Bullethead

Pillar said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is an article I came across written by a Doctor Gary Hull.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, so you're going into this with your eyes open. That's good. From your initial post, I was afraid you were all idealism. ------------------ -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>Be aware that the present chaos in Africa owes quite a bit to the exploitation its people and its resources suffered under various sorts of colonialism (including the Cold War)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps you could elaborate on this. The above statement brings to mind that scene in "The Life of Brian" where the Judaean terrorists are planning a raid and the leader says, "The Romans have bled us and our fathers white and what have they ever done for us?" Then 1 by 1 the terrorist troops start listing off things like: roads, schools, medicine, law and order, sanitation, an end to intertribal warfare, etc. So there are 2 sides to colonialism. And when it's all over, the natives are still left with way more infrastructure than they started with. It's up to them to keep it going when they're on their own. And that means their own government has to do its job. This is the big catch. It affects all nations regardless of economic status or colonial past. Basically, people get the government they deserve. In the US, we have a bunch of mind-numbed couchpotato products of the horrific US public school system, so we get Clinton and all the other current crop of politicals. In many African countries, many people still have strong tribal ties and so envision the ideal national leader as a more powerful version of the traditional chief. A "big man" who does what he wants to because he's chief. And that's usually what they get. ------------------ -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

PvK said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It seems to me that ideally (in the absence of being able to order the actual number of rounds, as suggested by someone else on another thread), a random portion of the spotter's available ammo would continue to fire, perhaps with more than usual drift, up to possibly the full ammo left.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. The lack of being able to (actually, forced to) specify the number of rounds you want is an abstraction. I do not think it's a good idea to cover up for a problem caused by 1 abstraction by introducing a new abstraction. Why would a random number of rounds after FO death be an abstraction? Because in real life, it works like this: First, the FO goes through the adjustment process to get the rounds where he wants them. Then he calls for a certain number of rounds of FFE. After shooting this number of rounds, the arty unit then tells the FO, "rounds complete, request end of mission." IOW, the fire mission is still going on even though the guns are silent. It's up to the FO observe the results and either end the mission or call for more fire. The point is that while the FFE is falling, there's generally no communication between the FO and the off-board unit, although sometimes the FO may call another adjustment or checkfire during this time. But the default situation is that the arty unit is NOT expecting to hear anything from the FO during the FFE, only afterwards. So if the FO gets killed during the FFE, the arty unit won't know and will continue shooting per the last instructions received. Only when the arty unit asks for end of mission and gets only static will it notice something wrong. Therefore, as long as CM continues to have open-ended fire missions, IMHO it should keep itself internally consistent and shut them off immediately upon FO death. I don't like this, but I think it's better than adding something else that is even less realistic. ------------------ -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>No, No! I meant that the AI only knows WHAT you have (OOB) not WHERE you have it (=No FOW, already available option).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. If you are playing the same scenario over and over, OF COURSE you're going to have an advantage over the AI. So quit doing that. Instead, play new scenarios or Quick Battles. I can't think of anything LESS realistic than playing the same battle over and over, trying to do it perfectly. I see no reason to make a major change in an AI that is oriented for realism to make it do better in totally unrealistic situations. ------------------ -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

Rob Deans said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I raise the question of why was this method chosen over the "Number of Men" method. Should not two half strength sections be able to ride in the vehicle that carried one full strength section into the battle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From dinking with this myself, I've decided that transport capacity is in fact tracked in 2 ways: # of men in the back PLUS what size gun can be towed. These 2 methods interact together to affect what you can and can't put in and behind a transport vehicle. When you tow a gun, 2 factors are considered. First, does the vehicle have the macho to pull a gun of this weight? This is handled by the numerical transport rating of the gun and vehicle. Second, does the vehicle have room in the back for the gun's crew, ammo, and ancillary equipment? If not, then even powerful vehicles can't tow guns. A big vehicle like a truck often has the macho to tow a gun, space in the back for the crew et al, and even some space left over for more troops. So, for example, you can tow a 50mm PAK with a truck AND carry an MG team as well. However, you cannot both tow the gun and carry a grunt squad--the gun's crew takes up so much room that there's not enough left for a full squad. This leads conclusion that CM does in fact use the "Number of Men" method. The capacities listed as "squad" or "team" are therefore only guidelines. And in fact you can put in 2 1/2squads in the same truck if it can carry 1 squad. ------------------ -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>....a Company of Airborne Officers - not an enlisted man in the group.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you sure about that? I was under the impression most glider pilots were enlisted men. ------------------ -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>1. I read from Panzer Elite manual that blotted armor creates speical problem that deflects shots in a wired manner. Is it modelled in CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't understand your phrasing here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. I think this has been asked before. Is field armor add-on (such as spare tracks) taken int account in CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe this is what the Shermans with the + in their names have. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. I read the section of "shot trap" several times but I am still not sure why it deflets a shot into the turret ring.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, here's an example from real life. In the Tank Museum at Bovington Camp is a Tiger I that was knocked out by a 6pdr (!) due to the shot-trap effect of the gun AND mantlet (!). You can see the holes to this day. If you look at Tiger's gun, you see it's larger in diameter the closer it is to the turret. And where it joins the turret, there's a swelling of armor around the barrel. In this particular case, the Tiger and the Brit tank were aiming directly at each other. The Brit got off the 1st shot and it NEARLY went right down the Tiger's gun barrel. It actually scraped along the underside of the gun for the full length of the barrel. Each time it hit one of the wider places on the gun, it was deflected down a bit more. The last deflection made it hit the very bottom edge of the swelling at the base of the gun on the front face of the turret. This turned the shot sharply downwards and through the top of the Tiger's hull just in front of the turret. It then continued into the turret ring mechanism and fighting compartment. That is how a shot trap works. The shot hits the front of the turret in such a way that it's deflected down onto the top of the hull. This being much thinner armor, the shot usually penetrates. This Tiger example is 1-in-a-million, but the cylindrical front face of the early Panther turret had a fairly high chance of deflecting rounds down into the hull. ------------------ -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

SPOILER WARNING . . . . . . . . . . . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that the units I saw charging were charging as Bullethead suggested, I just think that the numbers aren't nearly as bad as he does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm doing this PBEM against Oddball who sometimes lurks here. The game is still in progress so I can't tell you the total US casualties this berserker behavior has caused, but I have seen the charges and can count the bodies of eliminated US units in and in front of my positions. My conservative estimate is that fanatic berserking accounted for 2 full platoons of US troops, plus some bazooka teams, in the first 8-10 turns around Brutet's House. Several other US squads/teams have suffered the same fate on the US left in the area between the hedgerows. Thus it has gone through 15 turns. Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot. In our last turn, 4 separate German units went berserk, charging OUT OF good defensive positions and into the open killing fields. Obviously, your mileage is varying. And sometimes the Dark Gods have their little jokes with probability. As I understand fanaticism, each individual unit has some chance of being fanatic, with the highest setting being 50%. So if this setting is used in this scenario, on the average 1/2 your guys are going to go nuts. But 1/2 the time, more than 1/2 your guys will be berserkers, and the other 1/2 of the time less than 1/2 will be. So it seems we've drawn opposite ends of the spectrum. In my game, I'd say close to 3/4 of the troops have been berserkers. You're seeing it rarely. Both are possible IF (as I believe) each squad's chance is independent of the others. Still, having 1/2 of your guys go crazy in this type of battle is a big problem. This is why I urge scenario designers to be very careful with fanaticism until all its effects are known. ------------------ -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

Famous Last Words of US Airborne Berserkers at Night: "It's only 50m away, let's charge those dug-in SS flak bast--" ------------------ -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

Tankersley said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>During the turn execution, the entire platoon moved up to the hedge and then ran pell-mell into the teeth of enemy fire. One platoon gone. I didn't order them to do this, and I'm wondering why they did it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have been playing this scenario PBEM. When I first saw this problem, I posted up about it. See the thread "Fanatics at Night". But BTS never responded. Anyway, I believe the problem here is that both sides have the highest fanaticism rating, which is 50%. This is a severe problem at night or other situations with greatly reduced visibility. The problem is that fanatics apparently are hardwired to charge into close combat if they are attacked at close range, such as the 50m viz range in this scenario. So say you have a platoon sneaking forward. The point squad comes into view of 1 enemy unit and takes fire. It goes berserk and charges the enemy unit. On the way, it comes into view of all near-by enemy units, who quickly gun your squad down with their huge, point-blank firepower ratings. While this is going on, the other squads in the platoon are still sneaking and so are left far behind and still invisible. By the time the 1st squad is hosed, another squad has come into view of some enemy unit and is also fired on. It also goes berserk, with the same result. Repeat as needed for the whole platoon. So there are 2 issues here. One, I think the 50% fanatic thing seems to be innacurate. I my experience, it's closer to 80-90% berserkers at this level. Two, I think the fanaticism thing should be tweaked to take into account situational modifiers such as reduced visibility. I realize this will no doubt be as much of a problem as similar AI tweaks to keep troops from running during shelling, but it needs doing for this type of battle. The alternative, which I urge all scenario designers to use unless and until fanaticism is patched, is to NOT use fanaticism in low-visibility scenarios. In such cases, it's a significant penalty instead of an advantage. ------------------ -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

Here is the 1st briefing for a scenario I have now entering the final stages of testing: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Valhalla Series #1, "Last Man on the Volcano" by Jim "Bullethead" Weller, 1 July 2000 Testing: Tim "Rune" Orosz, Cliff "Oddball" Holmes SITUATION: You are dead. All your troops are dead. But the fighting never stops, except for when it's time to drink. Welcome to Valhalla, true Heaven for the true warrior. When you fell in battle, your heroic deeds were already well-known to Odin the Allfather. Therefore, he sent a Valkyrie to pick you up and bring you to Valhalla, to fight at Odin's side in Ragnorok, the final battle. But before that fateful day arrives, you must train. And who better to train against than the other heroes of Valhalla? With live ammo, of course. But don't worry. Though you may fall again in Valhalla, you come back to "life" after the battle to participate in the big debriefing cum beerbust with all the Gods and Valkyries. Then you get to fight again tomorrow. Who could ask for more? Today's battle was designed by Loki. The objective is to control the top of a large volcano at the end of 45 minutes. That is the only rule. Your troops are of excellent quality (they wouldn't be in Valhalla otherwise) and carry huge amounts of ammunition. Just remember, the enemy is an equal match in all respects. To add some incentive, the Valkyries have said they will party with the winners. Good luck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Basically, the idea for this scenario was blatantly ripped off from Myth, basically "Last Man on the Hill" played on the "For Carnage..." map. I made some changes, of course, but anybody who's played Myth or Myth II will recognize this scenario . ------------------ -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

This is a great idea. I wish you luck in this enterprise. If you're interested in this sort of thing, check out the CMMC write-up over at CMHQ-Annex. But this is a huge project and is still some time away from being ready for the public, so it's great to have you filling the void. Maybe us CMMC GMs won't be lynched just yet . ------------------ -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 assume they do, but will the computer controlled troops automatically advance towards the victory flags?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some will but not all. The AI will move units to places to defend the flag or support an attack on it. One thing for sure that does NOT work at present is setting up the AI to move units off the map. Instead, they just go to a map corner. However, I've heard this will be fixed in 1.03. ------------------ -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>In real life, if a unit wanted to fire into smoke, he could only guess whether an enemy is in there or not. Does he want to squeeze off regular bursts for a minute? Two minutes? Ten minutes? How long? How much ammo can he afford to 'waste' on low-percentage shots like this? But because of the all-units-think-with-the-player's-one-brain problem, there's no good way for CM to model this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In real life defensive plans, MMGs, HMGs, and mortars almost always have TRP-like targets out in front. The whole purpose of such things is to bring effective fire while shooting blind, such as when the enemy lays a smokescreen or at night. IOW, to keep the enemy from using reduced visibility to overrun your position. With MMGs/HMGs, the usual idea is to exploit grazing fire. So the TRP-like things would be set up near the opposite end of the line from where the MG is, so that it can form a barrier of grazing fire diagonally all across the parent unit's front. Generally multiple MGs spread along the line create crossfires of grazing fire this way. When they get the word, they shoot rapid bursts, as much as possible, at these pre-recorded targets and continue to do so until specific targets become visible near their line of fire. This is one of the main reasons why MGs have all that ammo. But the point isn't so much to hit the TRP-thing, but to create a grazing fire barrier to slow, stop, and/or attrit the invisible attackers. So IMHO if unmoved mortars can fire blind at TRPs, then MMGs/HMGs should have a similar ability. This is quite realistic and is one of the intended purposes of owning an MMG/HMG in the first place. But mortars should not be able to use MMG/HMG TRP-things, and vice versa. And squads shouldn't be able to use either. As to the "1 brain thinks for all" thing unrealistically tipping off the defending player, I disagree. You have built a spotting system that allows players to use units as OPs to gain info on the enemy. This has to assume there is some way for the OP unit to communicate back to the other units. Given this assumption, allowing players to trigger this type of blind fire is perfectly realistic--that's why they put our OPs in real life. Also, I don't see how this is a concern anyway in this type of situation. The OP unit might announce that now is a good time to start shooting at the TRP-things, but that's the only thing the MMG/HMG/mortar can shoot at because all the enemy are hidden. So for the mortars, you just have to hope the enemy is really where you're shooting. And for the MGs, you have to hope an enemy unit crosses your line of grazing fire at the same time you shoot a burst. No guarantees for the defender, but it's very realistic to allow them the chance. But if human players aren't a problem, I can see how making the AI do this sort of thing correctly would be a serious challenge. However, IMHO the lack of such blind fire, at least by support weapons, is a serious realism flaw in CM at present, and thus needs to be remedied. Otherwise, you make smokescreens into a gamey tactic (that is, much more effective than they should be, and thus unrealistically exploitable). ------------------ -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>And to keep the wargame flavor you could have a firefighters in the battle of Britain<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You've obviously never fought a fire They call it fire FIGHTING for a reason. Besides, I'm trying to be serious here. This wouldn't be aimed at the wargaming crowd, it would be aimed at working firemen and others with an interest in fire safety. As such, only modern firefighting stuff is applicable. Think of it. This would be very good PR for BTS (not to mention possibly a tax break) and wargaming in general. Imagine the headlines: Wargamers Not Geeks, Actually Care About Society. Or FIREMAN OWES LIFE TO GAME COMPANY. ------------------ -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'm a volunteer fireman. Fighting fires and fighting people have a lot in common. Both are dangerous, both require the use of good small unit tactics and supporting arms, both require much attention to be paid to terrain, etc. Anyway, it hit me that the CM engine, with some modifications, would make a great training aid for firefighters, and a great educational game for everybody else. I'm serious here. Add multi-story buildings and a more detailed model of fire behavior and you'd pretty much have it. The LOS and FOW system would be great for trying to find victims in smoke-filled buildings. Grunt teams for hose teams and rescue teams, just give them timers for their air supply and make them have to drag charged hoses up stairs and around corners--the game already has slow grunts who get tired easily . And vehicles already have a system that could be used for a deck gun water cannon and ammo supply (aka water tank capacity). You'd just need to add some pump capacity, the ability to use hydrants, nurse off tankers, draft from ponds, run multiple hoses, etc. Have a scenario/unit editor so that users could configure the firefighting assets to match their own department, both as to vehicles and personnel. Also, make the building system flexible so that users could model typical buildings in their area fairly well. Anyway, I think this would be a great application of the CM engine. If you sold it for about the same price as a regular CM wargame, you'd have departments lining up to buy copies for their troops. Sure, it wouldn't replace actually going to burn buildings for livefire training, but it would give good tactical training (especially for things like ventilation that you can't do well in burn buildings) when there's no time or money to do livefire. Plus I'm sure civilians would be interested also. ------------------ -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

Kingfish said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, how are the Americans getting so far that your crews are becoming a necessary part of your defense?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry to be lagged on this--didn't notice your reply until John topped this thread just now. Anyway, I think your question answers itself. If you have a lot of crews, then you have a severe shortage of major weapons. And for some reason, the enemy always seems to take advantage of this and press his attack. Never have been able to figure out why this happens. Must be a bug somewhere . ------------------ -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

The new "hi-action" sounds are quite useful, especially the kill sounds for grunts. I was playing a BN-sized battle I set up with 10+ turns of no-mans-land between forces. After a while, my guys started taking very long-range MG fire. It was from so far away that the FOW didn't show tracers or even sound contacts for several turns. With the attacking frontage so wide, it was also impossible to keep an eye on everything. Thus, I would never have known that I took a casualty without the YEEAAGGGHHH of the "hi-action" sounds. OTOH, I think the stock grass does a better job of showing terrain contours than either the hi-res or low-res grass of the MDMP-1. ------------------ -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 [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 07-04-2000).]

I don't know exactly what you mean by "still use the TOP system". CM is similar to TOP/PITS in having the "we go" turn-based system vs. I-go-you-go. And both games have very detailed things going on "under the hood." I think CM is closer to the truth with its 1 minute turns vs. PITS/TOP shorter turns and way more locked-in orders. PITS/TOP has a few things CM lacks, such as command rules for AFVs and dust clouds. OTOH, CM has some things TOP/PITS lacks, such as hexless movement and real 3D LOS/LOF and more detailed AP resolution. Plus I think the CM AI is better in numerous ways, although of course there are things to nitpick. On the whole, I think CM and PITS/TOP are very close to the same level of accuracy but CM is way more accessible with its 3D environment. Plus I think this leads to a higher level of realism in terms of folds in the ground, etc. So I'd say the balance lies somewhat in favor of CM for overall realism. And way in favor of CM in terms of "being there". NOTE: I may be somewhat biased in favor of PITS/TOP because I know and drink with some of the HPS guys and tested the games. Still, there's no denying these games are quite realistc for being 2D and hex-based. ------------------ -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 [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 07-03-2000).]

When you are about to be attacked from 2 directions like this, I find it's usually better to pull back to avoid the envelopment while calling in arty timed to land on your old position about the same time you expect the attackers to arrive 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

To delete files: Use Windows Explorer or whatever the same thing on the Mac is, go into the appropriate folders, and delete the offending files. As to the fire and movment question, you can assign the desired target at the same time as you order the movement. However, units will only stay locked onto a target they can't see for a short time before looking for something they CAN see. So if it takes longer than this to move to the new position where they can see the target, the target order might not still be working when they arrive. ------------------ -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 suggest a compromise on the "only for unmoved units" thing. Basically, I would like the ability for all units to shoot blind if so ordered, but give unmoved units higher effectiveness, and even differentiate between certain types of units. IMHO, the best things for shooting blind would be unmoved MMG, HMGs, and mortars, due to the T&Es of tripod MGs and the similar things on mortars. Basically, the procedure when setting up the defense is like registering arty on a TRP--shoot a few rounds direct fire until you hit the desired point, then record the T&E or sight settings for future reference when you can't see that point. This isn't going to be as accurate as aimed fire, of course, but it will be a lot better than shooting blind without such references. The above seems to indicate something similar to a TRP or ambush marker. It would only be available in the set-up phase. It would be placed by each individual weapon and useable only by the weapon placing it. So if you wanted, for example, 2 MGs to pre-target the same point, each would have to use one of its own marker there. Each such weapon would have a default max number of such markers, which could be altered by the scenario designer to simulate more or less time to prepare defenses. And these markers could only be used if the weapon did not move. On a similar note, I think squads should have a PDF marker of their own. These should be available for placement at any time during the game when a) the unit is in command, and is not moving. If a squad with a PDF marker moves, the PDF marker is removed but a new one can be set up once the above conditions are met again. The differences between a PDF marker and an ambush marker, besides the PDF being set by the squad instead of an HQ, is that the PDF remains in place even when not targeted and can be placed and fired on while out of LOS. Fire at a PDF marker would be less effective than both aimed fire and the T&E markers for MGs/mortars, but moreso than blind area fire. Finally, any unit should be able to area fire blind, regardless of special markers or command status. This would have the lowest effectiveness and mostly be a waste of ammo, but you might get lucky ------------------ -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

Something I noticed in making my volcano scenario: burning terrain tiles don't "stick". In my volcano, I have a central crater with 4 burning grain fields at the bottom, which gives a very nice visual effect of a smoldering volcano. However, EVERY time I opened up the map for a new editing session, these burning tiles were gone and replaced by regular open ground. When I put the burning terrain back in place and saved the file again, they were there when I played the game. However, next time I opened the file with the editor, they were gone again. So this is just something you have to remember to check each time you edit a scenario with burning terrain. It'll save OK, but it might not be there when you repoen the file for further tweaking, and if you forget to check, you might not have it in the game when you play. ------------------ -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 [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 07-02-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whats the best infantry squad in the game?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> FO units with lotsa ammo for really big guns ------------------ -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

Hopefully somebody has the graphic for the swastika flag handy and can post it for downloading for them as wants it. HINT to Madmatt--something for MDMP 2 ? ------------------ -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