Ardem

Doesn't matter but just the simple post by hunter has made me feel better he has been quiet on these forums as of late compared to in the beginning. And quiet spells two things (in trouble or working hard) and seem like the later to me.

I think mines/roadblocks/trenches/wire and mines are all practical in the timescale, heavy stuff like pillboxes may only be a designer only implementaion.

I will tell you where auto resolves will be useful. Single Player campaign where you just want to play a single battalion in a divisional battle. So you auto resolve and you hope to get unexpected conquences.

No they lost because, 2nd Platoon, C Company while under fire decided to ask for air support which used napalm that exploded on a village and then caught on the 5'clock news. And continual examples of that which stop the resolve on a nation to continue the fight. I (personal) do not believe you can when fighting an insurgent war forget the strategic importance of things while at the same time doing the tactical. A soldier now has to be a poltician, Mother Teresa and Rambo all rolled into one. and steve this not about america this is about every country, look at the soviet in afgan, exactly the same problems. To me its not a matter who wins the tactical battles its the end result, and if you win all your tactical battles and lose the war you need to look at your measurement of success for it would be wrong. It like a company that make a profit on every sale, but goes into bankrupcy. The accounting measurements for that company must change in future. [ January 04, 2006, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

The problem is tactical battles success cannot be measure just by casualty ratio anymore. Success is "not" we killed more men then the other side. If you still think this, you need to get with the times, its not 1945 anymore. Ever since Vietnam the world of conflict has changed of what is understood as a tactical success, Vietnam is a perfect example how you can have every 'percieved' tactical successes and lose the war. Therefore changing how to make an assessment of tactical success. You have to incorporate your strategic goals into your tactical fights, otherwise you will lose the war. So tactically the American achieved there goals as did the Iraqis but to say who really won, I think BigDuke post sums it up. On a side note I think you will find Iraqis goals were a lot simplier, 'There is an american presence in our town let boot them out and show them we are fighters too', I doubt it was anymore detailed then that.

I love the Americans picking on the French, If it wasn't for the French there would be no America. (American Revolution) Hhahah the French is getting what they deserved.

Colin I wish I said it like you, your a much better narrator. Except I wasn't on about a two tier labour system. LOL See steve I don't give a toss about the brits in this article instead of saying, yes there is something we can work towards here you start having a go at the brits, that to me is just blinded pride. And if you call what I was 'bashing' then you have misinterepted what point I was trying to make. But Nidan is right, we will agree to disagree and have a merry christmas. [ December 25, 2005, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

Nidan I read what you wrote but think if it bothers a consertive like me who not partial to strapping some C4 to my back, then how are the radicals going to feel. Hatred comes to mind. Again you want to break it down and make it a lot complicated or deflect general attitudes towards the root of the problem. As I keep saying, if this helps in the PR of changing those general percieved views, then it is good. All I wonder from you is it the fact you disagree what I say, or the need to bash the person who does not go along with the we love america line.

Taking the anti-british sediment out of this cause I really believe its a pride issue then anything else. It boils down to this and it is all very simple, americans are going to get get more crap thrown at them in Iraq, because people hate them more. End of story you can accept that or hide your head in the sand. I can't think of any country in the world that has had their flag burnt more then the american one. Your foreign policies probably have more to do with that then the soldier on the ground, but you need to get the soldier on the ground to reverse that thinking. So as I say again this will only improve the Armed forces not hinder them, and even the publicity may help as well that the 'percieved' American rambo who has no value for human life other then his buddies, may change as well. I said percieved I do not believe this is true.

Sorry Steve but your American pride hurt that someone could do it better then you. Please the Brits are a class A act and always have been. You guys go in guns blazing and wonder why people shoot back. You could say the Iron Triangle in Vietnam was a safe zone, but when the Aussies went in it wasn't, it was only with the right attitude first up and correct attitudes of the soldiers that turned the Australian held province into a relative calm province. Then there was the South Koreans they also did a good job. For me I totally see the direction of the author and I think it only a positive step forward for the American Army force that I think tend to rely on their brawn instead of brains, if they can change some attitudes for its all for the good. A good soldier is not always about how quickly they can kill people. [ December 23, 2005, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

The whole version would have to be reworked. I rather what we have and get it in January, then start afresh. But it should be something to consider in version 2. If Hunter gets enough sales. Perhaps even commisioning leland to do the map conversion side of things. Although I would much prefer to see a export of a map rather then the current process of using the cmbb editior. Perhaps they could work together with BFC in the next version and get something even more realistic. It seems CM:WW2 will be a long way off anyway.

I don't think my suggestion is unrealistic at all, when a battalion was made combat ineffective the regiment rolled those troops into the losses of the other battalions, on the spot. Also the creation of Alarm Units as JasonC suggested in many respects were also made up of disorganised companies.

Since there is no merging or splitting of units, I would like to see the option of disbanding a unit, so the troops will then enter the reinforcement pool. This way if you got a couple of units that are combat ineffective now you can use the troopers in the next replacement phase.

My pleasure it is such a great program any map maker should get it.

ahhaha well when I walk trust me I don't walk exactly north-south then south-west to get to my destination, if you do that then I am sure you get some wierd stares LOL. I can see it now --- Kellyheroes has to move 120 degrees SE to get to the train station, he can't he is only allowed to follow the direction on the sun and magnetic north-south. Poor Kellyheroes he missed his train again Damn! if only he had the super powers of everyone else to 'walk diagonally' Either way it is ok that you can still move forward without having to take the whole square which is the most important thing to me. [ December 10, 2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

I would expect supply degradation that is realistic, sometimes it would be advisable to do a breakthrough to totally cut off the enemy supplies. Imagine if the enemy units in D Quadrant is sitting next to a lake/sea on the other side and if you moved into B, you could encircle them and totally cut off their supplies. KellyHeroes: As long as the game *tries* to mimic as close to real life operations then I always be happy and I would only want it to play that way.

UPDATE GUYS, I got it to work and if you had similar problems to me try this I selected Operation North-South even though it not an operation map, and the damn thing exported on speed of 30 2km x 2km, but the real issue was fixed when I selected a north south operation. So the real issue was not having any of the operation menu ticked, this must help with the scrolling of the map for some reason I hope this helps others in future.

It is a pity you can't move from D1 to B3 without taking out all of D quadarant, say you have the battle and still you both control quadrants left over, But I want a break through force to move into C quadrant and then flank B4 quadrant currently you saying this is not possible, Which is a bit of a pain cause we always going to have a continuous front battles with no chance to use exploiting forces to flank the opposition if you choose. 30 turns with not be enough do take 4 quadrants on a 2km map, So each map will be a series of to fights per quadrant. I would of though if you held A4 and D1 you could of entered B from C, it would of created some great attacking manuveurs oh well. So the best form of defence is lots of small pockets of troops hidden in each sector, along a continous front, this would stop any good advancement. On another thought take this example You attack at the end of the battle you control J1, J3, J4 and the enemy hold J2, you could not advance into H3 at all, until another battle to eliminate J2 completely H1 H2 H3 H4 J1 J2 J3 J4 I believe this could be exploited so small forces stop big units from quickly patching a hole or exploiting a sector which in real life would be possible.

I have the same issue, I can produce 1280 height, the issue seem to be not really hanging. It gets stuck pressing the up "N" button a million times after inputting the first lot of terrain to the top of the screen and doesn't go back to carry on with terrain, I have even pressed the down "S" button and it quickly click the North button over and over again so its not like the program is hanging it just doesn't know the next step after "N" button a million times. I have an Nvidia 5700 with the latest drivers going back aint really an option. But everything is moving very fast and I can do 1280x by any width no problems at all very fast in fact. Just anything that falls outside that boundary.

I am curious I am making a map but the movement is more diagonal based then vertical, horizontal. The question is say you have you have an enemy on your flanks and you want to head diagonal would this be possible Imagine below you are starting in the C Quadrant and wanting to head to the B Quadrant, The enemy holds A and D quadrants, first up is this possible. A1 A2 B1 B2 A3 A4 B3 B4 C1 C2 D1 D2 C3 C4 D3 D4 Next point would be, if not possible if I was to take D1 and A4, would it be then possible to go to B Quadrant. Or would I have to take Both A and D quarants to go to B? My hope is to go to B Quadrant you must take A4 and D1

This is the thing I don't understand the KV-1 had mixed survival rate against the 37mm, In bidermann book he take three on and kills them and then awared the iron cross a little later. But in Raus Book, the KV-1 suffers no penetration only scratches on a KV-1 and even a brand new 50mm made no impact it took an 88mm to kill it. Is it Possible bidermman was lying? or why the difference.

31 so close to you mark your looking for. I don't think it is so much an age thing as it is a particular type of person, people that play unrealstic games don't like to think hard or have the patience too. Quite frankly if you get people that tell you suck and carry on like that in a game then it just be a very sad day for this community. I play a lot of FPS as well and I just wish a lot of people (mainly kids) would get some decency and sportmanship about them.

With a Stryker force you have mobility , suprise and normally your back up with a supreme amount of on call firepower (AKA Air support) How would a syrian attack look like, the only thing that comes to mind is an ambush. Already we not talking about level terms here as seen in the gulf war, the Iraq was in a defensive mode from the outset, without air cover any attack is impossible. Also with the typical communications level and intel advantage the US have, they would coordinate overwhelming support to intercept or would make the unit bug out before the syrians arrived So I am interested in people opinions on how you would see the syrians actually gainng any initative to attack.

Steiner normally your fairly radical but for once your making a lot of sense and for any American or westerner, that say they don't understand how western countries warrant this abuse as we help with aid and such. Bah and I am as much to blame as anyone. This applies to any third world country Our corporations strip and buy out their industries, we strip their natural resources for under the market value rate cause that is their only source of income and sell everything back at twice what they export for. The Western countries have been exploiting the third world trade wise and money wise for a long long time and if you think a little bit of aid compared to the what we do as a culture is helpful then your naive as the rest of western society. As for terrorism the US has been using it for their purpose for scine WW2, Bay of Pigs, Soviet-Afghanistan War, Saddam brought to Power, Tibetan Rebels, funding the IRA. With your theory someone should bomb you. It about time all westerners take responibilities for their own actions, especially our corporations. We need to start express those morale values we preach from, instead of making one rule for western society one rule for everyone else.

And you wonder why the US had 9/11 happen to them in the first place. One thing you got to understand, you think the war started with the US in 2001. For the Arab, the war started when they were born, they have been brought up to hate their oppressors, which in this case has been western democracies since WW2. The only difference is technology and the abundance of chemical ingedients have given these people the ability to fight back in the last couple of years. They have been hating the west for a long long time, and for many good reasons. I partically don't blame them, cause if I was born in that culture I probably want to kill westerners as well, purely for revenge, not for some religious thinking. Don't be niave to think that developed nations can screw the world through trade or military action political pressure or just greed of our society and think we can get away with it. Why do we have terrorists instead of countries fighting? Easy blind freddy can see that a country will be destroyed 10 times over by use of superpowers forces, so they know their leaders are helpless, so instead they fight the battle for their country, on atleast a level playing ground, Westerners have the power and technology, but terroists have the initative and suprise. [ December 05, 2005, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]