A BUNCH of answers to your questions!

[MrSpkr]

Read the thread. He already answered the question about infantry way back on pages two or three, IIRC.

Anyway, he discussed it already. That's probably why he didn't answer it just now.

[Panzer Leader]

There will be trenches and they will be placed like barbed wire is now.

[Lee]

Hmm, thought Panzer Leader had asked that question, instead he was

giving the answer. So, since he already knows the answer to that question,

there is no need for this response.

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

[Panzer Leader]

Yes Lee, I asked that question way back, got an answer, and now I have given that answer twice. Maybe I oughta update the CM2 Faq.

[Tero]

>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.

If you read my post carefully I was NOT talking about tactics, I was talking about AI dependant behaviour. Or should I say automated responces. And the effects of different "givens" embedded in the code.

>That is the status quo and I am sure BTS'

>stance on that will remain like that for

>all future versions.

I still wonder how they are going to model the Japanese. And when they HAVE TO make alterations for them it opens the can of worms then.

>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.

That is why I suggested the use of the Dupuy formula to verify at least some of these features that are based on legends and subjective accounts.

>Take for example that some people here even

>question whether the russians used human

>wave assaults later etc.

The footage I have seen would suggest they used tactics that could be said to be human wave assault. But not the early type where they came in at walking pace singing and holding hands.

>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.

The only thing is these qualities are NOT nation-independent. In CM the system works because it is Germans vs US/British/Canadian/French/Poles. In CM2 it Finns/Germans/Italians???/Rumanians???/Hungarians??? vs Russians. There is a huge difference in the demographics of the forces in CM and CM2. The Germans in CM and the Russians in CM2 are easy, they have different types of formations (SS and Guards) but the same demographics. The Allies in CM were easy as they use the same basic doctrine. The other forces against Russia in CM2 are so diverse there is bound to be troubles implementing the AI satisfactorily to reflect the differences in demographics and the way in which the diffences in equipment affected the tactics used.

[Darren J Pierson]

Never mind. I did a search and realized I was wrong. Move along, nothing to see here.

[edited for the sake of accuracy}

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Darren J Pierson ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I still wonder how they are going to model the Japanese.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's easy. They aren't. BTS has made it clear they have little personal interest in the Pacific Theater and have no plans to make a Pacific Theater game.

[Grisha]

Okay, I reread the question on AT trenches and saw that Steve had used the phrase "regular and AT trenches" would be in. Answers my question, thanks

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's easy. They aren't. BTS has made it clear they have little personal interest in the Pacific Theater and have no plans to make a Pacific Theater game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vanir, where did you read this?

Gyrene

[Tero]

>Vanir, where did you read this?

Sounds like the standard FLAK they (the more devout groupies) throw out when someone dares to question BTS designs desicions. Perhaps he is also running out of valid arguments.

I would think it was a waste of possible, nay sure, income if they did NOT do a Pacific CM. The game engine, warts and all, is still the best around in the gendre.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

>Vanir, where did you read this?

Sounds like the standard FLAK they (the more devout groupies) throw out when someone dares to question BTS designs desicions. Perhaps he is also running out of valid arguments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hope you like the taste of crow, Tero. You're about to eat a big helping.

Read it and weep, baby.

A few select quotes:

As for the Med. Theater being boring, I would counter that the PTO is far more boring Just saw another show last night that only reinforced my opinion of the warfare in the PTO from about 1942 on. The bulk was static, suicidal combat with the Japanese being totally overmatched. One of the battles they mentioned the US killed 107,000 Japanese for a total of 7,000 friendly losses. And the US were on the offensive!!! The battle included flamethrowing galore, 100ft deep bunkers (which weren't entered, just blown up), bonsai charges, starving out the enemy, etc. Oh boy, sounds really interesting I can hardly keep my eyes open...

...Bullethead, every time I have tried to get into PTO land warfare I just have to put the book down and never pick it up again. So much so that I can't even remember the last time I tried to read anything about the PTO...

...PTO is not currently on our list. If it were, it would be about 4 years out. It absolutely will not come before any of the other three games currently planned.

Steve

I'd rather be a groupie than a fool

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Gyrene]

It will be a shame if there is no PTO version of CM, I'd for sure skip any Desert version of CM, it would be too much like CMBO, the main difference being a greater parity in equipment between Axis & Allies, unless the game engine was really improved to include in-game breakdowns & weather effects such as sun glare, intense heat & dust clouds, other than that why bother?

Gyrene

[Culex Pipiens]

i remake my questions because probabily they were missed in the JS III discussion

1)it will be possible to make pre-trn barrage?

2)will be present also land-lease units?

3)the italians/rumanians/bulgarian etc are in the game?

4)when you make a map will be switchable to .cmc or .cmb without remaking it?

thanx

:eek:

[Vanir Ausf B]

I know the answer to your #3 is "yes". I think #2 is yes also, but don't quote me. I have no idea on the rest.

[Tero]

>Hope you like the taste of crow, Tero.

>You're about to eat a big helping.

Please feel free to join in.

>...PTO is not currently on our list. If it

>were, it would be about 4 years out. It

>absolutely will not come before any of the

>other three games currently planned.

Did I ever set a time frame for the arrival Pacific CM ? The question will still be on the table in four years just as it is now.

>I'd rather be a groupie than a fool

I hope you do not shoot yourself in the foot too often in you zeal.

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Sergei]

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

If you read my post carefully I was NOT talking about tactics, I was talking about AI dependant behaviour. Or should I say automated responces. And the effects of different "givens" embedded in the code.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I.O.W. you mean the tactical AI, no?

Steve is right in that many of the "differences" between armies are usually actually common to both sides, like picking of the bodies. You just cannot truly know, how unequalled some "national characteristic" was, unless you served in both armies at the time.

I have this notion that Finns were more likely to retreat when they thought they would be surrounded, while Soviets more often just dug in and fought to death. But what am I basing it on? No real evidences, really.

But what I can tell, is that I expect not to see too many Finnish tanks in the game. For example, Finns had only 2 (two, dos, två, kaksi, zwei) KV's, 7 T-34/85's etc. T-26's & StuG's were the only weapon that there was some more of. But hopefully the rarity factor eliminates the possibility of having such forces in QB's as in Steel Panthers... and if that is going to be well implemented, then maybe Finns could also have PzIV G's at the end of the war (although they never saw use, but hey, neither did JS-III).

Oh, and just one more thing comes to my head: how are Axis troops going to be "bought" in CM2? In CM1 you can get SS and Volksturm units into same force, which is okay. Having Finns and Bulgarians in the same force in CM2 would not be quite so believable... on the other hand, Germans sometimes fought together with their allies, which should also get in.

A question: will BT-42 get in? I know there were only 18 of them and I know they were as useless as a French partisan armed with a worn-out sock, but still...

[Tero]

>I.O.W. you mean the tactical AI, no?

Well, any- and everything the player has no control over.

>Steve is right in that many of the

>"differences" between armies are usually

>actually common to both sides, like picking

>of the bodies. You just cannot truly know,

>how unequalled some "national

>characteristic" was, unless you served in

>both armies at the time.

How many nations transported their dead back home to be buried to their home cemeteries ? To my knowledge only Finland and Japan.

>I have this notion that Finns were more

>likely to retreat when they thought they

>would be surrounded, while Soviets more

>often just dug in and fought to death.

Your notion is correct. That is why there were no major Finnish forces that would up surrounded. We were only 3,5 million at the time. The Soviets lost almost twice that many (I think) men in the great encirclements during the war.

>But what am I basing it on? No real

>evidences, really.

Oh ye, of little faith !

Actually there is real evidence to support your notion. Look up the Winter War battles up North. There you will find that the Soviet troops did dig in. And they died rather than become POW's. There is evidence of Finnish troops slipping away to fight another day when facing encirlement. Not as widely in English language as it is available in Finnish language. But the evidence is there.

>But what I can tell, is that I expect not to

>see too many Finnish tanks in the game.

There was only one armoured division in the Finnish OB from 1941-45.

>For example, Finns had only 2 (two, dos,

>två, kaksi, zwei) KV's, 7 T-34/85's etc.

It is not how many you have, it is how you use them that counts.

>T-26's & StuG's were the only weapon that

>there was some more of.

By 1944 the T-26's were useful against infantry only. There were around 100 of them so why throw them away ? The Stugs racked up a 10-1 kill ratio (80+ killed - 8 lost).

>But hopefully the rarity factor eliminates

>the possibility of having such forces in

>QB's as in Steel Panthers...

Winter War QB, AI selcting the forces. Finns attack with around 30 FT-17's. That was the highlight of historically accurate game play.

>and if that is going to be well implemented,

>then maybe Finns could also have PzIV G's at

>the end of the war (although they never saw

>use, but hey, neither did JS-III).

You mean the PzKw-IVH, right ? ;p

>Oh, and just one more thing comes to my

>head: how are Axis troops going to be

>"bought" in CM2? In CM1 you can get SS and

>Volksturm units into same force, which is

>okay. Having Finns and Bulgarians in the

>same force in CM2 would not be quite so

>believable... on the other hand, Germans

>sometimes fought together with their allies,

>which should also get in.

I think the joint Finnish-German operations can be counted with one hand. I agree, there should be some restrictions to joint forces operations. You could have the Finnish SS battalion modelled though....

>A question: will BT-42 get in? I know there

>were only 18 of them and I know they were as

>useless as a French partisan armed with a

>worn-out sock, but still...

It is basically a version of the BT-7 so it should be no sweat. It is also the only Finnish design so it should be included, IMO.

[Ari Maenpaa]

IIRC it was mentioned in Stepakov’s and Orehov’s “Parademarch to Finland” that during Winter War the Soviets, unlike the Finns, didn’t pick off their fallen quickly. This had a depressing effect on their fresh reinforcements because during the march to front line they rarely saw Finnish bodies, but instead lots of Soviet dead.

Ari

[Triumvir]

As for Pacific War campaigns being boring, I agree that most of the island hopping campaigns would be tremendously crap to play as either Japanese or American (unless you get some sadistic/masochistic glee in having/receiving 8" naval fire in _every_ game), Steve et al shouldn't forget about CBI (or Uncle Bill!) or the early war.

The early war should be especially interesting because the Japanese were more experienced but more lightly armed than the Allies, and force ratios were in general identical.

[Panzer Leader]

Tero I think you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you believe the Finns are heroes and supermen. However any further arguing on the point is useless. At least make your own thread. We have survived the IS-3 debate, now lets wrap this one up.

The reason they are not including it is exactly why Steve said, and none of your arguments can counter it:

1.) There is no scientific way to quantify an individual (or even squad) action.

B.) Due to programming choices, they will not be giving ANY national biases.

Now on to other things. Has there been any mention of including ski troops? I know the Finns and Soviets, and I believe even the Italians had ski troops in the East.

[MrSpkr]

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

How many nations transported their dead back home to be buried to their home cemeteries ? To my knowledge only Finland and Japan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Add the United States to that list. Although soldiers were often buried in makeshift cemeteries at or near the battle site, their families did have the option of requesting the war department ship their loved ones' remains home for reinternment. Many took this option - I have seen the graves myself at a National Cemetery near my childhood home.

Tero, I think you are carrying your arguments a bit far. I agree with Panzerleader (scary thought, that ) - you obviously hold the belief that once a human being put on a Finnish Army uniform, they suddenly became so powerful, so tactically adept, so rabidly fanatical that they might as well have worn a red cape and blue tights with a great big "S" on the chest. Yes, the Finns fought tenaciously. Yes, they did fairly well against the Russians. However, some U.S. troops, British troops, Canadian troops, Russian troops, German troops and others fought just as hard, just as well, and accomplished the same level of tactical successes as the Finns. In CM:BO, this result can be duplicated by sound player tactics. I see no reason why one side should get some sort of national stereotype bonus simply because the player running the show is not tactically adept enough to duplicate the accomplishments of the historical forces.

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Well haveing some Finnish friends (Hey Tommi ) I try not to discuss the Winter war or Continuation War with them, as they are almost fanatic on the superior Finnish fighting abilities etc, while down playing that in both cases they lost despite damage inflicted on the Soviets.

& to this date I have not met 1 Finn interested in WW2 who wasn't the same . Anyway they are proud of their past & who can blame them for it, their limited involvement WW2 successes were very impressive & the men who fought deserve to be honored.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> you obviously hold the belief that once a human being put on a Finnish Army uniform, they suddenly became so powerful, so tactically adept, so rabidly fanatical that they might as well have worn a red cape and blue tights with a great big "S" on the chest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We all know that only happened when one put on a helmet with tropical camo pattern and a blouse with the Eagle Globe and Anchor printed on it.

Do the Burkinabe get extra points for fighting the Bangladeshians?

Gyrene

[Michael Emrys]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is actually an interesting question and I would be curious to see it implemented in CM at some point. I think it is clearly futile to expect to see it in CM2 which is being completed as quickly as possible without additional complicating factors that would involve a big bunch of recoding of AI behavior. However, it is worth keeping the question alive in time for the big engine rewrite due for CMII.

Note to Steve: I don't believe Tero is asking for a vague, jiggery-pokery over-all bonus sort of thing, but some way of accurately reflecting doctrinal and training differences between armies and within armies at different periods. Worth thinking about?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

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

The footage I have seen would suggest they used tactics that could be said to be human wave assault. But not the early type where they came in at walking pace singing and holding hands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Michael