Username

Yeah but steve isnt interested. Maybe for CM2. Lewis

They need virtual stench headgear. It fits over your nostrils and realtimes the computer wiff into your booger vault. I like my computer experience to be limited to visual and auditory mostly. Maybe a vibrating humjob chair with force feedback. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts: repritrar. (sp?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL depends.. what are you trying to spell? Lewis

Elmer Fudd (Reading futuristic newspaper) "SMELLIVISION WEPLACES TELEVISION!!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts: Here check out this thread for the very picture I'm talking about... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003662.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thos trees are from 'South Park' arent they? Lewis

I would still like WWII vets opinion of how the game "plays". It would be interesting feedback. Comments like: "Theres not enough surrendering" or "Noone would stick there head up then" or whatever would put the game in a different light. Lewis

Military Operations in Urban Terrain. Or something like that? C4 is plastic explosive. I dont think they had it in WW2.

What Los describes was a tactic the US Army used in WWII. They would use axes, picks, sledges and dynamite to breach walls. They would sometimes hack a hole just big enough to throw a grenade in, then proceed to make a large enough hole to get entry. If it was known there were enemy in the next room, or beyond the next wall, then an explosive charge could kill two birds with one stone. Make a hole and clear the next room. "Streetfighting" is actually a misnomer. Its a battle for control of buildings and blocks of buildings. Buildings on corners that allow you to dominate the streets are usually reinforced. The american arty would fire delayed action fuses so that after penetrating the roof/walls, they would explode inside rooms/cellers so as to clear out the enemy and blast holes in the interior walls again. LOS is correct that it was a slow process but the alternative of moving about in the streets where the enemy would have weapons sighted and being in close range was suicidal. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Nice response though but Im not really sure what it was too...we were origionally talking about in game 3D polygon models and the practical reasons the Western Front was done be the Eastern. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was actually adressing Romme21's question as to why BTS would have chosen the European theatre of Ops. My guess is marketing towards the US numbers. Hence the traditional Normandy, France, Bulge battles where US troops did alot of fighting. The inclusion of Canadian, British, and other Allied troops helps from a selling point also. The scope and scale of the game favors the terrain in CM1. I have a hard time imagining panthers shooting up T34s at 2000 meters in a CM map. There would be less Models in France 1940 if that were the design criteria. But sales would be sucko and a poor initial showing would not be conducive to a CM2 where ever that theatre would be. Sorry if I waxed strategic but the Germans in 1944-1945 had the cool toys but not much else. Personally , I want to see the Eastern Front more, especially 42-43. It will be interesting to see how BTS simulates the Soviet lack of command, communications and control. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: But anybody that thinks the Western Front lacks cool tactical combat is simply misinformed. I am an Eastern Front nut first and foremost, but the Western Front at the tactical level is every bit as challenging. Perhaps even more so in some regards. Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes Tactical cool but again Steve and I are focusing on different levels. My general impression from reading excellant references such as "Steel Inferno" is that the german effort runs out of steam. They did not have the comprehension of the warpower that would come into play. The Allied level of men, material, firepower, airpower, support, advantage of two front war, mobility, and absolute decisiveness!! The german war machine was outclassed on almost all levels but superior armor (at reduced ranges then they were used to) and sheer intestinal fortitude. Whats "cool" is subjective. Whats smart is not what happened in Normandy. The germans put a war machine in france that was not sustainable. They really had two strategic options. One: Defeat the invaders on the beach. Two: Gradually retreat so as to inflict casualties that would allow them to launch attacks OUT of range of ship borne guns AND without facing allied air attacks from airfields in france. They did neither. They screwed up again. All the battles in Caen and elsewhere were just a formality with medals handed out to the efforts wasted by brave men. Lewis

Hey Squad Leader with the Kung Foo Grip!!! As much as I liked the whole SL/ASL evolution, I dont think they ever rectified the advantage given to the attacker. To be able to see the whole "history" of one units move before committing another took away from the game. Ive met the guilty partys. Bob is an affable enough guy. Some of the others are creepy. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-04-2000).]

Well Kwazy towards the end the germans sent an imbalance of armor towards the west. It was ..well .. kwazy. I bet Panzerfaust (the one shot wonder..meaning the firer never shot another!) held up the russians. They really came into their own in late 44-45. Maybe the germans had some kind of death wish towards the end. Lewis

Marketing me thinks. US is a big market. US and allies in Europe was really just small frie to the germans at that point. They were losing so much to the russians it was getting laughable. The whole france fiasco was just another bad campaign. I believe the whole machine was breaking down as far as the germans were concerned. The whole 'blitzkreig' way of war was old hat and brute force/firepower/airpower now ruled. Panzer warfare, even in defense, was not getting it done and it crumbled into a desperate situation where the germans felt like rats. The germans should have known from the Italian campaign and the Japanese experience that ship borne invasions were unstoppable. To face western airpower was nothing like the russian front where strategic and effective tactical airpower never really developed to the point of domination. The german army was between a rock and a hard place and scared to face the fuhrer. They paid. Attrition ruled. Numbers and Logistics cant be denied. They went down fighting. They had to. The russians never gave up at the gates of moscow and the american factories never lost a days production to the german war effort. Someone said "Make peace fools" but the fools had committed historys worst crimes at that point and there was no place to go but to go down fighting. They fought. Give em that. Lewis

Test...Test.. This is only a test evidently not... [This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-03-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts: Get a Life, Fella! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whats that about a pot calling a kettle something?

Is it just me or is impossible to read those white on black text? To make it worse, when the 'ads' change, the page BLURS on its own!!! I thought it was my bleary eyesight failing but its something to do with the computer. Lewis

(the green chits were US units and the grey ones were german.. not fresh dead and old dead. I had these skulls that were transfers that I rubbed onto them.) Lewis

I posted similar sentiments previously. I think CM would make a great training tool. In addition I would like BTS to contact someone like the author of "Seven Roads to Hell" (Burgett?) and get their take on the game. I would be very interested in WWII LTs and Captains opinions that saw front line action. Their input would be worth a thousand speculations and educated guesses. Lewis

The 'Bodies' are a great addition to a game like this. I used to play ASL with homemade 'Corpse chits' (green ones and grey ones!). Anytime a KIA type result occured, we would put one down. It was a nice addition to small infantry games like the paratrooper module had. Names like "deadmans corner" and "the slaughterhaus" sprung up for certain areas of the board. I think the bodies will have a definite psych effect on the human player. It can work both ways. Maybe holding onto a position obstinately after paying a high price to get it. Perhaps making a player realize discretion is the better part of valour and not trying for that last flag because his otherwise 'invisable' losses are staring up at the clouds. Definite plus to the game. If they are so loathsome to others, then just say to yourself that this is not a sim of a battle but a sim of a training camp. The guys are just playing dead. There that wasnt so hard. {snicker} Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: 1. The term "Infantry Support" is a technical term for a vehicle designed to take on infantry and infantry type targets (pillboxes etc.). This is *NOT* a general term for a vehicle, armored or otherwise, being used against infantry targets in support of friendly infantry formations on a case by case basis. If you bend the definition in this way it applies just as much to a Jagdtiger, King Tiger, Panther, etc. which is ludicrous since these vehicles were designed to kill other AFVs. 2. The role of the StuG was changed on September 28, 1941 when Hitler ordered that the vehicle be changed to be suited to an anti-tank role. This included upgunning and up armoring at the expense of mobility and to some exten reliability. This order produced the model F, the first to depart from the short 75mm L/24. It was followed quickly by the G and then production of the PzIII chasis ceased. 3. Guderian, as Inspector General of Pazner Forces tried to wrestle control of all StuGs away from the Artillery branch since it was a needless waste of resources in his opinion (and the Reich is FULL of such examples). But like the Luftwaffe and its flak guns in ground support roles, sensibilities were pushed aside in favor of politics and as a result the Artillery branch retained large numbers all the way up until the end of the war. 4. Huge numbers of StuGs were deployed in dedicated anti-armor roles, including being organically assigned in place of what should have been turreted tanks or other purpose built AT vehicles (like the Hetzer). The independent StuG battalions were still under the control of the Artillery branch, but they were employed as anti-tank units as their primary function. 5. The ammo for the L/24 was NOT the same as that of the later, longer barreled 75mm guns purpose built for AT combat. You asked for sources so here is one -> Chamberlin's "Encyclopedia of Geman Tanks of WWII". It also states that "none of the parts were interchangable with those of the short gun." There is also the point that Bullethead (a Marine gunner with a lot of knowledge on the subject of artillery) made about the difference between a low and high velocity HE round's shell in terms of effectiveness. 6. If you are trying to argue that the L/4x guns were MORE effective against infantry than the L/24, then that would put the StuG in the same class of Infantry Support as PzIVs and PzJg IVs. Logic would then say that a PzIV G was just as effective in supporting infantry as a StuG G, probably more so because the StuG lacked a turret and 2 full MGs (the StuGs had an ineffectual one on the roof and a later one as coax). This gets back to point #1 about the definition of roles. 7. The StuG's Infantry Support role was removed from it (as staetd above) and given to the StuH 42. Note that the StuH 42 came into service at the SAME TIME as the StuG changed over roles. Cooincidence? Hardly. Quote from "German Tanks of WWII" by Hart states, "...(StuH42 was deployed as) an infantry support role as the German Army increasingily diverted the StuG III to an anti-tank function". The website you cited, and accused me of dodging, clearly backs this up by stating the StuG "...were mostly used in an antitank role". So the ONE source you cited thus far contradicts your position quite plainly. 8. The thought that a high velocity gun is somehow MORE effective in the Infantry Support role (which is your opinion) is not supported by the facts. Charles has this to say... Higher muzzle velocity does tend to increase accuracy, but mainly on the first few rounds fired. Even a low-velocity gun, given the opportunity to "bracket" the target with a couple of shells, will eventually "find the range" and land shells on-target consistently. Suffice to say that a gun is not made high-velocity for the *sole* purpose of increasing high-explosive effect. In fact, to the contrary, high shell velocity wears out the barrel a lot faster than low-velocity, which means that, operationally, a high-velocity gun is often seen as *less* effective than a low-velocity gun. In fact this is one of the major reasons the original M4 Sherman was given a 75mm gun of only moderate muzzle velocity: the artillery department insisted that the barrel have a certain minimum lifespan which, in retrospect, was absurdly and optimistically long. Higher muzzle velocity has only two main advantages. The first is maximum range, which doesn't apply to assault guns like the StuG, which rarely if ever are involved in a long-range artillery-style bombardment. The ONLY other advantage is higher armor penetration. It's as simple as that. 9. The standard loadout for pre-F StuGs was 25% AT and 65% HE. This changed to about 50% AT and 50% HE. More importantly, there was nearly a 50% reduction in ammo capacity when the F was introduced. So why on Earth would the Germans reduce the standard HE capacity by about 50% while keeping the AP at the same number of rounds (roughly 25) if the vehicle was supposed to be engaging infantry targets as its main role? Your claim that they could load out the vehicle any way they wanted STILL means a less HE rounds if an F or G had even if every single round HE than an earlier StuG outfitted with its standard load. And since the Germans CHANGED the role to be that of AT, where is your evidence that the Germans ever did such an unbalanced HE loadout? ----- Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1. I think terms like velocity, time, etc. are technical terms. They are defined by scientific communitys and generally understood. Terms like "Infantry Support" are not technical terms and mean different things to different nations/armies. Take the british Matilda. They called that thing an infantry tank. Sturmartillerie was an implementation of an official policy. It should be considered a seperate arm from the panzer units, infantry units, etc. In CM terms it wouldnt be apparent to you because of the scale represented. I will wait till the game comes out till I will comment on the games representations of bunkers, houses, trenches, etc. The scope and scale of the game seems to showcase this "infantry support" level of operations. 2. and 3. Again the scope of the game is at such a level that I find you quoting decrees from the highest command levels somewhat out of touch. I will quote from "War on the Eastern front" James Lucas. pg 124 "According to the section in the manual which dealt with TACTICAL employment the gun was used while the machine was halted. This usually happened while the infantry was moving from one bound to another, according to the principles of fire and movement. Using direct fire good results could be achieved to 2000 meters but the most effective distances were 1000 meters. The 7.5cm gun with a high muzzle velocity, flat trajectory, accuracy and good powers of penetration fired several types of shell, the selection of which depended upon the target to be engaged. HE was recommended for use against field fortifications, heavy weapons and observation points. Tanks of course, were fought with AP and the same type of ammunition was used to destroy pillboxes. The 105mm howitzer firing HE was particurly effective against infantry targets, soft skin vehicles and marching columns. When the enemy made an attack combining both armor and infantry, SP guns engaged the tanks while the howitzers bombarded the following infantry in order to seperate these from the armor and to leave this unsupported." 4. I believe you are right. Panzer units used stugs and sturmarty used stugs as did other units. Thats been established I thought. I also thought it was established that the germans were on the defensive in the later war years and ALL weapons and personnel and took on a decidely antitank stance. See my previous posts. 5. and 6. The L24 fired a High Explosive PROJECTILE that was the same as the later weapons. It had a different cartridge. I believe we agree on this and please see my recent post regarding "75mm HE fuzes". I will debate "Bullethead" anytime. The goal of a surmarty stug was to stealthily move up, engage a target quickly with 2 or 3 rounds and then change position. Its height facilitated this. Its armor (for a while the best in the german army) was always better than a PnzIV weak turret armor. So I dont follow your logic. The JgdPnzIV would have made a great replacement for the stug in sturmarty units but was rare and in great demand for panzerjaeger units. In general I will say that as main tank and antitank weapons all grew in diameter, if they could fire HE it would get more effective. As for the MG argument I think you are too focused on the short ranges seen in CM. On the Eastern Front, as the above quote states, 1000 meters was a prefered range. Vehicle MGs are typically not that effective at ranges over 800 meters. Use of MG fire tends to be a dead givaway of your position. This contradicts the sturmarty goal of stealth. The MGs were really self defense weapons secondary to the main gun. 7. The infantry support role was removed from it? It had a 50 percent load out of HE for what? The website showed in the final battle report the number of tanks and infantry type targets destroyed were NOT equal!!! In CM terms 22 armored targets and 51 "infantry" type targets were destroyed. I have to take issue with your saying "infantry support role removed from it" and then using that websites "mostly antitank". The word "mostly" is not synonomous with "removed". I quoted that website for the battle report and you didnt comment on it (the report). 8. High velocity adds to the punch of an HE shell which is supported by physics and test data. This helps blast in fortifications and other reinforced targets. Please see my "75mm HE fuzes" post regarding the capabilities of these projectiles in a frag mode. As for Charles statements, its nice to have the luxury to bracket a target inept enough to stick around or not retaliate. High velocity equates to better accuracy and greater hitting power. This kicks tush in buildings, bunkers, trenches, etc. It allows you to quickly engage a target and destroy/neutralize and back away without becoming an obvious dangerous target for everybody. Sturmarty is NOT artillery. You wont wear out more barrels but destroy more targets with less rounds! 9. Why didnt they put 90 percent AP rounds in the stugs? I am not sure what your argument is. You are saying that all stugs had this loadout? I doubt it. "The US Handbook on German Equipment" agrees somewhat with your loadout but says they had 5 smoke rounds so I believe it. It also states that the stugs remained a dual purpose weapon. Lucas claims that stug units overloaded upwards of 96 rounds by the way. They would put them on the floor evidently. (End of point by point) You and I will probably not agree on this because we are looking at it from completely different views. We are also discussing too many points at once and degrading into a pissing contest. Perhaps we can then concentrate our discussion on points that have a definite effect on CM. I propose we take the 75mm effectiveness first if that is OK with you. It has a definite effect on game play and seems to be confused in peoples minds how shells work. Looking forward to your response. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-02-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: and maybe even a chair Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A CHAIR??? What kind of woos needs a chair for a trade show? Ive stood in those damn things for 7 hours strait smiling at stupid engineers like they were celebritys. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Blah Blah Blah ...and the answer is NO. ...Do you know how much the rent on booth space is at E3??? ALOT!!!! Madmatt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In fuzzy logic terms would that "ALOT!!!!" be towards the higher end of possible outcomes? I only see 4 exclamation points, so I cant guage it. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: OK, the official poop... Yes, there is now a SINGLE marker for unit that has been FULLY eliminated. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS So if a unit loses lets say 11 guys at point A then crosses 1 kilometer to point B and the final guy gets it, the marker is placed by the final guy (? I am not getting the point if this is the case. I think its a good idea to give an attacker an idea what he paid for some property though. Also a cool "high water mark" for banzai type charges. Lewis

Dead Bodies? Dead link... Lewis PS Is that 'Uncle Fester' on the CMHQ iste?

Those guys are just waiting for the snow so they can make 'snow angels'. Lewis