rune

Look at the other thread about gun hits, and realize it is not just the guns, but the optics, a turret ring hit, etc. Rune

Berli Just wondering if you have a special place for evil want-a-bes? Nidan1 has turned to the dark side of scenario making, and while I applaud the lad for the effort, does he realize the amount of work it takes to become REALLY evil? A really evil scenario is a thing of beauty...anyone can add 20 aircraft...but to be evil on multiple levels...well...it is just evil. So welcome young Nidan1 to the dark side. May all your maps be childlike and without sewers. Rune

It means the download was not intact or the file on the server is corrupt. The file is much shorter then what was expected. Try downloading the file one more time... or give the CDV tech support a call. Rune

You can do that in CMBO and CMBB now. Hold down the shift key and hit the + on the map. Amazing, isn't it? Rune

Haven't forgotten, just have been busy with that which cannot be named. Has been taking up all my little free time. Hang in there... Rune

Scenario designers are beta testers, it is true. Did I get a few on? yes! Is it possible? Yes, but very very remote at this time. As I stated in the first message, it is too early in the process. Once I sit with Matt, Steve, Charles, Fernado, Moon and KD, I am sure we will discuss this topic. If everyone who made CMBB scenarios comes back, there will not be an opening, if someone hasn't got the time, or has moved on to other things, then I may ask for another scenario designer. Either way, the odds are remote. As I said, returning beta testers and scenario designers get first crack, which is as it should be. Rune

Bah! I live in Chicago, and I didn't see a bribe. To answer: Yes, you are on the beta team if you get selected, hence the top secret clearance and the "you have to report bugs". No, BAD HANS! BAD! Send email...not here. Panzerblitz scenarios would be a no no for obvious reason, not original work. Not released stuff won't help me, so list out what you made that I can look at. I don't want to flood this thread with people asking to get on. My email is listed, but will put it here anyway... rune@ameritech.net Will make this the first test, if you can't [not aimed at Hans, I already slapped his hands..heheheheh] read insturctions listed above, then you already failed. Hans, make it CMBB stuff, my CMBO is too tied up with the special edition stuff. Just drop me an email. Rune

PS... Living in Chicago, bribery works. hehehehe Kidding.... Rune

Having gotten the blessing to answer this, be prepared for War and Peace. I was the Lead Scenario Designer for CMBB and maybe to the future. [As Matt just emailed me, no one else would be stupid enough to do it. hehehehehe] The BFC crew allowed me to pick who I deemed worthy, and went ahead with my recommendations. I learned from Wild Bill, and kept with his style of management, to the chagrin of a few...but not to me. In the long run, I think we did rather well. What do I look for: 1. Originality. Huh? you say, these are all battles that occurred in history. True. However, is it a fresh new design or a copy of another game? All the CMBB scenarios were made by the authors, none are copies of any game. Necessary to protect the game and BFC. 2. Map Design. A good map design sells the scenario. A billards table map with no tree won't go over well....unless, of course, it is HISTORICAL. 3. Knowledge. A good designer has to know the units. An assault could be 1.6 to 1 odds, but give the defenders Tigers and the attacked light tanks, and you may have to go to a 4 or 5 to 1 odds to be balanced. Which brings us to: 4. Variety. The biggest problem with scenario design is no matter what you do, someone will like and someone will hate a scenario. Von Lauchert is a perfect example. This is a completely HISTORICAL scenario...the point was to show how the Soviets had to adjust their tactics to deal with the new Panther. Most got the idea to play as Soviet...other complained it wasn't balanced. Of course it isn't...it is HISTORY. What does this have to do with variety? Everything! Some people like fictional, some semi-historical, some historical to see if they could do better then what originally occurred. Some like the small Byte Battles, some like HUGE monster battles. Some like this force or that force. I try to get out as many different types of scenarios as I could. You may hate huge scenarios, but you know there will be small ones on the CD and vice versa. 5. Works well with others. THIS IS A BIG ONE. Not only do the people making scenarios have to create them, it does NOT take away from their responsibility of beta testing, research, and testing OTHER scenarios. I look them all over to see which ones I recommend to go on the CD, but I still require feedback from the testers to get a feel of how the game plays. Someone asked me on Matt's chat once why I don't play others there, then laughed when I said I am sure I played more then anyone else. I guarantee I have. Each time a scenario was done or re-done I played it from both sides, scenarios that made it, and ones that didn't. Been doing this since the days of CMBO alpha. It adds up to countless games against the AI...I depend on others for 2 player play, I don't always have the time to play email or ip. So, you have to be able to give feedback POSITIVELY. The name of the game is to help each other on the team make their work ever better. Everyone volunteers their work/time, I have not and will not tolerate negativity. There are always good things on a design, you just have to pull them out sometimes. 6. Works well under pressure. There are time constraints, or the CD would never go out. There is a time to buckle down and get what you can done, and done now. 7. A sense of Humor. Nothing is more demoralizing then someone comming forth and trashing a tutorial cause it doesn't have replayability. You got to keep a sense of humor about it, and with working with others. Kingfish knows how much I hate SPAM....need more be said? 8. Ability to follow directions. The format of the briefings were REQUIRED. There are multiple reasons, but have to do mainly with translating from language to language. Much easier to do if a standard format is followed. Some changes were made from my first draft [great ideas, and name changes], but the format is with us through CMAK. 9. Willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty. It takes a lot of time to make a scenario, a lot more to make it great. Members of the team, include wwb, who went and got original maps for me [which I paid for], Warphead who sent me maps from Russia when he visited there, Andreas, Berli, Jeff Weatherspoon, who asked what am I missing, then created scenario on what forces and sizes i requested. The Finnish team for stepping up and making some Finnish scenarios, because I couldn't get good enough information in English. All the scenario designers, who pitched in and did last minute testing. Beta testers who didn't make scenarios, but helped out with the testing. Bullethead, Joel, Wild Bill, Kevin K. and others who all helped out. I have been lucky enough to work with you guys. I appreciate the chance of YOUR work making me look good. If i forgot anyone, please forgive me, but am at work and don't have my notes with me. A bunch of people not even on the beta team helped out, and i certainly appreciate you hard work as well. 10. Spelling. I stink at spelling, and had lots of help correcting grammar and spelling mistakes in the briefing. 11. Versatility. Jaegermesiter was made no less then 27 times before you saw it. It was the first test scenario we used, and everytime there was a build to change things, the scenario had to completely redone. This is NOT typical, but the fact remains, of a bug is found, and squashing it requires a code change, then you may have to re-create all your work. 12. Ability to turn the other cheek when one of the above is broken by someone, We work out problems out internally, without name calling. It stays within the scenario design team, not outside or BFC should be bothered by it. 13. Ability to keep confidential information just that, confidential. Top Secret clearence has nothing on us. This is JUST the starting point of what I look for. I am honored and pleased that the crew I work with worked exceedingly well together. I am honored to have worked with you all. Now, I know I am going to be asked, well, how am I considered? Well, it is too early at this stage first off, and second, the members of the team that are asked to come back get priority as they should. Once we get things rolling, and Matt starts cracking his whip on me, I will go over the list of designers, see who is around for the next round, and then determine IF I need anymore. If I do, then I will send the person I am interested in a message asking if they are interested...I have been turned down before. Not everyong gets on because they are in a certain group, or because they made a top rated scenario. As you see above, a lot more goes into it. If i haven't disuaded you by now, then drop me an email with what scenarios you made, and I guess it is time to open a new trash can [kidding]. I will keep things in mind, but also keep in mind if you aren't picked, it isn't because you don't make good sceanrios..as I stated more then that goes into it. Any mistakes or comments should go to me and not the BFC crew. Rune [ June 09, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

Bah! to both of you, after all CMBO did NOT have sewers. All the little men in my computer are forced to use outhouses. Rune

It is mine, I made one long before yours came out. Kept meaning to look as yours, but have been busy with other stuff. I based mine on photos of the battlefield and some accounts I had gotten. Rune

Joe Bob, There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING to be jealous of, when you come from UTAH, and married a Mormon Wife. [shudders] Isn't it time for you to fly someplace? I hope the pilot flys better then what you did in IL2. Snarker, Hortlund, Username...err...ubergnome, Since the CDV 1.03 was released, pick one of those to play, and unlike the other pillocsk here, try to actually give feedback. These most likely will be the last CMBBs for a while, I am too busy working on that which cannot be named II. I will fix these up with your feedback. Rune

That was just a bit low doncha think? </font>

Yes, there are scenarios from the Boots and Tracks team as well as from the Der Kessel team when they were still going. Everyone was asked permission to include the battles/operations in a special project...now you know what the project was. Rune [ June 05, 2003, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

I just sent this message out to you.., Ubergnome, Hortlund and Snarker Other then you sounds like a lot of pillocks trying to form a band, I have decided to attempt to melt your processors. This does require 1.03, so if you don't have it, do not even attempt to play. May these scenarios cause you to lose your hair, age prematurely, and act like a total fool, yes, may they make you act like Joe Shaw. May they cause you much pain... Rune And a PS, Microsoft Word tries to spellcheck ubergnome, it picks username. Need I say more?

I found this old note 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. This sounds much different then the shrapnel rounds being talked about in the 1938 report. Still trying to get more information from him. Rune

Found the following information: The F-34 gun was 42 calibers long and fired a BR-350A armor piercing projectile, an OF-350 high explosive shell, or a SH-350 shrapnel round, stowed in the tank in a ratio of 19/53/5, as indicated in a 1942 summer report Source: http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/t34/t34b.html Also trying to email Valera, due to the fact I know he insisted there was a different cannister round. Trying to get more from him. Rune

Here are SOME of the books for getting ready for CMAK. The Arfika Korp, an Organizational History 1941-1943 by George F. Nafziger The British Armies in World War Two, An Organizational History SUpplement Three Order of Battle 1942-1944 by David A Ryan, Steve Rothwell, and David Hughes The British Armies in World War Two, An Organizational History Volume Five The Australian Army by David A. Ryan. David Hughes, and Steve Rothwell The British Armies in World War Two, An organization History Volume Two, Polish, Australian, Canadian, South African and Indian Armoured and Cavalry Divisions. British Regular Infantry Divisions by David Hughes, James Broshot and Alan Philson The British Armies in World War Two, An Organizational History Supplement Two, Orders of Battle 1941 to 1942. by David A. Ryan, David Hughes, and Steve Rothwell OOB of the Battle of Sidi Rezegh November 1941, by George F. Nafziger Yikes... Rune

Snarker... I have two in the testing stage, you are welcome to either one. Drop me an email for which torture you would like. Torture #1 - Thunder on the Dneister. Slow moving at first, but heats up. This one features the Stalin Line, Romanians, and a River.... Torture #2 - Opening Moment- The first attack of LSSAH near a place called Kursk. This one is huge in every sense of the word, and if it melts your processor...GOOD! This one features explodey things, artillery, explodey things, more artillery, more explodey things, and is historical. Did I mention it had explodey things? Oh yeah, I threw in some crunchies too! Rune

From Valera's wonderful site, not much new here, but interesting none the less. Rune ORDER OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE FORCES OF WEST FRONT No.065 Concerning the employment of artillery shrapnel for the defeat of exposed enemy troops Secret 12 November 1941 Active Army Combat experience has shown that our artillerymen are completely inadequately employing shrapnel for defeat of exposed enemy troops, instead employing for this purpose projectiles with the fuse set for fragmentation action. The under appreciation of shrapnel can be explained only by the fact that young artillerymen do not know, and old artillery commanders have forgotten, that the shrapnel of 76mm regiment and division cannons when fired at exposed personnel at average ranges of 4-5 kilometers will cause twice the damage to a target as compared projectiles set for fragmentation action. The People's Commissar of Defense Comrade STALIN has pointed out this gross error in the combat activity of artillery in a special order and has demanded that it be immediately corrected. For the adoption of the broad and skillful use of shrapnel rounds in artillery units, I ORDER: 1. Explain to the command component and soldiers of artillery the valuable combat capabilities of shrapnel as a projectile intended for defeat of exposed enemy personnel, especially withering when fired for the destruction of attacking infantry and for self-defense against infantry. 2. Division artillery chiefs, commanders of artillery regiments and separate battalions are to confirm the knowledge of commanders of batteries that are equipped with the 76mm gun in the regulations for firing shrapnel and, when necessary, conduct practical exercises directly at observation posts in the techniques of conducting fire with shrapnel. 3. Require that 76mm gun batteries employ shrapnel in all cases of firing at exposed enemy troops, especially for the destruction of attacking infantry, self-defense against attacking infantry, for destruction of enemy observation posts sited in woods, and for clearing out of forested sectors. 4. Select commanders more capable and qualified in gunnery skills for the position of commander of 76mm batteries. 5. Maintain not less than 20 percent shrapnel munitions in the basic load of regiment and division artillery 76mm batteries. Report by telegraph to army military councils concerning the measures that are taken in compliance with this order. COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF FORCES OF WEST FRONT, ARMY GENERAL ZHUKOV MEMBER OF WEST FRONT MILITARY COUNCIL BULGANIN

Chad, I disagree with you. A typical tank had 4-8 shells normally, quite possible and realistic that tanks hoarded ammo and had more then the typical load out. So quite possible to have more then 9 rounds. 15 rounds is not unbelievable, and is within the realm of possibilities. As for the effect, here is from a real tanker: " Having lots of real life battlefield experince with the 90mm cannister round , I feel the 76mm cannister in the game is not as destuctive and effective as it should be. Even fired at bunkers the cannister pellets entering the firing slots cause high casualities. Just my 2 cents worth. " Now, let us look at the "low velocity". The 47mm cannister round is listed as 700m/s. 30 meters away, the velocity hasn't dropped much. Unit is near the wall, what is the case shot made of? "Canister shot shell 244,5mm long. Bakelite caseing holds 137 lead/antimony balls." [Note 45mm, the 76mm had more- around 930] Having seen a black powder pistol fired at 50 yards, using a miniball, it most certainly can penetrate a 2" thick piece of wood and come out with enough force to kill someone. Someone else has said the same thing. I do not know the velocity of a black powder pistol [anyone know?] but i expect it to be slower then 700 m/s. I certainly can see it killing or wounding 9 people. Do the same test and move the unit 10 meters into the building, notice a drop off in the number of wounded/killed? Last point, to the person who said case shot was wear and tear on the barrels, please cite an example. Several tankers I talked to all said the same thing, there was no additional wear/tear on the barrel. I will go with their knowledge unless you have proof. Bullethead, I know you said it also depends on how the shell was packed [wadding?] and if there was damage int he barrel already. Rune

Redwolf, Reread what i posted. The first section states that tankers used case shot often and NOT sharpnel shot, the second case also states a sinle gun put out a better spread then a medium mg. These points have nothing to do with helmets or trenches, rather the USE of the shells. Also note the following: 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. Rune

Going to argue the point. Most shells that showed up were NOT shrapnel, but case shot. Proof? Here is a quote directly 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. Mentioned shrepnel and case-shot rounds used for Soviet 76-mm field guns: F-22 F-22 USV ZIS-3 Also, case-shot round used for KV-1, KV-1S, and T-34-76 tanks: 4-8 rounds per tank. Also the analogy of the mg is wrong. From another post and discussion: See following site: http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/monyushko/monyushko2.htm "Fortunately, the guns turned out to be 76mm ZIS-3, familiar from school. An excellent gun, but in 1944 it was becoming somewhat weak to fight the new German armor. It's armor piercing shell couldn't penetrate the Pz.VI tank (Tiger) even at almost point blank range. Only the scarce subcaliber shell could help there. And even subcaliber shells couldn't penetrate the Ferdinand self-propelled gun from the front. We were left to hope that there would be less Tigers than main German AFVs, Pz.IV's. Out of thirty cases of ammunition, only two were with subcaliber shells, eight - armor piercing, and the rest - fragmentation/high explosive grenades. There was also a certain quantity of grape-shot, for self-defense against infanty, which gave us a feeling of confidence, but, fortunately, I never had to fire it. (For those unfamiliar with artillery I have to explain that, if a medium machine gun, when beating back an attack, fires practically around 250 rounds per minute, a single gun, firing grape-shot, can create a density 25-50 times greater, and a four gun battery - 100-200 times; moreover, the bullets spread evenly across the front, not leaving any dead ground. Attacking such battery is a hopeless proposition.)" Rune

Again, it is a bug in Microsoft's Directplay, which BFC uses for gameplay. BFC cannot fix MS products. I had talked with Charles directly on this while we were still in Alpha stage. Rune

Yeah, it could of aged out, that scenario was made quite a while ago. Thanks for the new link. Rune