M Hofbauer

ok but could you still please say where it gioves those figures in the manual (original US manual, no CDV schnickschnack)? I really would like to read up on it.

that doesn't quite sound right to me. are you sure you don't mean 10% *above* and 10% below? the way I read your post suggests 10% are below, and another 10% are even lower in experience (=2 levels). btw care to point out where exactly in the manual does it say that? I can't find that info, neither on pp. 171ss nor 183ss. ??

I think that what lies at heart of the matter of this whole affair is the ooooold problem of the artificial "turns" of the game. Discussed since the inception of the game, and again and again thereafter, there are still two sides to it. Those that say that the absolute turn limit (even now with the relative variance in absolute ending) just models the orders to "take that bridge by 15:07 hours so that X company can travel across with its guns to reach their destination Y to support other element Z". In other words, time limits are for real, and if you fail to take the objective by a certain fixed absolute date then you lost, no matter how good your preservation of forces or kill ratio. (counted into this group are also those that maintain that one coherent amount of battle action is always around 30min and never longer. IMHO these ppl do not actually belong into the first group, because their reasoning still doesnt justify the absolute turn limit). Then there is the other party that maintains that such an absolute time limit is rather the exception than the rule, and usually the order would be to advance towards a town or other general direction, but with a speed and method at the discretion of the commander undertaking the action. If the CO stumbles into some special opposition, he would think of a way to tackle that, and not rush headlong into it because "it is already turn 24 of 25 turns". If it takes ten extra minutes, so be it (Some of these players/people are even inclined to go so far as saying fixed restricted VLs itself are more the exception than the norm). Plus, whats even more important, these people maintain that the fighting does NOT have an absolute end at all. In reality, life (or rather, fighting) goes beyond turn 30. IRL you cannot leave your advance elements exposed and isolated, and you can not use up all your troops in an all-out battle for one objective. And the map is not a world unto itself, but only a small sectuion of a larger picture. So there you have the two types, the Peiperesque "we need a daring action and take the VL within 28 minutes, because need to secure the bridge by 13:06 before the enemy relief company gets there" type of daunting breath-taking exchange of stunning heroic and daring action(aided by the absolute map knowledge and beehive information and C&C of such a game) vs the unglamorous, gradual and careful advance in a general direction/towards a general objective (which usually involves several hours of fighting flaring up and down, resupply, reinforcements etc.). Both types of action occured historically, and there are some players preferring the former and some the latter. And I think the conflict between Vadr and BadgerDog stems from the fact that Vadr would be categorized in the former group, and BadgerDog in the latter group of players. The game favors (=better applies to) the former, for a number of reasons. [ January 20, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Fallschirmjäger does not equal Airborne. Many Fallschirmjäger never ever saw a carrier aircraft, much less jumped out of one.

he does have a point though. there are issues/questions that need to be answered. "just think like reality" does not always work. for example, crater vs woods. when you have a crater, fine. an emplacement would only show half of the weapon above the rim of the crater. good cover. when you have woods, fine. the foliage and trunks and branches cover and conceal a lot of your emplacement. so, the best place to put your AT gun piece would be the crater in a patch of heavy woods, right? meeeep - wrong. woods has higher rating than crater, and the crater in woods is still a crater, so that you are better off placing the gun beside the crater in uncratered wood terrain. ?!? a run-down like we had for CMBO (there used to be an excellent post done just the kind this guy is looking for) for just these considerations (what is better? light building or light woods? brush or wheat? etc. etc.) would not only help this guy here. unfortunately the manual does not give concrete technical data on the various terrains' cover/concealment values.

ROTFL...

not sure if I understand what you are getting at. first I thought you were clamoring for a decent strategic/campaign feature to be added to CM. fine with me. but the rest of your post seems to suggest you are actually thinking of creating such an encirclement on the game map??? if that is what you are advocating then all i can say is you're totally out of scale. We are talking strategic moves. These encirclements were huge, and don't fit onto a CM map. But still, I am not really sure what you mean. care to re-phrase?

strange that it should only occur in "multiplayer" and not in singleplayer.

Yeah, but I want unit bases that look nice so I can leave them on. Just because they're unrealistic doesn't mean they have to be in-your-face unrealistic. Round ones, rings, or hex even - something other than the floating painted plywood. Or a bmp that can be modded. Something like this: </font>

I think what he is trying to say is that he thinks there is a problem with the graphical representation of knocked out tanks in so far as that due to this graphic representation he feels himself unable to quickly and effectively tell dead tanks from live tanks at a glance. The solution as offered with the game, namely unit bases, serves this purpose but does not meet his criteria of having the difference shown not with clearly visible (-> ideal for quickly and effectively telling dead from live tanks) unit bases but with a means that also pleases his expectations in the eye candy aspect. Videlicet, he wants billowing wite smoke clouds to emerge from knocked out tanks. That is, unless the vehicles are burning, which, in his opinion, (presumably together with the accompanying black smoke / soot clouds billowing up) sufficiently qualifies as a means of identification of a dead tank both in the "easy-to-tell" and the "eyecandy" categories. And while at it, he would also like to have a random explosion of knocked out and abandoned tanks. This due to the random nature ofthis effect obviously does not serve as a means of identifying knocked out / abandoned vehicles at a glance, and only scores highly in his "eyecandy" category. But it also raises an interesting question: what about a quick means to identify *abandoned* vehicles? surely these vehicles would have to be similarly quickly identifiable as being non-threats just like knocked-out tanks. however, it is just as plain evident that a vehicle which was merely abandoned by its crew would not realistically generate white (or black) smoke at all. So that even if the original poster's wish was realized by an implementation of a white smoke cloud for "knocked-out-but-not-burning(anymore)" tanks, he still wouldn't be able to tell at a glance yet for sure non-threat tanks from still dangerous tanks, that is, unless he would resort to the intended method of the game, id est, using unit bases.

Klans in CM? oh my...

well I guess we all here assumed that this was not possible. you know, there are times when the enemy is at the other side of the house and you do not have LOS to him? well, then it *is* a problem to target them.

and there's your answer.

surely you meant 180° ?? othwerwise, I sure would like to know how you do a complete 360° with the rotate command. seriously, a PAUSE function pertaining to the firing of mortars, AT gun pieces, AA gun and assorted other equipment would be rather useful. There are workarounds for some, but not for allpossible applications of such a command/feature.

LOL

? what? where? I don't see no secret weapon. care to be more specific?

The MG on the cupola was mainly for AA defence. It wasn't a standard fixture however. Mace</font>

in theory, yes. in praxu, however, the MG opening was often covered up with a characteristic cylindric-pyramidical cover armorplate.

unfortunately, that won't work, the 234/4 looked quite a bit different than the 234/3. actually, showing a Pak40 minus wheels on a 234 chassis is WAY closer to it (after all, that was practically what the 234/4 was) than lengthening the 234/3's L/24.

Gordon, why?

artillery pieces usually have different charges for different ranges. for short range, they usually would use a smaller charge, not an over-elevation (in excess of 45°) I think you are misassessing the real world use of artillery as explained in your post. The instances where you would have high-angle short-range fire are very rare in real life. For such occasions, howitzers and mortars are built. Even at shorter ranges, the usual drop in regular artillery fire suffices for usual terrain features. And you will (practically) never have an artillery gun fire straight up so that it comes down after 100 meters. It would use direct fire that way, or not fire at all.

</font>

btw, sorry, I wrote that last post offline, and did not account for the posts since my original post here. I think the issue of ballistic "detour" (as opposed to direct distance the sound takes) and the issue of decelaration are valid concerns. Obviously, their importance and relevance increase exponentially with firing range.

That is technically correct. 88s were artillery after all, AIR DEFENSE artillery. I remember a discussion we had on 88s in an indirect fire role. Although it happened on occasion, by far most reports of 88s are probably a case of "88itis", as one poster so eloquently put it. However, one of the few instances someone stated back in that thread was the use of an 88 battery in an indirect fire role in Normandy. However, those were most likely not the ones from that example in your BoB story. IIRC Zetterling does a good job of taking a closer look at the usage of the 88 in Normandy, and of rectifying some common misperceptions about that, in his book Normandy 1944.

total BS. Most if not all artillery rounds are faster than speed of sound. Only a few hollow charge and HE from stub-barrel guns might be subsonic.