FEBA

Checked the mail. No CMBB. Hoped for it, but did not expect it. Although... in my fantasies, somewhere in the eastern US a sleeper cell of German agents taxis their Junkers JU 52 from its secret hanger to fly one last mission: a load of CMBB games to be dropped on the unwary heads of Texans. Look to the skies ! They may be coming !

mod board. An idea who's time is rapidly approaching...

$4 for shipping and $3 for handling seems very fair. I'm no expert (believe me!), but the following things must occur: 1) Single item or bundle (CMBB/CMBO) retrieved from inventory. 2) Invoice printed and included with order 3) Order inserted into shipping envelope. 3) Mailing label applied. 4) Inventory records updated. 5) Shipping paperwork updated / prepared. These things don't come for free. The cost of the game is for the programming (and production). Something I'm very willing to pay for, worth every penny. The cost of handling does not come for free either. Someone (aka an employee or shipping house, who is/are paid for their time) has to do all that prep for shipping and thats called handling. That adds up to money when you are talking thousands of units. I trust BTS to charge a fair price for their time and costs. And to ship the product in a fair amount of time starting on the 20th. Are you REALLY whining about $3 handling ? Hard to believe.

Ouch, I don't know what hurts more: the knowledge that our german friends got CMBB first or the pain/joy of being taunted with screen shots! Thanks ParaBellum for taking the time from playing to post the pictures...It hurts so good. BTW, I hope the AI whips your a**.

Accolades to the AI! Now get to work on those sitting players too !

- Barticus :eek: Groan! Lock this thread now ! Besides, we are all too busy watching our mailboxes to read it.

Gosh, something to aspire to! But, by posting a response to your message I reduce my award winning position! :confused: Maybe I should shut-up for another 20 or so months to maintain my position. By then, I'll hopefully have something useful to say about CM2. BTW, how do you track the status of those who have never posted ???? ...And do you count off-topic posts discussing lurkers ? Is there a lurker contest rule set I can see ?

I am playing a "3rd-party" created operation and I want to do a strategic retreat. By that I mean withdraw a large part of my forces to the rear (off-map) and fight the next battle in the operation from there. The terrain left to me as a starting position after the completion of the previous battle in the operation is perfect tank country. However, my forces consist of a some infantry, a few AT guns, and a few recon vehicles. My enemy has at least a dozen tanks !! My thought was to withdraw and live to fight another day. However, I just tested and if I move a unit off map, it doesn't come back in the next battle, it's lost. It seems I am forced to fight and probably die even though I know there is good defensive terrain off map to my rear. The operation is about a desperate defense trying to hold open a retreat route for other friendly forces and I expected to be outnumbered. I have been doing pretty well, but its hard to hold out with a primarily infantry force (although they are SS motorized) against a well equipped combined arms opponent. I feel a little cheated having this impregnable force field to my rear preventing further retreat until the magic clock says the wall can come down. BTW, I am being vague about which operation to avoid spoiling other players enjoyment as well as I don't want to let my opponent know too much. (Although this gives him a really good idea of my capabilities.) Any ideas or words of encouragement :confused: ? ----------------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Does anyone else in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE not have it yet? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do not. I ordered CM in November... I made a little/teensy mistake when entering my VISA expiration date. BTS was kind enough to send me an email informing me of my mistake, but my ISP was kind enough to interpret it as spam, and deleted it before delivering it. Aren't they industrious? If all went well my copy has been mailed today. I am waiting for the CM scenario editor, with which I will create hordes of virtual King Tigers which I will then direct up my modem and into my ISP's email filter. Then there will occur a great wailing of programmers! The entrails of the program will be ground under the treads of (THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST AUTO DELETED BY FEBA's ISP. HAVE A NICE DAY. ) Smilies auto-extracted from other people's email and inserted here to distract FEBA with MrPeng's wrath. [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 07-06-2000).]

I like the idea of limiting WP to 4.2 chem bn and such. But it would seem from the following quote that WP was definitely known and used for its anti-personnel capabilities. If an officer outside the arty arm noted its effective tactical use and that the Germans were "very allergic" (I think he means when they saw WP they moved away quick.), meaning they knew what WP could do, it should have some game effects other than just smoke. (BTW, the speaker is rather cold blooded by modern standards.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Despite the weight and ammunition problem, it is a magnificent and extraordinarily effective weapon. The mortar is most effective with white phosphorus and HE. The Germans are very allergic to white phosphorus anyway and we would root them out of their holes with well-placed rounds of phosphorus and, when we had them above ground, we plastered them with HE. We killed large numbers of them that way, and they sure dreaded the mortars. They are the equivalent of real artillery. We also used them in the assault coming ashore. I have said we used them; I really mean the supporting chemical troops used them. They did such a good job with us, we got to regard them as our own people. The prize package was one day when a chemical officer actually dropped a round of HE from one of his mortars into the open turret of a German tank... - Lt. Col. Wiegand, CO, 2nd Bn, 179th Inf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> refer: http://www.4point2.org/hist-2w.htm [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 06-01-2000).] [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 06-01-2000).]

sbg2112: Cordite? No... "I love the smell of napalm in the morning..."

Davedial wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Help the developers help themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did. I sent in my pre-order. I hope that lets Steve and Charles spend the time to do CM right knowing that there is support out here for their way. Davedial, please don't be a hypocrite, follow your own advice: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Start turning your back on this forum, start leaving... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTW, my shirt color is true blue.

Thanks Matt! I'm drooling over those Arnhem pics!

I see the point about a player looking through a list of scenarios to choose whether he wants to be attacker, defender, or have a meeting engagement. When that is the case the SIB info becomes a moot point, because the player already knows the stance of the enemy. In this case it doesn't matter if its displayed within the game or not. Again, when the engagement is an historical recreation the SIB tactical stance only reflects what the player already knows. Again the info is nice, but not necessary. However, I think another class of scenario exists. This would be an ahistorical (but plausible) scenario that has been created with the maximization of FoW desired. These might be scenarios created for tournaments or just for players to enjoy. In these, it might be possible to create plausibly incorrect briefings and let the players use their skills to determine and react to the true situation. I know all this is a minor point, CM does a great job with FoW... But, I am enjoying CM so much (and this is just the DEMO!!!!) that I want to see it become even better. "Only on the finest gems do minor flaws become major." The feature list for CM1 is probably frozen, but for future releases I would like to suggest an option where the scenario designer can designate UNKNOWN (or maybe "FoW") for the tactical stance. On the topic of victory flags, I agree with pford...I'll defer talking about that until I have a chance to do a search and see what others have said.

Gosh, I'm going to have to give up working for a living, I need to devote more time to CM and this BBS. For the record, I too agree with the sentiments Fionn is defending. I made a mistake, and hope I didn't spoil too many games. I did feel "slapped" rather than "reminded", but it was late, and I can react as thin-skinned as the best of them. If the board needs a "Spoiler Whipping Boy" I'm as good as the next guy. I got caught up in trying to explain my point, which doesn't even depend on "Chance Encounter", and forgot the spoiling impact it might have. Speaking of my point... I still think the tactical stance information on the Scenario Information Panel (SIP) is contrary to the "Fog of War" environment BTS is trying to achieve. Consider: Each commander has his own briefing and his own setup locations. From this he knows what his own stance must be to achieve his objectives. He doesn't need the tactical stance info to say ATTACKER or DEFENDER, he knows. The briefing may also give recon on the enemy. Recon may be correct, out of date, or just plain wrong. Consider a scenario, like CE, where one side is advancing, but the recon is incorrect and the enemy has reached the objective first, or perhaps was undetected in a overlooking position (such as a woods). Now what do we put in the SIP? Do we put DEFENDER for one side, clueing in the other side that, hey, this ain't gonna be a meeting engagement after all? Do we put ATTACKER in instead for the defending side, to fool the other side into thinking it is a meeting engagement? I think the tactical stance information only conveys information about the other side, something I think shouldn't be done. All opinions welcome. (Fionn, If you want to weigh-in, please do. I respect your knowledge of both CM and WWII.) Thanks go to Madmatt for being proactive and "spoiler proofing" his thread. It was only after I had looked at the picture and reflected that it had Shermans and Stugs that I realized the combination excluded the other demo scenarios. Again, for the record, I enjoyed the picture and know you weren't trying to spoil. I apologize for embarrassing you. I should have emailed you my concerns before posting. pford: Thanks for the insight into the US briefing. I wasn't faulting your tactics, I was just trying to get into your head and figure out what you were doing. That got me thinking about the tactical stance issue. You surprised me by advancing so quickly, because I'm often conservative and thought you would be. Keep it up, that's why I like playing humans!

Fionn, You also might want to propose the same for other threads that you have read which provide much more specific and detailed information: Hmmm, Close Enough? (pic) The picture quite clearly shows forces available to the US and German. As the German player I find myself quite interested in the count of M4s shown. Lance [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-24-99).]

Sorry, I obviously did not intend to spoil your game. I have added a spoiler prefix.

I just had to add this. I wrote the previous post waiting for my opponent's turn to come in. It arrived just as I completed the post. Here's the text portion of his email: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> [This is him from his previous email] Trying to flank me? have you determined my strategy? [This is my response from my last email] Well, actually I was hoping you would be more timid in coming into the crossroads. [His response this turn] When I was timid in the Riesberg.cmb, I got the c**p beat out of me. When I aggressively moved into defensible positions, ie buildings, I did much better. I dreaded the idea of all my tanks on an open road. Since this is a meeting engagement, I assume you would not be set up in the buildings. I didn't think I would have to contest them. Question: is all that smoke from me or did you add to it? You know, those damn flags give too much away. I cannot see you in the woods but I know you are there. Bang Bang.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Read that one sentence again... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since this is a meeting engagement, I assume you would not be set up in the buildings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Even more to think about... I should add that we both agreed not to look at the other sides setup or forces or read the "Spoiler" threads so we could have the fun of playing true FOW. Lance [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-23-99).] [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-23-99).]

- - - - - Possible spoiler for "Chance Encounter" _ - - - - - - OK, I have a FOW question. Has anyone discussed why the tactical stance of each side(Attacker/Defender) was put in the scenario information panel ? It seems to me that this knowledge is more than a tactical commander might have. The Chance Encounter scenario is a case in point. I feel that the US commander should not be informed that the Germans are "Attackers". If I were him, given the operational situation, I would expect to be running into a positioned rear guard/ambush or a counter attack, but I wouldn't know which. Because the scenario has the German labeled "Attacker" the US player has a different expectation of what he is up against. For example, he might think that rushing up to the town is a good idea, because the German is not positioned, the German is labeled as an "Attacker". If the US commander doesn't know what the German stance is he might be a little more careful about running into town... Maybe hiding the tactical stance information could be a FOW option? Any opinions? Anyway, just a thought. BTW, I realize the name of the "Chance Encounter" scenario does sort of give the situation away...but thats a different issue. Lance [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-24-99).] [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-24-99).] [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-24-99).]

I've seen a panzerschreck in Reisberg set woods on fire. I heard the "woosh" of a launch, but couldn't see where it came from. The woods began burning right after the sound. A few moments later I spotted a shreck carrying SOB running out of a building and the formerly hunted target tank became the hunter. BTW, One of my infantry squads in the burning woods hustled clear of the fire without me giving it any orders.

Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! Danke! Danke! Danke!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>there are about 2 billion scenarios waiting for you<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My wife isn't going to like hearing that... [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-14-99).]

Doug, Thanks for responding. In my post what you called "Vehicle Image Magnification" I called "vehicle scaling". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I then thought: "Of course!, I’ve got vehicle scaling turned on, that makes the tank model too big. It only looks like it passed through." So I cranked scaling down to "reality" level. However, no such luck, the 88 selection rectangle still was positioned in the same place on the tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Still looks like it passed through. I think Steve gave a good explanation of what happened. I'm satisfied and I think we can let this thread sink down the pile. [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-11-99).]

Thanks for the quick reply Steve. Don't you guys at BTS ever sleep? (<Sigh>…to have a job I loved that much…) The shot, although close, was a clear miss on the intended target tank. The target line goes from the 88 to it. The two vehicles were about 40-50 meters separated. I didn’t really expect to nail 2 for one (thru both side plates of a Sherman is a lot of armor.), but I can dream, can’t I? I guess I will have to be satisfied with knowing that the intervening tank commander’s virtual pants went from olive drab to brown. As a software engineer with 20 years experience I understand the choices that must be made for performance. (Remember the days when core memory was counted in kbytes?)Maybe someday when 2ghz processors are the norm you guys can model most of what you’d like. I’ll be in line to pick up CM5 when you do. Meanwhile, I’ll just have to make do with the best state-of-the-art WW2 tactical sims out there, CM1-4. (We want Russians! We want Russians!...Opps, wrong thread.) Lance [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-11-99).]

I am really impressed with CM, have pre-ordered, and am eagerly awaiting the final version. The game is great. I was playing Reisberg as the German and was on turn 3 when my 88 opened up on a Sherman 515 meters down the road. The target was on the left hand side of the road. The round missed. A second Sherman was closer to the 88 on the right side of the road, but out of LOS. While the 88 was reloading, the second Sherman reversed and rolled out onto the road presenting its broadside to the 88. He was apparently positioning to get an HE shot at the 88 (What an idiot!). The 88 kept the original Sherman targeted. I thought "wow, at 515 meters, I might just send a round through both sides of the intervening Sherman and nail the original target. The 88 fired…and hit nothing. Damn I thought, "How could he miss?". Did he fire high?, did he fire low?, did the round go to the left or right? It sure looked like it passed through the intervening Sherman. But there weren't any hit sounds or any detailed armor hit info. I decided to investigate. (Just can’t believe my 88 boys would miss.) Using rewind, I went back before the 88 fired the second time. I had to replay it several times hitting play, then quickly pause. Finally I caught what I wanted, which was the 88 round, just after it had passed the intervening Sherman. I selected the 88. I then went to camera 1. Looking along the line of flight I lined up the round and the 88 selection rectangle. When I was done the selection rectangle was positioned just above the round. This meant that I needed to get lower than camera 1 would allow to truly line up. However, the 88 selection rectangle was overlayed on the intervening Sherman about 2/3 the way back on the hull with the top edge touching the turret. If I had been able to drop lower than cam1, I estimate it would have been overlayed partially onto the track and at least half onto the hull. I then thought: "Of course!, I’ve got vehicle scaling turned on, that makes the tank model too big. It only looks like it passed through." So I cranked scaling down to "reality" level. However, no such luck, the 88 selection rectangle still was positioned in the same place on the tank. Seems to me this should have been a solid hit, unless the Sherman was moving in reverse at some amazing speed. The Sherman hull is about 6.5 meters long and the shell when I lined it up was about 3 "Sherman lengths" beyond the possible intersection point. The line up intersection point was about 1/3 of the Sherman’s hull length from the end and it was moving in reverse. That means it had to move about 2 meters while the round traveled around 20 meters. That means it had to be moving at a speed about a tenth of the muzzle velocity of the 88 to have the shell pass and then intervene between the 88 and the shell. The CM data box shows the 88 muzzle velocity was 773 m/s. That puts the tank moving at 77 meters per second (in reverse)!! For those metric challenged, I think that’s about 166 miles/hour. I can’t explain it. Anyone have any theories or see where my methodology might be wrong??? I really hope that I have made a mistake. At worst I have uncovered a bug during beta which BTS can fix. Maybe they already have. I took a bunch of snapshots from different angles showing the path of flight and the things I have described. I have the game up now (11/11/99 - 12:50 AM). I will try to leave it up all tomorrow so I can take more pictures if needed. (Windows 98 may decide to die in a spurious manner in the interim.) If anyone at BTS or one of the well respected posters here on the forum has any interest in investigating this I will make the files available. They are big. I have a cable modem limited to 128Kbit upstream. Like I said at the beginning, this is a great game! The amount of information I can gather to record to report this possible problem is a testament to how much detail and work have gone into it. Pford: This is why I didn't send my email turn for our "Last Defense" game last night...