Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bulletpoint last won the day on April 6

Bulletpoint had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Bulletpoint

  • Rank
    Observe, analyse, improve.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,990 profile views
  1. Oh yeah absolutely. The majority of the material in the gun barrel is to hold in the explosive propellant and the round and do that in such away as to continue to function correctly after hundreds of rounds and the odd knock and bash that normal use dishes out. The amount of steel needed to support itself is lots less that what is in the typical gun barrel. Having said that someone hanging off the very end might find their feet touching the ground - leverage is powerful. Then again, the thicker the steel in the barrel, the more heavy the hanging part would also be... But I'm no mechanical engineer.
  2. Every time I see this photo, I wonder if it's photoshopped. Could the gun barrel really keep itself straight against gravity with so much of the material missing?
  3. Actually each node on that graph is a different scenario regardless of the name similarities or not. So "[CB #15] To the Meuse", is different from "[CB #16] To the Meuse", which is different than "[CB #17] To the Meuse" and different to "[CB #18] To the Meuse!". All four of those similarly named scenarios are different. Given their similar names I suspect the author has just tweaked things slightly but the fact remains those are four different scenarios no four instances of the same scenario. I know, but just from looking at that flow chart, I don't get any info about which version does what. That's all I meant.
  4. Thanks Ian, I've seen his flowchart before. However it doesn't show what the different versions of the battles are. It's two different scenarios, but called the same... Edit: Hmmm now that I look at it again, I notice that two of the scenarios are called "To the Meuse" and two of them are called "To the Meuse!" with an exclamation mark.
  5. Thank you. Do you know which decisions or outcomes lead to the various versions? Just in case I re-play the campaign a third time.
  6. When you hit a tank and it blows up, sometimes the explosion will dig a crater under the tank. Looks a bit silly, I think. Did it ever actually happen in reality? I think the energy would escape through the turret, blowing it off, rather than to dig out a crater. So my suggestion is to toggle off cratering for explosions caused by vehicle ammo storage blowing up.
  7. It seems there are very different versions of it. The scenario in this thread is very open terrain. The one I just played yesterday had the Germans attack through three defensive lines down a very narrow road, very tightly hemmed in by heavy forest and a river.
  8. I'm also playing "To the Meuse", but it's not the mission shown in these screenshots...
  9. Is this the final mission in the campaign? It looks completely different than the one I'm playing. Maybe because you're on a different storyline branch?
  10. Exhaustion doesn't affect accuracy or spotting. Hiding your spotter does.
  11. Not that I'm aware of. My first guess would be a problem with the spotter having a good line of site when the spotting rounds were called etc. At least that is generally where the problem is. If there was a problem in CMBN with mortar / artillery accuracy @Bulletpoint would probably have noticed and would have some insight. As MOS says, the most common problem is that the spotter doesn't see enough spotting rounds. In this game, the spotter eventually calls Fire for Effect despite not getting a visual, and then the fire mission goes way off target. It's particularly a problem in the bocage in CMBN, but can happen anywhere you can draw a line of sight to an otherwise mostly hidden area. It's not enough to be able to draw a line. It's typical strafing behaviour in this game. I've often seen planes keep strafing an MG position or a vehicle several times. I don't know enough about the real air war to say if it's realistic/intended behaviour.
  12. It true that chess is hundreds of year old and people still love it. On the other hand why don't we continue to play CM1 as that's only 20 years old? If CM1 had been incrementally improved that would enable us to play the entire war from 1941 for the last 20 years, and not have to wait another 5+ years. It's only in the last year or two that CM1 has dropped off even at Band Of Brothers. The reality is that, unlike outliers like chess and GO etc., entertainments need to evolve/improve in order to continue to attract the market. I was playing the devil's advocate there, because I actually agree with you. I love Combat Mission, but I haven't bought more of their games in a long time. Not as any kind of protest, but just because I don't really feel I need more than two games in the series. CMBN for the bocage, CMFB for the more open battles. Personally, I'm not interested in the modern settings. If CM3 appeared, I'd definitely get on board again, if it offered the same leap as between CM1 and CM2. Or if a new CM2-based game fixed the many graphical issues and improved fundamental things.
  13. Well, if we can play a 12+ year game system when the tech has moved on so much since 2007, why not a 17+ year game system?
  • Create New...