Wolfe

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: The middle weapon is the 160mm mortar - I don't recall the designation tho'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I guess you're right, but it looks a lot bigger than 160mm. http://www.geocities.com/apiotrow/MWP/pages/AA37mm.htm Didn't know what you wanted for descriptions, Killdude, but the 37mm AA gun is 61-K M1939. BTW, got any pics of the quad Maxim AA? http://www.geocities.com/apiotrow/MWP/pages/AT45.htm Soviet 45mm M1937 on left (damn near a carbon copy of the German 37mm PaK 35/36). 45mm M1942 next to it. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bakker@home: Middle: 5.5 inch Mark 3 ? British (Appears to be the 5.5 inch instead of the 4.5)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, you're right. British 5.5in. Hogg's 20th Century Arty to the rescue. - Chris

http://www.geocities.com/apiotrow/MWP/pages/Mortars.htm Left is 120mm M1938 mortar. Right is 76mm M1943 regimental gun. - Chris

http://www.geocities.com/apiotrow/MWP/pages/Gun4.htm 122mm A-19 M1931/37 http://www.geocities.com/apiotrow/MWP/pages/AAGuns3.htm Middle is 85mm M1939, I believe. http://www.geocities.com/apiotrow/MWP/pages/76Inf.htm 122mm M-30 on left. - Chris [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>please identify<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Couldn't you just read the plaques? The one on the right is the 152mm ML-20 gun-howitzer. The muzzle brake gives it away. Middle gun is probably 152mm too (M-10 I guess). - Chris

Some more tidbits from a couple of threads. CMBB Featured in PC Gamer And from: How many targets per turn is realistic? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For our new level of Fog of War, which does not show enemy headcount, an infantry unit that is eliminated will show up as a generic spotting marker. This means you will never know, until you get in close, if the unit you were shooting at is eliminated, Hiding, or withdrawn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> :cool: Me like. Me like a lot. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Is it possible to show the weapons in the unit description with the correct name instead only the caliber and V0? For example, PzKmpf IV were equiped with the 7,5 cm Kw.K.40 L/24 (~til June 42), L/43 (~from March 42), L/48 (~ 1943?) (with different penetration/accuracy)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not in CM, but CM2 may have a good deal more info. Check out the T-34 pic over at CMHQ; it shows which 76mm gun it has (L/31). http://www.combatmission.com/CM2/pics/CGM_T-34.jpg I don't think there are any pics yet of unit stats to indicate what other info (if any) may be included in the unit descriptions in CM2. The gun length is a good start, though. If you want info for guns in CM, I did my best to ID them for my charts. See link to my CM website below. - Chris [ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: With a "good" kill chance, why use C ammo? To make it "über-really-overkill-very-good"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because you're not sitting in a Firefly and anti-infantry AFVs aren't meant to duel with tanks. Like you said, you pop smoke, fire your best shot (or maybe even a smoke shell), and withdraw before you die. Should be SOP for bunker busters as well as self-propelled arty. As it stands now, a Sexton will stand there and "duel" with a Wespe. IMO, both of these vehicles should run away even though both have an excellent chance of killing the other. Killing enemy AFVs isn't in either's repertoire. The only time I think it's justified is if one gets the drop on the other in an ambush. Then it's ok to take pot-shots at the target AFV until your ambushing vehicle is spotted and targeted, which should then cause the TacAI to withdraw *both* SP guns; popping smoke and firing as necessary until they get away. And frankly, I'd like to see StuHs do this as well when facing Shermans-75s; even in spite of its decent armor. The StuH should run from a Sherman, not the other way around. A StuG, however, is a different matter. BTW, in a mano-a-mano duel between an M4A3(105) and PzIVH, the PzIV is actually the one more likely to withdraw! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even if the ammo selection for the 105 had flaws (I am not convinced), the fact remains that the 105 was an anti-infantry enhanced Sherman. If you duel with it against another medium tank under any situation but sheer despair, you get what you are betting on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, but that still doesn't mean that it should use HE when it encounters a tank. IMO it should *always* fire its best shell while withdrawing; even if it only has one HEAT shell. This should only apply to vehicles that are SP arty or inf-only killers, however. The choice between tungsten vs AP is a decision for the TacAI to make depending on the circumstances, but the choice between HEAT and HE shouldn't even be a choice, IMO. Fire the HEAT (or even whatever's in the tube), pop smoke, and run away. After all, a tanker isn't sitting there with Rexford's penetration booklet in hand. I don't think he'll know (or even care) if his HE shell can actually do the job against an enemy AFV. He just wants to run away and kill the tank if he possibly can. His job isn't killing tanks anyway; let somebody else deal with the damn Panzers! And unlike tankers who might get the rare tungsten shell, I don't know that a Sherm-105 tanker is really concerned with "saving" HEAT shells, particularly not while withdrawing. BTW, CM doesn't seem to simulate having the wrong shell in the tube. Another thing I'd like to see in upcoming games is when an HE or HEAT shell impacts but doesn't penetrate an enemy AFV, it should have a chance of blinding the crew (i.e. they become shocked for a few seconds even though noone is injured and no damage is done to the gun or tracks). I also like the idea of a possible small (short) shock effect if a tank is forced to button due to a nearby explosion. BTW, I already know that we won't see SOP for units until the engine re-write. See the AT Gun thread. But any types of improvements along those lines that could be integrated into CM2 would be very welcome. Thanks for listening. - Chris [ 07-14-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

If the choice is between forest and wall, I'd take the forest for the hiding bonus. If the choice is between scattered trees and wall, I'd probably take the wall. Walls are really good against incoming MG and rifle fire. But one thing to consider when placing AT guns in wooded areas, putting them far back into the woods reduces your enemy's shot accuracy as well as your own. Your AT gun has to hit a specific target to do any damage; the tank only has to hit in the area to be able to supress and then kill your unit. Once your unit is spotted, the forest's benefits essentially vanish. And you may actually be at a disadvantage, accuracy-wise. Sometimes, it may be best to just put them *just* inside the forest edge (so you don't lose accuracy), hide them until you see a good target, let them kill that target, and then watch them die. Hopefully they'll take out something more valuable than they were. Occasionally, you'll get more than one enemy AFV before your gun buys the farm. BTW, by far the best "concealment" for guns in CM is distance. You want as many hundreds (actually thousands) of meters between you and your target as physically possible to remain hidden for as long as possible. An HQ with a good concealment bonus commanding the gun helps too (but distance is the real key). Once they're found, they're dead meat. - Chris

A new preview of CM2! Hey, that rhymes. CG Online CM2 Preview - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, my machine was not physically unplugged when I installed it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ewww. That's not good. ATX boards always have a bit of juice running around when they're plugged in because of the soft-power support. Next time, unplug that puppy. A couple of suggestions before RMAing your mem: After you've moved things around to see if that fixes things, if you still have probs, then try clearing the BIOS (should be a jumper somewhere on the motherboard). And there should also be a selection in the BIOS to "Update ESCD" (or "Reset Configuration"). If none of that works, you may have a bad DIMM. Crucial has a lifetime warranty and a good return policy (atleast the last time I checked). BTW, you can currently get a pair of 256MB SDRAM/DDR SDRAM DIMMs (512MB!) for ~$100 and free 2-day shipping. That's *INSANE*!!! - Chris [ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

Improved Anti-tank Gun behaviour in CM2 Camoed fortifications! Yay! And possible abandon weapons command for guns and vehicles (to save the crew), but no re-manning of any units. BTW, some more tidbits can be found on the old FAQ pages: CM2 FAQ, updated semi-annually! Updating the CM2 FAQ - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker: The higher in the chain of command the HQ is it will have a wider command radius.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, it doesn't seem to. Bn and Co HQs with no command bonuses both have a 50m command radius in clear weather over open ground. With a 2x command multiplier, they both have a 100m command radius. But I do think BTS said some time ago that losing a Bn commander is much worse for global morale than losing a Co or Plt HQ. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I don't have a real strong opinion on this one but I do agree with those here who suggest it would be nice it AT guns were a little harder to spot or a little more difficult to knock out, they seem a little overly "brittle" or "fragile" in the game, but the current system does work better than any other game I have ever played. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although I have zero evidence or statistics or any way to quantify it, I have to agree that Inf guns and AT guns in particular seem overly easy to spot. The same I feel is true of bunkers and pillboxes. Certainly the lack of relative spotting hurts a lot, but even in mano-a-mano situations guns seem to stick out like sore thumbs. I admit my 'feeling' may be completely wrong, but I'd love to see a tweak or two to this. Even using a platoon commander with good stealth is only marginally helpful. Could be I have unrealistic expectations; I dunno, but I'd still love to see a change. Would also like to see bunkers and MG pillboxes that are sitting in woods that can be incorrectly IDed as just a plain-jane MG team. Receiving fire from a densely forested hill, you wouldn't necessarily know whether it's just a well-hidden MG or a much harder to kill pillbox. Nasty surprises are always fun. And while I'm at it, any chance Zook/PIAT/Schreck teams would automatically re-hide after firing if there's no other AFV targets in the immediate area? And in night scenarios, how about if you lose contact with an enemy unit, you have to go through the trouble of re-IDing the unit when it comes back into LOS? And ... and ... and ... Ok, I'll stop now. - Chris [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: When the player gets into the Orders Phase he will NOT be able to order a direct fire mission for a unit unless the target is in fact already on its "spotting list". The player will NOT be able to override this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Should we start a pool for day and time when we see the first "I can see the unit why can't I target it?" post? BTW, any thoughts on adding a target list or other way of indicating which friendly units can target which enemy units? Like a 'Show Targets' key that highlights the enemy bases that can be targeted by that unit. Cycling through the 'N' key or using point-and-click with the LOS line will likely get tedious. This feature could even be useful for CM2! - Chris

Hmmm. The Sexton is still excluded from Short-75 play. Thought that oversight was going to be fixed? - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: Thanks guys, I grabbed the second Mod at the site which says it's just another M3 variant but confusingly also mods the M5 without telling you as well. Sorted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep. Those shared textures will get you every time! The M3, M4A1 Mortar, M21 Mortar, and M5 HTs all share the same texture set. As do the M3A1 and M5A1 HT. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I could not find anything which allows batch file switching between nationalities but these will do nicely in the meanwhile<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm. You're right. Unless I'm not looking in the right place, I can't find any non-US HT mods either. I thought there was atleast a French version, but maybe I'm mistaken? - Chris

And there are even winterized ones in the mdmp2 pack. Links to HT and Scout Car mods: Manx's Combat Missions CMHQ MDMP2 http://www.angelfire.com/ns/mocm/alliedvehicles.html Magua's Mods at CM Outpost HT Mods: M3_and_M4_Allied_Halftracks_V2 - Magua Hi-Res_M3A1_v2 - Magua Lo-Res_M3_M4_HT_V2 - Magua Lo-Res_M3A1_v2 - Magua mdmp2 - MDMP Gang (winterized) Scout Car Mods: GEM_Camo_M3A1_hr - Molek M3A1 US - Free French version - Peterson M3A1 White Scout Car Commonwealth versions - Peterson That's all the ones I know of. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geier: I gotta agree on the new interface, looks great<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, looking *very* nice. One suggestion, though, DeanCo. Have you considered making which Sqd/Plt/Co the unit belongs to different colors than the rest of the text? "1Sqd,3Plt,E Co" is a bit much to read to figure out which company the unit is from. Using a different brighter color for the numbers (like bright white) would allow you to more easily glance down and pick out "1 3 E". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also do not recall seeing a buttoned up tank have "cautious" status in CMBO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve said in the BUNCH of Answers thread that AFVs can now behave much more like infantry morale-wise, even running away to find better cover! - Chris

Hey! Good idea. The most recent screenshots show the CM2 interface with 'Sgt' listed for both units: http://www.combatmission.com/CM2/pics/CGM_Infantry.jpg http://www.combatmission.com/CM2/pics/CGM_T-34.jpg - Chris

Commissar, I was looking at this pic, sorry for the confusion: http://www.combatmission.com/CM2/pics/Soviet_Vehicles.jpg <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: I don't know whether that's supposed to be a BT-7A or not - the gun seems far too long for hte 76mm howitzer, but is much larger calibre than the 45mm on the adjacent a/c. Although possibly the a/c could be armed with a 37mm gun, and the truck might have a 25mm AA gun on it, which would make them a bit better scaled to the 45mm on the BT 7?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm. You're right, the gun looks larger than it really is (I compared it to the gun on the BA-10, and it looks significantly thicker, but that may just be a dark area behind the gun, not a shadowed part of the barrel itself). So it must be the BT-7. Forgot the BT-7A's gun is so short. Dunno about the Flak truck (it's a ZiS-5, right?), but I automatically assumed 37mm as well ... - Chris [ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

Thanks, Dan. I now see the selection box is in the other pic. BTW, is that a BT-7A? - Chris

OK, below the T-34A pic it lists the gun on the tank. Yay! But I assume the info refers to a different tank not shown in the pic because of the lack of a yellow bounding box, right? You guys didn't nuke the yellow box when selecting a unit, did you? - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: One question I have - there was a model of the 251 (and 250 I think) that had a 37mm pak mounted in place of the mg - it was supposed to be the platoon commander's vehicle in a Pz Gren platoon. Will it be in there?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 250/10 and 251/22, I think. IIRC, Steve said no a while back. But with all the rare vehicles that seem to be making it in, maybe they'll change their minds. - Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>i have to disagree, gentlemen. i did a few qbs for this purpose, and each time some ATM's were revealed by inf from a distance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've *never* seen this. IMO, those mines had to have been daisy-chain AT mines. The Daisy chain mines (which simply sit on top of the ground) are easily spotted. Can you create a scenario which demonstrates the ability to see regular AT mines (not the Daisy-chain type)? I can create one which has perfectly clear LOS and has multiple battalions of elite troops sitting in a mixed minefield of AT and AP mines, and never spots them until someone moves. But it's hard to prove a negative, of course. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: [QB]Units can spot mines from a distance. Once in a game against the AI on the "Grafenwohr" training scenario I spotted an AP mine field very early in the game. My nearest unit was more than 700m away! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If your opponent's troops run through the mines, they will set them off, and you'll be able to see the minefield, even if you have no physical LOS to the mines themselves. - Chris [Edit: edited to make it a bit more clear what mines I was referring to] [ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]