DavidFields

I read the Foundation series again and again when I was young. But reread it recently--trying to get my son interested in it. I was not as impressed with it. My understanding is that Asimov usually wrote with his first draft be his only draft, and I think it shows. Wasn't there a 4th...and 5th book? Don't think they caught on like the first three. I think by the time he wrote the sequels he wanted to put in...romance. I could almost remember my nerdy side going "Yuk". Asimov was supposed to be science (with a thinly discussed recapitulation of the Roman Empire)

Yes. Quite a helpful reminder. I often confuse Rocky and Rough--this reminds me how much better rough is. Also, I had forgotten how much less exposure heavy buildings give compared to light--I mostly had been thinking about the demolishing aspects. Hard to think of when I used a wall to help my men--since there is often high ground around to cancel their effect. I probably just need to find the right scenario to show their potential.

I think it was carefully designed this way: another reason to keep people from using crews as front-line soldiers or spotters. Another reason to care about your crews and get them out of harms way. And keep them from getting captured! I think it is an interesting, atypical CM design choice. In general, the design stays away from issues of handling issues not directly relating to combat. No evacuating wounded to aid stations, or medic units, or supply depots--despite occasional requests for these. So one could make a case for not even representing crews, either with tanks or knocked out guns. But they decided to. And I find it interesting to see how, from BO to BB/AK, progressive efforts to fine-tune the idea. Thanks for the info.

Indeed, one of the aspects I enjoyed about the scenario was practicing using the 81 mm on-board mortars well. Not sure I got it down well enough. Despite using HQ spotters, I still tended to put them too much in harms way, getting a number of them knocked out. Yes...you might be able to take the escarpments...but at what cost? Damaged prime squads. The second time through the scenario, I saved my northern squads, and just pushed hard in the south. At the end of the first battle, the escarpments fell, relatively few casualties, big line advance. But, I could understand if one thought that was cheesy/gamey, and wanted to play more realistically.

Thank you, JasonC, for the explanation. It would seem that abstraction, done well, can be "better" than some detailed renditions. In an oblique way it reminds me of the difference between Ken Burns recent WW2 series and Band of Brothers. Despite the detail, and my enormous interest in WW2, I found the Burn's series...boring, after about 25 minutes. But I can still imagine popping in a Band of Brothers episode almost any day. Indeed, I could see a potential Battlefront motto: Abstracting war, in interesting ways. But I, too, will not be too negative. I can see the solution, with a rapid fall-off in casualties over "fire" time, adjusted for flanking. And "Borg-less" spotting. Sounds like a potential winner. Until then, back to the Blitzkrieg CMBB operation. I am intent on learning how to use flame tanks well.

And this was less evident in CM1 because of the decreased lethality? ie--I could have 3 german heavy MGs pounding a Russian infantry squad in woods at 200 meters, and have it first "go to ground", and then break and run, with only a few casualties. But the equivalent in modern warfare? How much of this is a modeling issue, and how much a firepower issue? [Actually, I see this is being dealt with in another thread] [ December 26, 2007, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

Yes, one could do that to enhance realism. I didn't...rationalized it as the Allied forces withdrawing at some point during a lull in the fighting. (Sort of like they did, as I understand it, off the hill IRL.)(Indeed, I think you would find it incredibly hard to take the escarpments without the "Operation Line-Push") I found it exceedingly interesting. Can you here those Allied guns opening up in your sleep, yet? I won't comment much more at this point. There is really no "spoilers". But the terrain makes for some interesting choices, I think, for the German player. I played against the AI. Against a human.....wow, I will be highly impressed if you can pull out a win.

Great book. I still think of parts of it--like the German tank units firing, then reversing back to the next previously prepared position. IMHO, better than Search for Red October...and I never was nearly attracted to Clancy's stuff after Red Storm Rising. Can you imagine a movie of it? But I think it will have to wait for CM3, CM4, or CM5. Even for just the ground war, the air combat, unit density, and terrain issues would seem to me staggering. You would also have to deal extensively with electronic warfare--which is something one can largely avoid in current versions of asymetric combat. </font>

Great book. I still think of parts of it--like the German tank units firing, then reversing back to the next previously prepared position. IMHO, better than Search for Red October...and I never was nearly attracted to Clancy's stuff after Red Storm Rising. Can you imagine a movie of it? But I think it will have to wait for CM3, CM4, or CM5. Even for just the ground war, the air combat, unit density, and terrain issues would seem to me staggering. You would also have to deal extensively with electronic warfare--which is something one can largely avoid in current versions of asymetric combat.

None, or they would have called it WWIII and we'd probably all be glowing in the dark But I don't understand what this has to do with tactical wargaming. When I'm in command of a Stryker Platoon in CM:SF I don't give a flying fig how much money was spent equipping my guys because a $5 RPG can rip through my rides pretty effectively if I don't pay attention to good tactics. Steve </font>

Modern Warfare is like colonial warfare. When the US spends more on its military than....how many of the next countries combined? The last developed nation that fought a total war against an equally advanced nation was.....oh, give me something past WW2.

Just an opinion, from an old person (me): ACW: It is a cultural thing. Growing up in the South, I was amazed when I moved North in the 80s and found they weren't still fighting the Civil War (War Between the States) there. At that point, Richmond Virginia airport still had old trenches, with cannon facing north. (As it happens...I think the South did finally "win" between 1980-2001). So half the US is/was interested in the ACW, even/especially when unbalanced. The old Avalon Hill game Gettysburg is almost impossible to win as the South--but, wow, I spent enormous amounts of time trying. Too many of those, lower quality, Union troops--sound familiar? (In collage, I think my roommate watched "Gone with the Wind" so much because he hoped that, at least once, Sherman would be stopped, and Atlanta saved.) As for WW2, my distinct impression with AH PanzerBlitz when it came out was (Cold War mentality in US) the Germans were "us"--smart, technologically more sophisticated--matched against an overwhelming horde. Playing the Russians (I don't remember calling them "Soviets") had the guilty pleasure of playing the monsters. Yes, Hitler and the Nazi's were bad (And the Germans seem one of the few people who seem to accept their demonology) But there were those good, clean, up-standing front-line German fighters...... Again, MYTHOLOGY, I know. But I still think we can see residuals of that thinking today--at least in the US. And, in the US, one almost had to be a student of history to realize that....there were British troops at D-Day? I swear, as many military books that I had in my house growing up, I had not heard of a Cromwell tank until I played CMBO. In contrast, moving the Napoleonic era, who is the good/bad guy? Napoleon is...dashing. He is not portrayed as a Hitler. But, is he a good guy? And he is French. (I am a francophile now--but I am talking about decades ago) Perceptions. I am talking about perceptions. I know better. But incorrect perceptions move a marked amount of money. But, no. I am not tired of WW-2. And after what I here about 1.05 patch, I found myself for the first time getting excited about CM2-WW2. [ December 19, 2007, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

This is my, what has almost become annual, laudatory note on the operation Descent on Maleme. I have been messing with it, very intermittently, for the past 14 months. I finally scored a tactical victory as the Germans. There is so much about this operation which is excellent in my opinion: the premise, the map, the unit mix (I like low AFV battles), and how it works so (reasonably) well with the AI. If anyone has specific comments or questions about the operation, including their experience or tactics, I would be glad to respond. I doubt we need too many "spoiler alerts" for such an old operation. Oh....and those darn Allied Flak guns....I hear them....thump,thump, thump....thump, thump, thump...almost in my sleep.

I agree with JasonC. I believe the CEB bonuses make the AI troops more resiliant, not smarter. Given that I almost always play against the AI, I enjoy his analysis of how good scenarios are made. Two more little design quirks that can be mined: Extreme FOW, and lack of advance familiarity with the scenario. With Extreme FOW, a scenario designer can take advantage of the fact that a human player can be made ignorant of the silly moves the AI is making--thus preventing early countering, and making the AI look smart when units "suddenly" pop up somewhere. As to lack of familiarity with a scenario, I usually have a special pleasure playing a scenario for the first time. My attacks are usually much more timid, and probing. A scenario designer can take advantage of this by having some surprise reinforcements, or unit placements (as long as, in my opinion, the initial briefing is not so deceptive as to be insulting) The one point I can see in Mad Russian's favor: I could imagine scenarios where a preset flanking attack could be made such that it would easily be beaten back without bonuses, but would become much more effective with CEB bonuses. Thus one would be "adding a flank attack" with the CEB bonus. But the point of that would be to have two levels of a scenario, novice and advanced. Otherwise, in general, giving CEB bonuses to the AI upsets the unit balance, in my opinion. Always fighting high-level early war Russian troops, for example, would lose the flavor of the era.

I also often have similar issues as the initial post. There is also the issue of whether, if it highly unlikely I will need the zooks/piats (or so many of them), to hide them somewhere, so they don't actually get shot up and count against me in victory points. That is truely "gamey". But the other reason I might do that is to reduce the number of units I have to move each turn. (I like infantry-heavy battles--but sometimes the mass of things to move can be a drag) Sometimes it depends on my mood: whether I want to be "historical", or am just trying to enjoy a fun game.

I also often have similar issues as the initial post. There is also the issue of whether, if it highly unlikely I will need the zooks/piats (or so many of them), to hide them somewhere, so they don't actually get shot up and count against me in victory points. That is truely "gamey". But the other reason I might do that is to reduce the number of units I have to move each turn. (I like infantry-heavy battles--but sometimes the mass of things to move can be a drag) Sometimes it depends on my mood: whether I want to be "historical", or am just trying to enjoy a fun game.

My guess is that a game company benefits from having two types of customers: 1. The ones who play it a few times and then go onto something else--hopefully they enjoy those few times. This will make the company the bulk of its money. Civ4 has released...at least two follow-up expansions in about a year. I don't think most people played all there was in the original Civ4 before buying the expansions. Or the original Empire Earth, or Empire Earth2, or Age of Empire3. 2. And those, at least with this type of product, who stick around, comment on the games, mod them. My guess is that many of these types are....thrifty. They aren't getting two $60 games for there birthday in November, and then another 3 $60 games at Christmas. Am I wrong that most of the people on this forum buy their own games, not get them as gifts? BFC, I would suggest, needs the first type of customer to survive, and tolerates/enjoys the second type--in part because most of the people in BFC are likely the second type themselves, and because of the technical and practical feed-back. I have CMBO/BB/AK. I was trying to play BB/AK in historical order. I got "stuck" on Descent on Malame, since I consider it just an awesome Operation. Have hardly touched BB--I dream about retiring and having time to enjoy BB...which would takes months and months, if not years, to thoroughly consume..which would make me a lousy customer. [And rampant pirating of these games? Just because the girl looked good to you, you are deluding yourself to think that everyone else is trying to hit on her. The graphics of the CM1 series had a obsolete look from the get-go. Unfair, but superficial looks carry a lot of weight with the crowd.] BFCs business model seems similar to the makers of EUIII, HOI2, Victoria. I very much hope they survive. Perhaps they should be given some slack. [ August 22, 2007, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

I always suspected that the way they made 88s so awkward in CM was possibly a design decision: most players come into WW2 simulations at this scale thinking 88s where everywhere and invincible. Perhaps the result was to overweaken them for CMAK. (I don't recall reading so much about highly mobile 88s on the Western Front, nor, and here I am on shakier ground, Russia--though I am sure the grogs will correct me if I am wrong) But to hear that they could be fired when towed! I learn something from the forum each time I come. In CM turns, however, given the spotting and usual ranges, and the prevelance of quick-response morters, an 88 out in the open on-tow would usually would be destroyed quickly. As noted by others, I almost always prefer smaller AT guns that I can tuck, and truck, away more easily.

But I think that MD's original point, as I understand it, is that a game element can sometimes be more realistic, and doable by computer, but still should not be done for game design reasons. An excellent design element in CM, as a contrast, is the element of supply. Tanks have load-outs, infantry has finite supplies. This had so many brilliant and subtle game effects that it is difficult to then go back to any "unlimited ammo" game simulations. For example, sub-machine gun units then have marked differences from HMG. And the length of the scenarios was subtley affected by the decision. If CM had been a board game, me and my friends likely would have had whole modules involving resupply during the battles (there are truck units after all, and carriers). We would have made rules on how long a unit would have had to remain stationary with a resupply vehicle, or preset "dump". But, with some thought, my friends and I would have been wrong. Because playing a 150 turn scenario sounds exciting, but usually isn't. For one thing, it is hard to keep play-balance that long, and once play turns one-sided, better to start fresh with a new battle/challenge. (Theoretically, in long battles players would use something like half their units, and then rotate those units out and put in fresh/supplied units half way through. But how many players have the self-restraint to do that? Most scenario builders know they have to dribble in reinforcements to keep the battles going--this is understanding gamer psychology) On reflection, it would seem to me that 1:1 Tac AI would not just require as good of Tac AI as CM1...but something like 10 times as good. It is always breath-taking when possibilities go up exponentially--and that is even ignoring possible interaction effects which could push the exponent up further. The TacAI is likely what can make this element work. It also would appear that Battlefront has decided to bet the company on 1:1 working. [Or, Tow hitting...I guess there are two bets] One certainly can't fault them for lack of boldness--sort of like charging all your T34s over the hill. And I would bet that an overwhelming percentage of posters to this forum, whether they currently like or don't like CMSF, want Battlefront to succeed.

Well, an excellent initial post by Michael Dorash. I must say I am surprised, however, at so much electronic ink being spilled over the 1:1 representation. I would have thought that one of the main issues to discuss with CMSF was the issue of how Battlefront tried to cure "Borg Spotting". Given all the CM posts on this issue, and the overt lack of realism with the previous spotting, one would think there would be multiple topics/post from people wildly applauding the improvement. So let me ask this question: Was the resolution of "Borg Spotting" actually such an immense improvement. Or, from a "fun", game design perspective, is its absence too much realism? [Oh, and about whoever posted about Tobruck: it was a dice monster. And the problem was not helped by the rather bland desert maps. And a trivia question: What was the Avalon Hill WW1 naval game, at the ship level, that one played on the floor?--no map, cardboard tools to note ranges and fleet line turning.] Edit: Right, JasonC, Jutland--I almost got up in the middle of the night to edit this post, when the name finally came to me...fortuntely, a burst of sanity allowed me to go back to sleep. [ August 12, 2007, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

I just purchased Rome: Total War. Let me see, came out 3 years ago? It included the sequel, with all it patches of the original game. Cost me only $20. I will buy Europa Universalis 3 in...maybe a year. Likely will be well-patched, modded, and amazing by then. But I hesitate to use that type of frugal/stressless strategy with a small outfit like Battlefront. I am considering buying CMSF (and maybe TW), putting them aside, keep playing CM--I have millions of hours still left there--and then coming back in about a year. I hate to strangle Battlefront, but I prefer (there seems to be a pattern) playing the enormously improved later versions/mods of releases. [ August 04, 2007, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

I go back to, barely, Tactics II (There must have been a Tactics I? I have never heard it mentioned.) I tried to play all types of games solo--all the Avalon Hill stuff (even something as ridiculous to solo as Luftwaffe--had to plot out multiple possible Allied bombing targets, then choose randomly at some point.) I even set up the ultimate "board" version of World at War...that was exciting, even if things went no further. But I also played human to human, granted we often faked "Fog of War"--duplicate Panzerblitz boards with a barrier and a mediator, who told you what you could see. Now I only play solo, for the detailed reasons pointed out in a much earlier post. At first I was slightly offended about the idea that this is being a "closet gamer". But...mayber that is right. Maybe, at 48, professional, with a lady, I just want my habit to be between me and the computer. If I am going to interact with people, which I happily do, I will do it over a martini at a sushi restaurant--and likely will not again make the social faux pas of discussing Russian WW2 tanks. This may be an obvious question, but would releasing a multi-player version of CMC over the internet be the answer? The net proceeds could then fund the completion of the solo version? I probably don't understand the financial issues with internet releases....or maybe they are just "so close" to the completed release?

On the way to work, I heard a National Public Radio report about the training of the Afghan army. They described an aggressive attack made by the Afghan army on some enemy troops. They had an American advisor with them, who controlled the American attack helicopters. This (young sounding) Lieutenant Colonel incidently mentioned that his radio had stopped working, so he stayed near the front lines of the battle--waving at the attack helicopters to indicate which troops were friendlies! He said something about being confident the helicopters would see him and not shoot him. Now there is a "can do" spirit which is hard to computer simulate.

Nightkin: If it is the snow blocking the LOS, then it will be blocked at about the same distance in all directions (the line going to black, as in your picture) I don't believe the sun has effect on LOS. The way the LOS is handled is, I think, a compromise (besides some game engine/coding issues): There is some uncertainty, as in real life, but there is also some ability to check exact LOS/distance--though somewhat intentionally tedious if one checked everthing. And there is no way to check LOS between two points that are not one of your units. (As opposed to, if I remember correctly, the Close Combat series)

JasonC, you have clearly tried to look through the numbers with the intent of trying to get at the reality underneath--tryin, I suppose, to be unaffected as much as possible by preconceptions. So I pose this question because my guess is that you have thought about it: The TWO Allied/German was, clearly (?), affected by the fact that the Germans were retreating. (repair shops overrun. Inability to recover damaged AFVs due to not owning the battle terrain) Right? [One of these days I am going to have to sit down to some good books about WW2 AFV repair/recovery issues, and the organization of medical services for the wounded soldiers in the respective armies. Maybe they would not make as good of movies as snipers in Stalingrad, but, in the end, my sense is that there was likely as much heroism]