Dar

"What's a man have to do to get some animal crackers around here?!" -Me in the vending machine lounge today. Dar Steckelberg

Cool beans! Thanks, Steve! Dar Steckelberg

From what I've found through searching, there are at least these terrain types available: ****************** Clear Tall Pines Heavy Forest Light Forest/Orchard Walls/fences Hedges Hedgerows Brush Wheat-/Corn-Fields Lake River Swamp/marsh Bridge Tall Bridge Ford Road (paved or dirt) Single-story Building (wood or stone) Two-story Building (wood or stone) ********************* And now the inevitable questions: Have I missed any? Are individual trees allowed? Areas strewn with rocks or boulders? While varying elevation is, I assume, all you need to do to create hills, spurs, ridges, etc., can you make a steep slope that is impassable to vehicles or a cliff impassable to both vehicles and infantry? I'm not including what I assume will be player-deployed improvements, such as wire, foxholes, pillboxes, etc. Just the basic terrains available to the map-maker. Thanks, Dar Steckelberg

What makes a tall bridge different? I thought I'd read earlier that while bridges were included, there was no logic to let a player move units under them. Do tall bridges have this vertical dimension now? Thanks, Dar Steckelberg

Cool! Thanks, Thomm! I posted a thread a few months ago on one of the Usenet gaming groups about wanting a B-17 sequel. I'm glad to see it will be a reality! Dar Steckelberg

Ah, well... While I am a professional developer, I do client/server development, which is typically not that graphics-intensive, so I assumed sprites were not nearly as taxing as polygons. What do I know? I can understand your point about depicting unit behavior vs. individual behavior, but that's not a concern of mine. Even if all 8-12 men in a squad are doing the exact same motions and look exactly the same, it would be fine with me. My point is, I would find 3 12-man squads crossing a field under fire, losing and leaving individual bodies across that field as casualties are incurred, and arriving at the objective as 3 6- to 8-man squads, more intensive psychologically than 3 squads, depicted as 3 3-man units, moving across that same field and arriving as 3 2-man units, with that 3rd man mysteriously vanishing along the way. You have had my pre-order for at least two weeks already; I am very excited to get this game; and I'm sure it will be just as intense and visually appealing as the screenshots and movie clips I've seen suggest. I understand you have to make design decisions based on existing technology, time and budget constraints, and other factors. However, there's just no satisfying everybody completely--as I'm sure you well know! Dar Steckelberg

BTS: I'm sure you have many justifiable and good reasons for using the three-man polygon-based graphics for depicting infantry squads, but I hope in future releases that there will be the hardware to depict all squad members man-for-man with polygonal figures or that you will use sprites. In looking at the AARs posted by Fionn and Martin, I love seeing the blazing wrecks littering the landscape and showing the progress and hotspots of the battle. However, I also miss seeing the bodies strewn about depicting where an MG opened up or a mortar caught the squad in the open. Even though infantry sprites would lose the 3-D effect you are grandly depicting with the vehicles, buildings, and terrain in general, I would gladly exchange the infantry polygonal figures to see a platoon of 30+ man-sized sprites crossing a field with the occasional figure dropping still to the ground for the rendered 3-4 units of 3 men each that may be suddenly reduced to 1 or 2 men as casualties mount, despite the ability to view those latter units in correct perspective from any angle. While the wrecks and shellholes are a terrific touch, the absence of dead and dying men strewn across the landscape makes the battlefield look sanitized. This depiction of showing where the heavy fighting took place with scores of motionless figures is one of the features I greatly enjoy from Sid Meier's Gettysburg. Anyhoo, I know I'm going to love this game as is. I just have to put in my two cents time and again. Dar Steckelberg

I found a couple more references to Allied air attacks on friendly units in Normany during the hedgerow fighting. I found them in the Time-Life WWII series book <u>Liberation</u>. The 30th Division had a detachment of eight tanks fired on by friendly tank destroyers and later strafed by fighter-bombers (pp. 30-31), but there aren't too many details beyond that. I assume these may have been 9th Air Force planes, as the 30th had later encounters with them in the Bulge, related earlier in this thread. The second incident was during Operation Cobra, in which the Americans launched an attack along the Périers-St. Lo road. On 24.July.1944, over 300 bombers dropped their loads on German and Allied lines, killing 25 Allied soldiers and wounding 131. The Germans probably suffered little, as the bombs fell on an area the Allies had recently vacated to create a "safe zone" between the lines, and they had had time only to establish a few outposts there. German Major General Bayerlein, sensing the attack that would follow the bombardment, moved up more forces and the Allies could not even regain the territory they had vacated. However, due to poor visibility and weather, the bulk of the air attack had not dropped their loads, and the bombardment was re-scheduled in full for the next day. That day, 25.July, over 1500 heavy bombers, 400 medium bombers, and 550 fighter-bombers were set to attack. Additionally, 125,000 rounds of artillery were to be expended. The bombers did not come in parallel to their lines as desired, because the air planners felt that would restrict them to the narrow side of the rectangular target area, meaning the planes would be bunched up and make easy targets for Flak. They came in over the heads of the Allied soldiers instead. Unfortunately, this meant that as the smoke from earlier formations' bombing drifted back over the Allied lines, subsequent flights targeting the smoke line would drop their loads closer and closer to the Allied lines until they were falling into the lines. End result: 111 American men killed, including Lieutenant General Lesley J. McNair, and 490 wounded. Countless others were dazed and shocked. However, over 1000 German soldiers had also been killed or wounded after Bayerlein had unwittingly packed them into the target area to fend off the attack from the day before. Eisenhower was so disturbed by the losses that he vowed never to use heavy bombers in support of a ground attack after this. Dar Steckelberg

I imagine that in battle, anything that can happen often will. There have been a few surprising actions in this battle so far, like the StuG taking out the hull-down Jumbo; the Panther immobilising the Sherman behind the house, which was later taken out along with the house; and the dead-eye (Holzauge!) pilot nailing the Panther one turn and the other StuG in the next breath. However, this is only one battle, and I wouldn't put too much stock in the results from one battle. That's where a multitude of Beta testers comes in handy. If Beta testers start noticing a trend after recreating scenario after scenario after scenario, then perhaps something should be done. Steve, do your Beta testers have any automation capability and do you expect to have rigidly defined criteria for them to follow? I.e., will someone concentrate on something like trying to move vehicles into forbidden terrain (houses, rivers, trees, off-map, etc.) while another person concentrates on vehicle collision handling, another person look for LOS/LOF inconsistencies, and so forth? Thanks, Dar Steckelberg

Didn't see this site mentioned after searching, and it looks like a site that would appeal to most folks in this group: www.achtungpanzer.com They have some terrific information on most makes of German AFVs from WWII, and you must read the bio of Michael Wittman and analysis of the destruction of his Tiger (I suggest you use the site map instead of the main menu to navigate--much more detailed). There was also an interesting tidbit stating that the Nashorn was the only vehicle to destroy an American Pershing in action, although no source mentioned. Enjoy! Dar Steckelberg

I would agree that the extra 1 mm wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. However, there must have been some increase in the velocity if the 76mm were dramatically more effective than the 75mm. Note that the German Panther's gun (75L70) was much more powerful than the PzIV's gun (75L48), despite both being 75mm. Likewise, the King Tiger's gun (88L71) was more powerful than the Tiger's gun (88L56). Each gun compared was of the same caliber, but the barrels were longer in the more powerful versions, and, I'd be fairly certain, the shell had more propellant. Dar Steckelberg

Aaron had mentioned earlier in this thread that "skipping" cannonballs had been de rigeur at one time. Does anyone know when explosive shot and shell became used widely? As I recall, from the first use of cannon through at least Waterloo (1815), cannon only inflicted casualties by striking the victims directly (whether solid-shot or canister). It wasn't until the American Civil War (or possibly the Austrian Wars of Succession?) that exploding shells were used to cause casualties by percussion and shrapnel. Am I way off here, or is this somewhat accurate? Dar Steckelberg Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Aaron: Just want you to know that I've gone back to the electro-shock treatments since the medication wasn't working. The streets are safe again. Dar Steckelberg

And that reminds me of a German soldier's take on aircraft identification on the western front after D-Day: If the plane is brown, it's English. If the plane is silver, it's American. If the plane is invisible, it's German. Dar Steckelberg

Someone had mentioned recently, in an article I can't find (one of the PoW threads?), an American unit being called "America's Luftwaffe" for their habit of bombing friendly units. From what I can find, it appears to be the 9th Air Force. I found in John Toland's <u>Battle: The Story of the Bulge</u> the following excerpts: pp. 230-1 <BLOCKQUOTE> At 3:26 P.M. [23.December.1944] six B-26s of the 322nd Bombardment Group approached a town nestled in hilly forested country. The flight leader...[e]ven on this clear day...hadn't been able to locate his primary target, Zulpich, Germany, a railhead for Brandenberger's Seventh Army, but he concluded he was over Lammersum, only six miles northeast of the target. As his plane swept over the center of town, thirteen 250-pound General Purpose bombs dropped from the bomb bay. The other five planes of the flight dumped their loads. ... Twelve thousand feet below, dazed American soldiers of the 30th Division and hysterical civilians were crawling from the wreckage of Malmédy, Belgium--39 miles away from Lammersum. ... Moments later General Hobbs, commander of the 30th Division, was angrily talking by phone to an air force general. Hobbs was bitter. It wasn't the first time he'd been bombed by the 9th Air Force. His men had already dubbed it "the American Luftwaffe". The air force general was dismayed. "It can't happen again," he promised. </BLOCKQUOTE> Later in the book: pp. 270 <BLOCKQUOTE> ...Christmas [25.December.1944] was drawing to a close in Malmédy. Men of the 30th Division and civilians were digging for survivors of another friendly bombing--for the third day in a row. </BLOCKQUOTE> It's only one reference. Has anyone else found a reference to this or other units? Dar Steckelberg

Gee, Fionn, with medical studies, an upcoming wedding, and other things distracting you, perhaps *I* should fill in for you and do that alpha testing. Dar Steckelberg Hey, it's worth a shot!

- a standard tactic to hit a fugitive hiding behind a car is to shoot, at a shallow angle, at the pavement just in front of the car. Gee, I would have thought the idea was to puncture the gas tank and get a fugitive flambé. Dar Steckelberg "Tastes like chicken!" [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 09-07-99).]

Roger that. I bought CC3 on sight after being so impressed by the first two. Will I buy CC4 on sight? HA! Not until I read at least 738 glowing reviews (and if I can find the money and strength after playing CM so much I lose my job and forget to eat). Dar Steckelberg

Two questions: I seem to recall that the MG42 was of the wrong shape to be fitted easily into hull MG mounts, so they continued to use the MG34 in those mounts. Has anyone else read this? The MG42 was a brilliantly easy design to manufacture, but something about the machine-stamped casing around the block made it too awkward for AFV mounts. Secondly, does anyone recall who the German general was who began the practice of making field manuals and technical manuals use a comic-book style presentation? I believe it might have been Guderian, but I'm not sure. I just recall they started presenting the material in a more light-hearted fashion, using cartoon drawings of scantily-clad babes to present technical info and keep the attention of the average Soldat-reader (and probably led to the beginning of that dominatrix-in-the-Gestapo-uniform fetish). Damn--I *swear* I saw a picture of such a manual somewhere on the Web in the last week or two, but I can't find it. I'll post a URL if I can find it. Thanks, Dar Steckelberg

Are you sure that's Hemingway's quote? If so, it sounds like he ripped off Thomas Edison's quote about "genius" being one part inspiration, nine parts perspiration. (not *trying* to be nit-picky, just curious) Dar Steckelberg [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 09-04-99).]

Firing AP at infantry? I knew German optics were good, but targeting individual soldiers with cannon? Damn! Dar Steckelberg

Steve: I was curious about how Martin's Sherman, which is engaging the HT racing along the road to the south of it, will behave when the HT dips into low spots where it can't be tracked, as Martin described the road (turn 16). Will the turret continue to attempt to track, stay facing the area where the target was last seen, or return to a hull-aligned position? I was wondering how the TacAI will behave in this situation. Not that I expect to be disappointed with any answer. Any of the three reactions would make sense: you could hope for the target to maintain speed and direction and show up again; you could stay facing that direction where you last engaged because you're not sure where it will pop up again; or you could return to the hull-aligned position because you expect threats from that direction and that's why you have your thickest armor facing pointed that way! But I'm wondering if there is a set behavior. Thanks, Dar Steckelberg [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 09-04-99).]

Hee, hee, hee... As a post script to that, I remember reading that the hydraulic fluid in those tanks (T-55/64/72, I believe) was alcohol-based and drinkable. If you drank it all, I wonder if you were stuck to rotating the turret by hand? Dar Steckelberg

Steve & Doug: Sorry about the math. They shoved so much of it down my throat when I was getting my computer science degree that I have to take every opportunity to show I got something for my education. (Computer Science degree = Math degree w/2-3 programming classes... well, almost) ___________________________ Oh, and let *me* tell you about feature creep! I've been working on a project for a company right now since February, and *I*, an intermediate-level developer, not the project manager, took it upon myself to write a spec after three months of meetings full of "oh, we should include this," and "it'd be cool if..." so we could see what the hell we were supposed to code. And who's the person who keeps suggesting additional features four weeks before release? The Project Manager, who's supposed to be keeping us insulated from such requests from the users! Oh, if I survive this thing, I am *never* working with these people again! /rant... Sorry... I had to vent! Anyhoo, on a more serious note, I want to thank you, Steve, for not releasing this game yet. No, not because you don't feel it's ready yet, but because there are still a few more weeks of good weather out here in western PA that I need to get out and enjoy. This BBS alone is taking up so much of my time as I try to keep up with all the news and investigate every thread and search on topics to find out everything I can about this game. If you released now, I would have no social life and a pasty-white complexion and the equivalent of bed-sores on my butt from playing CM 24/7. No, I'm not being sarcastic--I'm serious! Please release this right around the time the snow starts to blow and I can stay glued to the screen all day guilt-free! Dar Steckelberg [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 09-04-99).]

Ah, well, to each his own. Personally I like the idea of no guarantee that reinforcements will show up. I'm just that chaos-loving kind of guy! Dar Steckelberg