Ardem

haha Well i enjoyed Black and White as well so I guess I am a bit of a crazy person myself. I didn't enjoy populus played it a couple of times but for some reason never got into it, maybe cause I got my hands on a game called Armorgeddon, one of the first multi-vehicle combat simulators, you could fly planes, helicopters or tanks. Was even multiplayer but never had any ability to try it out.

hmm [ September 25, 2005, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

Powermonger that was it, I knew it from somewhere Amiga, one of my first amiga games. Populus had a very similar concept but was never as good.

Also MD you pointed out in the second quote, that the russian tried this tactic unsuccessful. That shows that the russians and the germans used this tactic if they had to. In that case it should modelled in such an aspect that it is possible to do but there is the conquenses that it is a very very risky option for a tank. Just like fix banyonet with no supression assaulting a machine gun position from the front over open land, it is risky and stupid but it is possible to do in CM.

FFS, there was four of the crew still in the hole. (I thought the desperately defended position would of been obvious enough without me pointing it out) One tried to run but a 76mm round from the lead tank blew off his legs. This aint a work of fiction, why is it so hard to believe the russians did this. There tanks are not like the puny little yankie tanks ready to break down under a little pot hole, in my book the T-34 was like the 'AK is to rifles' the most rugged built tank in the war. Anyway the point is not whether there was people in the trench, the fact that the tank actually attempted to kill or crush or destroy what ever was in the hole is enough. Jeez Your arguements although nice and pretty have no substancial weight from any actually eastern front veteran, or any knowledge that you have produced, only your opinion. I have produced example and quotes from veterans that used the tactic or now seen it happen. If people are going to believe your long elegant posts which has nothing but YOUR opinion in it, then they are more interested in logical reasoning then veteran quotes. I know which I would believe in. [ September 22, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

How funny is this, I am doing my nightly reading In Deadly Combat, by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann, when I stumble across a passage which started this whole debate about the fogotten soldier. For those who have this book page 189, 1st and 2nd line down. "The tank rolled over the MG nest, paused, and with rumbling engines it turned on it tracks, crushing the hole, burying from sight all traces of the desperately defend position." The MG nest was really a bit of ruins with a large fox hole dug in. His matter of fact way he puts this, seems to be a common occurance on the russian front. But that is just my opinion. So if you not going to take forgotten soldier word for T-34 turning their tracks on foxholes here would be an example of it written in a book that noone would dare calling the writer illusionary. So had to share and have a laugh.

Hortlund I agree with you on JasonC posting style he should quote in " " and add opinion after it. But your probably best to let it go, cause all your going to do is frustrate yourself. After all he picked out the part of the links I made which was not the one I was referring to he conviently skipped that, so I had to post it above and as you can see no doubt to that post. Unless he misquoted the part above. But time to build a bridge and get over it and I will bring the nails and planks <smile>

Steve <sigh> these a creditable links and this how I understand them. I cannot believe you can view them any other way. But these are actual inicidents, although I am not saying they are super common, only for specific circumstances. Am I saying you should model it in CM, probably not, but if tanks rushes like happen in the eastern front, where they would overrun positions with there masses and a soldier didn't move he was going to die. If a tanker sees a guy in front of him 10 metres away the driver is going to run him over or try too, with too much deviation to the commanders orders. If there is a wounded guy on the ground in front the tank will attempt to run over him especially if he is a sadisitic sort. My point is not, did tankers try to use this as a tactic, my point is if a tank tries to overrun a position and run down or crush a foxhole area, they can and would. But with CM you can run over a postion and not kill anyone but may send them into panic. With a 1:1 representation of CM I expect to see if a tank rolls over a infantry person then that person should die. Anyway back to the links and pointint it out the quotes. Blood red snow, Memiors of a Easten Front soldier "All too often the fate of these men would be a violent death. Many of his compatriots would be run over by Russian tanks or blown to pieces by Russian shells." (they are dead but died because of being run over) Second Link "These were immediately used to launch a counterattack: the .30-caliber gun mounted on the half-track provided fire, and the track itself was employed to run over the enemy's personnel and his light machine-gun positions. The use of these half-tracks in a counterattack to regain a position proved highly effective." (You can not misunderstand this) Third Link "Barney was injured right after that when he was in a fox hole that was run over by a tank." (Admittedly this could of been his own tank but I doubt it) Fourth Link "We saw corpses of men and horses killed by the artillery barrage or run over by tanks." (If they were killed by artillery fire 'then' run over tanks you would be right, but it said 'or' run over by tanks) (edit: had a think it could of been killed by artillery and run over by tanks so I put this one is the indoubt list) Fifth Link Aaron Elson: Dixon says you turned a corner and you saw three German motorcycles. George Bussell: Yeah, they were parked. I ran over them with the tank. Shoot, you can run over anything in those tanks. Just like a Caterpillar. (He would not of said this unless he did run over other stuff just as cars, walls, other obstacles) [ September 22, 2005, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

I was saying it tongue in cheek cause men move faster then most tanks in WWII, but below are some examples of time that squashin gof positions were achieved. http://www.greenhillbooks.com/booksheets/blood_red.html http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/methods/ http://www.normandyallies.org/cyh02.htm http://migs.concordia.ca/memoirs/lecker/lecker_5.html http://www.tankbooks.com/amile/bussell/bussell.htm http://www.22ndinfantry.org/wwllpage2.htm http://www.wwiionline.de/www/web/forums.php?m=posts&q=1175 Note on soft skin vehicles Just do a search on the documents with the word 'run' http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/makin/mak-drive.htm 'crush' http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/kursk/6-2.html Picture of note bottom left corner, stuffed if I would practise that. [ September 20, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

Tank ramming could be part of the Tac AI and not part of player control, say for instance a tank is within 50 metres of a tank, the driver decides instead of the backup I can't win this fight, that I will ram the tiger 1. That takes away from the common situation, it also takes away from the abuse factor and it also create war to be unpredictable individual events. Gun ramming I view differently, I think guns were overrun and squashed on purpose if they were found too close and you could no get enough depression on the gun in time. Infantry squashing, tank drivers loved to kill infantry its the only way they could of killed anything. Human nature to run over an enemy. (smile) [ September 20, 2005, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

I quite happy to do that, but without the personal jives. Perhaps we both misunderstanding each other, what I am saying it better to have all options in rather then no options at all. With the ability to turn some options off for people to be happy with what they would like. But then again its not up to you or I can only provide BFC with some options or ideas they may or may not thought of. [ September 19, 2005, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

Are you naturally a prick or do you take classes [ September 19, 2005, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

Sorry to take it off track but I think I deserve the right of reply Well I think we could be both reading into what the GD officer thinks, new found respect means so many different things to different people. Since if you read the why originally the GD was so anti Sajer in his first post, what was done to change his mind about the respect part, I am sorry unless the person participated in the GD I would denounce him even more if I was the GD officer. Only knowing he was a fighting soldier in the GD would I give the guy any respect. Again we reading thing into it, but even innocent men have been hung, with more evidence against them, I just object to people who as soon as his name mention discredits him, as if he has absolute proof that it is. If anything steve, you should be coming down on Jason not the other guy, regardless of your own opinions on sajer. Until the I hear from the account of sajer himself saying it was a fiction, then I don't think it right for people to discredit him when they have no more proof then other peoples stories. Anyway I won't say anymore on it steve. [ September 19, 2005, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

HTML will still allow cut scenes (imported wmv) hell I made a couple of movies for meta-campaigns and each person that saw them said they were fantastic. Personal gratification is very different again, but just saying no for the sake of your own preference would be personal gratification too. catch-22 Mate. I think your misinterrept what I am saying if you saying MD is on the same wavelength , all I am saying that all these a nice but I would like the briefing area expanded then what it is. How Battlefront do it or wish to do it, is up to them as long as it is expanded I am happy.

Temper in check. People as yourself comment was neither looking down or looking up or looking sideways at you, you stated an opinion about how you felt about not having immersion elements in such as described, I was giving an option how to have it for some people who would like and and some that would not. I never once started at a person on this forum and I am not going to now. But if you take everything as a personal attack then your going to have a very unhappy forum life.

I know wall fire is possible but, iirc it is more typical to target wide then say firing a close group like you do target. cause you have to take into account deviation and fall pattern. As long as artillery is historical accurate in different patterns I wouldn't mind it so.

One thing I think is missing in both scenario and playing option is planned Arty Fire (in detail). Things I would like to see it a more complex fireplan, where you can simulate firing on one spot and then shift the firing to another point after X amount of time. Also the option to make arty spotters plan only designation, so you don't give them the option to change what they like in game. I think in particular with german and CW and russian forces Regiment and Higher Artillery were Planned fire more so then on demand fire. I think at the moment you can simulate these aspects but its not as good as if they were designed implemented.

I can understand what your saying, but it is up to the level of skill of the scenario designer. Ok here is an example of what can be achieved remember this is a OFP briefing cut screen i made A jeep is driving along the road, crests a hill a guy jumps out and as he walk to the top stops, he says something - Angle changes to a circle of an offshore engagement flotilla and helicopters. He says a swear word panics get back into his jeep and drives off in a hurry. This is for immersion quality, no detail in the specifics and prepares the player for wait a minute I in for something big here. Next move on to the briefing screen which has a map with contours and selected enemy intel known to the 'task force' The briefing details objectives and units. ------------------ As a minimum I think CMx2 needs a place to put a few images, maps, historical photos what ever. Ideally they could add some immersion factors like cut scenes, but with an option to turn it off so people like yourself can play it just as as straight up sim.

I think it could be done to please both people, immersion as well as accuracy. But I think Company level briefing could be actually more detailed then what we get now in realism stakes. Doubt me ok.. Imagine this, battalion commander drives up a hill, doesn't need a map he view out over the town below, draws in the sand the way he want his companies to move. So now they are getting a briefing which is verbal, they already have the complete lie of the land as they viewing it in full realism. And they have no written details what so ever. Now after thinking of that how could you ever say detailed breifings are gamey if anything we actually lack detail.

Image - Populus??? If so not seen that game in years loved it. A lot of people are modeling the idea on how American model the way they do in infantry casualties, as noted the CW way of doing things was totally different and where the man laid and droped was the responisiblity of the strecher bearers. If you were lucky you would get from a squad mate, stiff upper lip mate you be alright, here have a ciggie while you wait. LOL ok I am being a bit sarcastic. The germans didn't have medics either, and most times on the personal accounts I have read they worried about the wounded after the battle not during. So with the options your provided your definately modelling it on the American model of each platoon/squad looks after it own casualties. Not what happened with the rest of the forces in World War II. Perhaps this is the reason why american only get a 6 morale in Squad leader, with all the constant hold ups of wounded. [ September 18, 2005, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

Combat doesn't happen everyday as well for each soldier, days of manning a front, guard duty before the next push, but in Combat mission we try and simulate the desperate times, the operation pushes via company level engagements. So that why overruns and the other things should be included but at the penalty is already in infantry close assault). ----------------------------------- Dorsh's Sajer Html I have read before and changed my opnion on Sajer, if it could change a 'GD officers opinion' (read the html) about him after talking to sajer directly then enough said. And jason and the american 'officer' historian should stop spreading there own unproven evidence. It easier to discredit a person the credit one.

Hmm field kitchens, will there be canteens on a 1 to 1 representation. And I like to see a difference between quality of meals, officers generally ate better then the rank and file. As for map build I would like to see soldier dig latrine pits. I want to see Combat Mission: The Sims.

I am curious, people continue to say rounds exit the vehicle, i think with light armour this can be correct in straight through shots, but with medium armoured vehicles how regular was it for shells to enter and ext a vehicle.

He has already said there is no artifical limits. (sigh)

I still go with my original thoughts, that they fall, crawl and disappear in the movie stage. That way the screen does not become a cluttered pile of moving bodies or red cross icons. [ September 14, 2005, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]