Andreas

I think it does too. Sorry Sgt. Beavis, but what you think I said is emphatically not what I was saying. What I say is that whether the SPW 251/17 is represented by a PSW251/1, does not affect BFC's claim that CMBB is the most realistic wargame out there (I may paraphrase). Please show me a game that does simulate tactical WW2 combat more realistically if you have any issues with that statement. Of course it is not 'realistic' to portray the SPW251/17 with anything else but a model of the SPW251/17 - it would be idiotic to say otherwise. Thing is - BFC never claimed for CMBB to be 100% realistic, and they never said they would add all of the models.

I am here because I think the game can always be improved - that does not mean though that all requests for improvement are reasonable, IMO. Your's isn't Hortlund. But we are getting somewhere - now, does the fact that the SPW 251/17 is represented by the 251/1 diminish BFC's claim that CMBB is the most realistic wargame out there? I don't think it does - hence, IMO your expectation that all these models would be added in patches is unreasonable, based on nothing but muddled thinking on your part, and your inability to accept this makes you a whinger. There was never any indication let alone a statement by BFC that they would add all the models. You imagined they would because of some warped interpretation of what 'most realistic wargame' means in your mind. That is about as relevant as me imagining that BFC would pay me US$10,000 per scenario I have contributed to the CD. IOW - not very.

Oh I do understand that I am just more honest than you. I thought you would try to hide behind something like what you just said. Tried and tested technique. What you fail to understand about 'finished' is that CMBB was a project with a defined outcome. As such, the people who started the project set themselves targets and milestones. As in all projects, when the targets have been achieved, the project is finished. Whether BFC's targets are the same as your expectations is neither here nor there. If your expectations exceed their targets, it is your problem, not theirs (unless they have done something to make you expect all the things you do expect - which they did not). The almost total irrelevance of your opinions about the project status for CMBB means that to BFC the project can still be 'finished', even though it may not meet your exacting standards. Since I am quite sure that "meeting Hortlunds personal expectations" was not part of the deliverables for CMBB, I guess I am safe in saying that meeting them (or not) has no bearing on whether the product is finished. [ February 09, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Yes.

About as mature as calling those agreeing with BFC 'fanboys', wouldn't you think? It appears you have trouble taking it, but are happy to dish it out?

Personally, I think Hortlund is just a whinging bitchboy (the opposite of a rabid fanboy) who is depressed because of a lack of sun in his native Sweden. 'To bring something to an end' - so, by that definition CMBB is finished, because work has ended on it. See, dictionary says you are wrong.

From www.dictionary.com: fin·ish v. fin·ished, fin·ish·ing, fin·ish·es v. tr. </font> To arrive at or attain the end of: finish a race.</font>To bring to an end; terminate: finished cleaning the room.</font>To consume all of; use up: finish a pie.</font>To bring to a desired or required state: finish a painting. See Synonyms at complete.</font>To give (wood, for example) a desired or particular surface texture.</font>To destroy; kill: finished the injured horse with a bullet.</font>To bring about the ruin of: The stock market crash finished many speculators. v. intr.</font>To come to an end; stop.</font>To reach the end of a task, course, or relationship.</font>

You can't be - that is impossible.

1) 50% IIRC too 2) I would say 'yes', because the AI also does not play with FOW on. Therefore certain (a lot of?) types of scenario will be untestable this way.

We are still in the process of sorting out our billing. Maybe it was a mistake to outsource it to British Gas Centrica .

I agree that would be a good system, but how would this work in a WW2 environment, where handheld radios were rare, and well-working handheld radios for platoon commanders were slightly more rare than rocking-horse dung? You are going into a level of communication simulation that CM does not do. I hope that this will be done for the engine rewrite (makes note to self to raise it with BFC). Ideally we would have some armies with, some without handheld radios, with chances that the handhelds are not working depending on weather/terrain in a battle, and whatnot. An all-singing, all-dancing simulation of intra-company comms. Call it Combat Mission - Beyond Static Noise, or Combat Mission - My Runner Saved the Day.

Battlefield.ru has a list of what caused tank losses of T34s, IIRC. 20mm accounted for some percent.

Christ Steve, go to bed

Simple, the reason is that a real life mortarman is one of the beta-testers, and he said so. Once the mortar moves, it has to register again. Which it does, just not within the CM battle. If you don't move your mortar, it still fires on TRPs.

IIMU that that is correct. The 2-tube 150mm FOO is for a sIG33 battery.

Well, I think to throw about the mind-boggling numbers of support guns and batteries that a single RR had in the Berlin operation is really not particularly relevant on the CM level. In the assault stage of Bagration, the average density was 750 soviet riflemen in first echelon against 80 German riflemen defending in the assault sectors per km of frontage. That was before the barrage. The Soviets would bring tanks and SPGs to the party, on avg. 36 per km of frontage. The Germans can have a 1-2 Stugs or Panzers, and 2-3 artillery guns and another 3-2 mortars with little ammo. So that there are 178 Soviet against 5 German guns per km. Somehow I can not see many takers for that sort of game on the German side. More importantly, I think it would be about as exciting as playing a game where you attack a company of T26 with a company of Sturmtigers.

It doesn't.

Agree. I would guess two weeks max. </font>

Oh, so that's what it is! There I was thinking someone tried to make informed criticism based on some 'acquaintance with reality.' Silly me. I go and eat worms now.

IIMU BFC are moving to a complete engine rewrite of the CM engine once the final patch for CMBB has been delivered. Because of this, they will not be updating CMBO. Since they are resource constrained, they can either work on making some minor updates to a perfectly playable, yet several years old engine with no future, or work on a new, all-singing, all-dancing engine for future editions of CM. My guess is that you would have to offer them an awful lot of money to make them get back to CMBO, probably enough to guarantee their retirement and the college funds for the kids.

Agree. I would guess two weeks max. </font>

Regarding AI changes, IIMU that there were not a lot of changes to the AI. Some of the changes between CMBB and CMBO may seem like an AI change, but are really secondary effects of another change, e.g. the MG model, or the introduction of the fitness model, or vehicle moral and command structures. All of which I would gladly have given up for the chance to have one less email per PBEM turn. Errr... wait a second...

Always nice to hear an expert speak. Redwolf - there is a proverb in Germany 'Der Ton macht die Musik'. Your criticisms of the game and the developers are often not likely to get you a good hearing by them. I remind you of the statement you made here: "That is another one of these hasty CMBB features which have seen 1/10th of the thought and implementation effort put into them compared to most CMBO features.", which you subsequently edited out, either because you were embarassed by its morosity, or because you could not back it up I guess. It is ill-thought through assertions (or to put it more bluntly, talking out of your rear-end) like that which lead to you being taken more or less serious by BFC and others. More likely less serious. Think before you post, and if the statement does not add any value to your post, don't post it.

Well, with the right rounds, and at not too much distance, yes the lFH8 should be able to do the job. If I get the choice, I'd pick the K18 anyday though. Actually, if I get the choice I'd pick a job in the administration department of the replacement depot in Oldenburg

Not that anyone draws the wrong conclusions from that - the 10cm K18 could probably defeat the T34 from any angle. Penetration: 10cm Panzergranate rot(weight 15.7kg) mittlere Ladung: 602m/s MV (682?), 500m 112mm; 1000m 100mm armour penetration grosse Ladung: 822 m/s MV, 500m 155mm; 1000m 138mm armour penetration