Mark IV

Convert to what? Anyway, it's in your mail. Not my best moment.

The jerries really need(needed) a scout unit with min 20mm armour to ward off those .50 cals FWIW, most of the German ACs including Puma had 30mm frontal armor. Veteran crews are less likely to abandon in a marginal threat situation, and a good investment IMO when ACs are required.

This is a great potential resource and reference for all future "Book... " threads. Nicely done, and some suggestions are in the mail. Thanks!

What a deal- 2 heads of cabbage. Couldn't some of the alleged mud ability of the Sherman over the T-34 be attributed to superior suspension and/or shifting ability? Dunno, just thinking of what else could make a difference besides ground pressure. Russki driver controls weren't noted for user-friendliness.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the StuH. A very good bargain, especially when you can't make change for a "full" tank.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grognerd_Fogman: You must be talking bout those lil Daimler types. God I hate those<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah, the even littler zippier T8 things and their endless variations. Like bloody mosquitoes, they just swarmed my little village. No direct threat to Panthers, but full of unpleasant little folk with guns and explosives. I had one startling experience with a Daimler ambush in another AI battle, and I got a great screen shot of its eventual demise, with a 75 up the tailpipe and a magnificent catastrophic explosion. I always show that shot to potential CMers.

Pretty comprehensive list at: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000516.html Dozens more if you search for "book" in the topic header.

Sounds familiar... I set up a little QB defending a village, and it dealt me 2 Panthers and a 'schreck. That was it. I had spotted the AI +25%. Sheesh. I killed all the armor (my little schreckster got 'im a Cromwell) but engineers, infantry, PIAT teams, and those annoying little zippy things that Brits use were EVERYWHERE. My tanks just couldn't LOAD fast enough. I sued for peace when the Panther crews rolled their little eyes up to the screen... how embarassing.

Jeff: Just wanted to add my thanks and appreciation for all the tedious work! Nicely done.

"Steel Inferno" - Michael Reynolds Second recommendations of MacDonald and Keegan. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Anyone read Burgetts Holland book yet?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, what's in it?

Voodoo 3 and above (at least), just go to www.3dfx.com and download the latest driver. Works great for smoke, fog, & everthang. Make sure you have at least DirectX7a or later (?).

With all due respect to the intrepid Searchonauts... BTS has brought realistic war to the masses (I am a mass; you may debate my desirability amongst yourselves). Is that bad? Lawyer has stated it well. Not everybody has the time or expertise to play CM at the "early beta tester" level. I don't think they're necessarily disqualified. "it was never included in early test versions of CM. It was never in and never missed in the slightest" by acknowledged grognards of long standing. By definition. Look how the base of the pyramid is growing! (which is not to imply that newbies are base, nor pointy-headed). This is the best thing to happen to REAL wargaming since SP, or possibly computers in general, since it makes realism "cool". 'Most everyone here respects LOS', Moon's and rune's opinions and insights, along with Fionn, Matt & Co. (afterthoughted only due to their reticence in this thread). But having read the umpty-millionth post on how we're a niche market and no one likes us and the big boys won't cater to demands for better glacis modeling, I say take this bastard and run like the wind! Bring it to the people, and their dollars will make CM2, and CM83 (The First Punic War, which I would really like to see, after Korea ). Soon, kids at the espresso bar will be skateboarding up and kibitzing about so-and-so's gamey preference for Nebelwerfers. There are ways to keep the game's integrity without pre-qualifying how many cardboard markers you fished out of the dog's mouth in the '70s. CM has more free publicity now, than it's ever going to get. Useful tools (like rosters) that pique the interest and hook the newcomer are good; otherwise, the private club thins itself, and nothing follows...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: Yes and no, if the roster is some sort of magic turn by turn update in the status of all your units no. If it’s a static OOB fine I can deal with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aye. I know some of us pictured a unit list, and clicking the unit would select that unit on the map- nothing more. At least I did. An interactive OoB, if you will. Point on feature-creep is well-taken. Two guys alone draw the line and wherever that is, is fine with me. The best arguments in favor of the roster are lost in the shuffle: new player satisfaction, and more favorable reviews. Both of these issues go straight to the bottom line. Mr. Aitken: I am used to being disagreed with, and would be surprised if I weren't (it would mean (sniff) that all the board regulars were dead). 'Twas only the condescending tone that struck a nerve. Lose that and we can debate till the cows come home.

Hmmm... at least 2 feared and respected PBEM opponents in the anti-roster camp. AHA. They don't want ME to have it! Now I am inalterably pro-roster. The game MUST have it. Actually, I remember requesting one in the beta days. Now I don't really need it anymore, but as I said, I might use it if it were there. I really don't understand what it could detract from the game for others. I'm thinking WWII commanders probably had a list of the units under their command. I can't think that it's very realistic for a group of men to stand at parade rest for a full minute on a battlefield because somebody double-clicked the + key. If the user-interface simulates the chain of command, how likely is it that a platoon leader would forget one of his 3 squads? Whereas the CM god-player with time constraints has to physically and personally command each of the units in a scenario the size of Cambes, or larger, once per sim-time minute. So a roster is like a drink-holder in a car- not gonna make or break the deal, but darned convenient once it's there. OTOH, I need to play more people who misplace 150mm spotters....

If the roster was there I'd probably use it. There are other substantive things I'd like more, all of which alarm Mr. Aitken. Is it really necessary to remind everyone with which you disagree (several of whom have been around here for quite a while, BTW) that this is not CC/an arcade game/Doom/Quake? This is a regular pattern....

Done. Bit of a hassle, but not too bad.

It's just about everywhere to rent, it seems. Those who enjoyed it may like "Space Cowboys"- just saw it and it was quite entertaining. Sort of a mini-reunion of geriatric survivors of KH. More believable, too.

Understand the objection, but how would you know? It's just another HT doing the recon thing if FOW is on.

Max area for Battle map = 5 square kilometers, but neither dimension may exceed 4000m. Operations Maps may be 5000m along axis of advance (but still 5 sq. km total).

Fresno, California (originally Royal Oak, Michigan)

The Bradley is only intended to protect occupants from shrapnel and light small arms fire. It was not designed to deflect main gun rounds and direct artillery hits. Being "multi-purpose" it may encounter heavier guns, but that was never its intended role. It's just a lightly armored transport for infantry to a (modern) fluid front. Check out the "I" in IFV. If you put it in front of ATGMs and tanks, you're the idiot, not the designers. Whaddya want, a 60-ton high-speed troop transport? Fries with that?

I concur with BAR that .223 would be a very good choice. BANGs like a real gun, no appreciable recoil, cheap military practice ammo abundant, and ballistically excellent. I should have suggested it, but I'm a hunter. The .223 (5.56mm) can actually kill deer neatly (shot placement is everything!) but is not recommended for that. The Remington 700 is available in .223. Again, looking at this from your perspective, that Rem is an industry standard- there are more parts, kits, scope mounts, and gunsmith familiarity with it than almost any other bolt-gun out there. I love arcane exotica but you'd be nuts to buy that kind of thing for a first gun. I love old Remington Rolling Blocks and I'm tickled with Babra's .43- I have a couple .43 (11mm) Spanish and they rock. Good luck getting ammo at K-Mart (sorry, Canadian Tire). wadepm: I paid compliments to the M1 but I note that Springfields continued to be issued as sniper weapons in the US through Korea. We are talking about incremental, not geometric, improvements in accuracy but it's that last 5% that makes the difference. Bullethead: Point taken on the flintlock (been thinkin' about one). Archery has some similar issues. I like the notion that despite your best efforts, the damned thing may not go off at all- kind of like units in CM. Too real. Think about what that was like when the Iroquois ruled the night!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: What is "The Flinch"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Psychological anticipation of recoil, that causes the shooter to tense (unconsciously) at the moment of firing. The more punishing the gun, the more likely that you will develop some degree of it. A major cause of missed shots and poor groups. The cure is mostly self-discipline and technique- breathing control, a nice light trigger, stance, and proper squeeze (the instant of detonation should be a miniature surprise). Hardware can help- recoil pad, hearing protection (also worth spending a few extra bucks), and muzzle brake or porting (diffuses exhaust gas in multiple directions to reduce felt recoil). Not over-gunning in the first place is a big help. Grizzly stoppers aren't much fun to shoot more than a couple of times.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: our DI's always told us that we were only one sabot round away of being in the infantry! I have no problems with crews filling the line on the defense (offense is a different story!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well put, I could not agree more (I was told the same thing). Jarmo said he might "declare Alamo and have them added to my defense" and taken in context, there isn't a problem there. You might have a little "Alamo" situation in one part of a larger battle. Able-bodied crews can and should assist in desperate defense; they could defend a small buillding. If they don't like it they will surrender. I am totally against using them for recon or offensive purposes.