Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I saw it, then lost track of the thread before responding. In general, it seems very gamey and not very realistic. For example, a Green unit should be able to use "Crawl" just as much as an "Elite" one. Besides it being a part of even the most simplistic training, it is a natural thing to do. So why should any unit be prohibited from crawling? The difference comes in how WELL each unit Crawls. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually I gave an "example" for a conscript unit not a green one. Conscripts usually dont get that much basic training. I believe you are missing the intent also. As you move up in experience levels, there should be more options available for you, the commander, to order to your troops. Its a general idea proposal at this point. Not a fully developed design change. To expect better trained or experienced troops to have expanded capabilities seems more realistic than "gamey". As for crawling. Maybe you can expand on how well you differentiate between crawling styles and techniques? Are some units better low-crawlers? Just in case you care, The better a low-crawler you are, the slower you do it. You stop often to look for the smallest undulations in the ground and its just not easy to move without lifting your ass off the ground. Crawling just isnt a very common thing to do. I would say most conscripts are more apt to know a bit about running as opposed to crawling. But I realize that anything I say could have a knee-jerk negative response at this point. I should try some reverse psychology perhaps. Here goes: I dont and never do ever want to be able to give a pause command in the middle of a string of commands. I think its gamey and unrealistic and BTS would make me so mad if they were to implement something like that. Furthermore, I think conscripts should be able to do everything an elite unit can do but they will suck very much at it. I think if there are "Ranger" type units in a future CM game, that conscripts should be able to scale cliffs, repel off helicopters but they would fall alot. Rev-Psych OFF Steve, I think you have demonstrated your "open mindedness" in a previous post regarding the sturmartillerie thing. Try not to focus on me. Its flattering in a way but as a front man for a company, I think its counter-productive. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-17-2000).]

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Palace/2212/war/crossofiron.html

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Palace/2212/war/crossofiron,html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts: LOL, that's hilarious. It is actually sad to me that a lot of people on here "glorify" drinking like this. B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OB&G Is there any personal reason? If you dont mind me asking. I see you are disabled. Lewis

About 10 degrees left and right. Elevation -6 to +20. Stug drivers therefore needed to be part of the "shooting team". The close proximity of the crewmen and easy communications this afforded could have helped. In a turreted tank the driver is a bit more removed from the others. http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/stug3g.htm lewis PS At 100 meters range, the gun would cover about 35 meters between full left and right. So as the range decreases, they were at a distinct disadvantage to a turreted tank. The Hetzer was narrower. Something like a few degrees one way and about 10 degrees the other. The crew was isolated from the commander and visability was poor. Its armor was good to the front but sad on the sides. I bet a 50 cal could go through. The Hetzer is really an ambush vehicle. Only shines when preselected positions and defenses can support it. [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-16-2000).]

I guess the CM community has commented. I think john Wayne made some real points. but people here like their bread buttered a certain way. I thought the movie lapsed into a bad episode of "Comabt". I liked "Thin Red Line" Lewis

Its mostly cause the uniforms were cool. And because future Hollywood "directors" could make so many stupid movies. And alot of white people killed white people that killed people that they didnt like. And rich people could stay richer people. And oil still would come out of the ground. And after it was "over" there still was an "enemy" and more money could be spent on alot weapons that would never be used. It was just the "greatest" in the history of the human race and defined the whole twentieth century and blah blah blah. LOL. It was a stupid bunch of ****. I think its over now. The freaking europeans can get along without it. Lewis PS I still am fascinated by armored warfare.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Norman Wind: Patton's downfall - having to use the bathroom for a few minutes during the planning of an operation ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Most productive moments he ever oversaw.. C'mon Patton was a silver-spoon fed millionaire character actor. He had the germans next move radioed to him and air supremacy!!! He was an arrogant jackass that doomed sherman crewmen to hideous deaths!!! The damn Pershing tank could have been as numerous as fireflys but he put the kill on that. Ego like that needs to be rectified by intelligent historical hindsight. Guys like Bradley are real American general heroes. Bastard was smart and cared. Supposedly General Rose and Patton had a talk about how they would like to "go". Patton made a pompous claim about taking a bullet to the nose,blah,blah,etc. Rose said in humorous response "Ill probably die in a car accident". Rose took a MP40 burst point blank from a King Tiger tankers submachinegun. Patton died after a prolonged traffic injury. Maybe there is a God. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: DEF It’s not about having to plot a turn all day, it’s about playing a turn when you have the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> M I disagree. The game is already giving you a certain Omni-awareness of the situation. I think email games should be "timed". Pick a unit, make a command decision within a minute, move on to the next unit. This can be done at your leisure (when to start) but not with out a sense of urgency. Once you start the battle is going. Its just my opinion. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS: Now that's what I'm talkin about........ This is the way you PBEM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BUUUTTTT Let me Caveat that by saying if I were to play someone like Fionn in a publically displayed grudge match.. then I would only take 20 minutes. Actually you should multiply the number of units under your command by one minute each. Thats fair I think. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Lewis, do everybody a favor (including yourself) and take whatever chip is on your shoulder and leave it aside when you are here. You might find that people will actually look forward to your posts instead of thinking, "cripes, who is he pissing off now". I know I am pleasently surprised when I come upon one of your posts without some sort of snipe at someone, even if I am not involved in the thread at all. I'd rather it be the other way around, and if you wanted it to be it could. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have close to 200 posts on the board. I think the vast majority of them relate my real world experience and extensive military historical outlook from my silly devouring of books. The interactions of others with my posts is a reflection of them as much as me. If anything I have tempered myself to ignore others questionable responses and tried to interject a certain self-effacing humor. I find alot of people here equally interested in the general issues of the game/genre and some others kind of .. kooky. I guess I shouldnt interact with anyone I disagree with. It is a little humorous that a board called Battlefront has such problems with people having differences of opinions. So anyway lets get a little constructive. What do you think of the idea of limited/expanded menu options? I think that it enhances the differences between experience levels. Just an idea..throwing it out there for discusion. No big whoop. I outlined it in the TD or Tank vs.. thread. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: It might clarify things if you would give a suggestion as to how this difference that you are trying to show should be implemented in the game. M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> M If I knew how things worked perhaps I could! Seriously, you ask a valid question. I think I gave my opinions above, it would be up to BTS to decide. I dont know if having armor gives infantry a morale boost, if being without AT weapons brings it down, etc. The workings of the mechanics of the game are a mystery to me. Thanks for adding an intelligent post to this discussion. Lewis PS I did post in the other thread a "revolutionary" suggestion regarding menu options.

Happy belated April Fools Lewis

Lets see we started on the 8th and its turn 25 today..hmmm. I hate playing one turn a day. I download a turn and respond in 30 minutes max. Usually state the last turn of the day so they know. Lewis

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/quarters/9104/aar_aftermath.htm

Underclocking Technology.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Well, Lewis, all of the things you mentioned are in CM. (although it also depends on track width as you know, so there are light vehicles which actually bog down quite a lot - like the early M4's if I recall correctly). I have seen an M10 move from behind a house, pop a couple of shots, reverse, move down a slope and into my flank, pop again and so on. The AI in CM actually excels when it comes down to armor and its use (I'd rate it an A for armor and a B for infantry right now).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Moon I assume you have more than the currently released demo? (since you are using M10s?). I realize even from the demo I have, that all these things can or are modeled at this level. Now if I could use a pause order in the middle of a string of other orders, I would be the proverbial happy camper. Getting bogged depends on the ground pressure of the tracks mainly. Getting unbogged aint that simple. A heavier vehicle that has been mud-bellied is a freaking bitch to recover. Ive done it and believe me a couple of bulldozers helps alot. Good reading is "DEATH TRAPS". The author gives a first hand account of tank retrieval of an american armored divisions vehicles in WWII europe. He absolutely states the sherman was a mistake (as a MBT) and places the blame on Pattons shoulders. I consider these historical accounts worth 50 speculations from historians and armchair warriors. He gives accounts of mud so bad that it literally puts a suction effect on the bottom of the tank. Good book. Some errors on german armor but forgivable. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Could you explain this for a non-motion control engineer with regard to my question?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought I had. But maybe I can add more. Mobility on the CM scale would be concerned with a vehicles ability to cross different terrain types epecially soft terrain that might 'bog' vehicles. Since all moving objects need to accelerate to attain speed, this would be a critical vehicle parameter. You could relate its top speed, HP, Weight and perhaps transmission to get some idea what the accel was like. The speed of a vehicle makes it harder to hit when shooting at it and easier for it to get behind cover. In battle conditions crews push the vehicles to the wall. They quickly change gears, max out RPMs and do whatever it takes to stay alive. AntiTank guns that are towed are much less effective than self-propelled or TDs. I think ATG that were larger than 57mm were dinosaurs by the end of the war. I threw that in because the threat is 'TD survivabilty'. Lewis

'stables It reads so well. You should be a novelist. A stilted novelist. Lewis

Well there is certainly interest (and amazingly still hard feelings) but I will have to wait two months and respect Steves wishes. I also believe in "when its ready". I was actually expecting alot more of the CM gang here to jump my sh*t (I am obviously playing the "bad-guy" here..duh) but now I feel perhaps there really is interest in how a thouroughly obnoxious brat can perhaps win in an debate against a BTS "expert". Really I think the point I am making is small and perhaps not worth any effort. I just despise the simplistic viewpoint people have of "weapons". Especially armor. They will see a fighter plane and squeal "OH a good pilot could do so much better than an ordinary one". Well armor was the same and even had its subtle differences beneath that. I am contending artillery trained crews manning the same weapons (stugIII) used by panzer and panzergndr crews should have different "effects". They were better when working with infantry and more effective in the direct fire mission. I never said that they werent used as AT primarily or secondarily on occasion. Believe it or not, human beings make all the difference in the performance of all weapons. CM is at the scale where these effects should show themselves. It just adds flavor and depth to an already great game. Lewis Lewis

Actually those Polish troops are advancing on the trees in the background Lewis

Yeah but the Germans in Indiana Jones are accurate representations. Does Shpeelburg have an Agenda? NAAAAAAHHHH!!!!! Lewis

WOH!!! Never drink or abuse alchohol with any acetaminaphen (Tylenol). You will rip your liver apart. Never take it for a hangover or at all if you drink daily. 50uL you might be joking I hope. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: So having no new information you're being bellicose for the sake of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have alot of old information. I want to quote it with titles, authors. Its packed away 'stables and I should be reunited with it within 2 weeks. Funny how anyone would be bellicose on a webpage called battlefront. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott C: ...latter has the advantages that it gives the units much more "personality" and is much closer to reality, in that a real WWII company commander couldn't micromanage his forces anywhere near as much as we can in CM - I'll illustrate with a recent example from the board - Lewis recently wrote (in the "TD survivability" thread) that he would like a "shoot-n-scoot" command. This would move towards more control, obviously. The advantages are that you're more in the TC's pocket (increasing immersion) and have better control. But, there is a certain thrill to desperately watching your last precious Sherman and wondering if it's going to make the right choice. Sorry for the long post<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well .. since you are sorry.. then its OK. Believe it or not, no company commander micromanages his units. Thats what the XO or senior staff NCO does .. he puts the shoe leather in the government owned asses. Given certain terrain, working walky talkies/radios, properly trained personnel, you could micromanage just like in CM. Actually better in WWII than Vietnam! WWII NCOs that served in nam were aghast at how hard it was to control platoons and companies. One, the jungle was a bitch, two, the automatic M16s are so damn loud. Add all the other weapons, screaming, choppers, jets, It was hard on the hearing to say the least. As far as "shoot'n'scoot", I will have to quote BTS. "Forget all you know about previous wargames,etc". "Start using what would work". I want to use what would work (and did work). Not command a bunch of automatons about. Personally I want to see the command menus correspond to a units abilitys. This way rookie M10s might not HAVE this shootnscoot ability. I posted that under the tanks vs or TD thread recently. Lewis