Pak40

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: The depressing part is that your 1.3 GHz P4 is slower than a 1.2 GHz Athlon, especially at CM when it comes time to run a big turn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not exactly correct Jeff. Check out this article on ZDNET http://www.zdnet.com/special/stories/sc/desktops/reviews/0,12492,2655741,00.html Here's a paragraph from the article: "Here's the lowdown: On everyday applications -- office productivity applications, Web browsing and e-mail, and utilities such as anti-virus programs -- systems based on the P4 offer no real performance advantage over high-end Athlon systems. Similarly, on 2-D graphics, the Athlon-based systems actually outperformed the faster P4-based systems. However, the P4 systems had an advantage on 3-D applications such as games, and really shined on video encoding tests - two areas where Intel promised performance gains." I don't know about you, Jeff, but I'd rather my games run faster than MS Word and Explorer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillies Phan: Thanks for the sympathy and empathy, gentlemen. The sad thing is that I've played this game since August of last year. So, I'm not a rookie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It doesn't matter whether you're a rookie or not. Just TELL you opponents that you're a rookie and they'll pity you and let you have more points.

Wally, You are correct. It's not exactly historically accurate to pick your own forces. But, after all, this is a game. All historical games must strive to reach a balance of historical accuracy and playability. CM allows you to let the computer pick forces for you, which should satisfy the grog's thirst for historical accuracy. This has been debated many times before. Do a search. [ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

Stay away from me then Seriously though, you might tell your opponents that you're a rookie and ask them for a 10 or 25 % increase in your points. And keep playing lots of different people, everyone has their own tactical style and you can surely learn lots of things from many different styles.

I think it's also easier for a moving vehicle to spot enemy units than a fast moving vehicle.

I agree! The world was also slightly fuzzy and had occasional scratches. If BTS does a WWI version of Combat Mission, they will have to speed up the replay feature because according to old WWI film footage everyone moved faster back then.

I'll try to figure it out for you.. send it to jroland2@home.com

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MacAuliff: Because it wasn't done in real action. The goal of each major operation in WWII seemed to be to secure bridges. Most of the streams, canals, rivers in Western Europe are slow flowing, deep waters. In case of small rivers the banks are steep or marshy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The fact is, it was done in real action. A ford is not just a shallow section of the river. It is an area, usually where a road crosses the river, that has been improved by man to help people and vehicles cross rivers. Usually it is made wide and shallow and the bed of the river is strengthened in some way to aid in crossing. I've seen fords with concrete linings. I've crossed fords in my car which means that any vehicle in CM can easily do the same. One of the reasons the Jeep was chosen by the Army is because of it's fording capabilities. Most tanks can go through 3 feet of water, bigger tanks even more. There is a already a thread about this in the TIPS AND TRICKS Forum. Read it, it may provide some info and shed some light as to what Fords really are and how vehicles can navigate them.

Satchel charges are very potent weapons. But, you better hide until that tank gets within 30 meters. Also, Americans have rifle grenades which are good against light armor. I've killed a Panther from the rear with one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Determinant: Fords aren't designed by humans - they are designed by the river - with all the uncertainty that that entails.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well obviously there are shallow parts of streams and rivers that happen naturally and some are turned into fords for crossing purposes. These shallow areas are further modified by man to make it easier for crossing. The river can be make wider and shallower which allows pedestrians and vehicles to cross much easier. It's not just by chance that roads are laid out to cross rivers at fords. I've seen fords where they've laid concete on the bed of the stream for better traction. I'd be willing to bet that most road fords are altered by man in some way to aid in crossing. Let me make another point: If my 4 door sedan can cross a 75 foot stream at a ford with rushing water appoximately 1 foot deep in about 1 minute, then any vehicle in CM can do the same. I agree that it's possible for some of the heavy vehicles to get stuck, depending on the stream bed, but it's still very possible for all vehicles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Doing that during combat, as in a CM battle, would be pretty much out of the question though. IMO CM models this pretty accurate, since you're always allowed to cross the rivers between battles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree in part because of a couple of reasons: 1) When life is on the line in the heat of a battle and a stream looks like it may be crossable in a certain are, chances are one of the tanks or vehicles is going to try to cross it. "Major, I'm afraid that my tank will get stuck" wont cut it when you're on a timed attack and the infantry is relying on your tank support. 2) Most fords are designed by humans for the exact purpose of vehicles to cross water. So why not let vehicles cross them during battle?

Hopefully for CM2 there will be 2 types of fords: infantry only fords and infantry + vehicle fords. mountain or shallow streams usually have the low depth and firm bedding required for vehicles to cross where as canals and deeper streams(3 feet +) are fordable only by infantry because of soft bedding or deeper water. In CMBO it is possible to simulate a ford for vehicles by making a break in the stream. You could even use bushes light trees to simulate the vehicle slowing down.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a jerk, but how can anyone think that Battle of the Bulge was a good movie in any aspect of film making or historical accuracy?

I wish. It would also be nice to convert DEM files into CM maps.

Button up those tanks with anything that you've got. It will take them longer to spot your RCL. I would wait to fire untill the tanks are closer, about 200 meters. But if he has infantry in front of the tanks then you'll need infantry in front of your RCL.

Pvt Tom, make a test scenario with a company of men vs an 81mm spotter. Play the scenario over and over with the FOW off (or play hotseat as both sides), that way you can tell how many men are truly getting hurt. Experiment with the company: place them in foxholes, out of foxholes, moving or running across the kill zone etc.... You should be able to get a good idea how good 81mm rounds are. You can also experiment with 4 on board 81mm mortars.

Pvt Tom, make a test scenario with a company of men vs an 81mm spotter. Play the scenario over and over with the FOW off (or play hotseat as both sides), that way you can tell how many men are truly getting hurt. Experiment with the company: place them in foxholes, out of foxholes, moving or running across the kill zone etc.... You should be able to get a good idea how good 81mm rounds are. You can also experiment with 4 on board 81mm mortars.

Yea, 300+ meters seems a tad too far for a rifle grenade. Even if it could go that far the accuracy would be horrible.

This was possibly a rifle grenade. I've seen a couple of open top vehicles taken out by these. It took me a while to figure out who got the kill but the only possibility was a rifle squad that had rifle grenades. I've also seen a Rifle squad take out a Panther with a rifle grenade at point blank range. rear penetration. (uh, that sounds kind of dirty)

You must be confused. I think the MG42 is quite famous for it's quick barrel change. HMG crews would have 3-4 and change them whenever needed. Of coarse, I could be putting my foot in my mouth again. pistols are in CM

I may be getting my numbers mixed up, I don't have CM here at work. But I think the 43/41 is the AT version and the 43 is the AA version. Whatever the actual case is, the AT version has a lower profile but this doesn't matter in CM. I don't think CM models gun profiles, only vehicle profiles.

I think the two main differences are: 1) The Pak 43/41 can be towed if it is embarked before the battle begins. But once it disembarks it must remain at that spot. It's too heavy to be pushed around. 2) The Pak43, the AA version I think, has a faster rotation rate and higher ammo count.

I stand corrected. Mike, in your opinion, is it feasable for one man to carry an MG42 with bipod and ammo?

As far as US infantry is concerned, Im pretty sure that only officers were issued pistols. Everyone else had rifles, carbines or submachineguns. The only way to convert an Heavy MG42 into a LMG is to have a bipod handy. I don't think that bipods were commonly carried by the the HMG squads. And there's probably an involved process taking apart the HMG from the tripod and then mounting on a bipod. I don't think it's really worth modeling this in CM. As for the Allied HMGs it's not possible to strip them down to a MMG or LMG.

If I recall correctly, HMG squads that lose a few men(or all men exept one) are downgraded. They lose some firepower and half of their ammo. In order for a HMG squad (with one man left) to be mobile he would have to abandon the gun. There is no way possible he could carry the gun, the tripod, the ammo boxes, and water can(if water cooled). I think an 'Abandon gun' command has already been talked about before. I'm not sure if BTS plans to model it in CM2. I like the idea of grenades. All infantry squads should have grenades. Also, I'd be nice if they could model the other soldier's guns because in a six man HMG squad everyone will carry a gun and only one will be feeding the ammo belt. The other men will be providing support fire as well as spotting.