JonS

quote from Michael emrys: ---------------------------------------------Someone else replied that he thought a +1 bonus was equivalent to raising the squad to the next experience level and a +2 to raising it two levels. --------------------------------------------- and Vanirs' reponse: --------------------------------------------- As best as I can tell, this is not so. --------------------------------------------- I'm inclined to agree with Vanir because ... if a Crack squad was in command of a +2 leader, what would be the benefit :confused: Regards JonS

ha! That's what you get for trying to be smart

picture this: 1) Fire is falling nicely on your crossroads. 2) FO orders "Checkfire!" 3) fire stops falling on the crossroads, guns remain laid on said crossroads. 4) After a 60 second pause the FO orders "Cancel checkfire!" 5) Rounds start falling on said crossroads once more. And it really is that easy to do Regards Jon Note: for the sake of clarity, deliberately left out of the above scenario is the time of flight. [ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

huh. Well, there's my new thing learnt for today. Back to my corner.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Anglophile: ... Neandertal man ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Either the Krautkid has made a major scientific discovery, and come up with a new species (genus? breed? evolution?) of prehistoric man, or he kan juzt sbell guid lyke teh rist off uz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baker350: ...I don't feel like a full explanation of what I am working on is needed... [snip] ...the demographic makeup of the people who play this game and read this board is above average as far as intelligence is concerned (although it may be a little behind in social development)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hope you include yourself in that last comment Marco Bergman posted a full solution within an hour of your request, yet four days later you don't seem to have thanked him for his effort (unless you emailed him). And ... a request for a fully worked solution surely deserves a fully worked explanation of why you want it - not least because other people may want to use what you've come up with. Besides, if it is for CM, what do you care what the steps involved in getting to the solution are :confused: See what happens when you go all secretive? People get all curious Regards JonS [ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

try here for starters: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=001270

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: ... So you can't say the tripod should be in because the Crocodile is. Croc wasn't all that rare, apparently...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But then neither was the tripod - we have heard that there was one in every platoon. So in a company sized engagment a Commonwealth commander/player in theory had access to four of them. Whether they were used is a seperate thing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... I did swear an oath to HM The Queen, don't you know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wonder if the words are the same everywhere. Did you get the option to swear on the bible? JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: ...In any event, it makes the case for excluding the Bren tripod that much more concrete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The fact that you were out in your estimate of a specialised AFV by a factor of 16 makes the exclusion of the ground-mount for an MG more concrete? Wow Mike, that's some interesting logic. Have you been smoking those maple-leaves again

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: ...great, so you even admit you are not interested in realistic portrayal in CM, but exclusively on the portrayal of british forces in CM...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hof, IMHO this is unfair of you. That Brian chooses to focus on the Commonwealth could be interpreted that he is only commenting on that which he knows, rather than just rambling on about everything under the sun. I try to keep my comments limited to those subjects, or those aspects of subjects, to which I feel I can add. The armed forces of the US, Germany, etc, are outside my scope. For the Commonwealth in particular and artillery in general, on the otherhand, I have a certain amount of knowledge. Commenting on those subjects doesn't mean I'm disinterested in the portrayal of other aspects of the game, just that I'm not prepared to comment on them. My reading of his comment is that Brian feels the same way. Regards JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: ...The Crocodile (of which only 50 were built) is readily available for purchase...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Only 50? Chamberlain and Ellis give a figure of 800 built by May '45 (with 250 going to the Far East). The Petard AVRE numbered 750 by about the same time.

I've been messing about with on-map artillery recently, and came across a weird anomally. The following is a full list of all the artillery which can be placed on-map, and which may have smoke rounds: Allied US 76mm AT Gun US/French 105mm M2A1 Howitzer US Para/UK Para 75mm M3 Pack Howitzer US Para 105mm M3 Pack Howitzer German (various branches) 75mm Infantry Gun 150mm Infantry Gun 75mm PaK40 AT Gun 88mm PaK43 AT Gun 88mm PaK43/41 AT Gun 88mm Flak 75mm Howitzer 105mm Howitzer 105mm Recoilless Rifle The reason I noticed was when I was messing around with the 25pdr Gun-Howitzer. When placed on the map it can't have any smoke. "That's odd" I thought, so I checked all the others. Now, given the nature of the 25pdr smoke ammo (possibly not suited to short-ish range direct fire), this may have been a deliberate omission. Does anyone know if this is the case, or if it was merely an oversight? In the grand scheme of things its not a biggie as - to the best of my knowledge - the Royal Artillery had gotten over its brief, Rommel inspired revivial of using direct fire, and there weren't any instances of them being used that way in either Italy or North West Europe. Seems odd though. Regards JonS P.S. I'm not going all uber-British on you, I'm just curious. [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Bandwidth: This has been said on the forum by BTS, but I do not know any more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you for that devastatingly insightful post which, including full quote and large sig, took 135 words to relate Regards Jon

I got 1.55 to 2 dp (the full answer has 10 dp)

These are valid points John, but I think you'd have to agree that the actual landings are a bit of a special case, which BTS deliberatly left outside the scope of CM:Beyond Overlord BTW, yes, it is a good book, my 15+ year old copy is looking very battered

yeah, what OGSF said! [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

OK, you refered to it being an UBERweapon, and the MG42 is the uber-est MG I know of (from WW2 anyway). Maybe you weren't thinking of the MG42 - who knows what you were thinking except you - and if I've misrepresented you on that particular point I apologise. As for how it would be any better, well how about a more stable platform, improved accuracy, pre-registered covered arcs, AA fire - you know, all those things that people bother building tripods for in the first place. And since the MG mechanics are supposedly much improved in CMBB (and the versions thereafter) having the Bren available as it was used (admittedly not all the time) becomes more significant. IMHO. [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... Since a Bren on a tripod is just a slow Bren, I don't really care about it -- game is not changed one bit, but the historical issue is very important, especially when Bren on tripod is equated to an UBERweapon without any support...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know how to break this to you gently Slapster, but no-one claimed the Bren on a tripod should be the equivalent of the MG42 on a tripod. Sorta like the Zook and the Shreck - apparently similar weapons, with very different capabilities (as they should have). Why you think BTS would suddenly drop a nut and give a Bren-on-a-tripod (or even a Bren LMG team)* the same firepower characteristics as a MG42-on-a-tripod (or a German LMG team) is beyond me - and not a little insulting to BTS IMHO. JonS * if they ever included it in the game that is (current or future versions. I'm aware CMBO is finished, and CMBB deals with a different front).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Anglophile: ... it is larger than life ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ... just like Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: ... Oh, by the way, how many rounds were ... used to align gun and sights...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, in this case the figure is zero. Oddly enough, one doesn't need to fire to ensure that the barrel is aligned with the sight, instead a gunners qudrant is used. Well, that is the case with current field artillery, and I suspect it hasn't changed all that much over the intervening period. But then again, what would I know, eh Slap?

Hmmm, lets see now ... (56 players) * (7 AARs each) = (lots of reading) I think towards the end of that lot TB155 will be giving maximum marks to AARs like: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scenario:Waterloo Turns 1-25:I kicked Napoleons' butt, and it felt great! Wellington<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

machineman and Slap, cheers.

Cock! {tips hat toward Elvis} [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Argentina, Canada, The UK, South Africa, Australia, ... you know, I bet the people who really made a mint out of CM were FedEx or whoever it was who had the shipping contract. Oh, them and Amazon - damn their eyes for having the CM-related books I want! :mad: Oh yeah, and the computer manufacturers too - spending a couple of grand to play a $50 game seemed to make sense at the time ... [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

oh - another thing I thought of - Jasons model assumes that all engagements ultimately end in the target being destroyed. I think this is a false assumption, and therefore the rounds fired in inconclusive engagements are being lumped in with those that were. Similar to the reporting of extremly long range hits cf more normal range hits, I imagine the reporting of inconclusive engagements ("yeah, we fired three rounds at it at ~1200m, but then it reversed around the back of a hill, and we never saw it again") I would predict to be lower than the reporting of successful engagements ("Yay! We hit it!"). BTW, my point about the supply chain wasn't to account for a specific number of shells, but rather to point out where a not insignificant portion of them may have gone. Jason, I don't think there is anything basically wrong with your reasoning, just applying of little nuances, as it were. Regards JonS