KNac

Ignorant? You deserve to be strapped to a chair and subjected to G.I. Combat continuously until you learn some manners.</font>

So true COmbinedArms...

All the operational and strategical german doctrine was limited by their resources and manpower. They had to conduct fast wars because if they felt in a war of attrition (like it did in Eastern front eventually) they would lose. Here comes again the "Germany against the world" topic. You can't ignore the fact that the allies had infinite resources and manpower compared to egrmans, that their prodcution was much higher, and in general, they could aid each other. While the production and movilization for war was a bad error of Hitler, you cannot blame germans for their inferiority of manpower and resources, which in definitive forced them for "fast wars". Germans had to hold several fronts, but soviets only had to hold one of them. Maybe if Germany had only attacked the soviets thing could have changed. For example how can you explain the brutal logistical effort in the final part of the war? You can't ignore the 150.000 trucks that USA send them by lend lease. In definitive we can see that germans lost because their grand strategy (management of industry and resources, movilization, etc.) more than by their operational thinking. Germans had, even with each time worse trained men, the tactical advantage almost to the end of the war. Even if you see lots of soviets victories, you can also see how germans managed to close the gaps and breakthougth several mre times (it sound like victor writing History again), if not ask Glance, as much as you like it. It was the logistics, as Fionn has already said, and production/resources (in definitive Hitler, who controlled them) which made them lose war, not their operational thinking.

Man I thought I have seen all abut fanboying

Imagine that Hitlers decide to use gas, and further developing of V-2 missiles armed with chemical warheads. What would have happened in early war against british? And later in the war? Or even the use of it in Normandy, inmediatly before the invasion? It would have been disasterful for the allies. One have to wonder that it could have been even worse with the usage of chemical weapons. And as others said, Germany had already developed highly letal gas (sarin, tabun, etc). [ November 19, 2002, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

Well said. However, I haven't readed CMBB forum for a while. Is BTS going to change something in the game because of all the whining???? (I hope we are not heading to that way) I mean this is realistic and fun, why should we change it? I hope if something is changed is because it's boggus or can be done better, but not cause whine poo's

COOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh man... Well, let's see if you understand it (also note that english is not my native language). First: you haven´t discovered "las Americas" man, this was known since... a long time ago. You sate betatesters work is bad because: "ok Steve, let's think how to do this because its a major issue" intead "Steve says its impossible". You don't know what they said, you know, there is a private beta-testing forum, e-mails, instant messeger programs, etc. They do not discuss beta-testing in open forum man! They probably did, what you say, but it's not in their hands to fix it, they probably tried to help as much as they could (probably much more than yo are doing) but within their limitations, they don't have the code in their hands to go and moddificate it! Is that hard to understand? And to correct your statements? Or are you an ubertester-wanna-be which discovered all the bugs the game have (in his dreams offcourse) and thinks the betatesters in place should be ripped off because they didn't fix them (something they cannot do)? Don't give me excuses like "you don't see the main concern with the thread", because I did, very good post anyway, but I will center on it when education and racionality is first in his place, just my thoughts.

World of reviewrs, reviews and criticism is so much subjective that I don't care of their veredict. I prefer previews, without any score that describe the product in different areas, as objective as they can. Reviews are not fair usually (for good or for bad) as noone can give a perfect veredict, because we are humans. So I prefer to see how the game plays and what's about for myself (that's the pourpose of demos), and I haven't any problem until now, so screw up with reviewers...

I'm not a betatester but I would be very screwed I readed this thread and I was a betatester. Your tone was, at least, bad. And let me say that you don't have a remote idea of game/programm beta-testing or at elast you don't seem to do. A betatester can report 100 things and only 10% of them will be fixed/implemented, it's not what beta-tester report, but what producers can do/program. If that change needs a engine core rewrite, it's possible it will not see the light if it delays the game enought. In addition this has been discussed several times since CMBO (I think), so there is nothing new here. Live with it until the engine-rewrite or do not play the game, or do not play with those tanks, it will not/cannot be fixed. The perfect game doesn't exist, sorry...

When are you guys going to learn that huge surrenders were done at strategical levels? And even then they prefered to stand and fight than surrendering (after all they would met the same thing, death). There are docens of examples about armies and corps being cut-off and large surrenders or suicidal trial of breakthrough to escape of the "pockets of death". I don't have exact numbers, but I'm sure that only very few percentage of surrenders where due to tactical combat, but strategic reasons where the most common case for huge surrender rates. However when the global morale is low and the enemy is overnumbered and overpowered they will surrender more likely, as in RL.

I saw your point about the micro-management Greg. And I would like that CMBB takes AA as example in this field,a s well in AI. Guys, you didn't take the point, you MUST play AA, you can still micromanage as all as you want, but you can use a very good AI and CoC, to make the job too. We could play divisional games with this system, but as well we could play Company or platoon games. Just it will be very hard to program such fine AI in a 3d enviorenment. Other things I would like to see is individual mans in squads and teams (with cooler animations) and take that to combat system. And an even better morale system.

bump for Harv

Do you mean Flak36 or the Pak gun? 88mm Paks where very few along the war. But Flak guns (which had dual poupose) where very abundant, and in Eastern front too.

As Panzerbellum I'm very happy with my guys. The only assault I had to to do where in 41' (early Barbarossa) and with German, so no, I hadn't any panzerfaust schrek or soemthing like that. In a single battle I managed to assault and destroy 2 KV-2. The first and most essential thing is to split the tanks and inf, if not nothing will work. To assault in an effective manner a tank you will have to use at least a pair of squads with link to their HQ (with anykind of extras like morale and force if possible), also they need at least grenades and if possible otherkind of weapons (molotovs, rifle-grenades, anythig is ok). The most usefull are tank hunter teams with mines, off course. The quality of the guys should be regular at least, if possible. Once isolated, the tank must be buttoned up and distracted with anykind of fire, other squad firing from other place, HMG, or even an other tank moving fast and shoting, use shoot&scoot order), then advance with your teams, very near (15 meter at least) and wait a bit. If isolated the tank should fall early, depend on the fanatism and quality of the tank crew too. Off course don't expect miracle, no assault over open terrain unless the tank is totally isolated and w/o any support (not HMG from a forest 400m away) and it is stopped (or inmovile) and buttoned up. Distract alway the tank with other guys. In urban warfare the inf can win sually, and in wooden areas too. That's my experience.

I destroyed 2 of them with inf, and the other was abandoned. I suppressed the inf protecting one with mortars and soem HMG fire, they broke and then I moved one of my platoons and a tank hunter team between cover and assaulted it, lying some smoke will help too. This one destroyed one of my Pz38 Other was spotted in the scattered trees E of the huge forest, it got enganged by several of my tanks while advancing and got the gun destroyed and it was inmovilized too, the crew bailed out under the pressure. The last pained me on the ass a lot, it destroyed two of my Stugs, but I finally got it with inf, Coy HQ and a tank hunter team assaulted it while it was distracted with a pair of Pz38 which run to their rear. Very important is to split up the tanks of their inf, and distract them with other faster panzers (38 did very well this for me) while you try to assault them. I didn't see my CAS for the whole operation, as the bad weather made his pressence. This operation is pretty intense and very good, is the one which I've liked more until now, I managed to get a total victory. SHould I say that operations rock in CMBB? I prefer them over battles. Have already played 5 of them (GD operation shows how harmfull can be entrenched inf ) [ October 21, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

I can set up a fps site, as Redwolf has sugered, so it would be used as a mirror ftp site. It would be 24h a day alive, sometimes it will be closed or limited because I will be doing extensive use of it, but... My broadband is not very wide (ADSL 256/128 Kb), but if a bunch of guys do something like me, or use ftp accounts they have we cans et up a wide ftp service while only a main (or a few) mod webs act like modding sites. I'm up to help so if something it's done in this way say me and I will set up a FTP site ASAP.

Cold War is a total different world because of weapons/technology (unless you say early Cold War which is not that interesting), and probably if an engine is coded for Cold War it wouldn't be usable for WWII or the other way (however, honestly, Col War engine would be easier to go WWII than the other way). I really don't care what they are going to model while it's WWII warfare (Pacific was the biggest problem for me, but we already know that one is discarted), if we have to move from WWII I prefer modern warfare (Cold War 1970+).

Give me a single reason to anwer you. But, anyway I will do: because if you don't have i you are not a true wargamer. Enough reason?

It seems that this is full of dreamers (wrong word?). Please people keep real and stick to the real world while demanding things. There are a lot of things to take into account: manpower, economy, knowledge, time, preferences (their), etc etc etc. Personally I would like a WWII RT FPS perpective, Bn level, hardcore CoC, top-end graphics (last unreal engine), with armor sim included and CAs. off course ultra realistic But I know it isn't going to happen.

I don't have magic formula Michael It was just an indicator, also the percentages are subjetive (so are subject to change). That's more a guide for the scenario designer which percentage of historical accuracy they think they have archived. If you are puting "historical" rather than a percentage it's not important, because when you are saying that your scenario is "historical" you are thinking in a involuntary manner that in a scale of 0-10 your scenario is nearer to the 10 than to the 0. That's why there are ranges and not absolute numbers (I mean from 0-5; 5-10 for example). However it would be interesting if someone comes with somekind of function.

I've devated the "historical accuracy" issue in several games and forums. At the end we can say that historical accuracy 100% cannot and will never accomplished, because it would be similar to RL. Even with perfect VR, if people does not die it will not be 100% historical accuracy or realitic as you wish. SO the only 100% reallitic game/scenario will be RL always. I know this is a wider discussion that the one being discussed here. But I only want to make some points clear. SO we should talk of "historical accuracy in the game context", I mean within the scope and with the tools the game gives us and with the available information we have, in a single word "abstraction". For example we never will be able to model maps 100% real because we cannot place individual trees or terrain features to the point that they make a diffrence (centimeters), it can be done in some first person shooters, but it can be really insane (and I say it because of my experience!). So, we must qualify a scenario within the conetxt of game possibilities, it would be insane to do it to RL/history standars, you will see why now: -Historical: within the game context, it would be historical if it uses the max posibilities of the game to recreate a historical battle (what means, that it happened, you know the time, you know the ground, you now the conditions and you know the forces) with the "historical" (which is not 100% accurate) data you have available. In percentage it would be between 85/90-100% WITHIN GAME CONTEXT. -Semi-historical: the data avialable and the recreation of the historical counterpart is far inferior than the above. 0-85% -Fictional: a totally different class of scenario, because you know that it never happened so it cannot be classified with the anterior scale. If you were trying to make a similar battle to one that you know that did happen in RL, but you came with a totally different thing, you can give it a 0-10/25%. Now, why doesn't make sense to qualify the scenarios in a RL scale. Because of the first thing I said, one guy said one time that of the all wargames he had played (on smallest sclae, tactical) he would give a 3 in a scale of 10 to the most realist one. SO you only ahve to make the calcs and you will get why it's stupid (100% would be 30-40% in RL scale).

If you have played AA (Airbone Assault, if you haven't you should), I can say that in that place and that timeframe they are horrrorous! But that's western front and a specific zone and timeframe. However, I don't know why, I think they were, well mostly of poor quality. However we must separe them in 3 categories: -Independent luftwaffe field troops: usually in battallion strengh, mostly bad, I would say. -Luftwaffe field divisions: not as good as Heer, but not they could fight, training, (equipment sometimes), and probably leadership and morale was lower. -Fallschirjager regiments/divisions: excellent quality in general from the beginning to mid-late war, at late war they were decreasing in quality but as the whole german army.

Opinions differ and that's good To expline my point: both games use same engines, but heavily modified (for example HL used Quake I engine but would you say that is the same game? I know the analogy is not perfect but...), gameplay and way of playing is totally different, is that different that you must relearn to play the game, which is a point that people doesn't get attracted by CMBB at the begining. Is it is or not a refinement, depends on your definition of refinement and the frontier between refinement and new product... However I suppose we agree on the gameplay aspect I described above...

Totally diffrent and uncomparable, not just a refinement, sorry. The only thing that I would say: -CMBO more unrealistic than CMBB, or should I say more aracade? -What makes CMBO an easy play compared to CMBB, what can give you a wrong feeling of "fun" -If you want more reallitic combat get CMBB, when you get used to CMBB way of play you will love it, it's learning curve is much more difficult than CMBO probably, anyway it will be funnier when you get used to it. Also the scope (in timeframe and units) is much bigger in CMBB. My opinion: buy both, play both, different games, different fronts. Boths are or will be classics, period.