A BUNCH of answers to your questions!

[Jarmo]

It's probably far too late to mention anything like this in this thread, but hey, I'm slow.

It'd be good if there was in addition to normally selectable months, a "happy month".

You could select a battle date "happy month". Then you could choose any vehicle in game. Those rare oddities like IS3 (if it makes the cut), and those long since obsolete and disappeared creations like Panzer I.

I want to face late war monsters with early war obsolete designs.

Like Hotchkiss vs Super Pershing, to use CM1 as an example.

[Tero]

>Er...WHAAAAT???? :eek:

Ever seen footage of Soviet assualts where scores of infantry is running among the tanks ?

[Tero]

>It's from Monty Python & the Holy Grail.

It has been ages since I saw that last.

Anyway, how could he have widrawn from the battle in a condition like that AND have fought another day ?

I think the analogy with Robin Hood is more accurate anyway....

>(Looks like the AAR of my latest game, surprisingly.)

..... NOT ?

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Spook]

Originally posted by tero:

Here are some:

Are there any vehicles present in CM now that are listed as having a gyrostabilizer when in reality they never had one ?

Which ones?

How often did the Allied tanks in fact fire on the move and hit their target ? Is there a reload time penalty imposed for the vehicles equipped with the stabilizer to represent the actual operations of the stabilizer ?

And how significantly does the existing premise help the Allies? 1%? 15%? You have to delve into that (or get BTS to describe it here) in order to assess a charge of "play-balance fudging."

How accurately is the cross section targeting represented in the game now ? Was there really no difference between the optics of the Allied tanks and the German tanks ?

As REPEATEDLY described by the BTS guys, they weren't able (by CMBO's release time and the patching period) to define a CONSISTENT routine for assessing the benefit of German gun optics as compared to Allied optics, and how such optics would ultimately contribute to hit chance improvement for either side.

If a game mechanic can't be used consistently, then leave it out until it can. That's my guiding rule. With CMBB, maybe this will get in, and then onwards into the CM II engine.

Were the more common non-turreted German AFV's, ie. Stug and Marder, really as impotent against the Allied armour as they are represented now in the game ?

Relate to BTS in detail how you think the German NT AFV's are ahistorically "impotent" if you expect changes from BTS.

(The Stug gets penalized for not having a fast turret but not benefits for being lower and more easily concealeable.)

Is the Stug's size profile (in the unit info box) equivalent to a M4 Sherman or even a Pz IV?

That one I can not answer because there is no way for the player to turn the stabilizer off and see what happens. Perhaps some of the original playtesters can shed some light on that ?

Thereby, is there enough basis to assess the charge that BTS was attempting "play-balance" with the gyro aspect, if its relative benefit isn't quantified here?

Test records are one thing, combat reports another. How often have you seen a recount from an Allied tanker saying "we fired on the move and hit the tank and killed it with the first shot" ? The "partial benefit" the Allied armour gets for having been equipped with a stabilizer is just not historically accurate, when you take into account its succesful use has not been verified (to my knowledge) by any combat report source. All I have read it was disconnected so as not to make reloading more difficult.

Agreed that Aberdeen wasn't the ETO, and that many Allied crews wouldn't utilize this device. But how many did, vs. how many didn't? And for now, it's still just speculation as to how much benefit that gyros are giving to various Allied tanks.

You can argue in the strictest sense that the existing CM circumstance with the gyros & optics is not "historically accurate." BUT----you next have to take the argument in both cases to show as to how relatively INCONSISTENT these elements are (among others), such as to prove that BTS was attempting play-balance fudging in a quantitative way.

If you were to show that the noted game elements, in application, are off by 1-2% in historical accuracy, then you have a hard case to make about contrived play-balance tilt by BTS. If you show 10-20% (by example) or more, then you would have more of a case.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

You have to define the term "lose". What did we lose ? The war, yes. But we did not surrender unconditionally. We were able to fight the mighty Red Army into a standstill twice. After both engagements our army was out of breath but it was still standing. The Soviets had to accept a negotiated settlement twice. The task our army had was to buy time for the politicians and diplomats. And our army did succeed in that task.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tero, see this makes it look as if Finland made peace on her own terms or graciously decided to surrender rather then inflict any more damage on the Soviets, this is one of the attitudes i refer to.

Finland surrendered in both cases because it's leaders knew Finland would be crushed if they didn't plain & simple & the Soviet's got what they wanted from the surrrender, Finland out of the war & the Winter War gains etc.

Regards, John Waters

[Scooter]

I'm not totally up on who is who on this message board and my questions are genuine. They're not meant to get anyone all riled up. I'd just like to know something here.

This thread is supposed to present answers to questions about the developement of CM2. Steve has been kindly giving many answers and has since bowed out from giving any more. I know Charles , MadMatt, & Kwazydog can give some answers too, yet I don't see many posts from them.

Is there anyone else here in this message thread that is speaking authoritatively? Are members of the beta-team speaking here? Who does know what is going on with CM2 outside the four that I've already mentioned? Whose "answers" here should we trust or even bother reading?

I ask these questions because I love CM and I'm curious about CM2. Thanks very much.

[Enoch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ADDENDUM: the Finnish mobilization system was regional so the units were

formed from men living in the same district. That means that they were bonded with bonds stronger than those of shared cause and the same uniform. That was an asset, not a liability (unlike they great armies had

thought after their experiences during WWI when they broke up the buddy-regiments).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The german mobilization system was essentially the same as this until they ran into manpower problem in 1944 or so. Units were raised from the same geographic area. The training of replacements also took place on a regional basis. Once Germany started to experience manpower shortages they chnaged this policy. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

I want to face late war monsters with early war obsolete designs.

Like Hotchkiss vs Super Pershing, to use CM1 as an example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jarmo... you're weird! :eek: What would be the point?

Regards

Jim R.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The funny thing about Tero's belief that the German armor get's short changed in CMBO is that he is right, but his reasons are almost completely wrong

All vehicles in CM seem to be unrealisticly good at hitting stuff while moving, German included. Hard to prove, but that is the impression one gets sometimes.

The difference in optics did not make much difference at less than 800m. At 300m or less the Germans may have even been at a slight disadvantage.

There is nothing wrong with the Stug or the Marder. They will kill almost anything they hit and anything that hits them will kill them, just like in real life. The Stug's profile rating is already quite low.

The big advantage German tanks had in real life that they do not in CM was SMOKELESS POWDER.

I've read accounts of Allied tankers and soldiers talking about how frustratingly difficult it was to spot a German tank camoed in trees, even after it started firing. Unless it was near dark and you saw the muzzel flash. When a Sherman fired it created a large tell-tale puff of smoke that advertised its presence to everyone.

The smoke was more that just a problem in spotting. It often made it difficult or impossible for allied tankers to see their shot fall, so they had a harder time adjusting their fire. Sometimes they may not have even known if they had hit. This obviously was a major dissadvantage in duel situations.

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Panzer Leader]

Scooter, you can expect no answers from anyone except those you yourself mentioned. Anything else, and especially the last few hundred posts in this thread, are just so much hot air.

What i happening here, is that everyone is trying to add their .02 to the team during the design process so that hopefully a few things they love will get included.

For example, Tero is a Fierce Fightin' Finn, who wants all Finnish troops crack, unbreakable and with a +100% to targeting. They should also be able totake out soviet tanks with noting but their bare-knckled fists.

John Waters would rather die than see the IS-3 in the game. For him, its inclusion would turn a first rate product into swill.

Rich12545 has decided that he has reached the limits of what the modern computer can do, and if a program will not run smoothly on his K6-400, then by golly! He don't need it.

Now me on the other hand, my "eccentricity" or "call for action" is two fold: Cavalry and Campaigns. I want horsemen in there, not damn horse supply wagons, but Cossak SMG weilding Panji riding Cavalry. I also want an immersive campaign game, you know, like EVERY OTHER WARGAME EVER MADE has, something along those lines.

So tell us, Scooter, what is your Scarlet letter? We all have one...

[Freak]

Hey Panzer Leader, you forgot me, if the JS-3 is included I want the Panther F .

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Is there anyone else here in this message thread that is speaking authoritatively? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always speak authoritatively, even when I'm wrong

Just ask the question. Someone may know the answer. If not, the worst anyone can do is fill your head with lies and half-truths.

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[-Havermeyer-]

Uhh... Was the Winter War the last time we heard from Finland?

And that isn't a bad thing, because I haven't acquired as much of a distaste for them as I have the French.

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -Havermeyer-:

Uhh... Was the Winter War the last time we heard from Finland?

And that isn't a bad thing, because I haven't acquired as much of a distaste for them as I have the French.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too.

lol.

[gunnergoz]

Scooter-

If you want to speak with someone with a little authority, address your questions to me because I have as little authority as anyone else here.

And thanks to my relative lack of bias I'll answer with my best opinion. And I've never been cursed with a modest opinion in my life.

Oh, yes, I'm singularly unswayed by the facts, clinging only the unvarnished truth as I have determined to my preference.

So ask away!

[Amedeo]

Interesting thread.

Two quick comments:

1. All the Shermans in CMBO are currently provided with a gyrostabilizer but actually the 105mm armed ones and the Fireflies had none. Don't know how much this actually boosts the Allied armour in the game.

2. I prefer to see a single historically used vehicle in CM2 than a score of prototypes or post WW2 models but I don't think that the IS-3 will ruin the game considering that if a rarity option is present the rarity factor of the IS-3 will be ZERO so no IS-3 would be available for 'historical' games but only for what-if scenarios of QB with the rarity factor option turned off (at least this is what I think BTS is going to do with CM2).

Regards to all,

Amedeo

[joeski]

I want dobermines, and a cookie!!

[M Hofbauer]

Scooter,

thing is this thread started as a thread in which Steve gave some answers, but it has long since degressed into an undefinable, remotely general but still CM2-related, non-pengish but in a bizarre way undefinable ... thread. And if you really love CM and CM2 like you describe yourself then you better read every damn single post in this thread!

Enoch,

you're right, but not only during mobilization. Even before that, the regular Reichswehr units were generally "localized" in that they were made up in manpower largely from a region.

[MrSpkr]

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

But that was after the war, right ? The only armies to bring back their dead while the fighting was going on were, I believe, the Japanese and the Finnish army.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are talking about battlefield recovery - it did occur in some instances in the United States Marines and among other elite forces. And no, the reinterment was not limited to after the war - reefer ships returning to the United Stated from Britain and the continent were used to transport the corpses, upon request from the family. Sometimes it took a few months to get the corpse back to the U.S., but it did happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not even trying to say I am not biased in favour of the Finns in some respects.

But as others have pointed out you can only be positively biased towards your country of choice only if you are an American, right ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not at all. In fact, I don't recall arguing that at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My basic argument is the current system works in CM now because the forces included are uniform in demographics and tactics. We Finns were only 3,5 million with an army of beween 250 000 and 500 000 men during the war so we could not afford huge one time losses on a regular basis. That is why the tactics HAD TO BE very different to the armies that could afford to lose thousands of men at one go to reach the desired results. That means that in the game the TacAI has to work differently for the Finns. If the TacAI uses the same algorithms for the Finns as it uses for the Germans the outcome will be ahistorical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I stand by my earlier remarks - if you as the player utilize the proper tactics, you can inflict heavy losses on the enemy and then withdraw. You might lose control of the victory flags, but you will have hurt the enemy. Finnish soldiers died just as well as anyone else when they HAD to stand and fight for a given piece of ground.

By the way, in comparison with the other major combatants, US casualties were FAR lower - should this give the U.S. troops a bias? No.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ADDENDUM: the Finnish mobilization system was regional so the units were formed from men living in the same district. That means that they were bonded with bonds stronger than those of shared cause and the same uniform. That was an asset, not a liability (unlike they great armies had thought after their experiences during WWI when they broke up the buddy-regiments).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same is true of many American units - groups of friends would enlist and often go into the same division, particularly during the early stages of the war. This became less true given the abysmal replacement depot system adopted by the Allied command (ot its great discredit and to the disservice of both the replacements and the units to which they were sent). Also, the mobilized National Guard divisions, such as the 45th, were by and large composed of sub-units drawn from the same small town - the guys grew up knowing each other and each other's families, history, past, etc. Example - in the 45th (Thunderbird) division, you might have a group of boys from Norman, Oklahoma, that all served in the same recon infantry platoon. Another group of boys from Broken Arrow might all serve in the same infantry company. A group from Lawton might all serve in the same 105mm artillery battery; etc., etc. The game does not currently grant any of these units any bonuses - and it shouldn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fairly well ? Lets not forget we were Stalins only adversaries who fought him into accepting a negotiated peace that secured our pre-war status.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where to begin? First, the Soviets were kind enough to grant you a peace treaty - had they been inclined, they could have and would have crushed you like a bug. Uncle Joe was more interested in being able to shift the troops guarding the Leningrad area to fight the Germans than with wasting six or seven months to destroy you. Had he desired to do so in 1944 or 1945, he could have.

Second, were the pre-war boundaries the same? IIRC, the Soviets got the extra land they demanded prior to the start of the Winter War, including the Karelian Isthmus and the area north and west of Lake Ladoga (as well as an area near the Murmansk railroad to the north).

As for forced, I rather doubt that. Perhaps too minor an issue to want to deal with, especially while Josef's stated goal was to beat the Western Allies to Berlin. Uncle Joe wanted a piece of central Europe, and he wasn't about to let a minor conflict with Finland jeopardize his post-war position in the big game. Post-war, he probably decided to let it go with Finland because (a) he already had the territorial gains he wanted; ( he was shifting troops to Mongolia to try and grab as much land from teh Japanese as he could; and © the Cold War was already starting, and the Allies might have been upset had he tried to take Finland after the other hostilities had ceased (the latter reasons is pure conjecture on my part - however, he must have remembered the Allies (France/Britain/US) sending troops to northern Russia in 1919 after their former Ally, Russia, concluded a separate peace treaty with the Germans. Uncle Joe did have an abiding sense of history.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, they can not, I'm afraid. You have to work the game engine to duplicate these sound tactics. I have been using the Finnish tactics in my games and they work pretty well for the infantry, IF you work the game engine and know how to utilize its weaknesses and strong points. But there are too may TacAI quirks that make the use of purely Finnish tactics on Western Allied and German troops a major pain, sometimes impossible. You can not for example disengage your troops to redeploy them in a way that would be duplicating the actual Finnish tactics (or the tatics of any other army for that matter).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What, you cannot use the withdraw command and pull the forces out of that small, 1 sq km. board to regroup for another ambush a couple of klicks away? Sure you can but, just as in real life, you would have to forego the local objective point. I think what you are describing is the weakness incumbent in CM:BO's reliance on victory flags. You can overcome this by using a custom map with only one small victory flag in the center of the map - that way, if you can destroy much more of the enemy than you lose in troops, you win handily even if you withdraw everyone.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The squad level disepersal of the men is all wrong for the Finnish squads. There are no different basic formations which you can choose from to suit different tactical situations. And so on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Describe what you mean. You can already break down squads into fire teams for greater flexibility. As a player, you are responsible for setting your unit formations with waypoints, deployment, etc. Sharpshooter units can be used to represent individual infantrymen as necessary. I jsut don't see how you can't set any formation you choose within the current CM parameters. If you are just upset your infantry is not as efficient as you think it should be, I believe that is a player problem, not an infantry problem. Using ambush techniques, I have seen a couple of squads take out an entire American airborne platoon with no losses. Please, be a bit more specific as to the problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then there are the armoured vehicles. Finnish Stugs got a 10-1 kill ratio but as things stand my Stugs get killed because you can not conceal the vehicles well enough to make effective ambushes. Also, by design, it is virtually impossible for the Stugs to fire from hull down positions. Then there is the lousy first shot hit propability which heavily favours the Allied armour (mostly due to the fast turret and cross section targeting). Historically the Finnish Stugs got more first shot hits and kills than the Stugs get now in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an anti-Axis bias, my friend. It has to do with CM's failure to model the use of smokeless powder, as someone previously mentioned. It also has a lot to do with poor modeling of camoflage, particularly with AFV's. I have seen pictures of AFV's so covered in crap that they looked exactly like a ruined house, or a haystack, or a pile of brush. An AFV (or AT-gun) firing from such a position would be hard to detect after two or three shots.

As to first-shot capability - use elite crews. That helps TREMENDOUSLY, I have found (right, Speedbump?)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you want me to list my gripes on the on- and off-board artillery and other assets ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure - I would love to hear your points. I will concede when I think you are right; I will disagree when I think you are wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I wonder why you guys refer to it as national stereotype or bias ? And why do you refer to it as bonus ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, just checking - by "you guys" do you mean "anyone who disagrees with me about how awesome the Finns were"?

Second, the types of modifications you seem to be advocating would in effect make Finns inherently much tougher and much more difficult to kill, regardless of the human player's ability. I suspect much of the success of the Finns in the war lie in the talents of their officers, from butterbar lieutenants on up (2d lts., for non-US folks, their rank insignia is a gold bar - called a butterbar). Those officers are represented by the human player. He makes the decisions they would make in real life. It is his talents that must be used to effect victory. To grant one nationality a more effective AI routine to make up for any player's inability to duplicate war events is a bonus, pure and simple. It gives a player an additional advantage simply because he chose one particular nationality, and for no other reason (equipment, unit size, etc.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There were quantifiable differences in the tactics and doctrine used by different armies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, but this can be represented within the game by adept use and handling of your units. If you really want to get into national tactics and doctrine, the U.S. troops should have artillery at about half of its current cost with about double the current purchase limitations, and air support at about two-thirds the current cost. U.S. doctrine was to move infantry forward, and when someone shot at the infantry, call in artillery to blow up the entire area, then move forward again. If anyone still shot at the troops, you call in more artillery. Captured German troops criticized the Americans for doing so, saying the US troops had no real tactical finesse but instead just bludgeoned their way through. It is difficult to replicate that in CM because of unit prices. Why are the unit prices that way? Two words: game play. It is less fun and less "fair" to fight historically, particularly after the normandy break out (through about September 1944 and excepting the Hurtgen Forest fighting) and in Feb-April 1945. Towards the end of the war, artillery and air power became even more abundant and were much more heavily relied upon as GI's did not want to be the last guys to dies before the war ended. Now, is my statement about US doctrine universally true? No - but it is true enough that, were national traits modeled, it would appear. (Please, no flames from grogs).

I understand your passion - but I think it is a bad idea to model in the manner you suggest. If CM did, who would play the early war Russians, the desert or Balkan Italians, the early war French or Poles, or the late war Germans (on the Western front - the Eastern front was a whole other ball of wax).

MrSpkr

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Jarmo... you're weird! :eek: What would be the point?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well..ummm... dunno? It'd still be fun?

Hey you could throw lots of early war cheap crap at your opponent! I'd even love to have WWI tanks! A slow hugely underarmored beast with MG armament..

Doesn't appeal to you? Strange...

[Panzer Leader]

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

something way too long to even remember, much less understand or comment on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By Jove, I think we might have an Anti-Finite in our midst!

[Tero]

>Tero, see this makes it look as if Finland

>made peace on her own terms or graciously

>decided to surrender rather then inflict

>any more damage on the Soviets, this is one

>of the attitudes i refer to.

What attitude ?

Have you ever heard rumors about a joint Anglo-French expedition to help out the belequered Finns during Winter War ? Would that pitted them against the USSR early in the war ? What would have happened if we had in fact asked for that help and the expedition had sailed ? We opted to accept the terms given. Which was suited all concerned.

>Finland surrendered in both cases because

>it's leaders knew Finland would be crushed

>if they didn't plain & simple & the

>Soviet's got what they wanted from the

>surrrender, Finland out of the war & the

>Winter War gains etc.

That is arguably true. But it was also the Soviets who wanted to make the peace as well. It took two to tango, even then. Stalin could have left us all alone until Germany wa beaten but could he had counted on the Western Allies to let him have his way with Finland once the war with Germany was over ?

[Tero]

>The funny thing about Tero's belief that

>the German armor get's short changed in

>CMBO is that he is right, but his reasons

>are almost completely wrong

I am happy to hear it is only almost wrong.

>All vehicles in CM seem to be unrealisticly

>good at hitting stuff while moving, German

>included. Hard to prove, but that is the

>impression one gets sometimes.

I can not say I disagree.

>The difference in optics did not make much

>difference at less than 800m. At 300m or

>less the Germans may have even been at a

>slight disadvantage.

Was that due to the optics or manually driven turrets (if there was one) ?

>There is nothing wrong with the Stug or the

>Marder. They will kill almost anything they

>hit and anything that hits them will kill

>them, just like in real life. The Stug's

>profile rating is already quite low.

Have YOU ever gotten a Stug in a decent hull down position from which it could shoot effectively and survive for more than a few turns ?

It is not about profiles, it is about the CM terrain tiles favouring taller vehicles by design.

>The big advantage German tanks had in real

>life that they do not in CM was

>SMOKELESS POWDER.

Live and learn.

[Tero]

>For example, Tero is a Fierce Fightin'

>Finn, who wants all Finnish troops crack,

>unbreakable and with a +100% to targeting.

>They should also be able totake out soviet

>tanks with noting but their bare-knckled

>fists.

Actually they would be using the German PAK40, Stug-III, Pzfausts and -schrecks. Since there is to be no Winter War in CM2.

But they should NOT be summarily subject to standard German (or Axis) TacAI automated responces.

[WWB]

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

>

Have YOU ever gotten a Stug in a decent hull down position from which it could shoot effectively and survive for more than a few turns ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes I have. Took out an entire platoon without taking a single hit. It was gorgeous.

WWB