M Hofbauer

Thanks for the explanation, Agentorange, but I had been there and taken a look before I asked in my post. It's just that the information there isn't very helpful or specific - " Divisional support " can be anything from artillery and engineer assets to dentists and lawyers. Since obviously they couldn't possibly fit all divisonal support items onto "one color coded DIN A4 card sheet" I would really like to know just what it is they have on there. It also doesn't say who compiles those charts and how much effort that someone put into getting them correct. If I was in the UK I'ld just go ahead and try it out.

Hmm I'm interested, they might be interesting at least as backup information. How reliable are those charts? How do they looklike? Do you have any of these? Can you describe a bit what kind of content they have?

The question makes just as much sense as would the question: "Does a car drive faster than 120mph?". IOW, it is too unspecific ("Sherman").

I think there is sufficient english literature published in english, readily available, on russian aircraft for the purpose of modeling them in CMBB. I.e., sufficient to know the basic design and armament for the abstracted simulation within CMBB. It is not a question of whether an Il2m3 could do 3.3 or 3.5 "G" at full loadout at a ceiling of 400ft or similar... The basic data they need is armament, ammunition carried for that armament, availability (time, place, quantity), and likelihood of being employed within CAS. Those can be obtained from a number of general aviation books on russian aircraft. Even that is probably too much detail, have you ever wondered whether that fighter-bomber you ordered (in one out of 50 games) for your german troops in CMBO is a Fw 190F-3 or Fw 190F-4, or which Waffensatz / Rüstsatz sub-sub-version it carries, or whether that head-plate for the pilot in the Me-109F-4/b had 11 or 12mm of armor. IOW, your suggestion seems somewhat an overkill to me. It would probably be very useful for people doing a flightsim like Il-2.

hmmm I think I like the basic idea. Hmmm...a Kübelwagen with extensive sandbagging, two MG 34 and a triple Panzerschreck launcher... The problem here is that these FlaMG (felxbile AA MG) have been left out intentionally by CMBO IIRC (emphasis is on IIRC). So why should they reintroduce them on a randomized basis? btw, from the typing and name it seems that ICS is still here - wasn't he banned? has he gotten un-banned?

thanks for the answer - oh, and thanks for the bone!

If your question refers to CMBO, then no, US FBs' .50cals have had no effect on Panthers, Tigers or King Tigers so far on my puter.

so, if I understand correctly, the damaged building graphics will be just a visual display, and LOS restrictions will not be based on whether or not the LOS goes through a visible remaining wall texture, but rather the damaged building will have sort of a generic LOS-block on a certain height, just like rubble has now in CMBO? even then, it does look beautiful. the idea is commendable due to the nice visual effect it has for a minimum of messing with code.

standard configuration for the teen FPS twitch crowd, maybe. [ March 12, 2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Someone set us up the bomb. Move zig for great justice.

Look closer. They *do* recoil.

Hi Rico, I am sorry but that in itself is "incorrect". Your previous postings show that you have read this thread (since you especially referred to the "previous issue"). Therefore, you must have come across my initial and subsequent posts in this thread, plus those of others who have voiced their opinions on that matter. Plus you are only referring to the text on the box and not the advertisement you give on your website where you promote your product - I have linked those excerpts in the previous posts. Anyhow, I sure am glad that your business is running so well and I hope you have many more spectacular successes such as SuddenStrike. The world needs such games, as your sales figures clearly show. Obviously, you must be doing something right.

Well I don't. as to "seems noone wants to discuss the previous issue" all I can say is that obviously you identify very well with the game you seem to assume "everyone likes", which is a much more befitting game for cdv than CM is. And IMHO there is not a lot to discuss about. You really seem to think SuddenStrike is a realism grognard paradies, while I seem to think it's a poor product that is advertised in a "misleading way" to coin the words carefully.

IIRC Stalingrad also showed T34/85s.

I want damaged damage. Period.

1. It is currently not modeled in CM. 2. You are right and not crazy - it is an interesting aspect that might be worth considering for the future. 3. please note that crest hull down status is not always an advantage for a soldier. he might be highlighted against the sky background, making it much easier for the enemy to spot and aim at him (=his head).

ok then we'll just have to agree that we agree that their marketing of Suddenstrike "wasn't quite totally honest". oh sh**, I answered already but now I realize I forgot to send it off - it's still in the draft directory. my bad, sending it off right *now*. btw I wouldn't label myself a grog. there's just a small field of limited knwoledge for me to plant my small potatoes on, plus I *try* to be constructive

does that mean you agree with cdv's statements that, essentially, sudden strike is "most realistic"? Have you ever seen, played it? hmm ok maybe I should make myself a bit clearer. cdv makes these blanket statements about how great their product, sudden strike, is. They specifically advertise it as a realistic, "historically accurate" (couldn't find that quote anymore but they used it when announcing sudden strike) wargame. An uninitiated customer, who, say, isn't really into computers, who is looking for a wargame, something in the range of CM, comes across this marketing. If he believes the BS cdv keeps spouting, he will get suckered itno buying what is essentially a C&C / RedAlert RTS flashandbang clone. He will be disappointed (what would you be if you'ld expect something like CM and end up with SuddenStrike?) and blame software producers for producing hyped games that don't stand uop to their advertisement. This customer was, to use your words, "screwed over" - see No. 2 of your post above from your excellent manifesto. For you they might be a great company to deal with (hell, CM is a great deal for them, too), and the shelf - version will be as good as my first-batch, 1.12 patched CM, a top-notch product. but I stand by my statement that from a user-wargamer perspective cdv as a company rates quite low with their preposterous statements on SuddenStrike. If you agree with their marketing hype about SuddenStrike, we will just have to agree to disagree

mind you all, cdv is the company that's responsible for "Sudden Strike" and continues to advertise it as a wargame that is "extremely realistic", and claims that their silly RTS flashandbang clickfest has "Realistic gun simulations complete with "real" explosions" and that the stupid little RTS units with their cumulative damage bars are "Realistic reproductions of all original units" . Haha. This is so far out it's not even funny anymore. IMO cdv is a classic example of one of those software companies that give games, especially wargames, a bad name. And they are quite the opposite to BTS's Manifesto. [ March 07, 2002, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

it's been on shelf retail in MediaMarkt for quite some time now - half a year? a year? but- buying at MediaMarkt? - Ich bin doch nicht blöd!

Fb probably means Führungsbänder, a synonym to Führungsringe. btw, thanks for proving my point on the issue of unorthodox indirect fire, what can I say, i just read in the diary of PzJäg Abt 38(SF) (the AT Btn of 2nd PzDiv) that during a withdrawal operation they fired their Marders (PzJäger 7,63PaK® auf Skoda 38) in an indirect fire artillery role. They had lined them up spaced 10meters apart and had manually calculated the rough barrel elevation, then fired off all their remaining ammo HE-impact and HE-skipping rounds before moving to their new location.

(sorry, double post) [ March 06, 2002, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

IIRC the main reason for the excessive barrel wear was the use of "Führungsringe" (~ the rings guiding the shell through the rifling, dunno how to translate, Andreras will understand) made of copper.

which is what it's all about, I agree fully. Helge PtMD S., what you are describing now in your latest post is, as CMplayer already pointed out, commonly handled under the term "relative spotting" and has been an issue on this board for quite sometime. however, your ideas for improement for CM in such a direction go beyond just a general idea and are very sophisticated and reasonable. I would welcome them. they will become "akut" again when BTS is about to create CM II, the new engine.

it all boils down to gameplay vs realism. we had this discussion many a time from the very beginning of CC1. the way CM is now is obviously very unrealistic, for the reasons Helge "Reisbaby" PtMD roughly hinted at. The player has godlike omnipresence, full knowledge of the terrain down to the last turn of the road in the village 800meters ahead of the nearest friendlyforces and behind several hills.he can access all his forces all the time and check their status etc. He can give them orders which are carried out instantly (rotate, fire, withdraw) even though the unit has no radio and no other friendly unit within a 5 mile radius. Other orders are carried out with minimal delay so long as the unit has it's platoon or company HQ with it, although the player is not that Platoon / Co. HQ. The realistic thing would be for any higher up HQ to be sitting back at a tent, miles behind the front, and receive orders by messengers with delay, and give out respective orders, and maybe (if it is a very sophisticated outfit) have occasiona radio conversation with some of his units. The player would play this on a DOS interface, with the reports coming in as text messages. No eye candy. Maybe some distant ambient sound effects at most. And he has his original battle plan with which he briefed his subordinates. To simulate this the player could use home rules which would only allow him to give orders once, in the very first turn, and then never again through the whole battle, except for the occasional messengers noted above. You could simulate thiose messengers by having ammoless snipers run from the friendly rear edge to a certain unit. Once it reaches that unit, the player can give that unit the orders he intended to give them when he sent off that messenger. he must ignore any new threats etc. until the messenger returns and gives a status report. if the messenger unit gets killed along the way then he will simply be cut off from communications. But... would this be fun? certainly not for 99% of the CM players, even die-hard grogs who look for the last bit millimeter of armor strength between the fourth and fifth roadwheel of a Pz IV Ausf. H. This is where gameplay comes in. CM is, after all, a wargame. concessions have to be made to make it a playable game.