Simon Fox

Analist, If you're the new consultant hired by BTS to fix up the game then you should be posting your directives to the Beta testers forum. Just use that password they gave you. Nice nick btw ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

I don't think you can classify jshandorf as a troll. If you call people "poopheads" I think you can expect a humourous response. It's not exactly a viscious retort is it hehe. Oh, that's nice, that's gratitude for you. After all the times I've told you what you should have in your game, now you tell me you've been ignoring me the whole time. Sniggering behind my back. Well at least our funny animals are marsupials and not homo sapiens. Doing well there Bruno ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm the nice one, I am.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Seanachai Bah Humbug! You can maintain that pretence all you like. Probably quite successfully in this place where the shallow rantings of the intellectually challenged masquerade as pithy insults. It is hardly suprising that you're seen as innocuous when a string of playground squawks or reference to deviant practises of an ovine variety is seen as the pinnacle of vitriol. No, nothing exceeds the unpleasantness of being subject to your turgid prose and bombastic digressions. Certainly not the inconsequential bleating of the likes of Mewler and Cruder. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Oh yeah, and was that before or after your "Cultural Imperatives of Basket Weaving 101" lecture. I suggest finding a group of like minded individuals to test your hypothesis, 10 should be sufficient for a pilot study. However, you may have trouble finding a "normal" control group by the sound of it. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"JERRY DOESN'T LIKE COLD STEEL"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yea, dead right. Night fighting should be grenades and cold steel since the Jerries don't like any of those. But is that in CM, nah! I have raised this issue countless times (do a search!) and do BTS have anything to say, nah! They just arrogantly ignore what I have to say, poo pooing my opinions in the most heartless fashion. Don't they realise I'm right? If they just accepted that then everything would be OK. Bastards! Sheesh! Steve stop picking on slappy what has he ever done to you, bully! Anyway I'm the only one allowed the beat up on him and his pseudoscientific posturing. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WO 291/2357 Rocket Typhoons. This report is dated 12 June 1945. The expected probability of hits on different targets using RPs is given as: Target/Dimensions/% hits Small gun position/5' diameter/0.2 Panther tank/22'6" × 10'9" × 9'10"/0.5 Large gun position/10' diameter/0.8 Army hut/60' × 30' × 20'/2.8 Large building/120' × 54' × 50'/10.0 Among the hundreds of abandoned and knocked out tanks that have been examined, no instance has been recorded of a tank that has been hit by R.P. and escaped major damage. RP are very effective on guns (20mm guns are blown to pieces), tanks, barns and huts. Brick houses have a large hole knocked in them and "considerable havoc wrought inside". Anti-personnel effects are limited, as the rocket tends to bury itself, and on concrete structures and thick masonry such as churches the damage inflicted in superficial. The morale effects of rocket attack appear considerable. Enemy PWs report that all personnel except flak gunners hide from aircraft from 1 to 10 minutes after the completion of an attack, expecting the attackers to return for a second strafing pass. "It appears quite definite that it is the nature of the attack that upsets the Germans and not the physical damage which it causes." RP Typhoons are also reported to have a considerable heartening effect on friendly troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So I guess that means irrespective of the other effects the globale morale of the side with CAS should rise and that of the opponent fall. hehe ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Steve, that's because over time Lewis has developed a fine judgement of the limits of that tolerance. hehe Also from time to time he manages to curb his natural inclination. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry lads, I've been selected for service overseas and am off to start pre-deployment training at the end of the week.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yes, thank you VERY much you dumbarse kiwi. So when were you planning on telling all the opponents who don't choose to read every post of this drivelling bombastic haven for ineptitude. Since this can have come as no suprise to yourself how is it you have started games with no intent to finish. This is merely the ultimate extension of your usual dawdling style and an alternative excuse to the usual pissweak "bloody ISP old chap". I see you too JonS, don't you forget I can throw a trout a very looong way> ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Mmmm.....*doing mental arithmetic* Stukes, You cradle snatcher! ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

I take that back. I never use them, they're hopeless.

Yes, I have occasionally tried this when the game parameters were right and never regretted it. They are vulnerable and never use trucks to tow them but if you keep them hidden they can be a nasty suprise for your opponent. If something with a big gun has a bead on them then they have a bead on it. Give them a high quality crew and if they knock out one decent AFV they've repayed you straight away. The HE can come in handy too. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

I know the book you mean Offwhite and I'm in the same boat as you: interested in finding it again. Hope someone can help. There is another fictional account of a British bocage attack written by a former Brit officer who served in Normandy which was really good but I can't recall the name. I remember in it a JagdPanther(or similar) crew had to abandon their vehicle without firing a shot when it became immobilised in place and outflanked. You'd be pissed off if that happened in CM hehe. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Presumptions can lead to misunderstandings Simon. Your presumption that "no one" has bothered to check out the links, presumes your the only one who did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I used the word presume, did I? No. The appearance of incomprehension can be ascribed to a number of possible causes, that being the most likely but certainly not the only. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps in your excitement to demonstrate your knowledge of CM, your presumption missed the point that the question is how much collateral damage could be expected from a collapsing building, as opposed to an exploding building.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You presume too much. I had no intention to impart or demonstrate knowledge, that was David's purpose, quite the obverse. Do buildings explode in CM? If not, the question is moot, surely? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As opposed to the "I know what I know individuals?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How trite. Scrutiny adverse? No as opposed to the "Not fixated upon one explanation for everything individuals" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, I don't "feel" the shockwave or explosion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good. Then how do you "know" that's what it is? I certainly "knew" you didn't say you did. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Suffice it to say, my presumption that the concern about collateral damage being the main point of concern, was apparently in error.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A tenuous connection at best but no in this presumption at least you were correct that this was one of the main points of concern, though above you are presuming "the question is how much collateral damage could be expected from a collapsing building, as opposed to an exploding building." Perhaps you could be a little clearer so I can keep up with these presumptions of yours. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Guess you'll have to do just that my good man, because when these instances took place, I presumed, that since that is what would happen in real world physics, that CM was just being realistic and following what was real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You need to be careful Bruno, after all "Presumptions can lead to misunderstandings". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only when I read some of these threads, or hear that bullets can pass through a knocked out armor hull.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or the fact that 3 men on the screen are 8 or 10 or 12? Or 1 man is 2 or 4 or 6? ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

I am beginning to think that the sign on the entrance to this godforsaken hellhole may actually have some merit since it's occupants occasionally elicit electrical activity in at least one of their two neurons. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

It seems like no one has bothered to go and check out those links kindly provided by David the eager Searchonaut especially the "I know what I see" individuals. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yeah, I know that is what Kwazydog said, and I'm not disputing what is "supposed" to be happening, but I also see a shockwave, and an explosion, and collaterial damage that save for the fact that it is "supposed" to be collasping, otherwise all secondary indications are it is actually exploding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So do you feel this shockwave and explosion? I think not. If you bothered to check out those links you would find it is a graphical representation of the building collapsing. In order to get the game out before the end of the next millenium a few shortcuts had to made. So the foxhole graphic is also the crater graphic and the graphic for the cloud of dust which issues from a collapsing building is the same as an explosion etc etc. Do you notice in real life when a building collapses? Do you notice in the game? Good, that is the purpose of the graphic. If nothing happened other than an instant metamorphosis from building to rubble. I am sure there would be bleating too. Rest assured, as Dan says, for CM2 there will be an improvement. But for the moment you'll just have to live with it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Same as the issue with knockedout armor hulls which are not "supposed" to stop small arms fire. While that is what they are not "supposed" to do, never the less I've seen them do it, and in one instance that stands out in my mind saving me an MG42 HMG, quite effectively.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sent the movie file to Matt have you? I can hardly wait... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Manuals and rules not withstanding, all I know is what I see taking place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No need for suspension of disbelief when you go to a movie then ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

That's hear, hear Slapdragon you dope. hehe ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Here you go Jeff, the two BARs. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000377.html I came across this little gem too: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013436.html Germanboy was in fine fettle, he seems a bit more bitter and twisted these days OK carry on. Just leave the Brits out of it. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

That's right after all no one get's killed in an earthquake do they. They just crawl out unscathed. Sheesh! ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

A good post. In fact if anything CM errs on the side of letting you see too much. That is why the other side of the coin is "how the hell did he spot that so quickly?" ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hot air from the politicians probably aided in the combustion!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No Mace it was the windbag bludging public servants such as yourself probably having a workshop on how to hold a workshop and fanning the flames. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

I thought the sig was familiar and the response http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004797.html Welcome back and I am sure there must be a graphics mod like that you seek by now. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

The point Mr Dog is that there is no point to this thread. There is no real basis for new discussion since most of the arguments have been put by either side. The OT posts are to your benefit since they bump this thread to the top and make the comment from BTS you so earnestly desire more likely. I suspect however that the reason it hasn't is that their rationale behind this change are exactly those put forward by others. The call of CM2 is stronger than mere quibbles. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We had other firing test results from WW II British sources on APDS dispersion, and it seemed to easily be the most inaccurate ammo used during WW II.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You'll get no argument from me on this point although I would hestitate to rely on anything other than general impressions from the Isigny tests. The British tests also clearly demonstrate this and appear more rigorously conducted. The real question IMO is how to model and quantitate it and finally what effect that might have on the TacAIs choice to use it. Did the British do any side by side accuracy testing of 76mm HVAP and 17lbr APDS since they did have both in Shermans? I am also concerned that HVAP and APDS don't get lumped together. As Paul's post shows and as rexford eventually acknowledged above the slope effects are (and should be in CM) different for the two rounds. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Geez, when I tried to get him to help me he just said: "the system has identified you as a LOSER. Can't help ya mate!" I wonder why? ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

I may be a bit confused but surely after a certain number of rounds the effect of bracketing (in real life) should plateau as rexford suggests, I would certainly be suprised if the relationship was linear as Duke seems to assume. I am not entirely sure as to how rexford has arrived at these 'to hit' figures but the trend seems clear if not the absolute values. Furthermore considering the gun dispersion in isolation of other sources of dispersion and error gives a somewhat skewed impression of what might actually occur. Since Lewis seems to have posted along the same lines as myself I generally concurr with his points. ie the analysis here seems fairly simplistic ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.