Other Means

No I didn't. I tried to find ones that made it easy to tell the difference between the trees and the bushes. If you can find ones you like better let me know. [/QB]</font>

I don't understand the question. Do you mean the brush and tree base terrain bitmaps I added my grid to look odd, or you saying the light snow grid open tiles look odd without brush and tree bases with a grid? Or did you mean something else entirely? </font>

I like them, but the light snow CMBB ones look...odd with brush and tree bases. What do you use to go with them?

OK, you got me. Saying the RA used them so they must have been good is very poor reasoning. But the fact of the matter is they are *still* under modelled in game. Even if you couldn't see them being thrown, that would be something. As it is, they are worse than a grenade attack, which is a simulated close assault - sometimes over 30m with intervening enemy infantry. At least in real life, you could throw them from cover.

I'm sorry SO, but everything you've said so far has been conjecture. You're assuming effects because of what you assume a bottle of flammable liquid can do, not what you've read they've done. If you can find me passages where it states MC's where NOT effective, then we can both argue from solid ground. However, all the RL AAR's I've seen have stated that they took out tanks. If you're going to argue that these AAR's are noted down because they are such outliers, then you're going to have to prove that too Until then, I'll argue that they are under modelled due to the historically noted effects and the fact they were used in the Red Army for so long, when they clearly knew what they were doing.

I think that even with EFOW we get too much information, especially about AFV's. Unless you were very experienced I don't think you'd be able to tell a Panther from PzIV, let alone a D from an E. It should be made plain after the fact, not during.

That's because they are vastly underpowered in CMBB. If you hit an engine block with one, a tank would start to burn profusely quite often. A nasty weapon indeed, especially if they were dropped from buildings into tank hatches (as occured in Paris when the Germans started destroying it after the resistance really kicked in when the Allies arrived). </font>

Sure, I absolutely love gladiator movies! Do I have to bring my own toga or will you have a spare one for me? I would love to play a PBEM against you. Any preferences on game/type of battle? And thanks for the kind words on the mod. I am good at doing geometric work like adding the grid lines, but being an engineer, I could never actually draw anything that looked halfway decent without using my $20,000 CAD package. </font>

Failing that, if you fancy a PBEM game drop me a line. I've just installed them and they're brilliant.

Good point....ummm.....is is "Other", or do you prefer "Mr. Means"? Wait a minute... </font>

At least he refers to people by name. I mean really, are we 5?

Cool. Come round, bring beer, I've got a Wii. So, d'ya like Gladiator movies?

Brilliant. Now to get a big TV for parliament, maybe go on holiday.

Mods don't effect anything in the game except the look. Nothing within the engine is actually affected.

Crew defence weapons are short changed purpose, to stop ahistoric use of them - i.e. using bailed crews as recon assets. It's not meant to be historically accurate.

Well, I've really seen no proper marketing yet. BFC decided to become the publisher and that kind of news is more or less public domain, so they announced it and opened this forum. The fact that they're now taking so long to release the game proper is quite re-assuring really. At least to me.

I'd agree with that. I think they released in Russia because they were sick and tired of working so long with zero payback, but BFC have told - guided maybe - them that to work it's got to be good. And to be good, in BFC's mind is to be as close to a sim as possible (IMHO at least). So I reckon we'll *at least* get mortars and proper MG's. Maybe building entry. Possible, but doubtful is a map editor. And unlikely is a QB map generator. BUT - all those things are possible and desirable. I can't wait.

Who's Merle? </font>

Who's Merle?

Wire and radio FO's have different response times? That's the first I've heard of that. I thought the only parameters were nationality, experience and command level (Battalion, Division, Army, Corps). Anyone?

That looks to be the best visual indicator mod I've seen. Will you be doing the lot? Please? I'll be your best mate?

John, I love this sentence. If a book gets written, this must be the first line.

Excuse me while I digest this. Thanks for the info.

I see, mainly. The dispersion within (2 x PEr) is considered as close as you're going to get, so then you go FFE, and there are various tables that can account for what PEr is, with PEd dispensed with as it's smaller than PEr. So there is a table to account for the closest safe range, with the ability to call fire in on top of your position when things are dire. What a choice to have to make. There's one issue I'm a bit confused with, are these statements contradictory?: I know Jason is saying the error doesn't really grow but Jon seems to be saying that it does, and here's a table to plan by? What have I got wrong here? Anyway, I think I'm getting a much better grasp of what we could have expected to see, and I'm also kind of convinced BFC gave us a reasonable compromise with the intended size of the games. Thanks gents.