Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: I know quite a lot of people without internet access. Almost everyone I know does not know anything about CM (not even that there is such a game). If I see a game at my local gaming store and it looks promising, I might as well buy it. I can't do that if it isn't there. Just because few people without internet access visit the forum, you can't tell that there aren't any. And BTS will most likely not sell any copies to those even if those people would like the game. They just don't have a lobby. Plus, as I've stated previously, not everybody has a credit card nor is everyone willing to order a game over the net. (It's not unlikely that I will be one of them). That does not mean that I will pirate a copy from somewhere, but I will stick to my principles (As it seems, mine are more restrictive than Steve's). Raising my voice for those under-representated people on this forum, Dschugaschwili<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Boy this thread gets better and better. Those people without internet access usually dont have computers either. There are computer magazines around the world so they might see an ad or interview or something though. Many if not all people without internet access never visit the forum and I think its a shame. As a yankee fan I loved Yogi Bearra. Lewis

A POLITICIAN!!!?? Hey now thats personal. Lewis

I wont order without a release date. Anyway the Gold Demo will keep me occupied till the patches are done. Lewis

LOL I would guess no Lewis

Guts Steve already answered that in the "I'll preorder if.." thread. He said it will be a bit larger. Now my question is "Will that 'bit' be a one or a zero?" Lewis

Steve So is BTS going the "Have CD in drive approach?" Lewis

schug Maybe you need to catch up with the rest of the thread. I do all my banking, investing, credit cards online. I feel that these transactions are secure. I don't subscribe to this mythical super-geeky hacker without limitations. I think that most pirates arent that sophisticated and they could be stopped. Just like most criminals arent smart ( but some are). I am also sure terrorists have stilted reasoning based on philisophical/political/whatever ideals that justifies in their minds acts of terrorism. Lewis

I am really curious as to what people who really support software like CM will do. I would not mind downloading something (lets call it an enabler) that allows me to play for the week. No charges or anything for it. Its just something (program/file)that makes the crackers realize its not worth their effort every week to crack. But its extra work for the developers/company. Its a price they would have to pay to get all the profits stolen by thieves. I dont buy this 'freedom' crap. Software comes from hard work and needs to be compensated to justify it. Lewis PS I was also thinking of something like "subscribing to play the supercomputer AI". The software company would allow you to play their super-computer at Combat Mission via email for a fee. Emails returned within one day. Advertise Multi-paralleled multi-GHzed super Combat Mission challenge!!! Of course, it would actually just be me sending you back turns but you wouldnt know the difference. [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-11-2000).]

I knew this thread would turn interesting. Actually informative, I never heard of DIVX. I think you are straining for an analogy there though. Seeing the same movie again and playing any scenario you want in CM for a whole day aint exactly apples and apples. What I am saying is that the software is becoming more a service than a product. You are leasing and not buying. I don't think its up to anyone to decide to steal software whether they like the company or not. Thats a hard one to follow. A consumer can decide to not buy a product if he doesnt like a company. How stealing becomes OK I dont quite get. As far as stopping software theft with the laws we have, no way. Look at the war on drugs. They cant stop that with billions of dollars thats spent. Its an international thing anyway. International Cyber Cops? I don't really expect anyone to charge someone a nickel a play. C'mon the credit card people would not allow it. I just like getting peoples reactions to computer issues. People are a little wacky about computers, software, internet, the whole deal. And wargamers are pretty wacky to boot. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>then we could agree that marketing over the net and shipping a hard CD on credit verification is a major shift in "selling", with lowest cost and least risk to BTS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure if they could secure ALL their customers ahead of time, charge them, and ship the product in a mass mailing. Which is obviously impossible. Believe me, BTS wants a lot greater market than the pre-orders they have. The real payoff will come when reviews, WOM, advertisement, and magazine CDROM gold demos hit the stands. I am interested in what BTS is doing as far as protecting the game. I imagine the CDROM must be in the drive? I remember heated arguments on TS page because customers felt they had some legal right to make one copy for themselves and that these protection schemes "violated" that. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CEO: I would never buy another computer game EVER again if everyone did this. It is just to damn inconvenient. EVERY time I want to play/use the software I have to pay? No thanks. If companies did this, I think my computer gaming addiction would go away (maybe).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CEO You actually do pay every time you play. Just divide the price by the number of times you played. Its called 'Costing'. Now suppose you buy a game like 'Across the Rhine' for $59.95 and play it 3 times before you get fed up. Thats pretty expensive. If you only got burned for 9.99 +$0.25*3=$10.75, then you wouldnt feel so bad. I paid 40 bucks for Panzer Elite and must have played a couple hundred times before I stopped. Of course, theres other methods like pay-per-day, so you can lose..er..play as many times in a day (Panzer Elite has a steep learning curve so that quarter might last 2 minutes). I admit its very different than what people are used to but so was cable TV when it came out. Pay for TV? WHY SHOULD I ITS FREE!!! I can't think of a wargame I bought over a year ago I still play. Back to the point. The product has to be protected. The laws cant be enforced and the criminals dont view their actions as "wrong". The ball is in the software developers court and they might need a major shift in "selling" the product/service. Complaigning and wishing to throw these punks in the ocean never solved anything. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bamse: The pirates would crack that system in days and then everyone or many would want the cracked product ! B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hello to you too Pirates are people who make illegal copies. Very difficult to stop because they have such cheap CD RW tools. They arent 'cracking' anything. That takes a certain expertise, not just a piece of hardware that everyone sells. I believe you are giving hackers too much credit and software developers not enough credit. Now GOOOODBYYYEEE Lewis

Steve Realistically the software companies should make it harder for these crimes to be perpertrated. They should all ban together and get the government to support them. I am sure that most pirates wouldnt walk into CompUSA and steal a video card because its very difficult to do and easy to get caught. Likewise, the industry should make it difficult to pirate copyrighted software. Its all going to boil down to more expense for software developers. Theres no easy answer but I would do the following. People buy CDROM games and the low upfront cost (lets say $9.99)covers the packaging expenses. They take the game home and load it and they HAVE to get online to register WITH a credit card. Every time they play they have to pay a small fee online (they can pre-order multiple games for airplane trips with laptops). Lets say 25cents a game. There is a "code of the day" that gets them playing. After they have spent 50 bucks (200 plays), they can play for a nickel a game. They can never change credit cards and the game becomes non-transferable. Its just an idea but you get my point. Its up to the software industry to protect itself. It might mean a change in the way the industry does business. Make the CDROM just a tool like the computer itself, not the product. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: I will curse your name pubically <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd pay to watch that. When I was in the service and overseas there was these dancing girls that would take cigars and blow smoke rings out of their [CENSORED] Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I have no idea what you self deleted from the post above, but knowing how close you came to being banned for previous comments I am sure it wasn't pretty. If you are just stalling because have no sources to cite because you are moving, might I just suggest that you stop trying to argue until you do? Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I deleted bold type that Simon found as an abuse of the UBB code. Stalling? Is there some time constraint or deadline that has to be met? I can perhaps answer "when its ready". C'mon Steve you are sounding a bit stressed there. Take a chill. Lewis

Hey I wanted to be 100. Lewis

I am trying to address alot of points so I am embedding my responses with my name after the points. Example: {Lewis: blahblahblah} Sorry if that just completely overwhelmed you. Thanks for contributing so much. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: I'm not replying 'This brings up another shell design constraint . As you increase designed muzzle velocity, you have to increase shell wall thickness or the shell breaks up in the barrel. Thus, higher velocity shells have less room inside for explosive than slower shells of the same caliber. -Bullethead The Spgr shells for the StuK 37 Kwk/StuK 42 and Kwk/StuK 40 may have weighed the same but they carried different amounts of HE Oh and ignore the fact that I'm of British stock lol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whomever I agree wholeheartedly but still think the germans used the same HE projectiles for all these weapons I listed. Why? Because they were all in use at the same time. Pak40s , halftracks with stump 75mmL24s, Panthers, PanzerIVlate, Stugs, JagdPanzerIV (I apologize to any weapons I have left out) were all operational at the same time. To say the germans manufactured seperate shells and cartriges for all these weapons boggles my imagination. well its my lifes work to find out what went on. Maybe I will reanimate Albert Speer and cross-examine him. Hey Simpsons is on..later limey. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-10-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: Why yes it is round eye. We the yellow peril are on the verge of sweeping away longnose American Capitalist’s running dog lackeys barbarians from Allahs Earth. Sarcasm off Sorry to the other Yanks but I've decided to just breakdown and flame and then leave it. [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-09-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL I can't say I understood it but it was kind of funny. Chill out there and don't get ya pantys all in a bunch. Look Pak40s did not fire the same ammo (cartridge and shell) as stugs and PIV with the L48. They had these long 'strait' ammo and the L48 had this'fluted' ammo. I contend the shell WAS the same (AP and HE)for all the following: 75mmL70 75mmL48 75mmL43 PAK40 75mmL24 Maybe some others, I know the AP was all 6.8 Kg so its a safe bet. I bet the germans had some field units that collected up all the brass and a rear area point where they were refurbished and reloaded them. You mentioned JagdPanthers, they had 88s. There were some other errors but I just got some email turns so cyanarra. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-09-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: Whats with this kneejerk 'Troll' calling of yours? I was refering to the technical mistakes in that post. If you want I can list them. I have a hard time following your english. No big deal is it? Lewis PS Is 'sputtering indignation' an asiatic language? [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-09-2000).]

Bastables I am still trying to recover from all the mistakes in the previous post by you...take a break there guy! I see you are from New Zealand? Is English the primary language there? Its just a little difficult distilling meaning from your posts. Sorry. Do you want me to try and respond? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Lewis, I challenge you to take any book on armor, or StuGs specifically, and prove the facts wrong. {Lewis: I thought we had agreed to disagree but now I am to admit that I am wrong. [snort] Thats funny. I am in the process of moving. When I get reestablished I will get the books out. I guess you have no comment on the website I referenced but thats OK.} Your arguments about high velocity holds no water, neither does holding up successful use of them against infantry type targets as turreted tanks had both high veolocity guns, MGs, and were used to engage non-armored targets. That was my point about the KT. If high velocity was somehow a beneficial thing for the Infantry Support role, then the King Tiger should be an excellent Infantry Support vehicle because it has a bigger shell and a higher velocity. And of course there is physics that contradict your theory that high velocity is somehow better than low. {Lewis: King Tigers can give my guys infantry support any time they want! I think I made some good points regarding higher velocity weapons. There is also a ricochet shot that can be achieved with a HV shell on hard ground (like an airburst in effect) but you have some physics so whats the use. Wheres this Physics study again?} Please, unless you have some sort of evidence to prove your point, it might be good to just admit that you are wrong or simply admit that you aren't going to convince anybody that you are correct. I can pluck any one of a dozen books off my shelf here to back up my side, so unless you come up with a similar pile of evidence you will never get me to change my mind. {Lewis: Again, give me some titles. I have lots of time and a very good library system. I have already supplied a pretty good website, so peruse it at your leisure. I wont change your mind. You will do that.} Of course, you could simply be misusing the definition of "infantry support", but I thought we cleared that up the last time we discussed this. Just to be sure, infantry support is a term specifically covering weapons systems that were designed to support infantry in its role as infantry (i.e. against infantry and emplacements). As I have said about a dozen times before, this was deliberately changed from the top (Guderian) down (the vehicle itself). A vehicle that was assigned to back up infantry does not make it an infantry support vehicle. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, the stug was designed as an infantry support vehicle. Later in the war it took on an increasingly AT stance just like the infantry did and the artillery did and the airforce did. Guess what people...The war became an armored conflict!!!! All the above still had to do their primary missions also. As the war progressed to a defensive one and the germans were naturally not assaulting with the infantry as much, the stug became a more defensive weapon, most weapons did. And as the russians attacked everywhere with tanks, guess who the infantry had to rely on stopping them? They didnt need a decree from Guderian. Now I cant debate or argue or reason with someone that can't see what point I am trying to make (LOL I have to say it one last time.. I like to piss up a rope..)The stugs that were manned by Sturmartillerie performed better at the infantry support mission than the the ones manned by panzermen, they also had a better machine with the L48 gun. Thats my point. If CM ever gets to the Eastern Front, I think that this should be reflected. So please dont obsfucate the issue with shermans and king tigers and training declining in the airforce and Panzerwaffe decrees and 'scientifical physics' studies. You want me to cite reference than you can to. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: I can't really follow this assumption of yours. If they felt that all 75mm HE StuG guns were worth improving upon, why did they select a "purely-infanty-support-role" 105mm low velocity gun? This looks much more to me like somebody somewhere thought: these StuGs now really suck as infantry support vehicles, let's make something new and better. Why, for example, didn't they simply produce more StuG's? That's what I would expect if they were so excellent as a dual-purpose weapon. [This message has been edited by Moon (edited 04-09-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Im sure they would have like to put in as large a weapon with as high a velocity as possible. The chassis had its limitations. When everyone else is fielding larger caliber guns I guess I would want one also. Initially sturmartillerie was assigned the task of knocking out MG emplacements, field guns, and other battlefield impediments to the infantry. In light of the street fighting that occured in Russia there was a need for weapons like the Stug105 and brumbar and such to take on pillboxes and reinforced houses. Again, they would also have a greater variety of ammunition types. I would also suspect that the sturmartillerie arm felt a true howitzer could be handled by atillerymen very effectively in the front lines, perhaps it was their way of keeping political control over the weapon system. But we are both speculating I think. I am sure the stug factories were producing as much as they could. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: The Crux all AT turrentless AFV were described in offical reports as Sturmgeschtz why all becuse AT was there mission after 1943. It must be a troll <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bastables I still find you hard to follow. I am sorry but maybe you can make your point clearer? I think its a good thing you are trying to quote something from somewhere. I am not trolling or whatever. I am engaging in a debate in an intelligent and legible manner. Please do so yourself. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-09-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Username - from the site you gave: Since the later versions of the StuG III with the longer barreled 7.5cm Stu.K. 40 (L/48) were mostly used in an antitank role, more armored artillery-vehicles were needed. Therefor 1144 StuG III with the 105mm L/48 were build between 1942 and 1945. This version of the StuG was the Sturmhaubitze (StuH) armed with a 105mm howitzer. It had the usual characteristics of the StuG but was confined to a purely anti-personnel role and didn't fire armor-piercing ammunition. Very interesting...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes I found that very interesting also. Notice it says 'mostly used in the Anti-tank role' not exclusively, as the report at the end of the web page shows. They didnt build 75mmL24s in addition to 75mmL48s. They went to a heavier weapon for a purely infantry support role. This really only shows the Germans felt ALL stug 75mm HE weapons could be improved upon. I guess the soviet SU122s and US Priests with thier 105mm needed to be matched. Thats why I find it interesting. Why do you? Lewis PS The greater variety of ammunition this howitzer could fire would have been an additional capability. I assume it would be able to fire all 105mm ammo a normal german artillery piece would fire (Giving it timefused capabiltys). I would also assume that it was only used by sturmartillerie units exclusively.