Mattias

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I guess that explains why all Americans are so fat /M

Having a squad running along the fire and around in the area target zone of a company of infantry for several minutes did nothing, nore did the .30 cal. of two Shermans. The second I opened up with the commanders .50 cal., area fire, the squad was cut down. Pretty clear it seems. /M

Yep, let it be said once and for all! To my mind Battlefront has already delivered gaming goodness for several lifetimes. Every day from now on that they keep on working is a gift, a bonus a treat. Insufferable fanboy? I guess. But what can you say when pretty much all your gaming requirements has been fulfilled for the last 12 years by one company, at a price that is roughly what I have to spend to rent my apartment for to weeks. The value for money is simply ridiculous. And now with QB force picking back in the game I have to strain myself to not burst out in spontaneous fits of giggeling at work /M.

Another classic scene indeed Sir Guardian of the Sacred word of Python! I wonder what Cato would have said to that /M

The problem, as I see it, with the new CM:SF style Hunt command is that it slows down the WEGO game, or at least makes i less flexible. The fact that a hunting vehicle now will stop at pretty much anything, perhaps a few seconds into the move, means that I loose a large part of my (60 second) move. Also I can never use hunt as link in a chain of commands since most contacts (all?), no matter how relatively insignificant, will void all subsequent moves in the chain. In CM1 the typical Hunt related contact would play out in one of two basic ways: 1. I am actually "stalking" an enemy tank. That is I am prepared to engage it whenever or wherever it turns up. In this situation I am actively "moving into a contact". 2. Hunt as part of a general advance, individually or a group. whenever a contact pops up I kill or suppress it, and move on, if the contact poses a real threat to me the Tac AI would act to get me out of there. -And I always felt the Tac AI cared pretty damn near exactly as much for the lives of my men as I do. I have played CM1 to the bone over the years and I have never -ever- felt that the Hunt command has led me into trouble by "making the tank pushing on into a danger zone that it could not handle". Between myself being a reasonably sensible commander and the CM tactical AI the tanks don't just waltz into the killing zone with the idea that it´s invulnerable and the survival routine will kick in if the enemy turns out to be too much of a match. There are no other examples to give because that is how I play it, as a "Active Stalk" command or as a "Cautious advance of the base of fire". Both these tactics are now quite severely hamstrung in the WEGO scenario. What I have found to be a bit of remedy, if not a cure, is the fact that in CM:SF, and now it seems CM:BN, the scenario length has pretty much doubled, decreasing the impact of the lost persistent in the Hunt command. In summary the loss of the CM1 Hunt command is primarily a loss for a WEGO player. Personally though I have so far failed to grasp how the CM:SF style Hunt command has actually improved game play, even for RT-players. Finally as a preemptive and hopefully redundant comment on my over all impression the demo I quote Cato: Ceterum censeo CM:BN est optimus venatus /M

*snif* For a moment there I had me back in the attic apartment where we eagerly awaited the Beta demo still giddy with excitement from the AAR. This is definitely more than a game. This all mother beautiful Let the good times roll! /M

Ahhh! Can you feel all the warmth in the air? Glory days are here again /M

He is very much alive and kicking. I´m pretty sure that CMBN will bring him back from hibernation and I´ll tell him he´s expected /M

Interestingly enough this is exactly the same reaction that was seen a few hours after the CMBO Beta demo was released. There was an outcry on the forum when the Hellcats crested the hill and knocked out the Tiger tank, from the front. As it turned out this was no fluke, which you will see if you whip up a quick test scenario in, say, CMAK. Sherman 76´s, head on at 600 meters will give Tigers a very hard time usually knocking them out after two, three or four hits even sans "tungsten". A one shot kill is nothing extremely spectacular in this perspective. /M

About the Jazzing Panthers: Looking at the video AAR I got the impression that the "collision avoidance pause" automatically imposed by the game (which throughout CM and CM:SF has been four or five seconds) has been reduced to one second, causing this erratic start-stop behavior. If this is the case then this looks like a test version of some kind. Personally I have never been bothered by the 4-5 second delays in CM and CM:SF since they seemed reasonable enough and solved most of the congestion problems. A one second delay on the other hand seems to be an inferior solution. /M

Not Spanish speaking myself but the dedication your are showing in this presentation of CMBN rally shines through Akira. A credit to yourself and hopefully another well deserved push for BFC! Thanks /M

Personally I buy all BTS, sorry BFC, in house products religiously. I figure I got at least 1000 $ worth of fun out of the CM Alpha Demo so in a sense I am still paying off my debt. That made me buy CM:SF in the first place but somewhere around the time of the British module it started grow on me. The omission of QB force building has continually hamstrung it and I still don't understand cover and concealment (when compared to CM1´s cover percentage rating) but there is so many ways to mix and match the forces that you are almost bound to find some kind of match up the meets your interest. But looking at the Video AAR of CMBN and thinking about how I would have played it I can see that this will truly be it. /M

LOL Finnkampen being the annual athletics competition taking place alternatively in Stockholm or Helsinki. We who are old enough to have been bitten by it at some point subject ourselfes to two days of televised atletics of widly varying quality with three participants from each nation facing off in each event. Something out of days gone by still retaining that original amature feel to it. /M

I knew I had a hell of a day but I was still a bit taken aback by being nr 6666 to view tyrspawn´s first video AAR. Excellent stuff of course but I was also intrigued to see the information about where we live that share an interest in this noble pursuit... A dark green US was hardy a surprise but the runner up, or is the leader, Finland having more hits than both the Limeys, the Frogs and the Krauts, all who could reasonably be assumed to have very direct interest in CMBN, was a bit of an eye opener. The Swedes putting their finger in the pie as well was to be expected but that it was an even bigger finger than Canada or Australia I would not have guessed. Interestingly enough Afghanistan stands out as well... Makes you think. Cheers /M

Yes! Two minutes to midnight

Wondering the same thing. In particular if there will be any changes/additions to the "A.I." options. I would really like for the A.I. to have more walk/slow/hunt type movement options. Cheers! M.

Now looking in Lärobok i Militärteknik, vol. 4 "Verkan och skydd" (textbook on military technology vol. 4 "Effect and protection", 2009) there seems to be some good information on optimum standoff ranges for shaped charged munitions. Mind you I am a layman, these are technical texts (no surprise there) and I´m eyeballing it off the charts. However the basic facts are that penetration and optimum standoff range are directly related to the calibre of the shaped charge. Excluding all other factors a modern normal (non high precision) charge achieves maximum penetration (around 7-8 times the calibre) at a standoff distance of 6.5 times the calibre (5-8 times the calibre being almost as good). N.B. Before starting to work on the numbers please consider that one very important improvement (among many) that has been made since WWII is in refining the exact shape of the metal lining in the shaped charge. This has led to the optimum standoff distance being shorter in modern designs when compared to WWII era weapons. Looking at the numbers again a modern, standard, 84mm warhead (now why did I pick that figure?) penetrates something like 84 x 7.5 = 630 mm of armour at an optimum stand off range of 84 x 6.5 = 546 mm. Notice that a very high level of penetration is still achieved out to a range of 84 x 8 = 672 mm (and even at a standoff distance of 84 x 14 = 112 cm, a penetration of 84 x 5 = 420 mm is achieved). A Bazooka round at 60 mm would have an optimum standoff range of 390 mm, if it had a modern design. Being a WWII design it should have a longer standoff distance. Just a late night reflection, M.

In short: 1. No one on this forum (or any where else as far as I am aware of) has ever been able to produce any 1942/43 era evidence that the Germans considered HEAT type weapons when designing the skirts. 2. What has been shown is that during the design stage the skirts were successfully tested against two threats; 14.5 mm ATR rounds and 76.2 mm HE. 2. The 14.5 mm rounds where defeated primarily by the tumbling caused by the skirts. It caused the round to twist and turn in the air, not hitting the main armour head first. Thereby sufficiently reducing their ability to penetrate the main armor. 3. The HE rounds were prematurely detonated, destroying the skirt element but saving the main armor from serious damage. Cheers, M.

Ok, a possible source of confusion. In CM1 there is no Hunt command for infantry, in CM:SF there is (and it seems to be more of a of a "very carefully search" command - and I like it as such). The move to contact command is a different story. What I was wondering was how vehicles will use the Hunt command? /M

Might have been mentioned before, but how will the Hunt command work in CM:BN? Stay the way it is in CM:SF; cautious move - stop if any sign of dangerous activity (including own artillery) - then stay in position. Or revert to something like CM1 standard; Alert move, stop if enemy in sight (not if non armor target in "armor cover arc"), engage (unless, like before, non armor target in "armor cover arc"), the move on along the path when target is for any reason lost. I can see how the olden CM1 way could be problematic in a "real time" game environment. But then again not really to the extent to which the CM:SF method limits WEGO play by slowing down the pace of advance as a fresh movement order has to be issued every time there is any indication of enemy activity (in combat that might mean a 5 second move and a 55 second wait, again and again). Seeing as we got the QB unit picking back (and improved) I guess there is hope Cheers Mattias

Dind´t most standard AP rounds, like the APCBC Pzgr. 39 have explosive fillers? If so I imagine it would be the explosive charge going off at impact (or rather just after impact). M.

All out there, looking for their Entwives I should think. They might return now though, as the horns of the never ending battle can be heard again /Mattias

I for one had was actually frustrated by how slow RT and originally WEGO battle developed before "the blue line" was brought back. This means that I am still frustrated by how slow RT battles move compared to the "fast forward whizz" in WEGO. Added to that; the amount of time used in RT by me is further increased by my personal inclination to over manage the troops (and even more so now that there is no order delay time). This tendency is tempered by the fact that I can only influence (meddle in) the battle once every 60 seconds (the optimum compromise as far as turn time goes for WEGO if you ask me) and the extra losses that this, in fact realistic, inability to influence the flow of the battle further cuts down on the number of units I have to manage So for me WEGO is in fact much faster than RT and has such an alluring mix of control and thrilling lack of control, that removing it would really kill the CM magic. [slight move away from the subject matter] WEGO however depends on some crucial factors working properly. Such as the, what was it called, battle AI making at least reasonable decisions on things like not opening fire, withdrawing or stopping to fire and solutions to basic needs like being able to dismount during a turn. This worked well, I think, in CM1 but somehow the troops seems slightly less concerned with survival in CM2. Well, perhaps it is a concession to the RT perspective where it is now possible to make those decisions yourself. If so it is would be to the detriment of the WEGO play. In CM2´s current state I feel there really is only one critical factor that has been lost when you compare CM1 to CM2 from a WEGO perspective. That is the problem that you, most of the time, do not know exactly where your squad is going to end it´s move. The little "move end preview feature" showing the approximate position of the squad when giving the move order improved things considerably. However there still is to much uncertainty, for my taste, when it comes to the positioning of the squad compared to the abstract representation in CM where I could always be certain that, for example, the squad was in the trench, the MG would setup properly and there was no tree blocking my LOS. These problems are not as clear in RT but in WEGO you need to be able to trust in the AI to sort this out because the process of micro managing the positioning of an MG is just too time consuming in WEGO if you have to spend a turn for every little change (and this is not me being obsessive, I really think setting up support weapons is much more complicated in CM2 since there are so many things that can go wrong when it comes to positioning, LOS etc). Not sure how this can be solved but one part of me would like to see the return of the "% cover" information and some other tools to help understanding the, shall we say, quality of the squads current position

na