Pak40

It's not LOR, it's LOTR. You sound like someone from the orient who hasn't quite grasped the use of the word "the" Get it right!

Too much? It's too little for my taste. I'm not saying there should be a lot more micro managment but I think CMBB will add the few commands that I think are needed. If this is truly too much micro management then perhaps Risk or Axis & Allies would suit you better. CM is trying to achieve a certain level of realism in a squad level game; In other words, you're going to have micromanagement. Sounds like military tactics to me. If you don't like military tactics, then why'd you buy the game? BTW, its not just the 'puzzle' that decides who wins and looses. It's also about: 1) where to deploy 2) choosing the right men or machines for the right job 3) when to attack and when to defend 4) where to attack and where to defend 5) how to attack and how to defend 6) when to fire and when to stay hidden 7) luck 8) how and when to bluff All of those emements combine equally to determine the winner/looser. When you think about it, it's really a beautiful game.

I think he means that the original PBEM is an ASCII file but The zipped PBEM file is binary; but in order to email the file it has to be converted to ASCII (seemlessly done by your email program). The ASCII conversion will be larger in size than the binary file. So when all is said and done, there really isn't much of a gain in zipping your PBEM file, you may actually be increasing the file size.

Not a historian? Obviously you don't know much about the man. I think the title of Emeritus Professor of History at the University of New Orleans qualifies him as a historian. I'm not sure what you mean by "strict rules of research", but Ambrose litterally collected thousands of 1st person accounts and conducted countless interviews with eye-wittnesses for his D-Day book. In fact, he has the LARGEST collection of D-Day 1st person accounts in the world. Why else do you think he createded the D-Day Musuem, a true testament to his exhausting research?

I agree with this, however, BTS did model the Canadians which really are no different than the British. The uniforms may be a little different but the equipment and TOE are largely the same. So why model the Canadians in CMBO and not the Poles in CMBB?

A Sherman with 75mm: no chance except for a weak point hit. Extremely rare. Sherman with a 76mm: Easily can kill a Tiger at 1500m with Tungsten. But if a typical Sherman only carries 2-4 Tungsten rounds per vehicle, they may run out of tungsten before they even hit the Tiger. It will typically take 3-4 shots just to hit a still target at 1500m range(normal crews) 76mm with normal AP can probably kill a Tiger at about 1000m depending on where the hit falls. Interesting note: A Tiger has difficulty killing a Sherman's frontal armor at 1500m. If the round hits the Sherman's turret, then you've got a dead Sherman. But, the upper hull is well sloped and can shrug off the 88mm rounds. In my test the 88mm did some "internal armor flaking" on the upper hull but only got kills on the turret. By the way, my test used the Easy 8 Shermans Vs. Tiger VIe and VIe (late) and was actually at about 1600m

Sounds like a problem with the software drivers for the keyboard. You might try unloading the keyboard software. It will disable the functions of the special "web browsing" keys but it may fix your problem. If that doesn't fix it then I have no idea what the problem is. When typing in a text box such as the one I'm typing in now, the backspace key should only delete the last letter. But when I'm not in a typing box or field, then the backspace key does act like the "Back" button on the browser, this is normal.

It's because some of you guys are using naughty words!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: Three of the four computers in my office are still running Win95. Two are PII 260s and one is a PIII 300. Each has about 128MB of RAM. I am thinking of upgrading them to Win98. Is upgrading simply a matter of installing the upgrade, or will I have to reinstall all my programs and drivers? Or should I just leave well enough alone?<hr></blockquote> It is worth the time and headache to upgrage to win98SE. Much better stability than 95 as well as a better OS overall. I personally would wipe the hard drives clean with a reformat and then load Win98SE. This will remove lots of clutter that Win95 has accumulated over the years and it will yeild a more stable Win98 than the "Upgrade" version. But, you nead to know which version of Win98SE you have. Do you have the "upgrade" or the full version? Or maybe you have two discs, Win98 and the SE upgrade. Win98 has pretty good driver database and most things should load just fine. You will, of course, have to update Direct X, video drivers(maybe), and any drivers for any component made after 1998. If at all possible, before re-formatting your hard drive, make sure your CD Rom is a bootable drive. You can do this in the system bios. Otherwise you will need some sort of win98 floppy disk to boot from.

Here are a few to check out along your route: Naval air museum in Galveston Tx. I don't recall the official name of the museum. D-Day Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. USS Alabama Battleship (and a submarine) in Mobile, Alabama. Someone already mentioned the museum in Pensacola, Fl.

My question is: Why isn't the MkIII in CMBO when the Lynx is? Were there that many Lynxs used in 44-45? Anyone have any figures?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I don't get it. The late Pz III 50mm is the same as the towed one and on the Puma, all L/60, isn't it? It does not penetrate the Sherman's turret front regularily. It is somewhat effective against Cromwells. It will do no good against the Churchill's sides. <hr></blockquote> The 50mm sometimes has tungsten which would increase the value of the MkIII a little. But, you're right, it doesn't have much penetrating power especially at mid to long ranges. BUT, what it does have is decent speed and a fast rate of fire. This spells death for any allied tank if the MkIII is used in a flanking role.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Eric Young: The number of Panzer Mark III's in service on the western front on June 10th 1944 was around 40 tanks. This compares with 1852 other tanks. That makes 2 percent of all tanks Panzer III's. Not worth the effort if you ask me. <hr></blockquote> I understand that BTS had to draw the line somewhere, otherwise the release of the game would have been much later than it actually was - But the Mk III did play a significant roll in some famous battles, notably the fight for Arnhem Bridge. On the other hand, if the MkIII would have been in CMBO then I'm sure we'd see unrealistic uses of them in quick battles. It would be a cheap armored alternative to a MkIV that still had enough punch to knock out most allied armor. I remember online games in Close Combat where the most popular German Tank was the MkIII because it was cheap, it could kill all allied armor frontally (Churchill excluded), it had a superiour rate of fire, and it could still do a decent amount of damage to infantry. We were all gamey bastards back then

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Trail Blazer: Do not mean to hijack this thread, but what is and/or what will be CMs closest competition ? Is there anything else in the works ? It is better for endusers if there is healthy rivalry and competition so the best product is produced.<hr></blockquote> As of right now, there is no competition. The only games that come close are Close Combat and Steel Panthers, but they are both 2D games and of different scale. Steel Panthers is probably the closest because you can make your own maps/scenarios and can easily have batallion sized forces - but is is purely a hex/turn based engine. It's really too different to compare. As far as games in the works, GI Combat will be a 3D engine with company+ size forces. But it will be continuous time rather than the wego system that CM offers. Screenshots look promising. I don't really view CM and GI Combat as competititors. I think that as long as both games are designed well and play well, they will both sell well. It's so hard to find a quality wargame these days that I think all wargamers will probably buy both games, so long as both get good reviews. GI Combat will have an advantage because it will be on retail shelves, exposing it to the mass market, not just wargamers. I'm really hoping both games feed off of each other's success. I hope the GI Combat crowd will hear how good CM is and give it a try, and vica versa. This is usually the case in a niche market like wargaming. Word of mouth is powerful advertising tool. I never would have heard of CM if it didn't hang around the Close Combat forums 3 years ago.

sounds more like target practice rather than combat, so for any practical purpose, it didn't really see any combat - at least not enough to warrent it's supposed effectiveness as a Heavy Tank.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stealth: Has anyone else found that moving infantry becomes tedious? I try to find good cover for each unit. Does anyone just set them going in a general direction and hope for the best? <hr></blockquote> I know what you mean, but let's face it. We've got it easy compared to Advanced Squad Leader, which is the only other game at this depth and scale. For a large scenario, it may take you 30 minutes to carefully move all your squads in CM but it would take 4 times longer to move them in ASL - and it would be a bigger pain in the ass. You'd have to remove unit markers to check LOS, trace the exact route that each squad would take so that your opponent would know, keep track of which units have moved, which have fired, etc, etc... That's a Major Pain. I'll just stick to CM where all I really have to worry about is clicking a few waypoints for each squad.

As much as I like PE, there is one serious flaw in the gunnery model: Shots travel instantly. There is no flight time of shell, as soon as you press the fire button, the shell hits the ground or target. This means that you don't have to lead a moving target, making the gunnery less realistic and easier. So if you're thinking your tank is a harder target to hit because you're moving, you're wrong. This kind of kills any 'shoot and scoot' closing tactics that the allies relied upon.

To get back to the original topic: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I usually get between 50-70% wounded or dead as an average and most guns ant vehicles are dead (well at least when I lose) the forces are certainly not fit for any more duty that day (week, month) In WW2 did the kind of fight modelled in CM occur regularly and did they amount to the same destruction and carnage or am I just playing gamy and with total disregard regard to human life? <hr></blockquote> If you compare the entire fight for Arnhem Bridge (about 3 days) to a single scenario in CM (less than 1 hour) you will see that you'll get similar results for the losing side. That is, the losing side will see 80% or more casualties. Why are the casualty percentages so close? How can a fierce 3 day battle produce the same amount of casualties as a 1 hour battle? The answer: We, as wargamers, tend to focus on the objectives of the game rather than the lives of our men. We move our digital soldiers across a digital landscape to try and capture some flags, which seem more importanant than the lives of our men. We usually go all out to capture these flags, which means heavy casualties. The only instance where we seem to care about our men is in a campaign. Our men must survive the first battle so that we have enough men for the subsequent battles. This comes the closest to realistic battle behavior and command decisions.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I don't see how it has to do with fuzzy logic. If the halftracks are frightend in some place, they get the hell out of it. No special decision logic for airplanes has been coded, so they act the same no matter what the threat is. There is randomness in their decision where exactly they decide to head, but that doesn't quality as fuzzy logic.<hr></blockquote> Fuzzy logic has everything to do with it. It will determine if the halftracks stay in place as ordered or move to what it deems is a safer place. If you re-calcualte(not just replay the movie) the turn 50 times then you will get varying results because the decision of the halftracks is guided by logic with a little bit of randomness.One calculation may think the trees offer enough cover, so the halftracks stay. Another calculation may think that their cover is blown so the halftracks decide to move backwards. Yet another calculation may decide to move forwards. The colonel is upset that the halftracks left the cover of the trees because he thinks it's logical to stay under their cover. He's right, it is logical to stay under cover UNLESS the halftracks think that they've been spotted by the plane. In that case the logical decision is to get moving to another safe spot ASAP because a moving target is harder to hit than a still target. So which decision is more logical? I honestly don't know if CM takes all of these considerations into it's AI, but the fact remains that what happened to the Colonel's halftracks is realistic because there are all sorts of possible outcomes to his scenario. Fuzzy logic helps portray these possible outcomes. If fuzzy logic were not in the coding then you'd see the exact same thing happen each time you recalculated that turn.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: The question still remains as to if this is a bug or if the vehicles were doing this on their own. The planes have been circling for about 3 turns now so if they moved because they thought they were in danger, why did they wait so long to do so? It's my opinion that this is a bug, not a feature.<hr></blockquote> It's POSSIBLY a bug only if it happens every time. By this I mean we should test to see if halftracks back out of tree cover by themselves because planes are flying overhead. We can easily create a similar situation: a small map with some light trees and open space - pick halftracks for the US and planes for the germans (or vice-versa). Run the scenario a few times and see if the halftracks move on their own every time. Then make the same scenario (only without the planes) - run this scenario several times and see if the halftracks move every time. We should be able to draw some conclusions from this test. You think that it's a bug. I think that it's the program's fuzzy logic coding. The fuzzy logic adds a bit of randomness into the game to account for luck, environment, bad decisions being made by soldiers, etc... This feature gives the game an unpredictability that is all to realistic, especially on battlfields. The bottom line is that you're just PO'd because you lost two halftracks when they disobeyed your orders. The reality is that this happens all the time in battle - either bad decisions are made or orders are disobeyed or both. I'd be disappointed in CM's AI if those halftracks stayed in those trees every time you replayed the scenario. It would mean that the fuzzy logic isn't working and the AI is predictable as any Doom clone game.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Well, in a current game I had 2 half tracks parked under trees, hiding from the 1st turn. My opponent's planes were circling overhead a few turns later but never spotted them until last turn when they both on their own reversed out of the trees only to get strafed when they moved into open view. Does this sound like smart AI to you?<hr></blockquote> let me get this straight. You parked two halftracks in scattered trees the entire game? I'm assuming at some point in the game you actually used these halftracks, either moved them or they fired upon some enemy soldiers(otherwise, what's the point in getting the halftracks). If they did fire upon some enemy then that means that they were vulnerable to possible enemy units which may have cause them to move. Also, artillery would easily cause them to move, even a 50mm mortar. As for the AI being 'smart' (or lack of) for bringing the halftacks out in the open, it was just bad luck. Your halftracks in the trees had limited visibility and a plausible explanation is that the crews thought the enemy planes had left the area. But when they get out in the open they are surprised to see the planes return. This is a totally realistic mistake that could have and did happen in WWII.

I find it interesting that you you call the actions of a smart AI (a feature that we all complain is missing in most other games), a "bug". The AI is taking things into it's own hands, for once. In other games such as Close Combat and various RTS games these units would be stuck or pace back and forth under the same circumstances. But in Combat Mission, the units are generally smart enough to plot a coarse around an obstacle or reverse out of a dangerous situation. No bugs here, just smart AI.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Crash-Neptune: I was wondering if flamethrowers, like the portable one or maybe the wasp could explode when hit, or would the tanks be hard to ignite? They could cause a small (large?) explosion. I've read that one of the major downsides to manning a flamethrower was the risk of it catching fire or exploding on you back (Yikes[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Crash-Neptune ]<hr></blockquote> Hmm, not so sound like a smart ass, but... Duh, a tank with compressed fuel being hit by a bullet? You bet your @#$@# it's going to ignite. I do know that the trailer tank for the Crocodile and maybe the wasp were armored, but not very thick. A bullet wouldn't penetrate it but a light AA gun might. Maybe someone can give some armor thickness for these fuel tanks.

I'd like to add that a longer distance to the target will make the mortars very unaccuate, especially with the 50mm and 60mm. However the accuracy will improve with more rounds firing at the same target, just like when a tank fires after it's first round. Direct LOS will help with accuracy as would the experience of the crew. In one MP game that I played, I massed about 9 60mm mortars (vet and reg mix) on the backside of a large hill and I had a platoon leader do the spotting from the top of the hill. Through out the game, as my opponent opened fire with various fixed guns (mostly 20mm). I KO'd at least three of them with my mortars at a range of 300-400 meters. Other rounds hampered HMGs. With the aid of the 60mm mortars, my M-18s and priests could move without too much worry. And because the guns were KO'd by the mortars, I could use my Heavy Artillery against his troop concentrations instead of the AA guns.

According to most sources, the bazooka's practical range is aobut 80-100 meters. This means that anything beyond that range has a very slim chance of hitting it's target, especially a moving target. BTS has chosen to model the complete range of the bazooka so that if you want to take the risk of a long shot (100+ meters) then you can. Just be aware that these rarely connect. Other games such as Close Combat made 80 or 100 meters the maximum range for the bazooka. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: And, BTW, you should not compare the hit chance for a single schots. In pracise, most AT teams shoot twice in a row, in CMBO and I think in reality. <hr></blockquote> This is certainly not the case in CMBO. 1 shot = 1 round. I'm assuming you mean that the bazooka fires similar to the sharpshooters (1 shot equals 2-3 rounds fired). CMBO does not model 2 bazooka rounds per 1 shot fired.