Lt Bull

Hey Garry, It's is good to see you active in the CM community again maintaining your excellent CM Outpost. Your newly released CM Catalogue page is an AWESOME bit of work. I can only imagine the amount of work that went into it. :eek: :eek: I was looking at the mods for the M10 and M36, becasue I knew Marco Bergman (the CM mod maker extraordinaire!) was working on them. I never thought that they had been released but your catalogue seems to indicate that they are available at Combat Mission HQ. I looked in the 3rd Party mods, Allied tanks section but no sign of the mods. Any clues as to where (if) I can get my hands on those mods? Cheers Lt Bull [ August 16, 2002, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

Hi, I am hoping someone has the contact details of Eric Tilley, the creator of the operation "Groesbeek Heights" which can be found at the Combat Mission Scenario Depot . I am currently playing this operation PBEM and need to have the operation objectives clarified. :confused: The designer's notes say: "This operation is designated Destroy to allow for units being pushed off the map, and later counterattacks resuming the battle. The actual mission essential task is to seize the heights." There is no label on the map specifically designating "the heights". Of course, i don't even know if the objective is on another map. If anyone else has played this operation, I would appreciate their take on the victory conditions. Cheers Lt Bull

I have heard something along those lines Commissar for QBs, but I am not sure if it will work the same way. I am thinking of having a "preview map" button on the scen/op menu screen so you can view the scen/op map right there and then. I have been generally been specifically refering to custom scen/ops rather than QBs in this discussion BTW. McAuliffe: The work you and other put in to supply map preview screens when "advertising" scens/ops is awesome. It must be a lot of work doing it for every scen/op you come across but I am grateful for it. What would we have to rely on without it? (a "preview map" button perhaps!!! ) Lt Bull

Originally posted by wwb_99: Hmmm. Well depends what you mean by "looking at the battle". If you could just preview the map for an operation or scenario before playing it, would it ruin it for you and your opponent if you intend to play "double-blind"? I don't think so. How could it "spoil" things? As long as both players have no idea about the other players setup area, units and reinforcement schedule (apart from what may be given to them in the brief), then all is well. There would be few situations in WW2 where CM scale commanders didn't know what the terrain within say 5km around them was like. As a matter of fact, I would argue that in operations, it is a real bummer not really knowing the full length of the battlefield or not being told explicitly what the "no-mans -land" setting is. A CM scale commander would know what kind of terrain is immediately around them and command their troops accordingly. In CMBO operations, the defender has no idea whether or not the current map they are defending is any better for defence than the map immediately behind them, or even if it is the last map in the operation. Surely this kind of knowledge would dictate how strongly a defender should defend a map. The attacker faces similar questions that in the scale of CMBO, would be knowledge "in real life". As a bit of an aside, I have also thought that having the option of randomly variable no-mans-land in operations might better model the uncertainty faced of where the enemy might be in battles. Perhaps it could also some how be linked to the outcome of each battle. I would like to know how other CMers select ops/scens to play. Is just reading a few lines of descriptive text normally enough? I have a feeling the answer to my original question is no Lt Bull

I'm sure this has been brought up before but will we be able to preview a map of a scenario or operation with ease? If you intend to play a scenario/op double blind in CMBO, you physically have to load the game, pick a side, start the game at the setup screen, and try to force yourself not to look at the units/their setup areas as you check out the map. For me, the map design is a major reason for picking a scen/op to play. Similarly, there is a lot more about an operation, for example, that would be good to know without having to virtually start the game or load up the operation in the editor eg. The type of operation (attack, destroy etc), the no-mans-land setting, the virtual length of the entire operation map Lt Bull

Just bumping this up again. Come on. Where has all the interest gone in the diffrences in the way CM models the "to hit" accuracy of a moving/stationary tank targeting a moving/stationary target? :confused: Remember this? Lt Bull

Yeah, it would be good if someone could comment on this. Gun accuracy whilst on the move has been brought up several times here before (incl. effectiness of gyroscopes, accuracy of fast moving Hellcats etc) and from what I remember it was at least identified as an area worth another look. Lt Bull

Hey thanks Wesreidau for the pick up on the typo and the links to Layfayette Pool. It is really freaky to think that he did all that in a Sherman. A statistical (fortunate) minority. If anyone has any clues as to where there might be info on the British tank ace Joe Eskins, please pass it on (is this another spelling typo?) I think guys like this deserve the same recognition as the German tank aces get. BTW, the site www.valourandhorror.com seems to be dead or down. Just me or are they having technical issues? Lt Bull [ April 29, 2002, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

Thanks Kingfish. I do not think I have ever heard of those names. Strangely enough, a search of those names at www.google.com did not bring up any matches. It would be good if someone could point to some websites that have refernces to these ALlied tank aces (or any other Allied tank aces). It seems usnual that there wouldn't be any references somewhere on the web. Lt Bull

Most of us know about the German tank aces Wittman and Barkmann, but I don't know the name of one Allied tank ace. :eek: :confused: Does anyone know of who the Allied (western front) tank aces of WW2 were? Lt Bull

Your efforts were very much appreciated. Your webpage and CM work will be remembered as one of the best. Best of luck with work and all the rest. Thanks for what you did for us. S! Lt Bull

Looks like I can't dl it either. Can someone pls email it to: lt.bull@optusnet.com.au Cheers Lt Bull

I had a feeling this battle was prime-time CMBB scenario stuff!! Not surprised that it has caught others attention previously. PzKpfw 1, care to direct us to your "corrections" post? Cheers Lt Bull

I have just been checking out this great site on the Eastern Front called Russian Battlefield. There is a great story about an August '44 battle vs King Tigers that didn't end up too well for the much revered monsters... The Royal Opponent. Some food for thought with CMBB nearly upon us...perhaps even inspiration for a custom scenario in the future. Lt Bull [ March 18, 2002, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

Thanks guys, Seems that the M10 and M36 winter mods I have came from the "alliedwintercamo" pack mentioned (released Sept 2000). I was maybe hoping that something new had been released since, something like Bergman' or Molek' winterised Shermans. Perhaps with Tom's Ardennes mod release, we may get a new batch of winter mods for these vehicles. Lt Bull

:eek: No one knows of any winter mods for M10 and M36 (released or in production)?? :confused: Lt Bull

...the M10 and M36? Hi folks. I'm playing a snow battle and the winter versions of these tanks that I have need some work (compared to the other winter mods I have for other vehicles). Can anyone point me to possible improvements for these tanks? Cheers Lt Bull PS: Get that new Tiger 2 mod at CMHQ!!

Ditto. I had a particular battle where the last Vickers MG crew man lasted something like 15 turns in a wheatfiled as it got shelled by direct firing, stationary PzIVs about 500m away. It was a source of amusement for my PBEM opponent. A pain in the a*# for me. Lt Bull

Tom, That is magnificent work!! That is awesome!! I never really liked playing snow scenarios becasue of the "blandness" of the snow maps/overlaps that have been available. A big issue was not being able to readily pick eleveations/depressions in the terrain. Your mod on the otherhand, not only makes it look almost photorealistic, but it also gives you a much better feel for the 3D nature of the terrain when playing in snow conditions. Great work and hope to DL it soon. Lt Bull

Bergman, You are a legend! Lt Bull

Great line of discussion! I have voiced my ideas on the fundamental abstraction for what VLs and their function are meant to be representing or modeling "in real life" and how limiting it can be when they are the main source of deciding "victory" in scenarios (others being points for kills and exiting units). Also the implications on "gamey" VL behaviour. Anything that can further enhance and spice up the modelling of how a scenario can unfold and how victory is achieved will score big time with me!! A battle is like a puzzle. The more twists, turns surprises and variation, the more it will keep you on your toes and challenge you. Lt Bull

A very slick designed site and a good idea as well! Awesome screenshot. Lt Bull

Unfortunately, of all the terrain types included in CMBO, bocage terrain has probably been the most poorly modelled terrain type. It just does not offer the defender the kinds of benefits it did in 1944. In effect, it really acts as just an oversized hedge that blocks LOS to some degree, that exists on open ground, making any infantry trying to fight from behind it scramble like mad for "better" cover terrain when fired upon. They may as well be in open ground (techniquely they are anyways). The TAI doesnt see (and rightly so) that fighting from behind a bocage is a good place to be. This is rather unfortunate as it can tend to rob a bocage based battle (much of what the early western front fighting was all about) of much of the kinds of stubborn firefight "realism" you would expect from say crack SS troops defending behind/within/around the bocage. BTS have mentioned that bocage could have been better modelled using "composite terrain", something which might be seen in CMBB. This basically would involve combining say the current bocage 3D terrain with a flat terrain type, so that the area beneath the bocage and immediately around it is its own terrain type that would offer the same kinds of cover/concealment as units in foxholes in woods for example. I have also had bad experiences with infantry advancing through or stationary and deploying weapons fire from within wheatfields in low light conditions (at least). When they come under fire, the TAI tends to make them run towards where the fire is coming from (generally (but not exclusively) terrain better than wheatfield) or run very short distances in random directions achieving nothing except offering no return fire and getting slaughtered. Could be intentional to model the effect of being fired upon at "close range" in poor cover (<80m or less in the case I was refering to). In the scenario I was playing, there was no chance for my infantry to attack outnumbered enemy positions in buildings/fox-holed scattered trees/woods when they had to advance across/attack from wheatfields. Lt Bull

I have been playing large scenarios and operations for some time now (PBEM only!!). Although they do generally take longer to play, they are much more rewarding than the more common smaller battles, which seem like snacks when a full 3 course meal is whats preferable. The larger battles I have played or am curremtly playing include the Goch-Kalkar Road operation, Tilly-la-Campagne, the Stoumont operation, Crown of Thorns, Big Valley, the Chassuers Countercharge, Mortain and August Bank Holiday. Have not had any bad experiences with them and recommend all of them. Just be sure to pick a decent opponent and/or one who will play it out to the end. Especially with the operations, an inexperienced player can literally go too hard in the first battle and suffer huge losses, making them lose interest, feel like further play is pointless and offer a surrender, robbing you the opportunity to enjoy the full battle against a challenging opponent. This has happened to me before in an operation I was really hoping was going to be a great fight. My opponent (who was attacking) offered a surrender 2 turns into the second battle of an 11 battle/25 turns per battle operation. It was such a let down (despite the carnage I wreaked on his "all or nothing" attack). The thing is, is that for me, you can only REALLY appreciate a scenario/operation the FIRST time you play it. After that, the realistic sense of "realism" and the "unknown" is lost for good, just like watching a movie the second time. So my advice is HUGE battles/operations are great but make sure you pick your opponent wisely. To all the guys designing huge scenarios/operations, keep up the good work. They are well worth the effort (especially if they have been historically researched!). Lt Bull

Yeah why not Lt Bull-Melbourne lt.bull@optusnet.com.au