Ron

I concur with the target switching of the IG and the AT bunker as well as the inability to make area fire 'stick' with these guns. I have noticed this a few times already in a handful of pbem games with the Gold Demo. Another thing I just had happen was the strange behavior of the Sherman 105 while targeting the AT bunker. I had screened the bunker with smoke and moved the tank around the bunker's flank, outside of it's covered arc. When the smoke cleared I targeted it with the Sherman but instead of firing the Sherman popped smoke and reversed away. Shouldn't the tank 'know' that it is safe to fire? The bunker had been fully spotted. I realize the chance of knocking out the bunker was rare/low but still it shouldn't be acting like it is threatened should it? Any comments would be appreciated even if only to let me know that this isn't a viable tactic! Thanks. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lee said: or does unclicking the target unit make the bonus "reset" even if you change it right back?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Try it for yourself, you'll see that any aquiring bonus is lost if you switch targets. Ron

Another reminder...

I'm not bringing any new revelations to the table but I am curious about something. Steve has said that the artillery had a major overhaul due to input from people in the military. What do they(military) have to say about skipping HE fire? Is it something that is trained for and used in today's armed forces? If so, then that would obviously go a long way in assisting it's implementaion in CM. If not, then why isn't it in use? Thanks, Ron

Ok, we have requests for long tasselled wheat flowing picturesquely in the Normandy countryside and uber gunners who can skip HE a minimum of 3 times before exploding it on a dime. Sure, we want soldiers who have necks like a bull, MGs that your grandmother wouldn't use, and last but not least, rubble that looks like, well, rubble. Now I'm saying we should forget about all that. In the grand scheme of things what's really needed is the veritable Kitchen Sink, in all it's glory. Here are two well documented and researched firsthand accounts of those who were there. From "A Soldier's Hell" by John Tallehow 'We were assembling in the woods for a major attack when all hell broke loose. We dove for cover and were holding up pretty good until the Jerries began to throw everything at us, including the Kitchen Sink. It did us in, what a terrible weapon. I was the only one to make it out from my squad, I heard later over half the company simply vanished before the attack was called off.' From "Cuisine of the US Army, You Can Do It Too!" by Ben Nueitall 'We set up the tent in an abandoned apple orchard and received instruction on the proper care and handling of the Kitchen Sink. There had been numerous reports lately of the Germans having this new weapon. Using good old yankee ingenuity we learned it's ins and outs in one afternoon. It was quite simple actually, we wondered why no one had thought of it before.' I have other sources as well but am not too big on typing, just wanted to generate some discussion for CM1a. Regards, Ron

From Mellenthin's 'Panzer Battles': <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Maginot Line was widely believed to impregnable, and for all I know there may still be those who think that the fortifications could have resisted any attack. It may be of interest to point out that the Maginot defenses were breached in a few hours by a normal infantry attack, without any tank support whatever.....In modern war it is in any case unsound to rely on static defense, but as far as the Maginot Line was concerned the fortifications had only a moderate local value.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the purpose intended for building the Maginot Line, I would say it failed in that goal. Ron

It's said this scenario may be included in the release version of CM. Regardless, it looks to be a very interesting battle shaping up, I'm looking forward to it. Ron

Wow, the graphics look great. I'll chime in also in saying CMHQ won't work with Netscape 4.7 at all, just a black screen. I loaded up IE5 and went to CMHQ, and well, what can I say? The main content loaded before the ads did, methinks I will miss watching the ads load 7 or 8 times before the main body under Netscape...then again maybe not Ron

A way around the various initial delays for AFVs, up to 45s for a Sherman in CE, is to plot a waypoint then cancel it. The delay is erased and then it will have it's regular delay based on experience. Another trick is to substitiute a higher level HQ for the regular HQ of a platoon. For example, the Conscripts in CE have a normal delay of 50s, if you use the Bn CO as a replacement it is reduced to 20s IIRC. The command bonus reduces it further. Think of it as the 'higher ups' taking an active hand Cheers, Ron

I like the suggestion too though it also depends on the scenario design. For example, in the CE briefing you are told recon elements have scouted the area reporting no opposition. In that instance the US force would probably know the general layout of the terrain they were advancing into, maybe not down to the last tree but you get my idea. Ron

SS, I have no problem with you expressing your concern about a feature in CM though I disagree and have said so in email, what I take exception to is your posting on a public forum exaggerations and inaccuracies of the condition of the US forces in the game. Case in point: The Germans weren't in the village by turn 3, try turn 7. Their intentions were quite plain before that. The Hellcat does not have loads of HE, 26 you said, I have never seen one with more than 13 or 14 rounds. Your asseration that it could cause lots of damage is highly questionable as there still remained 3 platoons of German infantry. The Hellcat did not capture an objective flag no matter what the view from the US side said. There were German troops hidden there. The 32% victory was due to FOW not to the reality on the battlefield. Your troops were not holding their own. You made a good move taking out the Stug but the reinforcing infantry were battered and stalled from German fire part way down the hill. Once I saw that, I felt the game was over, your infantry had no chance in making it to the village. For 1 or 2 turns I did nothing, expecting at least a ceasefire request from you. Then it became plain you were going to take out the immobilized Tiger also. As a response the PzGrens and a HT were sent up the US hill to finish off those remaining GIs, the AI threw in the towel at that point. So really you were going to lose as much or more than you hoped to gain. As an aside, in the final results of this game it said there were 220 US casualties. I realize now this is in error as there were not that many US troops in total. Has anyone else seen this? I still have the file. Regards, Ron

It seems it is a question of player control, ie fight to the last man, versus a realistic simulation of combat, ie Hey my buddies are dead, let's get the hell out of here! Obviously we are playing a game and BTS has compromised in making it playable for gamers while still semi realistic with the global morale factor. In the game in question with SS, the US forces had one squad, four crews, and one HQ for a total of 25 effective men, all located on the US hill, plus a roaming Hellcat. The US had suffered 220 casualties. The Germans had the majority of their infantry and support intact and 3 HT's, suffering 26 casualties. The US had no hope of capturing an objective except by parking the Hellcat near one on the last turn to dispute it. Really, as the US commander what do you think you would do or want the game to do?

There is a known rubble bug, since fixed, that causes this. Solution: avoid rubble in the beta Ron

Lol, you're a funny man Mattias!

A problem I find with the hunt/reverse commands on a crest, to simulate the shoot and scoot tactic, is if your hunt is too far forward, the vehicle will stop to engage the enemy armor without carrying out the rest of the movement order and ends up being exposed for the whole minute of action. It does take practice to get it right and even then it doesn't always work out. I tend now to do as Moon suggested, ie hunt forward at the end of the turn then reverse out next turn. It would be nice to have a separate set of commands for this as Username described, especially when the enemy is spotted already, but perhaps that is too much control within the one minute time frame or is too difficult to implement. Just my thoughts. Ron

Ooops, I thought it was funny, no offense meant at all. Ron

As well as being a self admitted asshole, you're a comedian too! Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What's the armor angle on those ballistic tests?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "U.S. Army Weapons capability against rolled homogeneous steel armor at 30 degrees obliquity" posted under Armor Penetration. Ron

Username, There was a great big discussion on artillery and the HE effectiveness/gun velocity relationship awhile back, hence the reference. A search will give a lot of useful information from guys with real-world experience. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dalton: Guys, I know this is a LONG time ago for many of you, but think about your first game of CM... My first game was a couple weeks ago, and took close to 4 hours - and I got my butt kicked. Getting used to the 3D terrain - scouting out good LOS positions, places to move unseen, places to ambush opponents, etc is not easy, nor quick, until you are comfortable with the 3D views. Then add the command options, FOs and AFVs and you have a LOT to learn in you first game(s). IMO, if you pick CM, without having read/heard about it extensively, you are in for a nasty (buy strangely addictive surprise. The CM Crusade is really necessary for CM to be a success. Without people understanding that CM 'is not your fathers war game' it will have trouble finding the interest of a large market due to its completely different user interface.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While being fully aware that every gamer's perception is subjective, I wanted to comment that I found the exact opposite of the above to be true. The CM beta demo brought me back to wargaming in a big way largely because it is so easy to get into and play. I find the methods used to play well, ie scouting a good LOS position, moving unseen etc., felt more natural and made more sense than those employed in other wargames I have tried. For me they weren't tedious or time consuming or obtrusive at all. Perhaps because I don't have the background/conditioning from other wargames it was an easier adjustment but from this 'newbies' perspective CM is intuitive and the 'suprise' was wholly pleasant. Ron

I was curious also and went to the SPWAW forum to read the comments but the thread isn't there anymore! Ron

Ianc, my intention isn't to be condescending but you seem to overlook that all the things you want are presently available in a manner that is more user friendly, imo, than a distracting screen. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...that will let me see all the units in my command at once<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Press view 4, turn unit bases on, and scroll around. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...tell me if they've got orders<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Turn unit paths on. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...let me jump to them by clicking on them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Left click and press Tab. Perhaps you have just missed these things I don't know but they seem simpler than having another screen overlaying the map. Good luck. Ron [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 04-01-2000).]

KwazyDog Initially the arrow bases reminded me of vehicle/gun facing from Squad Leader days, ie hexes. Is this what you are referring to as to why they were changed? Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But we thought you all might like to see it now rather than later. We could of course *NOT* released it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahem, as your lawyer I advise you to suppress this intro movie immediately. In the wrong hands, I fear it will cause untold grief and mayhem among the unsuspecting gaming community....hmm, furthermore, as a precaution I advise you to remember to ship the pre-orders alphabetically Ron PS Just in case it wasn't clear, I felt the movie was excellent [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 03-29-2000).]

Search under 'grazing fire', there has been a fair amount of discussion and yes it has been covered. Ron [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 03-29-2000).]