aka_tom_w

I'm wondering if Andy would like to read up a little on the differences between Absolute and Relative Spotting? http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461;p= this was the lastest "Relative Spotting Revisited Thread" Steve posted a few interesting commments..... Steve's posts appear on page 7: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461;p=7 -tom w [ July 03, 2002, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Not for mines it's not ! They certainly don't know where they are for sure . A pillbox out of sight out of mind ! You're a braver man than I ! :eek: </font>

WOW that is one helluva alot of work to make that web site: http://members.tripod.com/johnnocmdow/u_spot/u_spot009.htm Who designed this site and why is it not more well known? Nice work! -tom w

This Latest bone is VERY tasty indeed! "More Advanced Damage Calculations Thanks to the availability of a wealth of new scientific and gun range testing data, the ballistics and penetration calculations are far more advanced than ever before. One of many new elements is the possibilty of partial penetrations" NOW How cool is that!! -tom w

Originally posted by M Hofbauer: I guess I was the "other poster". did I "talk down" to someone and not realize it? This suggestion seems somewhat strange to me as I have admited more than a few times that while I may be a little opinionated (sometimes ) I have no military experience what so ever (Although I do read about WWII armoured combat ALOT) and have never claimed to have any first hand tank gunnery experience, so it seems somehow far fetched that someone with Real Life Military experience might feel I was "talking down" to them.(if in fact it was me doing the talking down?) I kinda figured someone would eventually object the the PE reference, (Given that it is JUST a VIDEO GAME you know! )but this quote does sum up my position very well: "the other poster wasn't using the firing / aiming in PE as a reference, but facts from reality that also surface in PE, namely the outlay and general differences between german and allied optics (i.e.range finding optics in the reticle, and lack thereof on the Allied side ), which were there for real " Thanks -tom w [ July 02, 2002, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Lets not forget where this Thread started. Just to revisit the opening post, THAT is quite a story of interesting first shot hits, on both sides! -tom w

Thanks! the editorial comment at the end does indeed indicate Jarheads have a sense of humour Bill Murray: "I don't think you would think it was funny sir" Sgt Hulka: "Try me, I gotta a Helluva sense of humour, don't I Corpal Briggs?!! " -tom w

this is interesting: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pref8u/PEgunneryGER.htm These Tips require the 1000m calibration for the German Site - else it isn't really "full realism" gunnery PE's german gunsight is calibrated for 500m. To get the 1000m calibration just use notepad or edit to open PE_Game.ini from in C:\Program Files\Psygnosis\Panzer Elite\Data and change aimscale1=16384 and aimscale2=16384 for both zoom levels of the german sight. This does not effect the mg sights or US sights. P.S. The big triangles height in the german sight is 4m at 1000m and the smalls are 2m at 1000m. This lets you estimate the range to the target by how much triangle is covered by the target. TIP 1: How to gauge range with the German Sight hint: M4 Sherman Medium Tank Height - 3.37m and more Eastern Front files here: But they are in German: http://home.arcor.de/custompe/index2.html -tom w [ July 02, 2002, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Originally posted by Scipio: I think the question which optics were better is not so extremly relevant - beside the fact that it can not be modeled very well. "A German tanker was trained with German optics, a Russian tanker with Russian optics - at least I assume that there were a difference between both. I guess a trained and experienced Russian was able to achieve the same results with his optics then the German with the German optics, even if one equipment was maybe better." I'm sorry but I disagree with this statement. I'm sorry I do not know what Russian optics looked like and I may get flamed for this BUT the German optics were designed with precision and with the intention to be able to accurately determine range and distance to the target. This is a HUGE factor. Sorry to bring it up BUT if Panzer Elite accurately modeled the reticle and sighting mechanisms of German and American sites and optics it is clearly obvious to me the the German optics are better for determining range to the target. here is the link: http://www.panzerelite.com/zeiss/zeiss.html more here: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/turret/pegunnery/pegunnery.shtml Mastering Gunnery in Panzer Elite Feature by Michael J. McConnell November 9, 1999 MASTERING GUNNERY IN PANZER ELITE Ammunition Trajectory The basic flight path of any shell in flight is an arc. The ‘arch’ of the shell’s arc depends on the muzzle velocity and other items. Hence the higher the muzzle velocity, the flatter the ‘arch’ of the shell and the more accurate the gunner can be. THE OPTICS AND GUNNERY German Gunnery Zeiss Optics To accurately fire in any of the German tanks, you will need to understand the Zeiss Optics, shown below. Don’t let it be intimating...with practice you to will be able to master it. Step One: Determining Range Back before the days of laser rangefinders, German gunners used "mils" to get the range to the target. One mil equals one meter. The first thing you will need to do is to get to know the dimensions of the tanks you will be expecting to fight. This is somewhat simplified in Panzer Elite. Your main threat will be from M4 and M10s. Dimensions Of American Tanks M4 Sherman Medium Tank Height - 3.37m Length - 6.27m Width - 2.67m M10 Tank Destroyer Height - 2.48m Length - 5.97m Width - 3.05m M3 Grant / Lee Medium Tank Height - 3.12m Length - 5.64m Width - 2.72m M3 Light Tank Height - 2.51m Length - 4.53m Width - 2.23m Using the Triangles The large triangle in the center of the Zeiss sight is 4 mils wide and 4 mils high at the calibration range (500m). Knowing that, the first step to accurately gunning is to use the triangles to gauge the distance to the target. The space between the large triangle and the smaller ones to either side is 2 mils. The small triangles are 2 mils wide and 2 mils high. Therefore a target 500m away that is 4 meters in size would be 4 mils, or the exact size of the large center triangle. (Note: Although Panzer Elite's sights are calibrated at 500m, in real life German sights were calibrated at 1000m). "U.S. GUNNERY M55 Optics This sight picture is from a M55 telescope. The M55 was used on the M3 (75mm) gun, which was in the early American tanks of World War Two. The dot that is at the top of the range tree is for aiming at targets less then 500 yards. The 8, 16, and the 24 marks on the range tree indicates the needed elevation to hit targets at 800, 1600, and 2400 yards, respectively. M38A2 Optics This sight picture is from a M38A2 telescope. The M38A2 was used with both the M3 (75mm) and the M1 (76mm) guns. The cross at the top of the range tree is for targets under 500 yards away. The 8, 16, 24, 36, and 42 marks on the range tree indicates the needed elevation to hit targets at 800, 1600, 2400, 3600, and 4200 yards, respectively. Step One: Determining Range Sorry troops, the American sights had no way to find range . However, here is an old old virtual tanker’s trick...if I recall my training correctly, the coax could be used to roughly gauge the range. Say the coax range is set out to 800m. With that knowledge, I would move my sight up to 800 meters and fire a burst of coax. If it fell beyond the target, I knew it was closer then 800m. If the bullets fell in front of the target, then I knew the target was further then 800m. Here is a variation of that virtual trick in Panzer Elite. You can fire your coax until you ‘hear’ the ping from your enemy. Take note what the range is. Also take note on how high the arc of the coax bullets are. You have just found a very close estimation of the enemy’s range. You should be able to hit the target in 3 main gun rounds. Of course, this comes with a lot of practice. Step Two: Aim Your Weapon The aiming point for the cannon in your scope will be the center vertical line and also the horizontal line marking the correct range. You will want to make sure that the center vertical line is dead center on your target, and then lower or elevate the main gun to the correct height (range). For example, if the target is 800m away, have both the center vertical line and the horizontal line (that shows 8) going through the center of the target. Again, in PE's Realistic Gunnery setting, your round may actually land a bit further to the right of your aiming point on the range ladder. This is due to the spin that your main gun puts on the shell to increase its accuracy at longer ranges. Weather effects may also come into play. I like to use an old training method on my aiming. When you go to aim, draw a G figure with your sight. Move your gun sight in a circular motion, starting the G figure just to the front top of your target. Then move your gun sight slightly around the target without losing sight of the target. Now to finish the G figure, you come up from the bottom of the target and you will finish center of the target. This allows me to aim more accurately. Step Three: FIRE! Again, when you fire, make sure you are relaxed...just a twitch will throw off your well-planned shot. Be ready to follow up your first shot immediately, because the chance of a first round hit is very small." "Summary U.S. tankers...do not get into a long-distance duel with German tankers, period. Use a lot of smoke and maneuver to gain a hull down fighting position less then 500m from your target. Also, a flank shot is preferred. Refer back to my other articles on the tactics that you may need to survive on the battlefield. German tankers...learn your optics well. Once you do, you will be the king of the battlefield, plain and simple. Use your better optics and better firepower to shoot targets at longer ranges. Don’t let the enemy close in on you. Make sure you have a good fighting position. Refer back to my other articles on the tactics that you may need to survive on the battlefield. That is about it for the basic World War Two gunnery concepts. Sharpen your gunnery skills and I will see you on the field of honor! TANKS, Michael J. McConnell a.k.a. Col. Sabot" END QUOTE In the past I have been critized for suggesting that the way optics are modeled in Panzer Elite (being that it is JUST another WWII Tank Sim VIDEO GAME ) may have NOTHING at all to do with historical accuracy or the way gunnery optics "really" worked in the real deal. To be fair I have only ever fooled around with the Panzer Elite Demo, a little bit so I do not know if it is REALLY realistic or not, BUT from those web pages above and what the optics looked like when the gunner looked through those sites, to aim, I would conclude that a well trained German gunner would have a DECIDED advantage at determining range to the target OVER a well trained American gunner based on the design of those optics in WW II. Sadly, I am sorry to report, I have no frame of reference for the Soviet optics. Does anyone have a web page or reference as to what the gunner saw when they looked through a WW II Soviet tank gun site? -tom w [ July 02, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Great Post! Good points "It seems to me that a lot of people underestimate the range problem. And 'range finding' is just not modeled in CM. All ranges are - AFAIK - known. To the player - what is okay - but also to the gunners in the game. What is completly wrong." OK! One thing that Steve and BFC seem to completely refuse to model is the impact of optics. IMHO I honestly believe the Germans had BETTER optics with respect to range finding. If the gunner can accurately determine the range before the first round is fired the liklyhood of a hit should be much higher. So it follows that if two tanks are moving (the shooter moving fast) the range would be changing and the shot ought not to be very accurate at all. NOW that said it has been pointed out the at ranges less than about 800 m if the gunner aimed at the central mass of the tank and did not accurately determine the range the deviation in the flight path, (a little bit up or down) would still likely result in a hit somewhere on the tank. HOWEVER with both tanks moving it would seem CMBO is OVERLY generous with the "to hit" accuracy gunnery model. Steve of BFC has posted his thoughts on this siutation with regard to CMBO so lets hope there might some changes in CMBB. I do hope they will review whatever hard data are available on this issue and modify the gunnery model for WWII East Front tanks firing on the move for CMBB! (Not to mention the impact of gunnery Optics and range finders) -tom w [ July 02, 2002, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

CG was a Marine? Ok, let me ask you a couple of questions for mine and the other forum jarhead's sake:(Any Marine would know this, so don't worry) What are your last 4? Which Training Battalion in Parris Island is the most renowned for harsher discipline? How can you tell a Senior from the other DI's? What happens on thursday nights in most USMC barracks? (Fridays in some). Who's got the most Medals of Honor? Smedley or Lewis B.? Who's ranked higher? A Gunner or a Gunny? What's a Pizza Box medal? What is a FireWatch ribbon? What is a Butterbar? What is the proper Rifle Range signal for "No rounds hit target"? What is the nickname for that? When you are doing target duty in the rilfe range, what is it called? (Hint: "You are pulling _____") In running cadences, who always steals you girlfriend when you are away? What are "Black Cadillacs"? What is "**** on a Shingle"? What is an 03? A score of 11 out 14 or higher is required to pass this test. Gyrene</font>

I'm not sure if Mr.Smith is still with us but he has this to say about a year ago you can find it here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019743;p= Stephen Smith Member Member # 567 posted June 20, 2001 10:54 AM As a real-world comparison- modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but 'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean driving cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down motion, nor driving very fast. I don't believe it would be possible to fire modern M1A1s while 'on the move' in any but these very limited circumstances (i.e. relatively flat terrain, relatively low speed), for two reasons 1) it would be hard to keep the cross hairs on the target, and 2) it would be hard for the crew to keep themselves still enough to even look through the optics well enough to aim (the gunner would be thrown around the inside of the vehicle too much). And unless 1940's technology was much better than 1990's technology, I suspect the ability to fire on the move under any but very rare circumstances, even with a highly trained crew and a gyrostabilizer, is grossly overrated. And- I just read a book on Kursk which quoted a german gunner as saying the ideal range for engagements was about 800 meters. So what ranges should we expect in CM2? I would think about the same as in CMBO. While the optics and penetration of main guns may have allowed extremely high ranges (2000, 3000 meters in incredibly rare, extreme cases), I suspect that due to real-world terrain, actual engagements were probably conducted, 95% of the time, 0-1000 meters or so. Steve

Steve says this in this old thread I started about a year ago on this very subject: Big Time Software unregistered posted July 25, 2001 04:02 PM Hi all, Well, I decided to do some tests instead of rellying upon people's strong, but relatively unsupported, opinions. I conducted a simple test to at least see some statistical relationship between various different aspects of gunnery using Halt and Fast. I used 5 Regular Hellcats vs. 5 Regular Panthers. The choice was made because, supposedly, the Hellcat has the biggest "fire on the move" bonus of all vehicles in the game since it is both fast and has the gyro installed (even though, for the 100th time, the gyro only adds a tiny bonus). The Panther was chosen because it can stand up to Hellcat fire, to some degree, but is also not overly large like a King Tiger or Jagdtiger. The test was conducted at three ranges (roughly 250m, 1000m, and 2000m) in perfect conditions (flat, uniform terrain in clear weather) against stationary, non armed targets. All Hellcats started out in a dug out so they would aquire targets only after they had acheived "full speed". Sharpshooters were positioned to ensure enemy tanks were spotted from the get-go. For Fast tests I took a batch of 5 Hellcats from one range group, plotted their movement orders, and plotted Fast moves using Group Move towards the right most extreme edge of the map. This allowed for turret rotation and also minimized range reduction as the movement was more lateral than forward. I repeated this test five times. For Hunt tests I did the same thing, except I ploted the Hellcats straight forward. The results were quite interesting, and (IMHO) run contrary to the assumptions that some have made here. Some basic findings: Short Range - Hunt tanks were 7 times more likely to acheive a 1st shot hit, 3 times more likely to hit over all. Highest % chance of hitting while moving was 1 in 3 (33%), highest for Hunt tanks was over 9 in 10 (93%). Lowest % chance of hitting for Fast (13%), which was five times lower than Hunt (64%). Medium Range - Hunt tanks were almost 15 times more likely to score a hit than one moving Fast. No Fast Hellcat scored a first shot hit, while first shot hits for Hunt tanks were about 1 in 5. TacAI was not as likely to have Fast moving tanks fire. In fact, generally one tank each test did not fire at all. Long Range - TacAI found that 2500m was not an effective range to engage, so no Hellcats fired at all, however the Hunt ones did tend to stop and await further orders. What conclusions can we make from this? That anybody who thinks that Fast yields the same, or even better, results as firing from a halted position should take another look at their tactics. I found nothing in this test, or in 2 years of use of the game, to suggest that firing on the move is unrealistically easy to hit. Now, if someone wants to duplicate this situation using stationary Allied tanks and on the move German ones, or to swap in Move instead of Hunt, fine. I personally expect the numbers for German tanks to be BETTER than the Hellcats simply because the German guns are more accurate. But I don't have time to do another set of tests. Heck, I didn't have time to do this set either Steve [ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ] the thread is TEN pages long and it is just about the same as this current thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019743 more here: Big Time Software unregistered posted July 25, 2001 11:50 PM Rother, I agree that doing anything while moving is a problem compared to being stopped. No questioning that. But tanks *DID* fire on the move in WWII. This is a fact that would be rather hard to dispute. What the question should be is what degree of accuracy can be expected from a well trained crew, in optimal conditions, at point blank range against a stationary (and rather large) target. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge there is no such figures for us to tap into, so it is guess work. Do we have it right? I honestly don't know. But if the best arguments against the way it works in CM now is to say that tanks didn't fire on the move or that CM doesn't penalize moving tanks are not very impressive. Tom, quote: The "strong, but relatively unsupported, opinions" reference sounded like it may have been directed at some of my more highly opinionated posts. Yes and no. You were not the only one to go out on the edge of a limb without checking to see if it would support your weight first My tests were designed to first and foremost get rid of the unsupported opinions I have seen in this thread. One person even said he doesn't use Hunt because Fast is just as good. Now, do you think that is a good and well reasoned evaulation of the way the game really works as opposed to how it is perceived to work? I don't, so that is why I did the tests. quote: I suspect that the posts from real life modern day tank gunners who state the today's modern tanks would only attempt to fire on the move while traveling on a straight flat road at a about 15 mph, directly toward the target calls into question the notion that Allied Hellcat crews attempted to fire their main weapon (with a 33% accuracy rating at 250 m) while moving at top speed across open terrain. Actually Tom, it is 23% accuracy vs. 76%. Or if you want to just select a single number out of the 5 tests, might I sugest the low end of 13% instead of the high end 33%? Even the worst "luck" while stationary was twice the best luck of the Fast vehicle. The gap between wrost and best was 13% to 93%. Quite a huge difference. If you were in a tank and wanted to score a kill before the enemy did, which firing option would you employ? I understand and respect the insights that contemporary AFV crews have brought forward here, but since the history books and the veterans who fought in them talk about firing on the move... I got to side with the historical stuff and not personal conjecture. As someone said earlier, in ideal circumstances you will, at some point, get the cross hairs on the target (at short range at least). The German's experiments with autmatic firing once the cross hairs met the target show that this concept is not imaginary. I personally don't think a seven fold reduction in the chance of a first hit (which would be CRITICAL at short range) and a three fold decrease for a hit makes firing on the move at close range a desirable choice. At normal engagement ranges the 15 fold accuracy advantage for a halted tank makes firing on the move, which had a mere 2% chance of hitting, shows that firing on the move at that range is almost a sure miss. So... bottom line here... The rather strong and unsubstantiated claims of firing on the move modeling flaws don't hold much water when the issue is actually looked at. If someone wants to debate the chance of hitting while on the move at point blank range, that is fine. As I said, we don't have any hard numbers to draw upon so we might have it wrong. But we are going to need to see some sort of tangiable argument laid out instead of "they should just miss or not fire at all" stuff. That way of arguing for change doesn't impress us Steve from: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019743;p=3 more: Big Time Software unregistered posted July 26, 2001 04:37 PM Hey Tom, We all make mistakes. The important thing is to understand that and look beyond them. Now that you (and others who share your opinions) have seen a fairly factually based counter discussion, what say you? In my opinion these are the points, counter points brought up in this (and another) thread. 1. Firing on the move using FAST does not offer much of a penalty - my tests clearly show that even at point blank range this is not true. At longer ranges it is night and day different compared to firing while halted. 2. Tanks should not be able to fire on the move - historical accounts beg to differ. In fact, especially with the Soviets, this was SOP for armored vehicles on the advance. 3. Firing on the move was very difficult - yup, which is exactly what the stats show. But it doesn't mean it wasn't done simply because it was difficult. 4. AFVs should not be able to fire while going at top speed - again, there is no basis for this. In any case, Fast does not mean the vehicle actually acheives its top rated speed. Generally the speed is actually only 10-20mph over perfect open ground conditions. 5. Gyros add a huge advantage to a tank which has one - not true. At most it adds a couple of % points to the chance of hitting, but since firing on the move is already rather poor, it doesn't result in a massive difference between a non-gyroed vehicle. 6. Do moving vehicles get an accuracy penalty due to the impossibility of bracketing? - you bet. Each shot fired is treated like a "1st round" since it is highly unlikely that the TC is going to spot shotfall or be able to quickly calculate aiming corrections while bouncing around in the turret. Uh... did I miss anything? Steve http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019743;p=4 there is plenty to read here if you really want the opinion of BFC and Steve on this particular issue... -tom w

Already stated it in one of the innumerable 'when will CMBB be released' threads. I copped October 15th. Why? Why the hell not. I simply didn't have access to a complete 'in the original, obscure, and largely illiterate latin-french' work of Nostradamus when I combed my date out of the air. Nor did I make reference to various Real World battles, campaign kick-offs, or lunatic fringe conspiracy clique 'dates of significance'. Finally, I avoided using Powerball machines to generate numbers that I could pretend to myself had something to do with the release date, nor did I cast through an internal landscape of personally 'significant' dates such as birthdate, anniversary, first sexual experience (for many obsessed with the release date, this would be just as speculative a 'yet to occur' date), or the date on which the very first incarnation of the Peng Challenge Thread died. I just randomly selected a date that seemed somewhere on the cusp between Q3 and Q4, and flung it forth. And I would very much appreciate it if BFC would do everything in their power to actually release the game on that date so that any number of gibbering lackwits will regard me as the New Messiah.</font>

Great to see you back in the "fold" Gary. Thats GREAT news! Good luck with the new web site! -tom w

Yes yes I agree completely the Tac AI is VERY robot like in its ability to get a first shot penetration and KO and move on very quickly to the next target knowing with absolute certianty that the first one is KO'd EVEN when it is not burning and smoking! Good point -tom w

Oh :eek: I see......... THAT best guess extrapolated from "rumours" of a Q3 '02 release date. Now I understand -tom w

GREAT post! I agree this point for sure: "In addition, the issue of victory points comes into play. The easily abanonded tanks may be fine from a realism point, but the current scheme hurts armor players victory-point wise. If you lose 5 120 points tanks with an average of 2 crewmembers lost, you have 660 points handed to the opponent. And the remaining crews are pretty useless. If you have 5 120 points platoon badly shot up, you typically have 2/3 casulties = 400 points, and units which are still useful for anything but assaulting. That would all be OK if we were talking about tanks really shot up completely and the hard way. But there is a break in the logic, if we have very easily abanonded tanks that shouldn't be the same thing as catastrophic losses as the infantry takes. At the very least the victory point penelity for the tank plus the crew should equal the puchase price, that means the 120 point tank brings 90 victory points for the tank and 30 for the crew, not 120 + 30. And I would like to have abanonded tanks be worth half or 2/3 the victory points of KOed tanks." Very interesting suggestion and very sound logic IMHO! -tom w

Where did that date come from? I hadn't seen it before. Michael</font>

I think the secret to accuracy is crew experience level. Have you ever played a CMBO game will ALL tanks and AFV's as GREEN. Thats right play ALL green troops and then watch the accuracy and see what happens. All green tank battles are REAL nail biters as it is just like rolling dice again (for the old timers here) and hopeing for Snake-eyes or Box-cars to get a hit. IMHO I think the accuracy model is JUST right now, it was tweaked up in a few patches because more than a few folks here (including my self) lobbied hard for better accuracy based on target test range firing and accuracy data (especially for the german tanks) that was presented to suggest the tanks in the game were originally lacking in accuracy that many here thought they should have been more correctly, (read: historically) afforded. -tom w [ June 27, 2002, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

It does not run on a Mac so it will never be the King of my Hard Drive. CMBB will be out sometime (soon :confused: ?) and it will be the next and only game I purchase until I see some possible "distraction" I might be interested in next Christmas! -tom w

Wow, I thought I was addicted but that post is over the top! Was that paint ball or Reservist weekend warrior training? If you can never have the experience of real combat, I would guess paint ball is a close second. Its hard to comment because Paintball is really only "combat light" IMHO given that you know you won't die, (but it does hurt if you get hit up close). -tom w

DITTO! "The only reason I haven't upgraded to OSX is that CM won't work on it." I may be forced to go to OSX this fall and I not that interested because the will involve a reboot back to 9.x as, every time I want to play as CMBO won't work in Classic mode. It is a big deal and I think it is a more significant issue than they believe. Except that Mac users are the minority of their customers and Mac OSX users are (at least at this time) the minority of Mac users IMHO. -tom w

And you would be breaking the law, duh.</font>

Also.. If your friend is on a Mac you might suggest he use any Microsoft Mail software (Outlook Express works great) and then send it to you from that software. Mac users should be flexible enough to use an e-mail program from Mircosoft that will solve all those uuEncode problems. I have played against several PC based CMBO players and I routinely e-mail PBEM turns from Outlook Express without any problem at all. Also as suggested a free piece of shareware called "Zippit" will make zipped files out the attachments on the Mac before your friend sends them and that will do the trick as well. Hope that helps. -tom w [ June 21, 2002, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]