mididoctors

I think the hex scale in PB was 250m/hex thus a board some 30+ hexes by 10 is (or 12 can't remember just now) is 2.5km by 7.5Km+ for each board. PB scenario sused all 3 boards I think... makes for a 7.5Km by 7.5Km at least...is this two big for CMBB? I suspect so Boris london

I had a regular opponent back in the day when i was a serious ASL head.... after a while last turn charges where considered "bad sport" by both of us. In essence we applied self discipline over the issue.... This may be a desire to avoid gamey play rather than anthropormorphising cardboard counters thou.. Boris London

Perhaps the trick may be to redefine OUR AS IN US, so that divsions cease to exsist of course this has the terrible truth inside it... we must take an idelogical stance so we can define what is in everyones intrest. Is this a clash of civilisations? Pragmaticaly speaking of ethics of the current situatio [iraq] ...I am less anti-war than I am anti-peace settlement post war! We have heard plenty of reasons why the ability to breath air should be denied to certain individuals but almost NOTHING about what we intend to do post such a desirable outcome? Ethicaly a moral crusade against "evil" could be hi-jacked for a greater "evil". What are our intentions? Are we being lied too? In all honesty what is ones gut feeling? This whole situation is getting down to some pretty basic denominators. Boris london

Sorry I do not fully understand your meaning here? That is a generalism no? Can such a fixed morality work in all instances? Surley there are times for war and times to avioid war? Perhaps morality has very little to do with decisions to go to war, instead they tend to be based on self intrest...for instance no international task force was sent to Rwanda in 1994 (and am NOT arguing one way or the other whether one should have been). It just seems to me no one had any self intrest in such a war... Now that realy was the case of a population being slaughtered. estimates of 500,000 plus out of a total population of 8,000,000! So the argument "it has nothing to do with us" has been used as a reason by goverments to avoid intervention which latter may advocate involvement in other locals on moral grounds.....this the PR frontend of realpoltik if you like..... Whether this a correct form of behaviour or not is irrelavent IMHO and I do judge decisions or issues in a Isolated moral manner. The term 'greater good" comes to mind..which on a global scale is very hard to judge (this is the USA's predicament). One perhaps should be less offended by critism , reacting with indignation, than accepting that any policy may have negative conintations and adjust policy for ONES OWN benifit to account for views which condradict your own. OF course this can include popaganda. Ironicly I may be more of a hawk than some may think reading this post. Boris london

Unless you've put a gaggle of wall-eyed Privates through their paces with snap and vigor, don't knock it as a means of building esprit-de-corps.</font>

Oh my god! How could there be such an omission! Boris london

Or plain flares for that matter..big omission to night battles..I think there wwas talk of engine limitations Boris London

There are no more "secrets" here than in any other part of the game. I don't know why it is that you and a few others feel that bogging is some sort of exception to the rules. It is just like any other element in the game, including the player having imperfect/imprecise knowledge of exactly how it works. We would have had to release a 2000 page manual to explain everything in great detail equally. </font>

What are your thoughts on Kesselring as a Defensive General? not in same league? Boris London BTW andreas if your reading this I am working in a studio in N London today (now!) so will not make it have a good time.

then all the arguments will come down to semantics over what is strategic and what is not? Focus.hmmmmmmmmmmmm This player pref system is probably the way to go (personaly I think you should always play EFOW and level 1 view only with perhaps a non dynamic commanders terrain map)..It would be nice thou to be able to remodel certain tactical elements thou.... what if Russian optics where better? ..flexability is a quality of computers. Its just a question of how far you want to go in making the ultimate WW2 ground combat sim . Why compromise you have a captured audience of total grog nard-nerd-anoraks.....I have spent £100s(maybe close to £1000!) of pounds on Hex based sims ..hang on lets do a rough count on ASL...must be over£400 quid!!!!!..what the hell was I thinking! what would I pay for an ultimate computer sim with open plug-in architecture and decent manual full of lovely tables and AFV lists...damm sight more than £65 thats for sure Amazing how much passion a computer simulation can evoke..you would think it was important or something. Personaly I have no problem with luck in CMBB..I wish alot of other thing where modeled but conceed his means a step up in the average power of home PC's (engine rewrite). Perhaps a background in ASL with its myriad of luck elements has hardened me to bad luck (heat of battle,snipers,duds.critical hits, excessive speed breakdown !!! remember that one!) Boris London

OOOPPPPPPSSSS! Sorry I stand corrected..I was not aware of this Then Scenario design needs adequate play testing...I still think points for victory flags and losses still crude...... but then again I have not realy encountered bad balance thru luck as a detrement to play anyway Boris london

not realy the whole premise for the offensive was whack..... Model wasn't that bad a general was he? I guess your saying he wasn't brilliant like Manstein.... No amount of military panache was going to do the buisness here. Boris London

I worked for two years on the channel tunnel terminal area during the landscaping phase(and other large civil engineering projects) weather was bad, wet and muddy...heavy plant bogged often but then again there was a lot of plant and I was not taking a statistical survey at the time.... D9 s and D8s did ok and bogged the least... 360 hanomags bogged all the time GP? who knows all I can say is stuff bogs in wet ground which we all know. wheeled stuff faired very badly sinking up to axles including 3500HP! scrappers , case diggers and land rovers. FWIW Boris london

Amen to that ....... lazy tactical thinking (ie CMBB orders) is a fast track to defeat..... Recon in force is often costly..spliting a single squad squad may be all thats needed... less is more..I would like to see single scouts modeled even if abstactly via a command such as [scout location] and a drag arrow like LOS order.... still more wishlist stuff I guess..as with assualt and advance this command would be limited to units of higher experience or in command ......some may claim advance models this activity (hmmmm) movement prior to contact is often the cause of unwanted casulties when you find your force exposed to ambush/prepared TRP fire. conversley there are tactical reasons for moving in large numbers to overwhelm such fire anf suppress destroy its source on exposure....... CMBB battles are in my experience a Tactical puzzle that needs solving... what works in one Battle is not the answer to all battles [assualt on the moon is a good example of this tactical puzzle design].... meeting engagement QB/fixed point style battles tend to vier towards a favoured tactic/style of play of the player who picks his fav force structure.... while this may be all fine and good and obviously enjoyable for those who favour thiis play style, it is not what I am looking for in the game..... I am sure the structure both of the CMBB community and the game itself can accomadate both ladder and realist style players.... the strength of ladder play is that it bears replay even if you are just regigging the same game somewhat..where as scenario(puzzle)play is somewhat jaded once you have the solution (spoilers?). the new CM game engine should have a large number of play options available to accomadate a wide range of prefered playing styles including the removal of luck factors such as bogging or even degrees of implementation? (tall order?) Boris london

Or if people could add handicap points. Wait, they can already do that. Never mind.</font>

the problem is not CMBB bogging rules or any other part of the simulation engine...it is more that victory condition variables are very crude compared with the rest of the game design............ so called unbalanced scenarios become balanced if ASL style SSR and victory conditions are possable... I prefere to keep it "realistic" and lose battles than play contrived 1000pts each style battles.....having said that an improvement in the victory condition rules is desirable. Boris London

Sorry no offence intended....I stand corrected "most individualistic" hmmmm not sure what that realy means? Anyway yes an off duty service personal are entitled to not being ridiculed as an automoton As for CMBB..... if you find your self sacraficing troops recklessly you are usually not playing well/losing..there are times to take risks force conservation is a serious consideration in any battle. Boris london

No its the other way round isn't it? ...... the group marching is part of a well honed practice of stripping a recruit of his/hers individuality thus.. if we can get them to perform humiliating routines in sync like mindless circus seals we can get them to do anything (including going to their death)..why do modern armies still instill group mentatility with drill? .. however I do agree that the US divebomber crews at midway were brave men. Boris london

I actually understand the humour in this article...... I need to get out more Boris London

I broadly agree that debate should be impartial and cynical, as arguing from a point of moral superiority in this affair is looking somewhat suspect and more importantly self-delusional......if you take a moral stance and thru a painful process of self-discovery make the relisation half way thru that you are somewhat "off track" then you have lost before you have even started.... As for Turkey...hmmm big fly in the ointment...a de facto creation of a Kurdish state is a nightmare scenario for them.. such a situation may in fact be undesirable and counter-intuitivily a break between US and Europe may be forming with a anti-war German sponsoring turkish EU entry only to be blocked by UK under US influence.. Turkey may look to European ties without US help as Kurdish question is one of National Stability! UK sabotaging Turkish entry may further undermine European solidarity with continental European states getting increasing alarmed at US influence vai UK! The US in effect will be able to VETO EU policies..this may not be tolerated by nations such as France and Germany. Political blowback of Iraqi war may include destabilisation of US european relations , NATO and Turkey....this has projections into peace building efforts in Balkans... Further issues over Kurds including shared intrests between Iran and Turkey will further require "adjustment" of Turkeys position with the US as it is forced closer to a member of the "AXIS of EVIL". This war on terrorism is basicly a series of deals brokered by all particapants for maximum advantage......I can not see how the US can come clean on any promises it may have to make as the partys involved are at cross purposes..... A basic grasp of this state of affairs is how Saddam (and his like) manage to stay in power...... dealing with such men requires the sacrifice of self-intrest ..has this ever happened? Britain cashing in its Empire during WW II rather than brokering a peace with Hitler in 1940 is a possable example but a degree of scepticism about Hitlers deals may have been a greater factor (ie survival). the house of Saudi may ironicaly be a big loser in Iraqi regime change as a "democratic" Iraq may undermine its position especialy as US forces could base from Iraq and be less reliant on Saudi Oil......this is of intrest to the US who wish to tear up the Al quedda network in Saudi... Iraq may be a political stepping stone for US policy aimed at applying pressure back on Saudi! As for Russia and China...do not get me started....... What will history record of this period we live in? Bizzrare situation we find ourselves in..Exactly why are we attacking Iraqi ? We(human race) have not learnt how to deal with men like Saddam and our current predicament is a reflection of this..perhaps it is becuse our own leaders are not to removed? Boris London

It has parallels...German invasion of Soviet Union /Ukranine was welcomed as liberation..yet mistreatment of civilian population played into Stalins hands...will Iraqi population consider the last 10 yrs of sanctions and betrayal by BUSH snr in 91 (when he called for an uprising) in a similar way...or does access to more sophisticated media make the Iraqi population less prone to Nationalistic urges/manipulation? my hunch is that Iraqi forces will colapse except for a few pockets and defeat of Saddam may be easirer than worst case scenario. ....post conflict...we may find we are policing a new palestian still issue with the Kurds and find ourselves embroiled in something far worse...? Boris London

large landmines? since 91 Iraq has developed a mobile MRL cluster rocket launcher....such a mobile (small) wpn system may be hard to locate and destroy (scud mobile launchers where hard to locate but we have moved on a decade).... chem warheads "may" have been developed for this sysytem (unlikley)..artillery operating from urban aras using civilian population as sheild is more likley...... but yes delivery is the Iraqi's big problem..most tenable delivery systems are highly targetable by US airpower...... again Iraqi threat over blown? the real question is not how the US/UK coalition wins the war but what happens after they do?....is such a "victory" desirable or benefical? Boris London

I'll try and make it..how would we recognise you? Boris london

Just FYI, I dont think anyone has been talking about war winning what ifs here.</font>

hmmm a lot of the arguments in this thread have the commanders in the field having realtime hindsight..if only axis of attacks where changed etc....... A re-evalution of Kursk must enevitably still conceed a strategic reversal for the Germans and all hope of winning or stalemating the east front......the outcome of the battle is more a indication of the wars turing point rather than a tactical or operational defeat for one side or the other......in essence any result less than total Soviet defeat is a German defeat!..the argument of operational goals is an admission of loss of stratigic initative. Hitler failed infront of moscow in 41..all hopes of knocking Russia out were over..pretence at reversing fortunes latter in 42 and even more in 43 where pure pipe dreams...(in my view invading in 41 was a ridiculus long shot in its self) Kursk was folly as was the whole Third Reich Mission in general....but thats another argument....... what could of the wehrmacht done instead in 43?...who knows but sustaining the east front for a further year in some stalemate is not going to help germany win the war after all the US are comming from the other side and Germany is steadily getting flattened.. War winning what ifs in 43 really boil down too: a German detection and defeat of ENIGMA (some evidence it was detected but Krammer sabotaged its discovery?). Advanced type XXI U-boats being available for N atlantic battle in large numbers Early introduction of German Jet aircraft to re-establish/maintain air superiority over all fronts in 44 further rationalisation of german production from an earlier date (1939 at least). even given these options your probably still need a Nazi Nuke..... Germany just was not going to win this war..what on earth they thought they were doing has always bamboozeled me!!!! Boris london