Dietrich

In the several years I've been playing CM, I've only played against a human opponent in two scenarios, and both of those were on the same day against my best friend, who was totally new to the game and suffered an inglorious defeat. The entire remainder of my CM-playing experience has been versus the AI -- which is plenty challenging for me, in many (if not most) cases! Too bad I'm the only person I could ever do a LAN with who has CMSF (or any CM game, for that matter) or has the patience to get a handle on CMSF even if they had it. I was able to attend (and had fun at) a four-guy LAN a couple weeks ago, but we just played Age of Empires II. But before I get deluged with posts or PMs about doing a PBEM, let me apologize in advance and make clear that game-playing opportunities are few and far between (I make my frequent visits to this forum while at work :eek:), so I suspect any PBEM opponent of mine would find himself (or even herself) spending much more time waiting for turns than he/she would ever spend playing his/her half of a game.

Me neither. And I so want technicals to not stand out so darn much! (Though the default white paint job does make sense.)

"The School of Redundancy School" Before the establishment of printing, spelling was even more variable than it can seem currently. Back then, when Modern English was in its early years, everything written was indeed still written, and spelling was more a matter of individual discernment than of textbook correctness. When printing got established, spelling became gradually more standardized. So in a way, the apparent tendency of most people to misspell is as much relative to how the standardization of spelling flies in the face of how people interpret language (even their native tongue) individually. Depends on what you mean by "problem", and depends on the native language of the person who thinks English spelling is problematic. The divergence between French spelling and pronunciation has already been mentioned. To my eye, there is an even greater divergence between spelling and pronunciation in Welsh and languages kin to it. I reckon, though, that that is at least partially because I have not studied Welsh to any extent and thus have had no change to discern what patterns do exist in Welsh orthography as it corresponds to pronunciation. Tower Orthography is an example of a way to interpret actual English pronunciation through spelling (orthography) rather than the other way around.

Yeah, Rangers wouldn't be so tactically inept. A counter-question: In the end battle scene, why do none of the MG34s and MG42s visible on screen ever fire?

And again with the great modding, MikeyD!

Good points, hcrof. In the course of the limited research I've yet done about the politics of Syria, I did notice that al-Assad is a Baathist. That's why I specified that the non-Islamist elements which helped execute the coup d'etat were Baathist extremists -- they considered al-Assad not enough of a Baathist (i.e., too much of a reformer) for their tastes. Also, as regards the Baath party being strictly secular, in my opinion that wouldn't necessarily prevent extreme elements in said party from clandestinely allying with Islamic militants so as to achieve their own aims; as far as the public could discern, the Islamists were not working with the Baathists but were simply taking advantage of the unrest resultant from the coup d'etat. This backstory is meant to give the player a clear and detailed sense of things operationally as well as tactically, as well as a compelling reason why battle must be joined. Not that I have the time to devote to such a project, but if I did, each campaign would come with a many-page .pdf with plenty of intel for the player-commander to work with (rather like Task Force Panther), and each scenario therein, as well as each separate scenario encompassed by this Operation Syrian Freedom [working title], would have a briefing approximately as long and as detailed as that of "USMC 3:10 to Yuma".

"Scenario ideas", you say? Well, okay... you asked for it. I have been developing in mind my mind (nothing on paper or in CMSF yet) a strategic-level concept that would encompass multiple potential campaigns and at least a few dozen potential scenarios. The concept: Operation Syrian Freedom. The implicit Blue strategy for invading Syria and capturing/killing those responsible for planning executing the multiple simultaneous "dirty nuke" attacks (as described in the introduction of the CMSF manual) involves an MEU invading Syria's Mediterranean coast and driving inland to Damascus, while Army forces (spearheaded by an SBCT) invade from Syria's border with Iraq. I know the strategy outlined by BFC describes only some of the forces involved in the coalition invasion of Syria, but still these forces seem insufficient to the task. An outline of my strategic-level concept: late summer 2010: Baathist extremists, in conjunction with Islamic militants, assassinate President Bashar al-Assad and execute a coup d'etat, taking control of Syria, the same day that terrorists detonate "dirty nukes" in major cities in several Western countries including the US, the UK, Germany, and Spain. early autumn 2010: USA deploys a Marine Expeditionary Force (comprising three MEUs) in the eastern Mediterranean and a Joint Task Force (centered around the 1st Armored Division) on the Iraqi border with Syria. early October 2010: USA launches Operation Syrian Freedom. SOF teams (including SEALs, MARSOC, Green Berets, et al) infiltrate Syria from the Mediterranean, from Iraq, as well as from Turkey. Rangers and Airborne troops capture airfields and transportation hubs. 22nd MEU attacks ashore at Hamidiya. 24th MEU captures Latakia. 1st and 2nd HBCTs (1st Armored Division) attack across border at Abu Kamal. 3rd HBCT (1st Cavalry Division) attacks across border to At Tanf. 4th SBCT (2nd Infantry Division) attacks along Highway 715 to Jisr al Shaddadah. mid October 2010: US forces find their advancing slowed by determined defenders and some technological surprises. 24th MEU slogs its way inland to capture Hama. 22nd MEU bypasses Hims, turning south toward Damascus. 1st and 2nd HBCTs smash their way through Palmyra on their way to capturing Hims. 3rd HBCT steamrollers through Sab'Biyar and deploys for attack into Damascus. After capturing Dayr az Zawr, 4th SBCT rolls through Sabkha along the M5 (Highway 4) toward Halab. From there it's anybody's guess. Basically it's the Syria equivalent of Operation Iraqi Freedom, but with the lessons learned from that earlier campaign and making full use of the relatively new brigade structures and technologies. On the whole it's not that different from the concept as described by BFC, but it involves a more real-world degree of variety in units (pretty much all branches of the US Armed Forces are involved, and their receive support from the British Army and special detachments from NATO countries) and in their missions and experiences. This strategic concept allows for the full range of possible scenarios possible in this region and with its corresponding geography and demographics. As I meant to imply earlier, this concept is not yet fully thought out. Feel free to point out inconsistencies and holes in the "plot" and to make suggestions.

Especially since I play Blue much more than Red, I find that I play much differently than I ever did in CMBB/CMAK in which I usually played as the Germans. In CMBB/CMAK, at least in offensive scenarios, it was much more with an air of "Los, Männer! Mir nach! Vorwärts!!", and if each squad had lost an average of two to four men by the end of the attack, such losses were acceptable if the attack was successful. Knowing that in CMSF my pixeltruppen are volunteers of an army that is not large enough to be able to afford more than bare-minimum casualties in any given battle, it pains me whenever I see a pixelsoldat go down, especially if his base icon is red, and whenever a vehicle of mine takes a vehicle-brewed-up-and-all-crew-KIA hit. Also, it helps that each soldier is represented on screen. In my mind's eye I see myself playing an Eastern Front CMx2 scenario, in which my depleted Schützenkompanie is assaulted by two Red Army battalions in immedaite succession, both of which end up grinding to a halt within Stielhandgranate range of my Kompanie's positions, and in the eerie quiet following the combat itself (I doubt the outcries of the wounded will be simulated), the Kompaniechef gazes out over the battlefield in horror at the carnage strewn before him and his men. Also, I like silverstar's idea about some sort of debriefing text.

That would depend to a great extent upon how the person saying "Alice threw the looking glass" uttered that sentence. If they simply said "Alice threw the looking glass" (i.e., with the sort of straightforward cadence and emphasis implied by the lack of distinguishing punctuation) I would think, "Why did she do that?" If they said what sounded like "Alice, threw the looking glass" (in this rendition the comma indicates a momentary pause, which would imply a separation between the subject, Alice, and that which phonetically could be a verb or a preposition), I would think they were speaking of the character Alice and the literary work said character was featured in. Here again, punctuation underscores the difference which cadence and emphasis/enunciation make in clarifying meaning. "The secretary said the boss is wrong." This would have fairly steady cadence and only minor pitch variation. "'The secretary,' said the boss, 'is wrong.'" Likely emphasis would be placed on "secretary", whereas "said the boss" would be spoken in a semi-undertone, distinguishing it from the parts of the sentence before and after it, making clear that it's a split quotation. I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard, in a gig in San Francisco, telling the audience:

I can't be the only person on this forum who has seen the Mythbusters episode in which they fired a variety of rifle-type guns into the water of an indoor swimming pool at an angle of about 23 degrees and from an average distance of about 5 feet, and even a .50-cal. round broke into many fragments at a depth (i.e., distance from point of entry into the water at an initial angle of about 23 degrees) of only 3 feet.

Ohhhhh, so this is how y'all are passing the time till the British module arrives! Shall I bring snacks and/or beverages?

You see, this (the release of this campaign and of Operation Hangman, as well as the several other campaigns and couple dozen scenarios which still haven't had their first play) is why I'm not worried about how soon (or not) the British module will be released. Heck, I still haven't finished the Marines campaign or even the TF Thunder campaign!

It's on my forehead.... Even as I search for it, my searching is in vain until such a serendipitous moment as I happen to pass a mirror. Just repeat to yourself: "One if by land, Two if by sea, Three if by air."

The lack of punctuation in "1" leaves the reader more or less in the dark about how to say "1" out loud. In the case of "2", the punctuation provides a visual representation (though an imperfect one) of the cadence as well as the emphasis which would make clear the meaning of that particular string of clauses. I reckon that's part of it. Also, Americans can afford to be lazy, since -- even though there are millions of people in the US who speak dozens of languages other than English or Spanish -- they have virtually no need to ever speak anything but English. That is not so with tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of other folks round the world; thanks to demographics involving greater numbers of languages in relatively small areas and fewer speakers per langauge, folks in places other than the US have much more occasion to interact with differently-languaged folks and learn one another's language. Over the decades it has become more and more convenient (convenient for Americans/Britons, that is) that more and more people in more and more places speak English. I reckon that's part of it too. Seems the Normans are to blame.

The body language of the now-late men in the video made me recall the almost stereotypical shot from pretty much any Western-military-glorifying movie in which the bad guys are striding along, oblivious to the Western über-technology taking aim at them, when said technology (be it tank, helo, or even just a plain ol' sniper rifle) opens fire and suddenly the bad guys all convulse dramatically and drop dead. But unlike in the movies -- where a single pistol-caliber round usually renders a bad guy dead before he hits the floor -- in this video the fire lays them all out (so to speak) and there's nothing unrealistic about it.

Have the advances in tank optics (CITV, FLIR, state-of-the-art periscopes, etc.) really obviated the principle which was true in WW2, at least, that a canny TC will keep his head out the hatch as much of the time as possible so as to have optimal situational awareness? At minimum range a 7.62mm round could nail a TC in the head or a grenade could get lobbed into the open hatch, and at usual tank-versus-tank range it would be better to be buttoned up and use the appropriate optics, but at ranges between, say, 50 to 100 meters, would it be better for the TC to be buttoned up?

Sounds good! I look forward to having a go at it. And happy scenario-making. Sincerely, Dietrich

Apocal, Thanks for the details. I find it ironic that I have become aware of OFP and ArmA only after playing FPS series like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty for years. All the evidence points to both OFP and ArmA as well as their sequels being the compelling titles I've been looking for all along. (Though similar, evidently it's not that either is better than the other per se; it's that both have plenty of good things to offer, so I figure I'll end up buying both eventually.) Sincerely, Dietrich

I place much, if not most, of the blame on the myriad and sundry social, political, economic, and geographic forces/factors which made English into the bipolar bastard language it is today. Unlike other languages (an extreme example would be Finnish, in which every letter has the same sound no matter what the word), a given English word is pronounced with virtual disregard for how that word is spelled. (Also, it doesn't help that a given English word -- "fly" is a good example -- can have over a dozen distinct meanings, including verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc.) Given the inconsistency of English pronunciation vis-a-vis English spelling, I can see why folks whose native language is not English find English such a challenge to learn. Yet it seems that it's easier for a person whose native language is not English to learn any two languages other than their native language than for a native speaker of English to learn how to speak even one additional language. Strange, no? But don't get me wrong -- I cherish English as my mother tongue.

More and more often I'm seeing "peak" substituted for "peek". At least it didn't read "three nucular bombs". Let's face it: most people don't know how to clearly and accurately speak/write their native language.

Reminds me of how in videos of tanks firing where the camera is more or less behind the tank, the shell seems to be travelling kinda slow, even though it's actually going 5,000 feet per second. But when you take into account the distance between the tank and its target -- an entire mile is well within effective range -- you can better appreciate the shell's extreme velocity, despite the distortion from the perspective.

Oh, so Force Recon in effect was the Marines SOF equivalent. I had been mistakenly operating under the impression that if the Marines needed real SOF operators for a certain mission, they would just call on SEALS, but that overlooks the fact that SEALs are not Marines (i.e., not part of the USMC)! Sometimes I have to remind myself that there are four branches of the US Armed Forces: Army, Air Force, Navy, and USMC. Really? Interesting. I don't recall ever coming across anything saying that; I had figured that all I had to go on was the in-game text reading "Sgt. Paul Jackson, 1st Force Recon, USMC." Nor do I recall any mention of an MEU (SOC). Thanks for the clarification.

I concur with dima: I would have made bunches o' scenarios for CMBB, CMAK, and CMSF, but making maps (and making them well) seems such a daunting task! Fiddling with TO&Es is much easier, I find. In looking over the maps available in the Repistory (double thumbs-up to the map-makers), I'm impressed by both how well constructed they are and how big they are. I imagine the first scenario I create will use a pre-made map. CMSF hasn't been out nearly as long as any of the CMx1 games, but I suppose the veritable necessity for AI plans (for one side at least) and the corresponding time required for scenario-building means that there will probably never be as many scenarios for CMSF as for any of the CMx1 games.

Heinrich505, Thank you for taking the time to look this up and write out such a detailed reply. (I take it "An Infantryman in Stalingrad" has an index?) I asked about Stemper because the book's title reminded me of a curious audio recording I found at germanwarmachine.com, the journal-style account of a certain Joachim Stemper, read by a British fellow and underscored by suitable sound effects and occasionally bits of subtle music. Stemper (his rank is never mentioned, as I recall) was assigned as a company commander to Panzergrenadierregiment 103 in the battalion commanded by a certain Erich Domaschk. The only other mention of Stemper (or Domaschk) which I have personally come across is in Carell's "Hitler Moves East" (the English translation of "Unternehmen Barbarossa"), in which Carell states that the company commanded by Stemper was put into the battle line as reinforcements for Domaschk's battalion. ------------------------------------------------ Having done what I believe to be sufficient research into German doctrine (both strategic and tactical) and actual practice from corps all the way down to company level, I'm now searching for works which provide a deeper and more detailed insight into what combat (especially on the Eastern Front) was like for a typical German infantry platoon, squad, and even individual Schütze/Grenadier. I've read several memoir-type books -- including Knappe's "Soldat", Bidermann's "In Deadly Combat", Grossjohann's "Five Years, Four Fronts", and "Blood Red Snow" (I forget the author's name) -- but these books tend to generalize about combat and the actions therein. I now realize that what I need to add that last measure of depth to my understanding is a work (assuming that such exists) that blends the historian's knowledge of fact with the novelist's sense of action; in short, a work that offers detailed description of small-unit German infantry combat, a work by someone who could not be called "a buffoon and a liar". This is important to me because I'm in the pre-writing phase of a novel about a German infantryman in a fairly typical rifle company and his experiences from late August to mid December 1941, and I want to give it as much verisimilitude as possible, so that the reader has a clear sense of what it was like to live, fight, strive to survive, and die in those conditions.

I asked the question in regards to real life. But since this thread is about a game, I'll ask it in regards to that. It could be handled the Call of Duty way -- when the player shoots a friendly (or a noncombatant, but there aren't actually any noncombatants in CoD that I've ever seen), the screen blurs out and there appears text saying (IIRC) "Friendly fire will not be tolerated!" So anyone who insisted on shooting just any ol' person in game would be prevented from being able to continue.