A.E.B

No Steve, some of the "B" crowd say this, others don't. Yes, playing PBEM is a personal preference. It is called personal choice. After all, the fact that we don't all wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, read the same books, etc, is also a matter of personal choice. BF.C will produce the best game it can. The individual consumer will evaluate that game. No PBEM may influence some of us not to buy CMX2. Some of the "B" crowd may change their tune and buy regardless. Some of the "A" crowd may choose not to buy it. Many new consumers may buy the game. Some of us may even be dead by the release date. We can only go off the bits of information BF.C chooses to feed us with about CMX2. The fact that we reply demonstrates how much we care about the game. If you do not want us to react, don't feed us information. Many gaming companies choose this method. But if you do give us information, then we will tell you what we think and feel. A.E.B

Only if the game code allows it. Of course, it may be possible to play a false hot-seat arrangement by emailing saved game turns after each party does their orders, but again the code must support it. After all, some people managed to work out a form of co-op play for the current CM exploiting the saved game system. A.E.B [ March 04, 2005, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

With respect to BF.C, I don't think that any of the B votes are demanding that CMX2 be dumbed down. What some of us are saying is that we play CM almost exclusively by PBEM. Therefore, the lack of a PBEM facility will heavily influence whether we will buy the game or not. This is simply feed back: we are not threatening to hold our breath until we get our way. Why would I pay $75-100 AUD for a game I won't play? If BF.C feels that PBEM will compromise the greatest game ever, then PBEM will have to go. I and most of the B voters understand that. BF.C will take the options that make the most commercial sense. How can they do that without feed back from their current customer base? Regards A.E.B

B Only ever played 1 direct game, had the connection drop out constantly. A/I simply will not be up to scratch with currect technology. A.E.B

I'm offended by double posts! </font>

I'm offended by double posts! :mad: :mad: :mad: A.E.B

Hi all The obvious choice would be any elite military unit - paratroopers, SAS, Brandenbergs, Submariner, Fighter jockey, etc - but you only turn 18 in 1945: time to be trained and deployed but not time to see combat. That way you can claim the glory without the danger/blame. On the Jap word front - people do realise that JAP can also stand for Jewish American Princess? Most dictionaries have two listings for JAP (a) an abreviation of Japanese, and ( a derogatory term. NIP is either an abreviation of Nippon or again a derogatory term. But the same applies to BRIT or any other shorthand for a national group. It is the words/context in which the term is used. "Hey Brit" or "Hey Yank" are hardly offensive. But add the word stupid, or ignorant, or dumb to it and it becomes offensive. In fact members of a group often use the same terms themselves - hence the widespread use of the N word among African-Americans (and I once offended someone {not a African-American} by using that term as I was seperating out Americans by race). Hell, when I say FRENCH I mean it as an insult! The simple fact is that many people want and even need to take offense, regardless of the intentions of the so-labelled offender, due to their own internal pathologies. You can offend people by your clothing, your sexual orientation, your colour, your nationality, your religion, or occassional for just being born. Regards A.E.B

Small wonder if they start messing with the Elves. Anyone who watched LOTR could have told them that. Mefinks you mean the Argonne forest? </font>

Michael No problem. A.E.B

Michael WWI lasted roughly 53 months. During that period of time the British/French suffered 8,018,000 casualties (dead & wounded). This gives a rough monthly casualty rate of 151,000 per month. In 1914 the French/British lost 935,000 casualties in 7 months: or 133,000 per month. In 1916 the Verdun/Somme campaigns lasted from February to November - roughly 9 months - with total British/French casualties during the period of 1,100,000 (950,000 in the two battles): or 122,000 per month. The battles of late 1917 - Ypres, Cambrai - were exceptionally bloody, but I can't find my notes for exact figures. In 1918 between March and July - 5 months - the British/French casualties were 800,000: or 160,00 per month. The Americans (not included in the above figures) lost 100,000 casualties in the Aragorn forest alone. So the period during the battles of the Somme and Verdun were slightly below average as far as casualty rates go, only the serious killing was concentrated to a few short periods of time. It is just the futility of the slaughter for a few kms of ground that have captured the popular imagination. Edited to add - Western Front only! Regards A.E.B

Hi all Actually WWI artillery was only effective if used in a limited manor. All the great offensives of 1916-1917 failed on the Western Front due to the fact that shells did so much damage they made logistical supply across no-mans land impossible. Basically huge numbers of shells would be fired. While this destroyed wire and certainly killed and surpressed defending infantry, the moonscape battlefield meant that - even if the offensive breached the enemy lines - the defender could bring up reinforcements and supplies across an undamaged rear area far quicker than the attacker could move its reinforcements and supplies across no-mans land. Even tanks drowned in the shell holes of 1916. Then finally it dawned to both sides in late 1917 that a short wirlwind barrage with a mix of gas, shrapnel and HE shells did the same job but left the battlefield relatively undamaged. It is also interesting to note that the heaviest casualty rates on the Western Front occurred in 1915 and 1918 during the periods of maneuver warfare, as soldiers were out of the trenches in the open and thus far more exposed to artillery and MG fire. The scale/density of forces of the other fronts differed so Western Front experience does not necessarily apply to Russia, Austria-Hungry, Italy, the Balkins or the Ottoman Empire. Regards A.E.B

Sergi posted this link some time ago. Link 95,000 from 1939-1945. This covers the Winter War against the USSR. The war against the USSR as a German ally, and then the war against German after the deal with the USSR in 1944. It sucks to be Finnish (between 1939-45 that is ). A.E.B

Hi all I realise that my limited orders solution was just a band aid to what is in reality an intractable problem of realism vs playability and fun. When I was designing my game (a pen and paper RPG with added computer resources) I ran immediately into a problem: I wanted a high degree of realism in how things worked (magic had to have its own set of consistent rules that tied into the melee/missile and skill system in a meaningful way (ie the player should never come to question how the rules were designed). Sounds easy? My first effort was a complete failure, I designed from the base up and generated a cumbersome nightmare that failed to free the players from the game mechanics so they could immerse in the game. For my second effort I flipped the whole thing around, and started with the results I wanted and then created a rule system that used the same system of resolution for every action, but required only one 2d10 die roll to determine level of success or failure combined with a card system to through in major variables that complete alter the game balance from action to action. The playtesters loved it. But this game was under the hood nothing but arbitary statistics, a couple of tables, cards and die rolls. The way the rules worked were not realistic at all, but the end result appeared not only realistic but was simple and thankfully fun. This I believe is the challenge facing the next CM - how to achieve a final game result that feels realistic while remaining both fun and simple to utilise (ie the interface, not battle tactics). I agree that the AI is a issue: I played most CMBB senarios from the CD but only played one from the CMAK CD. The AI was simply unable to provide a realistic challenge as it lacks human unpredictability. Play a human and you will often be surprised but new inovative tactics, or a reaction that renders your own plans mute. The AI is easily baited to its death, and is often predictable. This AI issue confronts all games where a human faces AI. In steel panthers the fastest units of an attacking AI would arrive first, so you had a wave of transports, then tanks, then infantry. Even games like Half-Life use clever scripting to cover the predictibity of much of its AI, but given the same situation the AI in even that game would produce the same reactions. In my effort at computer game design the AI was a disaster. Armies with melee and missile weapons have to operate as a whole, not split into randomly reacting units. This meant that each AI unit had to react to what every other AI unit in sight was doing. Hence the units of pikemen had to advance as a solid line, or attackers would attack the flanks. With if/else tables of reaction for each AI unit, a AI army functioned as a mob of uncordinated individual units. Programmed to follow the leader, often nothing happen as the lines froze as each reacted to the surrounding units reacting to them. To use a CM example, the AI does not coordinate AFVs and infantry. Tanks advancing into terrain that allows for infantry close assault should be escorted by infantry. If the escorting infantry is engaged, both the tank and its infantry should fight as a whole. So what the CM engine should aim at is, given a tank and infantry want to advance into a town say, that the tank and infantry should try to cooridinate their actions: how that result is achieved is of secondary importance. This is only constructive critisism. I have been playing CM now for years, longer than any other game. I have played several hundred PBEMS. And I keep playing for the challenge and the fun. CMX2 needs to keep the spirit of its predessessors while updating the engine that delivers that spirit. DOOM3 is an example of a game that failed to keep its original spirit with newer software. I believe that CM will not fail that test. A.E.B

I fact you can already play CMBO, CMBB & CMAK with multiple human players per side by exploiting the difference between save files and go files for PBEMS. UberFunnyBunny, M Bates, Dorosh and Krazy Canauk and I have played battles with two players per side, or two against one. The main thing is to split the forces (we forgot the mortars in one battle with both players thinking they belonged to the other party). You can only order your own forces. As long as you email the files in a set order, it works fine. Coordiation was by email, or even screen dumps with lines and squiggles and other notation. But the FOW often intervened and plans fell apart. For the next CM I see three possible game layers: 1. Normal human vs AI. 2. Human vs human. 3. Multiple humans vs AI or multiple humans. Also, the game could be split into single battles or campaigns. Unlike Steel Panthers (which had unconnected battles spread across random months), I see a CM campaign as being an intense operational period, during which units are slowly (or quickly) worn down and attrited, followed by periods in the rear to take on replacements and refits. Few units where engaged in continuous operations for months (an those that did were usually reduced to shells - think of the German units facing the D-Day landings). A good example is Allied Airbourne units. Take the 101. D-Day, then England, then Market Garden, then Bastone, then the drop over the Rhine. Even German units (like the SS Panzer divisions) where taken out of the line to receive reinforcements and new equipment. Much of the reason for the decline of these units in 1944/45 was the inability to remove them from operations for sufficient periods of time to rebuild. If there is a campaign element, then units that survive opeartions should improve in quality unless diluted by reinforcements. I agree that progression during a short operation should be limited or non-existant, but there must be progression between operations. Take a single CM battle. A elite Tiger I holds an objective against a concerted allied assault. The human playing German leaves the Tiger in place even after its infantry screen is stripped as the important thing is winning this 30+ minute battle. Now imagine that it is December 1944 and that Tiger's crew has survived since D-Day June 6th. The crew started out regular, but is now elite, with the crew having many kills and the TC a Knight's Cross. You, the KG commander, can still sacrifice this Tiger to hold an objective for 30 minutes, but you may never get another Tiger or crew like that again. And tomorrow there will be another battle for another objective. Suddenly you care about your virtual men! Regards A.E.B

Steve I myself have once faced this same issue of multiple command levels for a computerised combat system for resolving battles where the human player had control over a large number of units ranging from combat elements to the CHQ. It wasn't a WW2 game (arrows, swords, cavalry, pikes & magic) but the issue of limiting the human player's ability to micro manage the whole battle (including BORG) applied. The solution I came up with was only allowing the human player a limited number of orders per turn (it was a turn-based system). The way a battle was conducted was as follows. 1. The human player deployed his forces and could issue unlimited orders in the setup phase to simulate pre-battle planning. 2. Each level of command (lieutenant, Captain, Major, etc) had a given number of new orders that they could issue per turn based on their experience/quality (NCOs where assumed to concentrate on carrying out those orders). 3. Therefore, each time a unit was given orders it used up some or all of the immediate commander's order allotment for that turn. Units would require new orders before they would change their current orders. 4. If a unit wanted to report an enemy contact to other units that were unsighted, that also required the consumption of orders. 5. If a unit had used up all of its own order allotment, it could draw on the order allotment of a higher echelon command unit if it was within contact/command. 6. That higher echelon unit would in turn draw on its higher echelon command for its order allotment. The general rule was that there were never enough orders to change the orders for every sub unit in a turn (beyond maybe a simple single order like "HALT". This became particularly acute if the subunits were out of command or if the higher echelon command units where wiped out. (In CM you could make a order node (move here) or single action (hide/unhide, set up a cover arc) equal one order). This forced the human play to decide where to use their limited supply of orders, specially those of higher commanders whose orders could be used by a number of subunits. It was also possible to give orders that took more than one turn, with the unit receiving those orders not acting upon them until the order was complete. Occasionally events in the game would render an order obsolete before it was finished being given. Then the order would have to be scrapped and a new order given. This system was intended to reflect both the limited ability of commanders to keep issuing more orders once a battle had started, as well as giving the AI more chance against the human opponent (the AI had no order limit). This solution was by no means perfect, but the testers were routinely sweating and swearing as they tried to manage a swiftly changing battle without the ability to give every unit instant and complex orders each and every turn. And the loss of a senior commander was devastating due to the lost orders. To give a CMX2 example of how the above could work, in a current PBEM I sent 3 independent tanks to support a platoon of infantry advancing on a small group of buildings surrounded by clumps of woods. The initial orders were for the three infantry squads and platoon HQ to move fast as they crossed the open ground between clumps of trees, and then change to move to contact as they approached the target. The mortar and piat squads had slighly different orders. All told about 30 nodes for 6 units. The tanks were to move on hunt to postions where they could cover the first 60% of the infantry advance. A mortar spotter was targeted on the trees infront of the buildings where I though the enemy may have infantry. Other platoons and tanks were given different objectives. The first two turns passed without incident. Then in turn three an enemy SP KOed one of the tanks and began shooting at the infantry (the other tanks were unsighted). I wanted to (a) tell the remaining two tanks to move to a position where they could see the SP ( tell the mortar to drop smoke in front on the SP to blind it © get the two infantry squads being shelled to hide (d) order the other squad and the platoon HQ to move fast to cover (e) order the PIAT to sneak to a position where it could whack the SP if it adavnced. Realistically, how long would it take the only available HQ unit (the platoon HQ) to issue those five orders? 1. Sgt Harris, run and tell those tanks that the SP is on hill 124 to the left of the trees. Tell them that we are dropping smoke to give them cover. 2. Squads 1 and 2 take cover and wait for smoke. 3. Squad 3 occupy those trees front right. 4. Mortar, drop smoke on that damn SP. 5. PIAT, take up a position in those trees by the laneway in case that SP moves forward. Keep Low. While a trained commander would use hand signals and more concise orders, I doubt all these orders could be issued in the delay time given by CMX2. Now imagine if that same platoon HQ could only issue orders to a couple of the units in the time frame. Regards A.E.B

bill clarke Under Australian Consumer Law the retailer has to refund or replace defective goods. Take the whole package back to EB, tell them that the 2nd CD was missing, and they have to refund or exchange. Occassionally drongos will try to get out of this by claiming that you could have copied/cracked the CD. Step 1: Explain that you cannot play the game with the Game CD in the drive, and you are returning that CD. Step 2: If they still refuse, tell them that they are in breach of the law, ask for the sales persons name and their managers name, so you can include those details in your complaint to both the State Government body (Department of Fair Trade in NSW), and the ACCC. If they have up signs stating no returns or refunds, take a photo and tell them that they are breaching the law and could be fined up to $1 million. The chances are that EB, as a reputable retailer, will replace the faulty goods without incident. It is the Retailer, not BFC, who you need to chase here. Regards A.E.B

A large impacter on hygene standards on the frontline was the presence of snipers/artillery. A relation who fought in New Guinea mentioned in his diary that men collected shell casings from the 25 pounder unit in the rear-area (no pun intended). When stationed on the frontline, men would use the shell casing rather than risk unseen Jap snipers or bring down artillery by leaving their foxholes. I can imagine that most soldiers caught in the same situation would use any covered location as a toilet, rather than risk exposure. Now, if you want a more interesting debate, how about the rates of VD in the various armies and the methods used to combat them. A.E.B

Hi all I had a discussion with a friend who works for a Australian game software company on how to allow additions to a game's database without having open-code software or allowing cheating. The strategy they are working on is having a dedicated website where the entire statistical database was available. The actual CDs sold with the game would contain the original database as well as an automatic updater utility that would access and download the files from this dedicated database. I asked what about people who lack internet access, but the view is any dedicated gamer will have internet access. Translated to CMX terms, this would allow BFC to have a seperate OOB and equipment statitics saved seperately from the actual game software. Want to add a new AFV or fix a OOB problem: change the database. The trick is to make the software utilise this database. This means making the engine capable of handling all the necessary variables likely to be encounted (a good example is multi-weaponed vehicles being able to engage seperate targets). Get the initial data set right and you are free to add content at will. The company my friend works for even has plans to allow external user mods to be submitted and - if accepted - added to the database. Get it right and a WWII game engine could be updated to handle non-WWII theatres if the game engine can handle the required data. The plan is to allow access to this online database free for a period (to be determined), and then charge a fee for future access (patches would remain free). The game software being designed doesn't need to handle multi-player, however. My policy is never bring up a problem without a solution, so.... * have scenarios come with the data of the units being used by that scenario. This would limited the size of the file package required and would restrict users to the scenario defaults. * quickbattles use the user's software's own data set, or, if a multiplayer game is desired, the software automatically links to the online database so both players are using the same data set (no edit cheats). This seems to be the future of games that need to allow considerable updates of units for a game (the software my friend is working on is a 3D train simulator that is state-of-the-art both graphically and in terms of realism). Just an idea. A.E.B

Perhaps it was a 1977 Ford Pinto? A.E.B

Hi all Actually, Vietnam is the perfect threater (like WWII) for a CM style game. 1. It spans two decades 2. It involves many nations 3. The weaponry is still close enough to WWII (ATWGMs, laser guiding and tank guns that kill at 3 km only make a tiny appearance 4. Infantry dominate the battlefield (all the other arms are support) 5. Vietnam (plus Laos and Cambodia) have diverse terrain types (Vietnam is not all jungle) 6. Many major battles occurred, including tank battles and city fighting 7. You even have riverine warfare with fast attack boats and monitors Vietnam was as urbanised as large areas of Europe where during WWII, so fighting inevitably impacted on civilians. And the attrocities committed by all sides pale in comparison to the attrocities committed during WWII. Even the Battlefront logo on this site (if I am not mistaken) is a M48A2 firing at a NVA PT76 during a night battle in 1968 (I think) at Ben Het (again I think) in the Central Highlands on the South Vietam/Laosan border. If you could change/add the hard coded units in CM:BB or CMAK, you could create a Nam mod now, as a M48 or a T54 is not that different from WWII tanks (unlike modern armour). Also, just for the current US elections, you could add special HQ units, like the BUSH that never arrives on the battlefield, or the KERRY that initially fights well but then suddenly changes sides. Better still would be a CMX2 engine that could handle all of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Israeli/Arab and any other war up till the 1980s when technology changes the dimensions of armoured warfare. Regards A.E.B

John D Salt I have read Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War. In fact I read it when I was studying science, and my immediate thought was this guy has made no effort to base his conclusions on anything resembling scientific fact. In fact this book is a terrible case study in "arguing from authority". Then I did some research and discovered that SLA Marshall was pretty well discredited. SLA Marshall may have been influential, but that doesn't make his claims true. Regards A.E.B

Hi all Another problem with CMBO/BB/AK is the haziness of range and where exactly units are positioned, particularly with infantry units. Basically, the best way for infantry not equipped with PIATS, Bazookas, or Fausts to kill tanks is to get close. Basically, all the vision devices - slots, periscopes and sites - are mounted on top of the hull or on the turret (the exception being the front). This fact means that most tanks have a blind zone around them. As an infantry man, if you could get in close to the side or rear of the tank, then that tank couldn't see you if buttoned. This is how infantry were able to place charges or mines or bundle grenades directly onto a tank (thrown bundle grenades were pretty useless). This is why close infantry support is so vital if tanks are going to operate in terrain that will allow infantry to get close. Also, the tank itself provides cover for the close assaulting infantry - but then CM doesn't allow tanks to be used as cover. Regards A.E.B

Hi all I was never a great SL/ASL player, although many of my friends spent years on these great games. For me my great passion was a minatures WWII rule set called TRACTICS - released by TSR back in the 1970s. Thankfully, someone gave me Tractics as a birthday present when I was ten, because by the time I had the money to buy games Tractics was out of print. To me, Tractics is as much a distant ancestor to CM as SL/ASL or other board games. The game listed all of the different armour values (obviously in 1970 a lot of the data was wrong) for all major sections of just about every WWII AFV - including the angle and weak points. Thus penetration was determined by facing, the angle to the attacker (both facing and armour slop) against the incoming rounds penetration. Behind armour effectiveness was partially determined by shell size/type and part random. The advantage of playing with minatures was the battlefield was already 3D: we made little periscopes to get a "eyeball's" view of the battlefield. The disadvantage was that the game was massively time consuming and very expensive - try building realistic minature WWII armies. For FOW you really needed a neutral ref. Games could take days. The along the first computer games like Kampfgroup and Battlegroup. But I always dreamed of a Tractics like 3D computer simulation. Then I saw the GameSpy review of CM:BB. I still have Tractics - aparently one of about 6,000 copies. Regards A.E.B

Hi all Interestingly, there appears to be a large difference between the theroretical and actual performance on the battlefield of HEAT/Hollow charge type warheads. Basically, these rounds use a cone to concentrate a stream of molten metal and hot gases that blow through armour as a narrow jet. But, when used on the battlefield, HEAT weapons routinely fail against vehicles whose armour they should be easily able to penetrate. The best explanation for this I have ever heard was summed up as presentation + distance. Translated, a HEAT round is most effective when it is correctly presented to the target (orientation), and the detonation occurs the right distance from the surface to be penetrated. This is why most modern HEAT warheads now have extended nose fuses: this is in an effort to have the warhead explode at the most effective distance. Orientation is a biggy. All armour piercing weapons are affected by the angle at which they strike a target - even hand held weapons. A lot of HEAT rounds apparently fail if they strike at too great an angle - either the jet is partially deflected, or the shockwave from the explosion arrives first at the closest point and distrupts the jet with its reflection. This is why magnetic mines were the first serious Antitank HEAT devices - by placing the mine directly on the target you were almost guaranteed that the detonation would occur with the best orientation and distance. Translated, many accounts I have read of actual battle is full of complaints about defective and inadequate antitank HEAT weapons. But, upon looking at the stats, those weapons should have had no difficultly in affecting the target. A Good case is Korea, where the 2.36 inch Bazooka failed against the T34/85. Many accounts mention the rounds bouncing off the tanks (in one case a round bounced down the commanders hatch). So, the angle meant that the Bazooka rounds often deflected away without exploding. But even in cases where angle shouldn't have been a problem (firing from roof tops during the battle of Seoul), the Bazooka still often failed to kill a T34/85. The 1960s have many examples. The Egyptians found that their snapper and Saggar missiles often failed against Israeli tanks. In Vietnam, many vehicles survived impacts by 66mm LAWs and RPGs that, on paper at least, should have been deadly? In Nam at least the issue of HEAT performance was looked at. In the battle of (forget the name - the SF camp overrun by NVA armour at the start of Tet up near the Laos/DMZ border region), the SF soldiers fired a number of LAWs at PT76 tanks. Only one tank was knocked out by LAWs, leading to the charge that the weapons were defective. A 106mm recoilless rifle had no trouble killing serveral other PT76s. A LAW should be able to kill a PT76, which is a light amphibious recon tank. However, it was concluded that the LAWs were being fired in far from perfect conditions - by men in trenches against moving targets covered in objects that could cause a round to prematurely detonate or deflect. The 106mm recoilless rifle had no problems, because its maximum penetration was massively above that needed to penetrate the armour of a PT76. So, with less than perfect conditions robbing HEAT rounds of a substantial proportion of their penetration, the 106mm RR succeeded where the LAWs failed as the 106RR had penetration to spare. Another Vietnam example is a relative of mine who is alive because RPGs didn't achieve their theroretical penetration on the battlefield. My relation crewed an Australia Centurion that took part in the post Tet battles of 1968 in what is commonly known as the battle of Coral. The Centurions role was to support infantry clearing dug in NVA/VC forces. This meant the Centurions drove through thick scrub and engaged bunkers and fighting positions at close range. In a particularly violent action against a bunker complex, my relations Centurion was hit by enough RPGs that all of the external storage bins and other fittings were blown off or wrecked (after one blast infantry using the tank for cover were sprayed with beer and mint tooth paste). Not one RPG penetrated any of the Centurions - mines claimed a few - during the entire deployment in Vietnam, not even side or rear hits. The result of these battlefield experiences was the complete redesign of modern HEAT weapons. Apart from the extended nose fuses, many HEAT rounds now detonate without even impacting on the target, detonating by proximity fuses. So, the secret with HEAT weapons is (a) have as much over penetration as possible (ie a large warhead), ( make the HEAT warhead hit at the best possible angle to the target surface. Low velocity HEAT rounds are easily deflected by objects on the target, or even by foliage or other obstacles encountered on the flight to the target. Rockets and rounds with tails can become unstable in flight - a HEAT round that hits side on will still explode but have no penatrative effect. Regards A.E.B

Thanks for the responses guys. I will watch this game with interest (may have to stage another assassination challenge to give some copies of the game away). Regards A.E.B