Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wow, thanks for the data, Bullethead, very useful!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No problem. I needed to do this in conjuction with writing the CMMC arty rules anyway. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't suppose you'd consider testing off-map mortars under the same conditions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoops, should have mentioned that. I tested 120mm mortars as above. Their patterns are the same in all conditions as those of conventional guns. The only differences with the 120mm mortars is that are that a) the fire starts faster, and they have a higher rate of fire than a gun of the same size. I did not test 81mm mortars because these are not arty weapons. However, it would not surprise me if they conformed to the same patterns as everything else. I do know that they have the same sort of quicker response and higher rate of fire as the 120s, though. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I doubt Shermans were designed to be mediocre (compared to best German tanks) just because it helped transporting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. Actually, the Sherman was essentially a rush job due to inadequate pre-war US defense spending and confused thinking on tank doctrine, so in the interests of time it inherited a lot of mediocrity from its immediate predecessors. US medium tanks originally were conceived as relatively light infantry support vehicles armed with MGs and light guns, with the anti-tank job handled by specialized TD units. So the first medium in the Sherman's family tree, the M2, was basically just a slightly bigger version of the contemporary M2 light tank. The Blitzkrieg, however, showed the need for bigger guns in tanks, although US thinking was that this was for better results against grunts more than as self-defense against tanks. So the M2 was modified into the M3 by sticking a 75mm in the hull in place of the MGs and adding a bit more armor. This was seen as a stop-gap, however, because the main gun really needed to be in a turret. So the US next took the M2/M3 lower hull, designed a 75mm turret for it, and put it into production as the M4 Sherman. Thus, the Sherman was at heart a collection of pre-war light tank components bolted on to a slightly larger, pre-war, medium-sized hull, and armed and armored per an ill-conceived pre-war doctrine. Not surprisingly, the result was mediocre. But because it was really too small for its job, it WAS easy to ship across oceans in the quantity needed due to its inferiority. 2 things to note here. First, the Germans have always gotten a lot of abuse for keeping obsolescent tanks in production the whole war. But nobody mentions that most of the Sherman's hull dated from 1937 and before. Second, assuming the US DID have bigger and better tanks in WW2, transporting them would NOT have been a problem. First, not nearly so many would have been needed. Second, US shipbuilding could easily have produced enough cargo ships to do the job even with the same number of bigger tanks shipped. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They can't run because the German part of Nikes factories was bombed into rubble<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but the Germans still had the secret, underground Adidas factories Seriously, it does seem rather strange that an LMG team can't run when LMGs in squads CAN. In the squad, you have the same 2 guys, the gunner and his assistant, humping the gun, spare barrels, and most of the ammo. Sure, other guys in the squad could carry more ammo, but most of it has to be carried by the MG guys so it's where it's needed when the shooting starts, and the other guys have their own loads to hump. So maybe BTS will re-examine some team speeds. The LMGs and the 2" mortars in particular. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The main thing I'm looking for now is some sort of idea on the spread of artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I set up an experiment a while back to determine this. I created a scenario with a number of targets (bullseyes made from rough and brush terrain tiles) spaced 600m apart across flat terrain and shelled them with FOs. I tested the following variables in all possible combinations: FO LOS, TRP, nationality, FO experience, impact pattern selection, distance from FO to target, size of gun, and type of gun. The results indicate that the following variables have NO EFFECT on size and shape of impact pattern: FO quality, nationality, gun size, and distance from FO to target. The following variables DO have an effect: TRP, LOS, impact pattern selection, and whether the weapons are guns or rockets. Here are the average sizes of impact patterns under the possible states of the significant variables: Regular Impact Pattern Selected LOS and TRP: 100m x 50m pattern oriented E-W LOS, no TRP: ditto Blind and TRP: ditto Blind, no TRP: 200x x 100m pattern oriented E-W Wide Impact Pattern Selected LOS and TRP: 200m diam circle LOS, no TRP: 250-300m diam circle Blind and TRP: 200m diam circle Blind, no TRP: 350-400m diam circle Rockets act very differently. First off, there is no choice in pattern width, you're stuck with the default. Second, neither LOS nor TRPs have any effect. No matter what you do, rockets always produce a 650-700m diam circular pattern. Note that in all cases, the center of the impact pattern coincided with the point of aim in the center of the target area on the map. IOW, none of these variables affect the accuracy of the fire mission as a whole, only the size and shape of the pattern around the point of aim. Troop quality, LOS, and TRPs have effects on how long it takes for rounds to start falling. The better the FO's quality, the quicker rounds come. For the same quality FO, the speeds are as follows: 1. LOS and TRP 2. LOS/no TRP and blind/TRP take about the same time, which is about twice as long as 1. above 3. Blind/no TRP takes 3-4 times as long as 2. above Conclusions: I think over-all this is pretty realistic. The system seems to assume that the FO is not going to call for FFE until he's sure he can hit the target. Thus, the longer times for the rounds to start for LOS-less conditions abstract the difficulty in adjusting by sound or waiting for smoke to blossum up over the LOS obstructions. And the consistent shapes of the overall impact patterns reflects that no matter what problems the FO has, the gunners are always going to shoot the mission the same way for a given pattern selection. The only thing I might want to change about all this is the automatic delay to be sure of adjustment onto the desired target area. While this is fine for most situations, sometimes things are so desperate that speed of getting the fire is more important than accuracy and possible friendly losses. So it might be nice to have a "just shoot, DAMMIT!" option to get the rounds falling at a speed comparable to shooting TRPs. But in this case, the center of the resulting pattern would be randomly moved off the point of aim. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BH, am I mistaken or were you waiting for the patch to fix a convoy scenario you were working on?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that was me. Actually, it wasn't a scenario per se, it was for CMMC. I needed to shell units caught on roads and didn't want to have to play both sides hotseat. Thanks for the report. I haven't had a chance to look at that yet myself. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One thing I like about the situation I've described above is that it forces decisions on me - "is that really the best target for my few shells?", so it's not like I'm sobbing for a change. But how did support fire doctrine for weapons like this really work in the field? I'm curious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As others have noted, mortars are supposed to shoot fast. In the search for "best" targets, I like to shoot a grunts in trees. The treebursts really multiply the effectiveness . And single squads and teams hardly go anywhere alone, so when you see 1 squad at the edge of a patch of woods, you can be pretty sure there's a whole platoon there somewhere. Thus, hosing the forest often does wonders even on targets you can't see. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Eridani said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have found them to be a very limited nich weapon... If I group of all of the mortars in a company plus buy two extra's (at 9pts a piece its really cheap), I get a platoon of 5 mortars, lead by my company hq. Now this little platoon I've found to be an excellent "clear 1 forest free" card<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Except for buying the extras, I do the same thing. Basically let the grunts advance at best speed until they run into trouble while the mortars straggle along behind. By the time the grunts have died enough to locate the source of their trouble, the mortars will hopefully be close enough to shoot at it (assuming there's any cover that's both behind the grunts and within range of the target). Trouble is, I'm not finding the mortars to be much help even so. They just don't pack enough punch. Maybe having a couple others would help by increasing the odds of a few bombs from the total bombardment actually landing close enough to an enemy unit to do some damage. I'll have to try that next time. But even so, if you run into something that can shoot up grunts effectively from further than about 400m, you're just out of luck. I guess the Germans had the same problem (as well as excessive weight for the limited bang), leading them to drop their 50mm mortar by this point in the war. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also might ad, I could see raising their cost a few points if you do give them run ability because that would make them more effective troops<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

BTS- Thanks for the 1.03 patch. I am also impressed by the sheer quantity of things tweaked per comments on this forum, even when no BTS rep posted in the threads. Now that's customer support ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Been waiting for somebody to bring this up . A while back, I was considering starting a thread entitled "The 2" Mortar: Effective Weapon or Cruel Joke?" I've been playing with these things somewhat lately and have come to the conclusion they belong in the 2nd category. Their first failing is that they have a max range of only about 400m. This means they have to almost be right up with the forward grunts to accomplish the traditional light mortar mission of taking out MG nests and such. But this brings up the 2nd failing: they are SLOW. They can't run, they can only "move" like a 60mm mortar. So, due to their short range, if you want your grunts to have 2" mortar support, you either have to slow your advance to the same speed as the 2" mortar teams, or you have to provide vehicles for the mortars. This is a good use for Universal Carriers, but unfortunately the mortars can't shoot while mounted so you have to wait for them to get out and set up. Plus the vehicles are easy to spot so you lose surprise for your advance. Finally, assuming you somehow overcome the range and speed problems above, what have you got? A glorified grenade lobber is all. It's not very accurate and its blast radius seems much smaller than its CEP, so the odds of doing any damage, especially against troops in foxholes, is very small. It pretty much requires a direct hit to even have a chance of doing damage. Now, of all these failings, most seem quite reasonable to me. The short range and low power are explained in 3 words: not enough gun. And the inaccuracy is reasonable given that it's a freetube-only weapon. But I do have to question the validity of the "move-only" speed restriction. The 2" mortar, its ammo, and ancillary equipment, was much lighter than even a 60mm mortar. In fact, it's rather in the same weight and bulk class as zooks, schrecks, and PIATs. All of these types of teams can run for at least short distances, so I think it would be better if 2" mortar teams could do this as well. OTOH, maybe having 2" mortars be "move-only" is realistic. This could explain why Monty was a "plodder"--it wasn't his fault, it was because his grunts didn't want to get out of coverage of their pathetic 2" mortars ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Anything that tries to be all things to all people can't help but suck. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not sure about this, but I think it was the Wasp. I read they had an ammo carrier just behind them (100-200m). Ofcourse, this could have been when it was used in indirect fire mode!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the Wespe WAS primarily an indirect fire weapon. It was a self-propelled artillery piece used mostly by panzer divisions, directly analogous to the M7 Priest HMC of US armored division. It was not intended for use on the FEBA as a tank destroyer. Sure, this happened from time to time, but such used deprived the German unit of its arty support. When used as intended, as a piece of artillery, the Wespe was accompanied by another vehicle of some type that carried more ammo for it. In fact, ALL artillery pieces have an ammo vehicle, whether they are towed guns or self-propelled. But these ammo vehicles are for when the weapon is firing as arty from behind the FEBA. You don't take them up to the front lines unless they are needed to tow a gun up there. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Istari said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My question is this: I understand that a lower ground pressure means less chance of bogging in. That makes sense. But in Combat Mission, it also seems to impart higher speeds across off-road terrain. Is this how it really works in real life?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would think so. Lower ground pressure means the vehicle doesn't sink so far into the muck. The further a vehicle sinks, the more surface area on the sides of its roadwheels is in contact with the sides of the trenches made by the tracks (and maybe even its belly is dragging). This increased contact provides nothing but friction that slows movement. So I'd expect a lower ground pressure would result in lower over-all friction, and thus higher speed for a given amount of muck. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the example I was using, the M4(105) is not appreciably lighter than the other M4 models, yet it has considerably lower ground pressure (presumably to wider tracks dispersing the weight)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depends on what version of the M4(105) you're talking about. There are 2 versions in CM, the straight M4(105) and the "M4A3(105) HVSS", which I assume would really be designated M4A3E8(105), due to E8 being the identifier for the HVSS suspension. But whatever the nominclature, the HVSS makes a big difference in ground pressure. Although it added about 3 tons to the gross vehicle weight, it also increased track width considerably, resulting in a net decrease in ground pressure. Here are some numbers from CM detail unit data. As you can see, almost all Shermans seem to be assumed to have the old VVSS, but 2 types have the HVSS. M4: 33 tons, 13.6 psi ground pressure M4(105): 35 tons, 14.3 psi M4A1: 33 tons, 13.6 psi M4A1(76)W: 35 tons, 14.3 psi M4A3: 33 tons, 13.6 psi M4A3(75)W: 35 tons, 14.3 psi M4A3E8(76)W: 37 tons, 11.0 psi (HVSS) M4A3(105) HVSS: 36 tons, 10.8 psi ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

In CM, the spotter units are something of an abstraction. They represent both trained FOs and grunt officers/NCOs calling for fire. So don't think of them as people that can be replaced. Think of them primarily as the means with which you as the grunt commander communicate with the off-board arty. Thus, the death of a spotter unit indicates either that all people trained to call for fire have died, OR the means of communication with the arty has failed. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Have you ever seen what a sniper can do with just 10 rounds? But if that's still not enough for you, you can always use the editor to give them more ammo. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Disaster said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Training and logistics are certainly areas where the U.S. is leaps and bounds over its potential enemies everywhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I doubt if this is still the case. The few remaining contemporaries of mine still in the service all say that Clinton has pretty much ruined both of these areas. There is no budget for real training, just watching movies, and there are no spare parts. Plus with the increased level of commitment for the reduced level of assets remaining in service, time for maintenance has been greatly reduced But this is hearsay--I'm a PFC these days (proud friggin' civilian). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your comment about training from rote is certainly telling. One story I heard is that Iraqi line troops purposely were not allowed to take part in maneuvers and field training so that they would not be possible internal opposition against Saddam's powerbase and his Republican Guard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This wouldn't surprise me. Certainly, the Iraqi forces suffered from a number of systemic problems that severely decreased their efficiency. I mean, before we tore them up, they'd fought the disorganized, purged, under-trained, and under-equipped Iranians for 8 years and got no better than a draw out of it. Hardly an impressive showing for what was then the 4th largest army in the world. I fought Iraqi conscripts, backbone regulars, and Republican Guards, and met some POWs from each group as well. The conscripts were just there as a speedbump on the Kuwait border--they weren't expected to really fight and didn't. They were totally pathetic. But the regulars and the RGs impressed me. We really couldn't tell the difference between them until we occupied their positions and saw equipment markings and POWs. All these guys had good gear; although the RGs had the best stuff, the regulars weren't much below them. None of the Soviet stuff turned out to be as good as our stuff, but it was still pretty damn good, and they had a Hell of a lot of it. Plus some of their stuff was the same as ours. And within certain limits, they knew their jobs quite well. And they all nearly always fought to essentially the death. We didn't take many regulars or IGs prisoner relative to number we engaged, as compared to the conscripts. For example, they almost always got their initial arty shots within 200m of the target (and often much closer) which, given their C^3I situation, Russian sights, and probable training methods, was VERY good. Their next salvos would have been FFE on target. This was optically observed fire. Given the smoke and rain, they had to have had FOs within about 400m of us all the time. This was quite possible because there were hundreds of bunkers that we just overran and didn't get around to clearing until after the ceasefire. But still, these FOs had to have been dedicated bastards to keep at their posts when totally cut off like that. OTOH, the Iraqis had a high level of wastage from simple inability or unwillingness to maintain their gear. I've mentioned their problems with vehicles, but this extended to smallarms as well. The AK47 has the reputation of being essentially sand-proof, but apparently this requires some minimum level of care for the weapon. I picked up VERY few that were in shooting condition, due to being filled with sand and covered with rust. They were pretty easy to get working, but I had to strip and clean them thoroughly. Why hadn't the Iraqis done this? We cleaned our own weapons several times a day--we had to. So my over-all impression of the main Iraqi forces is that they were in general very well equipped, had fairly high morale, and were well-skilled in their basic combat functions. But in war, just the basics are not enough. You always have to meet new situations, you always have to improvise, adapt, and overcome. This they seemed unable to do. Plus their 1st echelon maintenance just sucked (although we were grateful for this, from a professional POV we were totally appalled--you just don't treat good gear that way). So, they weren't nearly as powerful in reality as they were on paper. Combine this with the airplanes taking out their C^3I and a faulty strategic deployment, and you have a recipe for disaster. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

There are some problems with the terrain tiles that have high stone bridges crossing over roads. Two of these problems have a real effect on gameplay--the other is cosmetic. 1. Wrecked Vehicles Wrecked vehicles on the lower level jump up onto the bridge. This can happen if they are pushed by a live vehicle or coast to a stop in the tile after death. In both cases, instead of going under the bridge, they end up on top of it. 2. Unit Orders You can't order a unit on the lower level road to stop under the bridge to enjoy its cover. There's no way to put a waypoint under the bridge itself--it is always drawn on top of the bridge. This not only causes a cover and concealment problem, but it also results in the AI doing strange things. Because you have unintentionally ordered it to get on top of the bridge, it plots its own round-about course to get there, often taking it through bad or inconvenient areas. 3. Moving Units Cosmetic. When units move along the road under the bridge (with a waypoint on each side, vehicles move under the bridge with no problems), their model graphics follow the road surface. However, their bases tilt up onto the bridge and then back down to the lower road on the other side. Also, the line between their waypoints goes over instead of under the bridge. This last is probably related to (2) above. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Sorry to be lagged here but I've been busy lately Disaster@work said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Somehow I doubt that the average Iraqi commander had access to the Internet and full browsing privileges before the Gulf War (and certainly not now). So I would hazard that even if they knew of the existence of such documents online, they could never read them and therefore learn something of their coalition opponent's doctrine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On a related note, I think the Iraqis also had some serious problems understanding their own gear. This stemmed from buying a lot of weapons from countries that speak something other than Arabic. Take the typical Russian AFV in Iraqi service. All the placards by all the dials and buttons were printed in Russian. But the tech manuals were printed in English. And very bad English at that, like what you often see in the instructions for cheap electronics from the Far East. I doubt there were very many Iraqi tankers who could read enough Russian and English to know what all the buttons in the tank did or how to troubleshoot and repair problems with them. Hell, I even had trouble figuring some of it out, due to the confused English translations And the USSR was just 1 supplier. The Iraqis also had Chinese, US, French, Brit, and Brazilian gear, and probably some other stuff. I poked around in a lot of this and the only Arabic writing I saw inside was a few lines in grease pencil. So it seems to me that the average Iraqi vehicle crewman had to have been trained by rote. "Push this button to traverse the turret, push this button to fire," etc. This would have limited his ability to utilize features of his vehicle that he hadn't been instructed on, plus would have ruled out most 1st echelon and preventive maintenance and emergency field repairs. Observations support the latter suppositions. I came across many vehicles abandoned due to some minor failure. Plus just about everything was filthy, sand-choked, and/or rusty. But with little effort, my platoon was able to get a T72, an MTLB, a couple of 2S1s, a BMP-1, and several Ural trucks and Land Rovers all running fine. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Pillar said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm looking for a book that will explain to me exactly how the US managed to conduct such an efficient conflict. With such small losses for such a great victory, the US forces must really know what they're doing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "KNEW what it was doing" might be more appropriate given Clinton's gutting of the forces that made the Gulf War what it was. As to how we did it at the time, I don't know any good books. All I can say is how it appeared to me at the time, which is of course pretty much limited to my own LOS (and that wasn't too far with all the smoke) First off, the Iraqi deployment had its flaws. Although the basic plan of putting throw-away troops on the Kuwait border to simply call for help, then counterattacking with numerically superior mechanized forces that had been protected from most of the tac-air effort by the oil smoke and being dug in, was sound, there were 2 main problems: 1) Although the planes couldn't bomb many combat assets through the smoke, they could and did find and destroy many communications assets. Thus, the whole Iraqi C^3I network was pretty much a shambles by the time of our main attack, so while we still faced numerically superior forces, we almost always had local superiority due to better organization. 2) All the forces in Kuwait were vulnerable to large-scale envelopment through southern Iraq, as actually happened. Second, we won the artillery battle hands down. When you do that, you generally win every other battle, too. Again, they had the numbers, and in some cases the range as well. However, we had EXCELLENT counterbattery radar operating in conditions that nearly maximized its effectiveness. This was combined with kick-ass survey equipment and digital burst radios to allow us to bring devastating counterfire right on target within about 90 seconds of them pulling the lanyard. Because the Iraqis used Soviet arty doctrine, this kind of response (combined with C^3I losses to air efforts) totally frustrated their ability to mass fires and enabled us to quickly whittle their arty down to nothing without much loss. We were doing this from Day 1 of the "air" war, BTW. Plus, we had DPICM ammo and they had a fairly high percentage of defective shells (as distinguished from the low-order explosions of gas rounds). So this is not to say the Iraqi gunners were incompetent--most times they were WAY too accurate. However, they just didn't get the chance to capitalize on this, due to our gear giving us a few seconds advantage on them, and their gear failing them when they had us dead to rights. Third, at the grunt and tank level, we had better stuff in the majority of cases, both personnel and equipment. So it ended up with our guys killing from beyond their effective range a lot, with local superiority from better C^3I, and us being pretty free from their arty and our arty hammering them. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Juju said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Went back to the MDMP low-res ones. They look good enough. On top of that this low-res version allows me to judge elevation differences a lot better than any of the other ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. The other grass (and snow) textures out there just don't have enough difference between elevations. All levels look the same to me with other types of grass textures. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Eridani said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fire tile IIRC just means that a small fire has been started and everyone is getting the hell out... I think this falls under a what you see is not what you get catagory...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is my opinion also. Most of the time, nobody gets hurt by the start of a house fire in CM--they beat feet right on out. This makes sense to me as a fireman. It only takes a few minutes for a small fire in 1 room to grow and fully engulf the entire house. And well before this happens, the house is uninhabitable from the heat, smoke, and gases generated by the growing fire. So troops aren't going to hang around once a fire starts. So the question, IMHO, isn't whether troops should immediately bail from burning buildings, but whether houses burn from backblast with a realistic frequency in CM. I think so. Propellants burn VERY hot and unless you have that 20 square foot plus backblast opening Rother mentioned, all that heat is going to stay inside. Besides making things unpleasant for the troops, this heat has a good chance of igniting stuff in the house. And even if there is no furniture left, as I understand it most houses were packed with straw for troops to sleep in. So even stone buildings should have a pretty good chance of ignition. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

OK, thanks to Rune and others, Valhalla #1, "Last Man on the Volcano," has been cleared for release to the masses. This scenario has absolutely no connection with WW2. It takes place in Valhalla between evenly matched forces of SS and US armored units. The map is symmetrical and centered in it is a HUGE volcano, atop which is the only objective. This scenario is intended solely for PBEM because the AI can't handle such off-the-wall situations as well as it does things grounded in historical context. 2 versions are available: a regular version and a tournament version. If interested in having this on your site, let me know. jtweller@delphi.com ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

I have to pimp my own creation, Valhalla Series #1. Designed expressly for PBEM play at the expense of single player. It's now available at TGN and hopefully Madmatt will soon put it on CMHQ and Moon at Games of War. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Qu'un sang impur Abreuve nos sillons<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is the best line ever put into song Vive la guillotine ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey, where are all the user scenarios that everybody and thier grandma would be making once this puppy came out?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As you can see, there are plenty of sites out there to find stuff, but there isn't that much stuff on them yet for a number of reasons. For historical stuff, folks are discovering that all the readily available scenario fodder has already been used up. The other historical info is harder to come by in the detail required for a CM-scale battle, and of this only a subset is fit to make a balanced enough scenario that's fun for both sides. Thus, many folks are having to make non-historical scenarios. But whether these are "could have happened" things or totally fictional, they all have the same problems. Although the editor is VERY easy to use, it still takes time to make a map that's just how you want it. And then, if you're serious about making a quality scenario, you need to have other people test your work. This takes several weeks to do right. Thus, although it's no problem at all to whip out scenarios in a few minutes, making a good scenario takes a lot of time, both for research, map tweaking, and testing for balance. There will be many scenarios posted eventually, but it won't be an overnight thing. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Thanks for bringing this up. This is a complication for CMMC we'll have to address. The thinking in CMMC at present is that players will send the final AAR map turn to the GM so he can do up the official body counts and adjust the OOB files accordingly. However, because units off the map can't be seen in detail, the players will have to note at least their loss in exited units, including crews, routed units, etc. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman