[Horses & Transport]

Originally posted by ciks:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

I think it has also been previously explained said that although widely used for transport, horses were not often involved directly in battles, so they don't fall in the scope of CMBB

(like kitchen units, ambulances, etc...).

So are trucks, but they're in CMBO.</font>

[#@!!*?%#! 4.56 Kb/ps dial up modem!]

Hey Bucket, if your modem chokes on the thing I could send it on a Zip disk.

[Does jinking help?]

Originally posted by Walker:

one question still remains unanswered: why do fast-moving vehicles get hit at all, if as Michael says '...gunners in CM do not predict the future motion and location of a moving target. They shoot where it is now...'??

The way that I understand it (and it could be completely wrong, so take this with your preferred amount of salt), the program looks at the target at the moment of shooting and one of the things it assesses is the target's speed. I would imagine the degree of speed affects the shot, but the direction does not, since it is being considered only at the instant the gunner pulls the trigger. So a fast-moving target is a fast-moving target, no matter what direction he's going. The numbers are crunched, the program decides whether a hit or a miss has occurred, and then we see it in the movie.

Of course, that's only for AP shots. Guns firing HE do not lead their targets, as others have said.

[Wandering Turret Syndrome]

Hmm, World War II as a bottleneck event in feline evolution... I like it!

[Wandering Turret Syndrome]

Hi Robert, and welcome!

Two possibilities here - either nobody will bother to answer your question, or you'll get a ton of responses saying "*yawn* this is old news." Mainly because it is.

Anyway, this was argued over long and hard when the game was first released (often because of the scenario you mentioned) and there were changes to tank behavior in a couple of patches, but I think the consensus is that the current behavior is as good as we'll get with the CM program. Put very simply, your tanks are like babies - if an enemy is out of sight, he's out of mind, and their attention will shift to some other bright shiny object.

[MGO Exclusive Developers Diary For Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Is there a way to have a qb with a company of infantry and a platoon of PzIVs (is that gamey??) without spending so many points on the panzers that you could (AND SHOULD) get an additional 5 or so copmanies of infantry?

Isn't this exactly what you can do in a combined arms QB now? As I understand it, with rarity off, CMBB will have a comparable points scale (based on unit capability). This seems obvious, so I must be misunderstanding your question...?

[Headquarter units are they for real?]

Interesting to see that German medical troops are armed in Scipio's TOE. Dunno about other Allies, but if memory serves, American medics were not supposed to be carrying weapons (though doubtless some did) during WWII. I've read several accounts over the years of how both sides in NW Europe took care to avoid firing on the enemy's medical personnel (when they ID'd them as such), so it's surprising that the Germans were arming their guys.

Granted, it's the pragmatic thing to do in modern war.

[ May 03, 2002, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Offwhite ]

[Headquarter units are they for real?]

My armor is always dead long before it's within range of an HQ unit, so I haven't shared your frustration.

Do you notice a difference in tank-rushing behavior between attacking and defending scenarios? I'm wondering if it's related to how (AI-controlled) lone HQ's bravely charge into the teeth of the defense.

[Headquarter units are they for real?]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Yes I have always noticed and still do that they love taking on tanks all by themselves and normally can knock it out. Now this I feel is not realistic at all. Maybe once in a blue moon but certainly nothing like it goes on in the game.

Are you disagreeing with the frequency with which they close assault, or their success rate? The latter is a programming issue; the former is a result of players driving their tanks too close to enemy infantry. I'm guessing it's bad tactics more than bad programming.

[Machine Gun Jams]

The crew should clear the jam automatically within a turn or two. I haven't heard of anyone permanently losing a jammed gun.

[Heavy SMG squad FP table]

Originally posted by Mattias:

Does any of you know that this MG assistant thingy is in fact a design feature of CM or are you just speculating wildly?

M.

It would appear to be deliberate:

RudeLover has it correct. The difference is what weapon the assistant gunner holds. In the Mot squad it is a Kar98k, in the Heavy SMG unit it is an MP40. Therefore, the FP ratings of TWO Kar98ks are deducted from the LMG ratings for the Mot squad and 2 MP40s are deducted from the LMG ratings for the Heavy SMG unit.

For example, look at 500m. We have rated a single LMG42 at 19 FP at 500m. Since an MP40 is not capable of shooting at that range, the two LMGs in the Heavy SMG Squad have no deductions, and therefore the combined FP rating is 38 (19 each). In the other two examples Hofbauer pointed to the assistant is a rifle man, armed with a Kar98k with a FP rating of 1 at 500m. So a single LMG42 has a rating of 18 and two have 36. You can do the math for the other ranges and it should work out just fine like this.

Hope that clears things up

Steve

From http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=012023

[Mortar Halftracks]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

My impression of the East front is that there weren't that many multi-story buildings except in the rather built-up areas; hopefully the maps in CMBB will reflect this? If it's true, that is...

[Changing Ammo for tanks?]

Makes sense. I guess I was thinking only of the "below ground level" aspect of being dug in, not the sangar/bunker/head log/other cover part.

[Changing Ammo for tanks?]

Originally posted by JonS:

Yes, except that your teeny little commander will not use real-world™ tactics, such as "pick and shovel" (one AP followed by one HE) against dug in troops.

Should it be obvious why this is an effective tactic? I'm missing something... :confused:

[CMBB - WHEN?]

Steve (IIRC) has said that time spent in their efforts to provide frequent updates and responses to the board in the months leading up to CMBO delayed the game itself by several weeks. I think most people here would rather get CMBB sooner than be subjected to a stream of teasers and wait until '03 for the game.

[Automatic Buttoning Up]

Agree on the sniper possibility - those shots are hard to hear in the midst of a battle, or even over your engine noise.

[howdy! i'm a new member]

Well, let me be the first to say Welcome, and be sure to say hi over in the main forum as well - that's where the really talkative crowd hangs out.

[Mortar Halftracks]

IIRC, word on the street is that HQ units will be able to direct mortar vehicles' fire in CMBB - which will be critical with ATR teams running around.

[BAR - what was it ?]

Originally posted by Zitadelle:

(Unlike the M1, the BAR's .30 round could penetrate sandbags and some stone.).

The info I've seen indicates that they used the same round, at the same muzzle velocity (2800 fps). Why did it penetrate when fired from the BAR but not when fired from the M1?

["The Once and Future Lurker #13: I am playing an A$$hole and the view is poor"]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

we should not interact with other human beings, except the ones with lumps in the front

You know, whatever those other people might say about you, you do have an inimitable way with words!

As my lit prof once said, "A realist will call a spade a spade, but a naturalist calls it a damn dirty shovel."

["The Once and Future Lurker #13: I am playing an A$$hole and the view is poor"]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Someone once posted something like this along time ago.

---

I found it it:

The_Capt

Member

Member # 4041

posted March 13, 2001 01:58 PM

Oh dear, only a year and our captain is repeating himself? We need CMBB stat!

[HISTORICAL WAFFEN SS QUESTION??]

Oh good, I'm here early enough to grab a good seat before the grogs show up.

My immediate reaction is that your grandfather's opinion is (understandably) skewed since he's talking about his own branch of service. I'd hardly expect him to say "my bunch were okay, but we got kicked around worse than the Italians" or something.

[2 Biggest Problems with CM:BO]

I'd only welcome a jump map if it didn't take up any of the screen space currently used for other information (or the battlefield view). There's room where the BTS logo currently resides at either end of the CMBO info bar, but that "unused" space might be reduced in CMBB for all I know. Anyway, something like the map in Age of Kings would be fine, but anything occupying a larger percentage of the screen would be annoying. And a full-screen map that required a keystroke to access would be no different from what you get by hitting "8" now.

In the meantime, I'll happily continue to use shift-C, shift-T, 4, 8, and ctrl-click.

[OK, what kind of German tank is this???]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the Meyer picture so neatly obscures the KV with that dust cloud? Not that a nation at war would ever doctor a photo...

[OK, what kind of German tank is this???]

Rommel - if that's the same AC (and they do look pretty similar), then something surely happened in between the two pictures, as the car's side hatch is closed in your pic and open in the eBay pic.

As for fraud, I'm more inclined to cut the guy a little slack and say it's a mistaken caption. Who knows what kind of operation he runs; he may not have even posted the pic himself. I'd e-mail him before e-mailing eBay; if it was a mistake, he can correct it, and if it's truly fraud, he knows he's been busted.