M Hofbauer

Ack, another disappointment. Beehive telepathic mentality in CMBO. I always suspected it, witnessing how an AT gun or bazooka immediately draws the attention of every soul from the other side, butoned up or not. However, that beehive telepathic force entity does not seem to be universal in CMBO. Specifically, it seems not to apply to buttoned up tanks cooperating with infantry in regard to enemy regular infantry or tanks. Or am I wrong? To me it seems as though the butoned-up tank does not benefit from the spotting capabilities of a nearby infantry squad should an enemy tank appear at it's rear etc. Relative spotting - a definitive must-have for CM2. Should've been in the first one already.

Very interesting. Where did you get the picture from? Personally I am very amazed at the caption however because the Panzerfaust (must be a PzF 60 or PzF 100 the guy is holding) seems too little a robust construction to be an ideal means to club people to death with in a melee - remember the warhead is barely connected to the tube etc. But a very interesting picture nonetheless.

PB, yes but my biggest "success" so far was the PinkPanther as you can see I have nothing substantial or serious to offer really to the CM user/mod community, those things are just delusions of my mind taking weird excursions... Mike, yes I *know* please see my first words in this thread...

PB, but with all due respect, I KNOW how to "mod" CM...being among the first to "mod" the demo according to my likings to have the infantry carry Supersoakers, with "SHOOT ME" notes tagged to their rucksacks etc. ...

I feel strongly about this as well. Seriously, without exaggeration, I think such a campaign system would almost double the value of CM to me. I hope there will be some such system, be it either BTS-designed or made by great volunteers such as SenorBeef.

Well, according to the cliché, as long as the GI wouldn't see the tank he would still think it is a Tiger, be it actually a Sherman or a Panther.

Steve: We released a "hardcore" wargame a while ago that was knocked pretty hard (webzine, not big mag) because they got someone who was more of a RTS fan to review it. That's just the kind of thing I was talking about. barrold713 wrote: My only complaint would be the perhaps too opimistic previews but that is a pervasive issue with both websites and magazines. exactly my point. Everything's gonna be goody-goody-goody. StellarRat: I totally disagree with this.(...) My only complaint about the game mags... no comment =-) my experience is that I tend to use reviews in sort of an anti-way. If they say a game is poor because it's too complex then that's a go-ahead for me. Many of those "five star games" which you cite are really just hollow flashy products which land in the shelf after a couple of weeks max. Steve: Righto. Decent number are not US, but it is still a minority of our customers. just wanted to remind you that you cannot deduct the number of american customers from the number of american addresses you deliver to, because not every american delivery address has an american customer behind it. The ways in which the avid CM fans get hold of their games are limitless, inventive and sometimes downright mysterious. jshansdorf wrote: BTW here is an interesting point on this whole Copywrite thing... An painter can take photograph, reproduce the work, and then display it for the public without needing permission from anyone. Period. you're probably not a jurist, or maybe an american one =-) if the photograph someone takes prominently or excllsively shows a person or an object of art and he does not have permission form the person / artist then he may at the very least not publicise that picture. Steve: 2. Scanning images from a magazine is absolutely a copyright violation. You can only do this with the owner's permission. (juristic mode on) you are the author of said works. you could have given the magazine a limited permission to show them while retaining the right to give same permission to others.(/mode off) Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge and welcome the idea of spreading the word via the mass magazines. However, your statement above could be misunderstood as an excuse of "we could not do otherwsie but give exclusive rights to CGM/CGW". I welcome that you later stated directly the real reason, which is that you are going to feed them first in a deal for coverage. I guess we are fine with that as long as we get to have a great game in the end How many of you that play Combat Mission found out about the game because of one of these tidbits from an online or tradition print magazine? First time I heard about it was when rumour about a SL 3D game adaptation was circulating in the computer wargamer circles. I then started to visit the good old blue-on-white message forum. I never had any contact whatsoever with any magazine in relationship with CM so far. Why some of you have the patience of a gnat is not my problem. What is my problem is making sure the game gets done right and done as soon as possible. All other concerns are secondary. Experience has shown us that the more we talk about the game the more people demand of us to tell them something more. It is a vicious cycle that is inevitable, but when started too soon it becomes a major distraction. We simply don't have much more to say now than we have been saying for the past 6 months. In fact, the articles we have participated in so far really don't say much more than we have said on this forum, so long time fans here won't find much of interest in them anyway. And the screenshots contained will be posted very shortly, so I fail to see what the problem is. the following is not meant as criticism but just as a note, food-fot-thought, on including the forum on the development of the game. Obviously, it would be wrong to exclude the forum during the development, only wanting the "input" (which would be more like supplementary blessing) after already presenting the result ("voilá here it is - now what do y'all think about it?"). It might be crucial to involve the people very early in the project of CM2. I am talking about difficult game design decisions pertaining but not limited to "handling of the infantry wave attacks in CM2 vs current infantry marker and machine gun point fire", "early-war modeling of russian tank doctrine/tactics in the face of lacking radio and advantages of technically sometimes inferior german tanks through radio / C&C", etc. pp.; I think it would not hurt to have input before these basic, vital decisions are carved in stone. That is of course not to say that you did not involve "us" during the long process of creating CMBO. To the contrary, I think your past openness to suggestions, critcisim etc. during that period proved very successful and should be kept up for CM2. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer [ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

the very idea of the generic markers is to be, well, generic and without detail. So I am not really sure what you want to replace those with? :confused: For the fun of it, you could replace them with some Tiger bmp's or something to reflect the allied veteran's view that every german tank was a Tiger unless specifically identified otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: [sigh] So what did you do? Do some file renaming to put FJ uniforms on American troops?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [sigh] so what do you do maxipad ? some hue-changing on uniform bmp's and call them winter uniforms? SgtEagle, don't take note of such arrogant comments like the one above. Your mod sure is an interesting idea.

well have to admit that there are definitely worse gaming magazines than CGW or CGM. The reviews are not that great either but the personal comments at the end of CGW can be entertaining. They don't justify the whole mag though. The only thing you can really put some value on in those reviews are the screenshots - with the usual DD of course.

FWIW - I have yet to see a computer mag that's worth the cellulose wasted to print it on. They usually consist of praise for advertiser's games, lack journalistic criticism, seem to play a game about 5 hours max. before they review it, and, especially, they wouldn't know an authenticism glitch if it had "ahistorical Bull****" written all over it. just my truckload of turkish lira, of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: But the only real CM issue here, to me, is the german 75mm HE shells size. I really believe that the standard German 75mm L24,L43,L48 Sprgr had more punch than most allied 75mm tank guns. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If that is your sole concern then that is easily solved. But first you need to define "punch". If you equate punch with energy/momentum carried as most people would probably interpret "punch", then you can easily calculate that from projectile weight and initial projectile velocity.

just as side information for username (and maybe of interest to Paul), please note that already very early in the war the germans even put the 8,8cm FlaK 38 onto the 12t and 18t tractor halftracks, together with an armored cabin, to create an ad-hoc armored vehicle mounting the important 8,8. Theformer were used by the schwere Panzerjägerabteilung 6 in the Polish campaign, together with the 18t versions which were ordered in 19040 they took part in the French campaign then: http://www.militarygamer.net/CloseCombatAxis&Allies/8812t.jpg other gun - halftrack combinations existed as well, for example they also put the russian 7.62 field gun onto a 5to tractor with armored cabin. (please see my sig below on that) edit of post above: the "ugly picture of the 251/22" probably shows just the 7.5cm Selbstfahrlafette L/40.8, a pre-war concept, and not the 251/22. Other pictures of the 251/22 show it as a rather aesthetic vehicle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: The guy with that website is saying that it is an option. He isnt saying that it was tried but a weapon system that was used. As for your website it says: "Many almost finished weapons were captured by the allies. It is unclear whether the combat trial at the front took place or which results it had." So thats "indeed taking place" in your mind? Never mind.. Myself, I would have put a 12.8 cm PAK gun on a Kettengrad cause it needed to be tried so future wargamers could buy it with a rarity factor. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> username, I did not say that putting a KwK 7,5cm L/70 onto a 251 was the best thing since sliced bread, I merely said that your rather harsh mockery of those modellers is unwarranted since that concept was indeed thought about by the german s in ww2 so they might try to recreate that in a model just as much as those engineers back then very well might have. The combat trials of the Rotkäppchen are not really established (although reports exist), but it _is_ an established fact thing that many completed weapons were built and used - at least on the proving grounds. So, it is a weapons system that existed but it's combat use is questionable. Nobody ever mocked all the model manufacturers for the He-162 Salamander / Volksjäger jet kits. Many were built, but none of them saw combat. Would you ridicule model builders for building He-162 scale models as well?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: I thought that Chamberlin and Dolyes book reported that the 75L70 mounted on half track was tried in 1943 and found to be a failure ...too unstable?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> that might very well have been the case. All that's sure is that it did not enter production, and that reason seems to be the most natural one. The story of the 7.5cm PaK onn the SdKfz 251/22 is another one however. After the first 40 were built in 1944, the production was kept up and another 228 were built in 1945 (which suggests it was put on a high manufacture priority and higher numbers would have been built had the war lasted longer) - those 228 built in 1945 are the highest single production figure of all SdKfz 250 and 251 variants (excpet base model) that I am aware of. Easily beats CM's 250/9, for example (154 built), the closest competitor in 1945 production figures. Maybe the Pak 7,5cm was already too much for the 251...but think about it, the rather successful Jagdpanzer IV/70 was actually an engineering failure as well (wrong weight distribution, very front-heavy with armor and armament which clearly exceeded the front wheels stress allowance) but proved itself rather successful in action. Maybe something similar with the 251/22 ? At least the users called the 251/22 an "exceptional well weapon system". I have a picture of it here. It looks _ugly_.

Username - your mocking/ridicule is misplaced, the little red riding hood ATGM was indeed in troop trials at the end of the war http://www.geocities.com/pizzatest/panzerfaust12.htm As regards the 251/7,5cm L/70 combo, out of the hundreds of weird vehicle/gun combinations I am sure there was also a plan to put the KwK 7,5cm L/70 onto a 251 chassis: remember the regular 7,5cm PaK 40 mount onto the 251/22, and I have documents here that there were trials involving a full-grown 8,8cm PaK 43 onto the SdKfz 251 :eek: , of course it was not feasible but they sure tried. So I think it is very reasonable to assume that inbetween these two they also tried the 7,5cm L/70.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Its from the panzermuseum Munster website. Anyone translate German? Spreng- u. Panzergranatpatronen sowie Geschosse und Treibladungskartuschen, wie sie aus den Waffen der Panzer, Panzerjäger und Pz.-Haubitzen im Kaliber 5,0-15 cm zur Bekämpfung von Zielen aller Art bis 1945 eingesetzt wurden. In Bildmitte 12,8 cm Panzer- u. Sprenggranate mit Treibladungskartusche des "Jagdtiger". Links daneben 8,8 cm Granatpatronen der Pz.Kampfwagen Vl "Tiger I" und II "Königstiger".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> that text doesn't really say a lot, from the hip: (the text seems to refer to the museum's featured exhibits, which include...) HE- and AP-cartridges as well as projectiles and powder charges (shells), which were used in the armament of Tanks, Tank Destroyers and SP Artillery in the calibres ranging from 5.0 to 15cm for engaging targets of all kinds until 1945. In the center of the picture (you can see) 12.8cm AP and HE projectile with shell casing (as complete cartridge) as used in the Jagdtiger. To the left of these 8.8cm cartridges of the Tiger I and II.

M_R thanks for the info! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: Well of course the US was responsible of all spec’s on German Ordnance. It’s all part of the world wide evil military industrial complex bent on the destruction of mankind while at the same time lining their pockets with profits from munitions sales.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes, the world government is behind all this...shhhh...they are monitoring everyone of us everywhere ! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just for your own edification the “E” in “TM-E” lets the reader know that the tech manual details enemy equipment. Fairly specilized form of tech manual. (...) APG as well as metallurgical exams on captured ammunition at the now defunct Watertown Arsenal Labs <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I take it APG refers to Aberdeen Proving Ground...? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the case of the FLAK 88, a shell color scheme of yellow is high explosive. The rest of the work is accomplished by fuzes (i.e. mechanical timed fuze, electrical time fuze, percussion fuze, etc.). With respect to surface to air applications of the FLAK 88 the Germans often employed Incendiary Shrapnel projectiles (one of the few shrapnel round hold-outs in the world wide switch over from shrapnel to high-explosive following WWI). However color spec’s for shrapnel rounds were: body painted blue and the ogive red (as per US War Department specifications ). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I see. Thanks for clearing that up! As for that ammo's effectiveness, please see Maxipad's famous quote in the sig.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: yellow = HE (TM E9-369A)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wasn't aware that the germans were coloring their ammo according to an american TechnicalManual but seriously, the picture username posted: would suggest that the yellow projectile in your interesting ammo picture is not ordinary/regular HE but a special fused anti-aircraft ammo variant (note the yellow is shown only on the 88 L/56 ammo which is practically 8,8cm FlaK ammo)...or?

A difficult question. Does a weapon that does not exist (KwK 7.5cm L/45) fire the same ammo as the KwK 7.5cm L/70....? [ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

"who up" - never heard of that game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Johnny D.: At's in buildings woulb be nice, if it is already possible then I must have missed something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For clarification: There is a way that you can place an AT Gun in a building in CMBO but it only works with the scenario editor. First, place the AT gun on a certain spot in the preview. Then, in the terrain editor place a house onto that same spot. Voilá, AT Gun is in da house! (it's more like a bug, though, and not intended). hope that helps

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sock Monkey: And since it's Mother's Day here in the US of A and this thread is bound to be locked when a (probably irate) BTS moderator checks the board next -- Happy Mother's Day, Mom! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...and this is where the circle closes again: Where do you think Mother's Day originated / who "invented" it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy: 3) M.Hofbauer, did you ever receive the scans I sent to the email address in your profile? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> wait a minute both of you....are you sure you sent it to the gmx email address, or didn't you sent it to the email address (zz7@usa.net I think) given on the panzerfaust site? Because the latter has basically been left unchecked for months, so I might very well have gotten your email but never checked it out...? I will see if I can find my password again for that email and check if I got your emails there...

Oh, it's you Thomm! so you are going by rollstoy in these waters. Hmmm, no, I don't remember any email of that kind. But I would look it up - can you tell me the exact "absender", date, or subject/title? Same goes for you Mike. What was your email about? I haven't goten any email from you recently. Of course, like always and like anybody I suffer from the usual "lost email" paranoia but maybe this time I have reason to really mistrust gmx reliability?