Rhet

Steve, Is the smoke dipiction (thin rising cloud) from smoke projectors or smoke shells final? I thought that the chemical smoke that was generated by these shells was designed to be low lying smoke. If I were a weapons designer I would try to develope a smoke projector or smoke shell that generated a wider footprint. If you are using smoke shells you are trying to either mark a location or block LOS of the enemy. It seems that if the smoke was composed of small light weight particles it would rise high in a dispersing column (good for marking a position). This thin column would not be very effective for blocking LOS as I would assume the enemy would slightly shift position to get a clear LOS. In looking at what the Germans used for their AFV smoke projectors (zinc dust & hexalchlorethane) it appears that they use heavier smoke particles so that the smoke disperses more laterally. I don't have much of a basis for this determination but it would seem logical. ------------------ Rhet

Yup, Martin you appear to be correct, after reviewing some of your earlier turns it seems that you never identified the StuG III as having skirts. I had thought you did. It seems that this feature is pretty prominent though. I would think that a StuG III with skirts would more likely be misidentified as a PzKw IV with skirts or maybe a Brummbar instead of a StuG without skirts. Vicea Verca could be the case too (a PzKw IV mistaken for a StuG). ------------------ Rhet

Yes Martin there are two versions of the StuG III in CM. One with skirts and one without. But... Fionn can't start the battle waltzing around in skirts and then all the of the sudden they just dissappear as if they were never there before! ------------------ Rhet

sorry Fionn I couldn't think of a better title Compare this screen shot of Fionn's StuG III http://www.battlefront.com/aar/Turn20a/Turn20round7.jpg with this one (no peeking at Fionn's skirts Martin!) http://www.battlefront.com/aar/Turn20x/kelly20b.JPG Did Martin actually blow Fionn's skirts off? No really, there seems to be a minor discrepancy in the dipiction of the StuG III in Martins screen shot. The StuG has no armored skirts. This is a minor point since it is just as dead in both cases. Just thought I would point it out. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-10-99).]

Yeah, Low and Slow on the Western front only got you Dead and Buried. There were plenty of Mustang or Thunderbolt (the original perpetual motion machine) drivers that would have had a good time toying with a Stuka. Lee, I really like the Stuka G also and I can't wait to hear the sirens of the earlier models too. Interestingly enough, I just read that the Hs-129 was used in France after the DDay landings (I previously thought that it was only deployed in Africa and Russia). ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...you ended up with a round of higher density travelling at a much greater velocity and less subject to the vagaries of wind resistance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fionn, very good explanation. I would only add two more benefits gained by the tapered bore systems. These would be reduced impact area and increased axial inertia. for a better explanation I will use the 42mm/28mm (PaK 41)AT gun. Muzzle Velocity=1250m/s AT round mass=.31kg In essence the round's cross sectional area is reduced from 1385mm^2 (@42mm dia.) to 616mm^2 (@28mm dia). Thus the emergent cross sectional area of the round is only 45% of the original area. This reduced cross section translates into more hitting power by virtue of the fact that the round simply has to displace less armor to penitrate. The second benefit I mentioned above is more subtle than the first. As the round is squeezed down from 42mm to 28mm it deforms and grows longer (along its long axis). As a result it's axial inertia increases. This has two substantial benefits. The first one as you mentioned is improved flight characteristics. The second is better performance against sloped armor. As the round contacts sloped armor its higher axial inertia causes it to resist deflection better. More simply the round "bites" more heavily on the sloped surface. This is one of the main principles behind todays "long rod penitrator" rounds. ------------------ Rhet

Ben, There was a good discussion on this subject in a previous post called "points system". Specifically "Truck Recon" was covered towards the end of the thread. ------------------ Rhet

Martin is is probably counting on Patton to come in and save his butt too. Sorry Martin couldn't resist ------------------ Rhet

Steve, When the tanks in CM fire they produce a visual shock wave and if my imagination is correct, an awesome sound. The question is does the tank shudder from the recoil forces? If not, could it be added to the list please? The shadows under the vehicles really do add alot! It gives the illusion of mass to the vehicles. I would imagine that they would look like models just scooting across the landscape if the shadow was missing. My thanks to the person who brought this up and to you guys for putting it in. Harold, thanks for the excellent link! I found two thing intriguing: first, the delay of the damping forces (free recoil)until the shell has reached the brake (Engineers Rule! ) and second, the localized pressure increase caused by the brake. If you consider standard atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi (IIRC) then a people friendly muzzle brake can increase this pressure by some 34%. Just amazing. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-02-99).]

Not sure how I missed this one. Mr. Cunningham is pretty much correct on the physics of how they work. Interesting to note that the Germans kept improving the designs of their brakes during the war. At first they had no brake, then a single brake...a double brake and finally a double brake with bigger flanges (larger area for the gasses to act upon). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know how effective they were in this regard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, it is not the most efficient way to mitigate recoil energy but it did lessen the recoil forces. The reason the Germans invested time and effort in developing this concept is simple (albeit longwinded) . The Germans actually produced very few tank chassis and most of these were designed either before the war or in the early part of it. They did not envision the magnitude of the escellation of tank developement (especially the Russians T-34 & KV-1). This being the case, they underestimated the impact energy that it would take to knock out these more developed tanks. They had to field tanks with larger more powerful guns in order to keep pace with the next door neighbors. You cannot simply put a larger or more powerful gun on an existing chassis. The turret ring can only transmit so much recoil energy to the chassis before the turret just rips off the tank! Dampers help by spreading the force of the gun recoil over a longer period of time (they also dissipate some of the recoil energy into heat, but this ain't much). The problem with dampers is that they take up space. Space inside a tank turret is very limited so due to practicality reasons you just cannot slap a bigger damper in with the bigger gun. This is the reason why the PzKw III was phased out of service. Its turret ring could not withstand the recoil forces of a 75mm gun. Thus the StuG III was upgunned from a short barreled howitzer to a long barreled PaK. The StuG became the tank killer and the PzKw IV was also converted from an infantry support tank to a tank that could take on other tanks (it's turret ring was capable of handling the greater forces). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> They aren't used on modern tank guns, though most if not all howitzers still use them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The modern main battle tanks rolling off the assembly line today were designed to accept the recoil forces of the gun they are mounting (mostly a 120mm smoothbore). There fore the addition of a muzzlebrake is not required. Also it is possible (I'm not sure) that a muzzlebrake is incompatable with discarding sabot rounds. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-02-99).]

Greg, I figured you posted this topic so that Martin and Fionn would not look in it, sorry if you were looking for a post only from Steve. In Axis turn 6 Fionn wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have also ordered my 17 prisoners (God I love saying such a high number ) towards the house in the centre of the clearing. In Combat Mission if you leave prisoners unguarded they WILL try to escape and my score will be lessened. Since I have an immobilised half-track stopped facing the building it seems logical to me that I should use this to guard the prisoners.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, the prisoners stay on the map, they will try to escape and I assume you just need to have one of your units (in good order) in close proximity to the prisoners to retain control of them. Too Cool Huh? ------------------ Rhet

Steve, Yup, it made sense alright. I kind of thought that was how it worked with the flags reverting back to neutral. Just another example of the Man keeping us down err... rather in the dark! I guess that both ways include uncertainly, Charles's way generates more suspense though. That can't be all bad or could it? One last one on VPs ...from what I can tell from Martin's and Fionn's game they recieve points every turn they are in possesion of of a VP location. I assume that the VPs can be "switched" to a mode where they only are worth points during a certain turn (eg. the last turn). This would allow scenario designers to create scenarios that would emulate situations like hold the bridge until relieved. Pegasus bridge comes to mind. I think the "points every turn" mode would be really useful in simulating delaying actions or advances. This feature along with the other factors CM considers to decide victory would really give the designer the flexibility to design some great scenarios. BTW, how is the global morale of the two forces in the game? Has either one been affected greatly? It would be interesting to know what kind of a morale hit the Amis took on loosing the Jumbo or for that matter seeing how the loss of the town affects Fionns troops. ------------------ Rhet

An interesting note on the oil the Germans used on the Eastern Front. The Luftwaffe was having a real problem keeping their planes in the air because of the cold (its one thing to keep a tank idleing for long periods it is another thing entirely when you are talking about an airplane!). A captured Russian mechanic was brought to the airfield and the Germans asked him how they were able to launch sorties when they couldn't. The Russian mechanic grabbed a Gerri can of Gasoline and to the horror of the German mechanics, poured it into the oil sump. He then started cranking the engine over by hand as a pilot cringed down in the cockpit of the Me-109. The German mechanics started moving back 20 meters or so in preperation for an explosion. After a minute of cranking or so the engine started turning faster then finally sparked to life and ran solidly. The Russian explained that the gasoline liquefied the congealed oil and once the engine got hot it evaporated out of the engine. He also showed the Germans how to free up their guns so that they would work in this weather. He took a pot of boiling water and poured it over the machineguns thereby flushing all of the grease and oil off the gun. He said that at 40 below zero the guns did not need any lubricant since no heat would build up in the guns. He was right and these techniques were soon put into use by the Luftwaffe. This is a true story from Jg-52. ------------------ Rhet

Ok now for the Hypethetical situation that I illuded to before. An American platoon is advancing across a field to a small city (approximatly 500 meters away). Durring the action phase, they see a German squad run into a building (which is a VP location). The VP location should now show as being held by the Gerries. The next turn the German squad runs out of the back side of the building (away from the advancing Amis) and down the street for a ways. For argument sake we will say that they are now outside the influnce of the VP to maintain its disposition as being held by them. Will the Amis still see the VP as being held by the Gerries? For the purposes of the following questions, I assume that it does not. Shouldn't the VP show that it is being held by the Germans. I think it should because the Amis would have no indication that the Germans are not just hiding or have obtained covered positions in the building. In real life I think that they would assume that the building was still being held until proven otherwise (or leveled to the groung by their Artillary). In this example the Germans would only recieve credit for holding the VP location for one turn after all the computer knows where they are. If this is modeled like this the the VP flag would not appear to the American player as Neutral thus he would have no indication or reason to think that they had abandoned the location. He would probably approach the building more carefully as a result? CM may do this but from the cases you presented in the last thread I could not tell. ------------------ Rhet

Pak40, Do you have the ISBN# for those two books? I read a good one about two years back about the battles between the Peel marshes and the Maas. It has a lot of info on operation Constellation. The name of the book is "The Forgotten Battle" by A.K. Altes, 1994. ISBN# 1-885119-03-8 KwazyDog, I guess my favorite battle on the Western front would probable have to be the battle for Normandy although, Market Garden would be a close second. ------------------ Rhet

Hell, they surrendered to news camera men. Of course if I was in the army of a maniac who left me to die in the desert with no food or water I just might surrender to anyone that looked like they were carrying a sandwich too! ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 08-30-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>each will be a stand alone game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Arrrgh! Say it ain't so Steve, Say it ain't so! I was so hopeing that each new theater would be a supplement to the original game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No quick modules either<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It does not have to be a quick supplement. I think we will all be quite busy with the original CM while you guys are slaving away on CM2. The main reason that I am hopeing for supplements instead of independent games is that the new game feature or terrain features (such as the addition of river currents expected for CM2) would be updated in the original game. Charles & Steve: Lets face it, you guys have done a yoemans job on CM but, I am confident that you guys will continue to improve the game system and computer technology will advance greatly(some fabulous prophecy right?, just call me Nostradamus). The players will move on to the newer games and without support the Western Theater will wither on the vine. I know you guys do not care for this type of comparison but here goes...(CM fathers, fogive me for my grognard sins). In my honest opinion, I think a major contributor to the success of SL/ASL series was the supplements. The game underwent continual improvement and even went back to improve systems of the original game when it was required. This continually freshened the game to players and thus it has enjoyed a following and lifespan enjoyed by few other games. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In general, the Germans are held up to be the big badasses of the battlefield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HeHeHe, like Steve said! No really, there are a lot of nationalistic traits that could be argued for and against and the debate could last a life time. The most poetic dissertation on this subject I have read follows: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The German, every German, is a born soldier. He has the virus quality of aggression and fortitude in his blood. Like soldiers of other nations he needs to be trained but the material is there already, not base clay, but refined material. A few comparisons to bring out the point. For sheer dash, ‘elan and initiative no soldier of modern times has equalled the Austrailian; for dogged persistence and obedience to orders no race can touch the English and Welsh; for fighting fury I nominate the Scotts; for the ability to plan, for method and for thoroughness the American is superb; for fanatical courage and endurance I commend the Japanese; for the capacity to suffer and still keep fighting who can excel the Russian? But the troops of all these races fine though they are in their various ways are not complete soldiers. They fight because circumstances make it necessary for them to fight. Even the Austrailian, who often fights with a grin on his face, hates it. The German is a complete soldier, because war to him has a religous quality. There is nothing fanatical about this reverence for war, as there is with the Japanese. The Japanese soldier sees glory in death in battle. The German no more want to die than any other soldier of any other nation, but he accepts death more philosophically. The complete soldier fully realizes that his only logical end is death; that this is a soldiers only privilege. The German knows this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This quote was taken out of a book written on the history of the German/Prussian soldier from 1713 through 1945. It was written by a Brittish WWII Officer (and notable historian) John Laffin. Lokesa, if you are interested in the particulars of this book just email me. For what its worth, I would add the Canadiens in with the English and Welsh. I think the most important thing to model (and I believe this has already been included in CM) is the differences in unit training, experience levels and the differences in command and control between the different nationalitys. The differences in these areas are more easily justifiable as well as quantifiable. The only one that is selectable by the scenario designer and/or player being the experience level the others are built in and are unchangeable, if I can recall correctly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, the *ONLY* modifier I can see is something for the Russians...But even this would have to be somewhat variable since (as stated above) some units were only too happy to give up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, due to the high degree of variability regarding the Russian fanaticisim, I would recommend making only the penal units incapable of surrender. They would still have a poor quality but they would never runaway or surrender (for fear getting the Russian retirement plan). This is sort of like not being able to have an elite Volksgrenadier unit. Just a thought for CM2 at the gates of Moscow or Berlin to Moscow and back again or maybe just nach Barbarrossa. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WHat does the 'L' designation stand for ? Muzzle velocity? ie 88 L/56<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CCJ, The L/ is the designation or seperator for the length of the barrel. This length is expressed in calibers. In your example the length of the barrel would 88mm X 56 = 4928mm or 4.928 meters (16.16 ft) ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rhet... got your answer here about the flag thing. Answer is... dunno from the screenshots what is going on. We haven't noticed anything whacky, but we will keep an eye on it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't figure it out either In this turn eight screenshot http://combathq.thegamers.net/battle/Turn8hill.jpg the VPs are shown as neutral therfore, only cases 1,3&4 should apply. 1. No spotting of enemy units, no friendly units nearby - Neutral 3. Enemy units spotted right next to the flag, but enough friendlies are in the area to contest - Neutral 4. Same as above, but reversed sides - Neutral Obviously Case #4 is out of the question. This means that the program (from Martins point of view) has determined that either Case #1 or Case #3 exists to cause the VPs to show as neutral. I do not think that Martins troops are close enough to contest the ownership of the VPs so I am also casting out Case #3. If we look back to Martins turn 7 http://combathq.thegamers.net/battle/Turn7townfire.jpg all three of the VPs are shown as being held by Fionn. Note that the Church in this screen shot shows the exact level of spotting as in the turn 8 screen shot (both upper and lower walls dropped and two generic infantry markers inside the building). The above comparison leaves Case #1 in my opinion to be a little suspect. This seems to be the same type of situation that I noticed in my earlier post. I could be the whacky one here but I can't figure out why this situation shows up this way. I am dying to pose a hypothetical situation and ask another question but I will be patient and wait until an answer comes on this one. The tension, excitement and emotion that CM brings out is clearly evident in this battle! I have never seen a game nor played one that even compares. Like Lokesa said "I am so proud of you guys" (sniff, sniff). The game is just as you promised. ------------------ Rhet

Martin, I am glad things are going better! I hate to see one sided beatings (unless its me doing the beating that is). I have it on good authority that there are 15 cases of beer in the town. First come first serve. Good Luck ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyways, I hadn't realised how much it would slow me down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Charles, it appears that the snow in this battle is wet and is covering saturated or soft soil. Is there another type of snow where the ground has frozen hard and the snow is dry? This would allow for winter battles where movement was hindered less. This type of terrain will be necessary for CM2 the gates of Moscow Seriously I would imagine that the hard frozen ground would eliminate "bogged down" situations but it would greatly hinder wheeled traffic (less traction or skidding). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey, if I can code this thing after a couple of brews, you can surely play it in the same state.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL Message from the OKW... Major Fionn von Kelly, We are pleased with your early successes...continue the advance to relieve the garrison. The garrison has 15 cases of Becks with your name on them. Do not let them fall into enemy hands. We have determined from your battle reports that an Iron Cross is in order for your fearless StuG III crew! Good Luck, Generalfeldmarschall Schmidt

I did not want to bring this up in an open forum while the game is being played... so I put it here where Martin and Fionn can't see. I call this post Victory Location Tattletale? While spectating "the game" Martin posted a screen shot in turn three with the following caption: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A town swarming with the enemy! Notice that the victory flags have changed - since my platoon moved closer to the town, they are not in German hands anymore, but are "neutral" right now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After studying the game, this is an incorrect statement right? In looking at Fionn's turn 3 screen shot he sure looks like he is occupying this VP. Also if the Germans had left why would the upper levels walls still be in a dropped state? Another interesting point in Martins screen shot is the presence of a generic infantry marker sort of half in and half out on the bottom level. It appears that a bad assumption was made at this point but, if there are generic markers in the building shouldn't the VP show this as being possesed by the Germans? In turn four Martin has two screen shots of the town that show all three VPs in German hands (turn4advance & turn4south). Only the Northern building shows evidence of occupation (upper and lower walls dropped & two generic infantry markers). How do his troops know that the other two are occupied? Now for the tough question... Why does the VP flag indicate "unoccupied" in turn 3 with the upper walls dropped and a generic unit marker in the building while in turn 4, the VP flags for the other two buildings show as "occupied" without any visual clues (dropped walls or unit markers)as to them being occupied or not? ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also depends on what is hitting the town. 81mm mortars won't do much to a house, but a direct hit by a 155 round (for example) will pretty much devistate a small building.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, I agree with this. Infantry should be pretty safe from Arty inside buildings, barring direct hits of course. This should ring true for Arty less than or equal to 155mm. A near miss from anything larger would probably cause a wall or two to collapse. This would cause some casualties to infantry inside and it would make any others really think about if they wanted to continue fighting. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 08-23-99).]

Martin, Good Luck! The first step to solving a problem is to define it. You nailed it, the town is the objective...I believe the term all costs was used. The rest is a delaying action. For what its worth, I think you have addressed this situation pretty well. P.S. I like your writing style. ------------------ Rhet