aka_tom_w

This one has been discussed almost to death many times before and there are two fairly divided camps on this one. I agree completly with everything Tiger said, and find that the inclusion of a unit Roster, would do more to encourage a "gamey" like min/max, old 2D board game "playing mentality" and I agree with the way it is now, which makes you the player more active, and more responsible to pay attention to ALL the developments on the battle field, by using views 1 and 2 if necessary to get down on the ground and see what is really happening. Its a GREAT game and I am of the opinion that a unit roster "might" make it "easier" for some players, but it would not make the game any more realitic and I don't think it would make the game any "better". I'm sure you can count on someone else to post here, with an equally compelling and passionate rant, detailing why the unit roster really should be in the game. Who's up to the challenge? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-29-2000).]

Doh! Tanks REALLY are eggshells with hammers!!! You have Never played a WWII combat sim better than this one, unless you were exposed to some top secret military training software we don't know about! If you have not played the Demo, play Valley of Terror and hold on to your seat. Spend some time reading this board and find how how incredibly dedicated Steve and Charles and Matt and Dan are to this game. It has been patched and upadted about SIX times since its release in their quest for perfection since the people that make this game REALLY like to play it as well. And they want their game to paly to PERFECTION and it shows!! Just buy it! what are you waiting for! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-28-2000).]

Hi Steve, Thanks for the prompt reply. I may have been mistaken or all the tanks firing were just getting lucky, but in the 300 to 500 meter range ALL tanks seem to be getting alot more hits than they used to, lately. I notice that no one is posting to complain about how often their tanks are firing and missing several shots in a row. Maybe we have all just been getting lucky hits lately? Thanks again -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-27-2000).]

oops sorry double post please ignore this one -tom w

"- Gunnery accuracy equations modified slightly to permit greater accuracy at point-blank ranges." I have played b24 as much as possible since it's release. I have enjoyed it VERY much. It is stable and it is fun. Does anyone here know what Charles means when he says "at point-blank ranges"? I have now played a good many tank battles where the average range was 500 meters or less, and I would say, in my experience, there is a greater chance to hit modeled now for tank gunners. I like it, and I think it is noticable, reg, vet, Crack, and Elite tank crews now hardily EVER miss even their first shot at against NON hull down targets at less than 500 meters. Has any one else noticed this increased accruacy? Getting the first shot off quick now REALLY counts for something. AND with the additional use of the Allied Tungsten hyper shot, tank battles at less then 500 meters, seem ALOT deadly than before! I have no actual experience of whether or not this is now MORE realistic or less realistic, but in my own (limited) personal opinion, this NEW short range accuracy tweak, makes the game, and targeting aquisition, behave ALOT more like the accuracy charts of weapons tested at gunnery ranges, that have been mentioned in those two (very lengthy) Long range gunnery accuracy threads. I REALLY like the way the tank gunnery accuracy "feels" now. It makes you even MORE careful with your tanks because you can't count on the likely hood of your oppenent firing a first shot miss that way it used to be. Getting that first shot off quickly seems ALOT more urgent now, making Vet Crack and Elite tanks crews EVEN more valuable! Thanks again! -tom w (NOTE) You'll notice I did NOT once use the phrase "superior gunnery optics" in the above compliment, paid specifically to Charles and his new short range gunnery accuracy equations!!

"- Gunnery accuracy equations modified slightly to permit greater accuracy at point-blank ranges." I have played b24 as much as possible since it's release. I have enjoyed it VERY much. It is stable and it is fun. Does anyone here know what Charles means when he says "at point-blank ranges"? I have now played a good many tank battles where the average range was 500 meters or less, and I would say, in my experience, there is a greater chance to hit modeled now for tank gunners. I like it, and I think it is noticable, reg, vet, Crack, and Elite tank crews now hardily EVER miss even their first shot at against NON hull down targets at less than 500 meters. Has any one else noticed this increased accruacy? Getting the first shot off quick now REALLY counts for something. AND with the additional use of the Allied Tungsten hyper shot, tank battles at less then 500 meters, seem ALOT deadly than before! I have no actual experience of whether or not this is now MORE realistic or less realistic, but in my own (limited) personal opinion, this NEW short range accuracy tweak, makes the game, and targeting aquisition, behave ALOT more like the accuracy charts of weapons tested at gunnery ranges, that have been mentioned in those two (very lengthy) Long range gunnery accuracy threads. I REALLY like the way the tank gunnery accuracy "feels" now. It makes you even MORE careful with your tanks because you can't count on the likely hood of your oppenent firing a first shot miss that way it used to be. Getting that first shot off quickly seems ALOT more urgent now, making Vet Crack and Elite tanks crews EVEN more valuable! Thanks again! -tom w (NOTE) You'll notice I did NOT once use the phrase "superior gunnery optics" in the above compliment, paid specifically to Charles and his new short range gunnery accuracy equations!!

I know this suggestion has been contemplated by Steve and BTS, as it was mentioned some time ago, and while it might be slightly off topic here..... Lets not forget about the "COOL" idea of units actually getting lost? I think this is perhaps a distant cousin of the Relative spotting dream. If and when you succeed in implementing relative spotting, Recon will take on a whole NEW meaning in CM AND if a unit is alone in the dense woods in the fog at night, MAYBE it could actually get good and LOST. Units getting lost or loosing their bearings in a recon role would also add another element of realism to an already GREAT game. Relative spotting and the successful execution of the idea is something we ALL look forward to. Thanks -tom w

Hi Has anyone else noticed that British and Canadian M3A1 Halft tracks won't fire or target anything, in b24? I'm wondering if it is just me or just he version of the scenario I have been playing, but I have now tried MANY different sceanrio's as the British or the Canadians and ALL of them show the half Tracks with 250 for Ammo but they do not have a "target" option in their drop down order Menu. Is this just me? Am I the only one using b24 and playing with British half tracks? I'm just curious as to where the problem is lies? Can someone else verify this or try a sceanrio or two with British HT's and let me know? Thanks -tom w

Thanks Matt Rune has already sent me his latest update on that scenario and it's fine now. If you are interested in playing Rune's "A River Runs Through It", you should get his very latest release of that scenario, so your Allied HT's will have ammo, otherwise they are mostly useless troop transport trucks with tracks. Thanks for the Prompt reply Matt. -tom w

Am I the ONLY one to notice that in Rune's (Spoiler Alert!!) ........ "A River Runs Throught It" scenario the Canadian Half Tracks show that they have 2 .30 cal MG's BUT still show NO ammo, in b24 in the scenario editor I cannot edit the scenario and give them some ammo? I'm wondering if this issue is specific to Rune's scenario? I have not tested other Allies HT's to see if they can have MG ammo. In the scenario editor when I open A River Runs Throught It there is NO option to increase the HT ammo from ZERO? Thanks to Rune for all his TCP/IP ready head to head canned scenario's. And thanks for the great Patch. I will agree with the others here who suggest that when a Tank rotates its frontal aspect towards and infantry threat that this may be a little OVERKILL, the patch is GREAT, but I am slightly uncomfortable with the tac AI rotating the hull toward an infantry threat, I agree, YES that threat "Could" be an anti tank team, but I have found this behaviour causes more problems than it is worth because when the tank in question turns its frontal aspect off towards the left or the right and then usually exposes its weak side armour to something more dangrous like a tank that it did not see but was facing with its frontal armour until it picked up in the infantry threat, and turned its frontal aspect toward it exposing its flank to other bigger threats that are still largely in front of it, then BAMMO, Ko to the flank. I would like to suggest this behaviour should be looked at again. (for some strange reason, my heart goes out to those poor (sometimes) abused anti Tanks teams, I think they deserve the odd flank shot they can get (in the old version when tanks didn't auto rotate the hull) , because they don't usually fair so well against the frontal aspect if a tank, (and they deserve what ever "break" they can get) And of Course a Merry Christmas to ALL! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-26-2000).]

Oh I think Mr. Peng is a candidate for the CM Borg award. I would suggest it MUST be someone who postes in the cesspool.And Writes WELL! That was a Very creative and well written , Night Before Christmas, truly inspired! -tom w

Thanks again for all the hard work and prompt bug fixes, I have never seen ANY piece of software fixed, patched, tweaked and updated as quickly and efficiently as this beta patch. So far it "feels" pretty good (bug wise, stability wise) I do hope you folks will really relax and take some time off, you all really deserve it! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-22-2000).]

VERY Creative, I guess by now we shoud all know who the REAL CM Borg is? Thanks And Merry Christmas -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fair? Well balanced? I musta missed sumptin'... SPOILERS!!! ... ... Despite the unbalanced scenario, I am grateful to Rune for letting me have this package of scenarios designed for double blind play. maybe I'll have better luck with another one. Henri

Bump to elevate its now FIXED status to the top. I do hope a new b24(?) beta patch will be available before the weekend If its not a big deal to whip off the flame thrower/s-shooter ammo fix, and release it? And Again MANY Thanks to Charles! -tom w

Great Reply Steve! I thought this part was especially enllightening: "So Move to Contact is desirable, for sure, but rather tricky to implement. At the moment we have erred onnot having it at all because we feel the frustration level with its results would probably result in it not beingused AND "demands" that we fix it ASAP. We have so many other things to do we decided that this is a headache we can, and in fact need to, put off for a while." that should just about sum up the issue of "Move to Contact" Great idea, just difficult to implement to the very HIGH standards of BTS and this community of gamers. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-20-2000).]

"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop" especially if you are a PzIVj

If you have ever played First Clash At Cambes (?) as the Allies you will know the mk IV's the Germans have in that one can be absolutely LEATHAL! ( I had one NAIL a Sherm and KO it at over 1800 m with its FIRST shot!) The mk IV is may seem lightly armoured compared to some other tanks but I think it does "feel" realistic. I doubt any of the stats or data will be changed, just keep them out of range of the Allied guns and they can at least do a little "something" for you. -tom w

Seriously, get this scenario from Rune and Play it double blind via TCP/IP, I would say 5 Minute turns should keep it challenging. Try it with the new beta #23 patch that was JUST released. This one is FAIR and if you trust that your oppenent won't cheat and run it against the AI on the "other" computer (everbody has one for those, rollie Eyes), then you are in for a real treat of a fair well balanced battle. Its fair and its fun and there is plenty of action to keep you busy. Get it from Rune, find someone you trust, and play it over the Holidays. and ...... HAVE FUN with the new b#23 patch! -tom w

Thanks that was an AMAZINGLY quick fix!! I wish you all a VERY Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! All of you, Charles, Steve, Dan and Matt, ALL deserve plenty time off to rest and relax and do whatever it is you like to enjoy your selves. I hope this release means you can start your Christmas Holidays early now. HUGE Thanks!!!! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Thanks a ton! I'll try the Shift-B tonight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats the best way to play Shift c until they are their SMALLEST size and Shift B to turn on bases. EASY -tom w

Holly CRAP!!! this game is REALLY going to ROCK from the perspective of a first person shooter! Check this out! This does not Look like BETA software to me, it ie VERY polished and professional and FULL of serious Eye Candy!! http://www.suppressivefire.net/Flashpoint.mpg if you have not seen this yet check it out it is well worth the download time!! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-19-2000).]

I found these reviews of the Book "Death Traps" Its looks like one I want in my library for SURE! This is what others say in their reviews: A valuable memoir from a veteran., December 18, 1998 Reviewer: Jonathan Beard jbeard@panix.com (see more about me) from New York City Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II is an unusual addition to the growing pile of memoirs being published as WW II veterans age and then die. It is not written by a soldier who was in the thick of combat and has brave tales to tell, nor is it the story of someone in command, explaining and justifying his decisions. Instead, Cooper was a junior officer in charge of vehicle maintenance for the 3rd Armored Division as it fought its way from Normandy to Central Germany. He was always right behind the front lines, but seldom in combat, though frequently exposed to sniper and artillery fire. The main revelation of Death Traps is obvious from its title: the famous M4 Sherman tank which was the mainstay of American armor during the war was completely inadequate when facing German tanks. American commanders, especially Gen. Patton, chose to continue producing the Sherman even when they knew it could not face German tanks and antitank guns, and American tank crews paid a heavy price for this mistake. Cooper has done his homework. Unlike many war memoirs, he has spent time reading the general histories in recent years, and gets the background information right when he discusses the pursuit across France, the invasion of Germany, and the Battle of the Bulge. But the most important thing here is the details: how the Sherman worked, how maintenance was carried out under harsh conditions, and, especially, what happened when a high-velocity 75 mm or 88 mm shell hit an M4. Was this review helpful to you? 22 of 23 people found the following review helpful: Maintenance view of a WWII Armored Division in Europe, December 31, 1998 Reviewer: Tommytank1@aol.com from Midland City, Alabama Hundreds of books have been written about armored warfare in World War II, usually from the viewpoint of a combat commander."Death Traps" is a first hand account of the often overlooked area of maintenance support. Belton Cooper was a army Ordnance officer with the 3rd Armored Division. He gives a different perspective of the day to day life of supporting a combat command of the 3rd ADduring WWII. He served as a laision officer with the duties of evaulating knocked out military vehicles, primarily M4 Sherman Tanks. Hisjob was to determine if these tanks could be salvaged,rebuilt and be reissued to tank crews. It is already well known that America's main battle tank was far inferior to German Armor, but Cooper explains how the M4 met its fate through numerous encounters with German Panthers and Tigers. This required Tank Commanders to rethink Armored Warfare and to come up with ways to defeat the enemy. He explains in detail the numerous obstacles that had to be overcome from the Normandy landings all the way to the surrender of Germany. You will read of the development of the famous Cullen Hedgerow device that helped break the stalmate in the hedgerow country of Normandy. Also the first trials of the M26 Pershing Tank which was so badly needed by our troops to counter heavy German Armor but was refused by General George S. Patton. Pattons view was that we needed fast tanks to go to the enemys rear to disrupt supply and command elements, did not warrant tanks like the Pershing. Coopers evaluation of the Pershing shows that if we had this tank in great numbers the war in Europe could have been over much sooner and with less loss of life. Also there is the rare story of the use of the M26A1E2(aka M26E4) Super Pershing and its encounter with a Panther. This is a great book. As a Veteran Tank Commander I highly recommend this book be read by all Armor Officers and Tank Commanders. You will awe at the stories of horror when you have to clean out a destroyed tank and try to match up the body parts. You will laugh at the comical incidents soldiers often find themselves in. A great deal of thanks is due to Cooper for contributing this work. It is a much needed addition to the library's of our nation's history. The new millineum is upon us. We must encourage our veterans to write about their experience's before they are lost to time. Cooper has done this and we thank him. Tom Holt Veteran, The Big Red One Was this review helpful to you? All Customer Reviews Avg. Customer Rating: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other shoppers! 5 of 5 people found the following review helpful: The "Good War" wasn't. (Apologies to Mr. Studs Terkel...), October 24, 2000 Reviewer: Robert J Murphy (see more about me) from Seattle, WA USA Belton Y. Cooper was an ordnance officer with the 3d Armored Division in W.W. II, where his unit's central task lay in the the immediate, post-battle recovery of those knocked-out M4 Sherman's which could be repaired in the field, and the marking for the salvage teams of those 'brewed-up' M4s -- tanker speak for catastrophic battle damage resulting in fire -- which could not. Thus, Cooper bore witness to the terrible consequences of the Sherman's late-war obsolescence when faced against the Wermacht's vastly superior tanks, and the resulting tragic and disgraceful cost in American lives. ('Disgraceful', for the proposition of fielding the superbly designed M26 Pershing in large numbers well before Operation Overlord (D-Day) was foolishly rejected on the basis of the recommendations of no less an Allied general than George Patton, in late '43/early '44.) Every bit as powerful as E.B. Sledge's memoir of his experience as a Marine in the Pacific War, ("With the Old Breed"), what lend's Cooper's book such a visceral power is his most unself-conscious and rigorous honesty in recounting his war. Like Sledge, he is obviously a very perceptive and humane individual, who trusts that each anecdote which he has judged to be most illustrative of the urgency and horror of the events which surrounded him in '44-'45, will strike home to the reader with a poignancy borne of his refusal to indulge in any of the petty embellishments which ultimately weaken the impact of the memoirs of lesser writers. Brutal honesty in a literal sense... --This text refers to the Paperback edition. Was this review helpful to you? 7 of 7 people found the following review helpful: Rebuilding shot up Sherman tanks, July 14, 2000 Reviewer: Robert Weymouth (see more about me) from Memphis, TN USA Mr. Cooper was an ordinance officer with the 3rd Armored Division and his job was to reclaim shattered US tanks and return them to ordinance depot or other repair facilities and bring them back to action. If anyone knows the shortcomings of the Sherman tank it would be this man. His story is one of attrition, superior German tanks and SP guns being overwhelmed by the ability of American units to be resupplied with restored or new tanks. One interesting sidelight, Mr. Cooper is highly critical of Gen. George S. Patton's recommendation to build masses of Shermans rather than M-26 Pershings. The Pershing had much better protection, immensely better firepower and could have stood up to Panther and Tiger tanks much more successfuly than the Sherman. Patton thought the Sherman was more mobile but on muddy ground, the Pershing had more track width and was the quicker of the two. This is one of the best books on armored warfare and the war in the West in 1944 ever written. I highly recommend it. [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-19-2000).]

WOW..... This Thread got awfully heated in a big hurry... I guess that "Hey Everybody: settle down and have an eggnog" idea did not go over so well.. Oh well I tried -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune: Or everyone misses the obvious. Play a scenario double blind. I have created 14 scenarios,11 of which are great two player games. I also have 2 historical and 1 anti-grognard scenario. I have been known to make scenarios for people with a little warning. I will continue to make various size two player double blind games. Some have been posted, some not. The cool thing about a double blind game, is you play with what you get, as a real commander would. Are the scenarios good? Actor, Ro, Foobar, germanboy and others can pipe in here. Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Rune Perhaps we can swap I have a few up my sleeve as well. I will be looking for a few good ones over the Christmas break. At Some Point may be Rune and I can play and some else can set us up with a good double blind Scenario. If you have a neutral third party you TRUST set up the game for you then all that suspsion of bickering and cheating can be put aside. Why don't we all get back to looking forwad to some time off over Christmas and some more FUN with CM and other NEW toys for Christmas. To everybody who is bickerking in this thread, lets all just have some egg nog and say Merry Christmas and Seasons Greetings a few times and move on. -tom w And if that doesn't raise your spirits get napster and download a copy of Bob Rivers WinterWonderland.... Now think Walking in a Winter wonderland in your head and sing the words...... "In the Store theres a teddy Its got little Straps like Spaggeti It holds me so tight like hand cuffs at night Walking round in women's underware..." It goes on........... if you have never heard this, its the funniest Christmas song there is! [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-19-2000).]