Careers in Combat Mission

[Triumvir]

The only real way of handling decorations/medals over a campaign would be to track each individual man in your battlegroup, something that would almost certainly require a completely new game.

I think the best use of medals/decorations ever shown was that given by the first M1 Tank Platoon, where you got allotments of promotions or medals depending on your performance in the previous game, then parceled them out to your crew for performance increases.

I'll never forget the twinge of pain I got when I saw that one of my tanks, with a crew that had survived nine missions without a scratch and had become my best unit, suddenly get hit in the side by a T-72 for a catastrophic kill.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

The only real way of handling decorations/medals over a campaign would be to track each individual man in your battlegroup, something that would almost certainly require a completely new game.

I think the best use of medals/decorations ever shown was that given by the first M1 Tank Platoon, where you got allotments of promotions or medals depending on your performance in the previous game, then parceled them out to your crew for performance increases.

I'll never forget the twinge of pain I got when I saw that one of my tanks, with a crew that had survived nine missions without a scratch and had become my best unit, suddenly get hit in the side by a T-72 for a catastrophic kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a perfect illustration of what I was trying to say in the Talonsoft is Dead thread over in the General Forum, about older games like M1 Tank Platoon having more heart. I thought their campaign game was very fun and well done, and I agree with you that I can't think of any other game that has approached the subject any better. It was indeed tough to watch one of your prime crews go up in flames.

[BloodyBucket]

Originally posted by Mattias:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Subjective of course but that simple line of text would be enough for me, as long as it is the real thing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Now that is grogism at it's unvarnished best. God forbid someone put an adjective in the text, making it "ahistorical glitz".

"As long as it is the real thing". Was the real thing the Hertzer getting eliminated due to the laws of physics, or is the memory of the smell of burnt flesh and fear just as valid? What is glitz to one is truth to another.

I am with deanco on this one. My desire to see my electronic toy soldiers get decorated has no basis in the Neverending Quest To Get The Most Realistic Simulation Possible. I just think it would be fun.

As to the general idea that it would be ahistorical glitz to have units gain quality because casualties among officers are so high, as an enlisted man I think this overestimates the importance of officers to a small unit. Leaders do not all wear silver and gold. The overall experience of any group is hard to simulate. Too much combat experience puts some people in psychiatric wards. Rest, and a good program for breaking in replacements are huge factors.

So, would that single line of text be High Res or Lo Res?

[Mattias]

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

LOL! Now that is grogism at it's unvarnished best.

I am with deanco on this one. My desire to see my electronic toy soldiers get decorated has no basis in the Neverending Quest To Get The Most Realistic Simulation Possible. I just think it would be fun.

So, would that single line of text be High Res or Lo Res?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it is a matter of taste. I don't care one whit for a stupid but good looking wargame.

However, as witty as you are you seem to disregard what I actually write. I'm no less interested in good graphics and all manner of features, if relevant and implemented in an intelligent manner, than anybody else.

But in the end the desire for realism is stronger than any graphics, otherwise I would not have endured the looks of, for example, Tigers on the Prowl..

So, yes, in this sense your fun might become my disbelief at one point, or my immersion your boredom at another.

M.

[Simon Fox]

Well if Dorosh is a hair trigger sermoniser then Aitken must be a hair trigger sarcasteriser

Every time someone has the temerity to question somefink he leaps up from his bootlicking posture and chimes in with some semi-sarcastic slightly comical flight of fancy. At least if a newbie is involved give them some time to prove themselves worthy of such treatment, or at least able to take it without sooking Then he can trot along to the gang of nuts and squirrels in the Peng thread and posture like some schoolyard bully as how he showed that new boy a thing or two. Like "check this out guys, I gave those questioners of the CM Jihad MG Model a real blast, aren't I funny?". Must be some sort of yearning for group approval thing they've got going in there.

So moving on to the topic of this thread. In my opinion both medals and campaign games are unrealistic, I can accept that some people think they would be ?cool? (though I don?t) but I am astonished that maltese uses the "realism" argument to support them. Do you realise how many acts of heroism went unrewarded by medals? Do you realise how many commanders were awarded medals because of the performance of their units? Do you realise that people didn't do these things to obtain medals? Do you realise that they often felt uncomfortable because they might have seen acts equal to their own go "unrewarded" or "unacknowledged"? Do you realise that the awarding of medals sometimes caused resentment in a unit because some may have felt others were more deserving? That said, if CM awards medals fairly on the basis of heroic acts then it is hardly likely to be historically realistic is it? Should national differences be incorporated? The Germans seemed to hand them out left right and centre whereas others (ie Commonwealth) were very reluctant to do so.

I do not think you are going to get a reasonable discussion of the campaign game idea in this thread. Because most of those who are against the idea (including BTS) have had their say in the past and are unlikely to waste much effort trotting out the same arguments again. Conversely those who support the idea are happy to chime in with their brief affirmative comments. This is why "do a search" is not a dismissive comment. If you really want to know what BTS and many others have to say on the subject then you really will have to do so. Personally I think campaign games are silly, unrealistic and I wouldn't use them. So how would their inclusion affect me, you ask? I would hate to see BTS waste time developing a campaign style game when they could be working on far more important issues of game play and realism (and I don't think they will anytime soon).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But if you take one moment in any game where you feel a fear of losing your own in-game "life" (which may give you a ever so slight picture of the hell soldiers, sailors, and pilots went through in wars) and you perform some act of courage like landing on Omaha or bringing your single tank's gun to bear on an advancing column of enemy tanks to protect a retreating column of your own soldiers, and then "living" through this incredible act, quite possibly, you may develop a better respect for bravery and self-sacrifice, a lesser respect for cowards, and a better understanding of the horrible reality of war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may have some sort of problem empathising with the experiences of others and require this "feature" in a game to enable you to do so. Rest assured many of us do not, whether it be reading a book or listening to the Last Post yesterday at the dawn service. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that such a flimsy simulacrum of reality as a computer game can remotely convey the realities of the experience, however vicariously you may wish to feel it. By implication you suggest that people round here may have an inadequate respect for bravery and self-sacrifice or insufficient understanding of the horrible reality of war and require a computer game to teach us such things. Such a comment would be moderately insulting if it weren't so ludicrous. Indeed, from your comments regarding cowards, I would suggest you are more in need of education.

Only yesterday a returned digger was relating how he used to literally piss himself with fear every time he saw action, you might think he was a coward, yet he never let his mates down and always did his duty including on one occasion charging a German MG position with a fixed bayonet (related by someone else). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hence, if you're a leader like Rommel (who led from the front), your troops will probably fight better than if you sat in the back watching your men die.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps if you're a section commander or platoon leader this may be true. But if you're a company, battalion or upward commander leading from the front is not only foolhardy but counterproductive and if you are a Army commander like Rommel it is quite silly. What you seem to be yearning for is some kind of FPS type game which CM is not. If there is any personal immersion it is as the commander who sends his troops to do battle not as the individual soldier/gunner/leader. Generally speaking CM does not simulate individuals but units so your suggestions may be more suitably applied to a different game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Obviously, there is a demand for perhaps creating some grand-campaign function within CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, there is certainly a demand. I sincerely hope that BTS turn a deaf ear to it until everything else in the game is perfect, he he

[lcm1947]

Very interesting thread. I had to laugh at some of the guys, mostly Aitlen's - well it was funny, but that's besides the point. I just want to add that I agree with you that it would add much to the game for all the reasons you pointed out. So, put me down for wanting it too. It ready was a good point and I would like to say to all of you out there that keep repeating " Do a Search " that I for one have never heard of this idea and if themaltese had ran a search and got his answer without posting it I would not have heard of it now and one of the reason's why I read and enjoy this forum is due to people like themaltese and others that bring up ideas like this. So I for one want to hear everybody's idea's. Maybe when I've been around as long as some of you I too will want more then hearing the same thing over and over but hey remember a lot of us are fairly new and do enjoy what others post. But God I do laught at some of your replys. Very witty!

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Well if Dorosh is a hair trigger sermoniser then Aitken must be a hair trigger sarcasteriser

Every time someone has the temerity to question somefink he leaps up from his bootlicking posture and chimes in with some semi-sarcastic slightly comical flight of fancy. At least if a newbie is involved give them some time to prove themselves worthy of such treatment, or at least able to take it without sooking Then he can trot along to the gang of nuts and squirrels in the Peng thread and posture like some schoolyard bully as how he showed that new boy a thing or two. Like "check this out guys, I gave those questioners of the CM Jihad MG Model a real blast, aren't I funny?". Must be some sort of yearning for group approval thing they've got going in there.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice sermon, sweetcakes. :-P

I regret to report once again that I agree with everything you said

:mad:

[Triumvir]

While I'd love to have that M1 Tank Platoon feel again (and Close Combat handled this reasonably well; I always had regrets seeing a valiant leutnant with an Iron Cross 1st Class get suddenly spread across the countryside by an MG) I don't think it's feasible with CM.

To have any kind of fidelity to the CM spirit, you'd have to choose your units at the start of the campaign, _and never upgrade them yourself_. You might have attachments to your core on occasion, but you would never have your core change a la SP, with a Tiger here and a Pzkw I there and twenty sniper units suddenly turning into crack engineers (heh heh.)

No, you'd get a choice of what kind of scale you'd want, and then have your units be assigned to you. Replacements would never exceed ten percent of your establishment, unless you lose over fifty percent of your men, in which case, all your units would be taken away and fresh ones be given to you.

That should stop the current grind-your-men-down-to-the-bone-to-capture-that-flag-cause-what-the-****-they-don't-mean-anything-anyway style of play.

There'll be a twenty percent chance (all numbers derived from careful and decisive rear extraction) of losing up to half your men every turn for cross-attachment. Every ten battles, there'll be one where you're grossly outnumbered (3-1) and expected to conduct a fighting retreat. This'll probably be the source of the fifty percent losses, and will separate the grogs from the quakers.

Ideally, you should track every man, and allow some to be promoted and dispersed among squads. This would allow you to have a cadre-type organization so that in each reorganization, you could assign veterans to the squads, which would let you do what the Germans did later in the war, as a boost to morale.

Would this be faithful? Not very, but passably. Would it be fun? Almost certainly not; the bookkeeping you'd have to do would take quite a bit of fun out of the game (unless you're a dedicated grog, in which case your answer doesn't apply to most CM players) and the feeling of losing all that you'd struggled so hard to build in one sudden swipe would probably turn off most players (did I mention limited number of saves in the middle of a game, so that you don't have that NO! Feldwebel Steiner is dead! I must restart! momen?) but would be as faithful to the spirit of CM as the rest of CM is.

[deanco]

Oh yes! M1 Tank Platoon 1!! What fun I had with that game! And 9 months later, after I thought I was burnt out on it, I fired it up on a whim one day and wound up playing it for 2 weeks straight, again! Only CM beats it for replayability. Man, those were the days...

To Mattias: OK. I may not agree with you, but OK. I keep forgetting you have put up with a lot worse in your time. Apparently Advanced Squad Leader is not for the fainthearted. Compared to that, CM must seem like a dream come true to you.

You make me think of a man walking around in wintertime with a very thin coat. A man comes up to him and says, "Here is a thick, warm coat. I ask nothing in return. It is yours for the asking." He tries it on, then takes it off again and gives it back, saying, 'No thank you, the pockets are too small.'

[themaltese]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You may have some sort of problem empathising with the experiences of others and require this "feature" in a game to enable you to do so. Rest assured many of us do not, whether it be reading a book or listening to the Last Post yesterday at the dawn service. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that such a flimsy simulacrum of reality as a computer game can remotely convey the realities of the experience, however vicariously you may wish to feel it. By implication you suggest that people round here may have an inadequate respect for bravery and self-sacrifice or insufficient understanding of the horrible reality of war and require a computer game to teach us such things. Such a comment would be moderately insulting if it weren't so ludicrous. Indeed, from your comments regarding cowards, I would suggest you are more in need of education. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just too much hot air coming from Simon Fox here! When someone has to resort to such petty ad hominem attacks, it kind of makes me wonder if Mr. Fox can read and interpret things in an educated way, and respond in an educated way. FYI, I never suggested anything by implication. All I stated was an opinion that was not designed to accuse anyone of anything, but rather to JUST state an opinion. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that... but I don't take to patronizing, hot-air filled, self-rightous, pompous, Montgomery wannabes stating so much rubbish that I'm the one that needs to be educated (especially coming from someone that has to nerve to state that Rommel's actions in leading is men from the front was "silly"). My perspective of realism in CMBO is not as good as that of someone that actually served on the Western Front during WWII, but alas, I was too young (not even born) to have been there. I DID however take the time to study the subject (and if you'd read AND understood my second entry in this thread) you can easily see that I took the time to talk and visit with some very prominent figures in WWII. Not only that, but I took the time to visit a LOT of memorials and parks to actually see a Sherman, Tiger, me-109, fw190, B-17, He-111, and more up close! I've even flown in a B-17 (Sentimental Journey, with the Confederate Airforce in Phoenix, AZ) I even had a very interesting chat with a former Sherman gunner who was staring at the Tiger on display in front of us. He told me so much about how 15 Shermans would go out, maybe 1 or 2 would come back. His tank came back several times simply because "luckily, every time we ran out, we never came across something like this (pointed at Tiger) that had any ammo left for us after having taken out almost everything on the field". So, for further realism while I'm playing CMBO, I know what the real deals look like up close, and I add to those images the words of the soldiers that I spoke with. But not everyone has had this priviledge, so pardon me if I have a little say in stating my opinion on how the game could be made just a tad more realistic. Yes, it is JUST a game, but when you have other people (as shown in this thread) that were sorely hurt when they lost their highly decorated crews in other games that offered such things as decorations and campaigns, even by simple reasoning, anyone can see that bears a strong resemblance to the real feeling of losing commrades in war. Again, let me underline that this bears A STRONG RESEMBLANCE to the real feeling, and that I am by no means implying that it a substitute in any way. In both cases, it is a feeling of loss, period. Oh, and by the way Mr. Fox, that's DR. The Maltese to you.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I DID however take the time to study the subject (and if you'd read AND understood my second entry in this thread) you can easily see that I took the time to talk and visit with some very prominent figures in WWII. Not only that, but I took the time to visit a LOT of memorials and parks to actually see a Sherman, Tiger, me-109, fw190, B-17, He-111, and more up close! I've even flown in a B-17 (Sentimental Journey, with the Confederate Airforce in Phoenix, AZ) I even had a very interesting chat with a former Sherman gunner who was staring at the Tiger on display in front of us. He told me so much about how 15 Shermans would go out, maybe 1 or 2 would come back. His tank came back several times simply because "luckily, every time we ran out, we never came across something like this (pointed at Tiger) that had any ammo left for us after having taken out almost everything on the field". So, for further realism while I'm playing CMBO, I know what the real deals look like up close, and I add to those images the words of the soldiers that I spoke with. But not everyone has had this priviledge, so pardon me if I have a little say in stating my opinion on how the game could be made just a tad more realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a degree in history and have had a book published regarding the Second World War, with another one at the publishers and awaiting only the photographic captions. I've spoken to German, Canadian and US vets, and run several successful websites on Canadian and German forces.

None of this makes me an authority, and none of it, in and of itself, gives me any greater understanding of history or the Second World War than anyone else here. I have much to learn from everyone. But the real kick in the pants is that no one, and I mean no one possesses even a fraction of "all that is knowable." There are WW II veterans who walked away from that war with a lesser understanding of many facets of it than your average 13 year old boy. Why? It was a monumental event involving tens of millions of people engaged in millions (yes, Simon, I know I'm sermonizing, shut up about it!) of different fields of endeavor.

You are free, as are we all, to state your opinions here. Don't for a second think they are worth any more than any of the rest of us. In the grand scheme of things, they are not.

I humbly submit that you should perhaps resolve to prove your knowledge by engaging in intelligent discussion and stop strutting your alleged credentials. They fail to impress. Impress us with your knowledge - not on where you claim to have gotten it from. I have clambered over Shermans and Churchill Crocodiles, but I couldn't tell you how big they are without looking them up in a book.

[themaltese]

I never stated that my opinions are worth more than others', and I most certainly never implied that. Also, I never implied that anyone is all-knowing on the subject of war. Yes, WWII was a terrible thing. So terrible, in fact, that to this day we're still trying to figure out why and what happened. We've got veterans, we've got memorials, we've got books, videos, ...., and games. Combine all these forms of media and focus them on one subject (such as WWII) and one may have a BETTER understanding of this titanic event, but still a long shot from TOTAL understanding. As for my "alleged credentials", you can go see for yourself the tanks at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, visit the B-17 Sentimental Journey and the He-111 that the Confederate Airforce still flies out of Phoenix, and visit the Champlin Fighter Museum where, back around '89 I had a most memorable conversation with Erich Hartmann (highest ranking ace in history with 352 kills) and Adolf Galland (fighter general) in the vicinity of a VERY rare fw190-D9. 'Kind of funny that at that time, I was only about 24 years old or so, and here were these two Knight's Cross winners joking about how one of them actually received 3 Knight's Crosses as a result of a quality of diamond feud between Hitler and "Her Mayer" (Goering). So, let me not digress too much here, but my previous post was a response strictly to Mr. Fox and his attack on my person rather than my idea. I am by no means lacking in education, and I am by no means an arrogant and patronizing person. I respect opinions, but have no tolerance for just plain stupid remarks.

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: themaltese ]

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just too much hot air coming from Simon Fox here!..........Oh, and by the way Mr. Fox, that's DR. The Maltese to you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My abject apologies, your highness. Had I but known you had a title I would never have deigned to question you. Of course I cannot possibly have visited as many memorials as yourself and must therefore remain ignorant and ill-educated. If I had but known of your exalted status, which you have so kindly pointed out to me (at considerable length too), I should never have misinterpreted your intent by drawing a logical conclusion from your comments. No, I should have known that the true meaning of your statements would be hidden from one so unworthy as myself. Obviously it is beyond me to understand that the passing connection one might feel to a well performing set of pixels has a "strong resemblance to the real feeling of losing commrades in war", however you might like to qualify the statement.

I apologise too for my presumption in criticising your idol, Rommel. How prescient of you too recognise that I style myself on Monty. Always better to style oneself upon a winner, don't you think?

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>yes, Simon, I know I'm sermonizing, shut up about it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look here Dorosh, there's no need to get all serious about this. I have seen the error of my ways. It's exactly like this malteser bloke says. Any criticism of what he has written, irrespective of how silly it might be, must be a personal attack upon him and therefore can only be characterised as a "stupid remark", the product of uneducated interpretation or both. Any pointing out of the possible implications, however unintended, should be rightly met with disdain.

By the way Dorosh, I have instructed you before to address me with due respect, highness or master will do just fine. "shut up" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

[BloodyBucket]

I am starting to think my electronic toy soldiers deserve a medal for putting up with this thread.

[deanco]

LOL BloodyBucket!

[themaltese]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I apologise too for my presumption in criticising your idol, Rommel. How prescient of you too recognise that I style myself on Monty. Always better to style oneself upon a winner, don't you think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL Monty, a winner? Monty didn't beat Rommel, Hitler did. Also, there's that little floundering escapade that Monty performed just after D-Day. Read your books about that! What a "brilliant winning" performance that was! Not to mention, was Monty well respected by both sides both during and after the war? Messages like, "...mit Rommel an der spit!" (with Rommel at the lead) sent an electrifying morale boosting wave amongst the Germans, and a wave of caution and fear amongst the British. For crying out loud, the British even had to issue an ORDER to diffuse the superstition around Rommel being some kind of bogey-man or something! Churchill even publicly mourned Rommel's death with praise. Oh, and let's see, I'm counting at first glance 7 books that I've got on Rommel, a few on Guderian, several on Patton, but I don't recall ever having wasted money on a book on Monty... (albeit, I think there are one or two out there). Rommel and Patton were by far the best, all round field leaders on the Western Front. They both led by example, and never asked of their men to do something that they themselves would not do. Of course, all this is my opinion, and I'm sure it's shared by others as yours is shared by others as well.

Back to my original subject in this thread... my question has been more than answered by intelligent individuals arguing both pro and con for having a grand-campaign and medal awarding setup in CMBO. Yes, there is a demand for having these features, but I see that there are a lot of complications involved with implementing such (as some of you have pointed out). Perhaps, if those of us in favor of such features keep posting threads on the subject, BTS might take another look at this concept and other great ideas like a "co-op" mode as suggested by Gyrene in another thread. For those of you that resort to comments like "do a search" and justify them, perhaps you might want to send your resume to Microsoft and work for their Knowledge Bank (FAQ) site. Like this, everytime you receive an email asking a question or pointing out something, you could always use your answer "do a search".

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: themaltese ]

[Madmatt]

Blah blah blah.....Yeah whatever. Pontificate somewhere else children.

Now, as tow the two points brought up:

Co-Op Play: this is something we will look at when we rewrite the game code (CMII). We think it would be cool too, but not sure how feasable the coding would be and too much work to put in now.

Career Mode: Not likely as it's a little out of the design scope of the game. We have commented on this element many times in the past. Once the Search Feature is fixed (UBB admits its yet another bug) I would recommend looking it up as there were some pretty good conversations in the past about this.

Madmatt

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Madmatt ]