Supertanker

I agree that Hathcock's shot was extraordinary, I only mention it to show the inherent accuracy of the round. Like I said before, shooting on the move is a different thing. However, I did have a game vs. the AI where an elite .50 team never moved and knocked out 10 251/1 at ranges between 150 and 500m (good field of fire, that one). That seems reasonable to me, but I agree that some of the long shots from moving vehicles may be a little much. Try playing M1TP2, and shooting at BMPs from the cupola while on the move. That's almost impossible, and surely the real thing is much more difficult. That game lets you turn a stabilizer on for that gun, but that option is a "cheat" they included for game reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: As for all of you english-speaking only, too bad you won't understand... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like Fionn noted, very bad form. Part of why I continue to read the board is the general courtesy that I find here. Please try not to erode it. I know we English-only folks are merely a breed of mentally deficient savages, but we still have feelings. You see, while the direct translation is not very good, we can get a rough idea of your comments from the Babelfish: "Hello, I am French, I benefit from it! This BBS is full with presumptuous english-speaking who know all better than everyone: the German artillery, English, how the play must be... Finally good does not take them too much with serious, that is used for nothing to be irritated."

I have a few comments to throw in about the M2, though keep in mind I've never used one in Real Life . First, regarding accuracy. In Vietnam, Carlos Hathcock was credited with a sniper kill at 2,500 yards using an M2 on which he mounted a telescopic sight. In my (admittedly limited) experience with modern day rifles chambering the .50 BMG cartridge, sub-minute of angle accuracy is common. I believe part of this is that there is more room for error with the cartridge scaled up like that, and part of it is that the long bullets have a better ballistic coefficient. The .50 BMG cartridge is as accurate as its user. Shooting on the move is one thing, but if that weapon is stable and not moving, fear it. Second is regarding power. M2 ball ammo fires about a 700 grain boat-tailed bullet at over 2500 feet per second. This generates around 12,000 ft/lbs of muzzle energy That is a *lot* of energy, and it would blow through you and me while just barely slowing down. Now that I've written all that, I found a link that has some .50 BMG history and a head-to-head comparison with the .308 Winchester (aka 7.62 NATO): http://www.gunnery.net/warwagon/history.html So, roughly 12,000 ft/lbs for the .50 compared to 2400 for a .30 cartridge. IIRC, in How to Make War, James Dunnigan said that the M2 isn't really an HMG, it is more of a semi-portable machine cannon. However, based on that link, it appears it was intended as a long-range anti-personnel weapon. So, I expect the .50 to be very accurate and to hit very hard, and CM models it that way. To paraphrase the zombies in Return of the Living Dead, "Send more halftracks."

Where is The Amazing Randi when we need him?

Big fat pages, whether they contain JPEGs or Flash, limit your audience. Now that I live in Twomegabitland, I don't mind the Flash stuff a bit, as I see no difference in load time between that and HTML. However, back when I was a sad resident of Dialupville, you were talking two or three minutes a page for 500KB Flash stuff to load, so I skipped those pages. Broadband is spreading, but it still has a long, long way to go before it is the standard.

I've been playing computer games since 1976, and it still is my primary hobby, so it is easier to name what I don't play: RTS games. The reason for that is that the units have always proven to be brain dead, and it makes me too frustrated when they die for idiotic reasons. The strength of the TacAI is a big part of the reason I love CM so much. I find the WeGo system a great compromise between the clickfest and the pure turn system (like SP or X-Com). Of course, I built a new computer this weekend, and the first game I installed was UT and the infiltration mod. Domination maps with Infiltration weapons - most excellent gameplay.

"For the honor of the Regiment." IMHO, best line in a science fiction short story ever. Even beats out, "One by one, the stars were winking out."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by guachi: I had seven German halftracks run into an ambush of four bazookas, but I was most impressed with the .50cal that was providing anti-infantry support rack up three SPW250 kills at <75m range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had a QB the other night where the AI took 21 halftracks (19 251/1 and 2 251/3). One elite .50 team took out ten of them, and six of those were within two turns while I was beating back the AI's primary attack. Nice shootin', Tex.

If I may be so bold as to answer for BTS, yes, the EULA does allow transfers (assuming the transferor does not retain any copies). I think I quoted the relevant portion of the EULA in a previous post, so try checking my posts in the last few weeks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!: But if one player has loads of points to spend on Jagdtigers', then the other player has loads to spend on things that will kill a Jagdtiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ain't that the truth. If someone has enough points to buy nine Jagdtigers, I will have enough points to create a tungsten blizzard. You will be able to walk across the battlefield and step only on spent 90mm casings and burnt-out german vehicles. To say nothing of the large-caliber artillery and air support.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los: I can tell you assuredly as part of the design/test team that this is a FALSE statement. While some of the scenarios were created to have balance to them some of the scenarios, (including every one with my name on it), was created to provide historical accuracy regardless of balance. (However we did choose battles and operations that were intrinsicly challenging near run things)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But isn't eliminating the blowouts from the list of scenarios considered play balancing? Even in the early FAQ, BTS stated that they would do that (I think the question was something like, "Didn't the Allies have so much of everything that they will will all the time?" If you start off by limiting scenarios to near run things, then you are just taking a gross approach to adjusting the scenarios to be fun from both sides, or be won by either side. Nobody wants to be a target, and shooting fish in a barrel ain't that much fun, either.

I'm definitely done buying other wargames. I've always preferred tactical wargames, and CM is exactly what I have always wanted in a computer wargame. I buy games in other genres, though. Been having lots of fun with Diablo II and Icewind Dale, both of which arrived about the same time as CM.

As others have said, I almost always have something in reserve. It might be a couple of squads or a single AFV, but it can help to have something. Speed being a force multiplier, I prefer a couple of AFVs. I just finished Doubler's book, and he notes that though doctrine called for a reserve, there were many times where American commanders entered the fight without one (Aachen and several key Bulge battles). They did this on purpose because they wanted all guns front to maximize firepower. I think he is talking about larger formations than those of CM, though, and most of the battles he discusses involve some form of mobile reserve to prevent a breakthrough.

I don't mean for this to sound like a personal attack, but I think you are on the wrong track for reaching your apparent goals. Maybe it is because I've been playing computer games for so long, but I draw a much thicker line between actual wars and the little electrons and photons that make up a computer game. To me, the men on the CM battlefield are like plastic chess pieces, and bear no relation to my family members and friends who are veterans. When my CM "men" die, they do not lose all of their hopes and dreams. Their loved ones do not cry, and clutch some memento to their breasts. When I see the little casualty marker guy on the CM battlefield, it does not give me a chill and sense of somber remembrance like when I visit a national cemetary. No matter the graphics or sound quality of the game, I can still turn it off and go sleep in my warm bed, well fed, with no fear of what may happen in battle the next day. Many people gave up their lives to ensure I can do that, and I feel like I am belittling their memory and sacrifice if I dare give such weight to a mere game. The point of the game is to have an enjoyable experience; it is intended as entertainment. Scenarios have been purposely balanced for gameplay, not historical accuracy. If it isn't fun or entertaining, the makers know you will turn it off and find something that is that way. If you are trying to gain a deeper understanding or appreciation of how war is about killing each other, then forget about entertainment media and go read accounts of war written by veterans. I just finished reading "With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa" by E.B. Sledge. That book will do far, far more to teach you about the randomness of death and sometimes pointless nature of a battle that the most closely fought game of CM.

I have a 4 y.o., a 3 y.o., and a 3 month old. It is easy to find time to play CM and post here, I simply trade that time for sleeping time. Some people even think that is a tough choice. CM vs. sleeping is no contest! Actually, I'm really happy I can save the game after every turn, that makes playing in short bursts much easier. I simply don't buy games that lack an easy save system (hence no Daikatana or Vampire for me).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Notnowjohn: I'm with Mr. Norton, I can't wait to do a piece of Stalingrad! And by the way the site, the maps and the scenarios look great!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I tried using Col. Klotz' version of board 1 to create "Rooseveltgrad." I simply took SL3 and substituted American equipment in place of Russian. It didn't work too well, but has potential. It may work better against a human, as the AI seemed paralyzed, I think because the forces were so intermingled. Also, the American squads seemed too powerful (6-6-6 vs. 4-4-7?) and a good human wave was able to overcome the German defenders very quickly. I had made all American squads regulars and all German squads veterans, and took away all organic anti-tank weapons as those were not specified in the scenario briefing. I substituted Sherman 76s in place of T-34s, which seemed to work pretty well. As I interpret it, the Shermans have better turrets but less armor than a T-34, with guns being roughly equal. A decent trade-off, especially vs. StuGs. When I played it as the Americans, I was able to wipe the German infantry from the board and hold all objectives, but there were three StuGs roaming the board at the end.

No, you can be buttoned and still let fly.

A good review, but wow, the Sharkster has really gone beserk with the super-short pages (intended to generate more page views). Not one of the pages of the review was more than three paragraphs, and most were two. My mousewheel works, you know.

/me taps foot impatiently. Mr. CM Borg, that's your cue! /me resumes tapping.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thomasj: That's what I'm talking about! Overall, if we can make a backup copy of the CD and use it while we store our precious, Hmmmm my preciiiiioussssss, *oops sorry, wiping drool* original CDs in a safe, secure location then I am far from ever griping about having a CD in the drive to play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just read the license in the front of the manual: "Battlefront.com grants to you the right to use one copy of the Software on a single computer. No duplicate part of this Software, CD-ROM, or manual may be copied or stored concurrently in more than one place at any time, including a second hard disk, duplicate CD-ROM, Internet site, or any other means of computer storage, except for a single copy made solely for purpose of backup." (Emphasis added.) So, you see, you get to make a backup copy. As discussed in a previous thread, you can sell your copy, too, as long as you don't keep a copy. I'd also like to point out that I have violated the license by quoting the above to you all, since the license also states, "The manual may not be copied, photographed, reproduced, translated, or reduced to any electrical medium or machine-readable form, in whole or in part, without prior written consent from Battlefront.com." Dang, that's two violations now! Since I had to have prior permission, Battlefront can't even grant me permission for this post after the fact. Well, at least it doesn't automatically terminate my license for breach, so I'm OK until they sue me. Hopefully, I will win one of the copies from SimHQ, so I can have a new license. For the humor impaired, I want to note that I do abide by the spirit of the license, and would never make any unlicensed copies. Oh, all right, before I go, let me pick my favorite nit: many licenses are violated by using the software, since you then concurrently have copies of the code on the original CD, on your hard disk, and in system memory. D'oh!

Since I have small children, and often forget to remove the CM CD after late-night play, my disk is at great risk. Hence, as discussed in a previous thread, my original is safely stored out of harm's way, and I play with a copy I made.

I haven't had it happen that often, and last night I had a fire break out from a grenade duel at close range. My squad ran out and was shot down by an MG, and the AI's ran into the next building and was captured by another squad of mine. All fine examples of Mr. Murphy being the real commander, and the chaos that often dooms my plans is part of why I like the game.

I had this happen with a squad of men who were running from a 150mm infantry gun. I was moving the platoon up in line, and the gun hit the center squad. The right-hand squad, closest to the border, took one casualty, broke, and ran right off the screen. That made that one shot worth about 15 men.

Hey, Spoons, nice to see out slumming on someone else's board . I noticed that SimHQ added a Tactical Wargames discussion board along with the CM contest. Looks like simmers (at least us groundpounders) are a good target market for CM.

Rod is right, Intel definitely dropped the motherboard ball, and I saw a link on Shugashack to a place on Intel's web page that shows SDRAM to be faster than Rambus. However, SDRAM prices are creeping up, partially because Rambus just won a big patent infringement lawsuit against one of the big SDRAM makers. Royalty payments now are due on SDRAM. Your realistic PIII mobo choices are the OC'd BX boards, or the VIA 133A boards. I just bought an ASUS P3V4X motherboard, which uses the 133A chipset. It has AGP4x, four DIMM slots, 6 PCI, and 1 ISA, and has placed in the top two or three of every 133A comparison I've seen. It may have a stability edge over an OC BX, but the BX is a little faster, as I recall. VIA also just settled a big lawsuit with Intel, which I think included an Intel blessing/license for the VIA chipset.