Combat Mission/Close combat first impressions

[The Commissar]

Howard,

Let me start off by saying that I too, am a long time CC and other RTS game fan. Well, by "other RTS" I mean Myth and Shogun, which IMHO are half a million times as intelligent as AoK or its predecessor. That's a topic for another forum however, so I'll get to my point:

In RTS, the winner is ultimately who clicks the fastest. It doesn't matter how good of a grasp you have on the strategic or tactical situation if your opponent is able to make all his troops run circles around you by clicking 2000+ times a minute. Is it really fair for someone who cannot do this? No.

Now, let's look at the point you brought up: It was possible in AoE and AoK and they sold kagillions of copies.

True. Then again, Howard, AoE is not even half as complexed as CM. In AoE, you select your big horde of soldiers, and you send them at the enemy. Whoever has a bigger horde, wins! Believe me, I know, because I used to play AoE about 3 years back.

Now, in CM on the other hand, not only must you think about the best positions to move your men to, but also about covering fire for your men, and if your men will be in danger in those positions. Only then, can you start moving them. Even this is slow however. You must right click on a squad, select the option, and then drag a line to your desired location.

In real life, all you would have to do is Radio the Platoon leader and yell

"Squad #1 to Hill 213!"

From there on, the Platoon Leader would be earning his pay by positioning his men accordingly.

CC accomplished this, but as it was pointed out to you already by many others, CM not only had much smaller scale battles, but also it's physics and AI were not to par with those of CM.

So you are given a choice Howard:

1) You sacrifice depth, intelligence, and planning for large scale rea time.

2) You only play out small scale combats with only a platoon or two as in CC.

3) You wait 5 years until computers become powerful enough to process all this in real time, and act as your subordinates of your force, leaving you largely out of the action.

As you can see, a combination is simply not possible.

I used to despise turn based games, but when I played CM, all that changed. Here's hoping you end up feeling the same way about this wonderful game.

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

...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Quango]

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

Yes, but that's not all: If CM2 does not have a flight simulator included along with Roger Wilco to allow conversations with the tower and between planes, they will lose a lot of sales, and I bet someone else (probbly Microsoft will do it!

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-18-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[sigh] look I was trying to make reasonable, clear and logical points. This sort of tosh isn't clever..

[Daveman]

Jeez... I think the only way this topic could be flammable is if you threw in PC vs. Mac and Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer

Seriously though, here are my reactions to a few of your comments:

Quango - "One of the features of close combat, and of AoE is that it takes a skilled player to be able to manage a whole company of troops."

Skilled at what? Take two players of equal tactical knowledge, sit them in front of a RTS and the one who can manage the interface better and faster will usually win. Look at the "Reaver Drop" from Starcraft and you'll see what I mean. Anyone can build to a point where they can do this, but to do so successfully involves "twitch" skills... rapidly switching between Shuttle and Reaver, issuing commands quickly and accurately, etc. RTS have made this their focus, and that's fine. Many wargamers want a game where tactical knowledege (and a little luck) alone will win the day.

Quango - "I often used to play Age of Empires 1 & 2, on the net against four or five opponents, on giant map settings. You can have anything upto 100 mobile units plus buildings, etc. to organise, control, etc."

But just how much are you controlling? You click-drag around several units and simply tell them to move here, or attack there. Formations are involved to some degree in AoE but the computer handles most of that for you.

Compare that to CM... you want units to move, but not just "over there". You want them to move to that crest or treeline, you want them to run so far, then crawl and hide. You want tanks to move here, and rotate just so much in this direction to keep your flanks covered. You want this tank to fire at the infantry... with the main gun or not? Button up this tank, but not that one. Shift fire from that mortar, split that squad into two...

You might be able to control a handful of units with that much detail in a real-time setting, as I gather CC does (only played it a little) but not in larger CM battles.

Quango - "Imagine if AoE was turn based!! It would have remained a niche product.. "

Hmmm... a turn based AoE? Can you say Civilization? I wouldn't exactly call that a niche product.

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

"You know our standing orders. Out of ammo become a bunker, out of commission become a pillbox, out of time... become heroes." - The Beast

[Guest KwazyDog]

I could counter that argument with the fact that CM uses degrees, mm's, angles, shell velocity, spin and about 2 dozen other fators in its armoured combat as opposed to CC's side armour = 38 and shell penetration = 41 so tank is dead calculations so thus it is a better simulation of reality, but really tis not worth it, hehe. CC was fun yes (and dont be fooled into thinking those individual soldiers are more detailed than those in CM btw, there is a lot of abstraction involved with them) but CM is more realistic and thus for me more fun, which ever you enjoy more is not a problem and is great for you

I will agree to disagree, I think that is best. Time for me to lave this conversation. Im still glad your enjoy CM though Howard.

PS : Great points Commissar btw, I think youve summed it all up well.....

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 08-18-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

Quango -

As another person who's played both CC and CM and enjoyed both, I can see where you're coming from, but your ideas wouldn't work for CM.

I'm not sure if anyone here can convince you, so I'll tell ya what. Right now, I'm drafting an email to Keith Zabaloui(sp?) at Atomic. In brief, I'll ask him two questions.

1) Do you intend to make, in the near future (say, within two years) a Close Combat game which is 3d, continuous time, and can support battles up to brigade size?

2) If the answer to number 1 is yes, will you represent infantry squads in the way that CC currently does; i.e., with each man being displayed on screen?

I personally don't expect an answer, but if I do get one, I'll post it here.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

[sigh] look I was trying to make reasonable, clear and logical points. This sort of tosh isn't clever..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Howard, I think Henri was just having a bit of innocent fun here. Have a look at the 'Mr.Peng, I take our challenge public' thread if you want to see the light, err, dark side of this board. Or do a search for 'hamsters' or any other rodent you can think of.

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

Andreas

[David Aitken]

Quango wrote:

> Depends on whether you are concentrating on modelling realistically or just representing units as 'tokens' but in 3D. I think we'll all have to differ on this one.

Well, you represent yourself. Everyone else represents the long-standing community of Combat Mission fans who understand the (incredibly extensive and exhaustive) thinking behind the game, and really respect the way BTS have chosen to do things.

> [sigh] look I was trying to make reasonable, clear and logical points. This sort of tosh isn't clever..

"Naa naa naa, Atomic's gonna put BTS out of business" doesn't strike me as reasonable.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[gashford]

Hello and welcome to the board.

I have all four of the Close Combat games and have thoroughly enjoyed each one, played them to death and look forward to the release of CC5 Omaha Beach towards the end of the year.

I think though that something has gone wrong somewhere. CM and CC while similar games - WW2 tactical wargames - are worlds apart in what lies underneath them.

CC made huge leaps in the AI with the panic of men being shown on the RTS frontend quite well, you could flank and actually gain a benefit from suppresive fire etc... however it is the engine underneath CM which make them very different games aimed (it would seem) at very differing markets.

I do not claim to be an expert, I have been truly amazed at some of the answers to technical questions from the people on this board, it is my opinion that many history teachers and WW2 'experts' would do well to lurk on this board (any out there?).

I think both are great games, however I think that the technical depth of CM will make it a significantly different game with different appeals for sometime.

As has been said before though, I imagine by CM5 we will look back nostalically at CM and give a little chuckle at the game.

In the future as processors get faster, programming becomes better etc,... I shoudl imagine the line between CC and CM will blur. Personally I would like an RTS in 3d which will allow me to stop game play at any time and reissue orders, leaving everyone to get on with it unti I pause the game again.

Hence I love bith CC and CM games because both have a bit of each.

[The Commissar]

Fellows, fellows, let's not resort to childish "he started it!" posts! Our friend Mr. Howard was a bit confused why CM was not done the way CC was.

I will have to admit that being a long time CC fan myself, at first I too asked myself the same questions Mr. Howard did. Then, I downloaded the demo, read the FAQ and studied this fine example of a mssg. board to come to the conclusion it wasn't possible.

If Mr. Howard has not done so yet, give him the chance to do so. Don't mock or insult him, there's no need for it. If he does proper research, and still maintains his stance, then he does not properly understand what is involved in making playable and realistic war games. In this worst case scenario, we should forget him and simply not post in responce to this topic.

Now, I am sure it has not come to this and will not come to this. I suggest Mr. Howard does research and understands our posts. Simplicity in itself, eh?

Just remeber, cussing and acting like 5 year olds in a sandbox gets you no where, especially considering most of you are more then 4 times that age.

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

...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[howardb]

Too many posts didn't read all but I got a quick take on the Real time vs turn based issue. Considering the huge scope of CM real time play couldn't be manageable until you could tell the AI "I want Company X, XX and XXX to take out Hill 265 with support from ..." well you know what I mean

[Guest Rollstoy]

I think a CM-like game could work in Real Time, BUT only with a LIMITED number of units and a LIMITED map size.

The way CM is now, there are practically no limits to either of the above. This is certainly a good thing.

If you wanted to go real-time at all cost, you would have to make sacrifices either at the scale of the maps or the number of the units. Most people do not want to do this.

Another technical remark: AoE's 3D graphic is ISOMETRIC, isn't it?! This is certainly not real 3D a la CM, because you do have a very limited number of degrees of freedom, basically the same as in a 2D game! This means less buttons to press.

Furthermore, these kind of RTS games do not allow unit interaction 'beyond visual range', that is, you do not have to judge LOS over several screens. This is difficult in open terrain in CC, too. No problem with the first person view of CM.

You will see the same phenomenom in most true 3D RTS games. Units move up to each other until they almost touch each other and then they shoots rockets! This turns me off completely. I do not expect 23rd century battle mechs to fight 'close combat'.

So, decide:

1) I want real 3D, not isometric or 2D!

2) I want a lot of units and large maps!

3) I want realistic, not simplified game play!

4) I want real time!

Your choices:

-1-2-3-4-

_O___O_O_: Simulation

___o_o_O_: Close Combat

___O___O_: AoE, C&C

_O_o___O_: Ground Control? Shogun?

_O_O_O___: Combat Mission

_O_O_O_O_: DOES NOT EXIST and probably will never exist.

You see, you have a lot of choices, but you cannot have everything at once!

Buy them all, is my advice!

Regards, Thomm

[This message has been edited by Rollstoy (edited 08-18-2000).]

[Quango]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> RTS, the winner is ultimately who clicks the fastest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True in AoE/AoK. Not true in CC, for example.I used AoE to illustrate it is possible to have a large & complex game work in real time.

Rush forward in CC and you end up dead, quick.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In AoE, you select your big horde of soldiers, and you send them at the enemy. Whoever has a bigger horde, wins! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but see previous point about use of aoe as illustration.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, in CM on the other hand, .. (strategy stuff etc.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, appreciated. CC is very similar to CM in that context.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In real life, all you would have to do is Radio the Platoon leader and yell

"Squad #1 to Hill 213!"

From there on, the Platoon Leader would be earning his pay by positioning his men accordingly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes - CC does this quite well. For example you can tell a squad to move from A to B in a straight line. They will use the best route based on cover. The unit behaviour modelling is more complex that CM I think. The AI in CC definitely isn't - I can usually beat the computer every time. Haven't played CM enough to judge.

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

So you are given a choice Howard:

1) You sacrifice depth, intelligence, and planning for large scale rea time.

2) You only play out small scale combats with only a platoon or two as in CC.

3) You wait 5 years until computers become powerful enough to process all this in real time, and act as your subordinates of your force, leaving you largely out of the action.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see that the wargamers rule here I guess CM is going to remain what it is, and concentrate on strategy and turns.

I completely accept the argument that you can't simulate a big map in realtime because of control / detail problems. But my issue with turn-based method is it really sanitises and kills the impact.

For example I've had situations in CC where the enemy surprised me with a tank attacking my forces. In real life the commander would be in a mad scramble or even panic to tell his units to withdraw, move a reserve tank or AT team up to counter. You get a real adrenaline rush trying to think tactically in real time.

In the CC FAQ there is even a question: "Why didn't you make it turn based?". Their answer - because it killed the action stone dead!

What amused me is that this problem becomes a bit redundant if you think in terms of multiplayer gaming. Three or four players controlling such a large force, would be quite possible in real-time play.

It is interesting to note that it took me about seven or eight hours last night to play the four scenarios in the demo (both sides). Given they are 60secs x 40 and 60x35 in reality I was actually 'fighting' for only about two and a half hours. I bet the real WW2 commanders would have thought such 'thinking time' a real luxury!

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

Howard

[Quango]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Naa naa naa, Atomic's gonna put BTS out of business" doesn't strike me as reasonable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what you read. I said that it would remain a niche product. If the developers don't want success/money/etc. then fine, I won't try to convert them, or anyone here. I won't buy shares in them either though

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

Howard

[Fred]

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

That's what you read. I said that it would remain a niche product. If the developers don't want success/money/etc. then fine, I won't try to convert them, or anyone here. I won't buy shares in them either though

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, read some of the reviews in online gaming mags if you don't believe the people that are here for a long time , and then talk about "no success"...

Fred

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

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

[Chupacabra]

Quango -

I think folks have been very patient here, and I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm beginning to be annoyed.

This isn't a board for CC. BTS have stated, over and over, that they're not looking to make a CC-type game. Their design decisions were well-reasoned, and for the most part well-implemented.

There's no reason that you have to like CM. There are plenty of games which have been nearly universally loved which I just couldn't get into. I'm sure everyone's had the same experience. But, IMHO, to come to a CM forum and to keep telling us why CC is better than CM is a poor way to spend your time. You're not likely to make any converts here. It's my impression that the vast majority of folks here have played both games, and have chosen CM for a reason. If you choose CC over CM, that's your business. By all means, play whichever game you find more fun. But please accept that there are reasons behind CM's design, and that design is why many of us prefer CM over CC.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Quango]

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

Hello and welcome to the board.

I do not claim to be an expert, I have been truly amazed at some of the answers to technical questions from the people on this board, it is my opinion that many history teachers and WW2 'experts' would do well to lurk on this board (any out there?).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for a very lucid reply! There are some CC boards where such discussions have taken place. I'm not quite that level of an enthusiast, I tend to want to know what works and what doesn't

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

Personally I would like an RTS in 3d which will allow me to stop game play at any time and reissue orders, leaving everyone to get on with it unti I pause the game again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cheer! I tried to make the point earlier that I'd like the option of being able to do things.

Then the wargamer high-priests and realtime heretics can both live peacefully together!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hence I love bith CC and CM games because both have a bit of each.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imagine the best of both in one package?

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

Howard

[deanco]

I gotta jump in here real quick..

quango, you said :

Imagine if AoE was turn based!!

Actually it is, or could be. There was a Pause button in AoE, and I used it extensively at the beginning. I finally stopped though, because it was tucked away somewhere in the interface, and you could tell the developers didn't want you using it that much. That was a design decision on their part. CM is a good game because the game is, 'you can give orders every 60 seconds', period. It's a conceptual thing, a command decision on the developers part. If it was a wrong decision I don't think we'd all be here. Anyway, give this wego thing a good try before making any pronouncements. Once you understand the rationale behind it, I think you'll find that it makes for a very enjoyable gaming experience.

DeanCo--

[David Aitken]

Quango wrote:

> For example I've had situations in CC where the enemy surprised me with a tank attacking my forces. In real life the commander would be in a mad scramble or even panic to tell his units to withdraw, move a reserve tank or AT team up to counter.

Spoken like a true action gamer. In real life the commander would order his men to close-assault the tank, and it would be toast.

> In the CC FAQ there is even a question: "Why didn't you make it turn based?". Their answer - because it killed the action stone dead!

Atomic want action. BTS want realism.

> It is interesting to note that it took me about seven or eight hours last night to play the four scenarios in the demo (both sides). Given they are 60secs x 40 and 60x35 in reality I was actually 'fighting' for only about two and a half hours. I bet the real WW2 commanders would have thought such 'thinking time' a real luxury!

As other people have already said, you are thinking for all of your Company and Platoon leaders, so you need extra time to do this.

> That's what you read. I said that it would remain a niche product. If the developers don't want success/money/etc. then fine, I won't try to convert them, or anyone here. I won't buy shares in them either though

Your self-assured attitude doesn't cut much ice. BTS have achieved considerable success by doing things differently.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Maximus]

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

(A) Is that an official position from the developers? If so I would expect Close combat to do this in the near future. Then they will have the market. Can't see the logic really. These games are trying to simulate reality. You don't stop battles every 60 seconds to have a think, look at the options, etc. etc. Maybe Atomic can buy out Battlefront if that is the case..!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Atomic buy out BTS??? Don't make me laugh!!! The fact is that these two guys left the big companies to make a better game than the big companies ever could. Don't believe me?? Look at the great praise that CM is getting on all of the Computer Gaming sites.

The fact is that all RTS games all boil down to CLICK-FESTS. How can one possibly employ sound tactics and strategy with that method. Especially with some of the HUGE battles that CM can create. Especially with the 3D environment. We're not talking about the small 2D maps within the CC series, we're talking about huge hilly terrain with many, many terrain heights with a wide variety of LOS problems.

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

Be sure and check out my texture mods on CMHQ.

Dave "Ol' Blood & Maximus Butticus" Molinarolo

[duck]

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

Ahem. Close Combat is a strategy game, not an 'action' game. I assume you have actually played it? It does almost all of the same modelling of weapons, armour, etc. that CM does. It's just 2D and real time.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.. I have played all 4 CC games because they were decent wargames and no alternative existed. I tired of their simplicity tho.

And CC does NOT model weapons just as CM.. Weapons in CC are assumed to have equal firepower values at all ranges unlike CM which has firepower reduced by range to account for things such as missle velocity, aiming, flight paths of each subsequent shot, etc. CC assumes that missles never lose energy and that every shot in a burst will travel the same path no matter what distance when longer range should lead to more scatter. But this is just ONE of MANY simplifications that action games such as CC need to make in order to make realtime doable.

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

As to the point about making large numbers of decisions quickly and implementing those orders, that doesn't happen in real life either, which is the point I was making.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably every person on this board disagrees with this statement. If a commander tells a battalion to take a hill, he does not have to tell each individual unit to start moving forward, fire when appropriate, stop moving if encounter resistance, etc. etc. The UNIT commanders take over the micromanagement. Unlike realtime where you have to click on every unit and tell them what do to.

Also, as people have already pointed out, the shear size of some of the CM battles would mean that by the time you are done clicking through and issuing orders to HALF of the units on the board, you already would have to change those orders and would never get around to controlling the rest of your troops. Trust me. Some of these battles include close to 30+ individual units that need commands and orders. No way you would be able to do that in real time. And we havent even started talking about map size yet.

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

I look forward to the day when someone else does create a Close Combat-in-3D or a Combat-Mission-in-realtime. It will make those developers rich!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure you are very right. But it won't be this series and it won't be these fans buying those games. We are looking for depth and complexity in our wargames, something that realtime cannot provide.

Let me ask you, have you ever heard of a board game called Advanced Squad Leader? Why don't you go find it and look through the instruction manual. It will make you cry with fear when you see how complex the manual is. The people that enjoy those games are the same types who play CM.. and will never play Red Alert.. errr.. i mean Warcraft.. errrr.. sorry.. Close Combat. (its all the same)

Duck

[Dienekes]

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

So I see I notice that some don't take the time to read my points and just jump in to make that 'too complex' argument. Imagine if AoE was turn based!! It would have remained a niche product.. which is what I suspect CM will probably be. Still, as I've said in other posts, is BF don't do it, someone else will!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM is a niche product. A game written for serious wargamers by serious wargamers. It is the brilliant programming of Charles and Steve that makes CM also very playable by anyone (a nice side effect). Consoles like Playstation 2 and X-Box are making many game developers forget about the PC and it will be niche products like CM that will be left to play on the PC. I have always prefered PC games for their depth and intelligence over consoles. To me console games vs PC games are like comparing the movie End of Days to the Exorcist. Shallow in comparison. CC3D by the way will make an excellent X-Box game. Microsoft is probably already trying to buy Atomic.

[Steve Clark]

Oh boy, the classic TBS vs RTS debate. I like the analogies that The Commissar posted. I had been quite involved in the debate in the Civilization forums where some folks want to make Civ III a RTS game. I think most of the responses here are right-on in saying that there is a trade-off; either you have the breadth (large isometric map, large units of sprites, very little attributes) or depth (smaller 3D maps, fewer units of 3D, complex set of attributes). This was the essense of the Civ3 TBS/RTS debates.

CM is a wargame, not a RTS or even a TBS game. Comparing CC to CM is like comparing Sid Meier's Gettysburg to Talonsoft's Battleground:Gettysburg. Apples and Oranges.

Quang mentions actions in Real Time. I will adamantly say that such actions is no more realistic than turn-based. Let's use building a house as an example. With TBS, you can think and plan about what to build, where to build and how to build before actually doing it (like real life, eh?). But when you do commit the action, the house automatically appears. With RTS, you just click and watch it be built in seconds. Click again and watch another one be built in seconds. I don't buy the arguements that RTS is 'more realistic'. Both models are an abstraction where neither one is realistic.

[chrisl]

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

It is interesting to note that it took me about seven or eight hours last night to play the four scenarios in the demo (both sides). Given they are 60secs x 40 and 60x35 in reality I was actually 'fighting' for only about two and a half hours. I bet the real WW2 commanders would have thought such 'thinking time' a real luxury!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was addressed a little in another post, but to be more quantitative:

You have to play the role of company commander and all the platoon leaders. IIRC,the demo scenarios all have 1 Company Commander and 3-4 platoon leaders. That's 4-5 guys thinking for 2.5 hours, which is 10-12.5 "command hours" for the wetware version of the force.

[MadDog0606]

Quango

Since you seem to have an idea of what you want in a tactical computer wargame why don't you do this:

1. Write down the specs for the game (program)

2. Find some like-minded people with the needed skills (business and computer related ) to make the game.

3. Find some money to make and publish the game.

4. If you outsell both CC and CM games then your idea of how a tactical wargame should be done was right and BTS and Atomic were wrong.

I'm getting real sick of this CC is better then CM and vis versa.

[This message has been edited by MadDog0606 (edited 08-18-2000).]

[Splinty]

Let's also remember that a platoon leader doesn't do things on his own either,he's got a plt. sergeant,three squad leaders (or more depending on what type of platoon he commands)six or more team ldrs.,and the iniative of all his troops to back him up.I think CM covers these things quite very well.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!