M Hofbauer

Fionn, I am not familiar with modern type subs. Here they mentioned in one news report that it was a Typhoon class sub. However, given the usual ignorance of journalists that may or may not be true; I tend to believe the later. They didn't mention any missiles on board so I figured it was probably an attack sub. But then they talked about the dimensions of the thing and then I figured it would have to be a missile carrying strategic sub. I then looked it up on the web and indeed Fionn is right it's a late Oscar version: click on the picture to get to the info page on that sub class. The Kursk itself was built 1995, it says. I am however puzzled that there is no news coverage on that in american news? It has been the main story in all news broadcasts since the weekend. I usually don't care for everyday stuff and I know it is O/T but I really feel for these poor guys. Sorry again if anyone feels this doesn't fit here.

Commissar, it's happening right now as we read/type. Just watch the news, it is covered everywhere. Latest news here was that reportedly the russian navy staff has agreed to use british help and that a british rescue sub has been airlifted into the theatre. Let's hope that the crew can be saved - their situation must be horrible indeed.

"I have'nt much experience with the allied tanks, all my Pbem opponents seem to want to be the allied forces so I get to lose more often but at least I look cool in my black panzer uniform when I'm dead" LOL... amen, amen to that...yes, same here, and it's all BTS'S fault :-p because they generously equipped all the 76 tanks with plentiful tungsten rounds, so there's no point about any frontal armor for german tanks. OTOH, the allied tank hunters seem to have just a little bit too little tungsten rounds when compared to the tanks, after all it was the tank hunters who were exclusively supplied with tungsten rounds, and the tanker crews would only obtain some from their TD brothers by making them drunk wiith cheap whiskey and steal some, or win some in a game of Poker, or trade some for the crate of french Bordeaux they captured... Andre76, you're pretty right IMO in your observation that the Nashorn is just an overkill Marder. So you might as well buy that damn Marder. Not that it will help a lot sincerely, M.Hofbauer (who also looks cool in his black uniform when running away from his knocked out tanks)

(rant on) there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the way CM handles/models the Archer. I mean SERIOUSLY (rant off) now, seriously, , somehow this rear-facing thing does not work well. Because, if it is used as a Tank Hunter, you will use the hunt command for all the nice advantages the hunt command has. Thing is, with the Archer, the hunt command means the vehicle is driving with it's cannon backwards towards an enemy. Once the enemy is spotted, it has to turn in place to bring it's weapon to bear. Needless to say, with a vehicle as nimble as the Archer, it is long toast before it has done it's dance of death. To remedy this you would have to use the reverse command. However, the reverse command means that your Archer will NOT stop when it sees the enemy but keep moving on (I had one nice example where a single Pz IV disposed of 4 Archers which all drove on towards him in reverse mode but because they did not stop did not fire (LOS broke on and off again), and the Pz IV killed one after another). The main benefit of the hunt command, to have the vehicle stop at the first sighting of an enemy, thus often creating a hull-down position, and open fire, is not possible with the reverse command, and consequently there is no way to do that with an Archer. (a side issue, and this may be just my personal experience, but it is my firm belief that while using the reverse movement order, the vehicle bogs down _much_ more often. they do it all the time on my computer, which is especially annoying when you were trying to bring several archers to bear on the enemy vehicle to overcome the lack of the hunt command, and then suddenly one of the Archers decides to stop short of LOS because in reverse they LOVE to bog down). I think it is ok to have the Archer move "backwards", ie with the gun facing rear, for fast move, move etc. commands, but I would imagine that if a british commander would order the tank to beware and hunt for tanks to the front of it, that it would not hunt them with the gun facing rear. It would try to advance with it's gun facing towards the enemy, for all the problems this might create for the driver. This could be represented in a penalty in speed while hunting etc. However, it is far better than having the vehicle ass-end up towards the enemy. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

I'm fully in favor of it. If someone thinks it's boring, hey, it's just an option, you don't have to use it. There are many things which speak in favor of such an option: you could set up forces and see how they perform against each other without your subjective interference. If you do a hotseat game with yourself you will always subconsciously influence it and not play as if you didn't see the other side - unless you are schizo. you could see it as a movie. to hell with the patriot, SPR and all the hollywood crap. here is a very authentic, hardcore-action only (no annoying plot or anything) movie. it should be fairly easy to do. since the ai already computes the other side in a regular single player game, all that would have to be changed would be that he does it for both sides. how about it as a screensaver option? ever ongoing batle with random reinforcements entering the map when force size has shrunk to a certain level for one side. however, the bioggest benefit really would be to see how two forces would perform against each other based solely on the AI. fortunately CM's AI is so good that this is really an option, and I think BTS should make use of that with an AI vs AI option. so, if you are against it, just don't use it, but don't negate those who have a positive interest in this their option to have it.

oops it seems the images don't work... :-O

ah... I found the file again. David, of course I checked for any other cause. But I looked at the footage again and again, looking for grenades, small arms, bow machine gun of the sherman, etc. None. The german squad consisted of only 1 man alive before the incident, and was "eliminated" the moment the Sherman blew up the other house. picture one shows the Sherman targetting another building with indirect fire. Notice our squad in question is just barely visible almost in the center of the picture, on the forward edge of the 2-level building. pic 2 shows the sherman destroying / collapsing the other building through indirect fire: pic 3 shows the collapse-cloud at the time of furthest expansion, as you can see the german squad has been eliminated and is just barely inside the dust-cloud radius. the 2-level building has become opaque againm as there is nobofdy else in there but the corpse of the eliminated squad: pic 4 is meant to give another, better view at how the squad is just barely inside the radius of the dustcloud: pic 5 is yet another picture showing the general setup of the scene and the dimensions of the dustcloud and the location of the units involved. Now, the german squad in question *was* being targetted by a british AB rifle squad, but that was on LOW ammo, and I watched them all the time, the last time they had fired a volley at the german squad was 40 or so seconds before the elimination. The next possibility wa that maybe the german squad was machine-gunned by the bow gunner at the same time that the main gun engaged the area fire target. Although unlikely, I checked for that, and indeed the MG ammo dropped from 218 to 217 at the same time the main gun was fired at the other building. However, when I checked for the machine guns in the footage, it is clearly visible that that burst was also aimed at the other building. Besides, the Sherman did not have LOS to the german squad due to a small bump in the terrain bnetween the two. I will ask my PBEM opponent when he is available again, but I doubt that he will come to a different conclusion. so, gentlemen, here are the facts as I see them. what I want to know now is,again, can the building collapse be given an equivalent in a blast rating value? hello? BTS? anybody? hello? (p.s.: sorry but server provider failed me. hope the images work now.) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 08-14-2000).]

I made a search on this but although there are some remotely related threads/posts none really address my question. One post hinted that collapsing buildings create an expansing dustcloud but that it is only smoke etc. harmless to soldiers touched by it. My experiences are quite different. I've noticed people (soldiers) dieing from the blast-shockwave created when a building collapses. I am not talking about harm to soldiers INSIDE the collapsing building but OUTSIDE. In some instances they were even at the very outer rim of that shockwave, and in another building. I should still have a replay of that since it was a PBEM. Now, I don't have a problem per se with the collapse-cloud killing things, but my question is: blast / HE weapons are given a blast rating. Is there such a blast rating for collapsing buildings? Do the blast ratings for collapsing buildings depend upon size (single/2-level) or quality (light heavy bldg.)?

sorry everybody, my silly fault. I forgot that of course before every engagement the men were handed intel sheets about the enemy such as these: -------- you will be facing units of the 1. Zug, 2. Kompanie II/710 of 352.InfDiv, together with one Panther G (late) from 2. Zug, 1 Kompanie I/309 2. PzDiv, two PaK 40 7.5cm from PzJäg Abt.38, 2.PzDiv (...) . The crews and vehicles are set up as follows: vehicles with respective identification numbers #311: SdKfz 251/1 with veteran crew #312: SdKfz 251/1 with green crew fresh out of training #313: SdKfz 251/8 with crack crew (...) for your conveniance, because these numbers are only painted on the side of the vehicles, the enemy has been instructed to have large signs attached onto 10-foot poles affixed onto the vehicles with the vehicle number written in 3 feet high letters, to be read from the front and the rear. immobilized vehicles will have a bright orange flashlight activated. since infantry squads, due to replacement and losses ranging in experience from conscript to elite, do not carry identification numbers but of course you still have a legitimate interest in knowing their experience level, they have been told to periodically shout out aloud their respective experience level every 10 seconds. --------- later in the war, the famous "rainbow" color-code system was introduced that helped the enemy to identify correctly and fast the respective experience level from large colored bands painted around the vehicles, similarly the helmets of infantry squads were painted in the respective experience level color.

since there's a bit of people here who know their ways around british armor I might as well throw this question that had nagged me a little bit into the fray: why are there no valentines in CM? now, hold it, before you start shouting at me. Of course I am well aware that the regular Valentines were long out of front service by that time. However, I *do* remember having seen once a late 1944 ETO picture of a Valentine as a command tank in France somewhere. I don't know to which extent this occurred, and I don't remember the unit, but I am most positive on it being a post-overlord picture of a european Command Valentine. Then, next silly question, why are there no mine-clearing tanks in CM? seeing that we have AT mines in CM, the only way to remove them is by using engineers. These, unfortunately, are rather vulerable to enemy fire, so mine clearing in a combat situation where the enemy is covering the minefield is a very bloody to impossible task sometimes. This is exactly the stuation that armored vehicles, tanks as mine clearers, were used. Why not have Matilda and Churchill flail tanks, or Shermans with mine-clearing disks, as mine clearing vehicles? I mean, there would definitely be a use for them.

Interesting point about immobilization, and LOL about the rising of a no fair sign But here is something realted but much worse & more unrealistic. How does the enemy know that it's a "green", "regular", veteran" or "elite" crew? Because the UI will show this info about enemy vehicles (and infantry) as soon as they are identified (another mysery ahem mystery is the precise identification of enemy vehicles down to the n-th subvariant, my favorite example is the correct diferentiation between "W" wet ammo storage and regular variants pof the Sherman). Now please DON'T tell me that veteran american crews sandbagged their vehicles and such stuff, because in most cases tghere is no difference, on the outward, between a regular and a veteran vehicle, because it is a quality value of the crew. It is a very important piece of information that in reality the opponent qwould NOT have.

What i'm interested in is, do you have a spell against Churchill VIIIs? I desperately need one for several of my PBEMs. Or at least one that will make the Fireflies go away. They don't have to vanish, a mere abandon would do.

Nun Volk steh' auf... I just love those Volkssturm units. Old grampas reminding me of Statler and Waldorf, equipped with automatic weapons. Set them to veteran or elite and watch them beat up american paratroopers like no tomorrow (literally, for the late May45-Volkssturm) but - one thing is strange about them. Historically, the build-up of the Volkssturm had been legalized by Hitler on September 25th 1944; it was officially declared on October 18th 1944; and until November 30th 1944, OOBs and questions for the widespread arming and organization of this new formation were decided upon. In CM, the Volkssturm units are available already in June 1944. As much as I have grown fond of my crack Volkssturm shock troops, this seems quite an anachronism to me. Are the early Volkssturm units supposed to represent some other made-up ad-hoc unit, in other words, are they supposed to be sort of a generic representation of hodgepodge units, and if so, of which? ------ If Dolphins are so smart, how come they live in igloos?

Thank you BTS/Charles for taking the time and interest to answer to this thread, I appreciate it. I now see the reasons why you chose to model the weapons as you did. I hope you don't take it personally but as a sign of objective interest to the issue at hand if however I take the liberty to strongly question with that decision. In detail: "Some of the data mentioned above is incorrect." I don't see where any of the data you cite from Hogg contradicts my post, unless you were referring to other posts. "1. The Sten Mk. V and the MP40 have nearly identical data here, the only difference being the higher ROF for the Sten. This is reflected in CM by the Sten's slightly better FP at 40m (i.e. spray-and-pray range )." cyclic ROF is a two-edged knife. n one hand, yes, a higher rate of fire might make for more bullets within a given time of "spray and pray". OTOH however, since we are talking 30-round magazines (never fill up those magazines to full 32!), a higher ROF also means the magazine is empty faster. This means, if you are going for "spray", then lower ROF means a longer, more controllable "garden-hose" spray, which can be a desirable effect with a SMG. "2. Later models of Sten, like the Mk.V, were considered sound, reliable weapons." The Mk.V indeed was the late-war and short post-war version of the Sten. Yes it was considerably improved, but it retained that basioc fault that was not one of the weapon itself but of its magazines. You see the main problem with the Sten was actually that magazine thing (the security thing was remedied with the Mk.V). The single feed magazines' lips tended to wear out / bend and then the correct ammo feed failed. Since the Mk.V retained those single-feed magazines it still had that same basic problem of jammed ammo feed. "3. The MP44 has a lower ROF than the MP40," this is debatable. ROF varied between the different versions of the Maschinenkarabiner that lead up to the StG-44. My sources, german small arms literature (that I will gladly disclose shopuld anybody care), indicate exactly the opposite, namely a cyclic ROF of 500/min for the MP-44 and 400/min for the MP-40. Either way, the diference is minimal, since it is only a _cyclic_ rate of fire, and at a magazine capacity of 30 rounds any difference in cyclic rate doesn't have any influence on the practical ROF. "is heavier and longer," the MP-44 has a length of 94cm compared to the MP-40s 83cm; besides, the construction of the MP-44 means that mosdt people will find it to be more ergonomic, nicer to handle, foreguard and all, than the MP-40 MP40 4.61kg fully loaded, the MP-44 has one kg more; but when firing an automatic weapon you are happy about every additional gram of weight because it will make the weapon more controllable (less kicking), so while it might be a disadvantage for carrying it around all the time, for those critical moments of combat it's actually a plus. "and it fires a smaller bullet (the "kurtz" round, specially-made for the MP44) - hence its lower FP at the closest range. Of course its higher muzzle velocity makes it a more accurate weapon (more like a rifle) so it does better than the MP40 at all other ranges. NOTE: Muzzle velocity is a measure of accuracy, not damage-to-humans capability. " muzzle velocity _is_ a measure of damage-to-humans capability if the enemy human is not in the open but behind cover of various kinds, because a high velocity makes -ceteris paribus- for a higher penetration. Penetration depends upon energy/inertia and cross section (and some other factors not relevant here). As stated before, the MP-44 bullet has thrice the energy of the MP-40 / Sten and Thompson bullets. An earthen dike or a wooden bunker wall that might stop an MP-40's or Sten's 9mm Para considerably might not stop enough the 7,9mm Kurz. Of course that does not really matter in CM where 9mm rounds injure people despite them taking cover in heavy buildings because it is all abstracted, but it is just that abstraction and the abstracted FP value that is the issue here. Because the StG-44 ammo has more punch, it should have a higher FP value. of course since the FP thing is an abstracted value it is your choice what factors you weigh in what manner, just as it is your call on what exactly the FP value represents. However I will continue to disagree with the fact that a Sten is considered a more effective weapon than the StG44 by CM. Anyhow, thanks again for a great game and for responding, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Now this might seem nitpicky or ridiculous but I am dead serious about this. My complaint is that the MP44 (aka StGw44 or StG44) is not modelled powerful enough, at least in comparison to the MP40 and other SMG's out there (in CM land). The MP-40 is a submachine gun that fires pistol ammo, 9x19 Parabellum. This ammunition has an Eo of 580 Joule when fired from an MP-40, and, as is usual for any SMG, it strays considerably. The MP-44, despite it's designation, is an assault rifle, firing modified rifle ammo, the Kurzpatrone 7.92x33, at an Eo of 1,500 Joule; the more powerful ammo had considerably better penetration power than the 9mm projectiles which travelled at half the speed and had a larger cross-section. The StG 44 could be fired selectively on full auto and on semi-auto, needless to emphasize that accuracy was much higher than with the MP-40 or any other SMG, but it still retained the full auto capability just like the MP-40. Both weapons fired from 30/32 round magazines. Yadayadayada - all in all, the StG-44 / MP-44 was essentially a revolutionary weapon that was -for average combat use- superior to both the Rifle and the SMG/MP-40. Nobody seriosly questions that (or so I thought). well I was really looking forward to my MP-44 equipped squads taking the fight to the enemy. But when I checked the abstracted firepower value in the squad unit info, I found that the MP-44 made almost no difference whatsoever. In fact, it was even inferior: Firepower at given ranges ---------------40m---------100m-----------250m 2xMP44--------60-----------24-------------4 2xMP40--------72-----------22-------------1 the MP-40 is actually better than the StG-44 at 40 meters, and at 100 meters is is rated practically equal to the MP-40!! what's similarly startling is that the Thompson and even the decrepit Sten, an SMG hated by it's users because it could almost be depended upon to have a jam, have better values than the MP-40! ---------------40m---------100m-----------250m 2xMP44--------60-----------24-------------4 2xMP40--------72-----------22-------------1 2xThompson--90-----------22-------------1 2xSten---------80-----------22-------------1 that the StG-44 has a better rating at 250m doesn't really mater since a firepower of 1 OR 4 will not really scare anybody. In other words, CM rates the Thompson and the Sten higher than the MP-40, and all of these are rated effectively higher than the Sturmgewehr 44. This is contrary to the consensus of the small arms literature that I have encountered so far in my pastime of small arms. I would really be interested to know why BTS chose to model them that way? I know that they even did a check on some of these weapons themselves, so maybe they have a special reason for their decision? [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 08-08-2000).]

pretty all of my favorites have been mentioned here already. I love the JPz IV/L70(V) ever since I built one as a model as a kid. problem with it is it's low side armor, and a blindness when buttoned that seems to be especially pronounced with the JPz IV/L70. The other thing, as RMC pointed out and which I came to learn the hard way in a QB against a whole shlew of american infantry (against americans I was preparing for tank +AFVs, not inf) was its ineffectiveness versus infantry. The american squads actually chased around my Jagdpanzers like a gang of wolves wouldchase around sheep. This was however because of two inadequacies of CM: for one, the accompanying LMG 42 teams did not manage to hold back / suppress the enemy infantry with their MG fire, and secondly, the tanks cant simply by themselves pose a threat to soldiers by rolling over them. The JPz's ammo loadout is too low, too. I think with both the JPz, the Hetzer and the long-barreled StuGs the AP:HE ratio is modeled wrong with much too much HE, these were tank killers, not infantry support vehicles. StuGs shopuldn't have any smoke rounds at all for a regular mission. A mobility kill for a JPz IV/L70 is always an effective kill since it's field of fire is VERY limited. The problem also exists with the Hetzer and the other tank hunters. The problem is that you still have to depend on these vehicles since the germans lack anything like the Sherman. The Pz IV with it's slow turret and the nonexistant "do not expose to sunlight" front armor does not fill that slot. The Churchill VIII seems to have a nice AT power thanks to it's hollow-charge ammo, but only on the paper, because it suffers from the same problem that most vehicles firing hollow charge rounds have: since the hc is a special ammo, and ammo allocation is arbitrary to a degree, you might end up with 10 rounds, or with only one. And after those are spent, it's AP value is slightly below zilch, although it might immobilize a StuG / JPz (result: see above under JPz IV). The Firefly is a good choice since the way CM models them with their tungsten ammo they can blow up any german AFV. The Jumbo Shermans are good too, the 75mm one is practically immune to anything up to and including the Panther, and has the ammo loadout for extended fire exchanges or fire support. The 76mm Jumbo of course is a godsend since it is not only heavily protected but also has the magic 76 that will kill anything. Despite the HEAVY turret the jumbos don't seem to suffer respectively from an according decrease in turret speed. The T-8 is an excellent bang-for-buck vehicle. They are considerably armored, awfully fast and the 50cal makes short work of all german light armor and even kills StuGs from the rear at close distance. It has all the values of a tank yet doesn't infringe upon your valuable limited ARMOR budget. Indeed is is so much a bargain buy that I conscientiously have to be careful in battles not to buy too many of those since that would be gamey, because if you bought a good half or dozen dozen (depending on size of battle) of those and put Zooka teams onto them, you could swarm the enemy and take out anything. Not sure about the Hellcat. yes it packs a good punch and it's terribly fast, but it's open-topped and all-around has very little armor (allergic to anything that comes from the sky); usually all it takes is some well-positioned 2cm FlaK and the Hellcat's out of the game. Hellcats are QUICK in every aspect: they drive quickly, kill quickly, and die quickly. They are of little value vs infantry, since if there is infantry around, it will usually button up and not use the 50cal. But then, they were never meant for anti-inf work. the Bren MG carrier is an interesting vehicle, fast with lots of ammo and very cheap, unfortunately I find it noticeably unwilling to open fire at enemy targets. Similar goes for the SdKfz 250/9 on the german side. With the 2cm and the MG it should be an infantry devastator, but with it being strangely uninclined to open fire at infantry, together with CMs handling of automatic weapons as if they were firing single rounds (=bursts), both vehicles can easily be charged by infantry running up to them. my vote: Tomania: Hetzer: quite cheap, able to knock most things out and survive quite a bit with it's low silhouette and the sloped front. it's not king of the hill but the best all-around choice for everyday work at low price. inferior to the JPz IV/L70 in anti-armor work, it is superior in anti-inf work. Amiland: tough choice. I too like the Chaffee, it's a cheap tank for all-around work. The Hellcat's slightly more expensive, better at anti-armor but inferior at anti-inf. The T-8 is a real steal, unbelievably cheap. Limited ammo, still, at it's cost my vote goes for the T-8. Britonia: I too find the Churchills VII and VIII to be quite useful, obviously more due to their ability to withstand hits than to their questionable ability to punish other tanks. I like the White scout car, it should be a good buy with the lots of ammo it has for the 50cal, yet so far I have always had bad luck with them. Welml, so I guess my vote is for the Churchill VII/VIII.

dear forum, what I want to know is, how much does nationality/service branch have an effect in CM? this question was triggered by the "fallschirmjäger trend" and "SS are overpaid hamsters" - threads. an example to illustrate: the US Rifle Platoon has one HQ unit (at veteran 22 points) and three rifle squads (at veteran 42 pts. each). Now, the french Rifle platoon also has one HQ unit and three rifle squads, they cost exactly the same and they are equipped exactly the same way. Now, is there some remote difference between the two in terms of morale, experience, stealth whatever, or does the same money get me indeed the completely same unit here? this question is obviously not confined to this example. in effect, the whole polish forces available in CM (just as they were in reality) are a reduced equipment/unit list of the british, whereas the french are simply a reduced list of the american units available. IOW, total redundancy (unless you are for non-game purposes a fan of the poles or the french). Likewise, is the value and character of a Wehrmacht and Fallschirmjäger squad based solely on the equipment cost and experience x number of men, or is there an additional inherent difference? IOW, would (I emphasize "would" as there are no two identical VS / W-SS teams) a Volkssturm unit at veteran level behave (in terms of rout, firing accuracy, willingness to be taken prisoner etc.) just the same as Waffen-SS unit that has the same equipment, experience level and therefore price? yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

I agree with iggi and with Dan Weaver on thisone. It's quite typical that most people would immediately jump for the flashy, high-profile Villers-Bocage battle because they heard/read about it before. As has been stated before, the historical situation it is not a situation that CM can model effectively. It is not very representative of a regular CM game, and as such, it illuminates a problem that might indeed exist but way out of proportion because it becomes so very acute only here. RokSS reports an apparently similar situation due to a very gamey tactic, where according to his report the problem is not as acute, because it is actually a very different situation (sherman fast turret vs Tiger exceptionally slow turret etc.) iggi is right that a tank would not be able to tell a PIAT team from a crew. usually. he might positively identify some guys running around with a PIAT as such, but if he didn't see a PIAT with some guys running around he wouldn't know what they are. I mean, the way CM handles unit identification right now, even at full FOW, we *do* know that it's probably a crew. btw, I find that CM has too much very good and accurate identification. I wonder how a german infantry guy looking at a tank 400 meters away, seeing only the turret etc. can identify it readily as an M4A3(75)W+. what I mean is, he might know it's some sherman, but I do not know what recognition features he uses to tell that it has a wet ammo storage. I agree with CPT Foobar that the smoke thing w/o the respective action by the smoke-throwing tank, and the "surprise" after the smoke has cleared up (= the lack of even short-time memory of the attacking tank re. the location/presence of the smoke-hidden enemy tank) is more like the problem here. IMHO the other thing, the crew issue, might indeed be also a problem, but not of the priority of most pressing/it needs absolute fixing right away - kind. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

troops cannot fight from halftracks. There has been discussion about embarked troops shooting on the move. suggest a search. right now it is exactly as you described in your post, id est, you have to deploy the infantry for it to shoot, and the Halftrack accompanies them as a seperate unit.

why don't you just end the battle right there (alt-U) and check the post-battle map for kill statistics on the enemy side's units. if one of them has Panther written there then this issue is cleared up. If no enemy unit has the Panther credited to it, only *then* there might indeed be the chance for a fantastic chance hit by a smoke round. just goes to show again how important decent post-battle statistics are, and how important complete kill scores for the FOs are.

the thing with the second idea of course is that every (custom) scenario designer would be able to do it according to the scenario he makes so thatz kind of orientation/immersion aid would be available with the non-stock custom scenarios as well....

I think Gingko's idea is a sound one. Yes, why not have a map that shows roughly when and where the scenarios take place. I know this would not work for all the custom scenarios but for the stock scenarios delivered with the game why not have a map like the strategic timeline-location-map cc3 uses. Another idea, why not have a small, stylized map with each scenario, included in the briefing, of the "you are here" - kind, you know, white, with the outlines of borders and the frontline (bombline) shown, and a red arrow saying "Merde-sur-Mer, Aug. 6th, 1944". just an idea, maybe reasonable, for CM2....

since it seems to be en vogue these days and everybody and his brother changes or edits the CM-bitmaps into other skins here is my entry, the ultimate graphic that BTS in an unforgivable blunder forgot to include: the PINK PANTHER! Introducing the new revolutionary essential PINK PANTHER mod for CMBO, let me show you what this mod will do for your game of CM: pic.1: the pink Panther prepares to enter battle together with the Kampfgruppe Rosaroter Panther elite infantry squads: pic.2: this shot nicely shows the superb camoflage effect of the unbelievably pink coloration of the pink Panther. Alternately, if for some reason you wopuld not be convinced of the camoflage value and really really think it has more of the opposite effect, ok, you could also say, it's SHOCKING effect gives the pink Panther an immediate advantage over the bewidlered allied units - instead of immediately opening fire they have to repeatedly rub their eyes in disbelief: pic 3 is tribute to the unquestionable superiority the pink Panther enjoys thanks to the PINK PANTHER MOD. Undefeatable he reigns over the battlefield, sowing death unto the allied troops and vehicles. Scratch one more dull olive drab adversary! pic 4: the PINK PANTHER exchanges fire with an unfortunate american Sherman. While the allied crew is asking each other if they see the same thing, the leader of the KG Rosaroter Panther already spews death in the form of glowing metal towards it's victim! pic 5: Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing the amazing PINK PANTHER for the amazing CM ! PINK PANTHER MOD available NOW! Download while supplies last! Every last bit of pink color must go! in other words, now seriously, I think the graphics BTS chose for the vehicles are great already; no big thing to mess with the *bmps, and out of the recent influx of "skins" offered, some are good, and some are not quite as superior or essential as the others IMHO... yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 08-01-2000).]

...? must be turkish lira. aaaanyways, this whole thread and the initial post is prety silly. "Heulenkuh" is incorrect german, and the closest it would come to would be "weeping cow". The initial poster obviously meant to refer to the "Brüllende Kuh" which was an inofficial name given by the troops to the Wurfrahmen auf Sd.Kfz.251/1, a halftrack with six crates of one 28cm (32cm flame optional) rockets each atached (three on each side). A vehicle that allowed the artillerymen that fired the rockets to quickly scoot away again in armor-protected HTs from counterartillery striking the telltale starting smoke plume potition of the Nebelwerfer rockets. An interesting vehicle, it has no place in a tactical wargame, at most as an artillery asset. Setup etc. however would suggest to model it as an off-map asset. I for my part am very glad it is not in CM, I hated it in cc3, where it was much more misplaced even than it would be in CM. At any rate, we are not missing out on anything by not having it. six shots, fired indirectly and grossly inaccurate, and that would be it.

GAFF, I was aware of that. Maybe I expressed myself poorly. My Tigers were in an (IMO) excellent order, besides the fact that they were immobilized. I never asked for them to be repaired - I would have been a happy man if they had simply reappeared where they had been immob'ed, still as the immobile but functional tanks they were. as regards the historical fact, yes, indeed, the german repair system was not as successful as the allied. However this is also because much of the german losses occurred during general retreating movement, so that most tanks that had little damage or simply ran out of fuel couldn't be put back into action simply because they were now behind enemy lines. Many of the german losses at Kursk were actually simply mobility kills etc. I'm sure Fionn will agree and can say more on that subject. As to the salvaging of Tigers, I remember the means to pull Tigers was - other Tigers. Of course this put an immense strain onto the pulling Tigers' engines, shortening their lifespan and reliability. I think the military was not happy about it, there was simply no other way. I remember reading somewhere that some german leader, Guderian maybe?, wrote that more Tigers were ruined through this recovery work than through enemy interference, or something like that.