CM2 "BARBAROSSA."

[Fionn]

Gees Wendell,

You said I could respond either publicly or privately. Then when I respond publicly you tell me I shouldn't have?

Make up your mind and stick to it ok? I'm not going to play guessing games about what you mean when you tell me I can respond either privately or publicly.

You SPECIFICALLY make it clear that I can address the issues in private email if I wish. To me this makes it clear I can also address them publicly. ONE of the issues you raised was whether or not I was "out to get" TOAW ( my paraphrase).

Secondly, I didn't go public with the text of your email. I mentioned something we discussed in passing. Am I supposed to read minds and know that you don't want me referring to anything you mention in private email? No. You have GOT to tell me if something is not to be even referred to. I wouldn't quote verbatim but I personally see no problem in bringing pertinent information from private emails into a discussion.

Hell, I often mention various things people say to me in email on the forum when those things have bearing on the issue at hand.

Wendell, I'm not a mind-reader AND I've never come across ANYONE before who has made an issue of referencing an email to a relevant discussion. I think you're just a bit pissed off that I had some valid concerns and are looking to get back at me or something since I really can't see anything wrong with referencing an email and adding to discussion.

If everyone followed your compartmentalisation ethos it'd be virtually impossible to have a good open discussion on the net.

If there's no agenda here then all I can say is that you really should loosen up. This is meant to be a friendly sort of forum. I have no problem with people saying " You know, in an email Fionn told me about a time x or y happened." It's hardly betraying some deep confidence.. In the same way what you said was something which, obviously, a couple of other people were thinking so I just used your email to address this point here.

I think you're getting worked up over nothing to be honest and should examine your "secrecy" rules and loosen them up a bit.

[Fionn]

Oh, and for an alternative.. I'd keep an eye out on Combat Command 2. I've seen it and it looks interesting and correct.

[WendellM]

Gregory Deych wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Speaking of older documents, who exactly holds copyrights on things like that? Do you need to have permission to copy portions of OOBs and TO&Es, etc. etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My (less than certain) understanding is that, in the good ol' US of A, citizens have full rights to all unclassified government documents (since they've paid for them with taxes). The government printing office or retail printers can charge fees for the materials, printing costs, and any shipping, but the information itself is free. Witness the USMA atlases: http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/dhistorymaps/Atlas%20Page.htm

and the Handbook on German Military Forces (you'll need Adobe's free Acrobat Reader to read - http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html): http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=351, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=352, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=353.

While these are available as retail products, they are also free downloads in the US (I've heard some stories of non-US surfers having problems connecting, so your results may vary).

Wendell

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

[WendellM]

Fionn,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said I could respond either publicly or privately. Then when I respond publicly you tell me I shouldn't have?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, what I said was "If you'd prefer to address them in a provate [sic] email (which will *remain* private), please feel free." I never said "Oh, make the content of this email public if the mood strikes you - and be sure to misrepresent it" (which was my first reaction upon reading what you'd posted).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You SPECIFICALLY make it clear that I can address the issues in private email if I wish. To me this makes it clear I can also address them publicly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I can see where you could see that as implied, though it's not what I was going for. However, that's fair enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not a mind-reader AND I've never come across ANYONE before who has made an issue of referencing an email to a relevant discussion. I think you're just a bit pissed off that I had some valid concerns and are looking to get back at me or something since I really can't see anything wrong with referencing an email and adding to discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, I always welcome valid concerns. I went back and wrote a public apology once I saw how many issues you had with TOAW. Only when your "email" comment fully struck me, did I add my "P.S." And, I'm not "looking to get back at you". I felt that when you posted that my email "intimated [you were] singling out TOAW cause [you] felt it was some threat to CM" was a misrepresentation, and that, since I had made those remarks in what I considered a private email, you were presenting a slanted view of what I had actually written (I hope you'll see that I was actually being polite in my initial email). However, I now see why you could have considered them public OR private.

Anyway, this has blown up way beyond its original purpose (a discussion of an operational/strategic game worthy of CM). I'm willing to admit that my "sense of privacy violation" was a misunderstanding if you'll admit that your perception that I accused you of "singling out TOAW because you felt it was a threat to CM" was a misunderstanding. Both of these seem to be mistakes that I'd be more than glad to put behind us (too much "ink" has been spilled already).

I can't believe that a fine, computerized, tactical WW II game could be the (indirect) cause of this - it's kind of silly when you look at it, and I'm fully willing to admit that half of the silliness is my fault. I know that you're not a "jerk", Fionn, and, believe it or not, neither am I. I'm sorry that this incident happened.

So, friends? Or, at least, not adversaries?

Wendell

[John Erickson]

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

Thanks, John. I was looking through the CoW data in the "Century of Warfare Equipment List" file. Sorry if I picked the wrong gun (it's not my specialty). If you know more about the issue Fionn has brought up, please fill us in (especially if we/Fionn are talking about errors already fixed). To me, the current implementation of TOAW seems pretty good, but I'm not certain enough to defend it "to the last man" - just enough to say it's the best I know of.

Wendell<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wendell,

Your welcome. What Fionn is talking about is something that Norm Koger did in TOAW 1. Frankly Norm screwed the pooch, to put it not so politely, when it came to armor/anti-armor combat. Fionn is 100% correct. Norm way overweighted the rate of fire and number of units. My understanding of the algorithm was that all the attack values just got added up and compared to the defense values. Know there is obviously more to it than that but this was the basic problem. It meant that, in one well publicised scenario, 100 jeeps could beat a Tiger tank.

This was all changed in TOAW 2 when Norm switched the combat over to a new system in which every weapon "shoots" individually at a target. I prefer TOAW:CoW to TOAW 1 but to be honest most of these problems didn't bother me too much. My problems were in other areas.

I'd better make this clear. I have no direct knowledge of how Norm Koger programmed the combat algorithms used in any of his games. All of the above is what I picked up on the TS boards and usenet way back when.

All in all I like both games (CoW and CM) but my CoW cd hasn't seen the drive since CM showed up in the mailbox lo these many weeks ago.

John

[WendellM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fionn is 100% correct. Norm way overweighted the rate of fire and number of units. My understanding of the algorithm was that all the attack values just got added up and compared to the defense values.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm all-too familiar with that and the (in)famous Jeep vs. Tiger issue in the original version of TOAW. An unfortunate approach...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This was all changed in TOAW 2 when Norm switched the combat over to a new system in which every weapon "shoots" individually at a target. I prefer TOAW:CoW to TOAW 1 but to be honest most of these problems didn't bother me too much. My problems were in other areas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The new system is indeed much better (not perfect, but what is?).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All in all I like both games (CoW and CM) but my CoW cd hasn't seen the drive since CM showed up in the mailbox lo these many weeks ago. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto. Blowing up a single panzer in CM is remarkably more satisfying than blowing up a dozen in TOAW... Still, I know that the strategic/operational "jones" will one day reappear for me. CM will be on my hard drive seemingly forever, though...

Wendell

[Fionn]

Wendell,

Cool. Listen, as I said in my email to you. If I had thought for one second that what you had meant was that you didn't want me to even reference to the email then I wouldn't have ever referenced to it.

I get a lot of emails where people ask me not to mention what they say about forum members or PBEM opponents etc ( usually queries about cheating which would be "delicate" if publicly exposed ) and never reveal any of the specifics publicly. I honestly thought that you left it open for me to respond publicly or privately and that there was no bar on me mentioning anything.

On the other hand, I now understand that there was a little miscommunication there and what you meant wasn't what I understood so, I apologise for posting what I did ( so long as its understood I did so in the belief that such posting was AOK).

Anyways, I'm 100% ok with just saying, oops, we both misunderstood stuff and then got pissed off at eachother and just moving on and forgetting about this all.

So, friends.( at least until we meet on a virtual field of battle . Then it'll be enemies until I rout your forces off the field ).

[Fionn]

Wendell,

Funnily enough WiR is still being played even after I tossed my TOAW CD somewhere in disgust.

The classics never die

[WendellM]

Yes, War in Russia is a classic. I picked it up several years ago in SSI's Twenty Wargame Classics, and still play it from time to time. The interface is a bit rough (though up to DOS standards of the time), but it's still a very good game.

[Guest Rommel22]

If you want CM on a strategic level,

there was a game in develpment called "Road To Moscow" (RTM). www.wargamer.com/rtm

It looks awesome, covers all of eastern Europe and Russia, 41-45 even further if the war lasts that long. Kind like war in Russia, but better graphics and so on. Just visit the site and you'll see. Go to the screenshot menu and you'll see. The game was cancelled t bad. I reall wanted that game. Just check it out it's awesome. www.wargamer.com/rtm

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

Russian tactics as said by von Mellenthin "Bridge heads everywhere"

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22:

If you want CM on a strategic level,

there was a game in develpment called "Road To Moscow" (RTM).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I got a review copy of the Alpha or Beta and wrote a review of the game for Gamesdomain. It was in a rough state (pretty much unplayable) but very promising. Unfortunately I have not heard nor seen any concrete progress since that time.

Henri

[Guest Rommel22]

Oh damn lucky you. They said it was to be released sometime in 2000. But it doesn't look that way. I tink it's been canceled.

Oh that reminds me i can write to the Desktop General and ask him if he knows anyhting.

What do you mean it was almost un playeble???

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

Russian tactics as said by von Mellenthin "Bridge heads everywhere"

[Spook]

This topic kind of "ran away" since I last checked on it. But to iterate Fionn's suggestion, Wendell, I am also keeping a watch on "Combat Command 2" for operational-level play.

Here's a link at the Shrapnel Games site:

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cc2.htm

The planned game scale is company-level, 4-hour turns, and 0.5 km per hex. Projected release is October this year, along with some demo at the same time.

At present, I know very little about the actual mechanics to the CC2 system in terms of direct/indirect fire, attrition, supply, command/control, etc. But Shrapnel has its own forum to pose queries onto. It's probably soon time again for me to give Shrapnel's Richard Arneson a little "nudge" on providing some game info.

[Leclerc]

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

This topic kind of "ran away" since I last checked on it. But to iterate Fionn's suggestion, Wendell, I am also keeping a watch on "Combat Command 2" for operational-level play.

Here's a link at the Shrapnel Games site:

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cc2.htm

The planned game scale is company-level, 4-hour turns, and 0.5 km per hex. Projected release is October this year, along with some demo at the same time.

At present, I know very little about the actual mechanics to the CC2 system in terms of direct/indirect fire, attrition, supply, command/control, etc. But Shrapnel has its own forum to pose queries onto. It's probably soon time again for me to give Shrapnel's Richard Arneson a little "nudge" on providing some game info.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Currently playtesting it so I can't say much. Some points: game has a strong emphasis on Command and Control and national differences among other points. Rules are simple in appearence but IMHO very subtle. And a full scenario editor is featured.The turn scale is now 2 hours for day turns and 4 hours for night turns. Last don't give too much concern about current map and counter graphics, they will be improved in the future.

Ther's one sleeping public forum for CC2 in the Shrapnel site. Come and ask, you will certainly be replied.

[This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-29-2000).]

[Spook]

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

Ther's one sleeping public forum for CC2 in the Shrapnel site. Come and ask, you will certainly be replied.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I assemble my "list" of CC2 game issues, Leclerc, I will certainly do so. Thanks for your added comments.

(Just checked your profile---is that you, Laurent?)

[Leclerc]

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

(Just checked your profile---is that you, Laurent?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, participating in the other side of the wargaming revolution, the turn-based one.I tried to take a pseudo this time to see if I will be pleased to do so. And you, Ed ?

[This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-29-2000).]

[Spook]

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

Yes, participating in the other side of the wargaming revolution, the turn-based one.I tried to take a pseudo this time to see if I will be pleased to do so. And you, Ed, how well is Captain Kirk today ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same as before. She's got me completely under control