CrapGame

I must say, with complete honesty, that only on this company's board would a plea like this even be acknowledged, let alone get some form of positive response. Thanks for simple pleasures. Kip, thanks for starting the thread. I must now return to the evil task of converting the rest of the young adult males in my office to CMBO converts. 2 down, 2 to go.

Rule No. 1 - Never lead with your armor. It will end up dead. Quick. Rule No. 2 - Bounding overwatch works, but have an infantry screen ahead, 1/2 squads will suffice Rule No. 3 - Any time you have your armor in front of your infantry, see Rule No. 1

I have only had one kill of an AFV with rifle grenades. What was reported to be a "Tiger?" got immobilized in one of my minefields, however, it was neatly out of LOS of my AT guns. Every time I tried to get a bazooka near it, it would tear it to shreds. So, I split 1 platoon into split squads, had my 81mm FO smoke the area, and ran the split squads to all points of the compass around the tank. The squad that got to the rear first KO'd it with the first shot, and when the smoke cleared, the lousy Mk IV was no more.

Smoke them! Use your FO to drop smoke on their positions. They will not be able to tell when their screen dissipates, and thus will throw off their response. You may be able to use that lull as your opportunity to take their position.

Thanks for the input. Could you explain the Nvidia bug? The machine is coming from Dell, so I imagine there is a pretty good chance of it being an Nvidia video card. Also, are there any driver issues that I should worry about? Thanks.

I am receiving a new 1.7Ghz pc at work in the next two weeks or so. It is going to be a Win2K based machine, however. I want to install CM on it, but don't know if it will work. Is anyone using this successfully? Thanks

I look at it like this: If my recon sources have found out what they are up against, then my enemy certainly has an idea as to what they're going to be up against in terms of units, etc. If their observation post sees some guys wearing a shoulder patch of the 3rd Armored division, they certainly would expect to see some Shermans etc., coming their way. Unless, of course, the recon units are from Hollywood, in which case they arrive undetected, gather perfect intel, and make it back to base in an incredibly short period of time. That much detailed recon has a lot of potential to be abused in a gamey manner, through the purchase of maximum recon info and artillery power. Who cares if you have shelled a few false targets, when the chances are good that you have gotten a few real ones as well.

The FO is spotting for an off the map battery of mortars.

I'd go out and collect recyclable cans at a nickel a piece if I had to raise the cash to buy this game again. It'd be worth it in a second. I've had it since the beginning, and I can count the number of times it has been out of my cd-rom drive on one hand. In fact, my incessant ranting about it at work has caused a co-worker to get it last week, and now his wife hates me as much as my wife hates Steve and Charles!

Don't forget to download the latest patch!

Zimmerit is just a paste applied to resist the ability of magnetic mines to stick to it. I don't believe it added any armor value. I also think its use was discontinued before the war ended, but I am sure some of the grogs can correct me here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The AI of Close Combat is not bad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, then how do you explain the Close Combat AFV Dance of Death??? The CC-series AI is nowhere near to the same caliber of the AI in CM. Not even close. Crapgame

But what about this one Finnish ubertruppen and what he did that one time at band camp with a flute..... Crapgame

She isn't already a closet member here without you knowing it, is she? Possibly with a name like CATNIP???? Just curious...

Hi Mom!

I used a 90mm AA gun for the first time in a random QB last night. I thought it had a pretty good rate of turning from target to target in comparison with some of the other big guns. Maybe I was hallucinating? Crapgame

Artillery and tank guns are totally different animals. With artillery, you know the distance your shell has to travel based on your location and the location of your target on the map, so all you have to do is dial in the correct elevation of the barrel to get the required trajectory for the shell to travel the correct distance. In combat with a tank gun (in the CM time period without laser range finders, etc.), the distance is not very accurately known, and therefore, a knowing the trajectory path of a shell is useless. Therefore, the ideal shell will have as little trajectory (fly very flat) as possible over as great a range as possible, thereby ensuring a greater hit percentage regardless of variations in the range of distance to the target. How is this achieved? Greater muzzle velocity. The faster the shell gets there, the less time gravity can affect its flight path. Hence, other things being equal, higher velocity = flatter path = greater accuracy over a given range.

It is a good question for Rexford, but I do believe it has to do with higher velocity shells taking less time to reach a target. The less time it takes to get there, the less time gravity has to work on the shell's path, and thus the faster shell flies "straighter" or on a "more level path" than the shell traveling at a lower velocity. This can be roughly translated into higher accuracy, as there does not have to be as much guessing what the arc to the target should be in order to hit it. Crapgame

PL, I'd like a crack at it, if you would be so kind. CrapGame

Oh Behave Baby! PawBroon, You just made me spit my coffee all over my monitor. That might be one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. Crapgame

If it is anything similar to the probability of reinforcements showing up, then it is not a fixed %. They probability will change based on how the battle is progressing for their side, and will change based on the assessment of AA capability, etc. I hope someone in the know can increase the specifics here.

If it is anything similar to the probability of reinforcements showing up, then it is not a fixed %. They probability will change based on how the battle is progressing for their side, and will change based on the assessment of AA capability, etc. I hope someone in the know can increase the specifics here.

I used to think that this was a really gamey tactic, until the AI used it on me in a scenario. Using an extremely well-planned and executed bazooka ambush, I had an HQ unit and 2 bazooka teams in 2 different buildings proceed to knock out in order: a MkIV(J), a StuH and finally, a Panther A, upon which the AI controlled crew of the Panther got out of their wreck, and proceeded to exterminate both bazooka teams and the HQ unit in order. No runs, no drips, no errors. Watching from up close camera 1, it was the hand-to-hand combat sound too, not the usual gunfire. After seeing that, I figured if the AI's brain can do it, then I can too. To hell with gamey. Crapgame

I had an elite sharpshooter take out 2 arty spotter teams in a large qb versus the AI. They were id'd as infantry? until my advance passed them up close and they became arty spotters. I now always like to have at least one on my team. Crapgame

I really don't believe manufacturing capability would have much of an impact in a future conflict. If the opponent was large enough to require more MBT's, etc., than those already in place (i.e. Russia, China?), then that opponent already has more than enough technology and firepower to prevent the US from getting those wonderfully new, mass-produced AFVs across the pond to wherever the conflict may be throught the use of sub-launched or air-launched cruise missiles. This is on top of the already diminished capability of the shrinking US Merchant Fleet. This is not attacking the effectiveness of the US Navy, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that even a slew of Aegis systems can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of low-tech (and very cheaply made)cruise missiles.