Phoenix

>How is the general moral calculated, and how >the end score? No idea. >How was the purchase costs of the units >defined? Covered in several previous threads. Sorry, don't know the links. >Quad.50-halftrack, the Pz III and much more. >Will they be implemented later? Nope. The plans for an expansion pack have pretty much been canned. This per BTS. >NO, I DON'T WANT TO WAIT UNITL CM2. Well maybe you should scream and bang your fists on a table. Maybe that'll help. I doubt you'd see a Quad .50 in CM2 anyway.

Don't feel too bad Saru. Im trying to download it now and only getting 10kbs on my DSL that I usually get 150 kbs on. Their server must be getting smoked. To bad it's not mirrored somewhere else.

??? Well..then it would seem something isn't right. I mean I could clearly see the targetting line from his tank. Are you saying THAT is what was "fixed"? I can't find reference to it anywhere in a search.

Ok, so then in CM is there a penalty of some sort for guns that have to traverse a large amount? It would seem that for an AT gun to travese a great deal that accuracy and readiness to fire would take a big hit.

A buddy of mine pointed out something that I never thought of. How does an AT gun track a target that is moving perpendiular to it? He made the comment while watching an AT gun smoothly rotate and aquire a target in CM. From my hazy recollection of footage and photos, AT guns were not mounted on a platform that allowed the to smoothly traverse the gun to follow the target and then fire. Didn't AT guns just have two wheels, and a couple of "legs" that stick out the back and into the dirt to brace the gun? So the question is...wouldn't a unit have to "lift" the rear of the gun and traverse it? Thanks for clarifying. [This message has been edited by Phoenix (edited 12-22-2000).]

What exactly was that bug then? Wasn't it about being able to see what your opponent was targeting for area fire??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: There is nothing wrong with you seeing the enemy Area Fire. Never has been anything wrong with it. If he is shooting at a building or a piece of land, you are gonna kinda notice it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh. well alrighty then! I could have sworn that this was a "problem" that was discussed some time ago. Somehow I've never seen it before....I mean I know they area fire..but I didn't know I would see the targetting line. If you say it's ok though, Im happy! Cheers!

Madmatt, I upgraded a current PBEM to v24 and during movie playback I am able to see my opponent targeting a building for area fire. Complete with the yellow line and "Area Target" tag on it. I can send you the save game if you need it later. Let me know.

"Perhaps mortors can be allowed to fire at places in sight or TRPs and adjust from there." On board mortars can already fire at TRP's indirectly. Always have been able to. But they cannot continue to do so IF they move from the initial starting spot. And of course they can also fire at "places in sight". That's direct fire mode.

You are confused. Mines can be hidden on DIRT roads.

Hey Madmatt, if I go to this next beta, using a PBEM that I have going from the previous Beta, will my sharpshooters and flamethrowers be "ok". I don't want to find out the hard way that suddenly they've lost their ammo. Im betting it's ok, but was just wondering.

Well, that does it! The game is completely unrealistic!! I quit!!

Daisy-chain anti-tank mines work perfectly fine on paved roads.

Jumbo, it's going to be very simple when the final release comes out. You'll just remove the old beta executables and move on. BTS knows what they're doing, fear not!

jaja, you made this statement - "A more realistic mortor representation would be to let them fire indirectly like spotters can." People have been about as polite as can be about this and explained why this is not realistic, and why it would screw up the game. Yet you seem to not be interested in hearing opposing views and only hearing your own opinion. People HAVE pointed out real life scenerios. Mortar crews did not run around with radios taking orders from variuous HQ units around the battle field to fire "over there". I think that's been pretty clear. "Let's try to turn this into a thread about the application of mortors." Ok...like what? I use on board mortars with an HQ unit to spot for them, keeping them hidden. Sometimes I stick 3 of them together for a mini "firebase" and have them fire at the same time. Depends on the situation. Sometimes I use them for direct fire as well.

Please realize that some of us (most?) are not Grognards. And we have NO idea what armor units would or would not support airborne units. (or whoever) But just because we may put a unit on the field with some other unit that would not have usually been there does not make it "gamey" at all. I repsect the fact that you (Chupacabra) want to play historically correct actions. No problem, as long as you let you opponent know. Me? I couldn't tell you which tank would or wouldn't be on the field of battle with which unit. And I don't much care.

BTS can say. And BTS is not saying.

Just wanna confirm, we are talking about the very latest release right? Not the previous one to this.

Im with MantaRay on this. Gamey? Please. Ahistorical perhaps. But nothing more. If I PBEM an opponent who uses this mix, so what? He still has "X" number of points to spend. I really don't care how he spends them.

Players must ALWAYS be on the same version when playing games together. You can move from an old game to a new one easily. Just save it, then open it with the new beta.

You can't see the airplane, ever. It's not modeled in the sky. You can only hear it and catch a glimpse of it's shadow as it passes by. [This message has been edited by Phoenix (edited 12-20-2000).]

It is wrong. Because you have yet to present a case that this was the common way for "on map" motars to be used. The fact that you cite one book that made mention of it isn't exactly proof of anything being standard operating procedures. I'm with everyone else on this until you can provide a convincing arguement that BTS (and others) is wrong. I've yet to see anything from you that does so far. Other than "It says so in this book." You realize BTS is not going to just bow to your desire just because YOU think it's right don't you? How about some real evidence to support your case, and not just opinions.

I guess I just don't get it. When I play a game I tell the other person it's gonna be "xyz". Clear, dry, small hills, 1000 points, you attack...whatever. All the details. I expect the same from someone else doing a setup. If I change this, say I make it muddy, then it's not as though the other guy can't tell. Same with hills, and trees. It's pretty obvious what dense trees are compared to light. If someone tries to pull this on me (no one has) then I just say, "Uh, dude, that's not what we agreed on". It's pretty simple. So WHAT are people doing to "cheat" you Apoc??? I just don't understand it. I gotta say, I only play QB PBEM and have never once had an issue with someone trying to "cheat". Signed - Confused.

Anyways, the current method of finding players STINKS. Yeah, it's SOOOO bad that no one has managed to find anyone yet!! How can we possibly manage? LOL! I for one just jump on Madmatt's chat. I find someone inside of a minute or two. Piece of cake.

Hmm...after all these months it's not until now I read that units firing AP can't destroy unarmored vehicles. Is this for real? If so.....why?