Mattias

Kiwi, Norman, Mike, All graphics, barbed wires included, can be edited. Go in there and change them the way you want or wait till somebody else does it for you and posts their creation... M.

And for the record... The Panzerfaust projectile was not rocket propelled, it was a recoilless launcher. M.

Head over to www.cdmag.com and take a look at the April 17, 2000 CGO Editorial, "The perils of living in a niche". Nothing brand new and he´s partly barking up the wrong tree methinks, but still a thing or two to ponder for some people... Then again, those who should, being who they are, probably doesn’t realise it M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 04-17-2000).]

Username, What I meant to say was that, even though it takes days until the turns is actually executed and sent away, doesn’t mean that I didn’t play the turn very rapidly. What I am talking about is the flow of an entire PBEM game, not the actual time spent within the game plotting the turn. Who knows, I might be the fastest player in the world and no one would ever notice since I enjoy playing by "slow" PBEM As for time constraints being a relevant factor in a combat simulation, sure, but having my roots in massive board games I guess I tend to accept and indeed enjoy the slower pace of the game as a whole. Then again, being a very fast and accurate turn player can be a huge advantage in some board games, like SL/ASL. Personally I can´t relate at all to the realism debate surrounding the Omni-awareness and time constraints you mention. I know and understand the arguments well, but simply hold the position that I am but one mind, they are many. Hence I need more time and more information than historically available. In wargaming the factors and levels of realism needed to achieve a sense of "immersion" are as diverse as there are people playing. And in the light of this it is rather pointless of trying to flog off essentially subjective views as something approaching objective truths. Not that that has ever happened in this forum M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 04-16-2000).] [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 04-16-2000).]

DEF Your not talking about PBEM games in it’s original sense, what you seem to want is TCP/IP games. It probably started out with snail mail chess at some point, or whatever game was played when messages begun to travel regularly between two points. The enjoyment is not in the instant gratification, but in the leisurely pondering of the turns and not least in getting a "present" when you come home from work and check your mail, E- or snail. If you want more action, play a few matches simultaneously, because for a lot of people PBEM is not about constantly playing the game but instead about having a bit of a mind game with a good friend, the letters sent along with the turns often being more "important" than the game itself. Different games play differently in PBEM. I guess no one would react to slow play if the game was a massive TOAW scenario, but there really is no difference to my mind while playing CM. It’s not about having to plot a turn all day, it’s about playing a turn when you have the time. I fire up the computer, check my mail, enjoy one, two or three turns sometimes with just a line to go along with it but more often a bit more, telling about how thing are their way, interests, work, this and that, reflections on CM or the game at hand. Now, that’s what I call playing for enjoyment. This is the way I PBEM. M.

Username, Having a little trouble following the debate I have a suggestion. It might clarify things if you would give a suggestion as to how this difference that you are trying to show should be implemented in the game. I’m not saying that you should to come up with anything revolutionary, just a hint on how you see it. While, of course, considering the game wide implication of such a bonus in relation to the balance of the current game system, other weapons systems and the general demand for the ever elusive "realism". Could, at least, further my understanding of your point of view. Cheers M.

A job well done friends Great to see a good discussion ending up in a thorough yet concise presentation of what really is known and what is part of the myths. And an odd subject it is. A weapon mounted on the extremely well documented German panzers being so mysteriously undocumented. I guess that’s what makes it so interesting Thanks for making the effort! M.

While on the subject. Does anybody know how good the software Anti-Aliasing on the GeForce is (or isn´t it implemented yet?)? Now looking at CM and considering all the jagged lines (same as in all games) then looking at and reading about what FSAA (Full Screen Anti-Aliasing ) does for 3dfx demo pictures and games, it seems to me that this could be a very nice feature for CM (again, along with all other games). Now, I know using FSAA results a significant performance hit but getting 32 bit colour 4x FSAA at about the same speed as a normal VooDoo 3 3000 still seems tempting. I don´t want to start the tiresome old fan war between graphics cards, I´m just interested in what Anti-Aliasing can do for CM. Any thoughts? M.

Dalton, ---------------- IMO, the Beta demo has TOO much functionality. because $65 Cdn is a lot to pay for "a bit" more functionality. ---------------- Someone thought the same thing after the beta demo came out, the answer now is the same as then... Your kidding, right If the gold demo is about the same size and scope as the beta demo it will cover only a fraction of the full game. Two (?) fixed scenarios containing a minute percentage of all the units in the full game. A game that will ship with a bucketful of scenarios (soon to be hundreds of user made ones) and sports a heavy duty editor and DYO scenario engine. Weather effects, seasons, nights... etc etc etc etc etc etc... M P.S. etc etc...

This is getting ridiculous... Is there no end to how good things can get F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C!! M.

By the way Fionn, Are you sure the RAM you currently have is good enough for your new system? Bottle necks come in all shapes you know... Drop the PCI 128 soundcard. Why cripple yourself when the much much superior SB Live value is available at extremely favourable prices considering the performance. And if you go with Athlon and a GeForce on top of it, make sure the power supply in your box is sufficient, 250W at least, some say 300W. Oh, and welcome to hardware hell M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 04-11-2000).]

James What about the ones in the middle then, the ones that does not seem to have a helmet? M

What´s the size of this thing? 10.9 Mb? I´m at 13750 K and Go!Zilla just keeps on loadning... Doesn´t look right to me... Happen to anyone else? M.

The 75mm M2 and M3 gun looks to be inferior in all sources, even when the 6 pounder is using basic ammunition. When the latter is loaded with APDS the lead opens up further. I think I remember reading that the APDS rounds were quite a bit less accurate though, strangely enough... Manufacturing problems mayhap. While on the subject... The 75mm Mk V used in British tanks had about the same modest penetration capabilities as the US counterpart when using the standard APC round. However there is one or two sources indicating the presence of a APCBC round, which looks to have been quite a bit more powerful (plus 50% actually). Now, the problem is that this gun, for some reason, is almost never listed in the myriad of gun performance charts available. And hard facts are hard to come by when it comes to British tanks. Anyone out there have any more info on this gun or the APCBC round and it’s prevalence at the time of the campaign in the west? M

A bit more… The gun mounted on the “S” was a longer (L/61 methinks) version of the British L7 (rifled) gun. No 120 mm version has been used in service. It was taken out of service with the arrival of the Leo2´s in the mid 1990´s. The strengths of the design in a tank vs. tank situation were pretty much lost with the arrival of tanks using fully integrated and functional stabilisation, laser ranging, thermal sights and target computers. From then on it was reduced to being a mobile pillbox. In a fluid combat situation its abysmal thermal signature and modest mobility would have crippled it. Still survivable but a moot point in a tactical sense. It was thus finally axed, as should be, when it became a liability in the armoured formation. In peace time these things just take a little longer than they “should”. However, if this was the result of any real development in Swedish armour doctrine, or just the fact that the news toys (Leo2 and Strf 90 for example) were more fun to play with, remains unclear. Mark IV, the museum at Axvall is not exactly ideally situated but should you for some reason find yourself in those parts of Sweden you are in for a treat. As long you can live with the extremely cramped display there is a lot to be seen, unusual and lovingly cared for (many fully functional) tanks from all periods. M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 03-28-2000).] [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 03-28-2000).]

Again, all I get is a cryptic answer and no mention made of POTD requests previously put in prospect. Ill interpret this as indicating that I’m not eligible to compete M.

Fionn, A trick question?? The plan was to install the L/46 gun beginning in March 1942. However, it was found that the Pak40 (earlier Pak 44) could not be installed directly in the Pz IV turret due to the long recoil and unwieldy projectile. The redesign to solve these problems led to a substantial shortening of the recoil, from 900mm to 485mm, as well as the adoption of a shorter, stubbier cartridge that reduced the length of the loading chamber from 730mm to 508mm. The success in shortening the recoil later allowed for the installation of the L/48 barrel that primarily was opted for because it was easier to produce, though it also gave a useful performance boost using the same cartridge and projectile. In March 1942 the first 18 Pz IV F2 with the L/43 gun were produced. In April 1943 all producers had shifted to the L/48 barrel. Or are we talking test vehicles? M [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 03-19-2000).]

Regarding the Elefants in the Ardennes, Bit of support for Steve’s theory. Spielberger, who is a reliable source as far as I have seen, says the following: The Elefants in Italy was 1. Kompanie / s.Pz.Jg.Abt 653 (11 vehicles, 3 possibly following?) which arrived in late February 1944. On the 26th of June the company was ordered to send it’s repair and recovery unit to link up with the parent unit, now fighting in Russia. The remaining Elefants stayed in Italy (no exact figure given, but the last month in Italy around 2 or 3 vehicles were typically combat ready at any given day). The rest of the 653 fought in Russia from April to the 3d of August when they left for RnR in Krakau, at this point 14 Elefants were available for the unit. These 14 were combined into one company and went back into the line on the 19th of September 1944 (17. Armee, Heeresgruppe A). No losses were sustained during September and October. In October the 653 was ordered back to rearm with Jagdtigers. After this all remaining Elefants were handed over to the 614th s.PzJg.Abt, the only remaining Elefant unit except possibly for the odd ones in Italy. This unit fought on to the end on the east front. Now, the source mentioned by Maus states that the engagement took place on the 23d of December. At this time Spielberg places elements of the 653d near Blankenheim (at the time 18km behind the front) with 6 Jagdtiger, not being committed to battle. They were intended for but not used in Wacht am Rein. The first use of the Jagdtiger seems to have been on the 31st of December in support of the 17th SS PzG Div, as part of operation Nordwind. Just one more source to ponder. M.

Since the Comet is quite a bit lighter than the competitors the comparison limps a bit from the outset. What the Comet was in any case was a well rounded medium tank. The gun is inferior to the 75L70 and the 90 mm but is still a good gun by W.W.II standards. The 17 pounder "light" carried by the Comet had a calibre of 76.2 mm to be exact, just as the big brother. The designation "77mm" was given in order to prevent any mix-up between the ammo for this gun and that used in the "real" 17 pounder. The reasons behind the development of the weapon has already been explained above by Trooper. The first Centurions (A4I) mounted the 17 pounder, the 20 gun came later. The calibre of the latter gun was 84mm. In the Panther vs. Pershing battle Id put my vote on the Panther, again by a thin margin. The advanced 90mm ammo seems nasty, at least on paper, but the power to weight ratio of the Pershing looks a bit on the low side considering the relatively equal level of armour protection. M.

I guess everything is relative The Ferdinands that were destroyed by Soviet infantry at Kursk was so because the German infantry was unable to follow the advance of the armour through the mine fields and artillery. The lack of machineguns was a weakness but hardly a decisive one considering the already absurd situation of a super heavy turretless vehicle operating "alone" in the middle of a extremely well dug in enemy. The main cause of Ferdinand losses at Kursk was due to artillery though, not infantry close assaults. Browsing the sources I see that ASL (yup, a source) claims that Elefants saw combat vs. the 4th Arm. Div. south of Bastogne in December 44. Can’t confirm that anywhere else though, anyone know anything about this? M.

The subject has been up before... In short: The Ferdinand saw combat through operation Citadel and later the summer of 43. It was withdrawn and upgraded (Elefant)during the winter and then returned to fight in Italy the spring of 44 and in Russia the same summer. It fought on to the bitter end with the last engagement recorded in April 1945. M.

Kill, 1. The Ferdinand will not be in CM1 as none served in the west. 2. No allied tanks can kill it frontally, you hit the 80mm sides and rear The situation is no different than the one faced when going up against a lot of other German tanks and TD´s though. Riding your standard issue Sherman will require the same type of agile tactics when facing most German late war designs. Your strongest weapon will be your brain most of the time. If you are smart 200mm of armour won’t help him, if you are stupid it doesn’t matter what gun you are touting. M.

Captain, As well meaning as your idea is I think you are missing one vital point, the GM´s are in this just as much for their personal enjoyment as the players are. It is just a matter of personality what mode of play you prefer. The players show their appreciation of the GM´s work by putting in an serious effort themselves in playing their characters to the hilt. If we (the players every bit as much as the GM´s) can get this campaign to become a living and vibrant experience we all stand to gain what we came for, each in his own way. And rest assured, if the players don’t pay up in time, interest and enthusiasm there is no GM in the world that will be able to fix this, even at a 1000$ a head. It is simply not a matter of money… M.

Say, Bakker, what are your sources for all these articles? M.

Snark, Have look at the hot keys list... Alt-S for saving. M.