Allies vs.Allies etc - Why not????

[Guest Space Thing]

Originally posted by Chupacabra:

I would prefer to have a historically correct game sooner rather than a hypothetically correct game later.

Me too. Thanks for your help.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Space Thing:

I have questions for Jeff, Chupacabra -HEY, put down that goat! , or anyone else for that matter):

Were the French troops that fought US troops the same ones that are depicted in CMBO?

Were they the same kind of US equipped French troops? Or were they different?

Did they ride around in Shermans and Hellcats like they can in CMBO?

IF they aren't the same, then it is still ludicrous to have them fight US troops in a CMBO QB, because they would be an army that is beyond the depicted scope of the game.

Absolutely. I was referencing the future of CM. It has already been stated that CM1 is done, so any hopes for any substantative changes are for nought.

Jeff Heidman

[OGSF]

Here's my 0.02c.

I am not the least bit interested in playing British vs British scenarios, or Polish vs American, etc. I am interested in WWII wargaming (amongst other things).

I accept that others may have different interests.

Personally, I am thankful that BTS have been quite rigorous in adhering to their vision for this GAME (capitals used for no particular reason). It is their vison which created the historical simulation we have today. Nobody else anywhere had the vision or courage to successfully try anything like it for the WWII period.. If maximum market penetration was an over-riding issue for BTS, CM would not exist as we know it.

So if "fantasy sides" were incorporated as an option, it wouldn't confront me. If it was done to the detriment of the historically accurate wargame aspects (98%) of Combat Mission, I would be most disappointed.

OGSF

------------------

You posture more than Marcia Brady with books on her head and you chatter like a dolphin near the fish bucket. - Dalem

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi there... sorry, no time to read this thread, but I think I know how to answer it...

It is not possible for either CM1 or CM2 to have same sides fighting against each other. Unfortunately, this would require an entire game engine rewrite because it is simply not set up to allow this. Now... some of you know that we are planning on rewriting the CM engine after the Eastern Front. I can tell you that the code assumptions that prevent same side fighting will be avoided. Put another way, in CM II (engine rewrite) you will be able to fight against the same exact side that you command.

There is a simple reason for this. If you REALLY want to know which person is the best commander, one needs to eliminate as many variables as possible. If two players each have a platoon of US Sherman M4A3s and 2 US Rifle Companies Pattern 1944, on a map that is symetrical, then you have a pretty interesting game ahead of you. Is this something people would want to do all the time? Naw... but it would be a good thing to add!

Steve

[Goofy]

Dumbo/2 said: They maybe wrong and they may take thing too seriously in your view but surely you can understand the sentiment?

Dumbo, I recognize the sentiment and in a different context I could understand it but when I logged in I was told this forum was to discuss the GAME of CM. That's the context this forum operates in. When people discuss the technical aspects of a certain vehicle or weapons load out of a specific type squad at a certain date I feel like that falls within the context of this forum. What I see is the discussion of game mechanics shifting to a question of philosophy. I don't think Steve and Charles intended to make a philosophical statement on WWII by producing this game (other than See how well this CAN be done!). I most certainly could be wrong. I also don't think they did it to get rich, I could be wrong here too! LOL!!! They seem WAY to interested in their customers to be in it just for the money!

I read some of these posts and want to say "You do know it a game, right? Right? Right?"

PS. Just saw BTS reply to the thread. Hooray!! It's a GAME!!!!

------------------

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!

[This message has been edited by Goofy (edited 01-25-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Goofy:

Just saw BTS reply to the thread. Hooray!! It's a GAME!!!!

The funny thing is that do you know who requests that we put in this feature the most? The US Army and Marines using CM as an unofficial training tool One of the things they do is "fight" each other using the same stuff. In theory, the better commander/team/soldier/etc. wins based on skill and not any sort of inherent advantage based on what is used in battle. In other words, all discussions of Tungsten, better tank designs, who has better small arms, etc. becomes irrelevant since both sides have exactly the same stuff.

So yes, CM is a Game. But oddly enough, this feature is most requested as a Sim

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

It is not possible for either CM1 or CM2 to have same sides fighting against each other.

So, no Finns vs. Germans? Damn... Or maybe it could be possible to make the Finnish army be shown on the Soviet side from fall 1944 onwards, in some way.

What are the plans after CMII is done? How long is it going to take before we see a revised CM1/2? Until the sun fades and hell freezes?

[Guest Mongo Lloyd]

Thank you BTS for finally commenting on this. When CM first came out I made an inquiry about this and the question has finally been answered. All I can say is... Hooray! Look out Brits, here come the Yanks!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Sergei wrote:

So, no Finns vs. Germans? Damn... Or maybe it could be possible to make the Finnish army be shown on the Soviet side from fall 1944 onwards, in some way.

Well... there were some skirmishes, but nothing really major. There were all sorts of secret arrangements to not actually fight each other. Some of them, from what I recall, were very surreal.

Dunno what we are going to do about the Rumanians. There was serious fighting between the two for months. Soviets used them like a battering ram, hoping to cause as much death to the Germans AND the Rumanians as possible. We'll just have to see...

Mongo, glad to please you. Not going to happen for a long time, but I'm sure you already knew that

Steve

[SenorBeef]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

I agree, but those two units are hard coded as enemy, so every time they confront each other they automatically want to blow the other away.

The way I understand it (and I'm only guessing here as I have no knowledge in computer coding, much less the way CM is coded), when you select a Firefly the computer draws upon a "base" code of a Firefly and then adds all the additions that make it Canadian, Polish, etc...This base code tells it to treat all other 'flies as friendly and all Panthers as threats. With allied vs allied scenarios this code must now be changed, and litteraly changed on the fly, as we can now fire up a QB in seconds, and some of us want to play allied vs allied in one game and allied vs axis in another.

I'm guessing that for this to work Charles is going to have to include something in the code that distinguishes the different nationalities, therby allowing Poles vs Canadians, Germans vs Italians, etc...

I'd have to take an educated guess to say that the system works nothing like that at all. It would be an enourmous amount of useless extra coding that could be enourmously simplified. A given unit probably doesn't think in terms of "That panzerschrek over there is an enemy, but a bazooka, thats on my side".. Its probably more of a factor of each unit having a "side" variable, set to either 1 or 2 (or whatever), that represented side A and B. Therefore, it'd probably run something like "Is that unit over there on side A (my side?) If no, then enemy, if yes, then friend". Its much easier to code it to say "This unit thinks any unit of the opposide side is an enemy" rather than "panthers, panzerschrecks, pak 75s, ect" are the enemy specifically. It'd just take extra work that would make things less modular, with no reason to do it.

Charles may've set it up so that it evaluated the nationality (ie "Ok, I'm british, hes german, so hes an enemy"), but even that would be unnecesary, and contrary to modularity. And if that were the case, it would still be easily fixable and switched over to a "side a, side b" system. All the computer really cares about is "this squad is firing at this squad with 40 firepower at 20% exposure", not "this squad is this other squads natural enemy".. Essentially, all charles would have to do is edit the part that says "If side A is allies, then side B must be germans" or vice versa. I don't think it would take more than a half hour.. Whats keeping us from seeing this system is an idea that somehow adding new optional features detracts from features that are already in.

[SenorBeef]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hi there... sorry, no time to read this thread, but I think I know how to answer it...

It is not possible for either CM1 or CM2 to have same sides fighting against each other. Unfortunately, this would require an entire game engine rewrite because it is simply not set up to allow this. Now... some of you know that we are planning on rewriting the CM engine after the Eastern Front. I can tell you that the code assumptions that prevent same side fighting will be avoided. Put another way, in CM II (engine rewrite) you will be able to fight against the same exact side that you command.

There is a simple reason for this. If you REALLY want to know which person is the best commander, one needs to eliminate as many variables as possible. If two players each have a platoon of US Sherman M4A3s and 2 US Rifle Companies Pattern 1944, on a map that is symetrical, then you have a pretty interesting game ahead of you. Is this something people would want to do all the time? Naw... but it would be a good thing to add!

Steve

I don't know a thing about how CM was made specifically, but I can't see why you wouldn't want the units to be completely modular as far as who they can target. Theres no reason to 'hard code' into a sherman the logic that says "Only attack tigers or panthers", when "only attack the opposing side" would be more modular, efficient, and ultimately easier to program. I don't mean to presume that its necesarily harder that way, because I'm not sure how CM was designed, but in my experience, there would be no need for the targetting AI to know anything other than whether or not a unit was an enemy, its threat level, and the chance of destroying it... I don't see why you'd go through the extra step of adding in "Shermans can only attack tigers, panthers, mark 4s, ect", and shoot yourself in the foot, when you could simply have it say "Shermans can attack enemies that are determined through the side that they're on"

[tss]

Big Time Software wrote:

Well... there were some skirmishes, but nothing really major. There were all sorts of secret arrangements to not actually fight each other. Some of them, from what I recall, were very surreal.

I think that only two Finnish-German battles could provide material for historical scenarios, the battles of Suursari Island and Tornio. Most of the others were, as you say, skirmishes.

The Tornio battle would actually be pretty interesting, captured French Somuas against captured Soviet T-26s. Throw in bad terrain and Panzerfausts and -shrecks for both sides...

- Tommi

[M. Bates]

What is the exact purpose in releasing CM2, CM3 or CM4??

Why not release 'Combat Mission XL', where the US army can fight the evil Canadians/ Australians/ British/ French/ Germans/ Finnish/ Italians/ Romanians/ Hungarians/ Arabs/ Eskimos... from the years 1939 to 1946... and be done with it?

Just include the necessary desert, grass, snow textures and we have a hit on our hands!

After all - once the weaponary for the Eastern Front is done, combined with the existing CM1 stuff - there is not much more to be included.

I can't be the only one who will pay good money to engage 1939 Bavarian peasants (infantry only, no air support) against the 1946 coalition of SS and Soviet troops (combined arms, w/ artillery pts traded for armor pts)!!

Who will need historical accuracy with the New Improved Consumer Friendly Quick Battle Editor?

------------------

Rugged Defense England Team Website:

http://combatmission.portland.co.uk

For all our AARs

------------------

"I drive over farmyard animals in my farmyard tractor, then I laugh afterwards."--CavScout [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[This message has been edited by M. Bates (edited 01-26-2001).]

[Papa Smurf]

Spacethingy (I think - apologies if it's not you who was "opposing" me on this point) - Can you define for me exactly what the difference between the 2 different hypothetical situations :

1) US vs British (for instance)

2) Canadians vs Germans in a battle that *never actually happened* (for instance)

Surely from a historical perspective (which I *personally* don't give a stuff about) both are equally invalid to "purists" like yourself (again, apologies if I've got the wrong guy) and therefore neither should be available.

At the end of the day it all comes down to free will and the right to "do your own thing" - something I thought you Yanks are pretty big on...

(Not trying to start a war - just trying to make my point understood)

Neil

------------------

I don't sing. I don't dance. I ain't blue. Anything else you need to know?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Well... there were some skirmishes, but nothing really major. There were all sorts of secret arrangements to not actually fight each other. Some of them, from what I recall, were very surreal.

That was until, umm, late September, when Soviets supervising the internment operation (all Germans were to be taken as POW's and given to Soviets) got suspicious and demanded swiftier outcome, lest Finland wanted Soviets to liberate Lapland. (The biggest reason probably was to have Finns make Germans busy, as Soviets were planning their own offensive to Petsamo.)

So in October Finnish army made a daring attempt - a seaborne invasion to Tornio in German rear, made with civilian cargo ships as nothing better was available. A single gun at the port could have turned it into catastrophe.

As the beachhead threatened to cut German retreat route, they attempted to push Finns into sea. The result was a bitter, week-long battle. Finally Germans had to retreat. After that, there were some fierce small scale fights, typically Germans defended a delaying position and Finns tried to outflank through the wilderness.

It's fine if you don't see it worthy to add. But if you find a way to do it with Romanians, then maybe it wouldn't be too difficult to do the same trick with Finns. That is, if and maybe.

[Guest Space Thing]

Wow, thanks Steve for clearing things up. I appreciate your direction on this board.

[Guest Space Thing]

Originally posted by Papa Smurf:

Spacethingy (I think - apologies if it's not you who was "opposing" me on this point) - Can you define for me exactly what the difference between the 2 different hypothetical situations :

1) US vs British (for instance)

2) Canadians vs Germans in a battle that *never actually happened* (for instance)

Surely from a historical perspective (which I *personally* don't give a stuff about) both are equally invalid to "purists" like yourself (again, apologies if I've got the wrong guy) and therefore neither should be available.

At the end of the day it all comes down to free will and the right to "do your own thing" - something I thought you Yanks are pretty big on...

(Not trying to start a war - just trying to make my point understood)

Neil

Hey Neil,

I'm not sure either. What the heck. Lets have -everything goes. If it's optional, hey, I'll try it. Freedom of choice is a great thing. It can't be beat, IMO.

The US vs. UK thing to me is implausible since England depended so much on the US in 1944-45. However, I guess that it would make sense if I looked at "same-side" QB scenarios as field exercises between allies as opposed to WAR. OK, I can live with that.

Thanks.

[Papa Smurf]

Cool - now I just gotta convince BTS to rewrite the entire engine.

Neil

------------------

I don't sing. I don't dance. I ain't blue. Anything else you need to know?

[Robert Mayer]

I find it rather amazing that folks would object so strenuously to the mere ability to create scenarios at variance with one's conception of historical fact. No one is asking for BTS to include scenarios pitting the US against the UK, the SS against the Heer, or the Fins against the Belgians (or whomever ). What's being asked for--and from what BTS has said, what's going to be delivered, albeit a long time from now with CM II--is the *ability* for users to create battles pitting any side against any side.

This is an ability that has long been valued by wargamers, if only to set up the sort of laboratory situations useful for tournaments or bragging rights. And WWII certainly provides enough weird situations that you could play around with, that would necessitate odd side pairings. And then there's stuff like "what if the German commandos in the Bulge had used real American equipment to take on GIs" scenarios, which aren't realistic necessarily but also aren't beyond the realm of possibility.

Personally, I play pretty much only scenarios, not quick battles, and like the historical ones. But I value flexibility in a game, particularly a game dealing with something as inherently fascinating and rife with variation as war.

[Terence]

Personally, I'd like to try out a couple nightmare scenarios with the US and British battling the Soviets in the ruins of Berlin/Germany.

It could have happened, especially if Eisenhower had not stopped at the Rhine to wait. And if there had been a British General in charge of SHAEF, the allies might easily not have stopped at the Rhine.

The British government had a much more pragmatic --and accurate-- vision of what post war Europe would look like and had no illusions that the Soviets would play nice. Roosevelt thought he could work with Uncle Joe. What a mistake that turned out to be.

A British general at the helm might have easily pushed Allied troops farther into the Balkans after Sicily instead of switching all emphasis to Overlord, and then might have raced the Soviets to Berlin.

Stalin (who never trusted the west an inch) if he had had to content with the allies brushing up against him in the Balkans (which he wanted as buffers against the brit dominated med) and then saw the IMPERIALIST armies racing for BERLIN, might have easily battled for the city.

It would have been kind of a short war, though, cause we would have probably threatened to dropped an atomic bomb on Russia.

[Guest Space Thing]

Originally posted by Robert Mayer:

No one is asking for BTS to include scenarios pitting the US against the UK, the SS against the Heer, or the Fins against the Belgians (or whomever ). .

I am asking specifically for German Heer units vs. SS units. It would not be improbable for that historically speaking since it came so close to happening on a large scale. We're talking about a table leg's distance away at the Wolf's Lair. The rest would only be field exercises to me.

[Terence]

I asked my Dad, who is a very smart guy, about the historical liklihood of a clash between the US and Russia in the immediate post war period. I submit it cause I think some of the historically inclined on the board may find it interesting.

He is not crazy about Montgomery (but hey -- so are a lot of English generals too) and said this:

--begin Terence's Dad's email--

There WAS a British general on the scene, as you will recall: the ever-irritating and self-consumed Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, who commanded British forces in northern Europe. He was constantly agitating and scheming with the British Chiefs of Staff to be given the main flow of supplies out of Antwerp, plus some American armies (he got the Ninth, under Simpson), to push across the Rhein and head for Berlin.

He wanted Patton to be cut off so the British could push ahead to Berlin. He was backed by the British Chief of General Staff, Sir Alan Brooke, who was constantly sneering at Eisenhower and all Americans.

Eisenhower squelched Montgomery, who appealed to Brooke and Churchill. The Prime Minister was furious that Eisenhower was taking the Ninth Army away from Montgomery and had no apparent plan to go for Berlin. Churchill appealed to Ike to change his plans and plunge for Berlin. Ike said no, and Churchill knew the Combined Chiefs would back Ike. Roosevelt was on the edge of death, and so was out of the decision-making.

Ike had already communicated directly with Stalin, telling him he did not intend to go to Berlin, and suggesting a line for a linkup with the Red Army.

Eisenhower explained, then and later, that he saw no military purpose in taking Berlin. His orders from the Combined Chiefs were to enter the continent of Europe and destroy the armies of Nazi Germany. To do that, he intended to encircle the Ruhr and drive into Bavaria, where he had been led

to believe the Nazi war machine was mounting a last-gasp "redoubt." (It wasn't real, of course.)

Also in Eisenhower's mind was the fact that the division of Berlin and Germany into assigned occupation zones had already been agreed and mapped at allied conferences with Stalin. As Ike explained later, he did not see why he should take huge casualties to grab a destroyed capital that he would have to evacuate almost immediately. At the time of the argument over the decision, allied forces were 200 to 300 miles from Berlin, while the Russians were only

30.

Ike asked Omar Bradley how many casualties the U.S. might take in a drive to Berlin. Bradley estimated 100,000, and that was probably pretty fair, since the Soviets took 300,000 over their last 30 miles.

Now of course the difference in the history is that the U.S. stuck strictly to the agreed-upon zones. At the time of the surrender, Patton had zipped into Czechoslovakia and captured Prague, while other U.S. forces were in Dresden and Leipzig, deep in what later became East Germany. They all pulled back 125 or 150 miles. Meanwhile, the Russians tried everything to keep the Americans and British from getting to their assigned zones in Berlin. (I think it did not happen until July 1945, although the surrender

was on May 7--or May 8 to the Russians.)

So, if Churchill and Montgomery had won the argument, and the allies had captured Berlin, along with most of East Germany and a large swath of Czechslovakia, Stalin would have been beside himself. He still would have held Poland, which was his most important objective in Central Europe, and he still had a nice buffer in the Baltic states, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria.

So it's not certain he would have tried to use military force to get the allies out of Berlin and East Germany. He might have, or he might not. He was fully aware of the power of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and his own economy was exhausted, stripped bare. It's not certain even he would have tried to fight the U.S. His orientation was to get as much as he could with bluff and

threat, but without war with the West.

On the other hand, what would the allies have gained by capturing Berlin and holding onto most of Germany?

The U.S. would have been responsible for rebuilding the whole place, since the Cold War would most certainly have been hot from the get-go. Would it have given the West a lot of leverage over the East? I don't think so, and I think there would have been a lot of pressure in the West, including the U.S. Congress, to get out from under the burdens

in the immediate post-war period, to find a way to get along with Russia (there were still a lot of starry eyes about Uncle Joe in 1945 and 1946), and possibly even to leave Europe altogether.

Of course, tensions might have continued to mount, and if the Soviets did not attack, there might have been calls in the U.S. for preventive war, while the U.S. was clearly in the superior posture.

--end Terence's dad's email--