could double click and jump to the unit in question. Bodies: the attacker shoots a bunch at an area, sees no effect other than slacking outgoing fire. Doesn't know if it's because of supression, killing everyone, or the defenders pulling out. Attacker goes to area. Finds big honkin' pile o' bodies (or no bodies). Voila -- useful intelligence. Pretty common occurence in war. Not modeled in CM. Infantry spotting (Charles said): "In a real WW2 battle, soldiers frequently don't even see the enemy. They are aware of enemy fire and usually where it originates from. They can get a sense for how strong that fire is, and react appropriately." This is exactly what I mean when I say that I think spotting infantry is too easy. Getting 'Infantry sound contacts' when my closest unit is 700m away and moving themselves?!?! When I'm in the woods playing airsoft, I have trouble hearing people that are 50m a way, and less if I'm moving as well. I think that one should have to spend a lot more time doing area-fire on 'likely places' for infantry to hide. PS. I'm not trying to be an ass by bringing either subject up again. It's just something I care about. Sage

Models -- I agree, personal preference. I think the PE model's look better when 'small' (i.e. at a distance) because of the exagerated shadowing. Since I spent very little time zoomed in in CM, I'd prefer that style of exagerating highlight and shadowing for the textures. Spotting infantry -- just an impression. M18's -- I never once said I doubted the battlefield result. I just don't like how they come in. But I guess that's mostly just the scenario designer's fault. AI -- tendency to lead the charge with its forward observers. Piecemiel attacks, although it may be trying 'fire and movement' tactics. Finally, when attacking, the AI seemed to spend forever actually getting it's main assault rolling. Bodies -- I don't have the patience to watch a turn over and over again. Call me lazy. So being able to do a quick scan for 'fresh blood' would be useful for me. This would also address other people's comments about lack of feedback. OTOH, this one has been beaten to death. Let's see what the reviewers say. Sage

Right now I'm reading "With the Old Breed" (Author: Sledge). It's the narrative of a Marine in the Pacific. He was a 60mm mortar man. From his account, it is quite clear that the 60mm mortars would often fire without anyone having LOS to a location. In fact, this was one of the mortar's primary jobs -- hitting a target in defilade to the rest of the company's weapons. They would do this by registering the mortar before-hand (i.e. with an observer), then marking the angle and trajectory to hit particular locations, especially potential lines of advance etc... So saying that the 60mm can't fire without LOS on a target is probably not accurate. But they also should not be allowed to adjust targets at will ala CC. Perhaps they require 2-4 minutes after reaching a new position before they can fire indirect? Sage p.s. For anyone who has not read his book, it is extraordinary in it's clarity and sophistications, yet it is never literary, preachy or 'philisophical' (at least not intentionally). [This message has been edited by sage (edited 10-31-99).]

I think the textures used on the models in Panzer Elite are a good example of what I mean. Sure, they use more complex models, but the models look so much better because of the texturing. (Other then that, though, it's kind of a mediocre game). My problem with the M18s is that they appear instantly, and can already be targeting German tanks, whereas the German tanks have to acqurie them. I could be wrong, but it seems that the M18s start blasting away instantly. Regardless, keep them a covered entrace would basically solve the problem. Giving them a covered entrance AND stagaring them would be cool, because it would give the player the options of a) commiting them piecemiel or waiting to commit them together. Just a thought. Also, how big is this map compared to ones in the game? It seems v. small to me -- it's not a lot larger than the dinky little ones from CC3. Just an impression. Sound contact would be much more directional with 4 speaker support. s

I don't have any problem with results. If the developers say that a 76.2 mm can easily pen the front of a tiger turret from 700m, I believe them. I'm sure they have done their research.

Few minor critiques and suggestions: I've now played 3 full games, all in the "Last Defense" scenario. 2 as allied, 2 as gerries. -- I would like to be able to increase the size of infantry seperate from the size of vehicles. -- I dislike how reinforcements arrive. I think that a) they should be visible to both sides or arrive mid-turn, or they should be staggared by the program over several turns. In all three of the games I played the M18's were decisive the turn they showed up. In the most recent one they kill both StuGs, the Tiger and 3 of the 4 half tracks the first turn they showed up. This is a very 'gamey' result -- just the kind of thing I hope will be avoided!!! -- Vehicle models are nicely animated, but textures do not look good. When working with miniatures, shadows and hightlights need to be emphasized. This helps a small models look 'more realistic' and attractive. -- AI seems to be incapable of moving decisively on the offense -- i.e. taking a risk and just 'going for it.' -- Infantry seems to easy to spot. I'd tweak it down by 10-30%. -- Sigh. After playing, I think bodies are even more important. They provide visual feedback on an area to happen. Can't count how many times I've suddenly noticed that an infantry unit has taken hefty casualties somewhere in a previous turn, but I don't know when or from where. Bodies would provide immediate visual feedback. I know this has been hashed on, but the more I play, the more lacking it seems. I'm sure there is a creative solution here. -- No judgement with the AI so far, but as defenders, my first game was a Major, my second a 'Total.' As Germans, I was able to take the town by turn ten, and would have had at least a Major if I hadn't lost all my vehicles so suddenly. Still think this is a good game despite some flaws. Sage

Another Matrox G400 problem: I played CM last night in 1600x1200. Worked like a charm. But. Came back this morning to play and the following things were no longer displayed: -- Selection boxes around men. -- Order vector/lines. -- Tracers. -- Interior building walls. -- The box around 'okay' and 'cancel' when you quit the game. I tried: -- uninstalling, reinstalling CM. -- loading different save game files. -- uninstalling, reinstalling current vid drivers. -- uninstalling, reinstalling newest Matrox drivers. -- Installing DirectX 7.0 The only thing that worked? Swapping my TNT back in. Thoughts: since Matrox is a competitor of the company I work for, don't bother fixing any of this stuff. As a matter of fact, feel free to throw in more Matrox specific bugs. :=)

Escape = cancel. Standard Windows GUI. Alt-something for swap to desktop. Sage

4 a.m. Defended that town as the allies. Major victor on my first try. AI was very confused about how to move all of its tanks down the main road. Spent a lot of time moving back and forth. When my my M10's appeared, the AI was in completely the wrong place. Thoughts after playing: Dang it, wish their were bodies. First thing my housemate said when he came in and watched was, 'where are the bodies?' Oh well, great game. Sage

Nother quick vid bug: when I press escape to go to windows, the game will not return. The task bar icon tries to maximize, but it doesn't draw. See above for video profile. Sage

Can there please be a way to continue battles after their 'end.'? Just finished the first battle and it was a lot of fun -- except that it ended right when things started to get hairy. Big bummer -- that used to happen in Close Combat, and it ticks me off!!! Thank you, Sage

Hello -- Newest available vid drivers (just downloaded). Matrox G400. Following behaviors noticed: 1) Transparincies are not. Explosions/big guns shooting etc... The 'ball' is opaque. 2) The roof of houses (the part that units sit on) covers the orders menu. Makes it difficult to see some orders. 3) Flicker of garbage pixels along left hand side of screen. Also, where is the promised 3d sound? I have four speakers, but Combat Mission is only using two. I was really looking forward to this. Game looks good, other then those issues. Sage

Macs suck! Everyone who uses macs suck! PCs can have my babys! PCs have no problems! PiTS rules! CM sucks! 3d is confusing for stupid people like me! <Insert additional stupidity and irrational commentary here> Nah, seriously, benchmarking means almost nothing to me. I use a PC at work, because that's my job. I use a PC at home because I check email and browse the web, and the PC has better web browser (I used to test browsers professionally) for anything to do with Java or dHTML. Oh -- and more games. And more hardware options. And they're cheaper. But macs don't really bug me (as they seem to some people). Macs are really good for some users and provide what they are looking for. Alternatives to Wintel machines are good -- the more the better. Linux still needs to grow up, but it's going the right direction. Sage

(Facist Propaganda) Bulletin from the front: Forces of the Fatherland re-take outskirts of French town! Slight casualties were taken by the advancing Young Men of our Wehmacht, while the American casualties were surely Extreme as our Wehrmacht smashed through line after line of American Defenses. Tragically, after advancing far past American defensive lines, a Panther was destroyed by an American sneak-attack. The brave Commander, refusing to surender, died with the name of his sweetheart, Brunhilde, on his lips. Or... (Ernie Pyle) Showing great dermination and ingenuity in the face of overwhelming odds, Company F hung on to a small French village. American casualties were minimal and evacuted quickly, while our flyboys inflicted some uncomfortable losses on German armor. Said Pfc. George Gaines, of Podunk, LA, "Gosh, I never knowed that y'all could actually blow something up with these bazookers." After the fierce battle, the tenacious inhabitants presented our boys with wine in thanks. (poorly translated Japanese monster flick version) See forces of good political friends destroy all! Watch revenge of Adolfjira, very strong monster stomp, on good political friends! Effectual attack from the sky slays motorized vehicles! Will goodness triumph at the last part? Sage

Dear Sgt Rock -- Please study Islam before you comment on it. Your opinions will be more informed.

Pixman -- Your philosophy is one that I understand, but is no one that I agree with, as I do not believe in absolutes where humanity is concerned. I think BTS said it well; a small war to stop a big war is a moral war. An artillery bombardment of a village that is preceded by a warning to the inhabitants to leave is preferable to one that is not. A war in which prisoners and wounded are not shot is preferable to one in which they are not. But if you believe (and it appears that you do) that a complete rejection of the possibility of morality in war may in fact limit or end future conflicts, then -- so be it. I respect your faith. The complete rejection of morality in war is a rejection of all violence. You are in good company (Gandhi, MLK, et al.). Sage

Pixman -- I can't entirely disagree with you, in that these concepts of 'jus' were created from a need to justify the horrid nature of war. Where I do disagree with you is here: if you believe that war is an absolute evil, then you cannot believe in concepts of justice/morality in war. But I don't believe that. Because: if you believe that some wars need to be fought (say, to stop Nazi agression in europe), then you have to believe in 'jus ad bellum.' If you believe that some wars can be more horrible than others (i.e. intentional killing of civilians vs. "collateral damage", i.e. accidental killing of civilians) then you have to believe in jus in bello. I believe there will never me a time without war, not because it's man's human nature, but because it's the nature of organized society to engage in armed conflict. Doing anything we can to reduce non-combatant casualties and control the frequency with which states choose war as an option is good. Sage

"War is hell." Said by, I believe, by General Sherman after his 'march to the sea' through Georgia. I.E. Total war. It was said as a moral defense for his actions -- namely that, because 'War is hell' making it more hellish is not wrong. He is incorrect of course, because while war might be aweful, terrible, destructive, those features are not an excuse to make it even more so. The overall goal of a "good" combatant, such as the US in WW2, should be to win the war, period. The consequences of losing are far too horrible to not win. But even in the face of an extraordinarily evil, totalitarian regime shooting prisoners and wounded does not become a morally sound option. War is hell, but to take that literally is to give up the last shreds of humanity. Sage

Errr... gentle criticism... I've noticed that those Tiger's textures look kind of washed out compared to the soldier's uniforms. The color black, for instance, is much more gray. You might have a go at adding a little contrast? Maybe? I can't judge what the effect is on the battlefield of course. Sage

It's interesting that you bring up a subject dear to my heart: that of morality of (and in) war. This subject is generally divided into two pieces (although there is always overlap in real world situations). The first is 'jus ad bello,' or 'justice of war.' The second is 'jus in bello,' or 'justice in war.' (pardon my latin). This is a very important distinction for thinking and talking about the morality of a war, especially world war II. Jus ad bellum covers the reasons why a country goes to war. For instance: Iraq invades Kuwait. This is an immoral act of war. The US + coalition goes to war with Iraq. This is a moral act of war. Until quite recently an act of aggression was pretty much the only valid 'moral reason' a country could go to war on another. So, invading, say, all of Western Europe is a clearly immoral act. (quick aside: the recent interventions in E. Timor and Kosovo are clear violations of international law -- read the U.N. charter -- but are, I think, essentially moral acts whatever the messy details are) Now, to add to this complexity is jus in bello. This covers the actions of combatants. It's also actually a very simple rule at it's heart, but it's the gray areas that become more complex and fuzzy (which I suppose is true with jus ad bellum as well). The rule is basically pretty simple: you may only kill combatants. What's a combatant? Someone in uniform. Ahhh... if only it were that simple. Because a non-combatant can also be: -- an incapacitated wounded (i.e. incapable of any action, including surrendering) -- someone who surrenders, e.g. 17th SS Flak Battalion -- a civilian - unless they are directly engaged in aiding the war effort such as making or transporting ammunition. War crimes can & do cover both jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and the Nazi's violated pretty much all of them, whereas US violations of WW2 were pretty much limited to jus in bello. It's also important to realize that international law and standards of morality are two different things; additionaly there are subtle differences in definitions of jus in bello in different cultures that are accounted for by different traditions. Anyway, I cannot possibly do this subject justice here, but if you are looking for a good, generalized (though strongly pro-zionist) book on the subject, I'd suggest Michael Waltzers 'Just and Unjust Wars.' Look for a 2nd addition copy as it includes changes to the text and an interesting discussion of the Gulf War. Sage

Joel, Adjudant -- I rode my bike throgh France last June. I spent two days at the youth hostel in Orleans, and then rode N. from Tours to Chartres. Joel -- what is the name of your town? -- I may have ridden through it the day I rode from Tours to Chartres. Salud Sage

Seattle, WA. I don't feel guilty about playing games for 10 months of the year, because it's raining. Sage

Is it possible to issue orders by the platoon? I.e. give the same set of orders to four similar units in one action? This might help with very large games. I tend to like small fast games, myself, but every once in awhile the urge to play something monsterous comes over me...