Bullethead

I stuck a sheet of car window tinting on my monitor, but now it looks like night all the time. I demand BTS address this issue ------------------ -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 09-24-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think fully modelled battleships would be nice. And what about B-17s and B-29s on the ground? Heck, I would also like to see some U-Boats for the Rivers, never know when you will run into one of those....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Real WW2 troopie joke: A sergeant has placed a private out on an OP and, before leaving him, asks him some questions to make sure the private knows what he's supposed to do. Of course, being a sergeant, he takes the opportunity to screw with the troop. Sergeant: What do you do if enemy infantry comes out of those woods to your front? Private: I call for fire on them with Registration Dog 6 using this phone right here. And report it to you on this other phone. Sergeant: What do you do if enemy tanks come out of those woods? Private: Same thing. Sergeant: What do you do if an enemy battleship comes out of those woods? Private: I torpedo it. Sergeant: Where you gonna get the torpedo? Private: Same place you got the battleship. No doubt this private dug a great many extra foxholes over the next few days ------------------ -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>I know the SPW 250/9 halftrack has a low amount of 20mm ammo and just a coaxial MG<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The co-ax ain't got much ammo, either.... I really wonder if this vehicle's ammo quantity is correct, especially the 20mm. The turret was the same as that mounted on several armored cars, and those vehicles carried hundreds of 20mm rounds. And you'd think the halftrack's rear body would have more storage space than the cramped interior of an armored car. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

How about this one? In a recent PBEM schlactfest, one of my opponents had a German flametrack coming down a road that ran diagonally through the positions of a large number of my grunts. I thought he was going to try rolling up my line from that end and I didn't have much to handle the flametrack over there, so I aimed a 6pdr at it from several hundred meters away. However, my opponent put the pedal to the metal, resulting in the flametrack going full speed down the road when the 6pdr took it out, right in the middle of my grunts. The flametrack exploded spectacularly and careened off the road in a mass of flames. It then proceeded to roll directly over the foxholes of a squad and a 2" mortar before coming to rest with its front wheels in the foxhole of another unit. Amazingly, none of my overrun troops appeared the worse for wear ------------------ -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>I'm wondering what the ballance was historically. I'm guessing the British Sherman because it's easeir to produce...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the Brits got more Shermans of various types (especially M4A4/Sherman V) than they built of their own Cromwells. In CM, there's very little difference between the stats of the Cromwell VII and the M4A3(75)W. The guns have identical stats, both are in fast turrets, the speeds are only 1 mph different, and the ground pressures are 12 and 14, respectively. There are no significant armor differences--although the Sherman's is a few mm thicker in most places, both are equally worthless against most German adversaries. Where the Sherman really scores over the Cromwell is ammo capacity. The Sherman can carry up to 104 rounds, while the Cromwell tops out at 64. The Sherman also has a .50cal MG which is useful for killing light armor and guns without needing to waste a main gun round. However, the Cromwell is a somewhat smaller target and, as noted above, is slightly less likely to bog in the same amount of mud. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Jaeger7 said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I still maintain that at the ranges used most often for CM battles it would be hard to find an obstruction that would totally block the smoke from a normal HE round.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. And I think CM does also, as shown in the way the MPI always ends up on the DMPI even for blind FOs. That wouldn't happen unless the FO could see the spotting rounds. But it takes them longer because they can't see the actual burst but have to wait for the column of smoke/dust to rise above the LOS block. And because this will be some variable after the splash time, recognizing the spotting round is a bit more difficult. Hence the longer time for the spotting process. At least that's how I rationalize it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a sidelight to your other point about lots of smoke and dust being kicked up..this is not modeled in CM at all. After about four rounds of HE in any one area LOS through that area would be completely obscured until the smoke cleared. The more volleys fired over several minutes and you would have a complete LOS obstruction that would persist for several minutes after the last volley was fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Completely agreed. This is another things that's been bothering me, but I didn't put it on my Wish List because I didn't want to hit BTS with too much stuff at once. Same for tweaking impact patterns. Anyway, it would be nice if this huge cloud of LOS blockage from an FFE was actually modeled in CM. Nobody should be able to see through this area for some time. So an HE bombardment should not only give you HE damage, but also produce something like the present "snowball" smoke mission at the same time. This would pacify those who'd whine about my suggested restrictions on real smokescreens as outlined in my original post. BTW, this is another reason for needing a wider FFE "adjustment" area, because in real life the FO can't see anything in the small area presently provided by CM. So he shouldn't know if the enemy has moved over a few steps. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>AS far as I know the lazy W pattern was what was used by the Americans during WWII. It was called a parallel sheaf.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Could well be, at least in some periods. But I'm pretty sure they were using a straight line like today's by the end of the war. ------------------ -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 09-24-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most of what you see in a live fire is not necessarily dust but smoke from the HE mixed with dust. Even in rocky terrain there is still a considerable smoke cloud visible from quite a distance when using HE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But IMHO, this also depends on fuzing. A superquick will give you more visible smoke than other types that let the shell get some ways into the ground before it explodes. So often you use one type of fuze and/or shell for the spotter rounds, so the FO can see the burst easily, and then switch to something else for the FFE once you're on target. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yesterday we adjusted 105mm rounds into a treeline along a creek bed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Trying for a linear pattern along this treeline? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IMHO unless an FO in CM is trying to adjust arty fire onto a target behind a large hill, there are no logical LOS obstructions to 105mm and larger arty rounds in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I discovered things are a bit different in combat than they are at the range. Among other things, in combat, you have all these other people firing shells all over the area, so sometimes it's hard to tell which one is yours . Also, there's generally a lot of smoke and dust in the air from all the previous destruction. So I've found that sometimes spotting can be a lot harder than you expect. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Supertanker said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, do you have any suggestions for improvements in this coordination, or am I making my troops follow the barrage too closely?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, in theory you're supposed to follow so close you take a few casualties from your own barrage, but it's hard to get the troops to accept this in real life . What I do is sneak or crawl my troops up to the very edge of the arty pattern while it's still falling. At the end of the next turn, I stop the shells and order the bayonet charge. This gives me a gap of like 15 seconds for the troops to obey the order to move, but that's generally no real problem--the enemy is still going to be suppressed when they arrive because they start from so close. But this method is really no better than using some other gamey thing, such as a slight adjustment, to coordinate troops and arty. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Roborat said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just a comment on deployment patterns, I don't know about WWII, but I know modern SOP is to deploy in a W shape, or staggered line, for canadian 105s and I think 155s. Also, is that info about deploying in a circle correct? That would a possibility of one gun firing over another, a major safety violation, don't you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's what I was told by a currently serving Kiwi FO, who said it was pretty standard for all you CW types. I agree it sounds strange, but he knows more about it than I do. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, for 105 HE, the kill radius is considered to be 30m, so adjusting at less than say 50m is pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right, and you expect to have a pattern more than 1 shellburst wide, so with the whole pattern you hose a 100m width (at least) with 105s. Hence no real need to shift less than 100m, either. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Thermo said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yep, the swords were dull. After marching/riding a few weeks/months/years throughout the terrain, any large iron blade was likely to dull, no matter how well taken care of. It was estimated that in a battle, a fresh blade could only be swung 10-20 times before it lost its edge. This often lead to battles where the wieght of the sword counted more for cracking bones or armor than dull blade did for cleaving flesh.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With a 2-hander, the dullness was actually designed into them--they never were sharp. They were used more like a bayonetted rifle than a baseball bat. That is, you put 1 hand on the hilt and the other (gloved of course, but still...) on the blade itself out near the tip. Then you used it for clubbing, prying, poking, and deflecting using the same moves still taught to riflemen today. Only when you knocked somebody down did you switch to the Paul Bunyan grip and swing the thing with both hands on the hilt. Then the weight of the sword, combined with the full strength of a strong man, would concentrate enough energy on the small impact area of the dull blade to severe body parts and cleave armor. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

"The only rightly justified vehicles ..." Before you all get carried away with wish lists, I don't think BTS should add any vehicles until they solve this rightly justified bug. I mean, what good does it do us to have new vehicles when they're all jammed against the right side of the screen already? (G,D,RLH) Serioulsy, the M15 and M16 seem to be the vehicles most needed at present ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Slapdragon said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead's response is the Wargamers attitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I prefer to think of it as the "simulationist position"

To me, non-gamey recon is using some part of your historically based OOB to go see what's out there in a way that doesn't involve a bonzai charge to see how much fire you can draw before you die. I know this is a pretty unclear definition, but I think you know what I mean here. IOW, when first creating your force, try to stick to real OOBs as much as possible. Don't buy a bunch of cheap vehicles that normally wouldn't be in support of the unit you are portraying. Then, when playing the game, give realistic orders that have troop conservation in mind as much as possible. If you send out scouts, don't send them out beyond supporting distance of the main force. And have them move from cover to cover trying to stay alive. ------------------ -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>Another reason would be that certain unit types had many variants as to platoon composition. Eg British Engineers. I might know for a given historical battle an engineer platoon had 30 men in three squads. The standard template has two squads and a flamethrower. Here I can do away with the flamethrower, but I can't replace this with another squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent point. I agree, it would be very nice to be able to add squads to platoons. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

"Wargames are long and dull" So are 2-handed swords, but they seem to have been rather effective Welcome aboard. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

John Kettler said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would further add that I know of no inherent real world mechanism which would cause the extreme pattern spread unobserved fire has in CM. Note, I'm not talking about where the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) is relative to the Designated Mean Point of Impact (DMPI). Given map errors, FO error in determining own position (average 200m for that alone, based on Army studies) and a host of other small errors, I have no problem with the centroid of the pattern's not going quite where I want it. I do have a problem with the intrapattern spacing (distance between the shell impacts) oscillating wildly from volley to volley when I am not using Target Wide.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point. I agree, this needs to be addressed as well, because it does not seem to be internally consistent. In CM, the MPI and DMPI always correspond even if the spotter has no LOS. And shooting with no LOS about doubles the normal time required for FFE to start. So it seems to me the way to interpret these facts is to assume that the spotting round adjustment process takes longer due to the FO having to rely on sound and/or smoke plumes rising about trees. However, eventually he gets on target, so the MPI and DMPI correspond. But given this state of affairs, I see no justification for having a higher incidence of wild shots during FFE for blind fire than observed fire. Having gotten the rounds on the DMPI, there is no mechanism operating on the off-map gunners any different from in an observed mission. The gunners are just pumping out rounds at a point selected by the FO, just like normal. It doesn't matter to the gunners if the FO can see the target or not, because the gunners can't see ANY indirect fire target. To me, there are 2 ways to handle this situation, and I'd like to have both. One way is to do like at present, with the extra spotting time required to get the MPI on the DMPI, but once this is achieved, have no more wild shots than for any other fire mission. Another way would be to reduce the spotting time required and have the MPI at some random distance and direction from the DMPI. Then allow the FO to shift the on-going FFE to the DMPI using the normal "adjustment" procedure, whether current or changed as I suggest. Both of these methods are used in real life, depending on the circumstances. If time is less important than accuracy and ammo conservation, then FOs take the time to get the MPI on or very close to the DMPI before calling FFE. OTOH, if you need shells RIGHT NOW, have extra shells to burn in off-target FFE, and aren't that worried about friendly fire, then the quicker method is used. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also confess myself baffled as to why the impact pattern follows the gun-to-target line and is not perpendicular to it. This is even more odd when one looks at the way artillery is deployed in the field. The most common deployment is in a simple line, which parallels the front line. ... So, why are my shells arriving in a pattern counterintuitive to what logic would lead me to expect?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree, another thing that could stand improvement. You mentioned Russian guns--the US also uses a linear battery formation. However, I've been told by UK/CW artillerymen that their batteries were and are generally arranged in a circle. I'm not sure about the Germans. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Tommi said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The scenario designer should be able to specify the general firing direction of artillery. This matters because the scattering is much greater along the flight path than perpendicular to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, this would be a cool feature. Be able to say each battery is like NW of SE of the battlefield instead of E or W. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Kettler wrote: Can anyone from the artillery community tell me how high a dirt plume a 105 and 155 throw up when they hit? I don't know that but when I was in army I witnessed two times what a modern 130mm coastal gun round does when it is fired with delayed fuze. The cloud of water was 150 meters high and it remained visible for 20-30 seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that's something I complain about in most naval games--the shell splashes last as long as when you toss a pebble in a pond, when they should last a LONG time like this. But as to hitting dirt, in my experience there is a considerable difference in shellburst sizes due to both caliber and ground conditions. The bigger the shell, of course, the more stuff it can throw up and the higher it throws it, while drier ground provides more dust that hangs in the air longer. Without this dust, land shellbursts don't last very long at all. In general, the cloud of dirt thrown up by all shells fills a roughly cylindrical volume with approximately equal height and diameter. 105mm clouds are about 15 feet on these dimensions. 155's are about twice the dimensions of 105's, and 203's are about twice the dimensions of 155's. When I first joined the Corps, my regiment had all 3 of these calibers and watching regimental TOTs allowed for very good comparisons. In the desert, or if dirt is very dry, dust from a 105's burst will hang in place for 10 seconds or so, with time increasing with caliber up to like 30-45 seconds for a 203. But when shooting damp dirt or mud, there's very little dust so duration of the burst is simply the time required to fling a clod however high and let it fall back down--just a few seconds. Airbursts, however, leave puffs of smoke in the air. You know, like the flak bursts around bombers. These can last a minute or more and the wind tends to just move them over without breaking them up too much. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Should work nicely I think<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think so also. I can picture it exactly as you described. Oh happy day ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

I have said CM does arty just about right. I still think so, and it's orders of magnitude better than any other game I know. However, after playing CM a few months, I've noticed several areas where even CM's arty could use some improvements, either as tweaks or new features. These changes would make CM's arty even more realistic and would also facilitate player efforts to develop large campaigns, such as CMMC. Here's what I'd like to see in the future, whether in a patch or CM2+, in no particular order, although some things do go together. NOTE: All these suggestions apply ONLY to off-map artillery. They do not apply to off-map mortars because I know very little about mortars. But I do know that mortars and arty do many things differently, so IMHO there should be more distinction between them in the game. Tracking Spotter Ammo by Shell and Fuze Types At present, we have the paradoxical situation of spotters having only VT or only impact fuzes, but also with generic shells that can be used either as HE or smoke at the whim of the player. I realize the latter, at least, is a well-intentioned compromise, but I don't think it works well in practice (see further comments in Smokescreen section). And the only reason I can see for the former is a concession to the purchase point system, which I don't understand because the price of all other units is constant regardless of changes to ammo quantity and types in the editor. In any case, it's not very realistic to segregate fuzes when batteries have boxes of all types by the truckload. Therefore, I think the best solution to both problems is to track spotter ammo by type just like on-map units. To this end, I propose tracking the following types of arty spotter ammo individually for each spotter unit: VT HE, MT (mechanical time) HE, impact HE, smoke, illumination, and WP. Give the spotter some quantity of each type he's able to have due to nationality and date, and make the player specify which type to shoot in any given fire mission. Have the spotter cost a fixed price regardless of ammo. The choice of fuze and ammo is up to the FO in real life, so this is realistic. It also allows mixing VT and other types of fuzes in the same battery (and possibly the same fire mission), as in real life. Finally, it eliminates the unrealistic flexibility inherent in the generic rounds for both smoke and HE (see Smokescreen section). I'm sure you noticed I want MT fuzes and WP and illume ammo. I know we discussed both MT and WP months ago, and I remain unconvinced by your arguments. As for MT fuzes, these are required for smokescreens anyway (see Smokescreen section) so I fail to see why they can't be used for HE as well, provided you give them a longer delay in starting FFE than other fuze types. And WP rounds were and are available in real life. Tracking them separately from "harmless" smoke shells, and limiting the max quantity each spotter unit can have, would prevent their over-use. Illume rounds are discussed in their own section. Orientable Linear Impact Patterns Quite often, arty is asked to fire along a stretch of road or treeline, or lay a smokescreen across a certain area of the front. This calls for a linear pattern oriented according to the target area, not always fixed E-W as at present with the "regular" impact pattern selection (and not available at all with smoke missions). Thus, I would like to see the option of calling for a pattern about 200m x 100m. I would like to specify the center point and then be able to rotate the long axis like for placing a section of barbed wire. Such a mission would take longer for FFE to start than the HE missions currently available, but not by much. Smokescreen Mechanics Tweaks At present, firing a smokescreen is the same in all respects as firing impact HE, except for end result. It requires no additional time and lands in the same circular pattern as the "wide" HE mission. IMHO, neither of these aspects is realistic, at least for arty smoke. Smokescreens should IMHO be in a much more linear pattern, similar to that produced by the "regular" HE mission but oriented in any direction desired instead of E-W. Also firing a smokescreen is much more complex than shooting impact HE, due to having to a) adjust the mechanical time fuzes for proper burst height, adjust initial impacts to account for wind in the target area, and c) arrange the shells into the desired linear pattern instead of all guns aiming at the same point and producing a circle. Thus, it should take considerably longer to achieve smoke FFE than HE FFE--I'd say double the time for shooting HE at the same target by the same spotter. The trade-off, however, is that you end up with a more effective screen covering a wider stretch of front than the "snowball" pattern we have now. Specifying Number of Rounds for FFE Currently, once a spotter orders a fire mission, it has an indefinite duration and the player can only stop it at the end of a turn. It would be much more realistic for an arty spotter (as opposed to mortar) to have to specify in advance, when he first orders the mission, how many rounds of FFE to use. Any spotting rounds determined by CM to be needed before FFE would be in addition to this quantity of FFE, and would be deducted from the spotter's available supply just like the FFE rounds are when they are fired. Players would thus have to think ahead like a real FO and decide how many rounds are needed for the desired results on this target. This is in addition to specifying the type of round and/or fuze. Also note that in real life, arty often mixes impact and MT or VT fuzes in the same fire mission for a general purpose effect. Adjusting FFE By this I mean shifting the spotter's point of aim and incurring only a slight interruption of FFE. The present method allows this only within a 100m radius of the current point of aim. IOW, essentially all currently allowed "adjustments" are of less than 100m. IMHO, this is far from realistic because most of the allowed "adjustable" area is within the kill radius of the shell pattern already falling. Thus in real life, FOs hardly ever make such small changes; instead, they usually shift by 100m increments. So what I propose is to change the allowed "adjustment" area into 2 concentric rings, say about 20m wide, centered on the current point of aim. The inner ring would have a 100m mean radius and the outer ring a 200m mean radius. When the player wants to "adjust" FFE, he would get the light green targeting line and short delay time only within these 2 rings. Everywhere else within a 300m radius of the current point of aim would be an invalid target. The targeting tool would be red in this area, for target not allowed. Targets beyond of 300m from the current point of aim would be new targets with delay time starting over. If this is too complicated, at least please enlarge the "adjustment" area to a 200-300m radius. The 100m radius currently allowed is just way too small to be realistic. Number of Guns per Spotter Currently, this is hard-wired to 4 guns for all arty spotters. It would be much better, IMHO, to make this number something players can change in the editor. First, most UK/CW batteries had 8 guns all shooting at the same target, so giving a Brit player 2 x 25pdr spotters allows unrealistic flexibility. In addition, some of the really big guns like 240mm usually had less than 4 guns per battery, so having 4 shells going off at once makes these more effective than they should be. Finally, in campaigns, batteries may lose guns so spotters might end up controlling only 3 instead of the usual 4. In-Game TRP Creation In real life, there is no difference in process between creating a TRP and getting the spotting rounds onto a target. Knowing this, real artillerymen record the gun data for when the FO finally calls for FFE, thus creating what CM calls a TRP. That means they can come back later and hit this same spot just like it was a registered TRP set up before the battle. Therefore, I'd like this as a new feature. Once the spotting round process is over and FFE starts on a new target, the FO's point of aim becomes a TRP on the map, which can be used as such in the future without having to go through the whole spotting process again. This would apply only to the original FFE location and not to any "adjusted" locations that the aiming point is subsequently moved to without having to start spotting all over. Changing Your Mind in the Orders Phase If you change a spotter unit's target more than once in the orders phase, you incur an increased delay before FFE starts. Charles said this was because the FDC personnel started work on your original target and now have to refigure everything. This doesn't make much sense to me because during the orders phase, time is stopped. At least it is for all other units, so I don't understand why it still "runs" for artillery. In addition, this penalty imposes the same sort of pressure on the player as a realtime game, which I thought CM was trying to avoid by having turns. Therefore, I would like to see this penalty removed to allow players to change their minds as often as they want during the orders phase. Illumination Rounds This is something that's sorely missing from night battles. I realize that dynamic lighting effects are a big problem, but my suggestion doesn't require that. What I propose is that when an illume round pops, the only visual effect that happens to the battlefield is that some sort of temporary marker appears, representing the center of the illuminated area. Inside some radius around this marker (determined by shell size, proper placement, etc), units have an LOS distance about like dawn or dusk instead of night. Also, units outside this area can see units inside the area, provide not blocking terrain is in the way, but not vice versa. I know this doesn't cover all aspects of battlefield illumination, but I think it hits the high points and is better than nothing. Firing illume missions should have a longer delay than HE, due to the need to set mechanical time fuzes. Anyway, that's my arty wish list. Thanks for taking the time to read it all ------------------ -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>I believe Michael's surmise is probably correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is. If you search, you can find a post by Charlse dating from about December where he said the time increases per change of mind in the orders phase due to added work back at the FDC. And I agree with you all; this is unamenable to rationalization ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>are you asking why it is that an AT gun, out of C&C, can target an infantry created Ambush marker? If so, the answer is... there is no point in preventing this. The AT gun can put down its own Ambush marker in the same exact spot<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My question is the other way around. Why can a squad target an ambush marker created by an AT weapon instead of the squad's HQ? ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, this caused some sort of bug IIRC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please fix the underlying bug and restore the ability to delete 1/2 of a squad <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One design concept is to allow the sceario designer to specify a formation and request that it be reduced in manpower by x%. CM would then semi-randomly "kill off" that percentage of me, leaving key weapons like LMGs intact more often than not (but not always IMHO).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This sounds very nice for quickly creating large, depleted forces. It would be nice, however, to then be able to tweak individual squads/teams as desired. If we can't specify exactly what weapons each dude has, at least let us specify a number of men, please . ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Scott said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyone else run out of ambush markers on a big scenario where you are the defender?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, in Sherbrooke Fusiliers. What I found most annoying about it is that you can't cancel an ambush marker. So if you start on one flank of your position and run out before you reach the other flank, you can't go back and use less ambushes. You have to just un-target some of them and HOPE you pick the right ones. Then next turn, any un-targeted ambush markers are gone and you can finish on the other flank. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am having difficulty rationalizing it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, it is a problem not amenable to a realworld explanation. 1 grunt battalion with its expected compliment of AT support weapons and attached AT assets can create at least 30% more ambush markers than the game currently allows at 1 ambush per officer/AT weapon. And because each AT weapon/HQ can create multiple ambush markers in the same turn, you can QUICKLY run over the limit if you spread your fires out in a logical manner. Wonder why there is such a low limit? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think his point is there are multiple (possible) inconsistanties in the way ambushes are handled<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you're right. An ambush marker is an ambush marker in CM, regardless of what type of unit created it. So I can use a zook to create ambush markers for squads, for example. To be consistant, grunt squads should only be able to target ambushes set by their platoon HQ, although 1 HQ should still be able to set multiple ambushes to assign each squad a sector of fire, if so desired. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

>>>>>>>>>> Anything else they can deliver by artillery other than nukes, chemical weapons, or explosives? <<<<<<<<<< Basically, anything small enough to fit inside the shell and that can survive the shock of it all. Arty has conventional HE, WP, smoke, illume, nuke, gas, laser-guided AT shells, submunitions of many types (AT, AP, both, and AT and AP mines), various types of electronic devices you want in badguy territory, leaflets, and cannister, just to name what pops into my head immediately. Arty has also been used to resupply cut-off units with small, fairly durable, critical items. For example, in the WW2 battle of Mortain, they fired various things to the US troops on the mountain, especially radio batteries. This wasn't particularly successful but I think we could do that better today. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Until recently, it was possible with the editor to split a squad in the map preview, then go back to the unit screen and delete the 1/2 you didn't want. But for some reason, in one of the recent patches, BTS changed it so if you deleted 1/2 of a split squad, you automatically deleted the other 1/2. Thus, we lost our only means of reducing the numbers in a squad at the start of a battle. I agree with Wild Bill--we NEED the ability to change the number of men in a squad, or even build custom squads up from individuals with different types of weapons. If BTS doesn't want this to be a factor in QB PBEMs, then just make this feature available for the editor when making battles from scratch. It would help both scenario designers go for the ultimate in realism, PLUS it would help us CMMC GMs handle casualties without so much abstraction. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html