Wolfe

BTW, during daytime engagements your MGs have absolutely no negative impact on your own troops. You can't kill 'em or even supress 'em. Hopefully BTS will look at this for CMBB. - Chris

Tanks will stop firing HE when friendly units are near to try to avoid friendly casualties, but MGs will not. I guess HE is thought to be too dangerous to use very close in to your own troops while MG fire is not? Tank MGs (hull, flex) will also continue firing even though their main gun stops. - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: And I just want to make sure the Ferdinands are going to be included. <hr></blockquote> Elephant use on the EF questions - Chris

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JAK: I knew that the Brummbar was in the lineup for CM:BB, but I hadn't heard about the Sturmmorser (Tiger). Is it really in or is this just a really good dream? <hr></blockquote> See Charles' response in the interview at Gamespot. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Mattias wrote: But will the StuIG 33B be included one wonders? <hr></blockquote> Don't know yet. I hope to see as many of the 15cm sIG33 guns on different chassis as possible (various 38t as well as PzI and PzII versions). A list of possible units I've seen mentioned is in the M16 in CMBB thread. - Chris [ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]</p>

Don't know if this applies to your system or not. I used to use a Diamond S90 sound card (Vortex 1 chip) and the game would lock up the system if there were a lot of animations going on (like snow or rain or lots of smoke). This happened regardless of the driver set used. I removed the sound card and use the onboard AC97. This fixed the problem, though sounds aren't as powerful (less bass) and sounds aren't as individually distinct, either. Hope to pick up a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz soon. Hope that helps. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pud: Chris, I am actually using your excel tables (which are great) to update the database. I hope you dont object either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. Not at all. Feel free. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will of course send it to both of you for final approval and will not be released unless you both agree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please don't. I already have version 1.10 as well as the pics, and really don't want to get a multi-megabyte file through email. If you want to send just the Excel file that would be fine, but since I don't have Excel (just the free viewer), the pulldown menus don't work for me. So I can't check its functionality for you. BTW, I got a bit more data for HE on the Firefly. At 100m, its HE can *barely* get through the 80mm side armor of the Tiger (takes multiple hits). The kill odds are even given as 'None'. But it can easily defeat the Tiger's side lower side armor at 1000m. It can also punch holes in the Panther's rear UH, side Tur, and side UH. Lets see if this table works (number for HE are minimums; what the gun can penetrate; actual penetration may be higher). I don't know what other vehicles to test to try to get the numbers closer to their maximums, so that may be all I can do. And for that matter I'm not sure how the HE penetration calculations are done. If what gunnergoz said is accurate and Charles modelled it like that, then in-game testing for HE penetration may be rather pointless; depending more on luck of the draw rather than reliable penetration. - Chris [ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pud: [QB]I note in the data for the 17 pdr (in this case in the Challenger) it carries HE rounds but there is no stats on the HE rounds (on the info/kills pop up). I checked other 17 pdr guns but could find any stats on the 17 pdr HE rounds. Can anyone point me in the right direction here, does it equate to HE from a 75mm?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, it's higher. The 17pdr can penetrate the early StuH's upper hull at 500m with its HE, but not the StuH late. StuH is 95% of 73/10 (about 69/10) and StuH late is 80/10 (76/10). It sometimes took a couple or even a few hits before penetrating the lesser StuG's armor, so it may be just inside the lethal range (although I guess that could be due to the rounded mantlet. Hmmm shoulda picked a better target ). It cannot penetrate a Tiger's side armor (80/0) at 500m at all. All tanks were hull down, so lower hull does not matter. The US 76 gun's HE cannot penetrate any of these at 500m. The charts list the US 75mm only penetrating 42mm at 500m. Note: tests were done in Nov44. Starting in Feb45, many of the Allied guns change their penetration data slightly (possibly due to better shells?). I don't know why, but they do. This doesn't seem to affect the outcome, though (StuG late is still impenetrable to 17pdr at 500m). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Im updating Guachi's CM_database to 1.12 and adding in some additional data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> :cool: - Chris Edited to note rounded mantlet on StuG. [ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

Waaah! Sorry to hear about your troubles, Manx. The fact that this issue keeps popping up must be a real annoyance. Sounds like you should take a break from all this nonsense. If you can't find a kind benefactor able to take away much of the BW load, it may be best to scale things down and add some banner ads. The ads may be annoying, but they pay the bills and I think most folks have accepted them as a necessary evil. Whatever the case I hope you can find a solution that's suitable to you. Don't worry about us; we'll be fine. Do what's best for you and your site. This is supposed to be enjoyable, remember? It ain't supposed to just be another obligation! - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: [QB]How bout some long range fire testing. Say: Regular Tiger I @ 2000m<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately CM1 isn't built with long distance duels in mind. Not only is the miss rate pretty high, but over 2000m once a tank becomes buttoned, it can no longer see any other unit than the one it is currently shooting at. Mentioned this issue before: Buttoned tanks have limited LOS? The game has changed slightly; you no longer lose LOS to your current target after buttoning in CM 1.12. Though the other as-yet untargeted tanks still disappear after the Tiger buttons. Hopefully will be fixed for CMBB. - Chris

John, I mentioned this before. But I think that CM treats bunkers and pillboxes like tanks; they can even be hulldown! Since vehicles always are level to the terrain they sit on, I doubt this can be changed for CM2; it's likely an engine thing. Hopefully for the engine rewrite. Would also be nice to be able to dig them in (particularly into the side of a hill). - Chris

Heh. Was thinking about this very issue yesterday. BTS has said they would add camo versions of the bunkers in CM2 alongside the non-camo versions. It may be interesting (for CM3) to be allowed to purchase non-camo versions of the units at a reduced cost. They'd be easier to spot, of course, but may be worth the purchase price. And the camo would affect both spotting as well as which texture set to apply. Maybe there could be summer and winter camo and non-camo sets for each unit? Camo for guns could also visually add netting. Damn, I guess Dan (Kwazydog) is gonna be one busy little mod slut when CM3 rolls around. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: IIRC, BTS has said that the M-15 (International Harvester export version) quad .50 will be included in CMBB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? :cool: Musta missed that post. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dogface, we'll most likely see M3 Grants<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve said at one point they might try to get this mutli-turreted vehicle in along with the T28, but in a later interview, Steve said the multi-turreted stuff was definitely out. Guess we'll have to wait for CM3 for the Lee/Grant. Vehicles I've seen mentioned so far as being in (or seen in pics): Axis Tanks Panzer IIIJ Panzer IVD Panzer IVF(F2) - maybe Tank Destroyers Tiger(P) Ferdinand (Jul43-Dec43) Tiger(P) Elefant w/ MG Assault Guns StuG IIIB StuH/43 Brummbar - coulda sworn they mentioned this one Sturmmorser (SturmTiger) Vehicles 251/10 HT AT - a possibility Allied Tanks BT-7 T-34/76A (M1940) T-34/85 (M1943) T-34/85 (M1944) - if that's the longer barrel in the pic? KV-1 KV-2 IS-2 (M1943) IS-2B (M1944) IS-3 - maybe, maybe not Tank Destroyers SU-76 SU-76M SU-100 Assault Guns SU-76p SU-76i - 76mm M1942 gun on captured PzIII chassis SU-122 ISU-122 ISU-122S SU-152 ISU-152 Vehicles ZiS-? 37mm AA - some half-tracked vehicle ZiS-5 Assault - w/ 76mm M1927 gun BA-10 Infantry Rifle 41 Rifle 43 Links to vehicle pics mostly found in the CM2 FAQ - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: 1) Is the shell flight path taken into consideration? What I mean is, if the round is plunging slightly by the time it reaches the target is this angle subracted from the armor slope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually I think the answer to this one is No. The game draws a straight line between targeter and targetee and calculates the angle of impact from that. I seem to remember Steve and/or Charles clarifying this in a thread I can't currently find. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2) If a target tank is diagonally facing the firer, so that a round could equally well hit the side as the front, is this 'sideways' slope taken into account in calculating side penetrations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As others have said, Yes this is definitely in. And I hope BTS is able to tweak the AI for CMBB so tanks, once they're engaged, don't continue turning their hulls until they're completely square to each other. Presently they do this much of the time, even if it's to the detriment of the tank (such as a Tiger which has both heavy side and frontal armor). For a Panther, it makes sense for the tank to be fairly square with its enemy, but for a PzIV, obliqued is definitely advantageous. Yes, I'm going to keep harping on this issue until it makes it into the game, dammit! BTW, you need to be aware of not just of how your tank is turned, but also the slope it sits on. Lost a Panther once to a Sherm-75. The Panther was going down a steep hill. The Sherm was significantly higher than him. This combo was enough to allow an upper hull penetration from a 75mm AP shell! And no, it wasn't a weak point penetration either. T'was not a happy camper. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: I'd like to know if the new lighter version 345.bmp works, if someone could tell me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup. Thanks! - Chris

Thanks. Nice looking mod. Sandbags and ivy are a nice touch. Though I think I prefer the darker version from the other thread. But I'm getting an error in both zips: "Can't read file header! Unsupported file type!" on all of the BMPs. - Chris

Actually I don't think CMBB is going to take quite that long. Assuming that BTS seriously got to work on CM2 starting Jan/Feb 2001 (because the CMBO patches, especially TCP/IP, took so much time to do) and if CM2 comes out in -say- Feb 2002, that's 12 months for the new game. Not too shabby. A mini timeline: Jul/15/98 - Computer Squad Leader changes to Combat Mission Mar/11/99 - Hoping for an early Summer 99 release Apr/30/99 - Steve guesstimates CMBO has been in development for ~1.5 years Jun/30/99 - Hoping for late Summer 99 release Aug/23/99 - Classic Alpha AAR is first revealed Sep/28/99 - Beta Demo delayed Oct/28/99 - Beta Demo released Nov/20/99 - Chance Encounter for Beta Demo released Dec/27/99 - Still polishing the game Feb/11/00 - More polishing Mar/28/00 - Intro Movie released and late May 2000 release date set May/09/00 - Gold Demo delayed: damn those refresh monkeys!!! May/10/00 - Gold Demo released Jun/14/00 - CMBO ships and the eternal wait at the mailbox begins Jun/16/00 - 1.01 Patch released Jun/26/00 - CM sells out for the first time Jul/27/00 - 1.03 Patch released Jul/31/00 - CM sells out for the second time Aug/25/00 - 1.05 Patch released Nov/29/00 - Public Beta 1.1 released Dec/15/00 - Public Beta 22 released Dec/20/00 - Public Beta 23 released Dec/22/00 - Public Beta 24 released Jan/10/01 - 1.10 Patch w/ TCP/IP released Feb/08/01 - 1.12 Patch released Jun/06/01 - First sneak peek pics of CM2 The timeline with all of its delays may look a little bleak, but the good part about it is BTS has now gone through this whole experience (ordeal? ) once before and undoubtedly has a better idea of what to expect. Even with an engine rewrite I don't expect CM3 will take as long as CM1 did. I think BTS has said they may bring in another "code monkey" to help with the engine re-write. And, IIRC, one of the main delays of CM1 was the models and textures. CM3 will obviously take longer than CM2, but parts of the engine re-write and model building can be done in parallel. And many parts of the engine (TCP/IP, Strat and TacAI, targeting, etc.) will likely get tweaks, but won't need to be completely rewritten. A significant portion of the game (3D engine, relative spotting, more complex models) obviously will change but it isn't as if they're starting from scratch. My $0.02. Oh, feel free to add to this timeline. - Chris [ February 20, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Alright, folks. This is weird, but I have now been able to get the target command to display an increase in FP for units under the command of a + combat HQ. I have no idea why is wouldn't work before as I have tried on several occasions. But it is working now, at least in the particular test I set up. The answer is that each + adds 10% to the FP. This is for regular troops, I haven't tried any others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It (correct FP number including HQ combat bonus) doesn't show up when you first use the LOS key (L), but it does after you target the enemy unit (N or T) for the first time. Dunno why, but that's how it seems to work. - Chris

Mo' drivers. Mo' drivers. Mo' drivers. Det 21.83 are out. http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=drivers - Chris

Hey, nice effort. I tried doing this once, but gave up. Too much work. One annoyance with point values is the presence of tungsten. Its availability changes throughout the game, and so any unit that can fire tungsten will have different costs depending on the time of year. The US 76mm AT gun, for example, has 4 different costs depending on what month the QB is set in. The Fireflies also get HE in Sep44, which changes their cost even more. But strangely, all the German infantry units stay at the same cost throughout CMBO's timespan even though they change to more effective fausts twice (PF-60 in Sep44, and PF-100 in Feb45). Even so, good stuff. Thanks! BTW, the Sexton should probably be allowed under Short-75. That was a typo on my part, and was never corrected. - Chris

http://www.combatmission.com/CM2/pics/Infantry.jpg Brrr. Those trees look cold. Nice. Older pic with trees: http://www.combatmission.com/CM2/pics/CGM_Infantry.jpg Personally I think I prefer the older style buttons, but the new text is brighter and more readable. And the unit hierarchy is more spaced for easier reading. Thanks! http://www.combatmission.com/CM2/pics/T-34-85.jpg Hmmm. Is the T-34/85 on the left the longer barreled version? - Chris

Hi. See the link in my sig. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally quoted by David Aitken: "In line with most of the Allied armies, the British used a large range of Lend-Lease items from the USA. These have been mentioned but not described as full details can be found in the companion volume the US Army Handbook 1939-1945 (Sutton Publishing, 1997)."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh. Great way to sell another book. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From first impressions I would recommend the book. Even from leafing through it I have learned a lot. It has a lot of hard data, and seems to be very thorough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks. I may have to pick this one up then. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Just got The British Army Handbook 1939-1945 (Lt Col George Forty) which has a couple of nice pictures of the Challenger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are some nice shots in Chamberlain's Brit and American Tanks of WWII. Sorry, no scanner. But there are a few mis-modelled (atleast visually) units in CM. Some of which were likely done intentionally to save time. The US 105 How, 105 Pack, and Brit 25pdr all use the same model: What Happened to the Infantry Guns? And the M36B1 Jackson has the wrong hull: M36B1 Graphics Question I'm sure all will be fixed for CM3. BTW, I almost picked up that book, David. T'was a bit on the expensive side, tho. Does it go in-depth on weapons development? Is there much on lend-lease (that stuff is tough to find)? I recently got Hogg's Allied Arty of WWII and it doesn't go into as much depth as I thought it would. The Brit 6pdr section doesn't even mention the different marks nor the changeover to the longer barrel. Oh, and that reminds me. The lack of a muzzle brake leads me to believe that BTS modeled the US version of the 6pdr for both US and Brit 57mm guns. According to Hogg, the American version always had the longer (L/50) barrel (the Brits apparently didn't have the right equipment to make the longer version initially). The Brits switched over from the shorter MkII (L/43) to the longer MkIV sometime during the war. But in CM both have the same penetration values even though the US even used a different shell. Does the Brit Handbook discuss any of this? Also, CM doesn't differentiate between the different German 20mm guns: German 20mm Guns Maybe I'm being too anal^k^k^k^k picky? Naaah. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: Interesting my first thought upon seeing it was that it would serve the same purpose as it's smaller brother, the Stielgranate 41, which was introduced to enable 37 Pak guns to fire hollow charge rounds. But considering the respectable effectiveness of the standard 15 cm HC rounds I can see that the Stielgranate 42 would be a bit of an overkill. Instead the AVRE 290mm spigot mortar would seem a closer comparison as far as the mission goes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm. Apparently so. See: 15cm sIG Also, a pic of the Stielgranate 41: German Militaria - Chris

Hey! The board's back. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: In the listings for the Airborne is the M3(?) 105mm Pack Howitzer, which is depicted as a straight 105mm howitzer but was in fact more of a super-75mm Pack Howitzer with a cut-down 105mm barrel and standard 105mm gun breech. So a heavy U.S. infantry howitzer's in the game, it just LOOKS like a standard 105.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep. BTS used the same model for both guns. And they even used it for the 25pdr too. But the guns definitely have different characteristics. Pic of the three in-game: 105 M2A1 How, M3 Pack 105, 25pdr All 3 guns just got done firing their first shot at a target 3000m away. The M3 Pack 105 is in the middle. Notice how much more elevated it's barrel is (lower muzzle velocity). And the barrel of the 105 How (on the left) is even slightly more elevated than the 25pdr on the right. The guns also turn at different rates. The Pack 105 and 25pdr take 1:12 to turn 180 degrees. While the 105 How takes 1:59 to turn around. And the 25pdr has a higher ROF than the other two guns. Mattias, go to the Jagdtiger page, click on the German Vehicles section, and then under Artillery, click the link for the sIG33. I'd provide a direct link, but the BBS doesn't allow parenthesis in URLs. The Stielgranate 42 is a 197lb muzzle-loaded stick bomb. The German Handbook says its was introduced very late in the war and was used to clear minefields and barbed wire. Bishop's encyclopedia says it was used against strong points like blockhouses, but had to get in close to fire (very short range). - Chris [ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]