rune

I think so Andreas. I think so... hehehehehehe Rune

I can give you the criteria that was used for the CD scenarios, that I came up with. I think most of the authors who made battles/operations for the CD still use the format. 1. If you have sources on the formations and units and numbers on both sides, and you have an accurate map of the location, we called it historical. 2. If you could not meet any single part, or had to make a part up because of not enough information, then it should be called semi-historical. On my battles/operations I usually put in, this is semi-historical due to the fact I could not find an accurate enough map, or whatever. If i used a source and marked it historical, I list the source in the briefing. I have had people come back and ask why something was one way and not another, and I have showed them my sources. The source could be wrong [Kapalesche Veer for example, has a picture of a burned out Sherman on the island, but Michael Dorosh found out afterwards there were only Stuarts that got onto the island-CMBO scenario] Since I had the sources, I could easily show what I used, and why I did something. Not sure everyone goes to that extreme, but it is how I made my scenarios. By true definition, there could not be a historical battle, because at the first move, it already varies from history. Rune

Andreas, Your turn to have a fan I see. hehehehehe Rune

It has to be played two player...best I could do with the engine as it is. Will email it to you so you can have a look. Rune

That is not what is said, what was said is you can't just depend on points. I just made a scenario where the defender has 396 points, the attacker has 3561. Defender won. How? I made a scenario for the fun of it of Rourke's Drift. The Russian partisans are the zulus, unarmed, and the Germans are the British defenders. Ever see a few thousand attack 139 defenders? The message is, you cannot go strictly by points. Experience of the units, type of units, etc etc etc all come into play. As does the type of player and VARIETY! I cannot stress that enough. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an scenario that teaches you, or gives you the chance to do better then the historical outcome. My favorite comments are the ones saying you should adjust play balance in an HISTORICAL battle. People are missing the point.... Rune

Becasue that is one site...seven times out of how many games NOT on that site? Go to the depot and read how people WON it as germans. Oh yeah, in the testing of it, was a split on who won too. So, can defend it easily. Not bad for the work of a 13 year old... Rune

I need two volunteers to test my latest. In honor of a battle during Joe's time, i have created this: Title: Rourke's Drift Type: Allied Assault Date: Jan 22, 1879 Location: Rourke's Drift, near Isandlwana, Zululand Region: South Weather: Clear, hot, dry Terrain: Steppes and Small Hill Wind: Breeze from the E Turns: 15+ Best played as: Two Player. Author: Tim 'Rune' Orosz Background: The men of "B" company 2/24th Regiment and others who had been ordered to stay behind at the Rorke’s Drift supply depot had reason for feeling left-out. The rest of the column had gone farther into Zululand with the intent on destroying the capital at Ondini (Ulundi). Lt. Chard was left behind to build a bridge. having no military experince in warfare, he was the ranking officer and in command. As the sound of distant gunfire was heard, followed by heavy artillery, several men climbed Oscarsberg Hill to see what was happening...what they saw was a mass of zulu's heading directly for them. By now, survivors of the battle at Isandlwana had reached the drift, and told of how the column was wiped out. Some Natal Horsemen rode into camp, and were ordered to slow down the impi. After too brief gunfire, they were seen riding away. This left the 139 defenders of Rourke's drift alone. Making walls of Mealie (maize/corn) sacks, each weighing 200 lbs, they prepared for what awaited them. Lts. Chard and Bromhead readied the defenders...as the Indluyengwe Regiment of over 3000 Zulus appeared. Let me know if you are itnerested in testing it out. Rune

1. Who said it had to be 2 or 3 to 1? I have made some stronger then that and some weaker then that. Depends on the situation, the Experience level and other factors. Sevasaopol had the following comments: SPOILERS * * * * * * * I played a pbem as the Germans. I won a complete victory only because the russians surrendered after it was clear that I would capture the town, (1 kv, and scattered infantry vs. 11 tanks and a mostly intact grenadier company). If we would have fought it out, I probably would have only had a minor victory or draw because I had lost over 30 vehicles. I really enjoyed this scenario, thinking at each turn I was going to get crushed. In the end I was lucky. As for the above comments about force balance, I agree that the Russians have strong armor and air assets, but I felt their infantry assets are rather weak. You can't win if you can't hold ground. As for the Germans, you get strong air assets (my opponent said that my air force took out around 150 of his troops), a large amount of recon vehicles, heavy AT assets, elite and crack armor assets, tons of halftracks, and strong infantry companies. 2. Just because YOU didn't fare as well, don't expect everyone to do as poorly. Sometimes it is the wrong tactics used rather then the scenario. 3. People like variety of scenarios. Why should they all fit in old mold? CMBB would be rather boring if everything was the same. 4. Aircraft, fortifications, etc affect the point balance. As does type of troops. You can't go on points alone. 5. 2-3 to 1 ratio were used to insure the objective was met. Do that in a cmbb scenario and the attacker will win everytime. Defeats the purpose no? I encourage you to re-evaluate your thoughts. Having everything the same and basing it just on points would lead to failure. Variety, and teaching is what a scenario should be. Rune

It is the only balls Joebob ever had. I even spoke with the Loathed one, and he may make an appearence...in the meantime, the new web site which Joebob in his senile years forgot is running, can now give anyone who loses to him the * of shame. Since he never returns turns, no one ever fear getting it. Rune

For CMAK, impossible. Rune

Ladies and pond scum of the cess pool, It is time we bring back a fine tradition of the cess pool. [no bauhaus , not that].. The * of shame. Yes, the * of shame, formerly given out to anyone beaten by Peng ....since Peng only comes here when he is sober [which is why you NEVER see him post], i hearby bring forth for general vote the following amendment 1. The * of shame be now awarded to anyone stupid...err...unlucky enough to lose to no other then wait for it Joe Shaw Yes, he of the dodging of moves...he of the 100-0 against him...he of the abuse of power...errr justicar. So...all those who favor marking the loser of a battle with Joebob 'The Mormon Wife Hunter' Shaw with the asterick of shame, please signify by insulting Joebob Rune

It is a driver issue, the ati on the Mac has fog, but not on the PDC, unless it has changed recently. Rune

Well then, here is your proof is can be done. A Nice AAR from a player who won as the Russians. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002169#000000 Rune [ June 23, 2003, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

Read the site, that is the opening day of the offensive. I was just worried about LSSAH for my scenario. Rune

According to this, i show different numbers for the tigers, this also matches the Kursk site. http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/SouthKursk.html Rune

SPOIL:ERS * * * * * * * * there are a couple threads about my scenario. The bottom line is to adjust your tactics, if you fire at range, you are playing into the German hands. Use your speed to get to the gully. Once there stay hidden and down til the panthers get close and hit them in the side. Keep a few tanks back to keep the Panthers busy, but you have to time it right. Also look at the right side, you will find part of the gully to advance from.

And that is exactly my point, Jeff. Yep, i agree it is possible Valera is wrong...but let us give him the chance to prove or dis-prove it before I trust a SINGLE source of a 1938 book. I too have done an internet search, and for a much longer period of time, but have found zero proof one way or the other. If he truly has operations manuals, then it means there were indeed two separate rounds. [since the effective range of the case shot is 200 meters as claimed, then it is NOT shrapnel which could be time to explode at a much greater range, UNLESS Valera means the Shrapnel explodes and the bullets are effective to 200 meters. I don't know, so I ask the source] You may be right, but I am not willing to take the leap of faith of one source, especially since there COULD be a shrapnel round with fuze, and another case-shot round. So, anyone in touch with him? Or I can try once again with emails. Tim

One mroe I posted before: From Valera: "In all operational guides for Soviet tanks mentioned "shrapnel and case-shot rounds", none of them defines how many there were shrapnel rounds and how many case-shot rounds. I asked Soviet tankers, they told me they didn't use shrapnel at all, while case-shot used quite often. Vets said C-S ammo was deadly for any advancing infantry, much more effective then common HE ammo. C-S ammo used mostly in defensive actions and ambushes." This tells me it is listed in operational guides AND veteran accounts. Are you saying the veteran tankers and operational guides are wrong and all translated wrong? Possible...but I want to hear it from the horses mouth before assuming ONE book is correct. Rune [ June 19, 2003, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

A 1938 Artillery manual is the primary defense that case shot was shrapnel? Why is it wrong to ask Valera if he is sure? He stated before he had documentation on it, well, let's ask him and find out. WIthout giving too much away, Valera said this: "I'm afraid I cannot help you here. I can provide you with background information" and "I just pointed out the Russians used shrapnel and case-shot ammunition. If CM2 developers would like to add them in the game I will provide them with similar figures for other calibres" This tells me he has documentation on it. Well, let's find out what it says other then assuming he translated something wrong. Rune

And that is your opinion Jeff, but it assumes: 1. Valera could not read Russian and Misinterpreted the shell writing. 2. That there was not a SHe-350 round. I quote from Valera: "The Sovet 76-mm Case-Shot Round She-350 consisted of 549 bullets, 10 grammes each bullet. When fired, bullets scattered at angle 6-9 degrees. Since the effective killing range (distance)* was about 200 metres, the maximum scatter range was ~50 metres. *This means a 90% probability to kill any unprotected man." The shrapnel round is the SH-350. Also, you assume a book on 1938 Artillery would have information on the T34 tank. I am NOT going to make that leap of faith. I emailed Valera, but have not gotten a reply. Anyone in contact with him? Jeff could still be right, but I still am waiting to hear from the horses mouth that he translated it wrong. For now, and with Valera's passage above, I think doubt still remains. Also, reading up on the shrapnel round, it did NOT have that number of balls, but the site I saw could be wrong. Does the description of the shell by Valera match that of the Sharpnel round? Last, look at Valera's page: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_4.html Note there is Bullet Shrapnel, which you are talking about, and case-shot listed separately. Again, did Valera make a mistake that great? I want to hear from him before ruling out case shot. Oh just found one more in Valera's FAQ. He states specfically that T34s could carry case-shot AND shrapnel rounds. He definitely separates the two rounds. You can find it here: http://www.battlefield.ru/faq2.html Rune [ June 19, 2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

Wouldn't work. I see a player plotting moves across a 6 km map on turn one so he doesn't take a hit on waypoints later in the battle. Only if the unit was fired upon and orders over-written would it get to the command delays. also the curve waypoints wouldn't work, as it would require each unit to have a "way point memory". The game would have to know that this unit is on a road, curving one way or another. Still haven't found if the Panther had neutral steer. However, have been busy with other research... Rune

Sounds like you have fsaa turned on. Turn off fsaa, or alt tab out of the game and back in and see if you can then see the screens. Rune

Since we are on the topic, let's talk neutral steering. Panzer I, II, III, IV did not have it. Panzer VI did have it Panzer V, anyone know? This is my understanding, and can be corrected by those more knowledgable. Waypoints, since we are talking the amount of waypoints, and the difficulty of directing a conscript or green troop, what has changed? Be it infantry or tank? What everyone forgets around here, is that until CMBO came out, there were NO games like this. Remember people telling Battlefront it cannot work, and they would fail? Yes, things aren't perfect, Steve, Charles, and the gang are the first to admit it. However, expecting everything in a simulation isn't going to work either. CMBO improved the model, and CMX2 will further improve the model. The bottom line, the decision was to add the time restriction is for waypoints to show the difference in Command and Control between conscripts vs elites. Rune

Actually most of the German tanks did NOT have neutral steer, only a few models did. Your example is perfect, did the commander tell you to go to the curve, walk three meters from the house, turn to the left staying within 4 meters, then proceed to the next point? Or were you told to go to that point via the tree line? Too much control is outside the scope of the game. The reason the time element was added, so that conscripts and greens get the much added delay by giving complicated orders. Think WWII and a Russian conscript. Should you be able to control them to that degree? I doubt you see any changes til CMX2. Rune

And I disagree... 1. A veteran on this board stated he drove the M4, and the times feel right to him. It typically took 90 or more second to rotate in the same spot, requiring move forward/move backward, over and over again. A couple of the German tanks could neutral steer, but were the exception. Most tanks could NOT neutral steer. 2. Design decision. You aren't supposed to have that level of control, directing each tank meter by meter. Rune