Renaud

I know on some german tanks they had an ingenious hand-crank flywheel system (like in old cars before electric starters) for starting the tank in cold weather or when the battery was dead. Two crewmen would hook up the big handle and swing it around until the flywheel stored enough energy by reaching a certain RPM. Then, the driver would engage the engine and the flywheel would turn the motor over, starting it. Someone mentioned crewmen standing ready with a fire extinguisher when fueling up. I know we still did that as of 1990 even though we were using diesel in tanks. Don't know if it was always (or still) practiced though. Ren

I noticed that 1942 german halftracks mounting the 37mm gun have some pretty incredible HC ammo...the penetration figures are about the same as for 150mm HC. Something like 180+ at 0 degrees. Wow. What gives? Haven't seen anything about this. I noticed it in the 'To the Volga' operation 37mm halftrack unit ammo. (warning, do not load that one unless you have a FAST computer) Ren

That sounds pretty cool Oak. I like clever scenarios that use units in new ways. Ren

I second the trenches mod. I hear that the textures are so stretched out that it's hard to make a nice one though. But they sure need help. They are kind of a kludge as far as gameplay goes, but that's another issue. At least we have em... How bout winter mods? The early T34, KV and russian infantry so we can simulate some good soviet winter offensives in 41/42. I can see the white-coated russian smg troops leaping from their mother-beautiful whitewashed T34 even now... You can leave the germans unmodded for winter as they weren't prepared or properly equipped anyway (at least in 41). Ren

My point was that if you know you will be killed by that sniper that has been offing your TC's, or a big arty strike is coming in, you might not want the AI unbuttoning to smell the roses at that particular point in time. Or if you need to make a quick dash through a city street and come out on the other side with your head still attached to your shoulders. Other than those limited situations, I like the new AI button/unbutton behavior. Have only once had a slight problem with it: as in my previous example, I had a crack tiger platoon commander that kept unbuttoning even though a 20mm cannon was putting him at great risk. His platoon was in radio contact with a support company of PzIIIN's and L's screening 500 meters forward so there was no need to be unbuttoned. That is, until the PzIII commanders started screaming something over the company net about a pair of KV-2 'Animal-Killers' on a hill. Wimps! Ren

I haven't found the concealment values of the various terrain types to be a problem. As far as wheat fields (say 3' high summer wheat), keep in mind that it must be rather obvious if you have dug hasty foxholes into the field. From a tank turret or any other higher elevation you are going to view areas of missing stalks. Also, a squad of 9+ men crawling through the field lugging equipment is going to stir the stalks and if anything be easier to spot than in the open. But here I am splitting hairs...I hate that...you can come up with examples to prove any viewpoint in this case. Suffice to say that the way Charles and Steve envisioned the various terrain types, they assigned appropriate cover and concealment values to reflect that vision. Your vision may be slightly or wildly different. I was able to regularly hide tank-hunter teams and not be spotted until the mass of tanks got within 40 meters. perhaps this is due to a command '?' bonus, can't remember. In any event, 40 meters was too far because you still can't reach them with hand-thrown AT stuff at that range. I found hiding in and then assault from trees to be more effective. But lets face it, infantry are the small fry in a wide-open steppe scenario. Ren

What Ryan said...it's a two man turret issue where the TC doubles as the gunner or loader. I do wish there was a way to over-ride the AI's efforts to stay unbuttoned. Usually this is good behavior, but the player needs to be able to override it in cases where you suspect snipers, MG or incoming which may be dangerous to crews. For instance, you don't want to risk the crew of your crack tiger tank since you have other vehicles/troops doing the spotting anyway. Possibly BTS could just make a manual 'button-up' order result in the tank AI not unbuttoning until that command is rescinded through a manual 'unbutton' command. Once 'unbuttoned' the tank AI would revert to normal button/unbutton behavior based on incoming threats. Ren

Ah, good old Kampfgruppe! Was it really that ugly? I remember it looked better on my old amiga. Of course 'better' is a relative thing when you are talking 20 year old graphics. Ren

I haven't experienced tanks vs aircraft yet in CMBB, but I'd like to chime in on general policy in real life for vehicles under air attack. When under air attack (enemy planes spotted in the air) it is advisable to not move the vehicle. The reason for this is that the human eye (brain really) percieves moving objects far easier than stationary objects. It's very difficult to pick out camoed vehicles from the air until they move. Also, moving fast, zig-zagging or other nonsense does not actually make you harder to target. This is because your max speed relative to the plane's speed is miniscule (20kph vs 300kph) and only servers to stir dust and cause motion which attracts attention. In other words, motion makes you stand out from the surrounding ground, but isn't going to significantly impact the course adjustment of a plane approaching at 200-300+kph. This is what I was taught in armor school and what I think most modern armor forces practice. (This applies to fixed wing not rotary wing. If an ATGM coming at you, you should zig-zag.) That being said, in WWII reality there's no telling what behavior you might see. I think only disciplined and trained TC's are going to refrain from hauling butt in a futile effort to evade attack. Ren

Malakovski, Sounds like you have the right idea. The reason it doesn't work as well in CMBB seems to be that you need to suppress the enemy BEFORE they open fire. If they get pinned they won't rise to start firing. Also I don't think they can spot your crawling troops as well. Of course the ammo usage is such that it's only possible in attack/assault scenarios and you are the attacker. Make sure and combine your overwatch with stealthy movement on the part of your squads. Another option: break out a few squads into teams and have them crawl up slowly in order to force the enemy to open up. I'm able to get infantry into the russian positions this way in the 'Cemetary Hill' Scenario, by crawling a few squads up under an intense sheet of cover fire. Or, very short fast moves in and out of sight if you have that option, as in cities. Also, I discovered that russian tank-riding infantry will cling to their tanks even under some MG fire. They don't seem to hop off as fast as CM, or maybe it's just my cover fire. They seem more 'sticky'. I've run them up the flank under a smokescreen before in Yelnia...it works if you simultaneously pound all the likely enemy positions in view of your route. Give them a good 6-10 minutes of constant pounding before attempting. Ren

If you are forced to advance over open ground (there are no concealed routes to the objective), then you should dedicate 2/3rd or more of your force to providing suppressive fire on known or suspected enemy positions. The reason for this is that if your support fire is not enough to suppress the defenders, it hardly matters how large your assault force is. They will be cut down and routed. The small fraction of your force involved in the actual assault should advance by short bounds, or crawl all the way, stopping occassionally to rest.

Alright Tanks, we're all primed for the goods. Don't go off and get hit by a truck or anything. Your screams of pain would only be matched by our screams of anguish. Ren

I regard suppressive fire as critical to keeping casualties down. I'll trade ammo for lives any day. As the US infantry adage states: "When in doubt, frag it out". In the demo yelnia scenario as russians I can get a total victory with under 8% casualties by using all the ammo from all the support weapons and tanks to plaster all the likely enemy positions that may have LOS as my troops make their next move. This allows me to get in close with far fewer casualties and decent unit cohesion. If you get lucky you may take out a gun or arty spotter as a bonus. In general I find it critical to suppress known and suspected enemy positions prior to making an observed move with my troops. This game is starting to get pretty realistic... If you were running a banana republic military and needed to do some small-unit infantry training on the cheap, I think you could actually get some mileage out of this game. Ren PS when I win the lottery I'm going to write a check to BTS for a modern day version of CM!

Playing the demo Kursk scenario, my last unit was a KV-1 on a reverse slope. The 5 remaining PZIII's came over the ridge at short range as I was trying to back away. After a few hits I lost the main gun. 4-6 hits later I lost the track and got stuck sideways. Then they really laid into me. Sparks flew and clangs and clunks resounded. I went back and counted a total of 14 various hits in under 30 seconds. 1 or 2 crew got out and almost made it to the trees... Kudos to BF for the new armor modeling! Ren

Keep in mind that the angle of incidence at 1000 meters is going to reduce the effective slope on the hetzer front from the 60 degrees rating. This is due to the projectile dropping downward as it loses velocity of course. I think all the ratings assume a 90 degree (straight on) angle of incidence. Try putting the hetzers on a reverse-slope hull down position - this should greatly increase the effective slope (maybe up to 80?) and result in more bounces from the 85mm I would guess. More flat-out misses as well, but you get the point. Ren

Speaking of bunkers, are they harder to spot now than they were in CMBO? Haven't tried em yet. They were so easy to spot in CMBO that I couldn't find a use for em really, except in completely hidden positions with keyhole fields of fire. I've always considered CM 'bunkers' to be pillboxes rather than true 'bunkers'. A bunker is typically mostly below ground and built into a house, ridge or hill such that it can barely be distinguished from the surrounding terrain, even if you are standing right next to or on top of it. Maybe someday CM will get concealed underground bunkers which squads/teams can enter/exit (in much the same way as they currently mount vehicles). I was hoping for that in CMBO, but seeing the final product I know they already had their hands full. Ren [ September 30, 2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

Have to agree with Jake on this. I just bought a Pioneer slot-load combo dvd-16x/cd-rom-40x for $45. There's hardly a reason not to have DVD now, but the real push will come from software developers who are running out of space on one CD for their product(like BTS with CMBB). Same thing happened when publishers changed from floppy disk to CD. Ren

Regular squads can become 'unarmed' after escaping from a capture status, right? Couldn't a similiar process be used to have routing/broken heavy weapon teams lose their weapons, rather than changing them into mortar-crew-like units? Personally I think heavy MG's should be fragile like mortar teams, if there is no other alternative. Then again, if you can abandon MG's you open up the legitimate question of 'why can't we re-man them'. For such a critical weapon this is an important question. More likely this was one more thing they lacked the time to do, rather than an impossible feature due to engine restrictions. It's a great idea though. Kind of silly to see all those routed or broken Maxim crews dragging around ammo, a heavy water cooled MG, Tripod, water cans, tools, etc. Ren

HawkerT: Your commie pal's T34 probably cut loose with a cannister shell. That's the © ammo type. So, your fascists received a cone shaped swarm of steel balls at a very unpleasant range. Once I was playing the tutorial and tried to run a HQ squad around to sneak up on a immobilized T34. I almost made it to cover when he shot a swarm of steel balls at 100 meters. The swarm was graphically represented as a cloud of gray fragments and whiffed right around my HQ figure. No casualties at that range, but he instantly broke and ran off in the wrong direction only to be cut down by a wall of maxim fire seconds later. That's the first and only time i've seen the cannister shot graphic. Ren

The covered arc feature is working great for me. I don't think it needs any changes. As long as you understand that units will literally obey the designated covered arc, you will be OK. If you want 360 coverage, specify a 360 arc. If you want a keyhole 5 degree coverage, specify that, but be aware of the risks if you get flanked. If you try to mitigate the penalties for mistakes in plotting covered arcs on the part of a human player by allowing the AI to conditionally override arcs, you will create more problems than solutions. People will then complain, "My guys disobeyed covered arc orders in such-and-such a situation and got wasted, please fix or somfink!" Many times I will specify microscopic 'covered arcs' only for the purpose of making sure my units never open fire until I manually target something. In CMBO I used 'ambush' for this, by plotting ambushes in the opposite direction of the enemy, so the unit would not fire unless they got walked on. This helped prevent those trigger happy green troops from blowing cover too soon. Ren

even if you pass an infinite number of halfway points. But, my friend, we actually WILL pass an infinite number of halfway points. Yet CMBB will eventually be released nonetheless. Therein lies the paradox. Ren

Next is quoted from http://chsk.com/steppenwolf/tiger1.htm -Tiger I page: With the replacement gun sight Turmzielfrenrohr 9c introduced in April 1944, the gunner could select two magnifications, 2.5X and 5X. The lower magnification provided a wider field of view for target identification while the higher assisted in precise aiming at long ranges. Two adjustable range scales allowed the gunner to register the exact range to the target. Most likely the chap saw this later sight model with 5X magnification. I noticed that the battlefront.com 'Changes since CMBO' document 'Optics' section states: Dual-Magnification: Can switch between two different magnification levels, to optimize both spotting and tracking. Used by late-model Panthers. Crew must be veteran or better to use without penalties. This seems to indicate that CMBB will not include such dual magnification for the late-war tiger, but only the Panther, or that they just didn't mention it in the brief 'Optics' section. Ren {edit}: keep in mind that the quality of visual information conveyed by optics is not determined by magnification alone. The more important qualities (which german optics have in abundance) are: clarity (provided by finely formed and ground lenses and optically perfect surfaces) and light gather ability. These attributes grow more important as the magification increases (magnification drastically reduces light entering the aperture). Only the most highly developed industry could achieve truly fine optics. [ September 11, 2002, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

Here's why: Divide 9 days by 2, repeat infinitely. Eventually you will get to the release DAY but you'll never actually get to the point of release. I forgot which ancient Greek this paradox is named after. Ren

"But I still dont get it. The M4a2 was notorious for its tendancy to brew up. This was improved when the americans started with the wet stowage system. Are you guys saying that the T-34/85 had similar brew up-problems but those never changed" I do believe earlier US and British vehicles, particularly the early Sherman, used gasoline rather than diesel, which resulted in a greater chance to brew up due to the lower flashpoint. Thus the appelation 'tommy-cooker' for the british shermans. Diesel on the other hand is quite resistant to ignition. So resistant, that it is sprayed directly from the tank onto 600F exhaust plates to create thick smoke screens in the case of the modern M1. I don't know if the T-34 series engines burned petrol or diesel... Ren

{{{EDIT: I just found out about the "click o' death" from some other threads, so this post is more in the nature of informational for CMBB tech guys, than a question.}}} I am also encountering a problem with bailed crews, but it is not related to their being captured (at least my bailed crews don't appear to be captured). In both Citadel and Yelnia, when I have tanks on my side, some of the crews, upon bailing, will appear with corrupted bmp's (medals all over their legs, etc), but are still recognizable as crews. When I try to click on the crew, the game crashes to desktop every time. Actually, since i'm running XP, the game just freezes and I can ctrl-alt-delete to suspend to desktop where I see a error dialog box saying 'CMBB has caused a crash, do you want to send it to microsoft', yada yada ya. For a while I didn't realize the bailed crews were the source of the problem then I finally identified them as the ones that appear with mismapped bmps. Note that the bug might also appear with crews of crew-served weapons, but I haven't observed this. Sometimes when i'm group-selecting I accidentally hit a 'bad' crew and it crashes. Not all crews experience this, just some. When I start again from autosave I can avoid crashes by never selecting the known 'bad' crews. Everything else is perfect with the game (i've played all 3 backwards and forwards several times). system: XP (no sp1) Asus P4T533 mb + 2.26 P4, 2x256mb 32-bit samsung 1066 mhz rdram, Visiontek Gforce3 (nvidia 30.82 drivers), CM8738-DX sound, FastTrack133 ATA-RAID, 2x120mb WD in RAID1. Yes, CM runs REAL SMOOTH on this system [ September 11, 2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]