Bullethead

M. Bates said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's a really simple way of playing!! Why not have 4 player, where 2 players are controlling the infantry, and the other 2 players controlling the armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The way the guys I play with usually do it is along more historical command lines. For example, each player on a side might take an infantry company and some attached supports. Then we agree on unit boundaries on the map as part of making our combined battle plan. If reinforcements are coming, we usually wait until they arrive before deciding who gets what of them. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Hiram said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thus far, the only co-op multiplayer game I've done has been Myth II Soulblighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ain't that a fun game? Folks call it RTS but it's really a tactical wargame more akin to CC or SMG than anything else. I enjoy it so much I make CM scenarios based on Myth and Myth II maps and game types like LMOTH . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hitting Alt-S would just allow the other teamate to move certain pieces again thus defeating the co-op idea. So, the person who has the file last has the say on what that team really is going to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true, but isn't the problem in CM that its analog is in Myth. Most Myth games are just pick-up matches with total strangers, many of whom are quite juvenile, so you can't trust them. But you have total control over whom you play a PBEM game with, so you CAN trust these guys to respect your decisions. -BH ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Elijah said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By absolute sighting I mean that you and I, playing the same side, see everything, when we should only see what OUR troops see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought so. And I say again, this is not a problem unique to cooperative play but is basic feature of how the CM engine works in any type of game. It's based on the irreconcilability of presenting game data in a format suitable to a "god's eye view" player and what each individual unit he owns can see. Because CM shows the player the total picture of what all his units can see, it necessarily follows that all of his units know about all spotted enemy units. So, for example, because you have some grunts within 50m of a woods and they spot some enemy grunts there, one of your tanks 2000m away can shoot at the enemy grunts when perhaps in reality they might not be able to see that target due to distance, despite there technically being an LOS. This of course isn't realistic, but is probably the best compromise available. Plus I think CM ammeliorates the problem by imposing firing delays on units that would have a hard time seeing particular targets. But anyway, you're stuck with this in single player and 1-on-1 games, so it shouldn't surprise you to have it in 2-on-2 games as well. And because it's a basic feature of the CM engine, BTS can't change things just for 2-on-2 games without changing the whole spotting system in all types of games. And if they were going to do that, you'd end up with something like never being able to see the whole situation on the map, but instead having to click on each of your units to see the enemies visible to that particular unit. So even then you wouldn't see enemy units based on ownership. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I think that 4-player PBEM CM (I've tried it) makes drunken Sumo wrestling look like playing checkers with Uncle Moe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, that's your opinion. I don't agree, but that's my opinion. Still, if you want to do 2-on-2 games now, it's your only option, so either learn to like it or forget it until some indefinite future time when BTS maybe implements a better way of doing it. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Elijah said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyone who has tried that knows that it is too unwieldy to be tenable. This, coupled with the absolute sighting, makes for a flawed solution<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoa, this ain't the Cesspool, so don't be getting so hostile when somebody helpfully offers you an immediate solution to your problem. That said, weildiness is a matter of personal taste. Is it as simple as 1-on-1 PBEM? No. Is it as unweildy as a drunk sumo wrestler? No. In fact, the folks I've tried it with have had no complaints. As to absolute sighting, I don't know what you mean. If you refer to the fact that when 1 CM unit spots an enemy, ALL units on that side have spotted it, this is no different in this method of play than solo vs. the AI. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

As is now well-known, at least to Cesspool denizens, the 1st recorded taunting so far known to CMers was by Chosroes II, Emperor of Persia, to Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium, in AD 622. The text is available in the current incarnation of the Cesspool, where the current incarnations of Chosroes II and Heraclius continue to hurl insults at each other. This, I submit was the true beginning of the Cesspool, at least until somebody unearths a Cesspool-worthy taunting even older. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Cooperative multi-player is possible right now. Thus, no need for BTS to do anything. It's very simple. One player on a team opens the PBEM file as normal and gives orders to his units. He DOES NOT hit the GO button. Instead, he uses ALT-S to save the game as a .cmb file, which he sends to his partner. His partner saves this file in is Saved Games folder and opens it using the "Play Game" option instead of the "Join MP Game" option, and enters orders for his units. When he's done, he hits the GO button, which saves the file as a PBEM text file. He then sends this to one of the players on the other side. They repeat the process and eventually one of them sends a PBEM text file back to the 1st player. All that needs to be done in advance is to decide who's on which team and what units each player controls. If this is a QB, unit assignments are best handled using the same procedure as with turns. That is, the 1st player creates the game, saves it in the set-up phase, sends this to his partner, then they decide who gets what and a general plan of battle. After they decide this, the 1st player sets his stuff up, saves as a .cmb, sends to the 2nd player, who hits GO and sends to the other side. The other side does the same procedure to complete the set-up phase. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Juardis said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. A stationary FO in the open can be spotted from 1000m away. Don't know how or why, but that seems ridiculous to me. He's dead now. Never had a chance. Why can't you spot from a hidden position?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably because the game's convention is that the Hide command is pretty much a forfeiture of all offensive action in the interests of being invisible. So keep your FOs in cover. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. An AT gun can rotate quickly and never ever misses (ok, it does once in a while but it's accuracy is so much better than a tank). My opponent took out 3 of my armored vehicles and just about a 4th with his AT gun. 3 of my 4 brought weapons to bear on him and missed repeatedly. Talk about pissed!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> SOME AT guns rotate quickly but most seem as slow as 15cm sIGs--they do often have a wicked high rate of fire, though. Also, most ATGs often miss their first shot or 2. It's just that if you have full FOW on, you often don't see the shots that miss, except for a mortar-like explosion somewhere in the far distance, so it looks like the 1st one gets you. You can tell if the 1st shot gets you because your tank dies for no apparent reason. But by the time of the 2nd or 3rd shot, you've built up a good enough spotting chance that you usually see the gun as it kills you. ATGs are also hard targets for tanks. Most tanks' HE rounds are pretty puny things requiring nearly direct hits to do any good. And this is difficult because ATGs are usually low, small targets and are almost always dug in besides. Plus, tank guns are usually fairly high velocity, meaning they have flat trajectories, which in turn means that a slight slope to the ground greatly exaggerates the miss distance of overs and shorts. This further decreases the likelihood of getting an impact inside the lethal radius. All this is why tanks often hose ATGs with MGs if possible--that's more likely to produce results quicker, either taking out the gun or making the crew duck long enough for the tank to get in a better position. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. AT mines cannot be discovered by infantry as they walk over them. Consequently, I lost two tanks driving down a road with AT mines in it even though my infantry had led the way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are 2 types of AT mines: the buried kind and the daisychain kind. The buried kind is invisible until it kills something, but cannot be placed on paved roads. The daisychain kind, however, is on top of the ground thus visible to anything with an LOS that is also not moving too fast. This is the only type of AT mine that can be placed on a paved road. So if you were on a paved road, then you just had bad luck or were moving too fast. OTOH, if you were on a dirt road, there's no way to see the mines beforehand. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Seanachai said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, that was indeed a wonderfully classical taunting. Nice to see a literate grasp of the purpose of this thread. You are welcome here, you unclean, cast-off grognard dropping.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let PawBoon, the Anal Annalist (Analist?), record this missive in the archives, so that if in the future some fool dares question the value of the Cesspool, we can offer proof that it is carrying on an ancient and traditional part of military affairs. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

These ain't panzers, but they're still WW2 tanks. I got all this data and photos from Ariel, who thought it would make a good contribution to this thread. The photos are from the Argentine magazine "Defensa", Vol XVII, No. 191 (1994) Here we have some photos of Shermans in Argentine service during the 90s. I understand they were retired shortly after these pictures were taken. Pic 1 Pic 2 Pic 3 All of these tanks seem to have been fairly early production Shermans; note that they all have the original 56^ upper front hull plate that left the drivers' hatches protruding out front. Note also the extra armor scabbed over the thin spots, and that they still were using extra track blocks for additional protection. They also retain VVSS instead of HVSS, although it's the later pattern heavy duty type with the return roller offset behind the center of the bogey assembly. In addition, they have a 1-piece, cast differential cover, but it's the early thin version that was more semi-circular instead of pointed in cross-section. The turret shape indicates they all started with 75mm guns. Most seem to be the final basic M4 versions, which had the cast front plate of the M4A1 pasted onto the welded hull of the M4. In the final configuration pictured here, the tanks had been modified as follows: Gun: French FTR L44-57 105mm, same as in later versions of AMX-13 and Steyr Sk-105 MGs: co-ax MAG with M2HB flex, hull MG eliminated Engine: French Poyaud 8-cyl 450 hp deisel; note aux external fuel tanks on back of turret Tracks: Argentine-made Captions to the pictures translate as follows: 1 (upper): M4 over trailer of Fiat 697 truck 1 (lower): with the very useful bulldozer blade 2: Not a Sherman column from WW2, but Argentine tanks of this type in the recent Mesopotamia I exercise 3. Sherman with the Urdan mineroller system ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Worst War Movies Ever: The Battle of the Bulge The Blue Max The Dawn Patrol To Hell and Back Thin Red Line Imperial Navy (Japanese flick) Port Arthur (Japanese flick) The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (hey, there was a battle scene in it with that bridge) Heartbreak Ridge I could think of more but I gotta go eat chow ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Germanboy blathered: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He (BH) is a grog<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gerbiltoy, I have been called many unprintable things in my misspent life, mostly with justification by the name-caller and smugness by me, but never has anyone (or anything, in your case) ever called me a grog. I don't know if I'm supposed to be flattered or insulted. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Next thing you know he wants to discuss the underbelly fur thickness of various rodents with us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is a subject I leave firmly between the lips of you and all the other Cesspool rodent fetishers, who are the acknowledged experts in the field, as shown by the FBI wanted posters at the post office. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>post AARs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On the AAR front, the slovenly rabble of the soon-to-be-late Geier have finally been located cowering near the village of Lower Bilges-upon-Ratwater. Their extermination proceeds forthwith. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Letter from Chosroes II, Emperor of Persia, to Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium, AD 622: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Noblest of the Gods, King and Master of the whole Earth, Son of the great Hormisdas, CHOSROES, to Heraclius his vile and insenstate slave: Refusing to submit to our rule, you call yourself lord and sovergeign. You seize and distribute our treasure, you deceive our servants. You never cease to annoy us with your bands of brigands. Have I not destroyed you Greeks? You say that you trust in God; why then has he not delivered out of my hand Caesarea, Jerusalem, Alexandria? Could I not also destroy Constantinople<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is this not a fine bit of taunting? Do the headwaters of the Cesspool ooze this deep into the past? Is Chosroes II really Peng in a previous incarnation? ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Originally puked up by Queier: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you want to call a one-sided slaughter ending with the total annhilation of your troops along with the crucufixion of what remains of their souls "war", then war it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bah. The corpses of you and your hamsters shall rot on the shell-scarred earth for the prescribed celebratory period of 6.236 days. Then I'll grind you all up into sausage meat, mix that with Ex-Lax, and feed the result to diseased dogs, so you can spend the rest of eternity as little brown, stinky puddles. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Chloroxthrowers huh? Using weapons banned by every authority in all the planes are we? I like that. Let's dance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Even as we fulminate here, my legions are marching into your territory in an orgy of looting, burning, raping, and cleansing. There is still no sign of your cowardly forces. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 10-16-2000).]

Mace croaked: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Welcome to the pool! Jump in, the ...errr... water's fine (nice and stinky, just as you like it)!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I see that rusty dagger you're hiding behind your back, you product of cockroach incest. Still, I will take your welcome at face value, although I'll my back to the wall. This place reminds me a bit of home, although less boiling blood and more oozing ordure. Still, the over-all effect is about the same. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Geier whined: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any particular uniform you like dying in? Better yet, send me a setup with whatever as long as its not more than 1500 points. 155mm at twenty paces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, it is to be war between us. As expected. I knew the buttmunching hairballs of the Cesspool would never peacefully submit to cleaning their ungodly mess from the moat of my fortress. Fortunately, Bullethead's Brigands are already mobilized on the interplanar boundary, fully equipped with hazmat suits and Chloroxthrowers. Prepare to meet your well-deserved and unmourned end. Sadly, the Allies have no 155mm direct fire weapons in CM, so I cannot take your suggested battle literally. Although a duel of FOs on a very small, empty field sounds intriguing. But perhaps another day. This will be more conventional. That's probably all your feeble brain could handle, anyway. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

(message found by a Cesspool hamsterherd stapled to the back of a returning stray member of his flock) OK, you reeking heap of scum-encrusted, plague-ridden hampster droppings, you collection of carbuncular pox-scabs on the posterior region of a malarial nutria, you shower of PENG-SCHMOOZERS!! This has gone far enough. The earlier incarnation of the Cesspool was a multiversal catastrophe, but this new pseudopod of Stygian bat guano has strained the inter-planar boundaries to the point that its excrescence is oozing into my Domain. I demand satisfaction. Delegate some footling lackey to come clean up the mess. Failing that, send me the head of Girly-Thingen in a bucket of Chlorox. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

tonester said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My question (if has not already been answered) is, have these measures been somehow calculated into the game mechanics or do all Shermans in the game represent 'off the lot specs'. Even so it would be nice to see these measures graphically represented in the gamen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some US Shermans have a + after their designations, which means they have some sort of add-on armor. I believe this abstracts all types: plates, sandbags, track segments, etc. But I don't think the Brit Shermans have this advantage--I haven't seen a Sherman IV+ in the game, for example, and I'd have to check all the armor values to see if there are any differences from US models. As to doing it graphically, maybe some mod maker will draw on extra tracks or sandbags or something. But lacking underlying polygons, such texture features probably wouldn't look good up close. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Fernando said (3 times) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>6. PENETRATION OF HOMOGENEOUS STEEL PLATE BY PROJECTILE FRAGMENTS OR BY PROJECTILES EXPLODING WHILE IN CONTACT WITH THE PLATE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One important thing to point out here: Homogenous Steel Plate ain't armor, it's construction material. What this section is discussing is HE damage to unarmored ships or unarmored parts of armored ships (which is what you'd shoot HE at). So the amount of penetration of the shell is going to be much less, and the damage done to HSP material is going to be much greater, than for the same thickness of armor. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Michael emrys said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kadiddlehopper & Weenie in their book The Short and Unhappy Life of the Sherman Tank, Methadone Press, Swamp City, LA, 1989. In chapter 3, p. 792, they present irrefutable evidence that the sole purpose of the gyrostabilizer was to provide a stable platform for enemy tanks to shoot at.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kadiddlehopper & Weenie, of course, have a reputation for historical accuracy and unbiased reporting rivaled only by Pravda and CNN. The truth of the matter is as 109 Gustav states, as shown by the extensive series of stabilized crew bailing ballistics experiments carried out at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1942, the results of which are contained in the records of said institution, now on file at the National Archives, reference NA-APG1942.15000024.02 s235. I encourage you in the future to base your opinions only on primary source material instead of the conjectures and conspiracy theories of authors with personal agendae. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM3 shall be named "Desert Hamsters"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have it on good authority that CM3 will finally include Brazilian units. Thus, it will be called CM3: Enter the Nutria ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

And there was great rejoicing as the land was rid of the pestilential vermin. For more of the celebration, see: http://members.tripod.com/LlMPBlZKlT/devilhamster.html Hamsters... (sigh) Nothing but cheap, easily replaceable toys for young kittens. If you want true rodent ferocity, unwavering in the face of Death Himself, look to the nutria. An evil, rat-like thing with the size of a beaver and the personality of a wolverine. With my own eyes I have seen a nutria half-paralyzed by a .30-06 shot through the spine. Yet when the shooter tried to finish the monster with a buttstroke, the nutria raised its head, caught the rifle's butt in its huge, orange teeth and, when the shooter pulled it back, left gouges in the wood of the stock. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

109G said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fishermen have a similar system for cataloging skiffs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Geez, why don't you get a different job, like working on one of the oil rigs out there? Fishing sounds equally dangerous but the oil gig pays better. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

109G said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, I believe that the origin of the plus sign was a hobo symbol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You just might make a tank-grog afterall Yes, I'd totally forgotten that theory. I'm kicking myself because this is one IMHO is closest to the truth. The others I cited strike me as the speculations of Baby Boomer historians personally unfamiliar with the cultural effects of the Depression. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What about gyrostabilizers? Weren't they used so that even when the tank was moving at full speed, the crews would always hit their target, ie a nice soft clump of bushes, when bailing out at full speed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite correct. And smoke dischargers, of course, referred to the whole vehicle after it had WHOOSHed, this being the troops' way of making a virtue of necessity. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Doesn't "W+" stand for Woosh Plus- "not only a woosh, but a Ronson. Lights on the first time, every time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The W stood for WHOOSH, not "woosh". You'll never be a tank-grog making basic mistakes like that. As for the + symbol, this was an unofficial nomenclature developed by tank retrieval and repair personnel. As you know, vehicles that WHOOSH are totally destroyed so were just left to rust away. However, most Shermans had only a 75-76% chance of WHOOSHing (the difference being due to small variations in production techniques by the several manufacturers), so sometimes a few Shermans would simply be knocked out instead. When these were repaired and returned to service, the ordnance personnel annotated their log books with the + sign. The origin of this of symbol is still a matter of debate. Some claim it represents a white cross in a military cemetary. Others maintain that it's a pictograph for crossed bandaids over a wound. But one thing is clear--most US armored division personnel didn't believe in the independence of random events occurring at different times. They felt that if the tank had not WHOOSHED the first time, it certainly would next time. Hence, they made sure to mark such vehicles for assignment to replacement crews. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

You've discovered a little-known WW2 tank-grog thing here that BTS, in its search for the ultimate in realism, has modeled in CM. I've been waiting to see if anybody else noticed this. Most people assume that the M in US vehicle designations means "Model". Thus, the Medium Tank M4 Sherman would be the "Model #4" Medium tank. This is incorrect. The M actually stands for "Mortality" and the number represents the life expectancy of the vehicle in minutes. Thus, Shermans were rated officially at 4 minutes of survival in a combat situation, which is reflected accurately in CM by having them die on turn 4. After the Sherman had been in production for some time and combat experience had been gained, it was noticed in many cases, particularly for the earlier production runs of Shermans, that the official Mortality rating was a bit optimistic. Thus, the designation was changed to reflect the new data. This involved appending the letter A and another number to the M4 designation, the A standing for "Actually" and the new number being the revised Mortality rating. For example, the M4A2 had a combat-proven life expectancy of "Actually 2" minutes. Later on, the designation system got even more accurate by appending a number in parentheses and the letter W. Despite the widely held conviction that the parenthetical number was the caliber of the gun, what these symbols really meant was that the tank had a 75% or 76% chance of going WHOOSH in a big fireball when penetrated. However, some models of Sherman were so inflammable that calcualtions showed they had a 105% chance of brewing up, so they just left it at that and didn't bother with the W, because they were going to WHOOSH regardless. Towards the end of the war, some Shermans gained an E and another number in their designations. The E meant "Extra Cost" and the number was a designator for the manufacturer, to ensure that company got extra money for making the tank. CM accurately reflects this by making these types of Shermans cost more to buy in DYO. Thus, the M4A3E8(76)W designation meant a tank with an official Mortality of 4 minutes, Actually 3 minutes, cost Extra, and had a 76% chance of going WHOOSH. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 10-07-2000).]