Mikeydz

Exactly... It all depends on exactly what Smoker is doing with the jeep. If he's doing what beople on the newer .50 cal threads are talking about, then I would call it gamey. If he's using a jeep to haul to a point behind cover, and maybe while hidden drop off a zook teem then haul butt to another hidden area, then no, not gamey. Risky, but not gamey.

Here's my take of point three. Sounds like you are asking to take the place of the Strategic AI. You tell the AI to take the bridge, but it's up to the AI (OP and TAC) to figure out how to get there, and carry out the mission you gave it. Sounds interesting, but the problem is that until the Operational AI is beefed up, especially on the attack, more often than not, you be left cursing at the screen while the AI bumbles about trying to carry out the mission. I personally would prefer that co-op play with multiple humans on each side be implemented instead of allowing co-op play with the AI.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: No. That's exactly what I was taught to do at Ft. Knox. Only idiots and those with death wishes take a straight-line, Sunday stroll into enemy territory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think he's talking about zig zaging to different area of cover, using erratic maneuvers. To me it's sound like he's talking about sending a jeep to haul ass around in enemy areas, causing enemy troops to fire at the jeep, which of course reveals thier location to the player. He's expecting the jeep to die, but to hopefully spot some enemy. More than likely he'll call in artillery or mortar fire on the newly found troops.

Well, considering that you wouldn't realisticly expect to ever see a jeep crew go on a suicide recon mission in real life, high tailing it in enemy territory like that, then technically, yes, it would be considered by most players as gamey. some players would look kindly to you playing this way, but then there are others how won't care.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Hi Mark IV has been around here for longer than I have so now I'm confused... Mark IV, do your mean " Dead vehicles 'SHOULD' provide both cover and concealment (they stop bullets)."? Or are you suggesting in CM that the DO provide cover and concealment (they stop bullets)? As I understand the LOS system in CM smoke blocks LOS but not bullets, and any vehicle including pillboxes and bunkers do not block LOS or LOF ever, dead or alive. Its only the smoke, if they are burning that blocks LOS. Are we talking about the same things here? -tom w <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AFAIK, Dead vehicles do not provide any concealment or cover effects. Burning vehicles do provide concealmeant because the smoke does block LOS. But if your Sherman isn't imitating a zippo lighter, then don't expect any protection from it.

Go over to the CMHQ site. they have a Excel spreadsheet file that someone made that contains all the infanty and vehicle data in CM. The only thing not in that I recall is artillery unit data.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: *takes a deep breath* Unrealistic requests??? How is any request unrealistic as its a request - be it possible or no. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, your request if real, but what your requesting to be simulated would be unrealistic. Is that better semantics for you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ok I'm not normally inclined to get into these arguments as they're purile but hey with this one I'm going to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Up until this statement, there has been nothing childish about the arguement so far, except maybe the part where you chided Steve for taking the time to answer your question. So far everyone how is against your argument has pointed out that what you described as wanting to be able to do as being unrealistic, given the time scale and scope of battles that CM represents. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> During the retreat from the fronts (accelerating from Nov 44 on the west front) the speed of the retreat in area's generally forced the Germans to make use of immobile vehicles as static strongpoints whereby in other times these vehicles would have been recovered. /

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: Steve Actually I take offence at the "Gamey" comment - as my Concord Book - "Panther Tank" clearly shows a Tiger being recovered under battle conditions and then the Bergepanther recoving it is destroyed. I do not see it being gamey to remove the Panther to guard an objective point in an overwatch position (if I'm willing to risk the recovery vehicles) as the whole principle of objective flags is gamey in itself. I would appreciate perhaps a more objective approach from someone in your position rather than an off hand remark about a issue being gamey. Regards Craig <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I don't have a problem with Steve calling it gamey because it is gamey. At best it would be a rare event that a dedicated recovery vehicle would, in the middle of combat, go out and tow a disabled tank. Even rarer would be going out to tow the tank into another spot that would still be in dispute. And as far as the victory flags are concerned. Are they gamey? Yes. Do they serve a purpose, Yes. Most important is for the AI. If there were no victory locations, then how would you propose that the AI know what location is important for a given scenario? The Flags give the AI a goal for the Ai to try and obtain. Without them, the AI more often than not would locate the best defensive terrain, and hunker down in a defensive mode, not moving. So there is a difference between adding a gamey feature out of necessity (Flags) and adding one to satisfy some gamers unrealistic requests.

If I remember correctly, shells that hit a target can break up instead of penetrating, so I guess you can call those duds. I'm not sure if that only happens with AP type round, but I would assume that all rounds are subject to it, including HE.

Well, I'm sure Fionn and Moon will both take a peek and let you know the accuracy of the map.

I think I get the point. This is exactly why some of the "old-timers" and probably countless unknown lurkers, have abandoned the forum. Even with this simple post, the basis of senseless bickering has started to take hold. I'm not taking sides on this, but come on...

Good call Jager... You didn't like the game. You didn't buy the game. Thanks for letting us know.

Maybe your troops are being overly optimistic when reporting thier casualties to thier commanders... I'm sure it's on the list of things being looked into.

well, considering that Tcp-IP will involve less file exchanges, and since it's all automated, that it definatly will speed up gameplay. I think it will still take a good portion of an evening to finish a decent sized battle, but every little bit helps. Mikey

I was just wondering about allied winter graphics myself. I know Moon at http://www.gamesofwar.de/ noted that he was working on some, but that was a while back. I don't know what became of that. So how about it guys... Your kicking but with the new "normal" textures for both sides, but as far as winterized... I think the allies need some representation...

If your asking for the ability to add +25% or more troops to one side or both sides for scenario play, then this is already in the game, at least partially. See pg 11 of the manual. It's in the options screen when you are setting up the scenario, under play balance, IIRC. I don't recall what the exact choices you get, but I know the max is 150%. I think the only limitation from what your asking is that you can't apply this to both sides at the same time, you can eith boost the Allies up to 150%, or the Axis 150%, but not both.

Within the timeframe of a scenario or operation, I doubt that troops or tank crews would mount up onto abandoned enemy tanks and make use of them, but if these is sufficient documented cases where, let's say Panzer IVs were captured in battle, repaired and put into service on the allied side, then I have no problem with that. Of course, I would rather not add this if it takes time from CM2 development.

Oh, it's most likely loser... He is right about dial-ups getting different ip everytime they relog into the net, but I guess he doesn't realize that his ISP only assigns him an IP from the limited pool that they have available, and BTS can ban all of those without a problem. So his return will more likely be short lived, unless he wants to pay for accounts with every isp in austrailia so he can log onto the forus and amaze us with just how big an ass he can be. He'll be gone for good in a less than a week or so anyway, prob when his ISP gets an abuse notice and dumps his sorry account... BTW.. they won't give you a refund JP

You want anotgher chance, but you boast that you can't be stopped... Stupid...

I don't think ANYONE on here had much if any problems with the site... Everyone jumped JP's stuff after he told everyone to "get gassed". That was strike one. Strike two thru infinity was posting the picture. That was uncalled for. Now he's banned. Leave this issue alone. It has noting to do with any SS site. Geez

well, hopefully, at most, you'll take a short vacation from this thread. While I'm tempted to take a hiatus myself after tonight, that would be leaving the board to the infidels, so I must stay and do battle...

I know Moon has locked up threads before, so giving that power is possible, but I doubt they would give the banning power away...

I think that all the scenarios are compatible with 1.05... I think I might be wrong, but the issue is new scenarios are not compatible with the older versions. I think it's in the readme

The only reason I'm saying ignore it is so it doesn't keep getting floated to the top... The last thing I think BTS would want is new customers seeing that pic on this forum, so don't ignore JP is you think you must post, but don't post to that thread

Congrats... of course, once you get confortable, don't hesitate to ask around for a PBEM... that's where CM truly shines.