CM - my verdict, and suggestions

[M Hofbauer]

Dear BTS, dear fellow CombatMissionaries,

as I had hinted earlier, here is my personal verdict on CombatMission. As I am aware that you as the gentle reader might be asking yourself "why the f should I care about that guys opinion?" I also included into this post some observations and points that I hope catch your interest nevertheless, and as always I am very much looking forward to your opinion on these issues.

Overall, it is simply a _g r e a t_ game. I have played numerous campaigns and many battles now, all of them single player against the AI. The AI of the artificial enemy as well as the TacAI of your own vehicles during the execution phase are both _amazing_. The armor/firing physics model is _stunning_. The game itself, and I wonder about this myself very muich since I am usually not a turn-based nut, is _very_ addictive, and I happened to play whole campaigns in one piece all day/night, maybe you all know this "let's just see just one more turn" syndrome. The game plays very well here although I have a very substandard computer, and there are no software bugs / crashes etc.

So far (which is quite far). I have always been a person that limits his choice of computer games currently used to very few, I would play games like civilization (c64) or M1 TP (amiga) or Harpoon or SteelPanthers (pc) for quite a while and nothing else. For the last years I have exclusively followed the CloseCombat series ever since the original cc1 (I am well aware of the tensions between the CC and the CM community; I do not know how things are going recently since I haven't been part of the online community now for quite some time; personally, I think both game systems can coexist peacefully. Both are very well serving their purpose: I would hate to have CM be fully real-time, as it would be too confusing/complex etc. to me with all the 3D. On the other hand, limits to the CM engine inherent to the §D and all like the abstraction of infantry does not apply to cc etc. pp. I like both games, and will play both in the future.) Now, I will add CM to my game favorites, and this despite the fact that I am a person that _hates_ 3D games because they usually give me motion sickness and headaches. CM passes ok since it's execution phases are interrupted (to avoid the unfitting term "turn-based") which gives me the room to have my orders issued as fast as I want to, as detailed as I feel like it, and gives me the choice to roam around the battlefield visually as fast and from the perspective I want.

To sum it up, I am very very satisfied at this product.

I would like to relate some things that I noticed. Some of these are notes that are meant to improve upon the game, things that I think would increase the gaming value of CM even more IMHO. Again, the game is ok as is, this would just improve upon it. Other notes are simply observations I found noteworthy. All these comments refer to the unmodified game with patch1.

1. There is a whole shlew of vehicles modeled in CM, a kudo to BTS for that (the german trucks however look rather generic/american to me, I cannot remember having seen such a model, it is definitely not an Opel Blitz, looks rather like an american truck). However, the icing on the cake would be to have a small description of the vehicle within the game / in a seperate helpfile on the CD-ROM (a la cc1 / cc2's helpfile) / or as part of the manual (a la M1 Tank Platoon). The thing is, although I would consider myself a person which normally knows its way around WW II, I never knew anything about the T8 Recon Tank except that it was an exotic (or so I thought) subvariant of the Stuart. I didn't know (and am still amazed about this today) about the widespread use of this vehicle as portrayed in CM. A small descriptive text including e.g. the number of vehicles produced would have helped me enormously. Don't get me wrong, I find the data presented by CM in the data window for each vehicle to be excellent (see note 2); but why not have a small equipment presentation to go with the game? the casual gamer would find this immensely helpful, and even I would like it as a reference resource. I am sure someone with the knowledge like Fionn or similar could have been found (or could still be found for CM2) on this rather knowledgeable board willing to write something up. If you take the time to model all these vehicles so very well, why not crown this by including a small reference/description section.

2. The information window on the vehicles is great. However, I would like the data displayed for the vehicle to include the vehicle cost/value it has for the game system. I mean those values one pays in these instant-action type battles where you can manually choose the units involved by "buying" them, and I assume the game also uses these scores to determine victory conditions etc.

3. FOW includes the very nice feature that many kills are simply listed as "unidentified vehicle". Also, often you literally don't know what hit you(r tank). This is very good. However, after the single battle or the OP ended, it would be nice if on that post-battle overview map these "unidentified kills" were changed into the respective units, and to take this even further for armchair-post-battle analysis, it would be very nice if knocked-out units would, in their kill page, add a line on whom they fell victim to, example: "M10: 10 infantry kills, 2 SdKfz 251/1; knocked out by unit V-34 Panzer IVH". This would be great for post-battle analysis, and since the data is there in the game and only withheld (and rightfully so) _during_ the game, why not reveal it with everything else _after_ the battle.

4. While on the subject of the post-battle screens, I find the debriefing slightly disappointing. IMO, the post-battle statistics are very important and one of the main "rewards" for the player who has gone through what can be a very long campaign. Right now, CM doesn't even differentiate between a Kübelwagen and a Königstiger (or Jeep and Pershing) since both are simply listed as "vehicles". It would be very nice if this number could be broken up at least into the categories "vehicles", "AFVs", "TDs", "light", "medium" and "heavy armor", or something like that. The final score of 20 vehicles to 20 vehicles looks balanced but might include exclusively tanks on one side and a convoy of jeeps and trucks on the other side. Since CM determines missions like "destroy" based on kill scores, it would be nice for such scenarios to have that score displayed to see for yourself exactly how well you fared. I voiced this concern earlier with the demos but IIRC back then the answer was that that was not the final thing.

5. while speaking of post-battle, I found it rather illogic that the surrendering side still has my teams as prisoners. I know that someone mentioned this already. a related thing is that it seems to me that there are no captured vehicles?

6. It would also be nice if CM showed the passenger capacity during the purchasing phase for quick battles or for scenario design. Passenger capacity is shown for trucks and transports but unfortunately not for armor and AFVs.

7. the game specifically allows for setting knocked-out vehicles afire by firing at them again. in a campaign, they reappear in the next battle - do I have to set them afire again? how is this really counted, how much difference is there for the game in terms of merely abandoned vs. knocked-out vs. burned-out?

8.this set-afire target order at an already knocked out vehicle btw is ignored if the vehicle has to turn to face the target: if you have your tank facing away from the to-be-set-afire target tank and give it the targetting order, the fire order will be ignored /cancelled when the tank turns around in the resolution phase.

9.one thing that is sorely lacking for #7 but would be very useful in other situations too would be that you are able to have multiple targetting for one vehicle, just like you have multiple waypoints for movement orders. Say, you have this Pz IV and there are 5 knocked-out /abandoned allied tanks standing around that you want to set afire. Right now, if you want to hit them again this would take you five minutes even though it actually only takes 10 secs. per target. The ability to set multiple targets which are serviced in sequence would be very helpful, also for selecting several "live" targets where it is obvious that many of these will be first-shot kills. Or say you have half a dozen infantry squads charge your single team/vehicle, then it would be nice if each of them could be fired at after one another with quick bursts to make them all hit the ground instead of one getting pinned and the other 5 running over you.

10. which takes me to the point of machine guns in general. since they don't "spray" but rather fire in bursts (similar problem with infantry firing) more like a single-shot weapon, it is easily possible in scenarios such as Arnhem that whole squads cross the street unharmed/unfired-at between two bursts. Add to that the relative inefficiency. I had one time where a british squad walked up to a Puma right in the middle of the street, no cover whatsoever, sat down 15m in front of it, had two bursts fired into them seemingly without major effect, until they thought better of it and walked away again. I know that infantry squads are "abstracted" and so is the terrain, so there is the explanation for the above situation that part of the squad would have taken cover to the sides, behind (invisible) trashcans etc., still it simply makes a strange impression.

11. sniper ammo seems a little bit too low IMO. sure, they weren't meant to be mass-destruction devices, still their supply seems to low IMO.

12. the inability of vehicles to run over infantry leads to completely helpless armor when they are out of ammo, and infantry can freely walk up to them, around them, attack them etc., a very ridiculous/absurd situation, I had a situation where three JPz IV/70 were being chased around for several turns by american infantry in the open!, they always had to escape from the evil enemy infantry walking around at free will between the tanks; although it might seem cruel, it nevertheless is very realistic to have the tank simply drive them over. May I quote the Tigerfibel: "Männer vom Tiger! Sparen! Nützt den dicken Panzer aus! Ran! Walzen ist billiger als MG!" ("Tiger Crewmen! Conserve! Use the thick armor! At them! Squashing is cheaper than the machine gun!")

13. ack! the old common-held wrong belief stated in the manual (sorry couldn't ignore that one): the manual (p.71) suggests that the Schürzen were introduced as additional armor to help against AT rifles, and as a side-effect help to predetonate HC warheads; if anything, the _opposite_ is true; they were specifically meant to predetonate shape-charge munitions, the fact alone that even mesh wire was used to construct them shows that they were not meant as additional armor. They were thin sheets of unhardened/untreated metal; if they helped to protect against the PTRD or PTRS so be it the crew would like that but that was not the intention. Also, the fact that they were regular installed at areas where the regular armor was clearly sufficient for any AT rifle (such as Pz IV flanks) round also proves that they were not meant to counter the AT rifles.

14. ok now you got me... seems that I can't find my other paper with notes right now...mea culpa... I remember it had all the odd things that I found so very interesting...like, tales of how stray and ricochet rounds landed smack into another unintended target, or the nasty tendency of M3 halftrack's .50cals to damage main guns of tigers and kingtigers...how Bazooka and Panzerschreck teams would occasionally set afire the building they are in when firing their weapon...oh yes now I remember two more things:

15. I LOVE the tile based system of the maps, and the random generating etc. However, I think the size of the individual tiles is just a little bit too big to really model the fractal european shape of terrain; likewise, in the manual BTS claims they left out the ditches beside the roads because they would be so small/shallow that an infantry squad wouldn't fit into them anyhow. IMO this is simply not true; a depression of even a dozen inches will provide a prone infantry man with valuable cover, and IMO such ditches were more often than not of such or better quality. You might argue that the scope of CM is company / brigade sized engagements anmd who cares for such detail, but it is this tactical level of whether there is or is not a little rock or depression which will give a soldier cover that will determine his individual fate, and even large battles consist of many such individuals. Really, if CM used smaller tiles, the tiles would be even less apparent and instead of simulating little creeks, ditches, paths etc. into one type of field tile they could be modeled which would turn the abstract method used know into a WYSIWYG one.

16. while speaking of the scenario editor, there is one thing that I am not quite sure of. I like it very much, it reminds me of Peter Fisla's excellent cc1 editor. However, when I created a scenario loosely based on the Market Garden operation of XXX Corps adventures trying to open the island road between Nijmegen and Arnhem, something weird seems to have happened. It took me quite a while to do the 3km stretch of terrain, the force setups, that infamous StuG that held them up so long, etc. pp. Then I saved this custom scenario to the default location. Then I played it. When saved the game during battle, I used the description of the operation for my save file, and saved to the default location. Now, it _seems_ to me, that CM uses the same file format for custom scenarios as well as save files, and unfortunately also the same default location, because it overwrote my custom scenario that I had so painstakingly created earlier. Or am I wrong?

Anyways, maybe you find some of these observations interesting, or agree or disagree with some of them - I am interested to know. Again let me emphasize that I like the game very much as it is already, and I wish you all happy CM playing, and thank you very much BTS and the helpers for a great game,

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

P.S: oh, I have found one more very interesting thing. What's also interesting about CM is that with all it's complexity it also succeeds in modeling that war creates most bizarre chaotic occurences. In one late 1945 stock scenario I was facing the americans as a german. After the battle was over, close inspection of one of the two enemy M10s that were killed rather close together in a mortar barrage revealed that one of the two got a "kill" credit for killing the other M10:

[Talenn]

M Hofbauer:

I remember you from my days of CC2/3 as well. IIRC, you were fairly active on the RealRed forum during it's development, right?

Anyways, to your post:

I agree with many of your points. Some, I feel, are very minor (the surrendered 'prisoners' etc), but a few are things I would really like to see looked at.

I found it somewhat gratifying to see you mention the same thing about MGs as I did when I first started playing CM. I think we BOTH might be a bit jaded by CC's MGs, but even if that were the case, the MGs in CM seem woefully underpowered in the interdiction role. I noticed that a fair number of people agreed in my earlier thread. Hopefully this IS an issue that BTS will look into more carefully.

All the post game analysis stuff you mentioned would be neat to have too. My friends and I like to do pretty detailed post-mortems on our games if we have the time, and it would be nice to see all the info without the FOW.

On AFV's 'running over' infantry:

I think the CC series went WAY too far down that path. IMO, CM is much closer to the mark. Most treadheads did NOT want to close with the enemy grunts like that too often. Sure, it happened, but to allow it to be easily done opens up the gamer to abusing it to the extreme (as was done in CC). Personally, I think the 'overrun' attack in CM works fairly well. As long as the infantry is somewhat suppressed, they seem to break and die pretty quickly. When they are unnoticed or not under extreme fire, they fair better and can sometimes disable the AFV. This is MILES better than the CC 'drive through the underbrush and listen to the infantry go squish'! IMO. ; )

Anyways, glad to see you playing CM as well. I really enjoyed CC (and still might play it to get my Eastern Front 'fix'), but the small scale really limits my enjoyment of it. RR fixed many of the combat results 'issues' that CC3 had, but the 15 unit max leads to some silly OOBs. I never can quite get behind the premise of 4-5 AFVs supporting 2 or 3 squads all the time. The pure infantry fights in CC were alot of fun though. CM just takes it to the next level, and for me, its hard to go back! Cant wait to play the Russian Front using the CM model...

Talenn

[Juju]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

16. while speaking of the scenario editor, there is one thing that I am not quite sure of. (...) When saved the game during battle, I used the description of the operation for my save file, and saved to the default location. Now, it _seems_ to me, that CM uses the same file format for custom scenarios as well as save files, and unfortunately also the same default location, because it overwrote my custom scenario that I had so painstakingly created earlier. Or am I wrong?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, that was a lot to take in in one go, so I'll do just this one bit, okay.

When you save a scenario its file will be put in the Saved Games folder. In the in-game scenario list you'll also find that these 'saved games' files are always on the top of the list. After these all scenarios are listed in ascending alphabetical order.

what you should always do, is rename a file when you're saving it when playtesting.

you could also temporarily move the file to the Scenario folder, in which case it will take its alphabetical place in the list, and you will not 'overwrite' it.

Erm..., In short,: yeah, you're right...

[gaffertape]

A lot of us tend to get hot-under-the-collar when somebody even hints at criticizing CM, but your comments were intelligent and polite. I particularly liked your AAR suggestions. Besides, it seems that you're impressed with the game for the most part.

I can't help you with most of your questions, but I may have an answer for number 7:

Yes, in operations it's wise to 'brew up' enemy tanks so they don't reappear when you move to the next turn. They WILL however, remain on the field as wrecks in the next and following turns. Brewing them up prevents the possibility of the enemy repairing that unit between turns, when it could reappear as a fully functioning threat.

GAFF

[Runyan99]

Just kicking this to the top again because I think it is a good post. In particular I agree with:

1. Vehicle descriptions

3. Revealing FOW kills at scenario end

15. Tile size slightly too large

And now I'll throw just a couple of suggestions of my own. These pretty much all pertain to the scenario editor.

1. I'd like the ability to start squads at less than full strength at scenario start.

2. I'd like to be able to place wrecks/knocked out vehicles at scenario start.

3. I'd like to be able to designate certain units to exit the map, instead of forcing all units on a side to exit for points.

4. I'd like to have the ability to fix units in place for a certain number of turns. This could be used to simulate things like squads which are unprepared, mustering, ordered not to move (historically) or even vehicles which are out of petrol.

5. I'd like a unit for French partisans.

That's all I can think of for now.

------------------

"Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it."

Pvt. David Webster

101st airborne 1942-45

[guachi]

One of your comments, number 2 about unit point cost, has been addressed by me. I have made up a chart with point costs for ALL of the units in the game for all six experience levels.

I sent it off to Moon (unsolicited) but I hope he posts it.

Jason

PS - You forget to mention that panzerfausts don't have smoke trails (it was you that brought it up last October/November, correct?)

[Joe Shaw]

Runyon unless I'm mistaken you can designate ANY of the units in a scenario to be "Exit Worthy" (to steal a line from Seinfeld). As you purchase the unit there is a box under Edit that allows you to designate THAT unit as one that will gain/lose you points upon/without exiting. Perhaps you were referring to a different situation?

Joe

[RMC]

Talenn,

The CC you played must have been very different from the one I played. I can only recall a couple of times where I think I saw a soldier get run over by a tank. It always appeared to me that the tanks floated over everything. In CC3 this can't have been an issue since infantry would die in a flash after being spotted by a tank. CC4 reduced this somewhat. I dunno maybe you used different tactics....

Now, I DO remember lots of running over troops in Dune II and the C&C variants out there.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

Talenn, The CC you played must have been very different from the one I played. I can only recall a couple of times where I think I saw a soldier get run over by a tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In CC1 it was easy and fun to do it, in CC2 it was already much harder.

It was my favourite trick to breach american lines with a stug and

go wild with it. Crunch, squish, sproit! Infantry had nothing

to kill a stug with. At best I got about 100 notches in a match.

[Runyan99]

Thanks. I didn't realize that you can already do this. Scratch one item off the list I still want my French Partisans though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

Runyon unless I'm mistaken you can designate ANY of the units in a scenario to be "Exit Worthy" (to steal a line from Seinfeld). As you purchase the unit there is a box under Edit that allows you to designate THAT unit as one that will gain/lose you points upon/without exiting. Perhaps you were referring to a different situation?

Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[JoshK]

I have thought about posting your #3. I also think that the post-battle FOW should be "less than zero" and tell you everything (e.g., the types of previously "unknown" vehicles you destroyed, the total amount of casualties caused by fires called down by FO units, etc.). It would be a small (but welcome) touch, but I guess when you have such a wonderful game, there are only small touches left.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Runyan99:

1. I'd like the ability to start squads at less than full strength at scenario start.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! In fact, a strong case could be made that this should be the default setting. Except in rare cases, most infantry units fought most of the war somewhat understrength.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. I'd like to be able to place wrecks/knocked out vehicles at scenario start.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A nice touch. Local color. It could be a terrain tile.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. I'd like to be able to designate certain units to exit the map, instead of forcing all units on a side to exit for points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't aware that this was a problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

5. I'd like a unit for French partisans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That might be more complicated than you think. I don't think you could properly model the behavior of partisans without doing a significant modification of the game engine. However, since they were such a major factor in the fighting on the Eastern Front, this should be done for CM2 anyway. Perhaps it might then be retrofitted to CM1. But in France, the Maquis only occasionally engaged in open combat with the Germans, and when they did they didn't fight exactly the same way that uniformed soldiers did.

Their primary tasks were:

1. Intelligence gathering.

2. Sabotage.

3. Smuggling downed Allied airmen back to their own lines.

Michael

[M Hofbauer]

note: even if you do not read that whjole post, please read at least point 3 (emphasized) below!!!

ok, I remember now a major thing that I wanted to suggest to BTS. Now hear me. Everybody talks about h2h play between humans. I think it was Talonsoft's otherwise very unimpressive IMO Eastern Front that had the ability to play AI vs AI. This was ridiculous for that game, but I think it would be a nice option for CM that wouldn't take too long to implement since CM simply has to do for both sides what it currently does for one. I can see two major applications for this:

1. in large scenarios, it is often a neverending frustrating job to painstakingly plan and implement the orders for a gazillion units down to the last PIAT somewhere. Now, the idea would be to have the computer AI make a move resolution, just like it does for the AI enemy, and then lay out all these given orders and paths out to you as a suggestion that you can tweak in certain aspects that you want to be done otherwise etc. Or you might agree with it one turn but not in another turn. Thing is, it takes away a lot of the routine planning of e.g. ordering reinforcements forward who have exited way in the rear on some very long twisted forest road.

2. it could be advanced into some sort of RPG game where you are given command of a single vehicle or platoon of vehicles and are part of a larger force that you cannot command, you only take part in that operation with your units. The movement paths etc are all shown to you for all friendly forces, so that you see what your commander is going for, but the other units' orders are "oranged", i.e. you cannot change them. You can only order your vehicle to take part in that battle.

point 3. finally, the major application that I see for having AI vs AI play is the ability to fully simulate the game and forces by the AI without your interference. as in a quick battle, you might wonder, how does this type of force fare against this type of force, so right now you go and pit these two against each other hot-seat or vs the AI. However, then you are influencing this by giving orders to at least one of the two forces. It would be great to see how the AI does, how the forces perform when left to their own. The AI plans the orders for both sides, and then you go and execute it. In essence, it would be like a war movie where you determine the actors (even this could be left to randomization if you want) and get to see the movie in 1-minute increments that you can replay as you wish. You could sit back and enjoy watching the great TacAI of CM at work. I would love that!

in reply to the other posts in this thread:

Talenn, yes you might remember me from the CC series. However, I would not consider myself to have been especially active on the RealRed forum, although I indeed was happy enough to be able to have the opportunity to help Ron with his great mod in some negligible small details / side issues. Yes, I think the after-battle analysis thing is probably personally my biggest issue I would wish to be looked after. Right now, and as explained already above, it is somewhat of an anticlimax to have made all this intricate planning etc. every turn, and then the enemy surrenders (or the game ends otherwise) and you get this somewhat undetailed, general debrief.

I agree with you on the issue of total squishing being undesirable, But this was indeed an issue mostly with cc1; I am right there with Jarmo on the cc1 tactic of going on a squishing spree with the rare german armor should you get it; I remember one of the later scenarios where a road was running up-down between two hedgerows, and east of the eastern hedgerow was an open space witn no cover and german MsGs waiting - the assaulting american infantry would cluster behind the eastern hedge. You had a Puma or some other german 8-wheel AFV and I would keep racing it up and down on that road goiung squishsquishsquish among the horrified fleeing american hordes.... . RMC correctly describes the issue of infsquish in the cc series. I agree with your assessment of silly OOBs and that fewer tanks meant beter games, however I think that the 15unit-limit has a certain justification as it would be hard to manage much more in a non-CM like RTS game.

Thanks Juju for confirming my suspicion. Ack. All these hours of trying to remodel that island encounter where XXX corps was stopped for naught

gaffertape, so I guess brewing them up just makes sure they don't get repaired. I further assume then that it does NOT matter in terms of repair-/returnlikeliness whether friendly forces are located at or near the immobilized/abandoned enemy vehicles? Anyways, when played the Villers-Bocage OP I noticed that often my Tigers were merely immobilized and in the next battle these immobilized Tigers returned to the map as knocked out/abandoned. This was unfortunate since some of these had been immob'ed in prety opportune locations overseeing quite a bit of map with their stuill functioning armament.

Runyan99, I agree weith your #2 but I think it would be even more important in connection with this to finally fix the LOS thing for these vehicles. Right now they're translucent and offer no cover or concealment at all, it seems.

guachi, you remember correctly but exactly the opposite - I asked for the smoke trails to be left out (they initially left streaks of smoke trails just like missiles), and a higher arc for the PzF projectiles. And indeed BTS did a great job modeling them, I am very satisfied with the way they are modeled now.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 08-01-2000).]

[gaffertape]

M Hofbauer:

In regards to your two damaged but not destroyed Tigers which weren't recovered after the battle, I think that nationality may have played a part. The Allies were notorious for their ability to get machines back in running order - plus there's the fact that few recovery vehicles were available that could cope with the Tiger's weight.

I think I've read that this is modelled in the game: German vehicles can be recovered / repaired, but not with the frequency of Allied equipment.

GAFF

[M Hofbauer]

GAFF,

I was aware of that. Maybe I expressed myself poorly. My Tigers were in an (IMO) excellent order, besides the fact that they were immobilized. I never asked for them to be repaired - I would have been a happy man if they had simply reappeared where they had been immob'ed, still as the immobile but functional tanks they were.

as regards the historical fact, yes, indeed, the german repair system was not as successful as the allied. However this is also because much of the german losses occurred during general retreating movement, so that most tanks that had little damage or simply ran out of fuel couldn't be put back into action simply because they were now behind enemy lines. Many of the german losses at Kursk were actually simply mobility kills etc. I'm sure Fionn will agree and can say more on that subject. As to the salvaging of Tigers, I remember the means to pull Tigers was - other Tigers. Of course this put an immense strain onto the pulling Tigers' engines, shortening their lifespan and reliability. I think the military was not happy about it, there was simply no other way. I remember reading somewhere that some german leader, Guderian maybe?, wrote that more Tigers were ruined through this recovery work than through enemy interference, or something like that.

[Runyan99]

One more thing.

I want the ability to cut, paste, move, rotate, and flip maps, and sections of maps.