Forum Fodder...Dan's Haiku Corner Version 3.0

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I look forward to Vietnam since it was mentioned it would include the French as well as the U.S.. WW3 is also interesting, technically, because it could involve any country in the world. Middle East could be involved, since ww3 would be fictional. Korea would be another because of the many nationalities involved. WW3 would be the ultimate because, again, it could include every country in the world. Then have to consider what year? Multiple data could do a ww3 at the end of ww2, 60s or 70s or 85 like the Modern Campaigns timeline or up to present day which immediately starts becoming the past since time does not stop to hold it's place. All kinds of possibilities. Can't decide, put it to a vote on a poll or go with all of them since most weapons and equipment changed or upgraded from one decade to the next.

[RedDevil]

Mark....brother...you sure got a way with saying  "Bring it and I will PLAY it"  

 nothing simpler than THAT says it all   legalize the sh!t! ALREADY ..  We can only bow in your presence!


Jason, and gang..  Fellows...... BRING IT to us and we will play it!



Amen.

[Big Ivan]

Yes Jason and the Dev Team,

If you build it we will play it!

The comments about WWIII are interesting in a sense but IMO the current game engine would have trouble handling what combat would be like especially after 1985.

Take for example, precision guided bombing, laser range finding, precision artillery strikes, tanks able to fire on the move and actually hit something every time to name a few of the modern goodies in today's combat. Oh and lets not forget tactical nukes and nerve agents. These are all part or would be part of the modern day battlefield especially of the major powers got into a real shooting war.

I can't imagine how the current game engine would handle a armored column stretched out over 10km along a road that suddenly gets hit with 3 Tac nukes detonated every 3km simultaneously. If that could be simulated in CS I bet the graphics would be sweet but the scenario would be over in two turns.

"Hey RedDevil, it was nice playing our Fulda Gap scenario but I completely forgot you had Tac Nukes. You wiped out most of my tank brigade and scored 2173 points in one turn!" "Shall we play something else?"

WWIII would have to be in a timeline before 1980 for the CS game engine to be meaningful and that's a best guess taking time into perspective on my part. After the 1980's, from what I've read, the militaries of the world got very advanced with computers controlling almost everything and precision hits are the norm of the day.

CS Korea and Nam will be interesting when they finally arrive because for us WWII gamers we will get a real glimpse of how the art of war changed over the decades from Stalingrad in 1942. I think we are seeing some of that in CSME now. Let's face it, in 74 years we humans have come a long way in warfare and how its conducted.

Keep playing CS my friends!

[Jason Petho]

The comments about WWIII are interesting in a sense but IMO the current game engine would have trouble handling what combat would be like especially after 1985.

Absolutely agreed and is the main reason we didn't include the Gulf War 1991 in CS Middle East. Technology had advanced far too far to program with the current engine.

[zap]

The comments about WWIII are interesting in a sense but IMO the current game engine would have trouble handling what combat would be like especially after 1985.

Absolutely agreed and is the main reason we didn't include the Gulf War 1991 in CS Middle East. Technology had advanced far too far to program with the current engine.

That kind of time limit could still produce a game.
But we do have, now, many scenario depicting "what ifs" after the WWII concludes. Which are very entertaining. With the new CS, being able port those scenarios "upgraded" into the new CS will work for me.

[Dan Caviness]

Hello Blitzers:

Time for another well meant diatribe.
As always feel free to call me on every detail...but be kind...I'm off my meds...

First of all...I log in and this RED DEVIL guy seems to have reincarnated!
I don't believe we've met?...you scare me...you are enthusiastic...
Nice to see you talking up the forums.

Things are quieter on the forums these days, but rest assured a lot of us are head down and killing, with little time for chat.

SO

Why can't I unload my LST's/LCVP's, etc., into DEEP WATER?
Yes...it would be stupid...but the game graciously prevents you from doing this.
This is the same game that will perversely run you into a minefield or a blocked hex to teach you humility.
It would seem the spirit of the CS game (which punishes you for movement errors) would allow idiots to unload in deep water and sink the unit?
Yes, I am that idiot.

AND

Why can't engineers blow LOW stone walls?
(I believe Jason is working on this one as it's effecting his brilliant new scenario depicting Operation Sea Lion)
(It also effects my not so brilliant old saw-nario The Longest Day...and countless other scenarios...but you don't hear me bitching...lol...)
You could really extend this to include bocage.
Seems like a well placed satchel charge could remove some grapevines pretty handily?
And to go off the rails with it...why can't they demolish a pillbox or bunker after it's been taken from the enemy?

FURTHERMORE

Is it possible to eliminate the strength value / transport value for COMMANDERS?
I.E., a commander with a 4 rating on foot requires a 4 strength jeep to be carried.
While commanders seem to gain hubris at an exponential rate as they climb, I don't believe that carries weight?
Patton's ego may have taken an extra jeep to carry...

LASTLY

The KING TIGER still  appears to have a 12 hex hard target range while the TIGER has 16.  We've had this discussion before and this is not any attempt to stir up "what was a realistic shot" debate.  I think everyone is aware the game in general allows longer shots than what was historically accurate.  What is true however, the KING had the superior 88mm main gun and it should get remedied?

I think Jason was going to help fix this, maybe it fell through the cracks?

As always, this is only meant to stir up some nice debate.
I've got another 413 or so topics to talk about but for now...

Keep killing.

Dan

LOL Your right Dan he is a little Red Devil but in my opinion a good little Red Devil played him many times playing him now.He likes to stir it a bit but no harm or offence meant.

JB!!!!....how the Hell are you?  Good to hear from you man.  Hopefully everything is going well for you.  We need to get a meat grinder going one of these days.  Miss those games JB.  Just went through a 4/5 month double blind playtest with Petri , Pawel and Bill.  Sorry guys...I can't remember the handles for more than about 5 minutes these days.



Petri is reworking the old "Dead End on the Road to Kursk" and believe it or not it's even harder than the original!  Oh mama...  Concussions, some PTSD, and a good time were had by all.  Also been hip deep in a Normandy match.  Steve is taking the entire German side vs. Dale and I.  Yes, Steve is crazy, but his madness speaks to mine...;O)

 I've also been hip deep in a Normandy match.  Yes, I know...    All good though, Steve (Tiger88...his handle I can remember because you remember beatings longer than victories and Steve's pretty good at handing those out) is taking the entire German side vs. Dale and I.  Yes, Steve is batshit crazy...but his madness speaks to mine...

[Crossroads]

I am reworking a team game version of Alan Arvold's "Prokhorovka the Ultimate Battle", which is a rework of "Dead End on the Road to Kursk", to be precise. Alan's done a thorough research on units that fought there, in addition to redoing the map with the proper scale as Dead End was originally done with 500m hex scale to make it fit to a decent size.

These monster scenarios were not done often then...

We just finished two battles mirroring the sides. Certainly was an eye opener re Kursk.

[Dan Caviness]

Hey Petri, very nice work on Proko, and no offense intended if I misnamed the scenario.
I'm emailing my notes.

Reading through the topic thread I spotted your earlier post about MC's and they do have some high defense, perhaps credit given to speed/maneuverability?

In addition...they spot when unloaded.
Handlers I'm assuming?
If they are unloaded and spot, I can see that, the cavalry units appear to do the same with the latest revision and most games (all the way back to black powder games) I've played always accounted for cavalry handlers after dismounting.
Terrible Swift Sword used to deduct a strength point to account for it.
I.E., a 6 strength cavalry unit would lose one or two points strength fighting on foot.


Just don't unload those MC's on a forest road, since 12 Harleys/Zundapps block as effectively as 12 Shermans/Tigers...;O)

Being a motorcycle guy...I consider my steel horse (with apologies to Bon Jovi is it?) the equal of those old flesh based monsters.  In addition, my bike does what I ask her to without a fight.  As long as I don't ask too much...    Actually I need to retract that statement...a bike will bite you...hard...

Or maybe I'm just a pervert who enjoys being slapped in the ass by my Japanese mistress while wearing leather? 


Mistress Honda...my high speed dominatrix...


Regards,

Dan

[Crossroads]

Hello Dan email sent!

[Jason Petho]

That kind of time limit could still produce a game.
But we do have, now, many scenario depicting "what ifs" after the WWII concludes. Which are very entertaining. With the new CS, being able port those scenarios "upgraded" into the new CS will work for me.

Definitely, zap.

I have been formulating one storyline per decade after world war 2 where I could see the Cold War going hot. Plus, doing that will allow for the evolution of the equipment and organizations for the various countries on the battlefield.

Very exciting indeed