Brumbar, Sturm Tiger, sIG 33 Bison, Panther II

[Bastables]

Panther II project was killed in 1943/44 when Schuerzen proved successful in providing protection vs. the superb Russian anti tank rifles. (1995 Jentz) the 7,5cm armed small turret was a much later development which was to be mounted on the next Panther variant i.e. F, the 8,8cm small turret had not even reached wooden mock up stages by the end of the war.

Sturmtiger, yes very useful, in a 90 min/turn game you could get all of 3 rounds out of it (I was wrong one would actully get 9 rounds fired in a 90 turn game)

Bison, well the Bison II only served in North Africa. The Bison I on the other hand was taken out of service in 1943. But they were obviously roving the post Overlord western front in such numbers that they should be included, bollocks more like!

Brumbar, much more likely to be seen in the eastern front, only one battalion may have seen combat service during the German operation autumn mist.

And why does everyone continue to point to the PSW 234 families inclusion as to small a number to model in an attempt to buttress there own arguments about there favourite veh. The PSW 234 were only issued to recce battalions in the Panzer divisions, including units that saw continuous action such as Panzer Lehr and the I and II SS Panzer corps (Incorrect, On;y the 2nd Pz Div and Panzer Lehr, the 'Pumas' in the SS Divs were incorrectly identified). These veh are going to be much more evident in the combat that took place during the western front since elite Panzer units tented to be at the forefront of German attacks and defence.

And on to the argument that in combat German tanks were so heavily out numbered you should never see more than one Tiger well one only has to point out that if your unit is facing a area covered by a Tiger battalion your going to see a hell of a lot of tigers in short order. Or for instance the defence of the village Singling by the approximately by one coy of Panthers and a coy of JagdPanzer IV and elements I/111 Panzers grenadier regt vs. the celebrated LT Col Abrams 37th Tank battalion of the equally if not more so elite 4th armoured division resulted in 2 separate coy level attacks. Coy C was annihilated without reply. Coy B lost 20 Sherman’s for 3 Panthers. Now its all very well that the 4th Armoured div had over 4 times the number of tanks vs. the 11th Panzer div, but that does not mean that these raw numbers evidenced themselves on the tactical level .If you’d read the CM FAQ you’d have found this insight as revealed by Steve and how it applies to CM tactical scale of battle which at its largest is supposed to represent Battalion level engagements.

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

Mr T's reply

"Don't touch me FOO!"

"Yes that's right Jerry, RUN, Run for your little lives because Tommy's gotten close enough to assault mhahahahah."

Nizam al-Mulk, (Order of the realm) In speaking of his superb disregard of maneuver warfare, in the destruction of OGSF hamsters who then carried on to flee the battle in their own notion of maneuver warfare. Tally HO!

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-10-2000).]

[Snake Eyes]

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

Sturmtiger, yes very useful, in a 90 min/turn game you could get all of 3 rounds out of it

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have a reference for Sturmtiger's ROF? I've been unable to find one, so your assistance would be appreciated.

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

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[The Oak]

298 Sturmpanzer IV (Brumbar)were produced from 4/43 to 3/34, plus 8 were converted from, Pz Kpfw IV. 86 Wirblewind were converted from Pz Kpfw IV from 7/44 to 11/44, and 1 prototype was converted in 5/44. 36 Ostwind were converted from PzKpfw IV, plus 7 new from production from 12/44 to 3/45. I hope that doesn't mean the Elephant is nixed from "CM 2."

........hey, at least I didn't ask for the Karlgerat 60cm siege mortar!

[The Oak]

"And why does everyone continue to point to the PSW 234 families inclusion as to small a number to model in an attempt to buttress there own arguments about there favourite veh."

_____________________________________________

Why do people have to be so adversarial just because someone asked for a particular vehicle? Doesn't the customer come first in the business world? Arguments can be made for and against the inclusion of many vehicles. I think most people understand that decisions had to be made, however that doesn't change the fact that there are still gamers who would like the option of using a particular vehicle in a scenario. If you don't like a vehicle, then don't use it. At least having the opportunity of putting an AFV to the test in a game would give you a chance to see just how effective or ineffective the vehicle really was. Not including certain vehicles doesn't detract from CM...it's still the best War Game in my opinion.

And BTW, I was referring to the sIG 33 "Grille" mounted on the 38(t) (see previous post on this topic) of which 372 were produced (of both the mid and rear mounted 150mm IG), and 173 were listed as available for combat in 2/45.

[Guest grunto]

i'm reading von luck's book and am all stoked about recon again.

with that in mind, they need german sidecar motorcycles with machineguns, kubelwagens with machineguns, and sdkfz 205/10 (37mm recon halftrack).

as for the sig...

the sig 33hpz38 and sig 33k pz38... 90 of the former were built and some were still in service on the western front at the end of 1944; of the latter some 300 were built in 1943 and '44.

i would think that in light of that some 'amalgam' of these two vehicles could be provided.

398 brumbars were built, and i'm fairly certain they were used in direct and not indirect fire.

lastly, please increase the effectiveness of the mg42 against the american m3a1 halftrack!!

i find that in quick battles, no one buys the spw251/1 because it costs more than the american m3a1 and is 'much less stout.'

now i've seen that diagram showing that .50 cal penetrates the german halftrack better than the mg42 does the american halftrack. does that diagram take into account though the much higher rate of fire of the mg42? i mean if those diagrams represent just a single bullet in either case, then the mg42 should knock out the m3a1 'better' because the mg42, although weaker on a bullet-to-bullet comparison, is firing off so many more bullets that it should overall kill the m3a1 more quickly.

again as it is the m3a1 is sort of a 'super vehicle' and the spw251/1 is for all intents and purposes worthless in combat.

they called m3a1s 'purple heart boxes' but as it is at the present in cmbo, i don't see it. as germans i have to arm myself with 20mm weapons to stop those pesky m3a1s.

bts... if you have the time, keep feeding us vehicle packs and - i'm fairly certain to be speaking for a number of us here by closing with - 'we'll pay for it...'

andy

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Originally posted by The Oak:

In regards to the Bison: ... I believe it was used for close support of the infantry rather than as SPA like the Wespe or Hummel (it was an infantry gun).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, they were "closer" than the field artilley, but they still were regimental artillery, mainly used for indirect fire. (Just like the towed version.)

For those who want a better punch than the Wespe or StuH42: Use a Hummel, as on map artillery it should be pretty equivalent to the different Geschützwagen, GWs (the original Bison being GWI IIRC).

Cheers

Olle

actually, i think that the 'grilles' were used in direct fire. they're listed in my reference under 'assault guns' and not as 'self-propelled' artillery as are the hummel and the wespe.

andy

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Oak:

Doesn't the customer come first in the business world?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? Please retract this statement. I want a game that details every aspect of warfare from 4000BCE to 1999. That's fine but expecting BTS to do it makes no sense.

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

...may be stranger than a wading pool full of peyote-abusing Mexican Elvis impersonators.

Maybe not.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Oak:

298 Sturmpanzer IV (Brumbar)were produced from 4/43 to 3/34, plus 8 were converted from, Pz Kpfw IV. 86 Wirblewind were converted from Pz Kpfw IV from 7/44 to 11/44, and 1 prototype was converted in 5/44. 36 Ostwind were converted from PzKpfw IV, plus 7 new from production from 12/44 to 3/45. I hope that doesn't mean the Elephant is nixed from "CM 2."

........hey, at least I didn't ask for the Karlgerat 60cm siege mortar!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

298 Sturmpanzers eh? Well their 1st combat debut on the western front was during the fighting around the German border under 2, KP, Sturm-Pz Abt 218: 10 Sturmpanzer IV. Considering that the FlaKpzIV numbred 8 to a Panzer Regt well draw your own conclusions.

The Bulge attacks Wacht am Rhein and Nordwind Sturm-Pz.Abt.271 (31 veh) was deployed as reserve, on the 8-18 Dec before they even got near combat an entire coy of 14 Sturmpanzers were shifted towards the Eastern front. During the same time period the Pz regt had as TO&E FlaKIV: 2nd Pz had 3 FlaKpz38 (2), 4 FlaKpzIV (2V) and 4 FlaKIV (37). 9th Pz had 4 FlaKpzIV (2V) and 4 FlaKIV (37). 11th Pz had 8 FlaKpzIV (2V) and 7 FlaKIV (37). 21th Pz had 5 FlaKpzIV (2V) and 3 FlaKIV (37). And on and on and on, guess which there were more of in the west? (1996 Jentz). Well cripes Sturmpanzer IVs just flow over the Western front. I think of the western front and picture of massed ranks of SturmpanzerIV immolating small french villges comes to mind. No Sturmpanzer IV and the Elephant were seen in numbers in Russia and in Italy not post or even pre Overlord western europe.

I'm a little testy because this argument has been mulled over before, still the same points are made still nothing new is added again and again, 'CM would be better if it were open to veh mods'. 'CM needs the MAUS'. 'CM needs Motorcycle troops even though by 1944 Panzer divsion recce battlions had eliminated the units from TO&E in favour of SPW mounted recon coy for the 'light Kompanie'. What CM really needs is is British bakeries units or German Horse drawn bakeries, they were always in combat and they out numbred the Sturmpanzers by a large margin. Dammit and why does no one want the Centurion in the game? Oh yes they never saw combat in WWII although they did look good in the victory parades.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 11-14-2000).]

[von Lucke]

...find us a battle that even ONE of the 18 Sturmtigers took part in...

Well, not that I really care if the Sturmmorser Tiger makes it in (I'd much prefer the M16), but for the sake of the historical record, here ya go:

"During the battle of Oberembt*, C Company's lead tank also knocked out a 380mm rocket firing Sturmtiger, a self-propelled howitzer mounted on a Mark VI chassis".

---from: "The View From the Turret: The 743rd Tank Battalion During WWII" by William B. Folkestad, ISBN 1-57249-001-2

*Note: The battle for Oberembt took place the night of 26 Feb 1945 when infantry from 30th ID supported by A and C companies of the 743rd attacked elements of the 9th and 11th Panzer Divisions. The author doesn't say what kind of tank took out the Sturmtiger, but since the 743rd had only just recently been equipped with four M4A3E2's mounting 76mm guns, it was probably one of them.

[The Oak]

Originally posted by The Oak:

Doesn't the customer come first in the business world?

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

"Eh? Please retract this statement. I want a game that details every aspect of warfare from 4000BCE to 1999. That's fine but expecting BTS to do it makes no sense."

"Well cripes Sturmpanzer IVs just flow over the Western front. I think of the western front and picture of massed ranks of SturmpanzerIV imolating small french villges comes to mind."

"What CM really needs is is British bakeries units or German Horse drawn bakeries, they were always in combat and they out numbred the Sturmpanzers by a large margin."

_____________________________________________

Why do some people have to be sarcastic and down right rude because someone asked about a few vehicles that they would like to see included? How does wanting a "Grille" or a "Brumbar" compare with wanting a Wargame that details every aspect of warfare from 4000BCE to 1999? How does a "Grille" compare with bakery units (which, BTW, can be simulated by "green" infantry units and trucks if you'd really like). No one said Sturmpanzers were flowing over French villages (..but then again neither were Jagd Tigers or Jagd Panthers), so there is no need to "get a little testy" as you previously stated.

I guess I'll just put my 25 years of reading WWII history and my 1,000+ volume library away and bow to all the WW2 combat veterans who seem to be pervading this post. Or perhaps some of these "testy" GAMERS have watched "Patton" far too many times. God forbid I ask for a vehicle that I thought would be nice to have. I guess customers should just shut their mouth and never share their ideas with others.

Not everyone is a historical purist when it comes to war gaming either. War gaming is just that anyways: a game. It's not war, and it's not realistic....not even close. If you want realism, have someone fire an MG42 over your head while you give orders to your Canadian Kangaroos.

You're right: This issue has been dragged through the mud far too long. Anyone can pull out a book and quote various sources to support their argument, however were you actually in France in 1944? Fact is, some limited production vehicles were included, while others were left out. The development team made a logical decision, which no one is disputing. I don't believe anyone has an axe to grind because a particular vehicle was left out, however it seems raising the issue in regards to a few requested vehicles ruffles quite a few feathers.

As I said before, "CM" is still the best war game to date, and with such an excellent game (as well as the high quality mods available) its easy to expect more. Enough said. For those of you who were respectful or constructive in their posts, thanks.

_____________________________________________

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Guest Germanboy]

Oak, if you had argued based on historical value to start with, I am sure you would have encountered a very different response. But you asked for the Bison in your first post (an understandable mistake, but a mistake nevertheless) and then for the Sturmtiger based on 'I want to have something with a lot of punch, because the Allies have the AVRE Petard'. That is an example of the worst arguments that some people (like Bastables and me) have seen here again and again over the last 1+ years, and whenever it comes up we shudder and think 'Sudden Strike rocket tanks'. There are some people here who want the Maus for the reason that they think it looks cool and has a big gun. Never mind that it most likely never saw combat.

If you get so easily offended, all I can recommend is that you try and work on developing a historical case for the inclusion of rare vehicles. That goes beyond mere numbers, since it includes actual employment. The argument that neither of us was in France in 1944 does not count either, that's what books are for.

The fact that you have read so much and familiarised yourself with the topic over such a long time did simply not show in your posts, and that is what triggered the response you got, IMO.

As you can see from the reaction to your's and Snake Eye's request, the number of customers asking for rare vehicles actually seems to be smaller than that asking for BTS to focus elsewhere anyway, so maybe they made the right choice after all. It certainly looks like they are selling a lot.

Finally, BTS have made it clear (WRT different topics) that satisfaction of the customer is not a be-all and end-all to them. I fully support this. They have an aim and a vision, and that is outlined in the Battlefront.com manifesto, which I suggest you read if you have not done so. If they wanted to satisfy the highest-possible number of customers, they would have produced 'Sudden Strike 2 - Beyond Triggerhappy'.

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

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 11-14-2000).]

[The Oak]

I guess I'll be more careful on how I phrase my ideas, however if you read my previous post in regards to requests for CM2, you'll see I was not approaching it from a "Sudden Strike" mentality. I don't believe my request entitled me to be ridiculed and insulted.

I quite often like to test out new theories and tactics when I play wargames in order to see how doctrinal and equipment changes may have effected the outcome of operations. I always liked to make OOB and equipment changes in Grigsby's War in Russia to see how they might effect the outcome of the war (such as: Disband the WSS and LW field divisions, and funnel the quality troops to the Army; concentrate on tank rather than assault gun production, as Guderain recommended; start R+D on the ME 262 ASAP; start full production of the Panther ASAP; reorganize the general staff of the OKH and OWK to have unity of command in the war effort; cancell research on costly projects like the Elephant; keep the panzer divisions in the panzer korps throughout the war (in reality some panzer corps were in name only), etc, etc. If I played WIR as a historical purist, then why play at all? To see how long you can hold off the hoardes? The war is certainly lost without "what ifs."

My intent in CM was to see how they employment of particular weapon systems would have changed doctrine. I have tried several different Ad Hoc German combined arms organizations in CM based around a Panther Company KG (in order to see what combination would have been the most effective). I always give the AI a realistic and combat capable force in order to test my theories. For example: I have tried several different options for reconnaissance: armored cars, sharpshooters in Kubelwagens, or infantry in halftracks (or a combination of the above). I have tried different weapon systems in the direct support role (Stuh 42, StG III, Hummel, etc), however I was curious to see how effective the Grille or the Brumbar really were. I try to use my Panthers as they were intended: to kil other tanks, and I have scrapped the accompanying halftracks in favor of having a pioneer squad ride on each Panther. Is it realistic? No, certainly not. However I am aware of that from the beginning.

In another example, an army general recently used Steel Panthers III to test the XXI TO&E change to 3 company tank battalions (vs. a generic OPFOR). Was it realistic? No, but it may have answered some questions that he may have had. Some people prefer to fight battles as they actually happened down to the last detail, while other people prefer to view the hypothetical. (i.e.: was the King Tiger really invincible? That's what's nice about CM, you can attempt to find out for yourself. Use it the wrong way and without support, and your "Companie" of PzKpw VIbs will end up in flames as quickly as a Companie of PzKpw IILs...almost as quickly(I don't want to start another argument on that, so don't take me literally).

I think some people are quick to judge before finding out the reasoning behind another's idea or suggestion. Any and all of my comments were intended in a constructive manner, they were not intended to slight the game in any way (as I stated before). I'll leave off with a pertinent quote from another contributor:

"I like this game a lot, it's quality stuff and the developers should be praised to high heavens, but I am disappointed with the overall caliber (call it the character) of people who frequent this site and actually play CMBO--I speak to the collective here, not every individual, many of whom I have not corresponded with. In the past my experience has been that wargamers conduct themselves in a more mature manner than, say, sports simulationists, but that has not been the case here. This is a knowledgeable crowd in some respects--that is to say, there are some people around here who have knowledge, though plenty who apparently know nothing useful at all, too--but again, what good is that when all it leads to are hurt feelings due to lack of overall intellectual balance? The answer to that one: very little."

[Guest Germanboy]

Oak, I appreciate all that, and I did not take your request as something akin to a request for Sudden Strike style rocket tanks, but I guess we can both see where all this came from. Who was the original poster of that message? I seem to remember it somehow, but forgot who it was.

I think one thing you should be able to find here is a good appreciation for learning and willingness to learn, and a couple of easily ruffled egos. The former is what keeps me here, the latter has not been bad enough to drive me off. But in the end that comes down to one's personal preferences.

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

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 11-14-2000).]

[Bastables]

Slighting the game has nothing to do with this. As Germanboy has stated this is about the construction of your request and its lack of historical content. You want those veh provide the proof of their extensive use in the western front, post Overlord. The 4 veh in the topic are a pretty poor selection, the Grille siG 33 is a another matter of course but of course you imply that everyone should has some form of ESP to note the thinking inherent in your and I presume everyone else statements.

The Jadgtiger and Jadgpanther were involved in a great deal more combat in the western front than the Brumbar, which as I have indicated only 27 may have seen combat and these only during 2 specifec operations, the defence of the Rhine and the operation Watch on the Rhine at 10 and 17 veh respectivly (1996 Panzertruppen Vol II Jentz). As Germanboy has stated pure numbers are not the only variable. Panzer Lehr had 26 (Pumas) on hand during the Normandy battles ('La Panzer Lehr Division', J-C Perrigault) I think 2nd Pz held the another 26(Pumas).

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 11-15-2000).]

[Guest AbnAirCav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why do some people have to be sarcastic and down right rude because someone asked about a few vehicles that they would like to see included?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Immaturity, IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you get so easily offended, all I can recommend is that you try and work on developing a historical case for the inclusion of rare vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent recommendation, IMHO. While I can understand the desire to try out the really speculative "what if?" scenarios, looks like most folks are concerned about devoting resources away from more historical endeavors. FWIW, I can sympathize with the frustration since I'd prefer to have everybody working on CM2 rather than TCP/IP ...

[PzKpfw 1]

For God's sake ppl dont get Bastables worked up again over the 234 etc .

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

For God's sake ppl dont get Bastables worked up again over the 234 etc .

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go away John, we are discussing serious issues like the Sturmtiger here - none of that KWK 36L56 or whatever mumbojumbo of yours

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

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 11-14-2000).]

[The Oak]

Why do I have to prove anything? As I said before, it was simply a request/preference. If the development team has no time to spend on making additional vehicles, fine, I can live with that. If it's a question of money, I would happily pay an additional $10-$30 for a "mission pack" for CM. I definitely agree that CM2 is the priority at this point, as I'm much looking forward to pitting my Panthers against T-34's(and maybe the occasional Stalin?....or do I have to prove the use of the JS series as well)? I logged onto this forum to share ideas, not to argue endlessly about favorite vehicles. I guess some people must be pretty upset that SPWAW included all the aforementioned vehicles, and in addition they even included the Panther G with and without night vision.....what heresy!

[Snake Eyes]

I would like to thank von Lucke for sharing the reference of a battle in which Sturmmörser participated. I would also like to thank Bastables for emailing to me a CM thread reference concerning the Sturmmörser. The thread also included a link to a very good web page on Sturmmörser details http://members.aol.com/sturmpnzr/sturmi.html .

These actions exemplify the best of this forum. Too often I see discussions like this turn into battles based on ego. We all have our opinions concerning what should and should not be included in CM. We also have differing priorities concerning how the work should progress. There is plenty of room to discuss these topics with respect and politeness. The fact that this topic may have been seen before by some shouldn't preclude its repeated presentation. There are many new members to the forum that did not have the chance to participate in past threads. If veteran members find discussions such as this one to be repetitious and boring, then don't participate. Skip the thread and move on to another.

It amazes me that BTS is willing to provide this forum in the first place. And then for them to closely follow the multitude of postings surprises me even more. It also indicates their willingness to listen to CM gamers and allow them, in some degree, to participate in the development of CM. We have been given this opportunity and we should continue to use it for the betterment of the CM system.

When I see the future CM I envision an entire series of games or modules being developed over the coming years. The fact that some vehicles were left out of CMBO does not mean that they can not or will not be included in future CM releases. The inclusion of a few rare vehicles with each release seems a reasonable request. Its just a matter of which vehicles and which release.

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

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Oak:

Why do I have to prove anything? As I said before, it was simply a request/preference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you don't have anything but your personal preference just say so and I am sure your request will then be considered on its merits. That is different than saying 'they were not all that common' though. Which implies that they were around in some numbers.

Nothing wrong with that, but I think others should than be allowed to state their personal preference as well, and to provide some reason for it. It's an open marketplace for ideas.

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

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 11-14-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Go away John, we are discussing serious issues like the Sturmtiger here - none of that KWK 36L56 or whatever mumbojumbo of yours

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Duck's & scampers back to the cesspool of the KwK.36 thread ......

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Duck's & scampers back to the cesspool of the KwK.36 thread ......

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, any more thread pollution by you, and I have to call in the moderators to deal with this Grog leakage. They have your number!

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

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 11-14-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

Oak, my post, though containing sarcasm, was absolutely serious. BTS is four guys, not a large development or production company. I agree with you on the subject of willingness to pay good money for an add-on to CM but it is a matter of capability, not willingness. BTS cannot work on an add-on and CM2 at the same time. If they have decided that CM2 is what they will expend effort toward than the only way they could create an add-on to CM is via a third-party, much like how Relic went to Barking Dog for Homeworld:Cataclysm. BTS is not amenable to this solution, as there is a significant risk to the historical accuracy of add-on units. Unless and until these real-world, business problems can be solved, any add-ons to CM will be nothing more than idle talk.

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

Meeks is correct.

-Steve, of Big Time Software, creator of Combat Mission, Vicar of Peng on Earth.

[The Oak]

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

Well if you don't have anything but your personal preference just say so and I am sure your request will then be considered on its merits. That is different than saying 'they were not all that common though. Which implies that they were around in some numbers.

Nothing wrong with that, but I think others should than be allowed to state their personal preference as well, and to provide some reason for it. It's an open marketplace for ideas.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. When I said: "Doesn't the customer come first in the business world?" I didn't mean it in a bad way. I'm only one voice among many, and BTS has to go with what will please the majority of its market. If the majority of customers don't want to see the vehicles I requested, or if there are higher priorities like the M16 ADA, I can understand that. Unfortunately, I was away for an Army school the last few months, and I didn't have time to devote to CM as well as this forum. As a result I did not have a chance to read previous posts relating to the same subject.

My interest in "testing" the viability of AFVs like the Sturmtiger and Brumbar stems from a game where I came under fire by a AVRE. I had several infantry squads and a panzer schreck defending a 2 story building overlooking a major avenue of approach. They were accomplishing their economy of force mission until the Brits rolled up the AVRE. It was supported by Shermans, Fireflys, and ample infantry. A round or two and the whole building came down, along with the right flank of my defense (which they soon exploited). In previous games I always used the Stuh 42 as a direct support weapon for my infantry, however I was soon curious as to how effective these other systems might have been if actually deployed in sufficient numbers. What if the Brumbar had been produced in greater numbers and assigned as direct support to every Panzer Gren BN? I think vehicles like the Brumbar and Sturmtiger have an intimidating reputation due to their scarcity as well as their firepower/protection. Maybe that reputation would have been tarnished if they were put to the test in greater numbers. Perhaps we'd find out that they really weren't such great vehicles after all. Look how poorly the Elephant fared at Kursk without MGs, and once it was stripped of its accompanying infantry. That's what makes the game so enjoyable: answering all the questions that you have been ruminating over for years. None of us fought in WW2 (I hope), so all of our knowledge comes from books and stories from veterans. CM is of course not even close to actually being in a WW2 battle, but its the closest thing to it at present. If it were ultra realistic, perhaps most people wouldn't play anymore (You don't hear the crew screaming when the tank goes up in flames. I think most WW2 veterans would shudder to think someone would actually want to be there. I saw a WW2 Panzer veteran crying on a documentary program, saying "he saw things so horrible that he hopes no one ever has to see again.") I never forget the sacrifice of the veterans on both sides every time a Panther or Sherman goes up in flames, or every time an infantry squads comes under fire by MGs from 5 different directions. That really happened to real people, and I have the utmost respect for veterans on both sides. I once had to assign a suicide mission to a PaK 40 crew to delay an allied advance, and in the back of my head I had to ask myself "could you really do that?" How would I feel if I was one of the PaK 40 crew? It's easy to send men to their deaths when they are only pixels. Anyways, I'm diverging here...I only wanted to point out that some people are interested in answering questions for themselves and exploring alternate history. We all come from different backgrounds and have different beliefs, however we should at least have respect for each other's opinions.

[The Oak]

And lastly....rather that excoriating me, why don't contributors to this thread state what vehicles they would like to see? I know the M16 is one, but what else? (No, I don't want to hear about the bakery units again). I'm no expert on allied vehicles, and I would be interested to hear everyone's opinion on other vehicles. No one here is omnicient, and everyone's belief counts for something. I realize the BTS staff is hard pressed, but it doesn't hurt to have a "wish list." I may have missed a previous post on this same subject, so please forgive my interest.