Dar

Damn! It almost seems to me that what you guys need to do is find a middleman who already plans to be travelling sometime early next year to the USA who could pick the copies up and bring them back for you! I still think $100 US will be a relative bargain considering the outstanding quality of CM, but you certainly shouldn't have to pay nearly twice as much as others because of where you live. Dar

I only hope that CM becomes the equivalent of Panzer General when it is released. That is meant in the sense that it will appeal to a broader base of gamers and introduce people to wargaming like PG did. CM has the visual and aural appeal and wonderfully simple interface that PG has, and that will get people hooked long before they realize just how complex the game is. Only after they've oohed and aahed over the ability to replay a turn repeatedly from any angle and level until the initial novelty wears off will they realize that this is not the "beer and pretzels" game that PG is, but by then they'll be addicted and will want to learn more about the strengths and weaknesses of different weapons, AFVs, and tactics. Aside from the pure satisfaction of playing CM, I am looking forward to seeing a surge in wargaming popularity and historical interest. I'm also excited about the standard CM will set in the industry. We wargamers can only benefit across the board from this. Dar

You have to remember that with a lot of software companies, making money is the bottom line. Historical accuracy and realism are obviously not primary concerns for Atomic beyond CC2, but flashy graphics and killer rocket-firing tanks are--and in this day and age that's what appeals to a lot of people. It sounds like Combat Mission is a labor of love for Charles and Steve. Yes, they definitely want to make some money (Side note to Pirate scum: and they'd better get their money to reward them for these years of hard work and so we can see CMII, CMIII, etc., so buy your damn copy!), but they are focused on delivering a quality product. I also believe that the axiom, "Too many cooks spoil the soup" applies to software development only too well! While a project as large in scope as CM has got to be a daunting prospect for only two people, it also streamlines the specification and design aspects. They knew what they wanted; they could quickly reach consensus on what goes in and what doesn't; they didn't have to compromise their design decisions to appease a bunch of ignorant middle managers. You've seen how many "suggestions" and "improvements" people post here (from myself included)--fortunately, though, none of us have the authority to insist something goes in that might compromise the accuracy or integrity of the product. Too often in software development you have to compromise in this way and a potentially great product becomes mediocre. Dar [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 11-24-99).]

Yeah, I've had a few of those messages, too. I imagine it may mean hitting the turret ring or a vision slot or some other area that the armor is not uniformly spread across the surface, and not an inherently weak or defective spot of the armor plate? Dar

Just curious about how realistic this is and what potential it could have, if feasible and realistic, for inclusion in future releases of CM: Currently, when you get an artillery observer in CM, he is tied directly to one battery and is useless after that battery has expended its ammunition. What I would prefer to see and understand to be more realistic is that there should be "generic" FOs able to call any of the available batteries on a target. In other words, I shouldn't have 1 81mm mortar FO and 1 155mm FO, but two observers that could call in a barrage from either (or both!) batteries on a location. Obviously, a battery currently engaged against a target would not be on call to another FO until its fire mission is over. Does this make sense and is it realistic to you readers with a more advanced knowledge of artillery practices? Dar

I'm curious if anyone can point me to a good reference about boresighting and how it was done. I assume that "true" boresighting involved looking straight down the bore from breech to muzzle, and I've read about occasions where this was practiced, as in one encounter where a US 155mm SP gun used boresighting to take out several German pillboxes. The gun commander actually let the infantry company CO he was supporting look down the barrel and sight the gun on several pillboxes (in the book <u>Roll Me Over</u> by Ganttner, IIRC). That sounds a little too easy, however, and I assume that there was more to it than that. Is it possible to boresight on more than one location and use the artillery equivalent of aiming stakes on those spots? Is all boresighting done by speculation/calculation, i.e., you can't fire test shots because you'd broadcast your location and tear up the target area to advertise it was zeroed in? I assume such factors as distance to target and muzzle velocity, at the least, were used to calculate the gun elevation? Thanks for any info! Dar

You can simulate them, too, with "scattered trees" terrain. That's the only wooded terrain that allows vehicle movement through it, although it's slow! Unfortunately, the graphical difference between "woods" and "scattered trees" is not very appearant. Of course, open ground or brush can just as easily be used for your path. Dar

Could you post some examples of these toe-to-toe fights? Aside from Tet battles in Hue, I'm not familiar with more set-piece fights in Vietnam. And can we actually have a thread on this bulletin board as of late that will NOT degenerate into a juvenile flame war? It really doesn't matter who starts it--responding to it and feeding the fire degrades everybody involved. It's getting more and more difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff anymore with this garbage-flinging going on. Dar

Schrodi, I think something like Vietnam would make for a pretty slick game, but I don't think the CM engine would be appropriate for it. Since there were very few set-piece engagements, unlike WWII (European theater) and Korea, it would seem rather dull to me to attempt simulating it on the same scale. The older DOS game "Seal Team" was a lot of fun, and I would love to see how well that engine could be enhanced using today's hardware. Recreating Vietnam on a squad-level/individual control seems much more manageable (and fun!) to me than on a company- to battalion-level/squad control basis like CM. In my opinion, Vietnam and WWII Pacific theater battles would be the equivalent of filling a CM map with woods and forests and battling it out with visibility of 1 to 2 tiles and the inherent, restricted mobility of the terrain. A real slugfest that doesn't appeal to me at all! Dar

R Cunningham: Thanks for the post and the links! Great stuff--I'm going to have to get my German/English dictionary out for the Panzermuseum stuff. I can't quite decipher the stuff regarding protection from rain without a little help. Thanks again! This really helps. Dar

What do you mean "We've already seen the cutaway diagram that Mattias has"? I haven't! Is it posted somewhere? Helge, Thanks for continuing to investigate this! I'm really looking forward to what the Panzermuseum has on this weapon. Dar

Even if you can't see what hit the track, though, shouldn't you get a label describing the damage to the vehicle? You know, "Top Penetration" or "Side Upper Hull Penetration" and such. Dar

Fionn: That's the best excuse I've heard yet about the lack of concentration of force! I can see it now--"Sorry, men, but we can't all attack at once. We outnumber the enemy 2:1, and that's just not fair." That's just priceless. I can't believe they tried to justify that to you with a straight face! Dar

This has got to be the 38th thread about this PBEM stuff! I still say we can do a turn in two emails and keep the current cheating precautions in, but I've already posted that about twelve times and won't rehash it here. Coffee--The reason PBEM is so important to me is because this is not a RTS game like "Age of Empires" or "Sid Meier's Gettysburg" where both players constantly have something to do and which lend themselves well to TCPIP play. With CM, one player is always going to wind up waiting for the other player to finish issuing orders after watching the film X times before they can do anything--especially if you're the defender. Another reason for PBEM and, especially, streamlining the PBEM down to two emails/turn is because you have Yanks, Kiwis, Aussies, Brits, Scots, Swedes, Krauts, Frogs, etc. playing each other all over the world and it may be 3:00 AM for your opponent when you're ready to send them your turn. So I don't expect this topic to get dropped for some time until the PBEM scheme is improved. Just my two cents back atcha! Dar

You know, I wasn't even thinking at the time (I do that a lot--post, then think!), but if CM models the trajectory of individual shells and rockets, then they inherently have less chance to hit something moving laterally, right? I mean, the chance of the trajectory of a shell hitting something moving laterally as opposed to something moving directly toward or away from the firing unit is, by nature, less. Or am I posting before thinking after thinking after posting? Dar

Yeah, the one about the NYC water supply tunnels is also quite interesting. Can you believe NYC has been supplied water through only two underground tunnels for around 100 years now--under continuous operation with no downtime for maintenance?! One thing you have to watch out for, though, is the tendency of producers to throw stock footage in those shows every once in a while. Like when you watch a show about the Bulge and suddenly they throw in a scene of PzkW I's in Poland! Dar

Steve, I remember when Doom first came out and was such a big hit that the developers were rolling in the dough. Are you going to be like John Romero and go out to buy new toys (only in your case, something like a Candy Apple Red Pershing instead of a Ferrari?) after CM conquers the world? Dar

It seems to me that "Sneak", being the equivalent of "Hunt" for infantry as I understand from earlier posts, really is a misleading term. It is my feeling that one would think you could give "Sneak" and "Hide" orders to move someone into cover to target, but from my experience they will open fire at any soft enemy unit they see while moving and <u>then</u> hide. I've learned from experience that I should instead order "Crawl" and "Hide" to keep them both from firing and exposing themselves to enemy fire. This is purely semantics, but I feel this command should be re-named "Advance" or even "Stalk" (to keep the "S" shortcut key) or something more symbolic of what it actually means. To me, "Sneak" means stay low and stay quiet while seeking a good position to whack the enemy. The actual movement order, however, means advance and engage. Anyone else agree? Dar

Yeah, that's a good question. I've wondered myself if weaving those Hellcats down the hill on Last Defense would be more effective than dashing them straight into town. Weaving would take longer, but make them harder to hit in reality because of the lateral and vertical alterations the firing unit would have to make to track it. Dashing straight into town would be quicker, but make for easier vertical tracking. Are those factors taken into consideration? Dar

Due to the FoW settings, you may not know what the final outcome of your hit was. You say it penetrated, but you may not know that it disabled the gun and/or took out a crew member. I've had a few AFVs effectively rendered useless in this manner, although they were still manned and mobile. Dar

I vote no. For the cheating problems, primarily, but also because the AI needs a solid base to work with and tweaking the units could reduce its effectiveness. The only thing customizable, aside from scenario generation, that I'd like to see is graphics and perhaps sound. However, they don't affect gameplay, and I think that integrity needs to be maintained. Dar

Funny, I thought the opposite was more likely: that the Germans were more likely to close assault AFVs, and that they used these defenses to prevent the enemy from using the same tactics against them! I recall reading that the Zimmerit coating especially was used as a countermeasure against the ATMMs (anti-tank magnetic mines) that the Germans used to such effect on the Eastern Front. However, the Western Allies never used or issued ATMMs. Dar

This is not an extension of the flamefest under the same topic! This is a genuine question and bid to understand more about this weapon and any other unusual close-in defense weapons AFVs used in WWII. Before the last thread degenerated into its own private war, I managed to glean that the Nahverteidigungswaffe was basically a 92mm mortar that launched an HE shell. It could be reloaded from inside the turret/hull by the TC. My questions to the more enlightened readers are: o Did this round detonate in an airburst, or did it have a contact fuse? It seems to me an airburst would be more effective, although a little hard on any exposed objects, like AAMGs, but then those could be damaged by small arms fire anyway. However, a contact fuse round could conceivably land a little too close to the AFV and ruin a tread, thereby immobilising it, I would think. Anyone have the specifics on this? o Were there smoke rounds in addition to HE? Or other types of round, e.g., signal flares? o Did the Allies attempt any such close-in counter measures? It seems the Germans particularly were quite active in coming up with defensive measures for AFVs vs. infantry, such as the Nahverteidigungswaffe, Zimmerit anti-magnetic mine paste, and even a bent barrel hull-mount MG. The effectiveness of these measures could certainly be debated, but did the Allied armies attempt anything similar? Dar

Sounds like the "Holy Hand Grenade" would actually belong to this church! Dar

Let me explain it in an alternate format, since some people think the other thread was too technical or wordy: <FONT SIZE="3" FACE="Verdana, Arial" COLOR="#000000"> <TABLE BORDER CELLSPACING=1 CELLPADDING=7 WIDTH=590> <TR><TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> </TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> Current CM Method</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> Proposed Method</TD> </TR> <TR><TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> Setup</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> A enters setup and emails setup to B.</P> B enters setup.</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> A enters setup and emails setup to B.</P> B enters setup.</TD> </TR> <TR><TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> Turn 1</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> B issues orders for turn 1. B sends orders file to A.</P> A enters orders and generates Turn 1 film. A emails unseen film to B.</P> B views film and emails back to A.</P> </TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> B issues orders for turn 1. B sends orders file to A.</P> A enters orders and generates Turn 1 film. A emails unseen film to B.</P> B views film, issues orders for Turn 2, and emails Turn 1 film and Turn 2 orders back to A.</TD> </TR> <TR><TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> Turn 2</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> A views film and issues orders for Turn 2. A sends orders to B.</P> B enters orders and generates Turn 2 film. Emails unseen film to A.</P> A views film and emails film back to B.</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> A views Turn 1 film and issues orders for Turn 2. A generates Turn 2 film.</P> A emails unseen film to B.</P> B views film, issues orders for Turn 3, and emails Turn 2 film and Turn 3 orders back to A.</TD> </TR> <TR><TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> Turn 3</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> B views film and issues orders for Turn 3. B sends orders to A.</P> A enters orders and generates Turn 3 film. Emails unseen film to B.</P> B views film and emails film back to A.</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> A views Turn 2 film and issues orders for Turn 3. A generates Turn 3 film.</P> A emails unseen film to B.</P> B views film, issues orders for Turn 4, and emails Turn 3 film and Turn 4 orders back to A.</TD> </TR> <TR><TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> Result</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> 3 emails/turn after setup</TD> <TD WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"> 2 emails/turn after setup and Turn 1</TD> </TR> </TABLE> </FONT> See? You don’t need to remove the cheating precautions, you just allow each player to view the film of the current turn and enter orders for the next turn. Once you complete the setup and generate the initial turn, it's two emails/turn. No cheating, no swapping film files without sending orders, just watching and ordering. Life is good. Dar PS -- I tried unsuccessfully to change the font color and don't know why that spacing is there before the table--well, it's not like anyone's going to read this anyway! [This message has been edited by Dar (edited 11-10-99).]