Mark IV

There were 2 huge threads on this late last year, with over a hundred contributors including most of the "usual suspects". Search "age" or "old fart" in title/header only.

Yeah, gotta agree with All American there, for the most part. 1812 was a definite draw. But... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Unless you consider keeping the Brits out of our country<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>... I mean, they totally burnt the capital, so we didn't keep them out real well. Interesting thing is, they never really taught that we won 1812 in school. We just seem to assume that if we didn't lose, we won. The Brits don't see it that way, and our failure to add 5 miles of snow to our dominion constitutes a loss in some eyes...

If global morale is the sum of its parts, and the morale of a squad (one of the parts) is reduced by splitting (losing some degree of command, control, and communications), then wouldn't it make sense for the global factor to take a hit? The more split squads, the less overall cohesiveness. PS: Picking the wheat of BTS posts from the archival chaff can be time-consuming- we eagerly await the fruit of Guachi the Gleaner. I wonder how much of the FAQ will be relevant, based as it is on the beta demo, after Gold?

As an experiment I split SS Motorized Squad C2 (in a saved version of LD turn 16). At the outset C2 had one man wounded and 9 OK. They had one faust, 4 K98, 2 MP44, 1 MP40, and 2 MG42, total firepower of 222, ammo level 18. After the split, C2a had 5 men with the faust, 2 K98, 1 MP44, 1 MP40, and 1 MG42, with total FP of 129 and the ammo stayed at 18. C2b had 4 able men and the casualty, with 2 K98, 1 MP44, and one MG42. FP was 93 and ammo level was 18. The firepower adds up to the original total and reflects capabilities of the various weapons. The ammo level remained the same, so I think of it as a fuel gauge (total ammo on-hand versus the level at the beginning) rather than an individual bullet count. Is this a correct interpretation? I then sent C2a on what might normally be an ill-advised mission (sorry, men, this is science) while instructing C2b to Hide. They sprinted, albeit with some reluctance, across an open field to storm a stone house held by a US squad. They expended considerable ammo as they neared the house, and their ammo level went to Low (to my surprise they suffered 0 casualties and the US squad surrendered). C2b's ammo level remained at 18. An Allied surrender abruptly cancelled the test, so I tried again. Splitting a healthy B1 with full ammo (40), I committed half to a charge and hid the other half. Then I brought up the second half in order to recombine after some action. After a couple of turns, B1b was down to ammo level 19, and the newly arrived B1a had 38. After recombination, the re-formed B1 had 28, the average of the 2 halves, rounded downward. Beautiful!

A "memorabilia" shop back in Detroit used to have on of those up on the wall. Slick design- but no bayonet lug! Perhaps they were just anticipating assault rifle legislation...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would argue that Japan, may not have been better off had they won<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They got firebombed, nuked, and occupied from one end to the other. Their overseas possessions were lost, their national treasures destroyed, their women violated. If that ain't losin' I don't know what is. The phrase "unconditional surrender" is illuminating here. After they LOST the hell out of the war, the world changed and they are doing well in it (winning the peace). New subject, different issue.

dano6: I don't think the blade sight was actually on the gun barrel (never seen one there)... rough sighting was/is for the TC to quickly put the gunner on the target, but as far as I know was never intended for actually targeting and firing. I can't find a picture of the blade sight but I don't think it was coaxial to the bore. I'm sure desperate men would resort to desperate measures, but at anything over point-blank this would amount to no sight at all, for firing purposes. Does CM bother to indicate damage to the optics, or penalize accuracy, if the back-up periscope is still operational? Enjoyed your article, by the way!

There was a discussion of this here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001369.html <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can not expect the vehicle to know what your intentions are. Computers can not read minds If it drives along the route that you plotted for it, bumps into impassible terrain, it *must* take evasive action. There is *no* other option for it. A blocked path is a blocked path. So the best advice is to plot further away or use more wayponts to make sure you aren't cutting the corner of a woods tile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>-BTS followed by: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It would be nice if we could give you some warning that your path is cutting through some impassible terrain, but it is not that easy for us to code such a thing AND have it not affect the UI responsiveness on mid to lower end systems. This is definately something we can address with the next version.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>-BTS So we do have a problem explaining our intentions to Mr. Computer. The cause is quite understandable. However, it would be difficult to picture a human TC ordering the driver to continue bumping into trees, buildings, or other vehicles until a path around them was found. It may just be asking too much of the CPU to figure "well, he wants me to end up there, but I can't drive through this impassable stuff, so I'll find a way around it". But there is a noticeable difference between the way the computer elects to solve it and the way a human would, i.e., eyeball the terrain and drive around the woods. -answers by Searchotron [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-31-2000).]

The effect of damaged optics on spotting ability would be a truly outrageous level of detail. I can't imagine the tiny, highly directional view of the gunner added much to the tank's general spotting ability, though I suppose it could be quantified. As for the main gun, no optics, no gun. They weren't equipped with iron sights or even a shotgun bead, and with the optics gone, the gunner is inside a drum.

Group Move really doesn't address the pathfinding issue. If an AFV "bumps" a wooded area in the beta demo, it is not uncommon to find a series of AI-created movement orders after the game turn, i.e. reverse-move-reverse-move-move-reverse etc. It is (was) as though the AI couldn't see the woods, and was "feeling" its way around it. The best thing to do is Backspace to remove them all and plot a new course from scratch (usually starting with Rotate, to get around the obstacle). This is said to be much improved in the release version.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Did you win or lose the American Civil War?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We won. A Yank.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The beginning of WW I was a joint effort of leaders of Australo-Hungary, Germany, Russia, Britain, and France<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sure you meant "Austro-". As every Australian schoolchild knows, they didn't start the war, and they would have bloody well won it in a week and a half if the Pommie bastards had let them... [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-30-2000).]

Based on the AFV ratio and considering the source, I assume the British are defending?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is this the trend of all youth?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. Colin and Panzerschreck are 14, and seem quite aware of who won WWII, how, and with what. We codgers are always squawking about the ignorance of "youth", but frankly, most folks are pretty ignorant of history. People interested in military history (not just gaming) have always been a subset. As are people who can rebuild carburetors, arguably a more useful interest. I wouldn't judge a generation by an individual; and at least she asked the question (stupid one's the one you don't ask, right?). You have an opportunity to pique her interest, or at least get her out for some drinks... (Why am I drawn inexorably to such padlockable topics?)

Trained to search, but not to Yahoo. The site was nice once, but I don't have the patience to hack my way back in. Won't try again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>we are not going to make the manual available in electronic format.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>-9/22/99 BTS <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. The 2nd draft of the massive user manual has been completed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>-today, 3/28 or 28/3 depending on orientation, BTS Official Announcement Hmmm. Does this indicate the manual will be on a 3" thick CD? No, impractical, that. And PDF? Do you think that people who could produce something as cool as the Intro Trailer, from something as cool as CM, would provide a manual in something as blatantly uncool, pirateable, and crapper-hostile as a frigging portable document file? Negative, mates. I see the key words here as "not...electronic" and then, "massive". This says "large" "paper" to me. Beyond which all else is immaterial, since I have access to 3-hole punches, drill motors, and other unregistered implements of destruction. Mark IV -Sycophant of Search, with apologies to Guachi, the Magellan of Search-as-sig-theme

Why not reload Winzip? They're up to about version 7.0 now. www.winzip.com

I just got busted watching the trailer here at work (audio set too high, damn). Fortunately it was by a "friendly", and I think I just sold another copy. I've been trying to get him to fire up the demo for weeks, and this knocked his eyes out.

I'd rather play on June 6th, by way of commemoration, than be doing a massive download or pulling guard duty by the mailbox . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When will we release the Gold Demo? Not until we have sent the Gold Master (the final full version) off to be duplicated some time in May. This will mean the Gold Demo will be out and available for roughly 2-3 weeks before we actually start shipping.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OmigawdOmigawdOmigawd Thanks all for encouraging me to try it with NT, ran GREAT- I was put off by the directX disclaimer for the demo on the same page... Can you believe the recoiling gun carriage on that, what is it, a short 75? This is too cool... - I can't believe beta testers have taken any time to post here at all , when they've had THIS up their hard drives...

Yes, Panzershark was first, but I thought it deserved its own header... intro available at: http://www.battlefront.com/products/worldwar/cm/index.html ...and I can't see it because I'm at work on my @%$&*$@# NT (directX required) !!! [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-28-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We're gonna get FAQ'd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL. The correct pronunciation, in the MS spirit, is the phonetic one: FA-Q. Elvis: Couldn't you release a demo FAQ? If you wait til it's done, won't competitive FAQs surpass your FAQ? Will the FAQ be available in stores? Why can't I issue a Run command to an FAQ? Seriously, once you post something, we can all contribute... or nitpick. I can see whole threads spinning off of each of the FAQsters answers... ... and theology-grade interpretations of BTS' previous posts. Sounds like fun! [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-28-2000).]

With all this work going on behind the scenes, you should post who is working on what. Otherwise, potential helpers would risk a massive duplication of effort. What I appear to be saying is that we need a FAQ update. And, when is it going Gold?

Again, in "A Time for Trumpets" MacDonald describes many occasions where American quad .50s on AAA halftracks are used against ground troops at the Bulge, not to mention the 90mms and smaller AAA cannon. The historical record proves that AAA guns were a factor in WWII infantry battles, on almost all fronts.

I remember building a model of the "S" tank in the early 1970's- a very cool design. Autoloader, can be fired by either the driver or commander- controls for steering also operated the gun... Here was some basic English info: http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-83907/strv103.html I think you're going to like this one (the Unofficial Swedish Armor Site): http://w1.500.telia.com/~u50003151/index.html This has many links although I can't read Swedish... there also seems to be a very interesting armor museum at Axvall! http://www.algonet.se/~toriert/axvall.htm