Jgstrick
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jgstrick
-
-
Hello, today I downloaded the CM Demo, and now what do I do. I know NOTHING about this type of game. I started the training mission, but it doesn't begin to tell me what buttons to push and why. Is there a youtube or anything anywhere that can teach me how to get started with the CM game system?
For example, I pressed some button and locked up the screen so it was always on one of the infantry group, the one to the right side of the set up, and could never get that view unlocked. I thought that example might give you an idea what a noob I am.
Thanks for any help.
-
I'm on old hand at AH and SPI boardgames, and miss them a lot.
I would love to play something like those on the computer vs other people AND vs the computer when I want to test out stategies and tactics.
What computer game companies support board game type games, but with limited intelligence, which would make the games more realistic?
What computer games in particular would you reccomend.
And what sites on the web support these types of computer games and have active forums?
Thanks for any info you have.
-
I love TacOps, but the old version I have has no scenarios for WW2 battles. I was wondering what the best game around I can get that is like TacOps but for WW2?
I didn't ask this in the TacOps forum because I thought it might be rude asking for a different game to play that wasn't TacOps.
-
I would like to endorse Jon's list and add to it Eisenhower's Lieutenants by Russel E. Weighley. This book analyzes the generals who served under Eisenhower's command in the ETO down to the level of corps commanders. It also devotes some space to how the US Army that fought that campaign was created.
I think that is about right too. The British generals had certain behaviors they looked for in deciding whether a soldier was "professional" or not, and for the most part the Americans did things differently. What some of the top British generals could not seem to get their heads around was the idea that for fighting the kind of war they were faced with, the American style of command for the greater part worked, and sometimes worked better than the British style.
A lot of the early criticisms that the Brits had for the Americans was right on, but they failed to note when those criticisms were no longer accurate. In Rommel's words, more or less: "Never a greener army ever took to the field...nor one that learned so quickly."
There were some lessons that the British army never seemed to get or to put into practice. Mostly, their top men were at least as good as any in any army, but the army was much too slow to adopt a doctrine that was adequate to the circumstances they were faced with. Added to that, the best parts of the doctrine they did have was often not sufficiently inculcated in their junior and field grade officers and NCOs. The book by French makes this point over and over. Some of the junior and field grade officers were exceptionally good, and many others could have been if they had been encouraged to be so. Sadly they were not, and the really good ones were often shunted into minor posts.
Well, this is a large and complex question and I can't do it justice here. But if you start in on Jon's list, you may begin to see what I am getting at.
Michael
You all may be right, but I think what I've read about the Battle of the Bulge, you may be to kind.
During the BotB, Hodges, Bradley and Eisenhower all showed they were unable to grasp the magnitude of the breakout, and Hodges and Bradley were just horrid in handling their responsibilties. Patton seemed to at least to have a plan for how he could counterattack, but even he had his divisions fighting on a broad front toward Bastogne instead of using his forces on a narrow front.
During the defensive recovery phase of the battle, neither Hodges, who didn't even know where most of his troops were, or Bradley, who was hiding from German assasination squads had much to do with the battle.
If anything, the BotB showed at least Hodges, Bradley and Eisenhower had learned very little since the N. Africa campaign.
-
[quote=
Changing tack a bit; A lot UK commanders (and some Americans) were distinclty underwhelmed by the US performance in North West Africa, and that coloured their perceptions for a long time afterwards. I think that it is from there - NWA and the British perceptiosn developed there - that the 'unprofessional' tag got stuck on the US forces.
-
From my reading, I've gotten the idea lately, that the British were a much more professional and well led infantry/armor force, than the US was, in WW2. I'm looking for books that can either support or debunk this new idea of mine.
I know the British had an army with a tradition that was quite old, and the US army was fairly new. It interests me that the South, in the Civil War could outfight the Union, and the generals in WW 1 and 2, especiallly, seem as clueless as the Union generals did in the Civil War. Also, looking at the Vietnam war and the current mini-quagmiraes in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm looking for examples of better strategy and tactics from our long ago brothers in Britian.
Later, I hope to find some reading on what made the Germans as effective as they were, especially in the latter part of WW 2, when the cream of their armed forces were pretty well spent and they were working with the last of their military able labor pool.
In general, I'm trying to figure out why we, the US, seem to have such an ineffetive officer core (?), general staff (?), or whatever. Or to find out if all armies are 80% fools and our armed forces just seem worse cause I know more about them than other countries armed forces.
-
I'm looking for a good book describing the British land battles in WW2. I'm not looking for an overview of them, something more detailed.
Thanks for any ideas.
-
Does this mean that there are WW II units in TacOps now? If so, any official or homegrown scenarios?
If not, what's the closest, fun, game like TacOps for the WW II time period?
-
To Kip and other.
How many of us remember the old AH boardgame Panzerblitz? Or Panzer44, the western front Panzerblitz.
I hate to say it but modern games like Tacops are not nearly as interesting, for lots of us, as WWII and WWI games would be.
Oh to you the Tacop engine and pay money to the Major for Panzerblitz/Tacops.
-
Hello all. My history playing Tacops goes all the way back to the first version on the Mac. I stopped playing Tacops about 3 years ago, but thought I would see what was happening with it.
The reason I gave up playing Tacops had a lot to do with being tired of playing modern scenarios on the same old maps over and over again. I see here that we can make our own maps now and there are WWII units. Can it be true?
I remember seeing the Majors beginning of a WWII game, Panzer 88?, and wishing for a WWII Tacops. So is Tacops with WWII units really here? Are lots of people playing it?
Downloaded demo,now what?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Yep, the manual is on my desktop. It doesn't really do much in the way of training me though. A cursory examination didn't show me how to mount troops into the Stryker vehicles.