Jump to content

Echo

Members
  • Posts

    574
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Echo

  1. David,

    Would you mind comparing notes with me on your map. Im building Arnhem block by block using aerial photos, AAR sketches by the men who were there, and artists renditions. (I might add I'm going blind in the process squinting at these pages).

    The bridge and blocks I have now are dead on, however Im missing rescource information/photos of the terrain on the south side of the river, and was wondering if you had any info.

    All I can make out is some open ground, and a small road serviceing a pier west of the bridge.

    I can shoot you my map if you'd like a look.

    Im all for creating this battle as historicaly accurate as possible.

  2. I play via ICQ now, and can usualy finish a smaller battle in one evenings time. If you both get tired, its easy to save the file and resume later, with ICQ or E-mail.

    The TCP/IP is going to be even faster. I'll definitely use it.

    ------------------

    As I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear nothing, for I am the meanest mother*#*#** in the valley. (George S. Patton)

  3. In regards to Jarmos suggestion, I have already seen this happen once in an "advance" operation. My AT gun was left in no mans land, about 400m behind the line, but my Inf. platoon that was in the same location was bumped back.

    So it does seem possible that this could be coded, but I would think this alone (without further tweaks to the line) would lead to some very gamey situations.

    For instance, I opted to move my AT gun that was left in no mans land back to my own lines, for fear of an enemy rifle platoon being set up only 20m away at the battles start. You can imagine the problems that would come about from units starting too close together if units are just 'left' in no mans land.

    In addition, a buffer zone would have to be added around those units left behind(a set up zone), that would prevent enemy units from being deployed to close together.

    In effect, one(BTS) could leave the front line calculations as they are now, but allow "the isolated units w/ buffer/set up zone" to simulate isolated pockets and bulges. The size of the 'buffer' could be unit type dependent, larger for a tank, smaller for an inf.

    In this way the whole line is not thrown out of kilter by 1 lone squad. If its 1 squad, then you have 1 small pocket or buffer left behind. If its a whole company left behind/cut off, then the buffer zone is going to be direcly proportionate to the number of units AND there deployment at the end of the last battle.

    The only difficulty I see (code wise), would be preventing the placement of a unit thats not cut off (behind friendly lines) into a setup/buffer of a unit cut off in no mans land or behind enemy lines (during unit placement at the start of the next battle). Thus "reinforcing" cut off units.

    Im no programer, but I would like to see an improvement in this area of an otherwise outstanding simulation.

    ------------------

    As I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear nothing, for I am the meanest mother*#*#** in the valley. (George S. Patton)

  4. This is bugging me too. I was imagining operations where bulges and salients would be created in the lines over the course of a battle. Especialy on the larger maps, but I havent seen it yet. The best Ive seen is a 20-40 meter "bulge" that was only 80m wide.

    Setting no mans land to zero doesn't work either, the game keeps bumping it up. Why is there a zero setting if it doesnt work?

  5. While we were on port call in Pearl Harbor, and pretty loaded from all our bar hopping, a couple of Japanese tourists approached us and asked if we knew where the Arizona Memorial was. My drunk and beligerant shipmate blurted out (spewing spit and all),

    "YOU AUTA KNOW! ITS RIGHT WHERE YOU LEFT IT!".

    I laughed so hard I almost pissed myself.

×
×
  • Create New...