Harold Jones

I don't use any mods. Never really cared much about how the game looks (beyond the level needed to depict a 3D environment) or sounds. The cool thing is that since they have no impact on game play I'm not obligated to install them to play someone who is using them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pitz: ...Other thing is, where can I get a list of commands that i can actually print out in AScii. I rather need it to program all my devices. Thank you, pitz<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Appendix A of the manual has a complete list of the commands.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harold Jones: Got the poster yesterday so I hope the game will be waiting today. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was, see you guys in a week or two.

Got the poster yesterday so I hope the game will be waiting today.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trooper: If you shot up a BTR-80 from the side with an M829A1 or similar top-of-the-line KE round, it has a good chance of going in one side, and right out the other without doing a heck of a lot of damage. (Kills anyone in the way, maybe a little spalling, that's it). A HEAT round is a little more devastating inside a soft-ish-skin vehicle, you have this super-hot plasma stream running around... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I saw this myself in the gulf, my tank and 3 or 4 others engaged a Cascavel (French made armored car with a 90mm) with APFSDS rounds all the rounds hit but there wasn't a whole lot of apparent target effect. Since US doctrine calls for engaging until the target burns or changes shape my tank reengaged with one HEAT round. The effects were immediate, the turret blew off (probably the result of ammo cooking off) and so did most of the suspension components on the side of the vehicle facing us. A HEAT round will tend to penetrate the armor and then expend the rest of its energy inside the armor envelope. For a sabot round to be truly effective you need a target of a certain mass otherwise they just blow through both sides with minimal damage. HEAT rounds are also useful against bunkers and troops although an argument can be made that carrying a few HE rounds would make sense as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Harold, those who read with the "Next Newest Topic" link are always taken to the top of the first page of that next thread. So if the first post is identified as a spoiler thread, you're covered- the follow-ups can be presumed to be un-secure. If you decide to introduce spoiler information into a previously "safe" thread, the polite thing to do would be to post the SPOILER message followed by the blank lines. I don't think everyone will follow this, but it really is well-intentioned toward both the regulars, and newcomers who will surely be flamed for not knowing the rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hadn't looked at from that angle since I never use the next newest topic thingy. My hope is that people will be understanding of those who inadvertantly post spoiler material. Granted I should know better than to ask a question about the Brumbar in the production version of Riesburg without putting in the spoiler warning but people should be aware that mistakes do happen and that coming down on the poster with both boots isn't necessarily the best way to correct the situation. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

Does this mean that every time I want to contribute to a discussion about a scenario or ask a question about one, that I will have to put SPOILER or POTENTIAL SPOILER at the begining of the post for as long as the game is discussed on this or any board?

VOIP Engineer and SS7 guru for a rather large long distance company.

Voted gave it a 90. It's not perfect but the closest thing I've seen to it so far.

Here's the thing, not all casualties are KIA. This means that not only do you have to drop a marker for each kill, but you have to have a marker for wounded/incapacitated, walking wounded that is self evacuating and the odd psych casualty that refuses to advance or respond to commands. Imagine that you are playing a BN level battle and you have one to one casualty representation, I'm sure that eventually you would be overwhelmed with all the different casualty types appearing and in the case of the walking wounded and psych cases wandering randomly around the map. Add to the effect on the player's ability to command his troops, the impact on the processer as it now has to effectively track the status of every individual soldier in the battle. I'm not sure that all of the above is balanced by the information you would glean from a trail of bodies leading up to a machinegun position.

Pounded the Germans like a cheap steak, I had 16 kia and lost a 105 Sherman (to the infantry gun) I sent most of my troops through the woods to the south and and poured most of my arty on the town and the hill behind it. When the troops made it to town they just had to pick off the survivors. All and all it was a blast.

If CM was capable of modeling the imperfect information that a commander really has about a situation then I think that the sound cues would be vital. However, because of UI and horsepower limitations this is not the case. The player has perfect knowledge of every spotted or suspected enemy unit that any unit he controls can see or thinks it can see. During the replay if I set the scale to max and use one of the overhead views what my guys say is irrelevant because I will see everything that they see as soon as they see it. If during the replay I see a unit take a lot of fire or do a lot of firing I'll check them out otherwise I assume that they are combat capable. One of the best things about this game is that it doesn't require micromanagement and even rewards an intuitive style of play. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

Madmatt said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Remember that WHAT the voices say is VERY important. Those are audio ques and give you feedback as to what sort of situation a unit is facing and how they are dealing with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mostly all I hear them say is "move out" or something like that. I turned all sound off after 3 turns of that. If I see a bunch of tracers converge on my guys or something burst into flames I know it's something to worry about and I'll check it out or if I see my guys hitting the dirt and staying there then I get concerned. Tonight when I get home I'll play with the sound on and see if the chatter makes a difference.

First, I know it is the Gold Demo, the change would of course be applied to the release version, perhaps in the network patch. Second, I find the voices repetitive and sort of annoying. I found them so in the beta demo as well and in fact made the same request. Third, It's not a big deal and in fact I attempted to delete the whole topic shortly after I posted it. Actually, I was going to change the post to something innocuous since as soon as I hit the submit button I thought "Hey, let BTS enjoy the afterglow." When I hit the edit button on the post it gave me the option to delete it and so I tried that. Then I left for work secure in the knowledge that this thread was gone. Looks like it isn't so my apologies to BTS for raining on the parade so quickly. It is an amazing accomplishment and I can't wait for my CD to arrive.

Sooner or later after the new is worn suffciently off the demo and release version, people are going to want changes made. So I thought I'd start. I'd like to have a toggle to turn off the voices.

CrapGame asked <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is that last line Rommel?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Frederick the Great said it I believe. Nice job BTS.

Wild Bill said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I won't convince you, I am sure. And I KNOW you won't convince me, so we'll leave it at an impasse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep

Zamo, It is the idea that cartoon blood and gore can somehow make a game "realistic" or more accurate that I object to. I do not need to see little cartoon corpses bleeding little cartoon corpuscles to know that war is hell and battles have a cost. You bring up a good point about the burning vehicles. I have a deep and personal understanding of what exactly is in those burning hulks. I know what armored vehicles look, smell and sound like when they burn, but a burning cartoon tank does not offend me in the slightest. The closest I can come to an explanation is that the burning vehicles represent a thing and not a person, the people inside are an abstraction. Bodies on the screen, although you can make the point that they too are an abstraction are not enough of an abstraction to suit me.

Actually I was the only person who posted that I had considered cancelling my order over the body thing. See the Them's bodies thread for an explanation.

All, I apologize for the overly dramatic nature of my post. Had I been more awake I probably would have just e-mailed my concerns to BTS and been done with it. I actually had no real aversion to bodies or gore in the game until I saw some of the lame reasons people wanted them in, my personal favorites were "so we can see that war is hell" or "so we can appreciate the sacrifice of the brave veterans". The more that I saw posts demanding bodies the more opposed to their inclusion I became. After months of "no reason for bodies" posts by BTS, one fine morning I see them saying yep there are bodies in the game but they are tastefully done. It was a bit of a shock especially since I was only halfway concentrating on the thread when I was reading it (I had been on an obscenly early conference call since 0230.) My initial thought was "screw it I don't want any part of this" Then I re-read the various posts and I realized that I had allowed the gloating tone of the posts by those who must have dead bodies on the map to influence my interpretation of BTS' explanation. Although I still would prefer the option to use something other than bodies to mark the demise of a squad, BTS has provided a valid reason for including the feature. It isn't really a rational thing with me at this point. Had I been more awake I probably would have just e-mailed my concerns to BTS and been done with it. (Fixed a spelling error) [This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 05-02-2000).]

I very nearly canceled my preorder after reading this thread, but after re-reading the posts from BTS I decided to let my order stand. If I find that I really don't like the bodies scattered around the battlefield I'll just put the game on the shelf and move on. Since the final code is set, my hope is that BTS will include the ability to toggle the marker on or off and/or provide an alternate marker either as a seperate patch or when they make network play available.

As a former M-60 tanker I can expand a little on Zamo's comments. The periscope cover on the loader's hatch is held shut by a spring loaded latch. Usually a few whacks on the cover with a hammer are all that are needed to spring the latch. Then it is a simple matter to stick your hand in and pop the hatch. Against a fully manned tank this would not be an easy task. The drivers hatch on m-60's with active IR driver's night sights had the same type of periscope cover so even if you din't have the key to the lock on the loader's hatch you could still get into those tanks.

Huzzah! Too bad I'll be away at training through the end of May. Don't supose it'll run on a laptop? Just watched the movie and its great. I just have one question why does that pill box burst into flames after that guy pees on it? [This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 03-28-2000).]

Wow what a complete and utter waste of bandwidth. I'm surprised that BTS has left this open this long. This topic was destined to descend to name calling and flaming the minute it was posted. No one who has posted here will have in any way changed anyone else's opinion about the subject being discussed. That said, here's my two cents. There was a time when I always played the German side in any wargame I played because they had the coolest equipment and those cool uniforms. As I got older I read more about the war and just as importantly the prewar and I realized that the Nazi regime was just plain evil. You can argue all you want about specific incidents but you cannot take away the fact that the Germans started the war with the sole purpose of conquering and enslaving other peoples and that both the civilian population and the military supported this course of action. The military did object but only on the basis that they weren't fully prepared not because an invasion of Poland was wrong. The allies were not perfect and they committed the unpardonable sin of winning even though all they had were those uncool looking Sherman tanks, only moderately cool T-34's and boring olive drab uniforms, but I don't know of a single rational person who would have liked to live in a world where the axis won. [This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 03-13-2000).]

Tank crew were not in any danger from the muzzle blast of their cannons, nor would any passengers have been. Passengers on the back deck might be a concern when traversing the turret. I have personally experienced the muzzle blast of 105 and 120mm cannons, and they both pack one heck of a wallop, but neither will kill or even seriously injure an exposed crewman or back deck passenger. This leads me to conclude that the 75 and 90mm cannons also posed no danger to the crews or passengers of the vehicles these guns were mounted on. Of course those grunts too close to the muzzle may have been in danger of having their ear drums ruptured or even receiving some minor burns. I suspect that in order to be killed or even seriously injured you would have to be extremely close (a meter or two) to the muzzle when the gun fired.