US vs Russia in CM2.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

If A can fight B and B can fight C, why can't A fight C? and D? and E? and so on. These types of open-ended requirements always end up with one outcome - a lousy product. I highly doubt that any of us here would stick around if the product was poor.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, those games like Steel Panthers, The Operational Art of War, and such sure were lousy products. Man, they really sucked, and nobody ever played them.

Jeff Heidman

[Croda]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

...I have no idea where Croda go the idea of Fiji or whatever. I am pretty certain that there was never a question of adding nationailites outside the scope of the game. Another example of how using fallacies makes meaningful debate difficult.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originaly posted by Spii on Page 2:

I add my voice to the INCLUSION of Hypothetical battles i.e. US v Russia in CM2

It would be a blast to create scenarios with all kinds of nationalities to model.

Both strict historians and hypothetical game players would be entertained.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive me if I took Spii's comments far too litteraly, but I thought that this is what he was going at.

As a systems consultant, you should have some idea of what allowing one thing outside of the scope of a project can do. It sets a precedent whereby further things outside of the scope end up in the realm of possibility. It's something that programmers have to deal with all the time. I thought that you'd understand this.

Also, I've also played some of these other games. My indoctrination into wargaming was SunTzu's Ancient Art of War, and have recently enjoyed Age of Empires. Do I consider those historically accurate? Of course not. Did I enjoy them? Yes, greatly. My point is that modelling the hypothetical is not what BTS is doing with CM. They are modelling WWII. The U.S. and Russians did not square off in WWII, thus it is not a part of the game. The rest of your discussion about ahistorical scenarios is just avoiding the issue.

As for the rest of your comments: I've attempted to be civil. I'll make this last attempt at that. If you'd prefer to scream and insult and call names, then that's wonderful. I'll be happy to oblige. I'd rather discuss it like intelligent adults, if you can hang.

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

Coming soon, a sig from PeterNZer.

[This message has been edited by Croda (edited 12-11-2000).]

[M. Bates]

Jeff, I have think you miss some of the point in that;

CM's scenarios HAVE to be hypothetical to some extent, because the player has to prove his skill, and he will never fight exactly the same battle as happened all those years ago.

I bet if some Finnish members of this board wanted their armed forces to appear in CM3 North Africa, everyone would disagree with them.

Only the Nazis ever believed or hoped in their twisted minds that the Allies and the Russians would be trading shots over the remains of Berlin.

[ntg84]

What's wrong with making a realistic game AND including hypothetical aspects of a what if. Thats the great thing about it, there are OPTIONS, if you dont want to do it don't, if you wan't to do it go ahead. OPTIONS OPTIONS OPTIONS

[Croda]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ntg84:

What's wrong with making a realistic game AND including hypothetical aspects of a what if. Thats the great thing about it, there are OPTIONS, if you dont want to do it don't, if you wan't to do it go ahead. OPTIONS OPTIONS OPTIONS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing "wrong" with it, so to speak. The only problems are these:

1) Extra time to code

2) Larger program --> higher system reqs

3) The designer doesn't seem interested.

Other than that, I don't have a problem with options. This particular option just doesn't interest me. But given the 3 items above, I'd rather not see the hypothetical situation included, and have the new game sooner and smaller.

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

Coming soon, a sig from PeterNZer.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Forgive me if I took Spii's comments far too litteraly, but I thought that this is what he was going at.

As a systems consultant, you should have some idea of what allowing one thing outside of the scope of a project can do. It sets a precedent whereby further things outside of the scope end up in the realm of possibility. It's something that programmers have to deal with all the time. I thought that you'd understand this.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course I do. I just do not take it to the point that I am unwilling to accept that part of the design process is determining what features should be in the product. The purpose is to provide the product to the customer as complete as possible, not to minimize the content as much as possible.

All that anyone is suggesting is that the scnario/operation design screen replace the Axis/Allied side selection with a generic selector for sides. this would allow for not just ahistorical amtch ups, but perfectly historical, if peculiar, matchups currently not possible due to the design decision to limit the options available to a predefined and arbitrary definitions of sides.

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

Also, I've also played some of these other games. My indoctrination into wargaming was SunTzu's Ancient Art of War, and have recently enjoyed Age of Empires. Do I consider those historically accurate? Of course not. Did I enjoy them? Yes, greatly. My point is that modelling the hypothetical is not what BTS is doing with

CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I do NOT agree that what BTS is doing with CM is limited in the manner you suggest. I think they are trying to create a detailed and accurate engine for recreating the tactical conflicts in a given time frame.

Whether or no they allow scenario desingers to include non-historical confilcts does not impact that in any way. it might not be a good idea from a dedication of resources standpoint, but it is not indicative of a break in design philosphy either way.

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

They are modelling WWII. The U.S. and Russians did not square off in WWII, thus it is not a part of the game. The rest of your discussion about ahistorical scenarios is just avoiding the issue.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you are avoiding the issue. In fact, you are mising the point entirely.

You refused to address my example, and instead brought up two examples that I did not cite as relevant as if I did. Red Herring.

Is Steel Panthers less of a game because the engine *allowed* scenario designers to match up ahistorical opponents? Yes or no?

Is TOAW a "poor product" (your words) because it did not force the users to only play historical conflicts?

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

As for the rest of your comments: I've attempted to be civil. I'll make this last attempt at that. If you'd prefer to scream and insult and call names, then that's wonderful.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, thanks, I'll keep that in mind in case I decide to call anyone names. Note to self: Croda has given me permission to call people names...

Pointing out the fallacies in someone argument is not calling them names, nor is it screaming.

Attempting to obfuscate the issue with personal references not germane to the discussion (as above) is yet another logical fallacy.

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

I'll be happy to oblige. I'd rather discuss it like intelligent adults, if you can hang.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All day long.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 12-11-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Jeff, I have think you miss some of the point in that;

CM's scenarios HAVE to be hypothetical to some extent, because the player has to prove his skill, and he will never fight exactly the same battle as happened all those years ago.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So why is this fundamentally ok, but a player trying to prove their skill sin a hypothetical scenario somehow immoral?

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

I bet if some Finnish members of this board wanted their armed forces to appear in CM3 North Africa, everyone would disagree with them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe. I would not care. What differnce does it make?

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

Only the Nazis ever believed or hoped in their twisted minds that the Allies and the Russians would be trading shots over the remains of Berlin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, how nice of you to accuse the large number of people interested in this hypothetical of being Nazis.

I will await Croda's chastisement of you.

Jeff Heidman

[Croda]

Well, Jeff, let me address the other games which you've brought up before I depart for the day:

Never played them, probably never will.

How's that answer your question?

As for other points:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think they are trying to create a detailed and accurate engine for recreating the tactical conflicts in a given time frame<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you've captured our fundamental point of disagreement. I fell that you have most of it right. I however feel that they have (and intend to continue to) limited the combatants to nations who actually did enter major conflict.

But I would hate to have us speaking for the designers, just as I'd hate to have someone speaking for me.

As for avoiding the issue, I have not. I have stood firm with the same argument every time. I feel you've attempted to hit that argument from different sides, yet it still stands.

As for name calling, I retract the reference, however I think you could change your tone slightly. You seem a little upset in general about this.

I'd appreciate it if any of the forum vets know of threads where any BTS rep has stated their viewpoint on this, that they point me to it, so as to perhaps end this discussion Jeff and I are having. I'm sure there is a definitive answer out there, one way or another.

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

Coming soon, a sig from PeterNZer.

[Guest Mongo Lloyd]

Look fellas, this is a game. Just because some of us would like to play games that pit the Russians against the Americans against the British does not mean that we want to do it in real life. That is like saying that friends who enjoy fragging each other in Quake would really enjoy killing each other.

The fun thing about CM for me is finding ways to use the different units in a coordinated way to defeat my opponent. When you have the ability to play nationalities against each other that did not fight each other historically it puts more variables into the mix which increases my enjoyment of the game. When I hear people bringing all these real world issues into the mix it makes me angry. Just because we actually fought the Germans in real life does not make it any more moral to simulate killing them now then it is to simulate killing the British. When my little American troops die on screen I do not have a funeral ceremony after the game to honor the dead because it isn't REAL.

Lighten up people!

[Vanir]

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

BTS has set the limit of their product's scope at real combatants.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe you are putting words into BTS's mouth that they have never spoken. Indeed, some of their comments in the past directly contradict this. They have stated at least once on this forum that they are interested in doing a modern combat CM at some point in the future. I believe they said something similar in a magazine interview a few months back. I could dig these up if you like. This would almost certainly be a hypothetical conflict.

As far as US/Britain vs. USSR in 1945 I think that would be a fascinating idea to explore in CM2 as long as it did not add a great deal to the development time. As someone above said, this depends on how easy it would be to port CM1 units over into CM2.

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

all you can do is just simulate two historical armies killing each other for no reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As others have pointed out the US and Britain actually had some pretty good reasons for fighting the Soviets in 1945 and vice versa, with some leaders (Patton) even openly advocating it. It could easily have happened.

Back when I played Steel Panthers I played a few US vs. USSR scenarios for the fun of it and I don't believe I did anything morally wrong. I find the idea completely absurd. Some people take these games way too seriously.

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

You mean my Java coded Real Time Bar Fight Simulator Madmatt Mission: Beyond BiteMe ISN'T going to be published?!?

Madmatt

[Croda]

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

I believe you are putting words into BTS's mouth that they have never spoken. Indeed, some of their comments in the past directly contradict this. They have stated at least once on this forum that they are interested in doing a modern combat CM at some point in the future. I believe they said something similar in a magazine interview a few months back. I could dig these up if you like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vanir, it would be great if you could find some info on this, because I was always of the impression that BTS had little to no interest in hypothetical conflicts. If I'm wrong, then great, no big deal. If you or someone else could point me to the answer, I'd be much obliged.

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

Coming soon, a sig from PeterNZer.

[Terence]

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

Ok here's how the US vs Soviet Union plays out right after WWII: US drops several atomic bombs on the Motherland.

-john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

um. we didn't HAVE any atomic bombs left right after WWII we used all our fissionable materials on the Japanese.

It took a great deal of effort to produce another bomb, using in part I believe, captured german heavy water. This was a huge military secret at the time, but as with many other atomic secrets, its not hard to see how this could have made its way to Stalin....

[Jeff Heidman]

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

There's nothing "wrong" with it, so to speak. The only problems are these:

1) Extra time to code

2) Larger program --> higher system reqs

3) The designer doesn't seem interested.

Other than that, I don't have a problem with options. This particular option just doesn't interest me. But given the 3 items above, I'd rather not see the hypothetical situation included, and have the new game sooner and smaller.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are all good reasons, assuming that they are all relevant in this case. We do not know if it would be any extra work to allow any two sides to engage one another.

it could be simple, it could be extremely difficult. Depends on what kind of object model BTS has used.

One of the main reasons I would like the option is that I would like the model to be open enough to have that kind of flexibility. of course, there are some good reasons not to allow that flexibility also, not the least of which is that if you let third parties make good modifications to the game and expand it through your flexible interface, it gets harder to charge your customers for expansion in the future.

Jeff Heidman

[Terence]

Comrades!

I’m going to declare that I am not qualified to comment on the morality of a gaming company producing software that depicts or enables others to depict hypothetical battles.

However, I will point out a few things that I’ve culled from historical books that lead me to believe that a confrontation with the USSR was never far from the minds of the Western leaders and was, in fact, narrowly avoided at least once.

Since the early days of the Soviet Union, that nation’s foreign policy was confrontational (1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact aside) and dedicated to the spread of international communism and the destruction by revolution of capitalist nations. It scared the pants off the West. The West contributed to this in the early days of the Civil War by intervening on the White/Royalist side.

One of the big fights that Churchill and Roosevelt had, moderated by Ike to a certain extent was on where the US and British troops employed in Italy should go when it came time to launch Overlord. Churchill, thinking of the post war environment, wanted the Allied troops to peg claims far into the Balkans as possible to stop Soviet advances and chew away at a post-war Soviet buffer zone.

But Roosevelt and Eisenhower wanted to bring the war to an end as soon as possible, and leave post war power politics for later. So they moved troops from the Italian campagn to the European landings and did not push farther into the Balkans. It was a big fight, and burned up a LOT of staff time between SHAEF, London and Washington.

Later on, Stalin never trusted the West at all. He believed that the US and Britain delayed the opening of a second front in order to bleed the Soviet Union His communications with the front commanders at the end of the days revealed total disbelief that the Allies would stop at the Elbe as the SHAEF told STAVKA and he even set up a race between his two top commanders (Zhukov and Konev, I believe) to get to Berlin faster.

Finally, anyone remember the Berlin Crisis? Not long after the end of the war, the Russians tried to throw the rest out of Berlin, and there was this famous airlift that took place. Well, that incident started with a Soviet Army blockade of West Berlin. A blockade is, according to international law, an act of war.

If there had been different folks in positions of power at the time, I think the USA and Russia could easily have come to blows. There were major differences of opinion over the division of Germany into zones, and all manner of other things – resources, repatriation of prisoners, free elections in Eastern Europe, enforced reparations etc.

Studying Stalin’s foreign policy in the immediate post war period, you see that he conducted it as if the US did not have atomic weapons - ie. he was aggressive and unintimidated by the United States.

When you start reading about the end of the war and the post war period and when you consider just how crazy/paranoid Stalin was, its sort of amazing the US and USSR didn’t come to blows.

So, while there wasn’t a full scale shooting war between the US and Russia, there might have been one.

I’d like to see it in action. You could kick it off with fighting over the ruins of west Berlin, have Americans defend the Seelow Heights against a Russian attack. Could be sweet. Although some Soviet weapons make me gulp with disbelief.

“Men were lifted into the air by the Soviet 152mm rounds, each of which was potentially lethal within 150 meters and left a crater a meter deep. Major Gottlieb lost half his men during the heavy barrage, which lasted nearly 30 minutes.”

[This message has been edited by Terence (edited 12-11-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> You are coming so far from left field I do not even think there are grounds for a discussion. It's like arguing with someone who finds light bulbs morally objectionable or something.

Bruno Weiss wrote:

> No doubt the American Revisionist for Sociological Wargammings Interference of Parental Entertainment Safeguards (ARSWIPES), will probably protest in front of the Supreme Rulers if not the Cosmic Council over this.

The Commissar wrote:

> As many others have made clear by now, your arguments are perposterous! Simply perposterous!

GreasyPig wrote:

> I guess we all know where you stand on "Cock Fighting"

jshandorf wrote:

> Also I would just like to say to David that your as thick headed as a pull of stout.

Frankly people, you come across more narrow-minded about being denied something you want, than I apparently do about the proposal of something I object to. Thankyou Mark IV for the civilised response.

I knew I would invoke this kind of reaction. I don't really care whether you get a US vs. Russia scenario or not. Even if it's a bad thing, it is trivial in the grand scheme of things. But I stand by my reasons for objecting. I admit to taking CM more seriously than many, just as a playing style and my way of approaching the game – I have posted about it before. That probably contributes a lot to the fact that I do not like the idea of hypothetical extensions to the Second World War at all.

Here's a suggestion. Try putting yourself in a position where US vs. Russia or Britain vs. France would unsettle you. I'm not looking for converts, I just think it's a good idea to look at things from a different angle, instead of offering a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who presents an alternative point of view.

David

(edited because I forgot to include jshandorf's considered and intelligent contribution)

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 12-11-2000).]

[DanE]

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

Vanir, it would be great if you could find some info on this, because I was always of the impression that BTS had little to no interest in hypothetical conflicts. If I'm wrong, then great, no big deal. If you or someone else could point me to the answer, I'd be much obliged.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Croda,

I believe you are correct. Somewhere, BTS has commented on this. I believe the subject was brought up about letting both players play the same nation so they could have "even" games. Also, it was requested that the players be allowed to fight with allies. BTS' response was in the negative. I can't remember the exact response, and I'm not going to go looking for it , but basically BTS said (IIRC) "That wasn't the way they designed CM to be played."

Sorry I can't be of any further assistance.

[elementalwarre]

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

And since many games before CM simulated Cold War USSR vs. the US, what is the big deal with a WWII era matching? AFAIK, we never fought with them in any era.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in 1918 the US, UK, and france sent forces into the russian civil war against the communists

just an historical fyi

as far as morality goes - THIS IS A GAME. it does not glorify war or any country in WW2 any more than any wargame does. if you see it as a sim, enjoy. if not, enjoy. strictly a personal choice

and yes, i think allowing US vs USSR would be fun, but i'd rather see BTS do the historical games they've outlined. anything more than that is up to hackers

my $0.02 on whether any side vs any side is nontrivially more work: yes it is

in CMBO, only germans get bunkers. only allies get air support - sporadically and sometimes it supports the germans, but it does happen . no side needs to factor the chance of their opponent using the same gear and possibly similar insignia, thus affecting IFF. the list goes on, but the point is that these simplifications limit not just code but also drastically limit the number of test cases

FWIW i've written some nontrivial commercial end user software, so hopefully i've an informed opinion

[Guest wwb_99]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Yeah, those games like Steel Panthers, The Operational Art of War, and such sure were lousy products. Man, they really sucked, and nobody ever played them.

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I, for one, played all of the above mentioned products. I would bet many other people on this board played these products. I know the designers played Steel Panthers. And I still play those games. Until CM came along, they were the best damn wargames out there (for the modern period). And after CM, they are still some of the best wargames availiable. I doubt if anyone passed on buying Steel Panthers because you could pit Soviets against Americans.

Comparing TOAW to CM is unfair, becuase it models a completely different scale which CM does not even touch. Nor does TOAW even have 'nationalities' like CM. It has Player 1 and Player 2, who can have whatever equipment the designer sees fit. TOAW is still the best operational gaming system out there (until BTS brings WeGo to the operational scale at least) whose main asset is its flexibility. While it is optimized for Regimental-scale mechanized conflict, where else can you find a game that can do everything from the Russo-Japanese war to Desert Storm and do it well?

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Jackal]

Everyone always wants to play the big boys. If anything why not look more into the wars in the middle east? Egypt and Syria against Israel? or possibly Russia's attack southward? what about all of the skirmishes in Africa??? not necessarily hypothetical but very realistic and the instruments of war are certainly more challenging.

Ahh, the smell of napalm in the morning.

[Jackal]

Another thing. . .the military plays "hypothetical" battles all of the time. What are the looking to accomplish by these games???? First of all, equipment against equipment!!! Tactics against tactics!!! command, control, communications!!!! Supply!!!! These hypothetical battles would be fantastic if the game provided "as real as possible" each nationality's equipment, strengths, etc. I think that the original argument may have been along these lines.

[Vanir]

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

Vanir, it would be great if you could find some info on this, because I was always of the impression that BTS had little to no interest in hypothetical conflicts. If I'm wrong, then great, no big deal. If you or someone else could point me to the answer, I'd be much obliged.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For some reason I cannot get the extended urls to show up in my address bar so I cannot cut and paste to the exact messages (it always says just "www.battlefront.com But if you do a search with keyword "modern" in the heading only you'll see them.

11-20-99

Steve says: "Personally, I think a late 1970s Warsaw Pact/NATO game would be quite a bit of fun. The fact that a land war wasn't really in the cards by then could be overlooked "

12-16-99

Steve says: "a modern version of CM has not been rulled out. But WWII comes first because it is what we know best and it is what CM's engine was built for. Personally, Charles and I would like to see one made sometime."

2-13-2000

Steve says: "Modern requires a HUGE rewrite and additional code. We want to do it, but it will never ever be a "module" or minor effort. We are talking about a year and a half's worth of work MINIMUM. Plus, Charles and I don't know enough about modern stuff so we would need help. We have all the help we need, don't worry , but it means coding will go MUCH slower than for WWII stuff because we know it FAR better.

Having said that, we want a modern version too"

I couldn't find the magazine article, but someone else on this board mentioned it (hopefully they are reading this). I believe in it either Charles or Steve said something to the effect of "a modern CM would be a logical extension of the engine".

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

You mean my Java coded Real Time Bar Fight Simulator Madmatt Mission: Beyond BiteMe ISN'T going to be published?!?

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 12-11-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Commissar - using big words can backfire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From www.dictionary.com :

pre·pos·ter·ous (pr-pstr-s)

adj.

Contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; absurd. See Synonyms at foolish

and

From http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ :

preposterous   adjective 

very foolish or ridiculous 

The idea is preposterous!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David's stance is not preposterous. It may be hypocritical, that is another question, but he has argued (quite well I find) and explained his moral objections. You may not agree with him, that is also another question, but that should not impede on his right to have this opinion and defend it. I think that many of those who advocate the inclusion of hypothetical scenarios US vs. Soviet Union are getting a bit too defensive and aggressive about it, but that is just my opinion. I tend to agree with David's stance, although not for the exact same reasons.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled discussion. Never let it be said that this BBS can not be educational. Have a nice day

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-11-2000).]

[Guest MantaRay]

Yes, I never said I wanted a US vs US conflict. All I meant was that it would be "fun" to be able to use this engine to simulate the first parts of a war that went on far longer than WWII.

I guess I just wonder how the US would stack up against the Ruskies. Too bad there had to be a war over this subject.

Ray

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

Another thing. . .the military plays "hypothetical" battles all of the time. What are the looking to accomplish by these games???? First of all, equipment against equipment!!! Tactics against tactics!!! command, control, communications!!!! Supply!!!! These hypothetical battles would be fantastic if the game provided "as real as possible" each nationality's equipment, strengths, etc. I think that the original argument may have been along these lines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Crank_GS]

Wow! What a great thread! Lots of informed opinions. Sure there's a few not-so-informed ones, but I bet everybodylearned something from this thread .

FWIW:

David, I'll bet playing CM with you is a doule-edged sword (please pardon the metaphor): I would feel nice about you apologizing when you won, but I would feel really really bad when you commit Hara-Kiri when you lost... I do see your point, but I do not see why you then feel it is OK to play CM at all in the first place!

Terrence: Good post. I think that alone "justifies" the inclusion of the US vs USSR option.

HOWEVER, let's take it a step at a time. Let's await (as patiently as we are able) the completion of CM2. I am sure we will all enjoy it immensely. Then, maybe, we can see what Steve and Charles have in store for us. Although their opinion has been conspicuous by it's absence, I think we can be sure that they will not stop once CM2 and CM II are finished.

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

Capt. Byron Crank, US Army

[jshandorf]

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

Commissar - using big words can backfire.

David's stance is not preposterous. It may be hypocritical, that is another question, but he has argued (quite well I find) and explained his moral objections. You may not agree with him, that is also another question, but that should not impede on his right to have this opinion and defend it. I think that many of those who advocate the inclusion of hypothetical scenarios US vs. Soviet Union are getting a bit too defensive and aggressive about it, but that is just my opinion. I tend to agree with David's stance, although not for the exact same reasons.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled discussion. Never let it be said that this BBS can not be educational. Have a nice day

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All this hog wash about historical or ahistorical is really irritating me. Did you ahistorical fanatics know that there are scenarios that (gasp) NEVER happened? There not based off of history! In fact there is one scenario, okay brace for it, that pits the Hitler elite in his mountain fortress against an American assault. Gee, but that didn't happened in history, so HOW can BTS allow us to make a scenario to represent it?! Oh, the pain! Someone, please, pull the knife from my back! I feel so betrayed!

If it is possible code wise (ie. there isn't hardcoded stuff assuming Amis VS. Axis) then there really isn't any reason why we shouldn't be able to create any scenario we want. Heck! Pit the American striaght legs against American Paras! Who cares?! If you don't like those kind of scenarios then DON'T play them! Wow! What a novel idea. How simple yet effective... Gee, there must be other things this concept can be applied to...Maybe TV or Radio!

In other words.. If you don't like the music you are listening to then turn the flippin' channel.

Jeff

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

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.