Jim Harrison

Tnx for the info guys, here is another question after the battle I have exp points to buy skills with, are those skills perminate or do I have to keep buying them over and over??

Wonder why there were more F6F's?? I bet there was a reason:) I also wonder how many dead Japanese pilots thought the F6F was "easy meat"

Like I say it's just you - the aI hardly ver gets out of jail with a card draw when I play it.....of course it helps that I mainly play with uber-pilots that have bucket loads of redraws and extra cards too!! </font>

Well I spent the 24.50 sixxkiller but still don't see any improvement on the ahem "AI" features (hence my die roll comment), in fact with the neat little box that shows what is happening I find it interesting to watch the AI which is out of cards continually draw one that it needs.

Well it certainly doesn't have what a flight sim has but for turn based "card" game it has alot of animation.

F6F shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane of the war, and it could manuver much better than the Corsair.

Heheh ok maybe there is hope, I think I may not have all the kinks worked out yet. I am still learning. BTW I have never even seen a You're dead card LOL. I have seen some 2 hit destroyed

LOL it sure feels that way. Of course the way I see it in this game the deck of cards is stacked twice once for the AI and once for the Player, the difference is the first is for and the second is against and it happens over and over I played about 4 campains now and it happens every time [ June 08, 2006, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

Man the AI is UNBELIEVABLE in this game no matter what the situation the AI draws or has all right cards for the right time, while the player draws garbage most if the time??

Heh I DL the demo and as far as I can see this game is some eye candy with random die rolls off in the ally of the computer to see who is the luckiest today. Not much skill required and could be done on paper with a pair of dice LOL. Glad they let you try some these first it saves on the old pocketbook

If what I heard was right and the WWII mod is small unit tactics with no tanks, then I fear the wailing and gnashing of teeth will commence again. This of course was a rumor tied to someone's interp of what Steve has said in some post???

Well for my 2 pennies, BFC has every right to make any type of game they wish. I will decide if I want to purchase what they offer based on what I see and what I like to play. I like the "big iron" usually but I have no idea how this will play out and therefore must take a wait and see position. From what I have seen so far it looks like this new engine has LOTS of possibilities so no sense in going off half cocked because they haven't done MY thing yet

Micheal what I ment by my suggestion regarding senario design, is that I must take into account how the "game engine" treats things in order to reflect "historic" battles. Many senario designers in the past have just simply made one side "green" and the other "vet" based on the reading of the actual history (which may have been true) but the way the "game" over simplifies the rating difference (which also may be the only way it can be done) means to get that historic "flavor" you may have to "rerate" certain elements to produce the battle that was using CM constraints.

Well my complaint is not that I haven't won that senario vs the AI in fact I never lose it with the American troops. My actual complaint is how the Tac AI handels those routing units, they seem to inevidabitly give the enemy the best opportunity to kill them (in the game), some have said this is realistic I am not convinced of that and that is the "basic" disagreement. You are of course right about the senario and I have no real problems with the senario per se.

Micheal are you ascerting that even without the Americans' in Tunisia the Commonwealth troops would have defeated Rommel???. I believe you are right about whole companies running and breaking up at the battle of Kasserine, but to my knowledge that NEVER happened again in Tunisia??? We of course did get overrun in the Ardennes much later in the war and for the same reasons in some respects as the debaucle at Kasserine. The facts are in combat that if the enemy has overwhelming mass he will succeed generally given fairly equal ground, this hasn't changed too much since Klauswitz wrote the rules of war (excepting of course the modern battle field which he could never have invisioned). All of this is really moot, for the best way to model battles with CM IMO is to figure out what happened "generally" in various battles and try to match those capabilities using what the game offers to meet that goal, regardless of what "history" labeled the various troop qualities.

The problem as I see it, is that everyone who is posting on the "green" status of the GI in North Africa seems to be ignoring the fact of how quickly the GI's "learned their lessons". The game models many battles after Kasserine and in fact after Patton took over the GI's in North Africa never again took such a beating there. The human ability to withstand a combat situation varies from person to person even amoung family members, my dad and all but one of his 7 brothers served in WWII, one of them was unable to take the combat situation and was sent home as "shell shocked" while the rest served out their time during the war, one being taken prisoner at the battle of the bulge. My point is that "how you take it" is a personal makeup thing and no amount of training will change your ability to withstand or not withstand being under fire. Here in the game we have to make some designation between quality of troops in "general" terms, all I have asserted is that I feel BTS has made a decision about how "green" troops react based on the worst of them and not the middle of the road. In fact many so called "green" troops adapted rather quickly to the invironment they found themselves in, as did the officers involved and acquitted themselves quite well. Rommel was kicked out of North Africa after all, quite an amazing feat based on many of the opinions I have seen quoted here. My interest is in "having a good gaming experience" and to that end BTS has done a great job with the CM series, I hope that in future when someone like myself expresses some small dislike he will not be pounced on like some of the poster's here have done to me, I must take time to applaud BTS who answered my concerns in a very informative and professional way. I completely understand now that they made a decision as to how to handel the differing troop types and ratings and allowed me to have an editor to "change" the balance to my likeing if I didnot agree with their decisions (this is one of the things that makes the CM series such a great success IMHO) [ November 21, 2003, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

Well Mike not sure what you guys get in Canada, but even in the U S Air Force we got some training in the handling of firearms, the confidence course (where they fired live ammo over our heads), drilling etc etc... I will have to see if I can dig out my fathers old hand book from the Marines (as mentioned earlier he was IN WWII) and see what that covers for the period. I can do all the research you want but I think Steve answered my questions regarding "green troops" in that it is the way they program it that counts, I can accept that and as has been said here I will use the editor to make and play the senario's I like.

Heheh I will put my DD214 up against yours anytime Mr Dorsh. I guess that's about all I have to say to you, I am going quit posting here since obviously not many want to hear my opinions so I will just keep them to myself from now on and keep watching you "experts" handle things. BTW this is my 57th post since I joined the board over a year ago. I notice that both you and Mrspkr are in the thousands (grin) [ November 20, 2003, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

LOL his post and yours were in the same vien, caustic, I have been playing these games for years online, flight sims, etc... and there are always a few "flamers" to protect the company. I guess thats your role here??? BTW I don't need to hide behind the internet and you can e-mail me anytime you wish for directions to my home in Michigan (jharrison43@ameritech.net) just you understand that I am in no way "cowed" by your silly attacks.

Well Mrspkr, first of all you must have me confused with the "other" Harrison on this board I hardly ever post and resent your "holier than thou" attitude, maybe you need to do some research yourself before running you mouth.

Thanks for the input guys, sorry if some of you think the commentary was obnoxious, but I guess there are always some "thin skins" around. I do have some military experience (Viet Nam) but not "ground pounder" since I was in the Air Force, I did basic training and realize that it is not the end all and be all of training (especially in the Air Force where they are really just giving military curtesy lessons). My father was a Marine in WWII in the pac and saw combat at Guam and Iwo Jima, my brother was also in Viet Nam with the 1st Air Cav and did get Army training both basic and advanced prior to going over there. I therefore have some idea of how guys react under fire and realize they don't always do the smart thing, but I feel it is just slightly "over top" IMHO in the CM games, not to the effect that the game is not fun and very well done, nor enough to keep me away from the game (my preorder is in). BTW Steve I am sure some studies were done on how tanks were destroyed during WWII, I used to stop at Aberdean (sp??) proving grounds when I lived on the East Coast and I think they did alot of research on both enemy and friendly equipment, not sure if they kept seperate stats in "gun damage" though.

Well first off Michael I guess I am not the only one. Secondly I guess my definition of "green" and others differ greatly when it comes to the game. Regardless of what the manual says, green troops in the game react as "untrained" when fired upon, I had "green" grant tanks reversing and presenting their flanks to the enemy, any "trained" tanker (be it ever so slight) knows that when "bugging out" he must present his best possible armor toward the attacker while reversing out of harms way. I have no problems with "green" troop wishing to leave the battle, it is the manner in which they leave that is suspect to me. Historically the American GI's when first arriving at North Africa were "green" in that they had not seen combat, but they were NOT untrained. This discussion can and probably will go on forever regarding how closely you can simulate the "historical fact" with the game mechanics of CM, for me I never go below Regular troops with my senario's and it seems to work much closer to the actual battles or at least to me it seems so. "Gun damage" also seems to be over blown in CM, I know that "gun damage" does cover other things such as optics etc.... but still to get over 10 percent of your vehicles "gun damaged" seems high to me and this about the average in CM?? I would love to see some stats on this particular situation??? I assume that some study was made of this by BTS?? [ November 20, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

Sheez I am SO TIRED of the tac AI making my assets expose themselves to killing fire. It is SO bad that when I make a senario I NEVER use green troops for that reason. Nothing much has changed with CMAK in that regard, green troops panic and then expose themselves to killing fire, and in fact (by the way the game treats them) the US had no green troops i.e. untrained or poorly trained. They had untested troops who had not seen battle (regular by game standards). Anyhow enough of my rant (I just hate these lopsided senario's and probably will never like them) can't wait for full version so I can make "adjustments" [ November 20, 2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

Panzerman, I am not saying balanced to a point where EVERYTHING is equal, but rather balanced to where with right tactics EITHER side has a chance to win. I see many senario's where there is NO way to win in the time alotted, no matter how good your tactics are. I own both CMBO and CMBB and I find them both enjoyable if I can setup a senario that doesn't allow some AI "features" to change the outcome (to be fair some of these senario's were clearly ment for PBEM). As an example: one side has a bunch of trucks (which die to one barrage or MG fire) and those lost trucks count the same in the end as lost tanks as in "vehicles lost column", this is IMO is to be avoided as it gives unrealistic results. Stoffel, Hey I salute you guys who work so hard to make these things. I have been just hoping to give some insight to what I think makes good one's so all the work is not lost. [ September 22, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

That would be fine panzerman, but the game mechanics donot lend themselves to "what was" in fact if you try to recreate "what was" with CMBO you normally wind up with some unwinable lopsided senario for one side or the other. I guess some guys like that sort of thing, but if I want to see what "really" happened I can read a book, for me the "fun" of these types of games is trying to win with the equipment of the times in basically fairly "even" terms in relation to cover, ground condition, etc... The game is unable to reproduce exact historical matchups due the wide disparagy between how the game handles the different ratings of troops, the perpensity of tanks to "bog/breakdown". etc etc... Obviously the makers of the game agree somewhat since they keep improving the product with the likes of CMBB and soon to be released CMAK. CMBO is a great game but in my mind to make good senario's you need know how the game will handle what you have put in.