dano6

Version 1.1 doesn't work with the ATI rage pro driver version 4.11.2560. Graphics copy onto themselves. This is the latest on the ATI website. Any suggestions would be appreciated dano6

Version 1.1 won't work with the ATI Rage Pro Chipset on my machine at work. Getting graphics write over on the accelerated picture. Have the newest release drivers from ATI, Any suggestions would be appreciated. All other versions have worked fine with these drivers. ATI driver 4.11.2560 dano6

What happened to the M15 and M16 US HTs. When are these going to be added to the game? dano6

Again rarity or the opposite, plentifulness(if that is a word) is not considered in the cost of a unit. the question comes down to this. Are the pts values really applicable to the effectiveness of the US tanks. I again restate that I believe that some of the factors that are considered into the pts totals for the US tanks are over applied to the equation that computes the cost. I would still love to hear from Steve or Charles on this matter. dano6

Fionn, I hope you aren't talking about a 76mm hole in a hetzer. HEHEHEHE! dano6

Actaully, I know this, rarity is not figured into the points at all. It is all based on performance and effectiveness. By the way the M4A3E2 Jumbo costs 15 pts more than a Tiger. Killmore, I am not stating that point values should be skewed due to rarity. I am just stating that some items on US tanks might be weighted a little too heavy in point consideration. By the way the stuart kill of the panther had to be from the side. If you let a tank flank you then it is your fault that your tank died. Remember the Panther is only tough from the front. And there is no way a stuart could have killed it from the front. dano6

Cueball while your differences in are noted, if you notice my comparison in no way puts these tanks against one another in tank v tank engagement. It does in fact compare their qualities against one another. How else do you know what point value is for. With nothing to compare equivalent points values to then they are just arbitrary. Now with the example of the Sherman as a utility tank, that is true but the Tiger still wins in your comparison, what you are doing is putting them in engagements. Just to show you where you are wrong. Take the Tiger and Sherman against some HTs at long range in open country. The Tiger wins out big time. The Sherman probably couldn't hit the HTs at long range 1500m+. You are just fitting the engagement to what you believe. You can always turn an engagement around to fit what you want to happen. In the above, the three features of the tank are compared, Armor, Firepower, and Mobility. They are not put into engagements that fit outcomes, they are just compared to one another. Now you just compared the wirblewind to the above example: OK, Wriblewind Pz.IV chasis with an open top quad 20mm. Lets see: Armor: hull armor same as a pz.IV. Turret armor weak do to the use a AA. At a disadvantage. AT firepower: Great against light armor. Against tanks no chance. Anti-personnel firepower: Huge.... No stabilizer, fast turret. Mobility: same as Pz.IV From the above I would assume that this vehicle would cost less than a Pz.IV by a little due to the reduced armor and AT peformance but humungous gain in Anti-personnel firepower. And guess what it does. 107 is less than 122. And there is nothing to compare it to on the US side as the m16 quad .50 halftrack isn't there. I would assume that this should cost about 70-80 if comparable to the wirblewind. But I bet that it would cost 100 just due to the higher US equipment costs. dano6

Fionn and I have already hashed this out. We have agreed to disagree. Now the evidence presented above should bring up some questions. As for the M4A3 flanking the Tiger, it still couldn't kill it from the side either. It would to flank it all the way to the rear. Unless of course it was within 100m. I just don't see the cost being the same for both. And remember that the Germans didn't have many heavy tanks on the battlefields on the western front. Now the Pz.IV costs less that a newer 75 Sherman so you can have plenty of medium tanks. And hell the Stug is a bargain. Seems if you want some descent German tanks you can have tons but the US can only load up on the crap and it can't even really do that. dano6

A plea to Charles or Steve: The more I look at CM’s unit pricing, the more questions I have. Fionn and me have had some major discussions regarding the costing of units in the game. Fionn has said that there is a formula that determines the cost of a unit taking into account many things. Now I believe that this formula is skewed, because pricing does not reflect the realistic effectiveness of some units, especially allied armor units. I believe that too much weight has been given to certain aspects and not enough in other areas. There are three major categories that should be considered: Firepower, Armor, and Speed, all the other little things should be much lower on the totem pole. I am going to give a list of allied vehicles and comparisons to other vehicles that are German. Charles or Steve please give explanations for what I see as over-costing of a vehicles effectiveness. Example #1: M5A1 Stuart Cost: 104 pts Comparison: Mk.IVH, Stug IIIG Cost: 122 pts, 83 pts respectively Now the Stuart costs only 18pts less than the Mk.IV but 21 pts more than the Stug III. From this costing what you are saying is that the Stuart is almost as effective as the Mk.IV but more effective than the Stug IIIG. This is very interesting. Here are my comparisons below. Armor: Stug and Mk.IV have the Stuart licked by a huge margin. The Stuart is vulnerable to every AT, HE, and AA gun out there. Life expectancy of the Stuart: none. AT firepower: Both German tanks have the Stuart licked again. No need for explanation Anti-Personnel Firepower: German main guns add more firepower than the measly 37mm can make up with an extra MG. Ammo: The Stuart holds more main gun ammo than either German but hell its effectiveness is almost nil. So what if a tank holds a 100 rounds of spit wads. Turret: Stug doesn’t have one, So the stug is the loser here. Definite loss of shooting while on the move. But the Mk.IV has one. Making it equal. Gyrostabilizer: Stuart has one, none of the Germans have this. Realistic effectiveness, not much most crews disabled these. As for the game should not be much of an increase. Speed: Stuart has them licked on this one. But not by as much as the Germans have the Stuart licked in the Firepower and Armor categories. Now here is the kicker. The M5A1 costs more than the M24 Chaffee, which replaced the Stuart and was an extremely better light tank. The M5A1 cost 14 pts more than the M24. (104-90) The only thing the Stuart was used for in 1944-45 was for flank protection. And if really hard-pressed it was used on the front-line. Are we saying here that the Stuart was better than a Stug III by a bunch? And almost as good as a Mk.IV? Also the M4A1 early Sherman only costs 11 pts more than the M5A1. So the Stuart was that close to a Sherman? I don’t think so. Example #2: M4A3(75)W+ Cost: 180 pts. Comparison: Tiger 1E, Pz.IVH Cost: 180, 122 comparitively Now here again the up armored Sherman costs the same as a Tiger and 58 pts more than a Mk.IV. 58 pts is a pretty big difference. Armor: The Sherman has both beat from the front hull perspective. But the Tiger has the Sherman beat good at the turret, and the Mk.IV is equal at the turret. Sides, the Tiger has the Sherman beat good, and the Mk.IV is equal. Looks like a wash for the Tiger and the Sherman has the Mk.IV beat pretty good. AT Firepower: Tiger has the Sherman whipped and the Mk.IV beats the Sherman by a bunch also. Anti-Personnel Firepower: Tiger has the Sherman whipped again. Mk.IV and Sherman real close with a little advantage to the Sherman. Ammo: Sherman carries more than either. But the Tigers shells are much bigger so about equal. Mk.IV loses here as well. Just not as much storage as the Sherman. Turret: Sherman beats both with a faster turret rotation Gyrostabilizer: Sherman has one, Germans don’t Speed: Sherman has both Germans beat. Now here is the comparison. Is this Sherman the equal of the Tiger? Hell no. Now here is my question, Is the added armor to the front hull worth the 33 pts that the game says it is? I don’t think so. Now back to the comparison. The Tiger has the Sherman beat badly in the firepower area, armor is pretty close-tie, and the speed goes to the Sherman. Now the Tiger beats the Sherman so badly in the Firepower area that none of the other things can make that up. Gyrostabilizer should be way small and ammo is a wash. Comes down to this, the Mk.IV while outmatched by this Sherman is not that badly outmatched, but the points don’t show this. Instead it is compared to the Tiger which outmatches this tank. The points difference is too great between the Mk.IV and the Sherman, and it should be less than the Tiger. It seems that little things like gyrostabilizers and turret rotation are weighted much too heavily in the calculation of the pts. Firepower, Armor, and Speed are the major factors in a tanks’ effectiveness. The little things should just be factors in these catagories. Such as ammo storage and gyrostabilization should be factors in firepower. But hell the 75 can’t compare to the 88 even with these thing added. I just believe that something in the formula is skewed and not calculating these values correctly, maybe there needs a little tweaking. Or maybe there is an error. There are plenty more of these that I can put down, but I think this should suffice for now. Steve or Charles I would appreciate your imput on these questions Thank you dano6

Fionn, come now, in the game if you test it, it is a very effective tank killer. Especially at shorter ranges(400 or closer) If hit you are pretty much dead and as I have stated, % to hit with regular crew is 25% at 400m, 50% at 300m and 60% at 200m. These go up with the more experienced crews. Actually having to be exceptionly skilled to kill a tank with these, I don't think so. Just hide them until a tank is in range and then open up. At the price involved 4 against 4 tanks in the open will almost always net 4 kills with maybe 1 pupchen killed. Now if ranges are over 400m you hide them until you get a shot. The only thing is you have to cover them with infantry just like any AT guns. So I don't think you have to be defensive genius to get these thing to work. And at the bargain basement price, you can afford to waste a few. The only thing the US has close to this is a 57mm AT gun and it costs 47 pts. Now where is the parity. dano6

Actually Scott this is one case where the pts. don't match the effectiveness. At 400m these things have a good chance of killing any allied tank.(typical hit percentage with regular crew at 400m: 25% at 300m:50% at 200m:60% these go up with higher quality crews) I think that this weapon is far more effective than the schreck and within 500m it is more effective than the 75mm AT gun. Either the game has the effectiveness wrong or the cost of the unit is wrong as Jarmo and others have said. I feel that this unit should be adjusted into the 35pts range range to reflect effectiveness. I am just curious why the Germans abandoned this weapon if it is as effective as the game shows. There were plenty of AT ambushes set at 200-400m by the Germans. dano6

Just performed a test with the pupchen versus the sherman. 10 Shermans versus 10 pupchen. Range of engagement 360-500m. Result Pupchen 10 - Shermans 6. That is the Pupchen destroyed all the Shermans at ranges from 360m all the way to 500m. I actually had a pupchen take out a Sherman on the first shot at 499m. 18% chance to hit at max range. I believe that a weapon that can completely destroy a fairly sizable force 1780pts. vs. 100pts is not fairly accounted for in the game. If this weapon was as effective as it is in the game, you would think that the Germans would have kept manufacturing it as it is perfect for defense. 5 times as much ammo as a schreck 4 times the effective range as the schreck. No way you get 18% hit chances over 100m with the schreck. This is the Super Weapon the Germans were looking for to stop the US in their tracks. I just wonder why they weren't supplied to every unit everywhere if they were that cheap and they were as super-effective as shown. Please anyone take the challenge I bet the pupchens dominate as long as long as you are in range. dano6

I have to agree with Fionn, since I am playing him. His estimates are a little high but pretty close. While the rush tactic might have worked, I knew that he had infantry supporting the pupchens and my rushing men would have been slaughtered. So I waited for arty support which had little if any effect on the pupchens. So I learned my lesson, no pupchens in my ladder DYOs while I am attacking(use date limitations). They are the bargain basement highly effective closer range AT and HE guns that cost nothing. What is funny is I guessed correct right from the start how many Fionn had. Must have caught him off guard a little, and I think I saw it in one of his responses. Hell I would take ten everytime and wreak havoc on an attacking force. Anyways the game isn't over yet. It is too bad that Fionn felt it necessary to give away some of his force stregnth in this post. I never once attacked Fionn's moves or choices in this game, just the basis on which the points are attached to units in this game. Hell if I knew this from the start, I would have played a much different game. But lessons learned by mistakes are what mistakes are for. Fionn I will come back and play you again, without the mistakes I have made in this game, but this game isn't over yet. I still have some fight left in me. dano6

Killmore you have just put your finger right on the problem. With this cheap AT weaponry there is no need for anymore. And as I have found out the weapon does not have all that bad of HE capability. Plus it has a high ROF. Oh to answer the question, if placed in cover, it is just as invisible as a small AT gun and very survivable. Especially against 81mm mortars. If you place them in cover and add some infantry support you have a perfect defense structure that cost almost nothing and is very hard to crack. dano6

"LOL! LOL! Oh, please stop! Ahh, you weren't serious where you? You have never played on a ladder before have you? Balance is the LAST thing a good portion of people want when they play a ladder game." Well actually I have played huge amounts of ladder games in CC2(was actually ranked in the top ten for awhile). First game in CM though, against propbably the best player: Fionn. There has to be force balance for anyone who isn't a complete idiot to play the lower of the two sides. Most people try to find an advantage and exploit it, but if it is so large then no one with any playing ability will play against that advantage. I for one will not play an offensive battle as the US later that January 1945. Hell if I am German on the defense, I would buy 10 of these if not more. By the way they are not that bad as Anti-personnel weapons either, as I am now finding out. Just need to protect them with some infantry and you have a killer defense for cheap. dano6

I am curious how a weapon that has more pentration power than a schreck, 5 times as much ammo, and twice the range, costs 66% of the schreck. I know movement is limited, but this weapon is a super-cheap AT gun with HE capability. The only thing that is different is the limited range. And plus how common was this weapon. Seems that commonality should be figured in to the pts. Seems to throw the balance of ladder games way off. Especially when the Germans defend. You could buy ten of these and need absolutely no other AT assets what-so-ever. Just seems that the calculation of the points value is a bunch off. I think that this weapon would be about 30-40pts. dano6

Hey Fionn, I am up for a game. I will send an email to you or can send one to me whichever first. dano6

Hi, Carentan, I will take you up on that one, if you don't already have an opponent or two. Do you want to pick your forces, or have them randomly picked for both sides? Just let me know. email me at my profile address. dano6

I know this has been covered before, but I was just wondering why the point limit for the random battle generator is set with such a low limit on PTS available to the defender. The 1000 pts. limit limits the one sides forces to a reinforeced half company. This generator makes the game very interesting to play against the AI. It is a shame that the generator can't make up some bigger battles that could be played. Was the decision to limit one sides forces to 1000 pts. arbitrary or was it something to do with limitations on systems? It would seem that upping the limit would make part of the game even better. dano6

In West Sacramento at work, praying that my game arrived in Shingle Springs. But hell I couldn't get to it even if it arrived until tomorrow. Damn PO Boxes and USPS not staying open late. Bastards!!!! dano6

Thomas The 105mm gun in the M4 is a howitzer not an AT gun. Its primary mission was as an assualt gun, used to support infantry. The shaped HEAT round gave the gun some AT capability but its role was typically as an assult gun. The 75mm M3 gun used in all 75mm armed M4s was a shorter barreled gun that fired a lower velocity AP round that was not very effective against heavier armored German vehicles. It was fairly effective against the Mk.III and Mk.IV series of German tanks but not against the Mk.V or Mk.IV series. The 76mm M1 and M2 guns used in the 76mm armed M4s was a much more effective AT gun than the 75mm M2 gun. It gave the crews the ability to easily penetrate the Mk.III and Mk.IV series of German tanks. Against the Panther it gave crews some ability to penetrate from the front. The Tiger I could also be penetrated by the 76mm fairly easily at ranges under 800m whereas with the 75mm gun you could not penetrate the Tiger from the front. Against the Tiger II none of the Shermans guns were effective against the front armor. For a more detailed description of these armaments check out CMHQ and my Sherman Articles. dano6

The early model Shermans(M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, M4A4) had ammunition storage in the sponsons on both sides of the tank. The storage was above the hull line and was an easy target to hit from the sides, front and rear of the vehicle. In almost every case, a Sherman "brewed up" because of a propellant fire not because of a gasoline tank hit. The nickname "ronson" was a US nickname dubbed to the early sherman models due to ronson's advertising slogan which went something like this: "lights on the first try everytime"(sorry I don't have references at work so I can't provide the exact quote) As for engine hits and gas tank hits, it was fairly easy for the crew to bail out of the tank before fire overtook the fighting compartment or before it could be extinguished. What killed the crews of Shermans was the catastrophic ammunition fire that was caused by hits to the ammo storage. In earlier Shermans the ammo was stored in 3 racks, 2 on one side of the Sherman and 1 on the other side. Hits from many different aspect angles could easily hit the stored ammo and brew up the Sherman. This problem was recognized in 1943 and a solution was developed. Wet storage became standard on any M4 produced during and after 1943, except for the 105mm armed M4s. Storage ammounts and usage precluded the 105 from getting wet storage. In the Wet storage system, the ammo racks were moved from the sponsons to the hull floor. This lowered the ammo storage below the hull line and significantly lowered the chance of hitting the stored ammo. The racks each were self contained and stored either 5 or 10 rounds each(5 for 76mm, and 10 for 75mm) The tubes that held the rounds in the racks were surrounded by water that would partially rush into the rack itself and wet any exposed propellant due to an AP hit. Each rack was covered by a top cover plate that would help keep the water in the rack after a hit. Only racks that were in use for firing were to left open for use. All other racks were to left closed. The Wet ammo storage system worked very well in preventing ammunition fires in the newer M4s. The lower ammunition storage and the water surrounded rounds reduced the odds of a M4 brewing up instantly after an AP penetration significantly. dano6

Someone help, I can't get the damn thing to refresh at all. Tried every suggestion listed . ctrl refresh, shift refresh, alt refresh everything including the seperate page with all of the above. I need help stupid ass EI. dano6

I think what you guys are talking about is the POA-CWS-H5 flame thrower tanks. They mounted a 105mm with a flamethrower tube to the right side of the gun mantlet. These tanks were developed in 1945 and saw no action until Korea. Pretty tough a 105 and a flamethrower. Man I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that one. The normal Flame thrower M4 was the POA-CWS-H1 which used a recycled 75mm gun tube with a flamethrower unit installed inside of the gun barrel. dano6

The problem with playing against normal game AIs is that the US TDs are never used as they should be. Also many players do not take advantage of the greater manueverability to get better firing positions. While The TDs are very fragile, especially the M18, they are also faster and more manueverable than their advesaries. They should be used in a shoot and scoot method to protect them. I have never seen any AI use them in this method, and have had very few opponents use them correctly. Again if they are used correctly, especially the M18 and M36, they can be very effective. dano6