Richard Morgan

Michael, Our British Sun newspaper has a much more erm... interesting page 3 than any of the Canadian Suns. Would you be interested in a British Sun Page 3 Calendar? Season's greetings, Richard.

Michael, Our British Sun newspaper has a much more erm... interesting page 3 than any of the Canadian Suns. Would you be interested in a British Sun Page 3 Calendar? Season's greetings, Richard.

Revs, You have my full sympathy. However, look on the bright side: You Oirish don't get the blame for everything the same way as us English. Season's greetings, Richard.

Michael, I couldn't have put it better myself. I don't suppose that there is any reason why this can't be corrected by patch, or by mod... or is there? Richard :confused:

I will add my own two pennies worth on this one. BAR: fires from open bolt, 20 round mag set under the weapon, gas regulator, no barrel change, and a truely awful bipod that flops around when you run. (Most soldiers took the bipod off). BAR was also an individual weapon. Bren: Also fires from open bolt, 28 round mag, set on top of the weapon (easily accessible in prone position) gas regulator quick barrel change, brilliantly designed bipod plus semi auto option. Bren is crewed by two men and can sustain a much higher rate of aimed fire than BAR but cannot(much as it pains me to say) compete with belt fed weapons such as MG 34/42. And now I digress... A much more meaningful comparison can be drawn between BAR and LSW. For any non Brits reading this, LSW stands for Light Support Weapon. Two of these were supposed to replace the single GPMG in the British Army section. Essentially, the LSW is an SA80 with long barrel and bipod. LSW has no barrel change and fires from the closed bolt position. This means that after a few mags, it gets VERY hot. Closed bolt means that a round is left in the chamber. This causes cook-offs!!! LSW does have a 30 round mag, but the a*se about face bullpup configuration means that you have to be a contortionist to do a quick mag change in the prone position with bipod in use. You guessed it: I loathed the bl**dy thing :mad: :mad: :mad: It seems to have all of the BAR's vices and none of its virtues and it is a complete mystery why it was ever accepted for service in the first place. Now AT LAST the British Army has seen sense and acquired Minimi Red herring over... back to WW2 Richard.

In the British Army (then as now) infantry sections were commanded by Corporals, with a Lance Corporal as 2IC. The Sergeant's job is/was Platoon 2IC. I note with dismay that in CMAK, British sections are STILL commanded by Sergeants. :mad: :mad: :mad: I seem to remember this being discussed at length on the CMBO forum and I am intrigued that this little inaccuracy has managed to find its way into CMAK :confused: Having said all that... it doesn't affect play at all, and I am very impressed with the rest of the game. Keep up the good work! Richard

I would like to know about the patch myself :confused: My Mac laptop indeed has the Beta 1.03 installed. Unfortunately my PC has the CDV version of CM2 for which the 1.03 patch has not been released Even more unfortunately, my PC is on broadband and my Mac isn't. Don't know about the modelling! Richard.

Gorgias, This is in reply to your original post, which has since drifted off subject into a bit of a "grogfest". I hasten to add that I am not much of a grog myself :confused: However, I think that I should say that in the scenario "Jaegermeister", I achieved success against Panther and Tiger 1 using JS 2's if memory serves. (Someone correct me if I am wrong.) The range was about 3 - 400 metres and the tactic was to use the shoot and scoot option: nipping out from behind a building whilst the German was looking elsewhere, taking a quick shot and then nipping back. I hasten to add that this was against the A.I. (artificial intelligence). The end result was that most of my armour was destroyed, but I managed to capture the village and in turn destroyed all of the German armour, most of which was taken out by frontal strikes. If you haven't discovered it, try using shoot and scoot. I rate it as one of the most valuable options in the menu. I believe you said a little later, that the Russian infantry anti tank capability was not very good. I would agree with you on this. Kip Anderson, one of my regular opponents, reckons that particularly in the later stages of the war, the Russians should have had more RPG's. As a result we always tend to throw in a few RPG armed tank hunter units gratis (meaning free) to the Russian line up. Although I don't think that Kip has managed to convince the designers that this is valid... as yet! Kip, are you out there, and would you like to comment? Cheers, Richard.

I once lost a 76.2mm anti tank gun the same way... and to rub salt in the wound, in the same scenario, another shell aimed at one of my mortars continued through a wood, came out the other side, and you guessed it... impacted on my other carefully concealed 76.2mm gun, taking that out as well Kip Anderson can confirm this as it was in my last game against him! To lose one gun to stray rounds is unfortunate. To lose two is a real sickener. However ess aitch one tee happens as the saying goes :mad: :mad: You have my full sympathy Richard.

Someone has sent me the Pavlov's house scenario to play by email: I am playing Russian. In the original set-up, Pavlov's house - which is a heavy 2 storey building - has a number of trenches running through it. :confused: In real life, digging multiple trenches inside a heavy building from end to end is not something I would expect to see. 1) Is this some kind of CMBB convention which is supposed to simulate a fortified building? 2) Are the defensive benefits of the trench cumulative to the defensive benefits of the building? 3) Is it "gamey" to have trenches in buildings? and 4) Do you think the trenches in question would be better dug outside as nature intended? I have checked the rules on trenches very carefully and cannot find answers to any of the above points. I would be very grateful if someone could enlighten me. Best wishes, Richard.

Hey Andreas, what is the German angle on bagpipes? For a sensitive soul such as yourself, raised on the likes of Beethoven, Hayden, and Mozart, I would have thought the pipes would have constituted a violation of the Geneva Convention. The urge for Germans to DF the lone piper must have proved almost irresistable. Best wishes, Richard (a Sassenach) Best wishes,

Andreas and gang: Hopefully the phoenix will arise from the ashes sometime in the not too distant future. Thank you one and all for a great site. Best wishes, Richard.

Kip, I was being facetious However, let's examine the subject with a little more seriousness. In a plain wargame, Coalition vs Iraqi forces would be every bit as one sided as the real life events turned out to be. (For anyone who wants to try this at home, I would recommend playing Steel Panthers 2 and Steel Panthers 3). What might make it more interesting would be the victory conditions. Coalition would have to be penalized heavily for any collateral damage or civilian losses. This would mean that they would be severely restricted with regard to the vast firepower at their disposal. They would also have to pay a disproportionate penalty in points for any friendly losses. Conversely,the low tech, poory trained Iraqis would not be penalised much for friendly losses and would only have to take out the odd enemy unit to win. Whether or not the new engine could cope with civvies or collateral damage is anyone's guess. My own preference would be for a CM Fulda gap Nato vs Warsaw Pact game set in the 70's and 80's. Alternately, a CM Arab Israeli Wars game would surely prove very interesting indeed and could lean on CMAK with regard to terrain, dust etc. Hey guys... it is just a thought... what does anybody think!!! All the best, Richard

Kip, I beg to differ: operation Iraqi Freedom could be turned into a very good game. However, there would have to be a good deal of cynicism involved. Remember an old (and brilliant) board game called "Junta"? The players each took the part of the head of a leading family in an un-named banana republic. The game involved coups, double dealing and assasination and the winner was the person who stashed the most foreign aid money away in his Swiss bank account. "Iraqi Freedom" would have to be in that vein and would involve propaganda (on both sides), the "Not in my name/Starbuck Strategist" mob, Gung-ho Generals, peace marches, a left wing BBC with an option for the Americans to bomb Broadcasting House, friendly fire and a rescue mission for a telegenic blonde U.S. soldier thrown in for good measure. However, I doubt if the new engine could cope with all. Maybe the administrator could comment? Yours in despair Richard.

A turret hit related question... How does the game record a "shot trap" kill? In real-life, the incoming shell hits the underside of the turret mantlet and is deflected downwards through the thin top armour near the driver's head!!! Does this count as a turret hit, a hull hit, or both? Or is it recorded as "shot trap" kill? It strikes me that some of the tanks mentioned in this thread suffer from shot traps and that this might explain at least some of the frontal turret kills. I have no way of knowing: I play with the detailed armour hits turned off. This is because I reckon having this feature switched on would tell me more than I should know if I was a real-life commander on the ground! I would be grateful if someone could give me an answer on this. Cheers, Richard.