A BUNCH of answers to your questions!

[PzKpfw 1]

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

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I have & I realy doubt it would have alterted anything, except bring Germany & Russia into the war as Allies. Finland did not Opt to accept the peace, Finland had very little choice in the matter.

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

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 ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tero the peace benifited Stalin as he had bigger fish to to fry Ie, Germany & no he couldn't leave Finland alone they broke the peace treaty as well as allowed German troops to operate from their borders.

As soon as fourtunes changed & Finland realised Germany was doomed, Finland decided it was time to make peace, the choice was surrender & keep the WW agreements on territory & expell all German forces, or be crushed. Obviously Finland chose the first option. It's realy moot as to what the Allies would have done etc, as it never occured.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[killmore]

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

>

Fairly well ? Lets not forget we were Stalins only adversaries who fought him into accepting a negotiated peace that secured our pre-war status.

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: tero ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess term "Finlandization" better describes post-war status than pre-war status.

(Finlandization - country that continuosly changes its politics and itself to pacify its strong neighbour - until it almost becomes a satelite state. I believe US strategic cold-war planners came up with this term)

[killmore]

By the way Fins were not the only ones to fight Soviet Union and get peace accord.

Poland fought Soviet Union in 1921 and 1922.

(I know this is not WWII) and actually gained territory in the process. Parts of Belorrusia, Ukraine, Litvenia became Polish after the war. (Some Polish might say these territories belong to Poland anyway for the last 500 years or so)

[Sergei]

The Fenno-Russian peace deal of '44 was not a return to borders of 1940, as Finland also had to give Petsamo, its gateway to Northern Sea (or what ever that icy puddle is called).

Hey BTS, answer this: when CMBO was being made, you allowed the board members to offer their family names to be added to CMBO. So my question is:

Will this offer occur again (if we are really nice)?

[The Commissar]

I think what many of us want and sight as mistakes in the current engine really cannot be implemented until the rewrite.

For example: "My STUG's don't go hull down because the terrain tiles which determine elevation are 20m each and thus too big and so they favor vehicles with larger turrets"

If this is indeed correct, BTS can't do much. They already told us they will not be able to change the size of tiles (too much coding). Ive gotten low vehicles like the Stug to hull down. Like once. Then again, to be fair, throughout my 2 years of playing CM, Ive only achieved Hull down in my games some 5 times at most, despite always trying to find that perfect hillock.

"My Finn Stug's can't destroy six bazillion Soviet AFV's because CM doesnt model camoflauge properly"

Nope, it doesnt. Once again, can't do much until the rewrite. If you ask Steve, $20 says he'll respond with "Sorry guys, too much code work. maybe in the rewrite.

"My Finns can't disperse after a firefight with the current method of handling infantry in CM"

The tactics you describe sound awful familiar. Hmm...what was the correct phrase? Oh yes, "Guerrilla Combat".

No, CM is made to model conventional forces. Much of the tactics the Finns had to use emphasized individual action, dispersing after a quick fire fight and getting back together away from the fire zone. That's as close to guerrilla fighting as you are liable to get, so no, it can't be correctly represented in the CM engine.

[killmore]

The argument about different sides fighting in different ways does not hold water and is somewhat pointless.

There is no way I am going to use Soviet, Fin or German tactics. No amount of nationally based unit behaviour tinkering will force me to do that. (I also think it is racist in a way)

So there is just no point in doing that.

During Early war Soviet units should be mostly Conscript/Green quality and German units should be regular/Veteran.

This will force Soviet player to use larger amount of units. Also training level modifier might be considered but training level should not have any effect on Veteran troops. (Soviet conscript training was probably worse - so Soviet conscripts should be somewhat worse but this should change in late war)

[Bruno Weiss]

Vee haft vays of making volks do vat vee vant. Vee are in contrrrol, nein attempt to adjust zee horizontal, nein attempt to adjust zee vertical. Vee are in contrrrol!

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[M Hofbauer]

<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>

answer to Q#1: yes, regularly.

answer to Q#2: nope.

yes, they (german armor, esp.StuGs) seem not to achieve the actual RealLife successes in CM.

However, just checking, tero, you *do* know that hulldown is an I/0 decision and that this is totally irrelevant of actual vehicle layout/dimensions etc.?

Therefore, it is just as easy or hard to put a StuG into hulldown as it is to put, say, a Sherman into hulldown, IIRC.

[Scooter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

So tell us, Scooter, what is your Scarlet letter? We all have one...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scarlet letter? Hmmm. You aren't refering to Nathaniel Hawthorne are you? If so, there are several. First, there would be an "N" for Napoleonics , second there is a "CM" for COMBAT MISSION.

Anyways, I was most impressed with your answer to my questions. It was refreshingly intelligent and kind. Thank you.

To everyone else who answered me - um, thanks.

So, if by the odd chance, they're still reading this thread,......

.....my idea is to have CM2 show field and forest fires with light brown smoke (carbohydrates burning) as opposed to black smoke (hydrocarbons burning). As one with a fire science degree, I can authoritatively say that a vehicle (and a modern house) will burn with black smoke as the fuel that burns is made from hyrdrocarbons (oil). Forest fires and field fires always have light brown smoke due to the carbohydrates in the plant materials. Now, the houses of WW II may not have had as much hydrocarbons in it as houses do today, so I'd say light brown smoke for houses too.

I know this isn't as exciting as the Finns or an IS-3, but I believe it would make CM2 look more realistic.

Rick

[Panzer Leader]

Thanks Scooter, I was kinda proud o' that post, glad ya noticed.

As for your "CM2 Wish" I have to say... that is one of the most original wishes I have yet heard, and i've heard everything from swaying wheat-fields to starlight shells.

If I were Steve, I would say "You got it bud!" But to be honest, gimme the panji's and the Cossacks any day!

Incidentally, if you wanted you could take the smoke bmp and color it a nice mocha, of course it is the same one as for vehicles, so you would be fixing one thing but breaking another. Ah, the paradox!

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

The Fenno-Russian peace deal of '44 was not a return to borders of 1940, as Finland also had to give Petsamo, its gateway to Northern Sea (or what ever that icy puddle is called).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oop's forgot about the Petsamo/Kirkenese operation ......

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

BAH Dbl Post.....

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Michael Emrys]

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

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

Ever seen footage of Soviet assualts where scores of infantry is running among the tanks ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. But they certainly weren't holding hands in any of the pics I saw. If you have evidence that they were singing, I'd be interested to see it.

Michael

[Pvt. Ryan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I want horsemen in there, not damn horse supply wagons, but Cossak SMG weilding Panji riding Cavalry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like this?

[Slapdragon]

This subject was brought up a long time ago, but I just found the information on it. Regarding the superiority of Finnish troops because they were shipped home for burial and no one else was concerned enough about their dead to do this, increasing Finnish will to win.

Australia, as a policy, would ship remains to next of kin at their request when the soldier had fallen in New Guinea. They would not ship back remains from Europe or Africa until near the end of the War. The United States would ship back remains of soldiers who fell in the Coninental Americas, and had a book keeping system in place so that relatives could cheaply retrieve remains once the emergency was over. Great Britian would, again on request, ship remains to a home cemetary, but would not ship them from the pacific. Brazil would not ship remains from Italy, but would from any other location in South America.

Now having driven across Finland and into Russia (the Finns have better roads), I can say with some authority that Finland is not a very large country. Shipping a soldier's body from to Vassa from the battle front could not have been all that big of deal, at least I drove it in 5 hours with a stop in Koupio (is that a town? been a long time), and even by train and wagon it couldn't of taken up that many resources.

Now take another small country with soldiers in the war, Brazil. Are the Brazillians inferior fighters because they leave their soldiers in Italian soli (where a thousand still rest), or was it just really tough for any country to move a soldier's body 10,000 kilometers across an ocean compared to 300 kilometers across a civilized country (and you can't convince me Finland was not any less civilized than Norway or Sweden in 1940, at least to the extent of the roads and rails).

But, the Finns and Russians can be simulated without any spurious national modifiers mostly based on grammar school myth. The Finns, with their back against the wall, are defenders. Skis given them mobility the Russians did not have in the snow. They are mostly regular or better, and get a fanatic bonus becuase for many of them, their homes are only 20 kilometers back, not 2000 kilometers away. The Russians are all green troops, with clunky T-28s, green artillery, but lots of cannon fodder.

[Sergei]

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

Now having driven across Finland and into Russia (the Finns have better roads), I can say with some authority that Finland is not a very large country. Shipping a soldier's body from to Vassa from the battle front could not have been all that big of deal, at least I drove it in 5 hours with a stop in Koupio (is that a town? been a long time), and even by train and wagon it couldn't of taken up that many resources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, I am deeply sorry to hear that you have been forced to stop in Kuopio. Fortunate for you, you probably don't know the language, so you couldn't get brain injuries by trying to understand their wacky Savo dialect and nonsense-talk.

I recall Tero's point was about DURING combat to take the dead and wounded with them or retrieve them from field, even when it meant sacrifices. (You couldn't expect just the differences in where the bodies were buried matter that much in terms of CM.) I don't really know what that claim is based on, because during 90's there's been lots and lots and lots of remains of Finnish soldiers been hauled from Karelian WW2 battlegrounds to Finnish burial grounds. During early summer of 1944 (when the Soviet all-out attack broke) most of the routed front soldiers had better things to do than to stop and look why that brother-in-arms said "AAAARGH" and collapsed to ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Russians are all green troops, with clunky T-28s, green artillery, but lots of cannon fodder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny; I recall they had JS-2's in 1944, and KV's already in 1941 (Finland had booty T-28's, though). Remember, Winter War is not in scope of CM2.

[Slapdragon]

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

That's funny; I recall they had JS-2's in 1944, and KV's already in 1941 (Finland had booty T-28's, though). Remember, Winter War is not in scope of CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nop, I was just thinking Winter War here. While many Russian forces, especially in the darkest days, needed barrage units to keep them pointed in the right direction, many many heroic and well equipped Russian units existed also.

[Speedy]

This thread is getting way to big, I am absolutely, positively, unequivocally unsure that this is the total cause of all server slowdowns. It is time for the Bald One to do his thingy.

edited for a slash

[ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: Speedy ]

[Andrew H.]

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

But, the Finns and Russians can be simulated without any spurious national modifiers mostly based on grammar school myth. The Finns, with their back against the wall, are defenders. Skis given them mobility the Russians did not have in the snow. They are mostly regular or better, and get a fanatic bonus becuase for many of them, their homes are only 20 kilometers back, not 2000 kilometers away. The Russians are all green troops, with clunky T-28s, green artillery, but lots of cannon fodder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. CM doesn't need elaborate changes to simulate the type of results that occurred during the winter war. Set up a, say, 1500 point infantry attack with the nationality you choose to be the Finns (say, the Germans) being Regular and Vet, and the unit you choose to be the Sovs (say, the British) being Green and Conscript). Have the ground be snow (although this is not necessary). Attack.

One of the most difficult things to do in CM is attack with inexperienced troops; it's almost impossible with conscripts. At a range greater than 500m, German HMGs hitting units in the open will cause them to go to ground, sometimes to even retreat in Panic; this is the usual result, not simply something that *can* happen.

This would go far to obtaining historical results, although there are a couple of other things that would make it more realistic: trenches and dugouts for the defenders to make them more impervious to artillery, and some way of simulating the lack of winter preparedness that the Sov. troops had (maybe the fitness modifier would work?)

The other factor in the Finns' success is outside the scope of CM; that is, they had the ability to manuver and obtain local superiority against sov. units. This would simply be reflected in the scenario setup that would give the finns local superiority.

[Slapdragon]

Your sig says it all Andrew. Many QBs between played with eaual meeting engagement forces lead us to believe in a nrom (meeting with regular mechanized troops) that never existed. If, for example, you want to simulate the meeting of the 106th US Infantry Division witrh the Bulge thrust give the Germans regulars and veterans, and give the US conscript, and watch the US infantry get chopped to peices. Now place those same regular and veteran Germans against the regular to elite 101st Airborne, backed up by the crack 333rd Field artillery, and watch everything get switched around as Germans charge into stubborn defenders.

The variables are mostly all in place, and have at least a semi-scientific resemblence with reality, it just matters how you tweek them.

If anything, you could simulate Finns by making green troops rare in QBs, otherwise the only real modifier might be reducing the effect of leadership on the troops (for good and for bad) to allow greater unit seperation and allow more guerilla warfare. But those are all in the scope of the game variables, and would be much more satisfying than ging all troops from X country a +2 to hit. This is, afterall, not Dungeons and Dragons.

[Degrees of Frost]

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

yes, they (german armor, esp.StuGs) seem not to achieve the actual RealLife successes in CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't this another instance when absolute spotting becomes an issue ?

Defending tanks are spotted almost immediately on most occassions allowing buttoned up attacking tanks to begin firing back effectively - immediately. The units doing the spotting are probably not the buttoned up tanks but supporting units. The good old "borg" thingy.

PS: its a great dissapointment to me that I was never assimilated properly

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost:

Isn't this another instance when absolute spotting becomes an issue ?

Defending tanks are spotted almost immediately on most occassions allowing buttoned up attacking tanks to begin firing back effectively - immediately. The units doing the spotting are probably not the buttoned up tanks but supporting units. The good old "borg" thingy.

PS: its a great dissapointment to me that I was never assimilated properly <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, many here have never been assimilated, especially those who were here long before the CMBorg. And many of those that had been assimilated have (for lack of a better word) "dissimilated" again. They come and they go. It seems even the Borg himself

Yes it would be nice if spotting was limited to the individual units (which we will not see before CMII) and if the spotting was environment / conspicousness-dependant.

One positive thing I noted about the OperationFlashpoint demo (besides the negative fact of a non-aspect-dependant, cumulative damage model on tanks ) was that whether or not you are being detected by the enemy depended so much on your conspicousness.

When you were lying somewhere on an open road they would spot you immediately, but if you lay somewhere near a bush or tree or other disturbance in the environmental landscape and wouldn't do anything they wouldn't see you to the point of almost walking by you without noticing.

If you started firing, it depended upon your volume of fire and distance, for example they would react to a machine gun immediately, but some isolated shots from an M-16 far away would take them quite some time to localize and react to. Same with movement vs. lying still. Background is also considered - try walking across a crest and you will be backgrounded against the sky - enemy soldiers will spot you very fast once you draw their attention into your direction by shooting or even without that if you are close and they are watching.

It really almost seems the AI has the same criteria and hence problems in spotting something like a human has in such a game.

So even though this game might suffer from the same beehive/Borg mentality on the AI part as well, it somehow does not become apparent because of this very realistic spotting behavior. As long as you stay put in the bush, hardly anybody will notice. Start running around with your M60 firing from the hip and of course everybody will take notice.

The last step would be taking smokeless powder and camoflage into effect as well - imagine a Marder under a heap of treenbranches and bushes on the edge of some woods waiting in ambush for the enemy tanks, not being spotted only after the first few rounds...

Like Martin L. King said, "I have a dream..."

(edited for an even better pleasing reading experience)

[ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Andrew H.]

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

The last step would be taking smokeless powder and camoflage into effect as well - imagine a Marder under a heap of treenbranches and bushes on the edge of some woods waiting in ambush for the enemy tanks, not being spotted only after the first few rounds...

[ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd kind of like to see something like this, too. The best way might be to have "camoflage" as a sort of fortification that can be purchased by a side allowed to buy fortifications. Considerations like smokeless powder (or, for that matter, winter uniforms) should also play a role in spotting, subject to a couple of caveats I can think of:

(1) Obviously, the spotting benefit gained from smokeless powder would only apply to units which are at increased risk of being spotted due to having fired. That is, a StuG shouldn't get a generalized concealment bonus for using smokeless powder; it should only get a benefit after it has fired.

(2) It's possible that not all concealed German vehicles using smokeless powder should get a benefit from it -- if you read reports of 88's firing, for example, there is often a description of how much dirt and dust the gun threw into the air because of the muzzle blast. If this is generally true, there probably shouldn't be a smokeless powder advantage for some units because the muzzle blast effect would cancel this out. However, it might also be that these units would only lose the smokeless advantage in "dry" conditions; if the ground is damp or muddy (or frozen?), probably no dust would be thrown up and so there would be a smokeless advantage.

(3) At smaller calibers, there may be no real advantage to smokeless powder: a 37mm AT gun using non-smokeless powder may not be, realistically, more difficult to spot than a 37mm gun using smokeless powder because the amount of smoke produced would be quite small. This would probably *not* apply to a small caliber weapon with a high ROF, though, as the amount of smoke in the air might be quite significant.

(4) In certain environmental conditions, non-smokeless powder should be as difficult to spot as smokeless powder. This would probably be true in the following conditions:

(a) Rain.

( Snow (i.e., snow is actually falling).

© Fog.

(d) Night.

(e) High or gusty winds (if CM simulated this).

(5) Vs. dogs. Smokeless powder is not scentless powder, so war dogs should not be penalized in locating vehicles using smokeless powder.

[ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ]

[Paco QNS]

I concur with most of your ideas, Andrew

(though I suppose you forget the after the seven, of "dobermines" sniff use)

and must add to this:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(2) It's possible that not all concealed German vehicles using smokeless powder should get a benefit from it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the use of muzzle-brakes, which also rised a

lot of dust (one of the reasons not to use

them in all vehicles IIRC).

On the matter of Camouflage-Enmascaramiento"-

"Maskirovka", it surprised me the most that

in the spanish "Alfereces Provisionales"

Infantry tactics (March 1938) manual ((for

our "thirty-days-wonders")) was a full

appendix ((the seventh)) with about thirty

pages -out of a full total of two hundred-

and fully illustrated with Right/Wrong

vignettes.((in contrast with the rest, full

texted)).

Regards.

[Tero]

>Sure. But they certainly weren't holding

>hands in any of the pics I saw. If you have

>evidence that they were singing, I'd be

>interested to see it.

I was referring to the singing prior to the "big change" in tactics.