Andreas

Funnily - 49th Recce is the first scenario I ever did, and I have not changed it. Seems to have stood the test of time well, if I may say so myself Regarding the suggestion on quality control, to 'join' a designer group. Not wanting to sound elitist, but Die Sturmgruppe, the group operating through Der Kessel, is invitation only. Nobody will stop anyone setting up their own group though, which is what Dick Reece did with Die Sturmgruppe.

AT Guns really need to come in batteries. A single gun won't do much good. They should also open up as a battery if at all possible. Regarding switching even before the death-clock kicks in. Larger calibre guns do that now. See an 88 fire on a KV-1. If it gets a penetration it will switch to the next target, because the crew knows that a penetration is pretty much a guaranteed kill. With the smaller guns you can not rely on that. Hence the need for batteries. What either of us would have done as a gunner on a single gun is neither here nor there, since that sort of deployment is bordering on the criminally incompetent. You get what you pay for - if you go for cheapo single guns with your left-over 36 points, you should not expect them to do a lot for you. You pay peanuts, you employ monkeys - as true in CMBB as it is in real life. If you are serious about your AT defense, you invest enough to get four to eight guns.

He's a kraut in london trying to do at the beginning of the new century what fat Hermann couldn't do in the middle of the last century. I think that sums it up nicely</font>

Only if they burn. Regarding the wider point - you can now drive right on top of an enemy position and debus there. It is pretty spectacular to watch. I am quite sure you could do so in CMBO. The problem with shock and surprise is that in a CM battle, your opponent or the AI is not going to be shocked or suprised by your sudden appearance - they know you are out there. The HTs use their MGs when rushing forward I think. How you can use the AA mount in the rear while driving towards an enemy position is anyone's guess. If you have seen a Real Life Sdkfz 251, I would be interested in how 10 guys are supposed to be shooting from it? Seems a bit cramped to me. Also not sure if I wanted someone to start throwing grenades from a driving cramped HT. Famous last words 'Dang, I dropped it...'

[shrug] Berli, why bother. It is just another one of those uninformed rants, and there is just no point trying to explain anything. Clearly he has insider information about compatibility issues between the US and the CDV version that none of us possesses. [/shrug]

Carell was in no outfit. Unsurprisingly, he lied about his background. He never got near the front. His job was chief of propaganda for the Nazi foreign office, an SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer, and member of the Nazi party since 1931 (before the Machtergreifung - i.e. he was a committed Nazi). He was also chief editor of Signal, purveyors of Nazi war porn in colour since 1940. His real name was Schmidt. How all this affected his writing and the historical accuracy of it, I leave up to the readers to judge. Here is the information in German.

You think you were skeptical, you should have seen the reaction of the SLS (Sherman Lovers Society) on Tanknet and Onwar. It was interesting that while everyone there expected the Sherman to be substantially cheaper no one had any figures proving this. Source is Mark Harrisons 'Accounting For War' Part of the problem could have been the 'cost plus' system that the US government setup with military manufacturing companies.</font>

Single crewmen currently stay with their gun when all others are incapacitated. Once they have become incapacitated, it would presumably be a bit hard for them to get back to the gun unless the fights stops to allow them to reconvalesce fully?

Keth, I guess it is time to again link it in the sigs... First of all - you are the brainy one, which is why you do the depot, and I just do random scenarios I have no idea how coding works, except that in the case of your site it is certainly very complex. I understand that a blank slate approach would not work due to the need to preserve the historic ratings. Some ideas I had for a while: - weigh the replayability score at '0', since most battles I come across (and all I do) are not designed with it in mind, and in some cases it is actually impossible to achieve that aim, because it will restrict the use of features in the scenario (how often are you going to be surprised by that 88 over there? Once FOW is gone, it is gone for good). - Have an overall score (additional to the current average) that just shows what you thought about it. A bit like some reviewers do now in the written part of the review). Just some thoughts - as I said, I think the Depot is a great service to the community and the designers, and you have gone far beyond the call of duty in setting it up and running it. Regarding the idea that you force people who submit to review - I think it is unworkable, and undesirable. I only have a limited amount of time for CMBB. I use that on CMMC and for designing scenarios. I usually play little, and I could not fulfill that request at all, especially since many of my games are for testing other peoples work-in-progress, making reviews impossible. I could see if I can get around drafting a rewiew guideline document, and I would put that up here for consultation. I certainly would not want to do it myself, because of my biases when it comes to design. So, thanks again for all the help over the last year or so. Keep it up mate.

Who is this German boy, and who does he rule?

I agree that the averaging of sometimes incompatible ratings in different sections is not helping the review process, because people tend to rate a scenario highly in them, in order to not trash the score. Maybe now with the switch to CMBB this should be looked at - once there are hundreds of reviews of CMBB scenarios, it will be impossible to switch to a better system.

...besides which, the choice was to use the wrong models, or not to have the diverse range of types representing a stage in the development of the technical philosophy of the AFV at all... I wish people would understand that those were the choices.

Repeat after me: 'The graphical model was substituted, not the data for the vehicle.' If the vehicles had closed-top armour, I am sure that the game models them with that. Check the unit window.

Tanks ready to roll, 12. PD 21st June 41 Ia/Ib - 53 II - 34 38(t) - 117 IV - 30 Total 234 So, more two than IV, and still a very high number of Panzer I. 11th December 1941 Ia/Ib - 8 II - 5 38(t) - 13 IV - 7 Total 33 (oops...) Manpower losses (for good measure, including sick cases evacuated) - 552 officers and 13,394 ORs out of 521 officers and 18,166 OR (the division seems to have been significantly overstrength for the start of Barbarossa. Just an indication of what the first five months of Barbarossa did to the Wehrmacht (remember, that is when they were winning most of the time).

Ooops, did I write 3 guns per battery 7,5cm? When I write '3', I mean '4'... Having said that, Fernando's and my source disagree with the number of batteries. I very clearly have 3 batteries of 7,5cm guns per battalion in the 1st and 4th GJD. Fernando, any idea what the chap uses as his source?

OK, what's a frozen meat medal?</font>

Well, it is thread's like this one that make me wonder why I should bother at all... Another issue is the lack of people reviewing scenarios on the depot - I still find it frustrating, and I have probably received more feedback than many other designers. Having said that, I also agree that operations are the way to go in CMBB. They are the only real way to add value, I think. Unfortunately they also take a long time to produce, and the outcomes are much less assured than they are with scenarios. Which means that my output at least will be far less than it used to be. The quick battle function, combined with rarity and automated purchases gives you quite nice realistic games, and you do not deliver yourself into the hands of a designer for the outcome of a competitive game.

What's the bloody point [rant deleted] I guess we should just feel sorry for you Jim, since you obviously suck very bad at playing CMBB. Reminds me of a child destroying inanimate objects in frustration. I guess it is always easier to blame somebody else. Please never bother posting a review of any of my scenarios at the depot - I don't give a flying monkey's what you think either. [ October 13, 2002, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

One spotter represents a battery - but there is no spotter with 3 75mm tubes for the Germans. what you could do is use a 6 tube spotter for them, and have him represent two batteries. My source is not online, in German and out of print. No idea if you can find something better. In general artillery is badly covered on the web. It is just not as 'cool' as Panzers or the Waffen-SS. Que posso dire? As the Italians say...

Regular? </font>

Observation, even. Unteroffizier Biermann, Beobachtungsabteilung 26, Baltic States and Leningrad/Wolchow June 1941 - Feb/March 1944. Then seriously wounded (Heimatschuss - he still carries the bullet around), served the war out in Denmark, near Viborg. Deserted shortly before the end, and walked home, arriving in June 45 as the first returning soldier in the village. Decorated with EK I, EK II, Verwundetenabzeichen and the infamous Gefrierfleischorden.

The GJs used a fair amount of Leichtgeschuetze (RCLs) in the arctic. They also had 75mm mountain artillery. The war TO&E for 4th GJD in 1941 gives it: 3 Batteries @ 4 guns each 15cm sFH 3 Batteries @ 4 guns each 10,5cm lFH 6 Batteries @ 3 guns each 7,5cm mountain guns The Soviets had their usual divisional artillery, as far as I understand. I.e. 76mm and 122mm.

Regular? Basty (may I call you Basty?) - nice blast from the past.

German Shepherd's Pie, maybe?

We aim to please, as they say in the Royal Artillery. Say, were we playing a game??