nomorebullshyt

Is there a new version or patch for SC2 and/or WaW I'm not aware of? My game requires the expenditure of points for Operational Movement. ("No one here seems to be playing the same game version I have?") That is why I said that the schedule for paying points for Operational Movement and not for normal/combat movement was "upside down". Logistically, and logic seems elusive...Operational Movement i.e. railroads and ship transport is the most economical in comparison to normal/battle movement in the real world. I doesn't matter if the trains are running on coal, oil or electricity. Moving a division by rail is cheap and fast compared to moving cross country on roads and off roads and having to supply the men, horses, trucks. Either way Readiness is sacrificed, but that's not the point. I suggested that the strategic costs be removed and a simple schedule (of those same nation resource points pool) be spent on normal movement. How to assign those costs, that is which units consume what amount of mps is the next decisive step. Or! Why not have a Locomotive pop up at a city when a player wants to use rail transport. Similar to Sea Transport. And allow the travelling unit to freely transfer to a ship when it arrives at a port city via rail movement...hmmm. Makes a target rich train, ehh? Realistic use of air for rail interdiction...Yes, that just came to me... But the fundamental correction to paying for Operational Movement ought to be eliminated. Normal movement should have the burden of being paid for in Production Points (mmp's). That shouldn't be a monster task and would be more realistic which would result in a benefit to the Production Pools for the Axis and USSR. i.e. The allies land in France, the Axis player needs to use Operational movement for seven units in Russia. The cost will be well over 100 Production Points.

The only time Points (mps) are spent for movement is when executing Strategic Movement. There is no expense for normal/battle movement. Hence, the exclamation that movement costs are upside down here. Re: the challenges faced by the IJ Navy strategy and the late war panzers stalled because of lack of fuel (mmps). The SC engine already incorporates fuel, supply, build, refit, movement in the Build and R&D schedules. That is one reason, I assume, why new ships cost as much as they do to build. An illustration would be to allow all strategic moves to be free and those of Corps and support units. Armies, Tank Groups, air craft carriers and air units would face the ticking meter of burning mps for their movements and combat operations...for argument sake...one (at least) mp per move and or battle.

In a moment of realization, after months of contemplation, I found what it was that made me feel something was going on in SC2 and WW. Here I'll state the issue and ask if it exists in Global (GC). It's the movement parameters of Movement versus Strategic/Operational Movement. Moving units, air, land and naval in Strategic mode should be the least expensive if not close to free. Units moving via ship and rail road are the most economical means by which to move units and all stuff for that matter. Least amount of fuel and other assets are needed for Strategic Movement. Load em up and off they go, the passengers sit in rest for the journey. It is when units are in the field of operations and combat that all the resources and supplies are sucked up. i.e. panzers running out of diesel, ammo, oil. then there is the great strategic planning the IJN had to make time and time again when planning and executing naval operations because of the fuel shortages. The Russians even managed to rail heavy industries via rail to beyond the Urals, a great feat buy by rail it was economical at every level of consideration. A critical key for the German advantages in the early part of the war was their Infrastructure. A much improved infrastructure from W.W.1 with the creation of their strategic highway called the autobahn. With a concentric industry, rail and highway network the German military had this as a Strategic Logistical Superiority over all of europe and the world. That coupled with mechanized forces, well trained, equipped military...they were the greatest Military - Industrial Complex in the world. So? For our SC2 and WaW then, the movement points as they are are upside down. Units should be burning resources (fuel, supplies, food etc.) when moving normally. What schedule of consumption? I do not know... But that is the issue and the question. Does Global Conflict use the old movement parameters or has it changed to reflect real world Logistics?

:rolleyes:Sorry to disappoint but my primary interests are in the War in Russia. I'm an American and veteran with a strong personal interest in CMBO and CMAK. But historically my preference is the Eastern Front. I hope that is understandable.

I was referring to the quality or fidelity of the sound efx (esp. weapons sounds) in the CMBO game. Hmm, would the sound files be compatible for transfer to the CMBB and CMAK games...? My original query was to find some terrain upgrades/mods for CMBO. Can someone email them?

Can someone recommend a terrain improvement mod? And, am I the only one that thinks that generally, the weapons samples in CMBO are superior to CMBB and CMAK?

Been thinking..."Normandy", if this new CM game is strictly covering the beach and beach heads then it works. But if the game transcends that geography then a title consistent and more descriptive should be substituted: CM Overlord and Liberation CM Overlord to the Rhine CM Overlord to Berlin Am I thinking inside a dream?:confused::confused:

I have: CMBO, BB and AK. Play and designing scenarios for em at the Blitz as "Bear". Currently I have a scenario using six inch naval guns, direct fire. The battle at Brolo/Naso Ridge, Sicily (Patton's Gambit) http://www.theblitz.org/h2h_productions/Combat-Mission/action=testing_ladder&lid=1 Thank you Kettler for the heads up. Got em both. What and where is this CM:N, Combat Mission: Normandy is it? Awfully restrictive title/subject, but better something than the madness of nothing at all, ehh? Anyone have a link for CMN?

When will we see this game? Paratroop drops, gliders, star shells, beach fortifications, big naval guns...jeez am I the only one anxious for this?

What sort of agenda are you trying to fulfill? The Bagration Operation was an absolute strategic and operational success. The Russian led armies executed a massive rolling barrage for at least twelve hours with follow up infantry regiments as Reconnaissance in Force. The rest is history: on the third anniversary of the Axis invasion Bagration achieved a 400 mile advance in less than four weeks. From Vitebsk to the plains before Warsaw! And the Ukrainian Front then advanced to Lvov and Brest making the frontage nearly 700 miles wide. Yes, the Russian allied forces lost over 750,000 but the German and Axis lost 350,000 and were all in all thrown out of Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania. War is hell on earth, and when attacking the attacker always takes higher losses because of coming out to kill the enemy is nasty business. Yes Jason, you are correct, the Russian allies payed a high prices for victory over the axis. Attack after attack against German Nazis fanatics was costly, especially when no one would give quarter. Your statement "The only cases where you see tank-heavy forces repulsed in the breakthrough fight is early war British and Soviet attacks." is false. Without writing a thesis for you I will refer you to the Axis Operation Citadel. And the Russian Mars Operation had multiple purposes. There were goals for a breakout, but even when it became obvious there would be no breakout, the equally important goal was as an Operational Soak Off of German forces away from Stalingrad aka Uranus which was the Main Event according to Vasilevsky, and everything that needed to be done for surprise and success in the South had to be done, as it was.

The game does have grid coordinates that would give the engine search ability for a city. If the closest city is occupied, then unit goes adjacent to that city, preferably the far side. I do not understand why such a process would be an issue? I've dedicated too many hours to Waw...I have one PBEM to finish... Will test drive "Hearts" soon...

I've made the assumption that the DDs and SSs represent many ships. And I can rationalize that the CAs represent two sister ships since the graphic shows two. Using the heavy cruiser as a benchmark since there is an official reference to one heavy being equivalent to 250 tanks. An average Tank Corps/Army will have 500+ tanks which should equal two Cruisers...the numbers do not add up. It seem arbitrary to me and coupled with the postings that players don't even bother with building ships or repairing them makes the point. Yes, there are tenders, oilers and tug boats etc. but the relative cost in this game scale is what?....20 Mpp? My conclusion is that the Cruisers should be 200 to 250 points. Battleship 300 - 350 Carrier 400 - 425 In addition, repair costs make ships obsolete in Waw game parameters.

Not building or repairing ships says volumes...

Upon reviewing my Royal Navy film, dated February 1944: "The ten thousand ton, heavy cruiser is equivalent to 250 tanks." I only mention this because my review of the build costs for ships, except CVs, seems to be too high. Ships are in inflated by 50 - 100 points.

First of all I have been play testing the game in multiplayer, solo and with an opponent. Originally I proposed a retreat in combat for land and sea. The critical issue for land units is that they disappear into the build menu. This absence of a remnant unit from the battlefield creates such a void that it cascades into a strategic collapse in Africa, Middle east and Russia. The "Retreat in Combat" is not the main idea, although in naval affairs there can be a debate. But in land combat, my proposed change, is that eliminated units ought to show up on the battlefield the following turn (1 - 3 strength possibly) and at the closest city or Hq from where the defeat took place. This will force the Axis to build more land units to cover the front. This in fact will improve play balance, add realism and free up Mp from rebuilding a remnant from the build menu for other uses i.e. Diplomacy etc. (where the going is tight). The player will have the option to Reinforce, Upgrade or move the unit next turn. As opposed to the unit disappearing into the builds menu and if rebuilt (at full strength) to reappear two turns later which for some theaters already means that theater is already doomed or lost. Of course this improvement will enable to code writer(s) to fix the relocation of "foreign unit losses" such as Aussies, S.Africans, Canadians, etc. from finding themselves in the UK. *I am a veteran of War In Russia, Third Reich, hitlers War and Clash of Steel... I am only here to seek to make this a better game. My proposal for the relocation of eliminated ground units to a friendly city or Hq is not willy nilly. I have surrendered the idea of Retreat in Combat to the Relocation of destoyed ground units.

And rather than the S.Africans returning to Cairo they are rebuilt in England? Too far and fantastic.

Combined arms attacks on ground units is understandable as a way to annihilate a ground unit. Combined arms attacks should always have a bonus in attacks, don't know it there is such a bonus. But, Bomber and Tactical Air sorties should in no way be able to eliminate a ground unit. That was a fact proven by World War 2. Air force alone cannot vanquish the enemy any where any time; i.e. Berlin, London, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Operation Goodwood, Casino, Malta etc.

I appreciate the abstractions of the "unit destroyed" routine in the game. I am encouraged that there is some agreement here. But, it is not logical for the remnant of an Army of Corps to goto an alternate reality, the basis of the unit remains. Rather than have it go off board, my view is that when it is "eliminated" or rather shattered, the remnants of the ground units should merely be routed into the zone of the nearest Hq or friendly City of national origin (supply source), i.e. a destroyed German shattered in Russia would reappear in Greater Germany or German proper. The oddity of a Aussie or S.African unit shattered in Africa and rebuilding in Britain makes my case most clear. The remnant ought to show itself immediately in a secure Commonwealth held rear area in the Middle East theater. Treating the unit this way keeps it real and "in the game" as a remnant occupying a real place on the map rather than disappearing into the build menu.

Yes, The Russian Campaign is a great classic board game. I concede that the retreat idea has gained no support here. And I appreciate that such a routine would involve too much coding. Returning to the issue I have with WaW is the Combat Result which you kindly noted here. Here is the breakdown: A unit is "destroyed", in two weeks it returns to the Purchase Menu at a reduced price for a full strength (10) rebuild. That is a good game routine/feature. Rather than allowing the Combat Process force units into oblivion and reappear for rebuilding/reinforcing, it would be far better to "Shatter" the ground unit and have it reappear at the closest Headquarters or City to where the unit was "Shattered" by the enemy. There are important benefits from my experiences with the game (SC2 and WaW): 1. The losing player would have a unit to garrison a city and/or add to it's perimeter. 2. The losing player might save points, depending on the reduced strength level of the "Shattered" unit, and possibly apply those points to Intel or Diplomacy etc. 3. Exceptions to this "Shattered unit retreat", would be ground units on islands...another? 4. The Shatter retreat process would also help to lighten the fantastic combat results when air and/or naval bombardments eliminate land units. <sigh> *My gaming preference is SC2 over WaW...IMHO

"The Russian 4.Army retreats approximately 300 miles in 24 days." - West Point Atlas Volume II This is a quick check, in SC2 scale: 100 miles/week. During the Napoleonic Wars that is reasonable march or retreat.

If the surrounded unit is cut off by units with strength at 7+ then the unit is toast and goes off to rebuild menu. If the unit is cut off by enemies with strength 6-. Then if it is destroyed (shattered) then remnants would reappear at a randomized strength (1; 2; or 3 randomized) logically at or about the nearest friendly HQ or City. This remnant would be on the following losing player "Units Arrived" meunu or be assigned by the AI to the nearest HQ or city, and that too can be randomized.

Thank you pzgndr. Your reference to the ol "Third Reich" does cause me to recall how well it played. The retreat in combat may not be the main issue. It is the void created when a unit disappears. It is most noticeable in the Russian Front play balance. Rather than having a "destroyed" unit disappear for a turn and show up as a build. I believe it would be better for it to reappear in the next turn either adjacent to a HQ or in or about a city, within 'x' number of spaces from the space where the unit was shattered. The cadre and remnants of such units should, in my view, still be present somewhere and in some form (reduced strength of course) on the map. Thank you pzgdr

Please read Post #19. I think it offers food for thought... Thank you

The issue of Bloody results addresses the point I make here. The combat "reality" of SC2 is: A unit is portrayed as lame and ignorant. It will sit in the battlefield and take air strikes, artillery, armor attacks, lose 30, 40, 50% of strength even before the enemy tanks and infantry have begun their work. No problem, that unit will sit, and sit and sit and get wiped out. And then rebuilt from scratch next week and wait weeks or months to see it again. The Combat result not only effects the situation on the map, that destroyed unit will now suck up MPPs on the Purchase schedule along with it's "lost" upgrades in tech. It is not a question of Game versus Simulation. I consider the idea of retreat in combat as a fundamental feature of war gaming. If the relatively simplistic board game of forty years ago demonstrates that combat will cause units to retreat just as in real combat then shouldn't a computer game in 2009 offer the same? A retreat probability will remedy all the differences in weapons technologies that have just been mentioned in this thread.

Yes, I can understand the French fall out. But the UK South African Division?