Bullethead

Actually, you can adjust all the existing views. ] and [ zoom the view in and out, which works in all 8 views. You also can change the camera tilt angle with SHF-a and SHF-z in views 1-4. By using these controls, you can make your own new views that cover most situations. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Berli said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a Jarhead, I'm suprised you forgot...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn you, Berli, I paid a shrink $25k to forget that stuff and now you've brought it all back!!! (Whoops, just committed another war crime) Anyway... 50. Prisoners haven't actually surrendered until you report them to your boss. 51. Even then, remember your prisoners' Code of Conduct requires them to attempt escape. 52. No matter how you lay your comm wire, some passing AFV will find a way to break it. 53. Repairs of comm wire are always required during enemy bombardments. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Moriarty said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>does it logically follow that MadMatt, the erstwhile arbiter of board coolness and one of the first to put Mr. Cool into action on the board, is himself a product of Licking Smilies and Mad Smilies from the wild?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Madmatt's story is particularly tragic. While serving as a mercenary in one of Elvistonia's incessant wars with Pengland, Madmatt happened to be at ground zero of a massive MSA-PD strike. This particular batch of Mad Smileys was of one of the early persistant, taunting types, and they developed into systemic infection. Being no longer fit for military service, Madmatt returned home but found life difficult due to his frequent bouts of PTMSD (Post-Traumatic Mad Smiley Disorder), which caused reflexive taunting that cost him his job and family. Thereafter he lived under a bridge, coming out only to participate in Anti-Mad Smiley demonstrations. Eventually, the severity of his disorder attacted attention. He became a posterboy for the Anti-Mad Smiley movement and his impassioned taunting before the UN General Assembly was instrumental in getting the votes needed for the global Licking Smiley program. Having used Madmatt for their purposes, the UN promptly discarded him, and he returned to his bridge. However, with the Licking Smiley program in full swing, Madmatt at least now has access to free treatment at VA hospitals. Unfortunately, due to the severe nature of his Mad Smiley infection, the Licking Smiley treatment has not been successful. All it does is temporarily set the Mad Smileys back. So periodically Madmatt goes down to the VA to get shot up with Licking Smileys. Then, for several days thereafter, he coughs up Cool Smileys. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

My usual graphics settings are realistic size troops, bases on, full trees, high detail smoke, flags off, and transparent buildings with roofs. I also turn off ambient sounds so I don't confuse them with combat sounds. When setting up, I use #6 or #7 as a map and #3 and #4 as a coarse relief map to get the lay of the land and come up with a general plan. Then when doing detail planning, I conduct an extensive terrain recon all over the map with views #1 and #2 to check the LOS in key areas and find those little ripples in the ground that become so crucial. When so doing, I repeatedly switch trees from full on to off. When giving orders, it depends on what's going on. If I'm moving through a relatively secure area where exact placement doesn't matter, I often use #3 or #4. #6 is also useful with the group select (cool new feature). If I am putting guys in buildings or trying to snake a tank between woods and/or slopes, I find view #5 ideal for exact waypoint placement. Another good use of #5 is being sure you're actually in the woods instead of open ground in different areas of the green tree background splotches. When my troops are or soon will be in a firefight, there is no substitute for views #1 and #2 to take advantage of very small terrain features and prevent the enemy from doing the same. Sometimes #3 is sufficient but it's usually risky. At points during and at the end of giving orders, I turn on all movement and/or target lines (another cool new feature) to be sure everything is as it should be. I also turn trees off and use view #7 or #8 briefly to be sure everybody is doing something (trees sometimes hide bases). I find that #3 is the best view to watch the battle unfold. It allows me to see what's going on in about a company area in enough detail to spot important events. Of course, it also makes me have to watch the movie several times, once for each main area of interest. If something cool happens to a particular unit, I sometimes watch the movie again with #1 or #2 focused on this unit. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

11. Remember, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder. 12. The easy way is always mined. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

The use of the Mark V MSA-PD was at first a state secret of Pengland, which made it the only Mad Smiley superpower. But eventually a liberal government came to power and to pay off its illegal campaign debts from overseas, it gave away the secret of the Mark V MSA-PD. This led to an era of intense Mad Smiley proliferation among Third World countries and the use of the weapons system in many small border wars and revolutions. Naturally, the despots behind such conflicts had no concern for collateral damage even years later, so the genetic purity of the Mark V MSA-PD system gradually fell off. In fact, various mutant strains were found to be more tactically devastating, which led to Darwinian selection of the more persistant strains as area denial weapons. Naturally, these became one of the tools of choice for ethnic cleansing campaigns the world over. This situation created unimaginable horrors. Various journalists and royalty on rehab periodically grabbed headlines with heart-rending stories of Third World peasant children maimed for life by persistant Mad Smileys left over from years of internicene strife. But nobody really cared until a rogue mutant Mad Smiley strain was developed that reproduced in the wild after delivery. These Mad Smileys soon began to spread to industrialized nations, resulting in a global pandemic. At this point, the UN decided to take action similar to that which had eradicated smallpox. It commissioned scientists to develop a countermeasure and then deploy it worldwide. This effort was funded primarily by Pengland, in which another liberal administration had engendered a national feeling of guilt over the first creation of Mad Smiley weapons. The UN research eventually resulted in the Licking Smiley Vaccine (LSV, carried by ). Programs were established to vaccinate ever person on earth with a Licking Smiley, the action of which healed the oozing wounds left by the Mad Smileys. In addition, billions of Licking Smileys were released into the atmosphere worldwide to attack Mad Smileys in the wild. When a Licking Smiley met a Mad Smiley, they fused into a harmless Cool Smiley ( ). Harmless, that is, except for the alleged long-term effects. Controversial studies indicated that the build-up of billions of Cool Smileys was gradually reducing the temperature of the earth. The doomsday prophecies of Global Cooling and another Ice Age became the liberal "Chicken Little" scenario du jour. Crackpot scientists encourage people to create greenhouse gases to counteract the Cool Smileys. Over time, the prefered method became flatulation. Beer sales skyrocketed, farting became socially acceptable, and all was well with the world. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 05-20-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From the birdseye view, you get little information about good spotting and hiding positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True. Which is why you shouldn't use the birdseye views when the LOS from the unit's position is critical. Get down on the ground with the #1 view (using SHF-a and SHF-z as needed to tilt the POV). This is one of my favorite features of CM. LOS tools are all very well, but nothing beats actual terrain reconnaissance from the perspective of your actual units, and no other game lets you do this. Makes me feel more like I'm actually in the fight instead of sitting up on a cloud with Woden and the Valkyries. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Try going around the sides, dont go head on into that beast<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah. But Panthers happen sometimes Anyway, I'm not concerned with the Shermans losing the fights--they should--I'm just curious about how they seem to know that THIS PARTICULAR shot is going to kill them. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

The more I play VoT, the more I am convinced that most M4(75)Ws instinctively know when they are about to die. When they get this premonition of death, they flinch. This happens regularly in specific situations, so I'm beginning to wonder about it. The prescience happens when the Sherman is engaging the Panther or the 75mm pillbox at greater than about 250m. Just as the enemy fires the fatal shot, the Sherman goes into reverse and pops smoke. The enemy shell hits before the smoke blooms, so I end up with a dead Sherman coasting backwards and then the smoke appearing in front of it. So far every M4(75)W {but not (76) or (105)} that has been killed by these weapons at greater than 250m has exhibited this behavior. It happens regardless of how many shots are exchanged. For example, it might happen on the 1st enemy shot. Or the Sherman might trade 3 misses seemingly unperturbed, but then it goes into reverse on the 4th enemy shot and sure enough this one kills it. The only M4(75)W fatalities to the Panther and pillbox that have not crayfished like this were at closer range. And I have never seen a Sherman survive when it goes into reverse and pops smoke. Death during this process is so constant that I've come to use this behavior as a way to quickly determine my tank losses for the turn. I watch the movie up close on the critical assault, then at the end I scan the whole field for puffs of smoke. If there are any, there is always a dead Sherman behind, and replay on this tank always shows the crayfishing during the time of flight of the fatal shell. Is anybody else seeing this, or am I just having a run of bad luck? If it is a real phenomenon, what causes it? Can the Sherman see the fatal shell coming like I can and thus realize it's doomed? Or does it suddenly get a deathwish and deliberately back into the shell, which otherwise might have missed? ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Actually, there's been a lot more done on CMMC than is apparent on the CMHQ-Annex pages. The campaign has been designed, OOBs for both sides have been established, the overall commanders for both sides have been selected, and I think even the first batch of player assignments have been made. In addition, a WHOLE LOT of rules have been written and we have a very good idea of how we're going to run the show. At the moment, we are mostly awaiting the release of the game to finish up a some things. All the maps have to be made plus we're going to build some CRTs for things that happen outside tactical battles based on blowing stuff up with the CM engine . Then we're going to have at least 1 CPX to test the overall system before we fire up the CMMC for real. Also, all involved need to gain experience with the full version of CM and read all the CMMC rules we've been writing. So don't expect CMMC to start for at least 4-6 weeks after CM hits the doorstep. As to how CMMC works, it's going to be the email blitz from Hell . The basic unit players command at the bottom level will be a battalion. These battalions will fight PBEM battles. These battles will be created by the GMs based on the orders of the battalions, which will be generated by a whole chain of command up to at least corps level composed of other players. The idea is that players will command a battalion in 1 division and hold a staff position or high command postion in another division or corps of the same side. All these plans and orders will go via email. CMMC will feature not only tactical PBEM combat but also the deep battle of arty and air. Plus supply, engineer efforts, managing replacements, creating ad hoc units from non-combat troops, etc. Each "turn" of CMMC will be about 6 game hours, and all tactical battles within this period will be PBEM'd out at once. We are allowing about 2 weeks per "turn," so basically 1 real month will be required to play out the daylight hours of 1 game day. We expect CMMC to cover about 1 week of game time, so that means about 6 or 7 real months. Substitute players will be provided when you need some time off. Anyway, that's pretty much the situation right now. If you're still interested, go sign up at CMHQ-Annex. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Lewis said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hope there is some other advantage then to being unbuttoned. If what bullethead is saying is true, why not just button up all the time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Seems to be 2 main advantages to being unbuttoned. First is the tank itself has a better chance to spot something. Of course, this usually just adds a layer of redundancy to your spotting chances because tanks usually don't go around by themselves. The big advantage is reaction time. Even though an enemy unit might be spotted, it seems to takes buttoned tanks longer to target them. At the same time, buttoned tanks also seem to suffer more from target fixation than unbuttoned tanks. So, unbuttoned tanks are more likely to shoot at new targets sooner and react faster to threats that appear during the turn than buttoned tanks. Very important when getting off the 1st shot really matters. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS I can see if OTHER shermans had an LOS and then the info would be shared on the platoon or company tank radio net but to have a telepathic connection to a bazooka crew is kind of streching things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed, but there's no good way to model DIRECTLY such lack of inter-unit communications, at least from what Charles was saying. OTOH, the game does a pretty good job of doing this indirectly by such things as increasing target acquisition time as noted above. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

I have seen a questionable targeting decision by the AI. As the Germans in VoT, it shelled the patch of woods just south of Hill 198. All rounds appeared to be 81mm HE except for 1 smoke at the very end of the barrage. This happened about turn 5 or 6. At that time, no US units were even as far east as the summit of Hill 198. And it wasn't US fire. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Mike D said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's rediculous to have guys just abandon a weapon when the first large caliber shell lands nearby and then never be able to reman it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is more to ABANDONED weapons than meets the eye. Back with the old demo at least, ABANDONED was essentially a sub-category of KNOCKED OUT. It meant that some sort of damage had been done and the crew left because they judged at the time that it was screwed, although it might not have been so bad in actuality. I think the main point of having both ABANDONED and KNOCKED OUT is that the former might be easier to return to service between battles of an operation. However, in the gold version, ABANDONED seems to have taken the additional meaning of panicked crews leaving weapons they know are functional. In this case, they MAY come back later. I haven't seen this happen, but I have seen bunker crews that I've just by-passed without firing on at all run from their positions late in the game. So, the question in the above mortar situation is what type of ABANDONED we have. If crews CAN return to undamaged equipment, then I'd bet you had the old type of ABANDONED with some damage to the weapons. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

iggi said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CE, the Shermans seem to spot my stuggs very fast. Is that due to the fact that the sherman is a tall tank thus exposing a small portion of it's silouette thus having a smaller chance of being spotted itself?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that IF the Sherman was hull down, its turret is smaller than the front of a StuG so it would have a slightly smaller chance of being spotted. However, I think other variables in the situation are more significant, especially in the CE situation where it's hard for the Shermans to be hull down anyway. The main one I've found is target fixation. If the Shermans are not shooting at anything, then they can spot StuGs pretty quickly and traverse their turrets rapidly onto them. OTOH, if you expose some German grunts and let the Shermans get all fixated on nuking them, it's much easier for the StuGs to pop up and nail the Shermans. BTW, back in the old demo, I think it was Eridani did some LOS experiments with the Shermans. The results tended to show that Shermans' eyeballs were down in the hull BELOW the guntube. The result was that Shermans really couldn't get into hull down positions. While their turrets might be above the horizon, they still couldn't shoot because the LOS from their eyeballs in the hull was still blocked. Thus, Shermans had to expose much of their upper hull to be able to shoot. I haven't yet determined if this has been fixed in the gold version. Lewis said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seems unrealistic to me. To spot (while buttoned up) a hidden infantry behind you, that isnt firing or moving makes for an unstoppable force. How can you bushwhack armor when they spot like a artillery forward observation detachment?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The buttoned tanks did not necessarily spot the hidden grunts behind them by themselves. Remember that there instant communication of spotting between units. So if ANY friendly unit spots a target, ALL friendly immediately know where it is and can fire at it. So I suspect the hidden grunts in this case were actually spotted by something else and the tanks just took advantage of this. This was discussed at great length months ago. Everybody agrees it has realism problems but there's really no practical way to limit intel between units while at the same time giving the god-like player the sum total picture from all his units. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 05-19-2000).]

My favorite thing is the Shermans soiling their skivvies on sighting the Panther bows-on at ranges greater than about 250m. The usual situation is as follows: 1. Panther and Sherman spot each other simultaneously. 2. Panther starts to traverse turret, Sherman slams it into reverse. 3. Panther fires main gun, Sherman fires smoke discharger. 4. Panther shell knocks out Sherman. 5. 1 or 2 seconds later, a cloud of smoke billows up in front of the dead Sherman. Oh well, at least it covers the surviving crew members beating feet for the nearest cover. Poor Shermans, they can't even wuss out successfully ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Yeah, Tim Brooks has greatly annoyed me in the past as well. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And now to my point, what do us wargamers do for a living?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm enjoying early retirement . To keep myself busy, I run a small farm, have a minor beekeeping operation, and make beer and mead as often as I need to. To satisfy my addiction to combat, I'm a volunteer fireman. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Michael Emrys said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From all I've read on this subject (no first-hand experience, thank god), men caught in the middle of a barrage got as close to the center of the planet as they could manage and stayed there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This can be considered a form of running way: straight down instead of horizontally ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

THE Charles said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh, and I've had units deploy almost in town when it's at +150%, so I think there's a bug in the deployment code somewhere. They don't stay near the zones, but are placed apparently randomly on the map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've seen some mis-placed units as well at 150% Allied forces. For the most part, the extra guys are just barely over the forward edge of the deployment area. However, once I had a platoon HQ all alone way out in front in the small valley north of Hill 198. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Lee said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was referring to the infantry had been caught in the open and running to the trees would get them out of the densest part of the pattern. And so, on the whole, would be a better risk than sitting right in the middle of a bombardment admiring the clouds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the problem I have with this is that you're talking about a rational decision here. I was talking about irrational decisions , which I think could be improved with more consideration of the circumstances. Although I can cite some counterexamples, most people with some training or experience in dealing with a threat retain enough basic knowledge to avoid the most stupid course of action even when panicked. Such knowledge seems to function like instinct. I guess this is because panic is an evolved emergency self-preservation reaction. Anyway, it seems to me that CM handles morale the same way in all cases, in a way similar to most other tactical wargames. Namely, if enough BAD THINGS happen, the unit will run away. In some circumstances, however, this is the worst course of action. When that happens, it grates a bit on my realism senses . Getting up in the middle of shelling is one such example. So is running out of a foxhole or building simply due to intense smallarms fire when there is no covered line of retreat. OTOH, abandoning the same cover due to direct tank maingun fire makes sense--the cover is not providing protection. I guess I'd like to see the decision of whether or not to run to take more factors into consideration. Things not directly tied to the unit itself, such as the availability of a covered line of retreat or the continuing nature of the shelling. Maybe CM already does this. If so, however, IMHO these considerations need to be given more weight. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

******** SOME SPOILER INFO IN HERE ********** . . . . . . . . As far as I can tell, when you play with FOW, the end-game kills are confirmed only. And this apparently works both ways. For example, today I was the US in VoT vs. the AI. I know for a fact the sIG killed an M4(105) with 2 crew casualties, totally obliterated a bazooka team and a flamethrower team (both with same shot, they were about 30m apart), killed all but 1 guy in a mortar team (plus tube knocked out), and took out 3 engineers. So if info was perfect, the sIG should have shown 1 M4(105) destroyed, 1 mortar destroyed, and 12 (maybe 10) casualties caused. It showed the tank and the mortar but only 2 troops. Likewise, in the same game, the Panther took out 4 tanks (killing 3 crewmen total), destroyed a platoon HQ, and killed 2 guys in a grunt squad. But it didn't show anything but the tanks. BTW, I still managed to win this game somehow, 65-35. Able Company got through the line but was going no further. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

While I haven't been shelled as much as Archangel, I do feel qualified to pick one particular nit about CM's modeling that I think will be pretty much universal regardless of the type of shelling in the scenario. This nit isn't with the shelling per se, but with the morale effects the shelling causes. Specifically, I'm bothered by squads panicking and running away en masse in the middle of a bombardment. In my experience, this doesn't happen. Shelling can scare (if it doesn't shake) the living **** outta you, very true, but while you might be blind panicked, you KNOW that if you stand up, you are going to be shredded. So instead of getting up, you try to claw your way deeper into the ground. Sure, an individual or 2 might get up and run, but most guys will stay on their faces. Those who get up are the ones that get killed mostly. So I'd like to suggest for the future that you tweak the handling of morale under shelling. Keep the morale STATES the same, but don't have the squad run away while the bombardment is still ongoing. Once the shelling stops, if they're still freaking, THEN have them run away. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Maastrictian said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I flamed the building behind the MG, hoping if it caught fire the fire would spread. It did! I knocked out the MG by setting the building behind it on fire. How cool is that??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's quite cool. Very good idea ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>5. Seeing other side -> this is most likely a video card hardware issue. Charles says that some cards swap video buffers out differently. There isn't anything inherently wrong with what your card is doing, but it isn't what CM expects. Probably nothing for us to do about it. Just in case, what card to you have?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM is using my Voodoo 2 card (Diamond Monster 2, PCI, 12 megs on-board, DirectX 5 drivers because no DX7 drivers and DX6 drivers have problems). I also have a Diamon Viper TNT 1 AGP with 16 megs and DirectX 7 drivers. Can't figure out how to make CM use this one tho. I'd like to try it because the buildings are NOT transparent with the Voodoo2. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Heinz 27, er 25th, said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The german Zeiss optics was far better than the allied optics. This should give the german gunners a higher hit possibility than the allied gunners. So far I have only seen that the german tanks and TD`s have higher hit possibility at long ranges due to their high velocity guns. The gunnery optics is infact a very important part of the tanks ability to hit targets accuratly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How can you be sure the better German accuracy at long range is solely due to higher velocity guns? I've never seen a break-down of where the numbers come from. But it seems to me that superior optics wouldn't make much difference at short range where anybody can see the target, and would only be significant at long range or in bad lighting conditions. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm