aka_tom_w

"Good optics" is a "better" rating (game-wise) than "dual-mag optics". The Tiger I optics, while certainly dual-mag, were also among the best optics out there from what I have seen, and therefore qualify for "good optics". In other words - the rating in the game is primarily based on the game and combat performance, and not (only) the feature(s) of the optics. Hmm, the TZF 9d, according to my sources (various, but for example the "Bildermappe optisches Gerät", page 28, an original Wehrmacht source) is a binocular dual-magnification sight. "Narrow optics" basically includes the "long-range" feature, as most optics with a narrow field of view are optics with high magnification. However, "narrow" is "worse" than "long-range", meaning that the overall optical quality was poor and/or that the field of view was extremely narrow. In the case of the 2/1, it's mainly the latter. The field of view was extremely narrow according to my sources (FOV 4°), among the most narrow sights there were. As a comparision, the TZF 12 (Panther) has a FOV of 27°-28°. Martin</font>

Hey Foxbat Can you post the link to the thread where you found that? I think a few of us here might like to re-read that thread. Thanks -tom w

Probably some variant of this, considering that all these tanks had uberoptics as a-late-in-life/late-production add-on.</font>

Martin? I was under the impression Moon was the BFC optics expert and would be interested to hear his side of the story. where does the truth lie here? -tom w

Me too. In the short time I play TCP CMBB now I have been Alt-A'ed so often (with the new CMBB crowd, it rarely happend with the CMBO tournamenthouse gang) that I will require that the person places his password with a neutral party or so, so that I can at least review the battlefield when the bastard drops out.</font>

Thanks for the update Matt. -tom w

Roger that! -tom w

Thanks for not saying what scenario that was, BUT now I am interested if there is any way to post a spoiler warning (or something) can you tell which ASL CMBB converted scenario that was. Did you mean you played the scenario in CMBB or in ASL the board game? -tom w

From reading about all these bugs and defects, I really wonder what makes you believe in that? If CMBB was "ready", then why would a patch be needed? Is it even possible to make a game like that? And if not, then what on earth does that phrase mean, compared to, say, "when it is ready enough"? :confused: </font>

WOW I'm not real sure I like the way the message was delivered. Aside from the real "ranting" quality of the tone of the message I agree with most of it. AND remember.... There are lots of folks out here (Canada, Britian in the rest of NON-Germany Europe and in Hong Kong and Australia) that are still waiting to receive CMBB and in the mean time we are really enjoying CMBO. I'm sure I will play BOTH games when CMBB arrives. (I think ) Cheers! -tom w

One thing that is ALWAYS over looked here BFC hasa GREAT reputation of ALWAYS releasing their games and Patches for the MAC and PC BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. That takes alot of extra time and we should all be patient. Even though I am a Mac user in Canada (still waiting for my copy) I thank them EVERY day for releasing the Mac version and PC version simulteaneously!!! Who else does that?? Serioulsy, think about it, in the development of ANY software not just games, who else releases the Mac and PC versions at the same time?? and they always release the patch at the same time too! thanks I think we can wait till its good and ready. :cool: -tom w [ October 07, 2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I don't have the game yet.... only the demo so I will check that out again. Thanks -tom w

ME TOO ROTFL Good one! -tom w

Maybe I am confused :confused: (it wouldn't be the first time ). I'm on a Mac and I do ALL my plotting with hotkeys. Its easy M-Move F-Fast, and U-Hunt (ok thats the tough one ) for every new way point I want I hit a hot key and place it with the mouse (click) then I hit another hotkey (usually the same one) for the next waypoint. Then if I need to delete one I use the handy dandy delete key on the Mac. I wish I understood what all the fuss was about here? is it from folks who are clicking and dragging? to make waypoints? Does the delete key not just delete the last way point, or just hit the space bar? Is this the same as it is in CMBO? Has it changed in the release version of CMBB from CMBO? Why does backspace/ delete not work to delete only the last waypoint? :confused: is this a Mac/PC thing or am I just clueless on this issue? Thanks -tom w [ October 06, 2002, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

bump

bump

bump

Hi Treeburst, Sorry I did not make my point more clear. I agree with you, but since I don't have the game I can't "really" complain about it. I Mention EFOW as a completely seperate issue (sort like my own personal crusade or pet peeve). SO what I meant was .... You focus on posting about the LOS issue in light terrain and I'll tag team ya on the EFOW issue, that's my personal issue OK? ... Thats all! ok? -tom w [ October 06, 2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

HEY Treeburst! its good to have a Focus! Keep up the good work Since I don't have the game yet I can't really comment, BUT I am following this thread with GREAT interest, please don't let the issue die if there really is a bug here. I think I will try to stay on top of the issue regarding what I consider to be EFOW "bugs" Thanks! -tom w [ October 06, 2002, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I think that aka_Tom meant in terms of reliable and workable, was something that was relatively simple to incorporate into the game and would not result in a complete overhaul of the game, or set back by months other more important things that need to be tweaked in the patch rather than something that has been around for two years now and as pointed out can very well work to your tactical advantage if used correctly, and for which there does not seem to be a major outcry to do something about. The balance between what a few folks think might be neat, even if all were in full agreement, which we are not, and the cost to BTS and it's customers in terms of both manhours to produce at BTS, and in terms of waiting time on the next patch has to be taken into account by BTS. And, in this case at least. I would argue that it is both unnecessary and too costly, since this is not a bug, but rather a thought out part of the game which as far as I'm concerned is not only NOT a bug, but a beneficial interface that allows for multiple spotting capabilities. </font>

Oh :eek: OK sorry I was mistaken since I don't have the game yet (grr..) I just thought you meant the 76.2 mm T34 was the one to have since I figured it had better penetration values. Sorry my mistake, thanks for the clarification. -tom w

I have used HQ's to spot for mortar teams ALL the time in CMBO and yes you have to be careful about it. I think CMBB has been Playtested to DEATH by some of the best and most knowledgable grogs and wargamers around here. I'm sure they did not over look this issue and so I don't think this one is a "bug". IF it is a bug can someone suggest a real reliable, workable programing solution for it??? Seriously, if it needs to be fixed (I don't believe it does BUT I don't have CMBB yet ) how would you fix it and what would be the consequences or side effects of that "fix"? I'm not sure that assigning HQ to vehicles mortars "fixes" it because if the HQ assigned gets knocked out then you can't use another nearby HQ for spotting purposes? :confused: IMHO this can simply be put down to "user error" the problem exists between the chair and the keyboard, not in the game. It requires being VERY mindful of the battle field and exactly who is where and what are they doing. My fellow Cyber Arm Chair Generals the simulated lives of your men are at STAKE here, this is not something to casually over look, you must be in complete command of all your units all the time and know who they have C&C with and who and what is commanding what, and where it is happening. Otherwise you are going to have to write ALOT of letters home to the simulated spouses and parents of your cyber soldiers. Pay Close Attention to your C&C and all your HQ units! That is ALL! -tom w [ October 06, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

That sounds like good news for the Soviets :confused: Did you mean to say: "On offence us 76.2mm Equipted T-34's" ?? GREAT test results thanks I guess that means those StuG's are not indestructible?? -tom w [ October 06, 2002, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I'm suprised that someone who knows about this or who has the game has not indicated which Soviet tanks or AT guns can penetrate the StuG III.... "They seem to merrily trash almost any Soviet vehicle that is realistically available until the appearance the the T34/85. They come down to a reasonable 'rarity cost' in the Fall of 42 and remain 'dominant' until somewhere around Spring of 44. Their game cost is a VERY modest 102/103 points base." This is VERY interesting... other folks here have said this is historically accurate so my question is... If you have to dual head to head with a StuG III from distances greater than 100 (so it seems) and you don't have any T34/85's what else is there that can penetrate this "monster" frontally? any more comments?? this is a very interesting thread Sounds like the StuG is Cheap and up until the spring of 44 it is invulnerable from tanks or AT guns directed at the frontal aspect from any distance above 100m? Is this true??? -tom w

I think it would have to be easier to JUST MOD the wav voice files with english from the Stalingrad movie. then replace the wav files Subtitles are IMHO almost technically impossble at this point. I seriously doubt we will see them in a patch from BFC. oh well -tom w