A BUNCH of answers to your questions!

[gunnergoz]

This big argument with Steve over the inclusion (or not) of the IS-3 cracks me up...I mean, come ON!

The guy owns the company (well, a fair chunk of it). It's his game, his ball, his park and his rules...let the man play!

And if you don't like his game, etc, go home!

Maybe some of us arguing about this forget that it's a labor of love for Steve and his buds, and we're lucky to be invited. I could care less if he includes armored bathtubs, as long as they get it MOSTLY right.

I don't want to sound sour about this, but I just get impatient with the endless squabbling about what is, in the end, out of our hands. I trust Steve and crew to put out a product that will greatly please most of us, most of the time; please a few of us all of the time; and a of course a minority, little at all.

I'm probably alone in thinking this but I suspect that these guys would be working almost this hard on CM even if it didn't turn a profit...it might take longer and be a bit less polished, but it would still get done...and it would be their way all the way.

I do appreciate that we purchasers and players have input and that it is frequently heeded. But I harbor no illusions that I can ever disabuse Steve or any of the BTS guys of the notion that they can do as they please with this game and the business (yea, maybe even a cult) it has spawned.

But then, I forget...we're an argumentative lot by nature, aren't we? Must be that genetic hard-coding for competition.

[hellfish]

Steve,

I for one would like to see the IS-3. I know it probably didn't see action.. but still.. its a fun 'what if' and has enough of a basis in reality that it is a believeable 'what if'.

[Tero]

>As for Tero's concern about simulating troop

>qualities, CM1 has absolutely no "national

>biases" built into it, and neither will CM2, >CM3, CM4, CM5, etc.

Hmmmm..... I would hesitate call it national BIAS. That would infer that soldiers of a nation are inherently superior than those of another nation. What I call for is a set of nation dependent variables that allow for the "established" national traits to manifest themselves in a way that is meaningfull in the game. At AI command level (depends on the period of course): the Russians AI will not deviate from the predetermined attack plan; Finnish AI will not perform frontal assaults over open terrain and so on.

If there are to be NO national differences at all I wonder how the green Japanese squads will wind up fighting in the upcoming Pacific CM. "And there was much wailing and knashing of teeth. Again."

>National biases are largely based on

>stereotypes or the end results of more

>tangiable factors.

Sometimes. Sometimes they are not. For example the Finnish troops were willing to even sustain casualties while retrieving the bodies of their comrades. The fallen were evacuated if at all possible and they were transported to their homes to be buried there. How do you propose to implement that as it is a vital part of the performance and a VERY vital part in determining the morale status of a Finnish squad ?

>When you open the door to such conjecture,

>all thoughts of scientific objectivity go

>out the window.

Why do you have to do that ? There are conjectural factors that can be proven scientifically. For example the very number of Finnish POW's taken by the Soviets corraborates my claim that the Finns should evade rather than surrender. No matter what the level of training of the troops is.

>This is why many people, including us, have

>big problems with Dupy's QJM system. It

>simply does not hold up to scientific

>standards. Don't get me wrong, I think Dupy

>and his team's research and documentation

>skills are top notch. I have about a half

>dozen of his publications right here. But

>the QJM is fundamentally flawed.

What is, in your view, the fundamental flaw in it ? I think the fact that it includes POW's in the eqauation distorts the very ratio it is trying to reflect.

>We don't use any QJM equations in CM and

>never will.

How then are you going to model the differences in the national (for the lack of a better term) performances ?

>The reasons why we did not simulate the

>Winter War is because it was NOT a part of

>the Eastern Front as a whole. It was a

>seperate war that just happened to take

>place in the same spot as a later one.

Not in the Finnish view. We call the 1941-1944 war the Continuation War. The fact that the Soviets claim WWII started for them only in 1941 is BS from our point of view.

>Just like France 1940 is different than

>France 1944.

I disagree. The similarities in the differences are non-existent.

>Much changed in the years between the Winter

>War and Barbarossa.

Years ? Some 15 months to be exact. Winter War: November 1939-March 1940, Continuation War June 1941 -September 1944.

What changed was the level of readiness of the Finnish army (thanks to the equipment captured during Winter War) and the geopolitical situation of Finland.

>We simply do not have the time to cover

>39/40 and 40-45 in one go.

I can understand that.

>It would be a whole other matter if we were

>saying that we weren't simulating the

>Finnish front of 1941-1944, but we are in

>fact including it.

Your call. Ultimately. I will NOT beg on my hands and knees. No much longer.

[Mace]

I too would love to see the IS3, if only to parade it down the streets of Berlin in celebration of Victory over Germany.

Mace

[Binkie]

Steve,

Any chance of a toggleable grid overlay making it in?

Speaking only for myself, this would really help the efficiency of my orders plotting phase, without forcing me to compromise the beauty and immersion of the movie phase.

Thanks for your time

[Grunto IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

We can never make everybody happy, so this will just be one of those things some people will whine about and others will not. Happens all the time

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

I'm with you on this. Since you've already got textures, this seems like an easy enough addition.

Besides, the IS-3 is in ASL (grin).

Andy

[Freak]

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

This big argument with Steve over the inclusion (or not) of the IS-3 cracks me up...I mean, come ON!

The guy owns the company (well, a fair chunk of it). It's his game, his ball, his park and his rules...let the man play!

And if you don't like his game, etc, go home!

Maybe some of us arguing about this forget that it's a labor of love for Steve and his buds, and we're lucky to be invited. I could care less if he includes armored bathtubs, as long as they get it MOSTLY right.

I don't want to sound sour about this, but I just get impatient with the endless squabbling about what is, in the end, out of our hands. I trust Steve and crew to put out a product that will greatly please most of us, most of the time; please a few of us all of the time; and a of course a minority, little at all.

I'm probably alone in thinking this but I suspect that these guys would be working almost this hard on CM even if it didn't turn a profit...it might take longer and be a bit less polished, but it would still get done...and it would be their way all the way.

I do appreciate that we purchasers and players have input and that it is frequently heeded. But I harbor no illusions that I can ever disabuse Steve or any of the BTS guys of the notion that they can do as they please with this game and the business (yea, maybe even a cult) it has spawned.

But then, I forget...we're an argumentative lot by nature, aren't we? Must be that genetic hard-coding for competition. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you are right about that. After playing a game against the computer, I realized how trivial my argument or POV if you will is. I suppose I got carried away with the authenticity of a WWII game. I suppose I let my mind wonder a bit too far regarding WWII realism...in the end I was just looking out for the realness of what happend in WWII. As we all know how close BTS strives for authenticity of WWII in their game.

I suppose I should be putting my thoughts and energy towards improvements in the game tinstead of weather one tank is included in the game or not. Still, I was just looking out for authenticity which BTS strives for.

Anyway...

My Apologies to Steve and BTS. I hope I didn't make a to much of a dent in the armor.

Regards,

Freak

[Vanir Ausf B]

Freak, go easy on yourself there. You did nothing wrong.

I really don't care if BTS wants to include the IS-3 as long as it's modeled properly. Lots of WW2 wargames have it. Hell, they can throw in a T-54 for all I care I was mostly just trying to use it as leverage to get the Panther F in as well, as I suspect John was also (he's been lobbying for it for a long while now )

Tero:

I think you can forget convincing BTS to include any sort of nationality traits or modifiers. There was quite a bit of debate on this a while back and they seemed pretty adament against the whole concept.

I'm still wondering about the shapes of QB maps. I'm thinking it would just be best to allow the game creator more custom contol over size and shape. If someone wants to play a 1000 pt game on a 3000m x 3000m square map, why not let them? Maybe allow them to pick the number and type of VLs as well.

I'm also wondering if they'll change the QB creation process so that the 2nd computer generates the map, so as to eliminate the map peek cheat.

Yeah I play lots of QBs.

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Tero]

>Tero:

>

>I think you can forget convincing BTS to

>include any sort of nationality traits or

>modifiers.

There is no harm in trying.

>There was quite a bit of debate on this a

>while back and they seemed pretty adament

>against the whole concept.

Well... lets put it this way: do you feel it is totally OK when in a situation two squads of different nationality are subject to the exact the same patterns of behaviour ? I am talking about from the AI point of view. It is after all the AI, not the player, who decides what is done when certain events coincide in the game engine.

I am not calling for a "all (insert a nationality) units will not panic under fire" modifier. I am talking about the differences in tactics and doctrine that have a fundamental impact in the way in which the units respond to stimuli. In CM it works when the forces are rather uniform in their demographics and tactics.

I for one will absolutely hate it if the Finnish squads act according to the German set of behaviour patterns because the tactics employed by the Finns were nothing like the tactics employed by the Germans.

>I'm still wondering about the shapes of QB

>maps. I'm thinking it would just be best to

>allow the game creator more custom contol

>over size and shape. If someone wants to

>play a 1000 pt game on a 3000m x 3000m

>square map, why not let them? Maybe allow

>them to pick the number and type of VLs as

>well.

Why not have a XXX by YYY field in the map generator routine that would allow different shapes, also deep maps instead of just square and wide maps.

Ceterum censeo: QB maps should include rivers and streams.

[Scooter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Look... if people don't want the IS-3 in. Fine. It is off the list. No sweat Although this is probably the first time in wargaming history that people have argued AGAINST including something. The history of CM1 complaining has been that we haven't included enough strange and unusual things. Funny how we can never win

Steve

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

Please don't cut ANY vehicle out if it fought there. The IS-3 should be included no matter what the whiners say.

CM1 currently has room for vehicles that weren't strange and unusual. (The M16 AAHT for instance.) Please do not let history repeat itself with CM2.

If it fought there, it should be included, IMHO.

Ok, there's my 2 cents. Thanks.

[Lee]

Exactly, panzerwerfer. I'll take the rate of fire of the kugelblitz over

a significantly slower but heavier caliber vehicle. You have to get

hits in the first place for your caliber to matter, and the kugelblitz

had the ROF to be very hard to escape in one piece.

What do you say, Steve? It would be great to be able spring one

of these out once in awhile on your opponent who thinks his recently

arrived IL-2 buzzing over the battlefield is going to save the day for him.

[MikeyD]

How about a compromise on the IS-3 question:

Let's imagine it's in the list, it looks beautiful, AND we, the players, are in no way obligated to utilize it if we don't want. Same of course goes for the mighty Maus, and the SuperPershing in CM1. BUT if we ever get tired of precisely recreating history and just want some fun they'll be handy. BTS ain't exactly twisting our arms here.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Steve,

Please don't cut ANY vehicle out if it fought there. The IS-3 should be included no matter what the whiners say.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fought where Scoot's?. Sorry being a whiner at heart icouldnt resist..........

Regards, John Waters

[Scooter]

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

Fought where Scoot's?. Sorry being a whiner at heart icouldnt resist..........

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John,

Where? Anywhere (and any time, IMO) in regards to the scope of CM2. You know -all that fighting that started at 0300 hrs on the morning of June 22, 1941 with Operation Barbarossa and ended in various places on various dates in early May 1945. (Soviet General I. A. Susloparov signed a surrender document in Rheims on May 7th, 1945 even though the Red Army fought until they linked up with the forces of the U.S. Third Army east of Pilsen on May 11th.) Where else?

Anyways, I thought that this message thread was about CM2. Let me know if I'm wrong.

[M. Bates]

Turret rotate command? :confused:

[Frenchy]

Don't know if it was mentioned in this long topic, but will there be a "Withdrawal from Field" command to end a game? I see this as between the current "play until the end" or "surrender". It would be a defeat but not as bad as a surrender. At least your troops live to fight another day.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John,

Where? Anywhere (and any time, IMO) in regards to the scope of CM2. You know -all that fighting that started at 0300 hrs on the morning of June 22, 1941 with Operation Barbarossa and ended in various places on various dates in early May 1945. (Soviet General I. A. Susloparov signed a surrender document in Rheims on May 7th, 1945 even though the Red Army fought until they linked up with the forces of the U.S. Third Army east of Pilsen on May 11th.) Where else?

Anyways, I thought that this message thread was about CM2. Let me know if I'm wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scoot's my post refered to:

If it fought there, it should be included, IMHO.

I was asking where the IS-3 fought in WW2 as a joke, to add the complimentary whine to the thread

..

Regards, John Waters

[M Hofbauer]

tero,

"I for one will absolutely hate it if the Finnish squads act according to the German set of behaviour patterns because the tactics employed by the Finns were nothing like the tactics employed by the Germans."

your computer game squads will employ exactly those tactics which you as the player are using. If I as the player decide that finns will always charge in a zig zag line then they will do that. That is the status quo and I am sure BTS' stance on that will remain like that for all future versions.

Doing your suggestion of implementing national characteristics is understandable from a historic perspective but it's simply invitation to quarrel about which country's soldiers should always do this or should always do that, and we would not reach any consensus exactly how it should be modeled. Take for example that some people here even question whether the russians used human wave assaults later etc.

The only way to reflect poor or good behavior are the nation-independant experience settings from green to elite. It will not sufice totally for what you are aiming at but that is the closest you will ever get to it in CM.

Scooter,

you are not making sense. Did you read this thread at all? Whether pro-IS2 or con-IS2, we have a consensus here (incl. Steve/BTS) that the IS-3 did not see actual combat in "all that fighting that started at 0300 hrs on the morning of June 22, 1941 with Operation Barbarossa and ended in various places on various dates in early May 1945" so I am really confused as to what the point of your posts is??

On the IS-3, well, as I said before, as long as you make it available only for April/May/("what-if" June) 45, make it very rare, and give it an armor quality of 50% and riddle the remaining 50% with weak spots then I'm fine [tongue-in-cheek mode on] plus if the IS-3 is in, can I please have the X-7 Rotkäppchen ATGM for my May 45 german infantry [t-i-c mode off]

Frenchy,

you can already withdraw in the existing game engine. Simply withdraw the units off the (preferrably friendly) edge of the map. If you are unable to withdraw them that way then you really shouldn't be able to withdraw anyhow.

[killmore]

Please include:

Maus

IS-3

T-44

Or as many of above as possible.

No one has to use them. Chances of encountering one are nil.

Make sure that it is impossible to get one in QB with random units.

[killmore]

As ussual the kill/loss ratio is always quoted as German vs Soviet.

This means that all other Axis troops are not counted (Italians, Fins, Rumanians, Hungarians etc...)

There were enough of these troops to farther lower the Axis:Soviet kill ratio. Maybe even to 1:1.25

[Battlefront.com]

Folks,

I have to wrap up my involvement in this thread. You guys could go on asking me questions until the game ships, which of course would be long delayed if I actually answered all the questions Just to wrap up here...

No problem with those debating putting in the IS-3 or not. It really isn't a big deal and it might not even go in anyway. IS-3 is still on the "only if we have time to do it up right" list and that means there is a good chance that it will not be included. The Sturmtiger is ahead of this because we skipped it on the Western Front. From what we can tell it didn't see frontline service in the East either, besides being used against the Warsaw Uprising (which we are not attempting to cover). Like the IS-3, we have TWO really nice texture sets gathering dust here so if we have the time to do the model the textures won't be hard to do.

As for the Panther F, well I think if the US went to so much more trouble to put one together and ship it all the way back to the US that the Soviets might have the same level of interest in it. So I suspect that if they got a hold of one they would have hauled it back. Think of the trouble it took to get the Maus back!! As for either of these two vehicles seeing combat, I suppose there will never be definitive proof either way. There were a lot of things done during the final days of the war that were never recorded by either side. And some of the things that were recorded were, like anything in war, were in error. When you have a "one off" event it is very hard to know what exactly what the real story was unless there happen to be more than one direct source.

Tero:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hmmmm..... I would hesitate call it national BIAS. That would infer that soldiers of a nation are inherently superior than those of another nation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, glad we understand each other here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I call for is a set of nation dependent variables that allow for the "established" national traits to manifest themselves in a way that is meaningful in the game. At AI command level (depends on the period of course): the Russians AI will not deviate from the predetermined attack plan; Finnish AI will not perform frontal assaults over open terrain and so on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This will happen "naturally" due to the reworking of the Command and Control model. And it will have to do because AI programming is something we honestly aren't going to much with. We have, at least for now, reached the point of diminishing returns in terms of AI programming. What I mean by that is 1 month of AI programming isn't going to have a big impact on the game, but the 1 month's worth of other features we would have to cut will.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sometimes. Sometimes they are not. For example the Finnish troops were willing to even sustain casualties while retrieving the bodies of their comrades. The fallen were evacuated if at all possible and they were transported to their homes to be buried there. How do you propose to implement that as it is a vital part of the performance and a VERY vital part in determining the morale status of a Finnish squad ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We don't simulate recovering bodies, so we are all set Seriously, this was true for all "Western" forces. It was also true, to some extent, for Soviet ones. I have read many accounts of Soviet units trying to save their "comrades" and individual/unit fanatical defense of their homeland are so plentiful that it would be very hard to present a case that make the Finns and Soviet units look different in this respect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why do you have to do that ? There are conjectural factors that can be proven scientifically. For example the very number of Finnish POW's taken by the Soviets corraborates my claim that the Finns should evade rather than surrender. No matter what the level of training of the troops is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I am talking about. This is not science, but rather a "baised" opinion. I for one would challenge this assumption, which once again proves my point that "national biases" are a bad idea. Soviet expectiations were no different for their soldiers than those of Finland or Germany. In fact it was made brutually clear that a Soviet soldier was supposed to die fighting instead of surrendering (or even retreating in many cases). They often did avoid capture, or at least did not surrender. Even early on like the account I just read of 10,000 cut off Soviet soldiers, from various destroyed formations, breaking out around Minsk during the summer of 1941. So why give the Finns some magical bonus and not the Soviets?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What is, in your view, the fundamental flaw in it ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That you can not predict human behavior and outcomes ahead of time using equations. The premise for how QJM was based on is flawed. And that is you can study past battles and find a mathematical Truth (i.e. equations) that show how a clash between a force of x and y led to result z. As the numbers get larger, the better the system works. But for lower level actions, human factors, luck, and other random circumstances play too much of a role. War is organized chaos, which flies in the face of conventional mathematics.

Have you ever read Asimov's "Foundation" series? The whole premise of the monumental SciFi series is based on the concept that men figured out how to predict human behavior using math. However, they could only predict statistical probabilities, not exact results. Anyway, there are several great passages in several of the books discussing the philosophy of analytical sciences as applied to human behavior. SciFi or not, there are some keen observations in there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How then are you going to model the differences in the national (for the lack of a better term) performances ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By figuring out the fundamental reasons why certain results happened. Instead of just saying "hmmm... the Soviets weren't very good tactically in 1941, let's just give them a negative combat modifier" we are instead looking for the root causes. For example, the two biggest tactical problems for Soviet troops in 1941 were inadequate training, almost no experience, and poor leadership. At the same time they faced an enemy that had excellent training, experience, and leadership. At an operational level the Soviets troops were often comitted against a force they were illprepared to counter, whereas the Finns and Germans were more likely to not engage in battle when unfavorable outcomes were likely. At least this was the case in 1941 for the most part, but it wasn't always this way and it certainly changed as the war went on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not in the Finnish view. We call the 1941-1944 war the Continuation War. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, I know this. But the Finns are the only nation on Earth that think this way though The rest of the world, including the nation your country fought against, think of the Winter War and what started in June 22, 1941 as two seperate events.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What changed was the level of readiness of the Finnish army (thanks to the equipment captured during Winter War) and the geopolitical situation of Finland.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What also changed was the structure, training, and equipment of the Red Army. In fact, most of the significant changes that were made (or were in the process of being implemented) when Barbarossa was launched were because of the beating they took in the Winter War.

Again, the Winter War is just one bite too much for us to chew. There are no other reasons for us to not include the Winter War other than that. Heck, I know of Eastern Front games that skip the Finns altogether From a tactical, and even strategic standpoint, this is actually not all that hard to do. At the strategic level it is easier to skip Finland than some of the other fronts going on at the same time, like France 1944-1945, in terms of its impact on the Eastern Front as a whole. But we find the operations along the Finnish border to be really interesting and therefore we would never think of NOT including them

Steve

[Scooter]

M Hofbauer and John,

Ok, I stand corrected. I only read Steve's posts as I considered them to be the only ones relevant to this thread's title, which is -"A BUNCH of answers to your questions!". I was only looking at the answers as they are afterall, the last word. Aren't they?

If the IS-3 didn't really make it into WW II, then it seems really silly to want it in CM2. I assumed that it did -and we all know the joke about that word's spelling . To include the IS-3 in CM2 would be the same as asking for any other post war tank to be included.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Folks,

As for the Panther F, well I think if the US went to so much more trouble to put one together and ship it all the way back to the US that the Soviets might have the same level of interest in it. So I suspect that if they got a hold of one they would have hauled it back\

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve to add & close up, the US did not realy put an F together, they most likely grabbed one of the Ausf G's that had an Scmalturm on it. Several were built for Wa Pruf & others built by by M.A.N.

The US & UK also grabbed around 4 F hulls & 'several' schmalturms. The US shipped one of the schmalturm's to Aberdeen while the UK shipped their schmalturm to England then used it in LF tests. Later it was saved from the scrap heap & moved to Bovington.

IIRC the US did grab one of the only existing Panther II hulls & put an Ausf.G turret on it as well, it used to be at Aberdeen.

I agree it would seem logical but who realy knows, hell they could have a schmalturm boxed up somewhere as well as I said alot of captured data & who knows what else still remains classified in Russia ie, Kummondorfs records, still have not had the secrecy stamp removed.

Anyway eneough babble I will be buying CM2 regardless of IS-3s etc .....

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Panther131]

Disregard.

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Panther131 ]

[Grisha]

I'm about as pro-Soviet as it gets in WWII gaming, but I doubt I'll ever use a IS-3. Still, it might be cool to see how it 'should' have worked in some QB with the AI. I'd never use the IS-3 in a game with another person though.

So, Steve, guess I'm not going to get an answer about trenches and infantry in CM2???