Gromit

Ooohhh! OOHHHH! I'll take it! Move!... Mine! Mine!! (with apologies to Taco Bell) BTW, Fionn, do you know if the Gold Demo will ship with any new units or new scenarios? Paul

RW: I think you have to write those off as out of your control. The way I try to think of a situation like that is as the commander (platoon or battalion) "you" probably were observing the Stug in action through your trusty binoculars. Even if you said that there might be a Stug commander around in another tank, who is to say whether or not the guy actually sees the "event" in time to radio a warning? I agree it's frustrating- but then again, that's war, right? Just food for thought! Paul

Jeb: Charlie and Steve are now calling the extended games "Operations" rather than Campaigns. There are some pretty recent posts if you search under operations, and a bunch of earlier ones under campaigns. The ops part is personally my favorite piece of Combat Mission. I can't wait to be able to create my own ongoing battle! There are many choices available- enough to make your head spin IMHO... "I'm dreaming of a See-Emm Christmas..." Paul [This message has been edited by Gromit (edited 12-12-99).]

Hello all: I have to say that Harold makes a good point and that my view is in agreement with Doug B's. It may take some time, but human nature being what it is, guys that continually use "gamey" or underhanded methods in CM will eventually only be able to play with the other "gamey" and underhanded players out there. The old phrase "Burn me once, shame on..." comes to mind. Don't get me wrong...I think it's OK to come up with fixes on these topics, though as some have stated, there are some that will always be around. Thanks for the info Steve. Paul [This message has been edited by Gromit (edited 12-12-99).]

Here's some info I found on the Fallschirmjagergewehr 42. (From US War Dept) It is listed as Model 42 Automatic Rifle. "Although the German nomenclature indicates that this rifle is intended to be an automatic weapon for use by parachute troops, it also can be used as a light machine gun or a machine carbine. The weapon is designed more like a light machine gun than a rifle. It is gas-operated, fitted with a permanently attached folding bipod, and can be fired automatically or single shot." It had a compensator attached to the muzzle, along with bayonet and provision for telescopic sight. Mag is held horizontally on left side. Rear sight graduated from 100m to 1200m. A later model was slightly heavier and more solidly constructed with the bipod mounted closer to the muzzle. Caliber 7.92mm Length w bayonet 43.75 in Weight 9 pounds Feed 20 round magazine As for what the book says on the larger caliber guns: The Model 15 Machine Gun (M.G. 15) was 7.92mm light weapon w/ a practical ROF of 300 rpm. Only weighed 15 pounds 12 ounces and used a 75-round saddle magazine. Short recoil, auto-only The Model 151/20 (M.G. 151/20) "has been found on an improvised ground mount as an antitank weapon and triple-mounted on a half-tracked vehicle." "The 15mm M.G. 151 is sometimes used instead of the M.G. 151/20 on the triple-mount. It often is supposed that these two are the same gun fitted with interchangable barrels; this is not the case, although the guns are very similar in construction." Caliber 20mm, Weight 93.5 pounds, Feed Disintegrating metallic-link belt, ROF 800rpm Ammunition "This gun fires HE, AP, and APHE ammunition." One snippet I found interesting was that the Americans say under the M.G. 42 section, "The weapon is fundamentally similar to the M.G. 34 and has the same short recoil action. It has no provision for single-shot fire, however." This implies that the M.G. 34 DOES have single-shot fire capability, although this fact is not represented in the previous section describing the 34. Hmmmm... can anybody verify this and elaborate on the single-shot capability of the M.G. 34? I would be interested to find out whether or not this was used much by the German Maschinengewehr crews. Thanks! [This message has been edited by Gromit (edited 12-12-99).]

I imagine many of you have already seen the HBO special Tom mentioned, "When Trumpets Fade". If you haven't, I highly recommend it. Good small unit viewpoint of West Front fighting in late '44.

Los and everyone: Great stuff! In reference to German optics and associated training, I highly recommend that you visit Wings Simulations website and check out their discussions/research on German methods. While I have not bought Panzer Elite from them yet (I hear it is buggy), I value Teut Wiedermann's opinions and am thankful they took the time to post interesting stuff such as: There is a excellent article on the German method of range determination for tanks. They used different size triangles in the optical gear and although the explanation can get convoluted to a non-tanker like me, I think this visual system (and good training) played a major role in German superiority when it came to putting effective fire on a given target. To my knowledge, none of the other major powers had anything to match the German optical system. I used to think that when people said "The Germans in WW2 had better optics" that they meant the actual materials and workmanship of the site, scope, etc.; but since reading the article noted above, I believe a big part of it had to do with the "triangles" system. Another neat page on the site has an actual diagram from a manual for training Tiger crews in range determination. Of course the writing is rather small and in German, but I liked it anyway. I am intrigued by the whole notion of powder quality in U.S. shells vs. other nations. I never knew that it was an issue. It's amazing that the USA ended up in the driver's seat when you consider all the technical handicaps the U.S. military had in WW2. Of course, logistics can offset other shortcomings... PW

Hawker brings up a good point that has always stuck in my craw- manuals. When I contributed to the TSoft board during the "East Front" Beta I begged them to not skimp on the manual and even suggested that I would be willing to pay an extra couple bucks to have a nice one. But did they listen? Nope! I then got the distinct non-pleasure of on the one hand getting to yell "Told ya so!!" while realizing I was the goat with said crappy manual in-hand! (Waaaaa!) It's enough to make you weep. I KNOW that TS has learned this history lesson guys- here's to hoping you won't have to repeat it yourself (hint, hint). Tanks for listening, Paul West

Hello everyone: In reference to the video issue- I can play great on a P400/128 w/16MB TNT but when I took the demo to a friend's to show him a problem cropped up. He has a P2/400 w/32MB Ram and a 4MB video card. I didn't think there would be too much trouble, however, I found that his machine is one of those $500 models that has a fixed set of hardware, i.e., you cannot replace the videocard, etc. and a sound chip on the motherboard. While the game ran without major problems, the action got to be "herky-jerky" and the framerate dropped dramatically compared to mine. I think the lack of a more "up-to-date" videocard (and possibly the sound too) made the fact that my friend had a P2/400 w/32MB superfluous. So what's my point? My friend is a longtime gamer who, despite the fact he is CNE and works with computers all day, decided to get a cheaper machine because he doesn't play 3D action or even real-time or simulation (air) games (the quintessential grognard!). I have a hard time believing he is the only one out there with his particular "view" of the computer gaming world... why risk alienating a bunch of people? CM runs great on my machine- I would like it to be acsessible to other people like my friend.