Mattias

Eh, Cool... I suppose you have actually seen CM in action with a V5 5500 then? Since CM is not massively frame rate dependent I would have though it would be acceptable even at x4 FSAA, it´s not online Quake after all. No, Nvidia does not have dedicated hardware for FSAA in any way comparable to 3Dfx. No, it is 64 Mb on the V5 5500 board, 32 Mb to each chip. Then again, unless the V5 5500 FSAA effect in CM is absolutely fantastic Ill probably go a Nvidia card since it is generally faster and packs more "modern" features. M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 06-09-2000).]

Hear, hear, Germanboy... Tanks for show, grunts for a pro... M.

Kverdon, 1. What CPU are you using? 2. Is the frame rate drop noticeable when switching between no, 2x and 4x FSAA? Interested in this feature myself. It seems to be about the only real selling point for the V5 card right now though. Then again, since CM is the reason for having a computer I guess Ill have to go with what is best for the game. M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 06-09-2000).]

Sorry, nnnn, I have to... 17 pdr = 76.2 mm 25 pdr = 87.6 mm M.

Silencer, Looks like a SU-85 to me... M.

Well, then we are all assholes I guess... This is the single most (412 times only last year) asked for feature "not yet in the game" TargetDrone. BTS has said it is a thing they definitely want in the future but so far they have been forced to leave it out because of other priorities. But at the pace things are progressing right now I wouldn’t be one bit surprised to see it in the 1.01 patch... M.

Head over to http://toaw.thegamers.net and (TGN TOAW section) and take a look at how it is done there. Basically each scenario is rated by the players with regards to its quality vs. humans and vs. AI respectively. With the additional information given by the designer about each scenario there certainly is enough to satisfy at least my needs. M.

Wolfe Is it a rumour or can you confirm with absolute certainty that Nvidias version of FSAA will work with CM? Barring all the usual compatibility and setup problems of course... M.

Eh, could someone please tell me more precisely what kind of gamey behaviour that could result from giving the crews the ability to abandon and re-manning the guns? I’m asking because despite trying I can’t really see the problem in this particular respect. M.

Friends, I could get in here with another round of facts and arguments but it seems a tad bit, well, over the top as we apparently discuss this from quite different standpoints. Suffice to say we would probably have to go through this very slowly and in great detail to sort this issue out, this not being the place to do it. Or is anyone intensely interested There is more than meets the eye as far as this subject goes and the picture given in passing in many a book just doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. Doesn´t even have to be that close coming to think of it... M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 05-25-2000).]

First of all, sorry if I repeat questions and answers that has already been given, I had to work through my head myself before answering and it's sort of late here Well, Bullethead, perhaps it is a misconception on my behalf. The basic concept stems from a model working solely with the shaping of the explosive itself and the resulting direction of energy, correct? I on my part have no doubt been influenced by the level of importance that has been placed on the design and composition of the metal liner in all weapon designs I have seen using shaped charge techniques. Because that is where the work is being done and advances in this field are nearly exclusively due to improvement in the precision in the liners shaping and centering. What I would like to know is, how does the effect of an optimally shaped charge without a liner compare to one with an optimally shaped liner in it? If the liner is merely an improvement the difference couldn’t be that great, could it? If there is a substantial difference favouring the charge with a liner I would interpret that as indicating that the liner is indeed critical and essentially the “enabler” in achieving armour penetration at the level needed for anti tank purposes. When it comes to describing the actual workings of the shaped charge (with a liner as that is what is in use) there seems to quite a bit of differences in opinion and a lot of terms being applied loosely. As I have understood it what happens is that the explosion collapses the liner. The kinetic energy imparted to the liners metal is such that it is virtually no longer coherent and will thus behave as an incoherent body, i.e. like a fluid. However, the metal is still solid but it moves at such a speed that it can change it’s shape like a fluid. This has been proven by way of a simple experiment: Several liners were sawn up into pieces, and these where then carefully reassembled and kept in place by melted explosive. The charges were then detonated into deep water tanks and the slugs recovered, subdivided into as many pieces as the liner had been cut into. This, as far as I can see, disproves the mistaken description of the metals state as “melted”. The jet itself however, can not be recovered as it is so thin that it disintegrates. Just as would, say, a knitting needle fired at 50.000 m/sec. This latter fact seem to be the source of much of the confusion. It is however, in my view, the rapid flow of matter (from the metal liner) in the jet that is primarily responsible for the armour-piercing effect. Now, things don’t exactly get less complicated once we get to the point of the actual workings of the interaction between the matter-jet and the armour. I have in front of me an article describing this in detail (Georgio Ferrari, “The how’ s and why’ s of armour penetration”, Military Technology, Volume XII, Issue 10, 1988), but the only way to really describe it adequately would be to quote it in its entire length. The short and extremely unfulfilling explanation is that the jet flows through the armour by way of hydrodynamic interaction. This interaction is not only influenced by, it depends on, the characteristics of the metal used in the liner (gold for example being superior to copper). The slug, or carrot as you call it Bullethead, is simply the slower part of the liner that flowed in the other direction in the compression phase. The slower part that is used in the “alternative” type of shaped charges you mentioned. The distinction between “Self Forging Fragments”, “Explosively Formed Projectiles” or “normal” HEAT rounds however, is mostly superficial as it all boils down to shaped charges that have been optimised differently. As has been noted the “flat charges” (SFF/EFP) uses the slug as its penetrator whereas the normal HEAT uses the jet as described above. Using the slug instead of the jet gives the weapon two important advantages beyond larger behind armour effect, firstly, it is less dependent on optimal stand off ranges and, secondly, stabilisation by spin rotation can be used as the slug does not get disrupted the way the jet does. Ah, well, take a bit of that and Ill get back to ya M. By the way, be glad if you boys could indicate some of your sources regarding the facts presented.

The spring of ’44 saw the arrival of Panzerzerstörerzüge in the infantry regiments, as part of the Infanterie-Panzerjäger-Kompanie. Two of the four platoons were issued Panzeshcrecks while the other two kept their anti tank guns (Kriegsstärkenachweis Nr. 154b). Each of the two Züge consisted of three Gruppen, they in turn subdivided into two Truppen of 6 men each armed with: 3 Panzerschreck + 30 rockets 5 Magnetic AT mines or Panzerfausts 20 Flash charges (for blinding the opponent) Their mission was, not surprisingly, to protect the regiment from enemy tanks. SOP was to whenever possible operate within the Gruppe formation, i.e. 6 Panzerschreck creating a “nest” with mutually supporting all round fire. Optimally the defence was built in such a way that the AT-guns overlapped or at least complemented the fire from the Panzerzerstörergruppen. On the eastern front special Panzerzerstörerbattalionen were set up organised with 3 Kompanien, each comprising of tree Züge, similar to the ones found in the Infantry regiment organisation. In the end the problem for the Panzerschreck was that in many cases had to replace more capable but scarce AT guns, instead of merely supplementing them. A role in which it was adequate but hardly satisfactory. A low point in the development of the anti tank forces in the German army was the bicycle mounted Panzer-Jagdkompanien. An officer, an NCO and eight Panzernahkämpfern armed with Sturmgewehren and Panzerfausts rode around the countryside looking for enemy tanks to, well, try to blow up. M. Oh, Reference: freely concocted from "Die deutsche Panzerjägertruppe 1935-1945", Fleischer und Eiermann. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 05-24-2000).]

In one PBEM game I fired a bazooka at a StuG in LD. The rocket missed the StuG but hit the church, which promptly collapsed It had been well pounded before that but it was definitely the bazooka round that was the final straw for the building. Bullethead, with regards to the effect of the shaped charge. The reason it retains it integrity is mainly because it is no flame and not really what one would usually picture as a "jet", well, at least not me. The part that penetrates the tank is called a jet but it really is solid metal. It is not melted, vaporised or pulverised, it is quite solid. However it can behave like a liquid when it’s motion is interfered with, but that’s only because of the high speed with which it moves. the HEAT jet really is a metal penetrator just like an ordinary AP round. The difference lies in the method with which it is delivered, the speed of it and how it interacts with the armour when penetrating. M.

Supertanker, Right you are, as my old English teacher would have said The "77mm" gun mounted on the Comet tank was actually just a shortened (less power, less recoil) 17 pounder, designed to limit the amount redesigning needed for that tank. The designation "77mm" was given to avoid confusing it with the 17 ponder as they, naturally, had the same calibre, 76.2mm. M.

Johan, I am doing very well with the Voodoo 3 2000. 16 mb and all functions up and running smoothly. Cheep and available in both PCI and AGP version it should fit your MB no matter what type you have. Others have had problems with it here but as far as I have seen it has all boiled down to driver or DirectX issues, the card itself does a good job once the software is right. In any event, good luck M.

Jeff, The 83mm weapon is the 20 pdr gun mounted on the Centurions after the war. M.

Butler, Press "SUPPORT" at the BATTLEFRONT.COM banner at the top of this page. Then proceed to the "General battlefront.com support area". There you will find all the addresses you need. M.

Rommel, In the case of the 81mm mortars you can do exactly that. Place them anywhere you like at setup, in or out of command and they will be able to fire (provided they are in range of course)within about 20 meters (in any direction) from the centre if the pre planned target. Still better is to have the mortars in the command range of a leader that can spot for the mortars. That way they can fire at any spot the spotter sees. In this case the pre planned target helps the accuracy of the fire. Finally, the 150mm sIG is not an indirect firing weapon, thus it can only fire directly and do not use the pre planned target spots. M

* [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 05-18-2000).]

Has just been discussed back to front, and then some. Do a search on, eh, spotter... M

Charles, I have sent two shots showing the situations I described in the original post. OB&G I have the shots but can´t seem to post them. Take a look just before the central road from the US setup area reaches the "valley floor", just before the road makes a turn to the left (then proceeds all the way to the crossing). M.

Might have been a bit too boring for this jolly crowd but I´ll have another go at posting this question What exactly is the “slope” terrain type? It seems to me that it is not a standard terrain type but rather something that appears “within” other types of terrain, possibly when the gradient gets beyond a certain point. In any event, it causes a bit of a problem in the gold demo. Firstly, on the centre road leading down into the valley from the US setup area there are a number of “slope” spots in the middle of the road. These “spots” do not show up unless you pass them with the move cursor (in which case the line turns red, as in impassable), if on the other hand you miss them while plotting the move along the seemingly ordinary road you will find your vehicles laboriously rerouting. Secondly, on hill 216 for example there are within the ordinary “tall pines” terrain “slope” spots that, unlike the also present “tall pines slope” spots, seems to give considerably less cover (same as clear mayhap?). In a recent game I had a unit moving (crawl) to one such spot and hide. This unit was spotted immediately while others moving in exactly the same way nearby in the “tall pines “ terrain were not. If the “slope” spot indeed gives less cover this was not a chance event. Again, the “slope” spot is smack in the middle of a “tall pines” terrain tile. Now, I’m not really sure I consider this a bug or a serious problem most of the time, after all, out there in realty you never really know what can be seen from or seen into any minute piece of terrain. However, slope “spots” in the road terrain is a bit of a hassle. If nothing else Ill keep a lookout for these “troubles” when designing scenarios myself… M.

Perhaps later comrade, a bit in CM2, some more in CM3 and onwards. The reason for this is that the features you are asking for are mostly eye candy while at the same time puts additional demands on the system, especially in the case of treadmarks here. But when CM is on the road and working there will no doubt be time spent on implement features that further enhances the feeling of immersion while not being pivotal for the functioning and playability of the game. This while the capacity of the computers used to play CM will increase steadily too. So, not now, but soon enough with BTS at the rudder M.

Steve, Setup a hotseat game in VoT. Give the German 75mm bunker an ambush order in the orders phase and hit go. Once the opposing side is about to watch the action phase you will be able to spot the ambush by marking the 75mm bunker, at least before starting the movie. M.

Congrats DesertFox! Another fine testimony to the strength of enthusiast and a sound game engine The first SP:WW2 really made SP live on for me and by the look of it the V3 will take that even further. Good job Cheers! M.