A BUNCH of answers to your questions!

[killmore]

From 1943 onward there was also 200,000+ Polish army fighting Axis on East front.

So if Poland was included into CM it should be included into CM2.

Polish troops took part in taking Berlin.

Gee - Do Rumanian troops appear on Soviet side in 1944?

[Commissar]

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

Hi John,

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>

Hey Steve. Just do what you need to do and do what you want to do. I think you and Charles have proven that you guys know what you are doing and whether this or that weapon is included isn't going to stop me and whole legion of others from buying this game. Personally, my feeling is the more weapon(s) you can add the better *wink* *wink*. Playing hypothetical battles with certain units is fun as hell.

I remember when CC3 first came out and there was a similar debate on a certain tank being included which got a whole lot of people's panties in a bunch. Atomic just said it was there for fun and hypothetical puposes. It's inclusion didn't affect my enjoyment of that game whatsoever. CM1's inclusion of the JagdTiger, Pershing, Super Pershing failed to ruin CM1. CM2's inclusion of other similar weapons for hypothetical and fun purposes will hardly ruin it either.

Again, I think you've made it quite clear why you chosen to include this particular weapon and why you have chosen to leave out other weapons. I am currently learning programming so I am beginning to have some inkling of an idea of the necessity for programmers/designers to put limits on a client's wants and draw a line. Please don't let certain debates discourage you. They are words and opinions, nothing more. I'm willing to bet most people, including the debators, are ultimately fine either way. There are always exceptions but then what else is new. Grogs like to argue and complain, hence the term. Most people wouldn't have a clue about the stuff we like to talk about so when we meet someone who actually may know enough to have a debate with, sparks fly sometimes.

I rabidly look forward to CM2. I'm so desperate for some good East front action I've had to resort to CC3 and old hex-based games. Hopefully you can change that this year.

[Grisha]

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

From 1943 onward there was also 200,000+ Polish army fighting Axis on East front.

So if Poland was included into CM it should be included into CM2.

Polish troops took part in taking Berlin.

Gee - Do Rumanian troops appear on Soviet side in 1944?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. In fact, there were two Polish Armies in the Soviet OB before war's end. The thing is they probably looked exactly like Red Army soldiers.

[killmore]

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

Very true. In fact, there were two Polish Armies in the Soviet OB before war's end. The thing is they probably looked exactly like Red Army soldiers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were some distinctions in the uniform and tank insignia.

I think Polish tanks had White Eagle emblem on them. Not a red star.

Same goes for helmets?

I will be in Poland in 3 weeks - I will be able to tell you more...

[Sergei]

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

Gee - Do Rumanian troops appear on Soviet side in 1944?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I asked earlier about this (Finns also fought against Germans until they withdrew to Norway in early -45), but the answer was negative then.

[massimorocca]

"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"

Yap the Batallions Mount Cervino and Vestone,

"mobile" reserve of the Alpini Army Corp in the Eight Army

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hang on... do you mean to say they continually buggered off when the fighting got tough, much like "brave Sir Robin"?

Regards

Jim R.

[Tero]

>Hang on... do you mean to say they

>continually buggered off when the fighting

>got tough, much like "brave Sir Robin"?

>

Who won in the end, the Merry Men or the Sherifs Men ? And which of the two teams suffered more casualties ?

[Tero]

>Tero I think you have proven beyond a shadow

>of a doubt that you believe the Finns are

>heroes and supermen.

Where did you pick that one up ?

>1.) There is no scientific way to quantify

>an individual (or even squad) action.

How so ? They are already scientifically quantified with the arms the squads carry. What makes it impossible to quantify other aspects of their performance ? All we need is a set of fact which are used to determine the parameters. One set is given by Dupuy.

>B.) Due to programming choices, they will

>not be giving ANY national biases.

They ARE already giving national biases in CM when they among other things denied the Germans the rifle grenades and when they decided most Allied tanks get various handicaps to help them survive in the battle field. They were given in the name of play balance but they are still biases non the less.

>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.

I believe they have been mentioned to be in the in-list.

[Jarmo]

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

Who won in the end, the Merry Men or the Sherifs Men ? And which of the two teams suffered more casualties ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong Robin..

[Tarkus]

Hey guys,

With the huge fuss around the IS-3, my inquirery got lost, and I still would like to know what people here think about it (I'd like to get Steve point of view as well, but I don't want to be the one that prevent the guy from finishing CMBB ASAP .) So here we go again:

When, in CMBO, a squad has lost its appropriate HQ, the only way to regain a proper command over that unit is to bring up a higher level HQ unit, that is, a company or a battalion HQ. The problem that sometimes occur, mostly in operations, is when losses are high enough to call for a major administrative overhaul to reassign units, in order to form more balanced platoons.

My question: have you guys at BTS thought about a way to implement a feature where Platoon HQ could command squads other than their organic ones?

I have been given extensive thoughts about that (both historically and game-wise) and think this would be an accurate one. Just to take a few examples, the Ardennes campaign

(mostly for the US Army) saw many such an arrangement, as did the Wehrmacht in Normandy. And I do have good references on this.

Anyway, let me know your thoughts on this.

Ciao

Tarkus

[M Hofbauer]

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

My question: have you guys at BTS thought about a way to implement a feature where Platoon HQ could command squads other than their organic ones?

I have been given extensive thoughts about that (both historically and game-wise) and think this would be an accurate one. Just to take a few examples, the Ardennes campaign

(mostly for the US Army) saw many such an arrangement, as did the Wehrmacht in Normandy. And I do have good references on this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually, such administrative reorganizations would not occur at the climax of a melee of a 30-turn CM battle.

If your sources include references where the staff of a division is regularly reorganizing it's platoons and companies with one hand while bayonetting the enemy with the other hand I am most intrigued to hear/read them.

But seriously, I think such reorganizations are definitely outside of CM's time scope. The CM batles show only the hot half hour of an engagement, not the preparation, not the aftermath. I think there will not be reorganizations just like there won't be rearming, refueling, and repair.

Not saying I am against your idea, would be nice, I would welcome it, but as far as I can see it is considered too much micromanaging by the powers that be.

[Spook]

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

They ARE already giving national biases in CM when they among other things denied the Germans the rifle grenades and when they decided most Allied tanks get various handicaps to help them survive in the battle field. They were given in the name of play balance but they are still biases non the less.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you'd best be prepared to describe in what exact ways the Allied tanks are ahistorically given "handicaps," just for the sake of play balance.

(And yes, I am aware of many Allied tanks given a gyrostabilizer capability, but here again, what is the quantifiable impact on play balance?)

I pose this question because I recall the repeated declarations in the past, by Steve et al, that ahistorical "fudges" are NOT supposed to be applied in CM just for the sake of "play balance." BTS allowed the gyrostabilizers to apply to CM, by example, because there was a historical basis to do so, AND that Aberdeen test records did quantify the relative benefit of these devices for moving-vehicle fire.

[patboivin]

Maybe the HQ units could be 1 level worse than when they are commanding their own units.

e.g. stealth 2 would become stealth 1.

[Tarkus]

From M Hofbauer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Usually, such administrative reorganizations would not occur at the climax of a melee of a 30-turn CM battle.

I think such reorganizations are definitely outside of CM's time scope. The CM batles show only the hot half hour of an engagement, not the preparation, not the

aftermath. I think there will not be reorganizations just like there won't be rearming,refueling, and repair. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we both agree on the fact that during a battle (or at any other time), no HQ, whether divisional or regimental, could (or should) get involved in any admin that deal with platoon and squad organisation. What I have in mind is for tactical reorg between battles (as depicted in operations).

I also agree with the fact that such reorg were not a common practice nor did they occured under fire. On the other hand, and to stick to my example of the Ardennes offensive, many US units saw continuous action for days, hence the need for some units-swapping at the front. Perhaps a drop-down menu such as "Allow HQ to command any squad" in the opration parameter editor would be the solution? See below for limitations.

From patbovin

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Maybe the HQ units could be 1 level worse than when they are commanding their own units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking along these lines as well, say, no leadership bonuses applied and a maximum of three commanded squads.

Thanks for your input guys.

Oh, and again, any clue about the appearance of the Brummbär in CMBB?

Cheers

Tarkus

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Maybe the HQ units could be 1 level worse than when they are commanding their own units.

e.g. stealth 2 would become stealth 1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err...so company commanders would be 1 level worse when commanding squads?? No thanks.

Company and battalion commanders would be wel known to their men most of the time, and quiet capable of leading them competently (except that my ones always seem to cmoe with NO modifiers at all!! )

Even within a company the platoon comanders would probably be known to most of the troops adn they'd be able to transfer around a bit without too much bother.

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[Tero]

>I think you'd best be prepared to describe

>in what exact ways the Allied tanks are

>ahistorically given "handicaps," just for

>the sake of play balance.

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

>(And yes, I am aware of many Allied tanks

>given a gyrostabilizer capability, but here

>again, what is the quantifiable impact on

>play balance?)

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 ?

>I pose this question because I recall the

>repeated declarations in the past, by Steve

>et al, that ahistorical "fudges" are NOT

>supposed to be applied in CM just for the

>sake of "play balance." BTS allowed the

>gyrostabilizers to apply to CM, by example,

>because there was a historical basis to do

>so, AND that Aberdeen test records did

>quantify the relative benefit of these

>devices for moving-vehicle fire.

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.

[Grunto IV]

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

[QB}All I have read it was disconnected so as not to make reloading more difficult.

[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if memory serves, the designers' notes in squad leader said the same was generally true.

andy

[Tero]

>Usually, such administrative reorganizations

>would not occur at the climax of a melee of

>a 30-turn CM battle.

I think one possible scenario would be when a fresh platoon comes across a suppressed squad. As things stand now that squad will not get any benefits from other HQ units than its own platoon HQ and Company HQ. I see no reason for a platoon HQ not wanting to rally and take command of a unit which has been cut off from its parent HQ.

>But seriously, I think such reorganizations

>are definitely outside of CM's time scope.

Not entirely. In the heat of the battle a squad falling outside the CC radius of its parent HQ is not uncommon. I think it is not unreasonable for a HQ unit other than Company level to take command of a "lost" squad until it can reach its parent unit. I think this kind of occurance can be corraborated by a number of sources.

>Not saying I am against your idea, would be

>nice, I would welcome it, but as far as I

>can see it is considered too much

>micromanaging by the powers that be.

I think that would not be micromanagement. It would be normal management of battlefield assets. What would have to be decided if there is a time limit to be imposed before the lost squad becomes ellidgible for aquiring new HQ benefits from other HQ's in the same level as its parent HQ. I would say it could be something in the order of 5-10 minutes. That would allow for normal breaks in CC due to terrain and battle field evenst other than the loss of the parent HQ due to enemy action.

[Tero]

>Wrong Robin..

Oh ? I thought he meant Sir Robin of Locksley AKA Robin Hood.

[Tarkus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Stalin's Organ So company commanders would be 1 level worse when commanding squads?? No

thanks. Company and battalion commanders would be well known to their men most of the time, and quite capable of leading them competently (except that my ones always seem to cmoe with NO modifiers at all!! )Even within a company the platoon comanders would probably be known to most of the troops and they'd be able to transfer around a bit without too much bother.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to submit three points here.

1.- The way I see it, the "no leadership bonuses" suggestion is more related to platoon HQs being assigned non-organic squads, not to company HQs or higher.

2.- I agree with you that company and battalion commander were probably well known by their men and could lead them in the field. But, IMHO, leading men in the field (read: giving men orders) is slightly different than efficiently manoeuvering a combat formation under fire.

If one assume that the leadership bonuses are only a representation of the leader's leadership talent, then the rationale of the "no leadership bonuses" doesn't make any sense. I personnaly think that the leader's stats are a representation of both his leadership abilities and the result of training with his men. Of course, this does not hold with support weapons team that you can assign to anybody, but I'd venture to say that commanding a two-men zook team is a little less complex than it is a 12-men squad.

3.- Not having the leadership modifiers applied to non-organic squads would be a good way to illustrate the hastly conditions under which these arrangements were made.

Ok, I guess it's time for me to take my pill.

Cheers

Tarkus

[Sergei]

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

Oh ? I thought he meant Sir Robin of Locksley AKA Robin Hood. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's from Monty Python & the Holy Grail.

www.montypython.net

MINSTREL (singing): Bravely bold Sir Robin, rode forth from Camelot. He was not afraid to die, o Brave Sir Robin. He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways. Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin! He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp, Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken. To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away, And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin! His head smashed in and his heart cut out, And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged, And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off, And his penis...

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

[Tero]

>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.

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.

>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.

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 ?

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.

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).

>Yes, the Finns fought tenaciously. Yes,

>they did fairly well against the Russians.

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

>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.

I am not saying they did not do just that. But the results the each armies reached were not reached using the same basic tactics that were only dependant on the experience level of the troops.

>In CM:BO, this result can be duplicated by

>sound player tactics.

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 tcatics of any other army for that matter). 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.

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.

Do you want me to list my gripes on the on- and off-board artillery and other assets ?

>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.

I wonder why you guys refer to it as national stereotype or bias ? And why do you refer to it as bonus ?

There were quantifiable differences in the tactics and doctrine used by different armies.

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

[Tero]

>....while down playing that in both cases

>they lost despite damage inflicted on the

>Soviets.

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.

>& to this date I have not met 1 Finn

>interested in WW2 who wasn't the same .

That must be because you guys are reading histories on the subject that are less than accurate.

>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.

I could not agree with you more.

Mind you, that is not saying I dishonour the efforts of the rest of the WWII veterans.

[Tero]

>Do the Burkinabe get extra points for

>fighting the Bangladeshians?

Depends: are they fighting on their home turf ? And have they been trained purely by foreign advisors or by their countrymen who are applying the tactics they have learned while serving in a foreign army to suit the local conditions and the available resources ?