Sten

Mostro's right. Stridsvagn S or 103 is still in use in the Swedish army. It's fairly heavy for a turretles, 39000 kg, has a crew of 3 and has a maximum speed of about 60 km/h. Originally armed with a 105mm smooth-bore, but I think(?) some has been upgraded to 120mm. One AA 7.62mm MG and two hull mounted forward 7.62mm MG The general terrain in Sweden is more or less ideal for armoured ambushes, with forests dominating large parts of the country. The forest is interrupted by small plains and farmlands (excellent LOS) and only in the south part of Sweden do the plains ever reach the size where an ambush might be tricky due to too good LOS. This terrain and Sweden's determination to design its army as a *strictly* defensive force (sometimes overdoing it, IMHO) led to the decision to go with Stridsvagn S. If you don't count the AA MG the tank only has to show ~40 cm of its hull to be able to fire. Fantastic tank for ambushes. Sten

I guess Coe didn't know about cool points either, huh? Sten

R Cunningham, The issue was originally the pros and cons of CMs way of representing firepower. As you said: [QOUTE] I think it would be better to let players learn for themselves what works best or maybe have some general pointers on tactics or unit strengths and weaknesses to guide them. Something like: "The German SMG squad is very powerful at short range an ineffective at long ranges. Best used in close terrain where it can use its firepower to best advantage." As opposed to a detailed diagram showing exactly how firepower drops as range increases.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> CMs numbers give a false sense of battle as a very scientific and quantifiable event. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think it would be better to let players learn for themselves what works best or maybe have some general pointers on tactics or unit strengths and weaknesses to guide them. Something like: "The German SMG squad is very powerful at short range an ineffective at long ranges. Best used in close terrain where it can use its firepower to best advantage." As opposed to a detailed diagram showing exactly how firepower drops as range increases. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't really agree. I think most of the guys that look repeatedley at the numbers will soon realise that this does not make them very good commanders. CM will clearly prove that that type of number crunching is artificial, to say the least. I looked at the numbers initially, to get a feel for each units capabilities. Very quickly this becomes second nature and the exact values are no longer interesting to me. It really doesn't matter if a player likes to calculate things in minute detail. They can try, but CM's system will punish such an attitude severly. They will lose. The only way to win is to use "realistic" tactics. When it comes to chosing which distance to open fire on, I almost never open up with an infantry squad on the defense on anything >50m, even if I've got rifles against SMGs. The sheer numbers might be in my favour at 250m but what can I hope to acomplish? The best I can hope for is that I'll kill one guy a slow down the rest. By remaning hidden and open fire on 40m I'll almost certainly kill half a squad with my first volley and I might even kill off the rest before they realise where the fire is coming from. And this is rifles vs. SMGs. This point is even more valid he other way around. And never forget that when fighting in terrain and under weather conditions that allows long lines of sight you (as the defender) don't ever want to give the attacker a target. Even if you do got rifles vs. SMGs. If you can see the SMG squad, they can see you, once you go out of hiding. You can count on that several more of the attackers (and his support weapons) can see you if you chose to open fire. Better then to hide, out of the attackers LOS, and wait for the first enemy infantry to appear. As the defender, the only units I usually set up in LOS of the attacker are the arty spotters. Even a HMG will be knocked out in seconds if the attackers support weapons can see it, once they realize where it is. Sten

Guachi, have you reported that special interest/ability to Fionn in the "CMHQ needs you" -thread? I'm sure he'd welcome any help with creating a nice-looking complete database. Sten

CM 16, the pokemon gathering. CM hits the deck(!) in this fantastic mix of Pokemon, Magic the gathering and polish tank tactics. A tradeable card game that includes all your favourite Pokemon characters, Mox's family jewels and scripted pathfinding for armor taken from CC3. Cards will be sold in stacks of 2500, which includes 5 'uncommons' and 2 'rares'. Expansions are planned to be released weekly, but only the original edition and the last four expansions are required to play. Sten

I'm the medic for the Swedish champions (three years running!) in American Football, Stockholm Mean Machines. I love the game. Don't ask me which I love most, CM or football, my mind would probably crash to desktop over such an impossible decision. For 11 years, one of our tv-channels, TV3, have been airing the SuperBowl. This year, they decided it ain't worth it. That means no SuperBowl AT ALL!! I don't think I really had a point with all this, other than to say to all you guys that CAN see it: I really, really envy you. I'll just go on feeling sorry for myself, while I continue the no-huddle-offense that being the doctor on call for 8 psychiatric wards is. Couldn't some US naval vessel with the mother of all transmittors onboard broadcast the game over Sweden? Call it 'Cultural charity' or something? Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 01-30-2000).]

GamesDomain has a really good page called 'Target Range' with all the upcoming strategy games. CM was listed there. I think I saw it for the first time over a year ago. GD is, IMHO, by far the most serious games-site there is. Sten

Have a look at TOBRUK's post above. He states his age as being 57. Right under his name, left of the post, it says 'Junior Member'. Something must be SERIOUSLY wrong with the BBS-code. Sten (who is 30, BTW)

Thomm, not a pain, but rather a severe itch. But, force IS excerted. The FORCE comes in part from the PRESSURE gradient, as you rightly stated, but FORCE in the very strictest of definitions can stem from differences in pressure as well as, say, a bullet or a push from another person. The expanding gasses in an explosion most certainly applies FORCE to its surroundings. When discussing injuries from blasts, they are often partly from the sudden change in pressure, and partly from the force excerted on the body. Differentiating the two has more academical than clinical implacations, as patients suffering from one invaribly suffers from the other. Sten

This is currently an issue in another thread, but I think it has some bearing on this. If the game will allow purchase-points scenarios on premade maps, with the amount of points known to both players, then that would be a way to ensure both FOW and a reasonable bidding system. - "How many points would you require to attack with the Axis over this (known) terrain against 600p of defence? I'm willing to do it with 1150 points." - "I'd do it with 1100 points." - "Hmm, maybe I could do it with 1080." - "OK, then I'll defend." Wouldn't this resolve both issues? Or am I missing something? The only requirements are that purchase-points scenarios can be done and that both players can see the amount of points available to the other. Sten

Bullethead, I've seen 6 patients with concussion injuries: - Two were from exercise hand grenades (= ~normal amount of explosives but no fragmentation), in one of these cases the patient had more or less thrown himself on the grenade, resulting in severe ruptures of both lungs as well as internal bleeding. Despite our efforts, it was fatal. The other case caused 'only' the rupture of the eardrum/s of three people. They were about 6 meters from the grenade, but in a building. - One case was a high pressure bottle of gas (nitrogen, N2, not petrol) that fell and the tap came loose. The bottle careened about in the room and the blast from the bottle struck the patient in the face. She got some pretty severe damage to one eye, I don't know how severe. - Another gas bottle blew up in a fire. The patient was blown off the landing he was standing on. He was hurt more from the fall than the blast. - An explosive charge used for construction work exploded prematurely. The patient was ~4 meters from the charge and lost the lower part of his arm. It was a bit unclear whether the damage was caused by a foreign object or the blast itself. I was told the amount of explosives was about equal to 0.4 kg of TNT, but I really have no idea. - A demonstration for military firemen went wrong and a plastic oil drum purpousley filled with a perfect gasoline/air mixture blew up with the patient standing about two meters from it. Dislocation of the left shoulder, fracture of the right femur (=thigh bone), some intracranial bleeding and some fractured facial bones. He recovered. As you can see from these cases it is almost impossible to judge what 'sufficient' force is. Also, some of these cases were inside and in only three of the cases can even a rough estimate as to what the explosive forces really were be done (grenade cases and construction site case). You probably could calculate it in the oil drum case as well, but I don't know how to do that. Someone else? As you said, proximity is a major factor (the two grenade cases) with the force diminishing exponentially from the center of the blast. The amount of 'channeling' of the force will also play a part in this. The patient blown off the landing is a good example of this. The force from the exploding bottle would probably not have been sufficient to blow him off the landing, had the bottle not been standing in a small storage room with the door facing the landing. I think the term 'sufficient' is probably ill chosen. There is no 'sufficient' force, only cicumstances combined with the force in every case. A prone person 10 meters away from a given artillery detonation might be killed outright. Make the earth just a little more porous and that person could walk away with a ruptured eardrum. I'm still often surprised with how much abuse the human body can take and just shrug it off, and I'm equally often surprised with how even small amounts of abuse sometimes prove fatal. How close to a muzzle blast is always fatal? I have no idea. How far away is always safe? I have no idea. I don't think there is an answer. Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 12-23-99).]

Doug, as a MD with some experience from patients with concussion wounds I can tell you that what Bullethead said is not even half of it. What happens to the eardrums also happens to other organs in contact with air. Lungs. Not pretty. Very fatal. Sinuses. Serious pain from fractured facial bones. Sometimes fatal, suffocation from the swelling of the back part of the pharynx. In case of the blast coming from the side, corneal ruptures, sometimes shedding of the retina. The amount of force required to inflict these wounds can of course vary greatly, but an 88 surely exceeds the required force by a wide margin. Sten

Mike T, maybe you already know this but, if you hit 'Tab' and then '1', you get just that. Would a one-key sytem really be that much better? CCJ, I agree with you. I'd also prefer if the camera pivoted on a point rather than rotate around one. Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 12-09-99).]

Or maybe a support units morale could in some way be related to the amount of ammo it has left? I can se a FO climbing a hill, into the line of fire, to guide the shells from the battery (while it still has any), after all, he knows his job is important and that he can play a very important part in the battle. I can also see the same FO refusing to go into the line of fire on top of the same hill when he knows he cannot influence the battle in any way, since the battery is out of ammo. He should then be much more prone to panic and to run away. Is this possible to simulate, BTS? Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 12-09-99).]

SS_PanzerLeader, I'm on your side in this. That was NOT gamey. Crews carry a fairly high value, so if you lose 2 crew, points-wise, you lose more than if you had lost 2 regular infantry. Crews are generally pretty ineffective due to their lack of weaponry, but they're not totally toothless. Use them with caution. In a campaign(operation) it would be wise to use the crews with even greater caution, since, if they survive, you could get a new vehicle for them, or repair the old one. Waste the crew and you lose that possibility. Sten

tss, You're perfectly right. Karl XII was in fact the one who ended the Swedish period as a superpower. He was, as you say, VERY aggressive, to the point of stupidity sometimes. This aggressiveness is what those people I mentioned are celebrating. (I refuse to call them nationalists. Most of them are just tragic individuals who try to hide their revisionist sh*t behind patriotism.) It was the only war-relate celebration I could think of, that's why I brought up Karl XII. None of them would ever chose a name like 'Compassion', so I guess the only thing Compassion's got in common with them is hairstyle and footwear preferences. At least I hope so. Sten

Sweden is kind of weird this way. We haven't been an active part in a war for 200 years. (Excluding various modern UN missions and some support missions during WWII, which mainly went to the axis in the beginning of the war and the allies towards the end. Diplomacy to survive or sheer cowardice? That debate is still going on here. You decide for yourselves.) There isn't a single even remotely war-related public holiday. Some people who refer to themselves as 'nationalists' (you know the ones, really short hair, Dr. Martens, bomber jackets, etc) celebrate 30:th November because that was the day when Karl XII died. Karl XII was a Swedish king during the turn of the 17:th century that led HUGE Swedish forces all over Europe, conquering and plundering. He was very successful and was one of the main reasons why Sweden became one of the dominant powers in Europe during that time. http://www.sverigeturism.se/smorgasbord/smorgasbord/society/history/karl-xii.html Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 12-08-99).]

Fionn, you said "The reason I don't think TCP/IP will matter is that the standard of reviewers is so low that they'll miss so many other things that it won't matter." Funnily, that's the same line of thought that made me think that the reviewers would think TCP/IP is a serious matter. Most of them are not serious enough to realize that it isn't THAT important. Sten

Fionn, you're probably right. Maybe this is really a minor point and I was being overzealous in my attempt to get CM the reviews it, IMHO, deserves. I trust you and your experience enough to hope that it won't matter, if you say so. I thought I had a bleak view of reviewers as a group, but again you surpass me with a wide margin. I was quite surprised and disappointed when I read GamesDomains preview of CM. Up until the I'd always held GD in quit high regard for their often relatively well-written reviews of strategy games. Both Tim Chown and Bruce Geryk (sp?) still belong to the reviewers I would trust, even if this knocked their halos askew somewhat. Compared to most other gaming-sites GamesDomain is among the best, IMHO. Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 12-07-99).]

I couldn't agree more. But, the standard you(SS_PanzerLeader) and I use to judge reviewers by need not be the same as someone elses standard. Since BTS's chosen method of distribution rules out the 'spur-of-the-moment' buyer who happens to see the game in a display window, they are even more dependent on reviewers, word of mouth, usenet and forums like this one. Possible excerpt from the bestselling computer magazine from Fictional Reviews Inc : (Motto: "We test games for AT LEAST 60min for each review!") ".....CM gets 4 stars out of a possible five. A functioning TCP/IP would have gone at least halfway towards that coveted fifth star, but as it stands, CM's got excellent gameplay for the single player, but with PBEM as the only realistic multiplayer option it would take like FOREVER to beat the crap out of your best friend." I'm not saying that I think BTS should wait, just that everybody should offer this some thought before they jump on the 'Ship now!' bandwagon. Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 12-07-99).] [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 12-07-99).]

SS_PanzerLeader: That's not what I said, nor what I meant. I'm sorry if I was unclear. My main point was that CM might lose sales due to less-than-excellent reviews done by reviewers who think TCP/IP is VITAL for an enjoyable game against a human opponent. I don't think TCP/IP is VITAL to enjoy CM, but I do want it as an option, and so does everyone else. But are a few weeks worth the risk of poorer reviews? Sten

Fionn posed a very important question in the "IMPORTANT! CM VOTE!" thread. As can easily be seen from all the answers, almost all members of this forum (that cared to answer) think that the game should ship without TCP/IP. I feel an almost irresistible urge to yell, "Ship it now!" (BTW, does that make me part of the 'Twitch crowd'? ) but that might not actually be in my best interest. Every fiber in my body wants the full version NOW, but more than that, I want CM to become a big hit. I want all reviewers to give it 100%, five stars, two thumbs and warm recommendations. Because I want BTS to make sh*tloads of money, to set an example to the rest of the companies, and to produce more titles like CM. I will probably never play CM online. I don't think very many people will. But will the reviewers realize that TCP/IP is not that important to CM? BTS often says 'get ready to unlearn'. Will the reviewers play the game long enough, to 'unlearn' enough, thereby realizing that TCP/IP is mainly superfluous? Some will, but the majority? I don't know. I think I'd rather wait an extra couple of weeks for CM than to risk the really good reviews that MIGHT come without TCP/IP but are guaranteed with it. The decision is an important one, but I think many of us (myself included) might be just a tad too inclined to bow to our impatience. Maybe BTS should just decide this one for themselves, without our (maybe shortsighted) advice; after all, they have more riding on this than any of us. Just my 2 öre. Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 12-07-99).]

Would it be a good idea to have a "LOW" unit be able to utilise another units ammo, if they were close enough? This would not be the same thing as redistributing ammo, but would reflect the handling over of one clip. Ex. A rifle squad with "LOW" ammo is by the north wall in a house. A rifle squad with "17" ammo is by the south wall. The house gets attacked from the north, out of LOS from the squad by the south wall. The north squad fires at almost full strength, despite having "LOW" ammo and the other (south) squads ammo count is dropped to "16". The south squad 'helps' their buddies with one volley, because the north squad *needs* it. Wouldn't that be both doable and realistic? Sten

I know that somewhere in the ASL rules (or was that a scenario?) there's a claim regarding the gyrostabilizers. They say that most of the crews threw away some vital part of it just so they could get out of "point duty" while driving from place to place. The commanders (doctrine?) obviously wanted the "point tank" to be equipped with stabilizers, so if I just break mine, someone else will be on point. Chicken **** or self preservation? Sten ( I hope all this has some truth to it. I have absolutely no idea if it does.)