Conscript Bagger

For one thing, during the entire time they were developing CM (they were at it full-time I believe), they didn't have a significant income. No profits until CM was released, so if they'd spent longer putting more features in, they'd have been reduced to eating half-priced ramen and driving economical foreign-made cars. Also, putting an extra year's worth of equipment for each side would likely have been too much to do and still get the game out in a reasonable amount of time (the same rationale Steve's given for not including the 39-40 Winter War in CM2). CM2 will cover a longer time period and much more equipment than CM1 did, but remember they've doubled their staff and much of the work has been done already in CM's code and the subsequent patches.

Check your e-mail...

There's no guarantee you'll find everyone no matter how long you spend in the building. In a recent game I moved a platoon into an objective building (large heavy) and after a turn or two, started getting infantry sound contacts in the street outside. Over the next several turns, I moved two of my squads across the street and into adjacent buildings, but never found the enemy unit. At the end of the game when I viewed the map, there was a full-strength, unhidden enemy battalion HQ in the objective building, so close to my remaining squad that their bases nearly touched. My squad was facing away from the enemy, but was unsuppressed and in command (in fact, the friendly HQ was in the same building with LOS to the enemy as well). Can't remember what experience level my squad was, but even green troops should be able to locate an enemy less than 5 meters away!

On defense I'd be tempted to forego vehicles altogether - 100 points of AT guns, mines, or support weapons are a lot less likely to be killed with one lucky shot. I don't remember the cost off the top of my head, but that German 75mm recoilless rifle packs a decent HE punch, and has several antiarmor rounds too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: All other things being equal, Id rather have a mobile tank that is slightly easier to hit than a glorified dug in gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed; why not buy a gun instead and use the points you saved somewhere else? On the other hand, say you're in a long-range defensive engagement where you're given tanks whose hulls and turrets are both vulnerable to the enemy's guns (M4s or PzIVs for example). In that case, your only protection would be in presenting a smaller target, and at long range, the effect of being dug in should be more pronounced. On the other other hand, why not put them in hull-down positions and use the hunt/reverse ambush method... Digging in still seems like too much of a tradeoff, I guess that's why I've never even tried it in a real scenario.

The only one I ever dug in was a Panther, maybe shorter tanks are deeper

They're buried up to about the tops of their tracks. Like when they bog, only much more noticeable.

I've also thought, "if they can do it with buildings, why not wheat?" but now I'm not so sure. Just guessing here, but maybe the reason this hasn't been done is because wheatfields, unlike houses, are subject to changes in elevation. It probably requires a lot more horsepower for your machine to display a rolling wheatfield in 3D than it does for a simple cube.

You know, if they'd told me in junior high that one day I'd be using trigonometry for submarine games and algebra for CM, I would've paid a lot more attention

Ninotchka, I've also liked to design claustrophobic bocage better than leaving huge gaps or patches of scattered trees, etc. Try placing a tile of woods at the intersection of different lines of bocage, and make that tile one elevation level higher than the surrounding terrain. Between the woods and the bocage will be a tiny bit of open ground where vehicles can fit through (most of the time), with careful placement of waypoints. View 5 (overhead) is very helpful in this. Also, elevating the woods one level blocks LOS from one field to another, but at the same time, it isn't high enough for units in the woods to see over bocage. It also creates a great place for hidden machine guns to set up ambushes. As for the rhino concerns, I think I recall a comment from BTS long ago that the vagaries of the game's code made it impractical to further specify which vehicles could move through bocage and which couldn't. It seems to be a case of any fully-tracked, Allied, post-June vehicle having that ability, which unfortunately includes carriers and some of the others you mentioned which likely wouldn't have been fitted with the prongs. So... ahistorical, perhaps, but not as bad as if no Allied tanks could move through the hedgerows.

Unfortunately, the quick test I did last night leads me to believe that you, as scenario creator, can't force a vehicle to stay dug in at the start of a battle. You can specify it as dug in, but the player can still "un-dig" it during his setup phase (even if it's padlocked). I'd read somewhere that the Germans emplaced some old Panther D turrets in the Westwall, and thought to use dug-in Panther A's to represent this, but there's nothing to stop the player or AI from digging them up and having mobile tanks instead of immobile forts. [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Offwhite ]

Really insulting question , but have you specified the Axis as the attacker in the scenario parameters?

I think we'd all like backward compatibility, but the last thing I remember reading from BTS was "don't hold your breath." I'll continue to hope, but... I still haven't gotten that Ferrari-and-supermodel I've been wanting either. I'd rather have a full-featured CM2 than a dumbed-down CM2 with retrofit CM patch.

I'm wondering if there will be any way in which units that don't see an enemy can be made aware by those that do. AFVs with radios could alert each other to the presence of a gun, for example. As for giving orders to units that haven't spotted a certain enemy yet, in a way we get that already since in CM you can target enemies that are out of LOS. Maybe the relative spotting will work similarly, with your units showing a preference for shooting at unspotted enemies you've targeted, once they can see them. Anyway, it's all conjecture right now, but I'm interested to see what everybody thinks.

I got my copy of CGM in the mail today so I was able to actually read the article we've made over 120 posts about File these under "pleasant surprises," and maybe I've just been reading the wrong posts lately and missed it, but relative spotting and 39-40 Winter War action were news to me...

"Respect and loyalty" are earned, not owed. All I did was send BTS $45 for the product of their work; how does that entitle me to anything more than the simple civility everyone deserves on this board? A certain amount of CM2 advance information, sneak peeks, Q&A, and other interaction with the fans is nice and it makes good business sense - and BTS has done some and promised more. But I'm under no illusion that they owe it to me simply because I exist. Besides, I'd bet most people here have already decided whether they're interested in buying CM2 or not, so it makes sense that the developers' "marketing efforts" would be focused elsewhere - particularly at this stage where the goal seems to be simply getting the early word out. [edit] Oh, and Jeff, I think the relevant copyright concept is not that anyone stands to gain financially or otherwise by posting the screenshot, but that the magazine(s) would potentially lose sales. [ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Offwhite ]

Skipper, thanks, I hadn't known that. Michael, just because it's late and I'm bored, I did that test. At 1508m, the following chances to hit the Jumbo were displayed: Con Mk IV - 9% Grn Mk IV - 12 Reg MK IV - 14 Vet Mk IV - 16 Crk Mk IV - 19 Eli Mk IV - 23 Con Mk V - 11% Grn Mk V - 14 Reg Mk V - 17 Vet Mk V - 20 Crk Mk V - 23 Eli Mk V - 27 Eli Mk VIb - 29% Eli SPW 251/9 - 7% The Panther and MkIV numbers are again not vastly different, although the Panther's gun is more clearly at an advantage. The KT gun is ever so slightly better, and the short 75 is virtually pointless (but then, you wouldn't fight tanks with it anyway). Not sure why I care so much about this; my tanks miss and die no matter what kind of gun they're packing.

Nice one Gyrene JAT, to add to what Radar said, the tree graphics you see on the screen are only there for esthetics - they don't affect cover or lines of sight at all, so don't worry when they jump around. You might have noticed that with Shift-T you can change the amount of tree coverage displayed on your screen, even removing them completely (which helps when you're planning moves or looking for enemies in the woods). Even if you do that, the effects of the trees are still there! What does matter to the game is the tree base, that green blotch on the ground. Sight blockage depends on how much of that tree base your LOS crosses, and cover depends on whether your unit is positioned within the borders of the tree base or not.

I know what you're saying, so maybe velocity isn't the reason after all. On the other hand, the MkIV gun's velocity is fairly high to begin with, maybe to the point that additional velocity doesn't increase accuracy a great deal. I don't know enough about the physics involved to say for sure. However, I'm guessing a comparison between vastly different velocities, like that of the short 75 on a /9 halftrack and the long 88, would show a bigger difference in accuracy at range.

I was curious whether higher quality crews' increased chances to hit were actually shown in-game via the LOS/targetting line - turns out it is. I did a quick test involving six Panthers and six MkIVs, one each for every experience level, aiming at a lone Jumbo about 790 meters away. The German tanks were lined up hub to hub so that they were all seeing virtually the same aspect of the Jumbo (front). For both types, Panther and MkIV, Conscript crews showed a 15% chance to hit, and there was an increase of 3-5% for each step up in quality. At experience levels above Conscript, the Panther chance to hit was either equal to or 1-2% greater than the MkIV of the same experience, which is probably the effect of the higher velocity long 75. At the upper end of the scale, the Elite MkIV showed 34% chance to hit, and the Elite Panther showed 36%. So it's only one test, under sterile conditions, but I thought it was interesting anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike the bike: ...they also have a big "back blast" - anyone behind one when it fires is in trouble!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutely - except in the game. I once lined up three squads behind a 105mm recoilless and had it fire for several turns, and the infantry wasn't fazed in the least. The only backblast effect I've seen occurs when bazooka/panzerschreck teams fire from inside a building - they usually pin themselves, and sometimes set the building on fire. I haven't checked if other units in the building are pinned by backblast, but maybe somebody else knows.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: BOOTH BABES<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps Mrs. Steve and Mrs. Charles have invoked spousal veto over the trip.

Damn, wrong thread [ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: Offwhite ]

Murray, I see you've blocked out the painful memory of "Hetzer Hill" and my Greyhounds! You're right about the e-mail though; I've been using my work addy for our games. I sent you the latest turn of our hilltop battle last week; I've got a lot of fallschirmhamsters to avenge before time runs out! Let me know if you need it resent. Mark

Claymore, the mere fact that the likes of me was able to take out four of your Hetzers in our last PBEM is proof that they're vulnerable under short 75 rules Now where's my turn?