Screeny

Well I guess it will not be like playing a game of CM with a tv camera in your neck The actually time spend in the studio will be rateher longer then shown on tv all a matter of editing the show but that is what tehy do now allready with the current format. And yes I guess we could write a letter to the BBC, but the again Battlefront would at least be a bit interest in the concept. (Their game engine being used yet slightly altered a bit making it playable for the show) Anyway ofcourse the show format should be altered a bit: now they are playing Roman wars on the level of armies hence on a "general level" In the CM version ofcourse it would be played on a "lower"echolon level: Battalion or so... Yeah I know some changes would be needed but having a couple of guys playing CM on tv you can watch and comment on while 2 experts making comments on the background (mhh maybe an opportunity for JasonC and Pillar to make their tv debute:) ) would be fun

For every one who knows the BBC game show Time Commander: I really think it is pretty cool show and I understood they use the Rome Total War game engine. I wonder whether they could set up a serie of Time Commander with the CM engine ??? Any one any thoughts??

mhh I suppose crawling all the way accros the battlefield doesn't make sense ? Point taken, bad idea

Maybe an idea for a special command for engineers/pioneers in CMAK?? Kind of "crawl and search for mines" command speed like sneak (very slow) and mines are being detected (AP and AT) and are being cleared but then all at low speed....?

HAPPY HURRY BIRTHDAY! Keep them coming!!

Hehe still again then the question: WHAT THE H&^$%# is Operatonial level dating? But serious I did read B. H. Liddell Hart's "Strategy" so I'm familair with the terms. Personnaly I think he goes a little to far in general in subdivided in 5 levels (they are good however in understanding what he is explaining i his book which I found btw pretty excellent, then again who doesn't?? ) Anyway the "definitions" you use aren't they a little too much quantitive?? In your definition the differnece in tactics, grand thingie, operational, strategy etc is just in the amount/numbers of troops/units we are talking about, somehow I have the feeling there is also a more qualitative component in the terms.....But thanks anyway..maybe I just should start reading Hart's book again...

Thanks guys, yes Jason it does makes things more clear: Previous Strategy in my understanding was how you guys described operations, so hence my confusion, apparently what I understood more or less as Strategy is referred to as operations and Strategy is even a level higher concerning more then just military issues....Thanks mates, sure did help me out.

Hey all historians out there....I heard of strategy and about tactics and what i understand is that (simply said) strategy is how to get your army/armies to the battlefield and tactics is is how to go about during battle/on the battlefield. (ok very simple definition, I know). However I'm reading lately a lot about "operational thingie" or somefink like that. doing some reading on that and it seems to be some kind of level between strategy and tactics.... Well intiutivily I think I understand this 3 concepts but I can't really grasp it yet...could any one help me out here?? Some explanation? preferably with a example ? thanks in advance gr

hi Gian, This Tank museum....have you got an address or something from that?? You said in Munster...is that Munster in Nord rein westfalen germany?? or another city/village named Munster?? gr Screeny

I'm sure JasonC or one of the other groggs will come around with a full and very detailed description..per country and for each different stage in the war. And yes it is quite complex in the detail (i.e. how it worked in practise) in theory however remember this list: Squad PLatoon Company Battalion Regiment/Brigade (here is starts getting fuzzy..) Division Corps Army Army group Squad is the smallest unit in the hiarchy (8 to 12 men) 3 squads = 1 platoon 3 platoon = 1 company etc basicaly 3 of each forms the next level. As said this is the basic, a former UK officer explained me once that this is historically grown and is (probably among other factors..) due to the span of control of 3. But as said this is more like a easy way to remember it. The groggs will probably elaborate soon...

tjee again some one who lost and blames BFC for it that his inmense tactical talents were not showing themself?

OK OK OK hold that train and thought for a second.....Napoleon? Guards ? flanking companies? he I'm just getting a grasp of WW2 tactics, strategies, doctrines equipment, men OoB etcetcetc....so does any one knows a good book on all of this but then of the Napoleonic Era?? There are many books about Napie but I don't want to end up with an Biograpy descriping his breakfast ritual . So A good readable yet thorough book on the basic principle, tactics, strategies, unit types, doctrines, ToE, OoB's etcetcetc of that era for the beginner... Thanx in Advance

Waiting anxcious for JasonC's answer on th einitial question!!!

Hwey Raziaar; i don't know whether you are referring to CMBO or CMBB but I guess the answer you are looking for is simple: If you want a game like Command and conquer where you buy a F%%^K load of units and win pure by quantity yet in a rather realistic WW2 and 3d enviroment this is NOT your game to buy. If you want a game that 100% transfers you to WW2 and that is a 100% accurate simulation of WW2 balltelfield on a tactical level I suggest you wait untill science invents the Start Trek Enterprice's "Holodec" If however you want a game that makes use of a true 3d enviroment and with full detailled use of ALL aspect of different kind of equipment of WW2 (and NOT uses it as a nice nifty marketing/sales tool; NOW with 500 different tanks!!), this is your game. Buy it , start playing against the AI to get a feeling for the game and to get to know all the units and equipment.Read this forum for all the good adivce, tips and tricks, get yourself a ADSL line and then play agaisnt humans..and that is where the real fun starts!!!Trust me the first 2 weeks might be frustrating as you will notice that having 4 big tanks and storming them forward will not give you victory butonce you get teh hang of it is really addictive, I'm playing now for 1 1/2 year and I still learn knew things. And playing TCP/IP is a real good learner: For example I played a lot agaisnt a guy a lot and he learned me a lot by use of the "in-game chat fuction" (THX LONDONER!!). He was pretty open and frank about why he was doing soem manouvres and told me what I was doing wrong. You will notice there are many players willing to play you and not only use you as an easy win. Most of the guys here love to talk about the game more as actually playing it (But I guess that you figured out allready yourself by reading this post )

What is the ideal position/location for AA guns?? In case they main task is to actually defend against enemy Aircraft?? Can AA gun effectively spot and retalliate against aircraft when placed in Scattered trees?? gr Screeny

Arbi, If you would like to use the concept I would suugest you would use Panzer General 2 or 3 as a "top layer"game for Combat mission. 1 unit in one of this games represents more or less a battalion or regiment. If two opposing units "clash" it could be translated into a CM battle. Remember however that the "gap" between the scale of CM and PG will still be prety large so the CM battles would be rather big (+/- 2000-3000 for battalion and more for regiments) So it is possible but whether it would be fun or what you expect from it I doubt. (I tried it my self once....) gr Screeny

A good read on Rommel is: The Rommel Papers, it are the notes of Rommel he made during the war with fragments of his diary and letters to his wife and son. He made notes intending to write a book on the war after the war. Unfortunately he never made it to see peace as we all know. All this 3 sources (notes, diary and letters) have been compiled and commented by Lidlell Hart, indeed the "pioneer" on mobile warfare. After the war he got hold of this sources and he made a good book about it. Also a part has been co written with General Bayerlein and a final chapter by son Manfred Rommel describing his memories of the last days he spent with his father incl the day that Erwin Rommel was "arrested". The book in its total describes the war in early France (1940), Noth Afrika, Italian defence and Normandy (D-Day). The books describes the tactics but also has some touching personal notes. Ofcourse it is not 100% objective as it is a kind of Semi auto biografy. Anyway one of my favorites, I got it as a gift of a uncle of mine from the US (an ex Marine) 16 years ago and it was the starting point in my WW2 interest. gr Screeny

Started of with CMBO, then moved onto CMBB which I still play a lot. Somewhere in between I bought SC, was pretty disappointed at first and hardly played it. lately I played a game or 5 against the AI untill I won. Now the appeal is gone again, i could howver play again with increased experience level but some how...... porblem for me SC is just a digital version of the old board game Axis and Allied I played 10 years ago. It is a little to high level for me. 1 icon respresenting a army or tankgroup or a single battleship (probably with supporting vessels). I would to see a gme in which you have the grand Strategy level an dinterface like in SC but when attacking a province/sector/ area the level "zooms in" to the specifics of that province, and the army is shown in it's detal unto level of division or even regiments/brigades. basically some more micro management and more detailed level of battles on the operational level in combination with the strategic/tactical level of SC gr Screeny

Almere, The Netherlands

My 2 cents on the subject: IMHO the main reason for the "cry" for a campaign functionality lies in the the fact that a lot of "End game rushes" and Suicidal use of units is still an issue in Combat Mission. Even with the "Random end turn generator option" in CMBB players still can use suicidal tactics in one or the other way (for example having run a relative cheap unit doing the squad work etc). Some people consider this gamey, but there are enough threats and posts on the subject on gameyness. In the light of this subject the follwoing statement can be made: Tactical engagements, as we play in CM, in the real world could differ tremendiously....On the one extreme side orders for a tactical unit such as a battalion or company could be: advance untill enemy contact, stay put figure out what you are facing and report back to higher command unto the other extreme: assault and take that hill at all costs!!! basically all solo PBEM and TCP/IP games in CM are leaning towards the latter extreme, due to the fact there is 1 or more flags on the map that should be captured. Ofcourse the flags are more or less a kind of modelling of strategic locations, yet we all run for the flag more or less. The cry for campaign mode is in my opinion an outlet for the fact that CM is on a tactical pretty realistc as we can have a game nowadys (despite the soem issues like borg spotting etc) but on a higher operational and/or strategic level the game is pretty one track minded: capture the flag. Note on my self: I tend to play sometimes pretty realistic...if i notice the enemy force is too strong or the opponent is just to good for me I don't even try to capture the flags anymore or at leats not all te flags. i focus on 1 flag (most of the time the smallest isolated one figuring my opponent will go for the two big ones) even if I loose according to the CM game rules I consider it a win for myself knowing that it was the best i could have done in that specific circumstances. Even if I could have capture all te flags at extreme heavy costs I don't do that. Some how I try to play with having as low number of casulaties myself. In other words: I more or less fantasies or imagine the bigger picture of what the tactical engagement is part of !!! And I think this is what we want a campaignlike mode in CM. Now there are two kind of campaignmodes: 1) the Panzer general kind of mode. Many other games have this kind of campaign mode, despite the differences of the games the basic idea of the camapign is the CORE units that move on form battle to battle. This kind of campaign is the one that is most critised by hardcore Combat Mission players: it is not realistic in the sense that the same bunch of guys actually can survive all the all. Secondly it is very highly suicidal mission sensitive using the auxillary units (the NOT Core units) as the recon and "strumtroopers". In my opinion this kind of campaign is NOT suitable for combat mission. 2) The other camapign mode appeals to the lack strategic/operational settings of a tatctiacal battle as mentioned above. This are the kind of campaigns that are numerueos played on the web, in which a number of players play a kind of RPG with a team of Game masters running the show. This kind of campaign is very suitable for combat mission. tatctical battles reallly make sense no more suicide missions loosing 50% of your men, because you will need them the next battle again, so battles are fought more realisticaly. The BIG problem is as mentioned in another post is the fact that it takes a lot of time and energy to run such a show. A team of Game masters is required. Despite the fact there is a good tool liek COCAT for such campaigns it is tsill a big bunch of work. IMHO a good capamign tool could be created including COCAT kind of tool, a forum kind of communication tool etcetc. All in order to make all the tracking and decision making of the GM's easier and automated as much as possible. Ideal would be a overlapping game "on top" of Combat Mission. For example (just an idea how it COULD look like) is a operatioanl game where the player can move tactical unist on a mop, make his OoB's, give arty orders and orgainse supply trains etc. When tatcical units actually engage each other the battle wll be fought in CM, with the parameters settings derived from the higher level game status. Well actuaaly just as all the online campaign but then automated in a game. Well like said I guess the latter kind of campaign mode would be very suitable for CM, question is only whether it is commercially enough to e developed..... I sure hope so! gr Screeny

I guess modern warfare would be a little hard to model in a CM kind of game. Aspecially the Battle helicopters. Now we are allready on the edge with the dive bombers and the fighter bombers. How would you want to model a Blackhawk that can fire AT rockets from a distance of 5 km's?? this chopper could be hoovering beyond the battlefield.... Same with all kinds of air to surface rockets fired from long distances.... gr Sceeny

Well quite simply said (i guess more detaill info will follow from real history buffs ): The were not enough Tigers for the whole eastern front(nor Western front from june '44). When Tigers were deployed in one particaular area at the front the russian still came through the lines on other points where there were no tigers. Secondly a platoon, company or battalion (as they were deploued in special Heavy Tank battalions to make them more effective) of tigers can stop/destroy a lot T34's, the russians had planty of tose. And the t34 was a real good tank after all. So A tiger battalon might stop maybe 2 T34 battalions, so in that case the russians threw in 3 4 5 battalions of T34's. In CMBB QB this quantitave superiority is some what modelled but basically you can consider a CMBB qb with Tigers vs T34 is playing exactly that part of the front where the Russians were stopped . Thrid ofcourse on a strategic level (so beyond the scope of CMBB) the Tigers were pretty heavy in maintance and in fuel consumption and they were pretty slow so strategic manouvering was hampered. Well so much for my 2 cents of Discovery channel WW2 Knowledge gr Screeny BTW still ahven't found a good counter tactic

WHAAOAOOAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is it the 4th quarter of 2004 allready??? No??? AAARGHHHHH Very very cool!!!! gr Screeny

Question: 2000 pts, ME, Unrestricted force some where mid '43 CMBB, light tree coverage and light hills, me playing USSR Obviously enough the opponent comes in with plenty of tigers (4 to 5 vets). What the &^&^%7 can I do to stop him?? T34 can het on his flank with luck yet on a range beyond 300mtr They really don't hurt the tanks a lot (he keeps his tigers rather close together in the middle of the map). Tank hunterteams can't get close as he is in open terrain. The heavy AA guns are immobile and there is no location in the set up zone that gives any LOS into the rest of the map. Lighter guns don't destroy the tigers.... Does any one havea clue (don't mind the USE alot T34 and get in his back, as the terrain is such that there is no way I can get any t34 on his 6 oclock, a flank shot maybe). Should i leave my t34's home and just buy massive Infanrty and smaal arty for smokescreening and hope the infantry can get the flags and hope they can mnage untill teh end??? gr Screeny

It defenetly has something to do with the dots. I guess the best way the look at this "problem" is as follows" Take a single house: it has four walls, as it is standing on it's own without adjacent buildings it is very likely that it will have windows on all 4 sides in "our" real world. In CMBB this is modelled that you can get in and out this house from all sides. Now take this house in a street with all adjacent houses, adjacent in the sense that all the side walls are directly connected.As you probably can imagine in o"our real world" this side walls will not have windows...would be weird looking straight into the bedroom of your neighboor when your lying in your own bed....So simply said: in CMBB, ince the buildings are placed directly next to each other there are no windows and doors in the side walls. Makes perfectly sense to me. As a result you cannot cross from one building to the other via the inside. Unless you would blast a whole in the wall but that was probably a little to hard to program. The white dots, represent the side in which the "main door" is situated in the building. Placing two building adjacent with the doors facing each others makes it possible to move from one house to another directly....but it would be rather silly if this situation is translated in to our real world.. gr Screeny