Username

Its funny how people don't like anything that warrants thinking like command and control limitations. But things like multiplayer coop (which DOES sound cool) gets raves. Imagine the Peng thread proliferation. People accusing each other of cowardice, foolhardy behaviour, stupidity, backstabbing, etc. Imagine Peter NZuh commanding your supporting tanks and hiding them in some far off corner all lined up while he drinks himself silly. Its a scary vision of the future. Lewis

Foo You bumped the thread 2 minutes after you posted?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hey, at least I got my first ever sigline out of this nonsense I don't even want to imagine... Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What sigline? Why do I always find you saying baffling things? I dont see no sigline.. But as far as the pathos about "loser" "nothing better to do", etc. Uh, its was the weekend and you were posting back to back posts here.. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: . In a newsgroup I frequent, someone raised the question the other day as to which constitutes the greater fire hazard, gasoline or diesel. Another person answered that diesel was a greater hazard, and his reasoning interested me. He reminded us that all engines leak fuel. But whereas gasoline will evaporate quickly, diesel will pool and remain as a fire hazard. Now I know that someone is now itching to point out that the fumes of gasoline are the greatest hazard, and that is true. But it occurs to me that in a properly ventilated engine compartment, fumes are not going to accumulate. I'm not exactly sure just what my position on this matter is. My mind is open...not to say vacant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can put a cigarette out in a bucket of diesel. Anyone that smokes near any gasoline that isnt capped off is a total fool. If what you say is true (not really but) then sloshing fuel hitting white hot exhaust manifolds can flash over (problem with panthers). Gasoline engines , in WWII, used carbs almost exclusively. Diesel, as far as I know, must be injected. So pooling diesel is from a pressurized leak that would make a terrible pool and /or mist of fuel. Not likely. Perhaps your newsgroup guy is saying that all fuel tanks leak (you can pressure test tanks) but thats what I think. But to get back to the issue, Its ammo that is the greatest immediate fire danger for tank crews. Its highly flammable and in the same compartment as them. A fuel fire is usually in another space and the crew can bail with singed hineys. So most any shot that gets inside can tear open a shell casing. Its steel on brass and theres sparks. A torched off 75mm shell case has enough powder to chase out a crew in tens of milliseconds. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Howver, when the grogs' demands for historical accuracy make the game burdensome to play, a lot of people (myself included) are going to say something obscene and find something else to play. Maybe that makes me a goon, though I doubt it. I do worry about whether the game will be fun to play, and mildly interesting. I like the God position BTS has set me in. I have the flexibility to do those things in the game, and I like it that way. But don't slow down my gameplay for your fetish. MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was going to wait for all the "you tell ems" and "right-on MrSpkr!" to die down but I cant resist. No one is flaming you. I cant say many people even care one way or another about what you are saying. But others here have posted, and I believe its been said before your post; that this would be optional. Like FOW (You play with FOW off I take it). So that, people like you can play your way and others can play theres. No one wants to ruin your playtime. We want to improve ours. BTS is saying that they are looking into some element of C&C control so you better let them know about how you like your playtime. Nice and easy for you and everyone you elected to speak for. So dont take this as a flame. I dont consider you a goon but rather soemthing else instead. Lewis

From an interview with Chas... "The main issue is the large number of combatant nations. We're hoping to include Germans, Soviets, Poles, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, and Partisans. Many of these forces behave quite differently from one another, depending on the time period. For example, we are reworking the command and control system for the Soviets so it will feel quite different to command a unit of the Red Army than players are used to from the original Combat Mission. Generally speaking, morale and firepower will be high, but command efficiency will be low. It's a unique challenge."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: On some of the realism points being raised, I think the common pit being plunged toward here is what I call the designer as wannabe movie director, or choreographing the player's moves. By that I mean the urge for anyone with a strong sense of what "would look realistic", to take over all the men and all the elements in a simulation, and dictate what they may and may not do. The result for the player is that he feels as though he is reduced to watching a movie directed by the game designer, about what the game designer thinks realistically happens. This is bad game design. Even if the choreography induced is realistic. Strategy games require that the players have control of enough of the main elements effecting the outcome, that the result depends on their wits, rather than on a script. The level of control needed to make a game interesting as strategy, as well as playable, is often seen as incompatible with realism by folks that take this urge too far. In truth what they are objecting to and reacting to, is the fact that somebody else (besides them) is commanding the units, and telling them to do things the choreographer dislikes or finds unrealistic. And there is no limit to this. Any command by somebody else can always give rise to such objections. So the goal is a bad one, not in realism terms but in game design terms. The point is not to eliminate all "unrealistic" play. That can be done quite easily by transforming the game into a documentary. The point is to maintain the strategy game elements, including playability (pace the previous comment quoted at the outset) while also blending in enough realism to sustain believability. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I cant tell how I am choreographing anything. Are you even directing that at me?So this part of your post kind of loses me. I just seem to want what you are proposing also. I kind of like your idea also and things like it have been mentioned I believe. I think most people would agree that the way the game is now (and yes theres always people that like the way things are) is on the other end of the spectrum of what we are discussing. theres omni spotting (favoring the attacker) and omni-control (again, favoring the attacker) and a host of MG, exposure, etc modeling issues (again favoring the..). But the reason that I like my idea is that it limits this other artifact of over-ordering. Unlimited number of orders that stretch beyond the end of the turn. These can always be instantly canceled (over-control) or instantly modified (over control and no delay). Its abused. Ok. I abuse it. It usually favors the attacker. I dont want the game to break down to a crawl. But I think that the troops in most scenarios can perform actions like some crack paratrooper outfit (who actually paid heavily for their actions when used against frontline units instead of rear echelon). They also take casualties like an elite unit and will continue the same behaviour REGARDLESS of casualtys. Both our ideas slow this down. Steve tried to convey in one of the MG threads that 30 percent casualties is not viable. He either doesnt play the game or is just backed into a corner. The typical game goes down like we are playing with army soldiers in a sand box. 30 percent is USUALLY low. In reality, most frontline units would cease offensive activities at around 20 percent. But in CM, we can be as WWI as we like. So yeah its optional. In Panzer Elite, there was some settings that only a masochist would use. But after awhile, they become a challenge and add a new dimension to play. What we are proposing would direct the player into being a more humane warrior. In campaigns, there could be leftover effects. Its just another facet. Lewis PS Yah the reverse move for vehicles should have no delay. With an added tendancy to pop smoke.

I am not talking about a concrete bunker. I am talking about a earthen type. I was in the mil and when digging in you slowly evolve the position up. Basically it goes as follows: 1. Make a shell scrape. 2. Get a REAL foxhole a few feet deep. 3. Those with automatic weapons, get some overhead cover. Start with whatever you can. 4. Fill sandbags. Make overhead cover to support them. This allows you to fire while under fire. 5. Dig INTO the earth walls. This gives some protection from heavy payload. Reinforce the walls. So "soft" targets like these are still very vulnerable to solid AP shot. But if you are talking about shooting infantry moving in the open then more or less forget it. Take out one guy and be happy for your luck. Lewis

AP, with and without HE filler, was fired at small reinforced targets like bunkers. The kinetic energy of 12 pounds of steel moving supersonic slamming into your bunker isnt something that is trivial. Drop a ten pound weight on your foot; bet it hurts. The ejecta from the impact would be very disconcerting. Lewis

I think everything has been discussed but that doesnt mean anything is done being talked about. Yep. 105 shermans had no gyros. I read a report where it was found by an armored battalion commander that his 105mm HEAT shermans were the only weapon that could take on panthers frontally but they couldnt use scoot'n'shoot tactics like other shermans. Gyros were over rated if you ask me and maybe were good for area fire from the MG, getting the range for the main weapon to shoot. Sort of on the fly range finding. In certain conditions (level ground, gyros dialed in, firing against turretless vehicles) they may have been usefull. But given the technology of the day, and knowing the real issues about servo systems; I can see why they may have been chrome plating for some tankers. Lewis

If you come back, could you pick a shorter name?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Lewis, Imagine a tank creeping along a road for 50m. Carefully examining everything along the way. The tank then enters some woods on the same road, drives for another 50m and takes a sharp turn and drives 10m more. Turn ends just as it spots a bunch of serious threats in front of it. Now... if the tank wants to retreat back up the road it is going to get whacked penalties simply because it can't see around the bend 10m behind it. Gee, that sounds pretty unrealistic to me. Hell, I bet if we put this in you would be screaming at us to fix it right afterwards. Lewis, you have done ONE thing correctly. You have identified a big realism problem for ALL WARGAMES, however unoriginal the observation might be. The problem is that your proposed solution is inherently unrealistic and artificial. It removes realistic local control and therefore is probably just as unrealistic (and far more frustrating) when all is said and done. I will say this again... unless we remove the human from the game there is no quick and easy "one new feature" way to fix this problem. If there were, someone else would have done it a long time ago. Or at least we would have done it for CM 1.0 Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW! Found this gem while knocking myself out searching (when did search become as slow as now?). The real problem with the tank on the road vignette described above is that there is no WITHDRAW command for vehicles in the game. Infantry can withdraw but tanks cant. Also, it is assumed by me that the tank reached the end of its given commands? ANY new commands will have a delay no matter what? Thats why it will be destroyed. And thats the way it is now without my proposal. There should be a WITHDRAW command for vehicles and it would be nice if they popped smoke then if they can. Discretion being the better part of valour. I dug this old thing up to show that C&C issues (Run abuse, moving through enemy units, etc) isnt anything new. Or as someone else would say "so what, everyone has these problems". But I think theres abstractions that can help. Limitations are viewed as "artificial" it seems. Either you get your mind around the intent and purpose of an abstraction or you just focus on some technicality is the way things usually go here. In this case, the example of tanks real problem is a lack of WITHDRAW command, in my humble opinion. But BTS has said they are going Full Monty with relative spotting, etc. I cant wait. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott: Lewis, Your reply actually gained back some of the respect I was beginning to lose for you. I do realize your posts have some merit (as Steve does) however your antagonistic ways scratch at ones nerves at times. I am glad to see what I think may be a settling down a bit on this thread. Regards, Abbott<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well thanks alot. I was never really upset or anything. And yes I do continue to post about the subject and wont try to write long posts about myself. I think others here see my general points about the game (and warfare). And I am going to take Toms advice and just avoid getting a certain someone in such a tizzy. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Cline: Discounting AT guns, it seems like an all-armor company would annihilate an infantry unit of the same size. Zooks and schreks don't really have the range or punch to compete. Am I full of it, or is it always better to go with more tank for the buck?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The games spotting makes the tanks overly aware of whats going on around them. In reality, a tank only force (if its sitting on an objective) can be buttoned up (by small arms) and infiltrated by LATW infantry.

Didnt answer my question about how you initially playtested the game but I thought as much. A macroscopic top down approach will iterate to the correct small level modeling I am sure. Heres a good website: http://raven.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/comment/crane.htm from the website.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Technological Factors The recurring theme of the First World War is the machine gun. No major war had been fought on the European continent since 1815, with the possible exception of the Crimean War (I leave the decision whether the Crimean War was "major" to the reader), which was fought without the "benefit" of twentieth-century advances in weaponry. In the interval, there were no tactical developments to match the developments in weaponry. The successful German wars of unification had not persuaded even the great elder Moltke to adopt more modern tactics and formations in the second half of the 1800s, and one does not usually argue with success (the elder Moltke did, however, institute some modifications of existing tactics in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71). On the other hand, there were striking examples of wars that cried for tactical reform in the European armies, notably the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 and the Second Boer War of 1899-1902. It was thought, at least by the French, that the machine gun would not affect the course of battle very greatly. In a London Times article in March 1908, the French Senate's debate on machine guns was reported. The august senators felt the gun was of limited, if any, value. The British leadership, even in 1915, was debating whether to raise the number of machine guns in a standard battalion from the pre-war complement of two (today, an American platoon of 42 men has as many)! The Germans were alone in appreciating the value of the machine gun, and in organizing machine-gun companies to support standard infantry companies. In the event, machine guns in fixed defensive positions soon became a dominant factor. But why? First, it was soon discovered in battle that one fortified (or entrenched) machine gun, with a full crew and plenty of ammunition, could destroy an entire attacking infantry battalion of 600-1000 men advancing across the barren stretch of ground between the trenches, known appropriately as No Man's Land, before the attackers could close with the defenders. Since there were always several such defending emplacements in any given stretch of trenchline, it is easy to see how a few machine guns could grind up a division of 10,000 men in a half hour or less. The second and more important factor, however, is that the attacking Allied, and to a lesser extent German, armies continued to use "traditional," that is Napoleonic, tactics and formations. Just like the "enemy" in so many war movies, the attacking soldiers placidly lined up like proverbial sheep for the slaughter, advancing in four or five waves, each in its turn to be cut down like so much wheat before the scythe. One important argument needs to be made at this point. There were only two offensive actions that came near to causing a strategic breakthrough by attacking forces. The first was the British attack at Cambrai (20 November to 3 December 1917); the second was the German Kaiserschlacht offensive between Ypres and Rheims in the spring of 1918. The first example turns on the first use of massed armor, while the second turns on the use of then-revolutionary infantry tactics. The reason the second example is of importance in my analysis of the machine gun is that the offensive was very nearly successful, as we shall see later. That fact implies that technology was not required to overcome the effects of the machine gun; that is to say, the deadlock could be broken by men as well as machines if those men used the right tactics. The number of machine guns per division had increased by 1918. In 1914, the average infantry division had twenty-four machine guns, whereas by 1918 that same division had increased its complement of machine guns to between fifty and one hundred, with one hundred to two hundred automatic rifles as well. Obviously, defensive firepower per man had vastly increased in four years, especially when one considers that few, if any, divisions were at full strength after 1914. Given that the Kaiserschlacht offensive was very nearly successful, it would seem that to argue that strategic breakthroughs were prevented by the advent of the machine gun is rather shortsighted. Rather, it seems that the machine gun imposed a new obstacle for the military leaders to overcome. Another technological factor of the Great War was the advent of rapid-fire (breech-loading) artillery. It was assumed that the combination of artillery and the offensive spirit of the infantry would prove overwhelming to any defending force, even one of equal size. This assumption had its roots in the Napoleonic doctrine of frontal assault backed by powerful direct artillery fire. It was widely held in the century following the Battle of Waterloo that the way to win battles was to press hard in the center with the main infantry force, with artillery providing close support. The French were not the only proponents of this doctrine, just the most zealous. This doctrine overlooked several things, however. First, Napoleon won his great battles through the use of maneuver when his was the numerically inferior force, notably at Marengo and Austerlitz. He only used his center-thrust strategy later when he possessed the superior force, notably at Borodino and Waterloo (and at Waterloo, his margin of numerical superiority was slim indeed). It was not the center-thrust strategy that gained Napoleon his reputation; it was his ability to lead troops in complicated maneuvers that made him a Great Captain. Second, weaponry in Napoleon's day was much less effective. Rifles were not in abundant supply; muskets had an effective range of fifty or perhaps one hundred yards. Infantry dealt with enemy infantry with the bayonet, not always by killing the enemy with their bayonets, but sometimes by merely charging or threatening to charge, thereby causing morally or numerically weaker enemy forces to run away. Artillery was of the (relatively slow) muzzle-loading variety and artillerymen used rather unsophisticated fire-control techniques. Furthermore, the effective range of the guns and the killing power of artillery loads were inferior (if that is the right word) to their twentieth-century counterparts. In the days of Waterloo-style battles, the most effective round was the solid-shot cannonball, since it acted like a very lethal bowling ball which, when properly aimed, had the effect of transforming the packed enemy troops into so many bowling pins. By 1914, artillery shells had become much more sophisticated, including a wide variety of exploding shells. Third, the armies of Napoleon's day did not possess the machine gun or anything like it. It is obvious, reviewing what we have seen, that some tactical and strategic learning was in order, but the only way to learn total war is to practice it, and the great powers, as we have also seen, had managed to avoid just that experience for ninety-nine years."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would even say that 600-1000 is a bit much but maybe under ideal conditions. But I would expect 4 M1917s to slaughter an infantry company coming on balls out over open ground. Actually two would do nicely. But my point is that in CMBO, the game makes it possible to be as bad a commander as you could have possibly have been in WWI. The game ALLOWS you to do exactly as the dumbass generals did from 1914-1917. The game is actually somewhat retro in that promotes napoleanic warfare because it doesnt punish the commander (more about this later) or whack the troops! The game allows infantry behaviour that is unrealistic for its time frame. It isnt that I have to simulate WWI with CM but rather, BTS has to simulate WWII with it!(and fix the MGs and behaviour of troops). It would be expected in a WWI game that stupid advances into kill zones might be allowed. But in WWII, charging into blazing MG fire was verbotin MOST of the time. It is too easily abused as is. In actuality, a burst of MG fire would "mow down" troops in WWII. Thats because while maybe one or two were hit, the rest would just hit the dirt. So while the main focus has been to discuss to death MGs firepower, cover states, firelanes, abstractions, etc. I think that BTS has to address some level of orders limitations and possible ramifications from just plain stupid behaviour. And yes, I have previously posted ideas about this topic and remember lovely arguments and strange logic being thrown around. If I can dig it up I will find Steves post where he stipulates something about "Why wouldnt a squad leader have the right to do as he sees fit?". The answer is , of course, that unless you are part of some independant secret recon team, you actually just do as you are told. And the guy above you does the same. This aint no soccer match with people running willy nilly over a field. Its war, or a wargame, and you would be surprised how slower things go in the real army. So I dont think that remixing history is a good idea. Taking the stance that MGs are over rated uber weapons might make someone feel revisionistic and edgy but its just a plain lie. WWI DID happen. It wasnt till the very end of the war that the germans starting updating their infantry/artillery tactics to offset the MGs advantages. So unless BTS would like to discuss orders limitations and more realistic infantry behaviour to firepower, I am done with this. Likewise Steve; I find it a pleasure to follow your ever evolving take on things. Your discretionary choice of what is worth ignoring and your need for constant adulation. Do you?, perhaps, have a Napoleanic complex? Is it possible that people can like the same thing yet not exactly like each other. Grow up. Lewis [ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: Username ] [ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: This doesn't seem like a particularly good quote. It gives no idea of the size of the units involved; could be anything from a platoon to a regiment. Worse, it gives no idea of the proportion of killed to wounded, only purple prose about dominos. The wounded are spread out over "acres." Should a machinegun be able to dominate acres of terrain? Or was there an entire machinegun battalion defending these acres? How many tiles to an acre? But I don't see what such a vague reference is supposed to illustrate. Did one single German MG hold off 4000 Russians? Did several German MGs hold off 200 Russians? These are things we need to know, or be able to guess at, for this selection to have much relevance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't grade its "prose" level but I think its a very good account of WWI action. I believe its from 1914. I actually enjoyed reading it and felt it conveyed the terror of just being an observer. I cant imagine being the russians.. It gives some idea of the size in that there were multiple waves of infantry charging the german line. I would certainly say the attackers outnumbered the defenders. Roughest guess; three to one. Why the proportion of killed to wounded could possibly interest you is beyond me. Explain why its "worse"? I cant see the importance. The fact they are spread out shows that yes, MG fire seems to have a ranged effect. Did you want them all piled up in a heap or something? In rows? This "vague" reference is a first hand account of what MGs (dont be obviously obtuse and start demanding how many and what the gunners shoe size is) can do when suddenly opening up on a group of advancing infantry. He mentions weapons going silent (rifles stop firing) and yes theres artillery, but he seems to be pointing to the fact that automatic weapons (werent too many MP44s or Garands around in 1914) had a sudden visable (yes I am going to say it) mowing down effect. Thats it kids. Its an example of how bad it CAN be. Dont really have all the numbers but its an example. Does it matter that the germans are firing weapons that are 30 years older than WWII weapons? They actually fired slower if I recall back then. Think similar scenes werent played out on the eastern front in WWII? Guess again. How many tiles in an acre? Its an area related mathematical problem. Any high school grad should be able to figure it out. Whats your point? Did one MG hold off thousands of russians? I would guess thats a little high. Did several hold off 200 russians. My guess, you are a little low. A Good Question (Rhetorical): Was the average german battalion in 1914 as well equipped with MG firepower as the 1941 version (wow, look the numbers reverse)? I would venture a guess and say not as much MGs in 1914. take it for what it is worth. Now as far as Steves: "What I have said since the get go is a small, isolated, limited in scope, tighly defined set of variable example can not serve as the sole basis for making game wide conclusions. So far nobody has even bothered to challenge this logic. It would be hard, obviously, since it is this basic concept is the foundation of scientific methodology. Or do you think that if you bump your head getting out of your car that, without any doubt, every person who owns the same car also bumps their heads?" Hes off track again. I am not making game wide conclusions. I am making conclusions on aspects of the game that are fundamental. They should hold true in testing. As higher levels of the game are built on top of them (armor effects on infantry, etc), they will change. The proof is in the pudding? No, I say. The pudding shouldnt use sour milk. either you get it (from the get go) or you dont. "Folks... ignore these numbers. Lewis is pulling them out of his you know where." They were on the screen when I played the game last. I will have to reiterate this again for Steve. Thats the info up on the screen guy. How it is manipulated in the game is not released to the public. Fine. But I am just going on what the game is outputting. You sound alot like the Wizard from Oz by the way. Pay no attention to the man behind the.... You just might review alot of what was said by alot of people. It was acknowled by BTS that a rev directly was the result of infantry firepower being too weakly modeled. It WAS brought up by myself and others. Glad our contribution stuck so firmly in your bumpy head. Want me to do a search for you? "Typical muddled thinking there Lewis (yours, not mine). All I am doing is comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I said from the beginning that you can only carry forward conclusions as much as the test allows. There are problems with rushing lone MGs. I have said as much. I have also agreed that this needs to be fixed. So why on Earth would I do tests with combined arms to figure out the problems with just a MG vs. a platoon (or so)? It would be just as wrong as those who said that MGs are useless, on the whole, after only testing one isolated abstract case." First you were saying that the tests people were doing dont mean anything and now you say this and I have muddled thinking? Why not just break down and give some of us credit? We dont know all the intracies of the games engine. We are feeding back info. So use it to "fix" it. I say "fix" it cause you arent fixxing CMBO but developing CM2. Another product. You take crap personally and have just got to be right no matter what. Dont hide behind some so called scientifical methodology. you are making a game for Christs sake! People are doing alot to contribute to it. You are the muddled one. WOW! Its more like the playtesting that brought the game out in the first place was using combined arms and not concentrating on the basics. Was that the case or not? Dont bother answering that. Someone else said: "Again I am hopeful that CMBO will not be totally abandoned and might also benefit from the same MG fix as is coded into CM2. (not likely I guess, BUT we can hope )" Thats what I am talking about Tommy boy. Expect some tirade against me for standing by that. I am not even expecting the full monty, just some tweaks to obviously flawed parts of the modeling. Lewis

Some nice reading: "A general advance against the German center was launched and the Russians were making certain that the village, directly in the line of advance, had not been occupied by the German machine guns during the night. So far, though I had been witnessing a battle of obviously tremendous magnitude, I had not seen the enemy. From our position slightly in the rear of the German flank, it was comparatively easy to trace our own line through the glasses, but the general line of the Russians was hard to determine, being indicated only by occasional flashes of gunfire. With the start of the Russian attempt on the German center, however, the entire scene changed. Yesterday, for the first time since the start of the battle on Sunday, the Russians attempted to carry the German center position by a storm. All Sunday and Monday the opposing artillery had been hammering away at the opposing trenches. The marksmanship of the Russian artillery had been bad, but I was told that a Russian aeroplane had made a reconnaissance of the German position shortly after dawn yesterday. I saw no machines in flight. Twice under cover of their field artillery the Russian infantry advanced in force yesterday. Twice they were forced back to their defensive positions Now they were to try again. The preliminaries were well under way, without my appreciating their significance until one of my officer escorts explained. At a number of points along their line, observable by us, but screened from the observation of the German trenches in the center, the Russian infantry came tumbling out and, rushing forward, took up advanced positions awaiting the formation of the new and irregular battle line. Dozens of light rapid firers were dragged along by hand. Other troops -- the reserves -- took up semi-advanced positions. All the while the Russian shrapnel was raining over the German trenches. Every move of the enemy was obviously being communicated to the German center. The German reserve column moved in closer. The rifle fire from the German trenches practically ceased. The German officers moved along in the open behind the trenches encouraging and steadying their men, preparing them for the shock. Finally came the Russian order to advance. At the word hundreds of yards of the Russian fighting line leaped forward, deployed in open order and came on. One, two, three, and in some places four and five successive skirmish lines, separated by intervals of from 20 to 50 yards, swept forward.... From the outset of the advance, the German artillery, ignoring for the moment the Russian artillery action, began shelling the onrushing mass with wonderfully timed shrapnel, which burst low above the advancing lines and tore sickening gaps. But the Russian line never stopped. For the third time in two days they came tearing on, with no indication of having been affected by the terrible consequences of the two previous charges. As a spectacle the whole thing was maddening. I found my heart thumping like a hammer, and with no weapon more formidable than a pair of binoculars, I was mentally fighting as hard as the men with the guns. For the first time I sensed the intoxication of battle and learned the secret of the smiles on the faces of the battlefield's dead. On came the Slav swarm -- into the range of the German trenches, with wild yells and never a waver. Russian battle flags -- the first I had seen -- appeared in the front of the charging ranks. The advance line thinned and the second line moved up. Nearer and nearer they swept toward the German positions. And then came a new sight! A few seconds later came a new sound. First I saw a sudden, almost grotesque, melting of the advancing lines. It was different from anything that had taken place before. The men literally went down like dominoes in a row. Those who kept their feet were hurled back as through by a terrible gust of wind. Almost in the second that I pondered, puzzled, the staccato rattle of machine guns reached us. My ear answered the query of my eye. For the first time the advancing lines hesitated, apparently bewildered. Mounted officers dashed along the line urging the men forward. Horses fell with the men. I saw a dozen riderless horses dashing madly through the lines, adding a new terror. Another horse was obviously running away with his officer rider. The crucial period for the section of the charge on which I had riveted my attention probably lasted less than a minute. To my throbbing brain it seemed an hour. Then, with the withering fire raking them, even as they faltered, the lines broke. Panic ensued. It was every man for himself. The entire Russian charge turned and went tearing back to cover and the shelter of the Russian trenches. I swept the entire line of the Russian advance with my glasses -- as far as it was visible from our position. The whole advance of the enemy was in retreat, making for its intrenched position. After the assault had failed and the battle had resumed its normal trend, I swept the field with my glasses. The dead were everywhere. They were not piled up, but were strewn over acres. More horrible than the sight of the dead, though, were the other pictures brought up by the glasses. Squirming, tossing, writhing figures everywhere! The wounded! All who could stumble or crawl were working their way back toward their own lines or back to the friendly cover of hills or wooded spots. But there appeared to be hundreds to whom was denied even this hope, hundreds doomed to lie there in the open, with wounds unwashed and undressed, suffering from thirst and hunger until the merciful shadows of darkness made possible their rescue -- by the Good Samaritans of the hospital corps, who are tonight gleaning that field of death for the third time since Sunday." web page So it CAN be the case where MGs cut down infantry like dominos (under the "right" conditions). If the game cant reproduce this effect, then its foundation is cracked. Pillar made a good point in the shut down MG thread; if it IS in the game it will be abused. This simple observation is interpreted as "whining" by Steve. Lewis

Install Windows 95. I have yet to have one CM related crash on my system. Goddamn AOL crashes every other week it seems.

I also would like to see a greater chance of putting out a lead shower if targeting an ambush marker. This gives a little control over it. I would expect water cooled weapons to have a little less susceptibility to meltdown under these events. Lewis

Theres one way to make snake eyes. So that is one in 36. To make a 3 or less its three ways, 1/2, 2/1, and snakes (1 in 12). To make an even 3 result is then two in 36 (1 in 18). Lewis "sweatin at the craps table"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: I like the idea of MG's occasionally going "hot," for several reasons. One is that it is realistic behavior. Another reasons is that, especially if it is tied to unit experience, it adds another level of interest to overall game strategy. For example, in a BYO game, one might consider whether it would be useful to purchase above average experience MGs because of the increased chance of going hot (similar to how people sometimes purchase more experienced FO's). Also, in a scenario where there are MGs with differing experience levels, it will be important to factor this ability into unit placement. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. And sometimes a green unit might just go "hot" at a target that isnt even close (blowing off his ammo and/or melting down the gun). Works both ways maybe.. It will definetly be another level of play; what to buy and where to put them. Crack MG bunkers might be really nice. In fact, that is what got me started on my testing kick. I had played a game where I bought a MG bunker and put it behind a Flag on a reverse slope. I put minefields on the flag (gamey) and had two lmgs covering the bunkers left and right flank. Didnt matter. The AI just ran through the minefields and past the MG bunker to a flag behind the bunker!. The lmgs just folded up too. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I thought the conversations have indicated that they will look at making some of the "new technology" as it were retroactive to CMBO but were not promising anything. Has that changed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Last I heard is what you bought is what you are getting. Steve usually needs to close down a thread to change his mind. Allows him to cool off and regroup. He might see the wisdom in just increasing running exposure in CMBO as well as some tweaks on the other exposure levels/formulas. They have never released how these things work exactlty, so I think that people here do a pretty good job figuring things out from experience. lewis

Another summary: 1. Running Tests were out of context in the last MG thread, but now even Steve is doing them. First he poo-poo's them and then we find out he's using them also. 2. Lots of changes coming for CM2. Nothing coming for CMBO. Can anyone say "CMBO Gold Edition"? CMBO went through a change earlier by the way. It was brought to BTS' attention (by myself and others) that all infantry firepower was weakly undermodeled. I guess that iteration was all we got. It was obvious that testing must have been done with combined arms type scenarios masking infantry deficiencys. 3. Water cooled US MGs are definetly in the game. And undermodeled. And I believe that Steve is wrong about US heavy weapons platoons not using the M1917 as a standard weapon. 4. Cover states are modeled wrong. If running in the open gives "cover" (75%) then Ill be damned. Motion attracts the human eye like nothing else. Its from our primitive hunter days. Some gangly volksgrenadier running a couple hundred meters cartainly draws attention to themself. Someone in a foxhole is 45% covered? Sounds like a hasty fighting position than a foxhole. Thats part of the equation why the tests against foxhole positions favored the attacker. Any tired ass squads running within a hundred meters starts plinking defenders under cover. I like some of the changes that BTS seems to be working on. It will be hard to imagine anyone playing much CMBO once CM2 comes out. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Mayer: Ah, who cares about silly things like machine guns when there are horses to get into the game! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whats the exposure for being on a horse? If running is 75% (same as moving?), then being on a horsey must be higher? [ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Username ]