M Hofbauer

BTS has done so wonderfully programming I guess we all here absolutely agree on that. Anybody who doesn't hasn't really thought about it or doesn't think at all. ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

Meeks, I am not in the beer brewing business, nor were my ancestors, so I'm happier with Hofbauer. I never suggested a 1:1 reduction, I was just using rough figures to point out my...well, point. second, the opera ain't over till the fat lady sings. A KT in turn 15 IMO has almost the same potential as if it were there form the beginning. Given the limited HE etc., they often run out of ammo in extended firefights anyhow. It would be really hard to find a formula to account for the reduction in usefulness. Why don't you suggest one so I can criticise it? - see what I mean? ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

Banshee, I read that thread, LOL... losing against that american OOB...one Panther and a 7.5cm PaK defending versus one measly Sherman and a halftrack!!! pfffffft! but one point is valid, and I have stated support for this before: why not have the summary of option choices sent to the PBEM partner (erm...enemy) with the first file? this would eliminate the need to manually explain/confirm in the email... btw the manual is one of the finest I have ever seen in term of typos/spelling...I have the original version but I assume 1.03 isn't that different...the only thing that would enhance it further would be a better index and unit/weapon descriptions /but that's a design desicion)...but even then, I find the manual to be rather good. [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-12-2000).]

prima facie not a bad idea, and I stzmbled over it myself once. However, I fear all this would do is simply capitalize on the completely gamey and unrealistic way that CM ends a battle, id est, after a fixed and predetermined amount of time. IOW, people would buy cheap 1/30th cost Kingtigers (or some similar stuff, preferrably vehicles with low ammo count) for that final VL rush. maybe the idea would still be feasible if you introduced a certain window for these vehicles, say, from turn 5 to turn 20 for a 30-turn game. ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

Zamo: u-huh (acknowledging-pun)

109 Gustav, you are confusiong the He 219 Uhu with the Ta 154 Moskito. The Moskito was the one with the problems you describe. The Uhu was a dedicated night-fighter and, althoug somwhat heavier than the english Mosquito, actually did rather well. Almost 300 were produced. ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

John, I too think that the problem lies in our differing definitions of what an "official" designation is. That is, my definition-encompassed volume is more extensive than yours, and it includes army reports etc. as being "official". to illustrate: Assume I would drive a Nissan Sunny 1.6l Coupé PKW (POV). a) I would say official designation is, among others, "Nissan Sunny Coupé". You would insist that the only official designation, as given in my registration papers, would be "Personenkraftwagen geschlossen, schadstoffarm NISSAN (J) Typ B12" (~person motor car closed, emission-reduced Nissan (J) type B12). Do you think that when I write a verdict I will call it a) or ? Do you think that any official government branch when referring to this vehicle will use ? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not going to comment on the anal retentive aspect as that would be akin to the pot calling the kettle black<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL....good call btw: am a bit puzzled by your signature...I rarely notice any typos (surely less than in mine because I rarely check for them at all) in your posts so what is the matter? ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

dagnabbit...yet another double post [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-12-2000).]

LOL John... yes TankDawg maybe you should try cc4 without the 2nd patch - all the armor is conveniently named "big tank", "medium tank" etc. Should be just the right thing for you. Sorry but it's people with the attitude that you display that ruin the wargame market. Does "mass-appeal" and "dumbed-down" ring a bell? if not check these concepts out I'm sure you'll like them. ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

hey TankDawg, "crack me up" - you start to sound just like good ol' Doc Brian. but one thing really puzzles me - what is PZKW IVe ? Personen- und Zulieferkraftwagen maybe? or do you mean the good ol' stumpy Pz IV Ausführung E ? ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

D'owl! but I thought about owl and owl would be "Eule". the Uhu is a special subspecies...letz me look it up...hmm you call it a eagle-owl aka long-eared owl. Uhu is a soundname, it mimics the distinct sound the uhu makes. [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-12-2000).]

"Require Crack Opponent" sorry I don't do drugs. but maybe you should try Dr Brian or TankDawg - they always mumble about being "cracked up"... ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

sorry double post [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-12-2000).]

John, the name Königstiger was bestowed upon the Tiger II vehicles when the first pre-production vehicles were handed over to the Waffenamt in November 1943, 4 weeks after the wooden mockup had been finished in October 1943. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now if your disputing that the official designation assigned by the office of the Inspekteur der Panzertruppen, Pazerkampfwagen VI Tiger 8.8 cm Sd.Kfz.182 Ausf.B is incorrect<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> wait a minute. don't start twisting my words in an anal-retentive style. I never said that. I was merely responding to your claim that "Konigs Tiger was NEVER used as an official german designation". The full Typbezeichnung incl. Sonderkraftfahrzeugsnummern were never used in such inane things as loss reports etc., where the King Tigers were sometimes simply added up to the "Tiger" figure or, if reported seperately, under "Königstiger", sometimes as Tiger II. It seems that you are unaware how I meant the suggestive name reference. "Suggestivname" is rather a terminus technicus for names that the nazis conceived for a wide range of concepts and objects, such as the Volkswagen, the Volkssturm, the Sturmgewehr, the Volksgewehr etc. Many of them were personally invented by Hitler, who had some psychological feel in this field. I am not sure if Königstiger was introduced by himself, but given his strong personal involvement with the development of the vehicle it doesn't seem unlikely. My sources are of little value to you since they are all german. besides, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>only in one 'official' report<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> see - you already disproved your own former statement yourself. thank you ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

Looked it up and will translate from german: "(referring to the Panther G) as an additional device the new Bildwandler (~image converter) was to be introduced. Because of the ever increasing enemy air superiority since the invasion in the west the movement of tanks during day was under constant watch of the enemy fighter bombers. To decrease the amount of losses (snip) it was intended to use the Nachtsichtgerät (~night vision device) that had been tested on the PaK 7.5cm as early as Fall 1942. A 200 W (watt) IR searchlight was mounted on the commander's cupola, and with the accompanying telescope the terrain could be seen with a range of 200m and in a 1.2x magnification. The driver did not have night vision and drove under the command inputs from the commander. Because the range was too low for shooting, the use of an illuminating vehicle was planned. The medium apc received the "Uhu" (a night bird, don't know the english equivalent), which was an IR searchlight with 6 kW (kilowatt), and using this the Bildwandler could be used out to a range of 700 meters. The company Leitz-Wetzlar delivered the optics for ca. 800 devices, and in November 1944 the military received the first 63 Panthers with Bildwandler." an very interesting tidbit is this: "for the same purposes the conmpany Zeiss-Jena had developed the WPG-Z (Wärmepeilgerät - ~heat aiming device), with which tanks could be detected out to 4 kilometers. But because of the dimensions of this device - the diameter of the receiving parabolic antennae was 60cm - it was not pursued as an equipment for the Panther." nothing less but a frickin' thermal imaging device! I remember there also used to be a rather dedicated IR Panther and Vampir (the IR scope for the StGw44) page on the net but I can't seem to find it again right now...on Rob's Panther page there is a small story about infrared Panthers' use, it also has two pics showing a Panther G with the Bildwandler installed. ParaBellum, AFAIK, the allies didn't use IR or other night sighting devices on tanks (but I stand to be corrected if they did), but they had working IR scopes for the sniper versions of the infantry rifles, which did see considerable combat use. hey! didn't our very own CM board and CM addict Desert Fox do an article on IR Panthers once? wait... yes, here it is, and rather interesting, too! this is a very interesting must-see of you're interested in the topic! Desert Fox's Article on IR Panthers excellent work, Desert Fox! ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-12-2000).]

PanzerDawg, I see your point. However, some Sherman isn't very impressive, a Jumbo Sherman just looks funny, not impressive, and that feeling of amusement is even stronger if you used, say, a Churchill. That is not to say there is no room for allied motifs. If we move away from the BiGTanks! - attitude and search among other cover "models", I think the british paratrooper camo would look cool, or a Greyhound, or a Chaffee in scattered trees, or a Hellcat hull down, lining up on some distant german target... ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

John, sorry but you're double wrong. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>King Tiger, Konigs Tiger, etc; were NEVER used as an German 'official' designation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First, it is no wonder it wasn't called "Konigs Tiger" because that is completely wrong spelling. It's a composita and it has the ö Umlaut, therefore if anything it's "Königstiger". Second, yes it _was_ called Königstiger by the germans. It was also called Tiger II in the technical project phase. Later, the suggestive name "Königstiger" was officially bestowed upon it (just like the MP 43/44 was given the suggestive name Sturmgewehr etc.), and the name stuck with the troops. Even the Wehrmacht used it in their TO&E of losses and equipment. I don't know if "King Tiger" or "Royal Tiger" is a real animal name in english, but in german, it is the official species word for the Bengal Tiger, a rather large "version" of a tiger. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

grrrrr...why oh why do you have to start a new thread for such an inane question, is it too complex a concept to you to simply ask that question in Tom's original New COMBAT MISSION CD Cover Art , eh?? and to answer this completely superfluous (=because unneccessary if due effort had been exercised on your part) question of yours, on Tom's page it states expressis verbis "If this sounds too difficult or you have no graphic editor , download COVERPRO from the net: this amazing shareware tool will resize ( and print ) CD Covers always in the correct way." where COVERPRO is highlighted as a hyperlink to http://www.directlogic.com/download.htm foolproof, one would think. but apparently not. ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

SiVisPacem, "Does anyone know something about the effectiveness of this early night vision equipment or the use in combat? " there were two distinct versions, one with active and passive IR on the tank, and one having only passive IR on the tank and a huge active IR "searchlight" to bathe the battlefield in IR light mounted on a dedicated SdKfz 251 variant (the "Uhu"). reports on the combat use of these vehicles are sketchy (and any you come across you should approach with a healthy dose of scepticism), but it seems consensus that they _were_ used in combat. "Since I'm still waiting for the full version of the game, is something like this modelled in CM?" no.

Rob/1? are you the real Rob/1? weren't you supposed to be "leaving till CM2 or the TCP/IP come out"?? did I miss omething? where can I order CM2, or where's the DL for TCP/IP?? ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-12-2000).]

not bad. I'll give it a try. maybe you should have let the gun point to the side, then the muzzle break would've looked more favorably...maybe the whole KT should be tilted a little bit more so that we see the side - then the abschleppseile would look more realistic, too... just an idea mfG M.Hofbauer ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

Martin, I would like to voice some disagreeing comments. I have the impression your statements, in general, seem to refer to small hills/elevations. But we are talking crests here, steep elevations with crests on top. "When was the last time you saw 12 men in a squad lie in open ground in a line, fire at an enemy on the other side, and consider themselves in good cover?" is that question serious? taking cover behind a crest or elevation is SOP, has always been, will always be. can you say "rice paddy dike" in NAM? again, we are not talking "lie in the open", we are talking "lie on the reverse slope of a steep elevation". Their heads and weapons might look over the top of the crest, and if they receive fire they withdraw it. In effect, for the discussion at hand it works the same way that trenches/foxholes do. "However, the bending is certainly not around 10m elevations changes. A unit on the far side of such a height will not be able to target a unit on the near side. If it did (as somebody further up implies), then it is a bug and should be submitted with a file to fix it." exactly. but that original post was not about the squad being at the foot of that elevation, remember we are talking the crest here. Not sure what your Standpunkt is, Martin, on one hand you say LOS should wrap around the edge, but then you say if it is steep enough an elevation then it shouldn't..or did I misunderstand something? "Would you like to have a unit in commanding position on top of that hill look down and the enemy could hide his units every 20m in a LOS "hole"?" not sure. yes and no. what I really want is a game to be true to it's display, WYSIWYG. I loved the original Amiga/Atari M1A1 TP because although it had flat ground and pyramid hills you could work with them, you could depend upon them to block sight etc. I hate all this fuzziness. Might be there, might not, might see it, might not. I place a squad behind a house but then the enemy shoots through the edge of the house etc. pp. also, in RealLife, there _are_ LOS - holes all over the place. small depressions etc. Currently they are implemented in the regular, big tiles as an abstracted cover value that means you have it even for totally flat (as it appears) grass area. so, to return to your question, in conclusion I am amazed to say that yes, I'ld rather have the game LOS engine stick to what I am shown, instead of some fudging of LOS that I can't predict or trust (that's just my opinion but you asked for it). a last question: does CM model unit height? I mean, is LOS calculated to the baseplate of the abstracted graphic inf squad representation, or does it take into account different heights for prone, kneeling, erect (walking/running) like cc does for calculating LOS? because that might be part of the problem. If LOS is calculated to a ground zero baseplate with no height then I see why you need all this LOS wrapping etc., because inf would be in LOS holes very fast. But then the real problem is another one, that of team height. everybody have a nice day, M.Hofbauer btw: I didn't know Gauch had such an excellent command of the english language ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

"To do so would necessitate coding the amount of cover based on the direction and angle of incoming fire, which could get pretty complex." excuse me but wasn't this what our fabled CM was supposed to be all about? it works fine for tanks - tanks behind a house edge (nobody mentioned house edges here which "work" similarly to the crest thingie) or a fold in terrain are fine. Infantry isn't, it seems. "Plus, there is an additional issue of changing AI behaviour when so protected (not running for cover when taking fire in 'open' terrain)." not an issue because if this is rectified the squad will not be taking fire. simple. "I think one of the reasons using hills as cover works for tanks (hull down) but not infantry is because (IIRC) tanks have two points that LOS is calculated to/from (hull and turret), while infantry has only one. " that shouldn't be the problem. if infantry has only one point of reference, fine, just let that point of reference be behind cover. finito. - all this just my 2 eurocents and in good-natured spirit of discussion - yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

currently, scenarios are NOT cool because the scoring is fugged. But nobody here seems overly concerned about it. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010050.html

Sirocco - wrong, cc1 to cc2 was exactly the other way around. cc1 did show track marks, it could do that because it used a tile-based map system. tiles that a tank had driven over were simply changed from "regular wheatfield" to "distorted wheatfield" etc. cc2 couldn't do that anymore since it used the new fairy-tale style maps. even on those it would be possible to patch track marks onto the landscape in just the same way as craters are patched onto the background. but Atomic wouldn't have none of this, as they said it would suck up too much memo. It would have been very cool esp. for cc3 to have those tanks plow tracks into the snow. Having such an interactive background would really help immersion, instead of those untouchable maps right now over which tanks are hovering without touching the ground beneath. The tiles in CM seem to big for the same crude but effective tactic of tile-change that cc1 employed. My hope, also in regard to other problems related with the current tile size, is that CM2+ will advance in so far as that in a first stept they will introduce smaller tiles. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer oh, and btw: AA fire is way too effective in CM. Usually all it takes is a pair of 3.7cm or a couple of 2cm to effectively neutralize the enemy air threat. It wasn't like that in reality. If it had been, things would've looked quite a bit different. ------------------ "Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-10-2000).]