Mattias

Misread the question I did I was thinking in terms of how armour reacts to a projectile. Not how the projectile reacts to armour. M.

I think “spalling” is what you are looking for, one of many nice names that pops up when talking about armour-projectile interaction A few other effects: Brittle fractures, punching (shearing or plugging), radial fractures, ductile hole growth, petaling Great conversation subject on parties by the way M.

Another little titbit... My impression from reading Spielberger & Co. is that the most prevalent cause of loss of a Ferdinand in combat was due to the fact the engine compartment cover was too lightly, if at all, armoured. The Russian artillery was, seemingly, such that wherever there were Germans the shells were coming in like a hail storm. Even if not hit dead on, shrapnel would still penetrate into the engine compartment. And once dancing around there the poor layout with exposed fuel lines and extremely hot engines did the rest, hey presto, engine fire! Many of the changes incorporated in the Elefant upgrade was aimed at rectifying these weaknesses. The more I read about Kursk the more absurd the whole battle appears. Under those conditions no armor could be deployed in accordance to doctrine or common sense. M.

Doug, You could pretty much say they were During the summer of 1944 they were heavily engaged in the east (s.Pz.Jg.Abt. 653), strength fluctuating between 33 and finally 0 available vehicles by the 1st of August. Being slow and heavy they were ill suited for the rapid Soviet advance and several were simply left behind when they couldn’t be salvaged in time. The remaining vehicles were pulled out, patched up and eventually turned over to the 614th mentioned above (the 653 being "rearmed" with Jagdtigers). On the 30th of december 1944, 14 Elefants were reported as operational, fighting under the 4th Panzerarmee, Heresgruppe A. From there on it was just more down hill until pretty much the bitter end, as reported above. M.

Just fleshing out a bit... Actually the, then, Elefants fought on to the bitter end. Last recorded engagement was by the s.Pz.Jg.Kp. 614 on the 22th of April 1945. Four Elefants engaged in defence around Zossen, south of Berlin. (Spielberger & Co.) But, yes, except for the 11 Elefants sent to Italy in early 1944, all fought on the Eastern front. Actually there is a whole lot to be said in respect for the Ferdinand/Elefant. After reading the in depth coverage of in it book nr. 15 in Spielbergs series on German vehicles I came out with a whole new view of it. It had it’s shortcomings, some of them considerable, but compared to a perversion like the Jagdtiger (Sd Kfz 186) it looks like a reasonably sound design. Deployed in depth of the own defensive line it is a true killer. M.

- [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-18-2000).]

AndyRoss, Thanks, the LAW projectile is indeed a rocket propelled grenade. Keep in mind though that the term recoilless primarily is used in connection with weapons that use a conventional propellant charge, but avoid recoil by letting the exploding charge expand in two opposing directions. Examples of this type would be the Panzerfaust, the AT-4 and the Carl Gustav. I don´t think I have ever hear about a rocket weapon that has recoil, well, at least not a hand held one. M.

Is the projectile in the LAW actually rocket propelled? Thought it was a recoilless weapon like the AT-4. Anyone know? M.

John, Bit of a reply: ------ I can't find a way to quit the game. Have I missed it? Third: I would like to see a key to capitulate, cease fire or flee. ------ Indeed you have, check the hotkeys… Press: Esc to go to desktop Alt-Q to quit Alt-S to save Alt-C to cease fire Alt-G to surrender Alt-A to abort scenario ------ Second: I would like to have an interface that would enable me to quickly locate certain units and check their status. ------ Press: Search One of the done to death questions ------ Fourth: I would like to utilize points as in the old miniature days to determine force balance; furthermore, I would like to take those points and select my own units. ------ Press: Search You can do exactly that in the full game. ------ As I noted before, the animations are weak even without a one to one ratio. What do you think? ------ Press: Search Another of the done to death questions M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-02-100).] [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-02-100).]

I started out making a list of things needed but got stuck on one of them old stumbling blocks. It is a matter of some heated debate and has been brought up before. It is however eminently relevant to this thread too. The question is whether or not the “black box” should be opened or not. Shall the mechanics of the game be know to the player or should it be a matter of “natural” learning by trial and error? I for one favour presenting, in the manual or on the CD, relevant parts of the data being processed behind the scene. Exactly how does LOS deteriorate through terrain, exactly what happens from the moment two tanks come within LOS of each other and to the point that one is burning? The main reason for this is that I would to know if what I see is a bug, an oversight or a game decision. I have no problem accepting game decisions or statistics (luck), but sometimes (in CM: rarely) something feels very, very wrong and Id like to know why. The bottom line is really that substantiated input will be hard to produce unless the player get some sort of clue about the mechanics behind it all and it would makes those fleeting moments of, WHY!!, frustration easier to endure M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-02-100).]

Rick, Search: "76" Subject line only. M.

Go for it!! We’ll all be howling from the sidelines! We need blood to satisfy our cravings! Oh, and a balanced infantry scenario (hopefully in challenging terrain) would be a treat after having seen the armour in "Heavy Metal". Good bit of entertainment on the way to the final release M.

49 posts in almost two months?! Bah! You have to do much worse than that to be considered a nuisance. Double, or better, triple your posting and you might get to be considered a genuinely tiresome character As it is now... Peanuts! M. P.S. Previous poster among those entirely excluded from this [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 12-20-99).]

Thanks JonS and Fionn! JohnSalt sounds very familiar. But where, pray tell, on this wild web can it be found? In case I change HD another time or someone else is interested... M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 12-20-99).] [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 12-20-99).]

As far as I can see pause only, and only, adds to the initial delay. Now, as for disembarking this is how you do it: Plot your vehicles movement to, say, right next to that building 230m away. At the same time plot the movement of your tank riders into the building. Yes, there will be a long move or run line into the building but the infantry will not execute the order until your vehicle stops. And this applies even if the movement delay of the vehicle is longer than that of the riders. No pause of any kind involved. Works fine for me. M.

I just changed my HD and along the way I seem to have lost one of the most important files!! It was a compilation of sources on the armour penetration capabilities of WWII guns. Don´t know who did it but I picked it up quite recently and it´s bound to be out there still. Came in the shape of a fairly large word document. Excellent reference, humongous amounts of tables, ultimately proving the absolute impossibility to the claim of knowing the "correct" number of mm of armour penetrated by the gun X. Anyone recognise this and know where I can find it? M.

Does indeed seem to be a freak occurrence. In the setup phase One of the two Shermans to the right gets a “delay” of 45 seconds. Unless I have imagined this all, one of those on the road has a 10 second delay, again in the setup phase. While the 10 second delay isn’t very noticeable in the first turn, the 45 seconds definitely makes a difference. Hopefully Ill be able to get a screenshot of it too M.

Robert, I have no idea why there are vehicles that have, what seems to be, penalties at setup. I’m thinking specifically about the Sherman in CE that has a 45 second delay. Bug? But, and this is the norm, the movement delay is related to the experience level plus individual and C&C status (the latter not applying to vehicles in the demo). If you have a column you want to start, put the veterans at the front. Alternatively you could just use the "P" delay order. Or, even better, or use "M" move for the vehicles in the rear, a short "M" move and then accelerate up to "F" fast, in order to open up the column a bit. You’ll get the hang of it in a bit M. P.S. Oh, I don´t think passengers have anything to do with it. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 12-19-99).]

This is what he said: Hi all. I won't give a detailed status report, but will let you in on some things. It is now the end of the second week in December. We have roughly one more week before the Holidays. Charles and I are planning on doing the unthinkable and actually taking time off to enjoy them Yeah, I know, we are terrible people This has made a Jan 1 Gold Date undesirable. [note, we never had such a date, just a point of reference!!!!] Here is why... For about two weeks (or three?) we have been in Feature Freeze. This is a hugely important milestone as it signals the beginning of the end of the last phase of development. During this stage nothing radical is going into the game which involves ground up work. Tweaks, necessary improvements (like changing how artillery TRPs work), and bug fixing are all we are concerned with from now on. There is also the manual, which although largely done requires a decent chunk of Charles' time to flesh out and correct. Obviously he has been busy coding up until now. One of the downsides of such a huge and full featured game is that it is huge and full featured This means that there are a WHOLE LOT of little things that need to be played with and tweaked. It is amazing how much impact a single variable can have on a game, and we need to make sure that they are all fine and dandy with the 1.0 release or there will be a lot of (justifiable) grumbling. For example. I am currently testing the bounds of the DYO setup options. This is going to be used more than the eidtor IMHO, so it is VERY important that we bang on this sucker hard. Although it has been pounded on and is (as of today) bug free (not to mention a blast to play!), the ramifications of the setup parameters haven't been checked out well enough yet. This is not the way a game should be shipped. To illustrate my point, I found that as the attacker I could purchase WAY too many "Support" units. These are largely defensive type units, and are largely useless for the attacker. Yet there I was, with a small battle setup being able to purchase 20 HMG42s or 10 Pak40s (for example). This is not only unrealistic, but from a game play standpoint... stupid My suggested change will take Charles only a few minutes to do, then another round of testing, tweak, and repeat if necessary. End result will be something that everybody is going to be thrilled about, instead of annoyed or even pissed off. These are the types of things we are concerned about right now. As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the Detail. The game is basically done, but not polished enough. Sometimes that last 1% of work can make the other 99% shine or look like crap. Obviously we need things to shine Everybody is busting their butts to get this done ASAP, but nobody wants it to go out before it is totally ready. A special thanks goes out to our scenario designers and testers. They have largely completed their tasks and are working with tenacity to finish testing and tweaking the remaining scenarios. You guys are going to be singing their praises for sure. The stuff they have come up with is top notch. So where does that leave us? With a lot of little things still left to do. Major stuff is all done (except for TCP/IP) as far as the game goes, but the last bit of the development cycle that we are in now must be done correctly or much of the hard work we have done over the last two years will be sidelined by relatively silly problems. We will give you another update after the Holidays and let you know where things stand. Until then, we have our noses (what's left of them!) firmly to the grindstone! Thanks! Steve

Steve, Oh, I did look at his reasoning and I too found it lacking. But I was nevertheless curious about what might be the driving force behind his tenacity, besides lunacy of some degree that is. And as I read the posts the wrong way around I might have been given the wrong idea about which posts where the “developed” ones and which were the rants The way his elongated arguments are peppered with errors makes me think about a man with one leg too short, marching in circles, around and around. M.

Now, this might be to show him too much consideration but: It seems like Mark is insulted by the way CM is marketed, and generally referred to, as revolutionary while it is, in his eyes, not a work of such superlative inventive quality as found in the best board games. Well, fair enough. History will tell if the solutions utilised in CM was the best in COMPUTER 3D SIMULTANEOUS EXECUTION WAR GAMES. Personally I think every single aspect of CM will be improved beyond recognition eventually and I bet BTS would agree My point is, CM can be said to be revolutionary simply by virtue of it’s unique and pioneering approach to representing combat. Other will follow in the tracks of CM, producing solutions to the seen and unseen weaknesses in CM. Ingenious solutions that will produce end results much superior to CM. What seems to upset him is the ease with which CM opens up new possibilities and delivers solution. While pressing “L” and looking at the colour of the line might not be as intellectually satisfying as applying the superb LOS determination system used in board game X, it is nevertheless just as effective. Games following CM will no doubt deliver LOS tools that makes CM look down right primitive. Basically he is comparing apples and oranges. Like many an affectionado before him he scoffs these newfangled ideas, praising the workmanship of old and belittling the achievements of modern technology. What has been serves us in that it can show us how any idea can be improved almost indefinitely but it will with time be overtaken by or mutate into something different. Board games have indeed achieved remarkable standards in effective and realistic abstractions but that doesn’t in any way change the fact that computers and now 3D offers new and, in the latter case, hereto unexplored avenues of development. CM is a paradigm change to put it simply… But it is, as always. only the beginning… And, as indeed with all changes, there will be those caught in between or left behind… M.

Good thing you are not BTS Elvis I can only assume your joking. We get to see a minute aspect of the game in the beta. Another minute aspect of the game is not going to satisfy anyone. Ever considered the absolutely mind boggling number of options that the full release will bestow upon us? Terrain types, seasons, weather effects, unit types, qualities, strength etc etc etc Massive editor, operations, staggering amounts of scenarios etc etc etc To compare this with some Doom´esque beta satisfactions is simply incomprehensible to me... M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 12-17-99).]

What kind of sizes of the movie files can we expect in bigger scenarios? As it is now 40 turns of CE adds up to around 5 meg when zipped. Viewed only from one side that is. Bigger is bigger I guess? M.

So far it has been said that the gold demo will come out when the game goes gold. Since Steve has said that the game will not go gold this year it stands to reason that there will be no demo this year either. Would be much gladdened should I be proven wrong in these assumptions:) M.

Lokesa, And the beauty of it is that it actually works, just like in real life. Stick up your finger and feel which way the wind is blowing. Or, alternatively, have it shot off by that still unsuppressed MG:) M.