Michael Emrys Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Is there really such a place as Dry Prong? I grew up on the Gulf Coast and had occasion to travel in LA many times, but never heard of it before. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyguns Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Is there really such a place as Dry Prong? I grew up on the Gulf Coast and had occasion to travel in LA many times, but never heard of it before. Michael Yep Michael! It's one of those places, that if you don't live in it or from it, no-one has ever heard of it. To tell the truth, I never heard of it either, 'til my family and I moved here!!! Dry Prong is right next to Pineville and also just right outside of city limits of Alexandria, La (CenLa area). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yep, I've been through Alexandria. Been a long time though. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyguns Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yep, I've been through Alexandria. Been a long time though. Michael I'm very sure it hasn't changed much since you've been thru! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyJJ Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm very sure it hasn't changed much since you've been thru! It probably hasn't changed much since being incorporated in 1945 ... last census shows only 195 houses and 421 people. I have 45,000 university students outside my office window most of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyguns Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 It probably hasn't changed much since being incorporated in 1945 ... last census shows only 195 houses and 421 people. I have 45,000 university students outside my office window most of the year. Not being smart, DaveyJJ, but are we talking about the same City?!?!:confused: We were talking about Alexandria, LOUISIANA USA. Alexandria was incorporated as a town in 1819 and received a city charter in 1882. Current Estimated Census is about 55,000. From what I understand from the locals, nothing has changed except a city by-pass being put in about 12-15 yrs. ago!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 ...always obeying orders, fighting to the death............ It would be nice if WW2 cold return to the era of draftees who are mostly less motivated. More sensible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyJJ Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Not being smart, DaveyJJ, but are we talking about the same City?!?!:confused: We were talking about Alexandria, LOUISIANA USA. Alexandria was incorporated as a town in 1819 and received a city charter in 1882. Current Estimated Census is about 55,000. From what I understand from the locals, nothing has changed except a city by-pass being put in about 12-15 yrs. ago!!! Oops! My bad, definitely wrong city. My dad always said a geography degree was useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 No response to my morale query I see, perhaps gushing with enthusiasm is more welcome but I'm not here to make 'friends'. Or 'enemies' for that matter, just interested in the game play. So it looks like we are going to be stuck with some sort of robot morale impediment, I sometimes think that developers can't help exercising control over things simply because they can. Not because it adds to realistic gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 No response to my morale query I see, perhaps gushing with enthusiasm is more welcome but I'm not here to make 'friends'. Or 'enemies' for that matter, just interested in the game play. So it looks like we are going to be stuck with some sort of robot morale impediment, I sometimes think that developers can't help exercising control over things simply because they can. Not because it adds to realistic gameplay. Morale in CM has always had an inherent uncertainty factor in it that can swing either way, would that not reflect that you were saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 No response to my morale query I see, perhaps gushing with enthusiasm is more welcome but I'm not here to make 'friends'. Or 'enemies' for that matter, just interested in the game play. So it looks like we are going to be stuck with some sort of robot morale impediment, I sometimes think that developers can't help exercising control over things simply because they can. Not because it adds to realistic gameplay. I do not see a question in your previous post. So getting stroppy when it does not get answered is doubly ridiculous. And robot morale is a bit harsh. It tends to be used in regard to units going to their deaths like automatons, which is clearly not the case. Does CM model the full scala of human behaviour? Of course not. That would a ridiculous expectation to have. But I think it does a fair approximation of typical troops in combat. To extrapolate from the inclusion or not of a berserker mode (like the fanatical units in CMx1 btw) a psychological profile of the developers is not making you come across very favourably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 No response to my morale query I see, perhaps gushing with enthusiasm is more welcome but I'm not here to make 'friends'. Or 'enemies' for that matter, just interested in the game play. So it looks like we are going to be stuck with some sort of robot morale impediment, I sometimes think that developers can't help exercising control over things simply because they can. Not because it adds to realistic gameplay. In my experience Steve responds to pretty much everybody... *especially* people who aren't gushing with enthusiasm but raise good points. So... either Steve has completely changed his response style because he couldn't handle your query - which, as Elmar mentions, had no questions actually IN it - or he just missed it. Perhaps you could try raising your point again before casting aspersions on the game's developers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 Er... I seem to be as confused as the people that have posted just before me. Was I asked something? Best I can see is Sand Digger wrote this on the previous page: Basically what I'm getting at is in war anything can happen and particularly individuals and groups can react differently to each other in similar situations. I just hope this is reflected in the game but that seems in question. Well, since the game already works this way I guess I didn't need to make a specific response. From a Big Picture standpoint the problem we face is the player can push his forces way, way beyond where a real life commander ever would (OK, excepting the extremes like the stereotypical Soviet approach). Global Morale is an important part of forcing the player to recognize that he's pushed is overall forces too far. As a rule they start to have problems with offensive action when Global Morale reaches a fairly low point. Which means the player will be forced to either call off the offensive ops, reduce his focus of offensive ops to his most capable units, or fritter away his forces more so that they basically fail to do even basic combat tasks. This is in the hands of the player to control. It is true that in real life some units would convert casualties to anger and attack with even more vigor. But when you read through hundreds or thousands of low level combat experiences you'll find few that fit into this when the unit is on the offensive. What you're most likely to see is 2 men of a decimated 12 man rifle Squad fighting off a much larger force. You're very unlikely to see a case of 2 men of a decimated 12 man rifle Squad continuing to assault. And post WW2 reports from WW2 and other conflicts bear this out in statistical form. Bottom line... casualties USUALLY produce lower morale, hesitation, and complications to offensive operations. Casualties USUALLY produce lower morale, and lower certainty of remaining in threatened positions when on the defensive. The game's current behavior, as well as it's past behavior in CMx1, clearly shows that the above is modeled for the majority of situations and the exceptional situations are not prevented from happening. Rather, they happen as they should... as exceptions. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 Oh, and while I do understand that in WW2 communications weren't all that great, therefore Force A might not know that Force B was decimated and therefore be unaffected by that new. Certainly that happened. But the norm was for communications to flow between component pieces during the operations, either by radio, field phone, runners, or stragglers (i.e. unplanned communications). Therefore, it was rare for the right hand to be unaware of the left hand's general state of being to at least some degree. The understanding might very well be inaccurate or dated, but the usual case was to have some sense of what was going on. When communications broke down, who is to say that this would only positively affect a particular force's willingness to fight? It would be just as likely that see Force A cease fighting after taking some unexpected casualties because they assumed Force B was running into just as much trouble as they did. When perhaps the reality is Force B is sitting on their objectives having a smoke. Which means if someone wants us to explicitly, and somewhat randomly, have portions of a force fight harder because they're unaware of defeat somewhere else, we would also have to do the opposite which is have a force give up their fight because they're unaware of success elsewhere on the battlefield. Since either would be a rare occurrence in the first place, and meaningfully impact the battle in the second place, I don't think it's worth while creating a system like that. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillLight Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 When communications broke down, who is to say that this would only positively affect a particular force's willingness to fight? It would be just as likely that see Force A cease fighting after taking some unexpected casualties because they assumed Force B was running into just as much trouble as they did. When perhaps the reality is Force B is sitting on their objectives having a smoke. Excellent point Steve, you're obviously thinking about the battle of Crete, and reading into the tea leaves, coffee dredges, etc., I choose to interpret this as there being a remake of CM:AK in CMx2 form, which makes me happy Now bring us the game already, you're forgetting about MY global morale! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 As we remain in question concerning morale i wonder how big effect Battalion/company commander's leadership has to do with squad/platoon level morale? In another words: Worthless captain with -2 leadership (or morale) could affect negatively to his whole unit. Lets say captain is serious boozer and tends to lead from behind without risking his own neck too much. I wonder was this in CMSF already without me noticing/considering it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeel Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 ...but I'm not here to make 'friends'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts