jgdpzr

Good point vcents, I would bet it was the backblast from the zook that did the trick if there was no other HE being fired into the area.

I would say the one the two previous posters are unsure of is a JS-II or IS-II, however you prefer. So that would be PzrIV, Tiger, Kingtiger, IS-II and T-34/76. [ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]</p>

In dry conditions, HE of most any type can cause fires in wooded terrain. Not completely sure whether grenades or AT rounds will do the trick, however.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombatGeneral: I have played many battles in CM. I am expert in setting up interlocking fields of fire, proper support and counter-offensive units. No one can break my defense, except for some damn 240mm arty which busted a whole right through my line. <hr></blockquote> OK, I'm going to play nice and not take shots at your supposedly Harvard-honed writing skills, but I must comment on your thinking here. The AI in Combat Mission is highly capable when compared to other games, particularly tactical-level wargames. However, as others have pointed out, it is no match for a human with even a modicum of tactical skill. It may occasionally surprise, but rarely will it give much of a fight to a prepared human opponent. This is especially true when it is on the attack. The effective coordination of combined arms on the attack is an extremely complicated process for any AI. Programmers will long be battling this, as the logic trees are exceptionally complex. To criticize CM on this basis is simply unrealistic. I would advise that you not brag on your skills until you have faced, and bested, capable human opponents. Even if you manage to pull that off, tooting your own horn is still a bit tasteless--save the testimonials for others.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cameroon: Am I the only one seeing severely crazy images? What I can see of the mod looks great, but all but one of the images seems corrupted. This is happening in both IE and Mozilla (both on a Mac). The first image is fine until about half-way down, then it gets "lightened." The second image is fine. The third image is fine for about the first half, then it gets mangled and everything gets real washed out and tinted green. The fourth image is a total loss. It's almost completely dark and tinted very green. The same thing (though to a lesser extent) was shows up with the jeep shots. I've cleared the cache, reloaded the images and viewed them in different browsers. So is it my software somewhere or are others seeing this too? [ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Cameroon ]<hr></blockquote> Same here, I guess I can quit slapping the side of my monitor...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson: No some Stugs carried a 6 inch thick piece of concreat on their lower hull. Concrete has a resistance of about 0.15 steel vs KE and 0.35 verses HEAT. KE 2.2cm CE 5.33cm SO its not much use aggainst 76mm guns but it would be stoppping 75mm rounds and Bazookas when added to the original plate.<hr></blockquote> Are you sure it was the lower hull? I know of early stugs having concrete poured and then smoothed in the angled box-like areas on the upper hull to each side of the gun. That was the only concrete I was aware of.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kelly: I must say, "Band of Brothers" appears to have found an actual Jagdpanther.<hr></blockquote> I'm afraid shipmonkey is right, this was a mock-up. It is fairly evident when the vehicle is next to another that can lend it scale. It is considerably smaller than the real beast. A good job all the same, though.

The Jagdpanzer IV Lang for me, most definitely.

It is my understanding that there are no nationality modifiers in the game. Hence, it should not be possible for US troops to suffer morale penalties in comparison to British troops or those from other nationalities, provided they have the same experience levels and commander bonuses.

Were you splitting squads? That lowers morale.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms: I'm at work and can't check the penetration stats, but I would bet that, at short range, a zook has better penetrating power than a Sherm 75 AP round, so, either from top or rear, a zook is a better weapon against a KT than a Sherman 75. <hr></blockquote> Actually, HEAT weapons' penetration is completely independent of range. So, a bazooka at 150m has just as much chance of penetrating as one at 15m. This is because HEAT weapons do not rely on kinetic energy to penetrate.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: Errr, Jason, you cannot have a round from a gun with a velocity greater than muzzle-velocity unless its rocket boosted.<hr></blockquote> I think what Jason was saying was the muzzle velocity of the 25mm gun of the Bradley is much greater than the velocity of the rounds fired from the WWII 20mm or .50 caliber weapons. I'll agree with you that Scipio's argument should really be a consideration of how the game differentiates between abandonments and knock-outs. This is really only relevent in operations.

Ooooooh, the Hungarians...them's some fightin' fools! And Franco's boys...I'm excited now! Seriously, I think the value of the Minors will be in that we can say things like "But I did it with Italians!" or "If I had some Germans, rather than Bulgarians, I woulda been able to take that town." It'll be interesting, but I think they will all kinda meld together into this netherworld of less-than-Germans that will provide an interesting diversion to the whole Germans vs. the world situation that you get from CMBO.

Blackhorse, you old salt, haven't seen you round these parts lately. The offer to buy you a few cold ones still stands, we'll have to look outside Okolona/Preston Hwy. to get a decent brew though... OK, guys, sorry 'bout butting in here. Topically speaking, I agree with everybody(I'm easy)...the fast-firing AA guns seem to be a tad bit too effective, I think largely due to the abstraction of the multiple rounds being lumped into one. I think the crux of Scipio's issue here is that this should have been more accurately called an abandonment rather than a knock out. But I suppose it is not out of the realm of possibility that a few 20mm rounds bouncing around inside a vehicle could do enough damage to constitute a knock-out.

MGs should be used in concert with other units to create "kill sacks" or "kill zones." The key to these zones is interlocking fields of fire. Support infantry units with anti-tank assets (ATGs, tanks, TDs) so that all types of threats can be countered. In general, MGs should be placed a bit further back from the contact areas in these zones because of their lack of mobility and increased vulnerability when enemy infantry gets close. At longer ranges, one of the primary values of the MG is suppression--make the enemy hit the dirt, pin him with MG fire and use supporting infantry, mortars or other arty and possibly tanks to pound them. MGs are most effective when they are used in multiples, placed sufficiently apart so as to bring fire down from different angles on shared targets. A final thing to keep in mind is that any infantry unit's (including MGs) vulnerability is increased dramatically when they are asked to cover too wide, or too long, a field of fire. Hence, the concept of keyholing, or placing them so that any unit (infantry or vehicle) can be countered if it comes into view, is critical. This requires restricting the field of fire (los) while maximizing the number of weapons that can fire into this killzone. By doing this, you ensure that you have the firepower advantage which is the critical factor in any firefight. Clearly, in open terrain this can be quite tricky and is one of the major reasons that defending open terrain is so challenging.

Now, now, use your inside voice... Regarding CMMOS: The BMPS from the CMMOS mod packages go into the BMP folder in the CMBO directory. CMMOS will install into it's own folder--GEM software or something like that. Within that, the appropriate files must be placed within the Filelist folder and the correct RuleSet folders. Check out the readme attached with one of the CMMOS mod packages, that should explain how to do it.

Another vote for Bergman.

IIRC, motorized means they have truck transport. Mechanized refers to troops with armored transports (half-track or APC).

I've been wondering the same thing Boff. It would be hard to do, though, considering the very small number of men Winters had at his disposal. BTW, there is a thread discussing BoB on the general discussion board. I believe it may have moved back to the second page so you may have to do some digging.

I assume you are talking about on-board mortars. First off, they need to be placed within the command radius of any HQ unit (obviously, leaders with command bonuses are preferable since you can place the mortar teams further away). When a mortar unit is within the radius of a leader, you can fire to any position spotted by the leader. When you place the cursor over a target area within los of the HQ, the line will remain black, but you will see the words "area fire" which indicates you can plot the fire to that point and the game assumes the HQ can correct fire, therefore you are allowed to fire. You can not directly target an enemy unit, however. Only area fire will work. Hope this helps.

OK, for the benefit of the newer members here, suffice to say this discussion has been held many, many, many times. You are not the first to come to the conclusion that there is something amiss with the "uberness" of the German tanks in CM, particularly the big cats. However, that conclusion may not be as accurate as you think. First off, as others have stated, most ranges in CM are of the very close variety. At these ranges, all of the German heavies were vulnerable, at least to certain degrees. Allied tungsten was effective at these ranges, both from the American 76mm and the 17 pounder. Now, does the game perfectly account for this effectiveness? Surely not, as Roksovkiy points out that data taken straight from APTs (armor penetration tables) fails to account for many real-world considerations. However, the game's penetration characteristics must be based on hard data. Anecdotal evidence is extemely hard to quantify. The data may be flawed to certain extents (believe me, the discussions on this are far too numerous to quickly summarize) but the designers' use of it has been carefully considered. Another thing to keep in mind, is that at this stage of the war, German armor was plagued by metallurgic problems. That is why you see the armor ratings as percentages. Here again, there have been questions as to the accuracy of these ratings (for example, Rexford, an esteemed board member (esteemed by most not named Username), has made a strong case that the 85% rating for the Panther should not be universally applied), but this lowering of the true quality of the armor has a definite effect on its capabilities in the game. Finally, Hansfritz, if you are asking if the facing of a tank has any bearing then the answer is a resounding yes. The game mechanics model precisely where a shell strikes a vehicle and the penetration capability is based on the protection (thickness, quality, and angle) provided by the armor at that exact point. Further, what you are confusing as the slower reaction times of the Germans relate to the slower turret traverse of the German tanks as well as the slower reload times of the larger, heavier, and more cumbersome German rounds. In summation, rest assured that the engine powering this remarkable game is a finely tuned machine. Is it perfect? No, but neither is our understanding of how battlefield events really played out. We are tainted by our preconceived notions that the German tanks were damn-near invincible. In some situations, they pretty much were. And the game will demonstrate that. I can not tell you how many battles I have fought in which a well-positioned German heavy could wreak havoc on the battlefield, while bouncing shot after shot of fire from 76s, 17 pounders, and 90s. 'Course, I can also recount battles in which a Stuart has knocked out a Panther with a front turret penetration at a weak point. The more you play the game, the more you will see unlikely stuff happen. At the same time, however, you will gain an appreciation of how accurate the game engine really is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: Well he was a troll...a very intelligent sounding and well written troll but a troll none-the-less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would beg to differ on both intelligence and writing skills. For example, "this game derives from the U.S.A." is poor English. The game is created by people from the United States, but that does not make it a derivative of this country. Furthermore, he demonstrated questionable intelligence with the fundamental premise of his post. But a troll? His subsequent absence speaks volumes. [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Manx: I 4th that!...what's more, it's the ONLY peice of software (game or otherwise) that has NEVER crashed on my system. Unlike many other higher profile, bigger budget games i could mention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ya know Manx, I have never appreciated that point. But you are right, I have never had a single crash. That is saying something in this day-and-age. Thanks for pointing that out. I, too, believe the game engine deserves as much credit as any of the mods. After all, without such a superlative game engine, why would be people be motivated to put so much time into them? That was a backhanded compliment if I've ever seen one. [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

Not really an answer to your question, but just a slight correction in terms of the naming of vehicles. The Germans did not refer to any of their vehicles as "Mark IV" or "Mark V," or any direct translation as such. "Mark" is a term used by the Brits to refer to the different panzers, as well as other things, too. IIRC, the Germans used the Sdkfz. numerical designations as the formal vehicle identifications (for maintenance/parts reasons), but in actual practice the vehicles were referred to as Panzer I thru IV. Also, although the Brits would often refer to the Panther as the Mark V, or the Tiger as Mark VI, the Germans didn't usually refer to these vehicles as Panzer V or Panzer VI, instead they used the cat names. I know, I didn't answer your question, because I don't have a clue as to why the Germans started using the cat names.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack: Then how did the Americans fare no better at Hedgerow fighting or street fighting the the British!!?! Thats because the Germans could suppress better than the British or Americans, and the diffrerence beetwen rifles/section weapons is virtually none. The Americans had no advantage because of thier rifles, this is proven because the fact that the British and Americans facing the same amount of troops in similar conditions fared no better then the British. You all seem to tell me that the Garand was better than the British Rifle at Suppression, yet there is no evidence of that bieng the case. The Americans didnt seemed to fare any better than the British. So I really, where was this advantage...I just dont see it!?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To draw a conclusion such as this is specious. Comparing performance in these conditions is not akin to a laboratory study. Even assuming that the two sides did fight truly equally, distilling this down to the conclusion that their rifles must have been equal is not sound reasoning. There are too many variables involved to think that this proves anything of the sort. I can't sit here and say I can prove that the Garand is superior to the Enfield. But neither can you say you have proven they are equal. Despite my earlier protestations, this still boils down to subjectivity. However, there is one thing that is undeniable and proveable under laboratory conditions: The M1 provided a greater volume of fire. I would have to argue that most historians would agree that this fact alone provided it with an undeniable benefit. Apparently, you seem to think that this provided no benefit. Most people with any knowledge of combat in WWII would disagree with that. Of that I am sure.