Mikeydz

Good to hear your going to buy the game. You won't be disapointed. And as a general CM site with everything you can think of in one place, CMHQ is the place to go...

To me, the looking over the enemy shoulder is borderline gamey, but it's just so cool to tab view onto an enemy tank while your troops are pounding it and watch it go boom! As for the "free to place" vs "scenario defaults" deference... When someone designs a scenario, he also sets up the starting locations for all the units on the map, for both the axis and allied players. When you choose the scenario default option, your troops, and your enemies, will start wherever the designer thought they should go. This placement may or may not be optimal, especially when you consider everyone has a different philosophy on play style. If you choose the "free to place" option, you and your opponent are free to place your troops anywhere you wish on the map, within the limits of the color coded setup zones. When playing a scenario, esp a historical based scenario, it's nice to try an play using the default setup. As you probably can tell now, there is a huge difference between the two.

I don't think Ben is arguing that the AP round would be ineffective, but that it's almost a waste of a round against a light vehicle. Shouldn't the Tiger use, assuming it has plenty left, an HE round, considering that penetration is pretty much a non-issue. Save the AP for any potential tanks that may come around the next corner. I haven't tested the new patch with the Villars scenario, so I don't know if what he's writing about is a true problem, but I think that's the gist of what he is saying.

As far as spotting is concerned.... Your aircraft will handle it's own spotting, so you do not have to have spotted an enemy unit with your troops first for it to be a valid target for your air support.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks for repling .I HAVE loaded Maasrticht tankers into the demo and plyed it several times. If no one belives me try it yourselves!!!For some reason it did not draw the main road? it just shows up white, and all tanks etc show EXCEPT the ones which are NOT in the original Demo. eg: Half tracks, Jagd panther, M8's etc. the Panther G shows up as it IS included in the Demo. GET IT?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes we get it. No, it won't work. You may be able to load and "play" the scenario, but the problem is that all the vehicles and such are hard coded into the game exe. The graphics and textures are seperate files so they can be modded, but the actual vehicle data and such is in the program itself. What you are seeing is basically the scenario telling the game engine... "This vehicle is a Jadgpanther." The engine is responding, "Pardon me, but what is a Jagdpanther???" Since only the vehicles that are in the demo scenarios were coded in, the game engine doesn't recognize non demo vehicles. It has no idea what textures to use to draw them, what weapons it has, armor values, ect. So your out of luck. Sorry.

Depends on how the game naturally ended, I suppose. If it naturally ended because 1 side is decimated, compared to the other, then I think the AI surrenders for you, which naturally doesn't do you score much good. If in naturally ended because both sides refuse to engage and manuever, then I believe that the AI is forcing a cease-fire, so the score probably is reflected by the actual damage inflicted/morale level. I checked the manual and found the auto-surrender, but not auto-ceasefire. IIRC, though, I know that it was discussed before that the AI would end the game if no action took place fore quite awhile. It's been a long time since I saw the reference, so I don't know for sure if it was implemented. I know I have never seen an auto-ceasefire.

Yep, sound contact... That's just an approximation of where your men that hear it think it's at. It could be closer or farther, but it definatly is not going thru the building.

A. Make sure your unit scaling is normal, not one of the magnified settings. B. The graphics are a representation of what's going on in the underlying engine, so while the graphics of the tanks may overlap and go partially into a building, or overlap other vehicles, they are not doing that as far as the game engine is concerned. As stated before, did the tank go right down the middle, or did part of the tank overlap into a side or edge of the building? I've seen it overlap partially, but I've never seen an AI or human vehicle go completely into a building.

I've never had much of a problem, as long as my men are fighting withing thier command structure, as long as your thinking and using your men as platoon size units, instead of just clicking and using your squads individually. Of course I'll have some units move and act individually (ie a half squad as a scout, zook/schrek guy hunting a vechile, ect, but as long are you keep your squards in relative close proximity, then they are easier to manage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although it doesn't do very much to the game as it's the western front I still feel it's wrong. I could be mistaken because I didn't serve in WW2 but then again I've never been on the moon but I know it's not made of cheese.. If they'll fix this (if it's broken that is) for the eastfront I'm happy. Could be interesting to have an official on this one, Steve, Charles ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There has been numerous "official" responses on this issue. The problem is not, "Are German optics better?" but "How much better are German optics?". At least as far back as the last time they commented on this issue, they did not have good data that quantifies just how much of an improvement the German sights had on targeting. Did they help 5%, 10% or more? Considering the battlefield conditions, they did not model the German "advantage" because at these close ranges, they were deemed irrelevant. How they will deal with it for CM2, I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm going to agree with Mark IV and even go one step further - don't bother. You know how pissed off we all get when someone comes on this board and tells everyone how much better CM would be if it was just like CC? Not everyone's going to like CM. Not everyone has to. It's not our job to propagandize people into liking CM. I think that people on this board do a wonderful job getting the word out, and that's great, but why waste your time trying to convert the heathens in the desert? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is an important differance between the post at this forum, and one at , say SSI's CC forum. This is a general discussion forum at The History Channels UK site. It's not like Mark T went into some other competing games home forum and expoused on CM's greatness. That's an open forum, so it's not anyones "home turf" so to speak. Of course, politeness and civility on any forum is always important, which so far is what we have seen. And if someone makes innacurate statements, like the respondent, then I see no problem with taking issue, in a proper manner, with those points.

Can I be your bitch in a PBEM Fionn? Err... ahhh... ummm...

To late for me to recreate your test, but a question.... Are the defenders in LOS and spotted at the begining of the turn, or are they hidden? The main thing I'm pointing out is that when the AI is attacking, if it doesn't see that there is enemy troops in the scattered trees, then it will blunder into the ambush.

What do you want him to finish? Writing up the Alpha AAR? As far as I can remember, he did... (Checking) Yep, 41 tense, nail biting turns, with a debrief by both Moon and Fionn, plus bonus commentary from Steve. http://combathq.thegamers.net/battle/aar.asp Or is there something else you want him to finish?

You know what... I think that Oddball is trying to develop an alibi, by playing ignorant. He must be the one who hacked and shut down the CMHQ Annex... Get Him!!!!!

Until thier morale recovers, they are out of control... If units are within the command radius of a HQ unit, especially a HQ unit with a the heart (morale) bonus icon, then they may rally faster. Otherwise, it's a waiting game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Me...... 1st, it's going to be very rare that a bofors vs pillbox matchup will occur, because since both units have very low/no mobility, they will generally only engage because they both "setup" with LOS to each other. Apex..... Sounds like your average QB in hilly terrain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I have yet to see an average game, since there are so many variables involved in LOS. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a map, where you get you happen to get a setup which results in LOS between an AA and a pillbox. Obviously it happened in your game. But with so many hills and valleys and trees, ect... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Me..... 2nd. In a head to head engagement, the pillbox generally will render ineffective the AA before the the AA can get the kill. Apex..... Wrong for two reasons. First, the AAA usually enters the battle "Hidden" thus it needs some time to be spotted. 30 seconds can be enough here. Second, if there is another high priority target such as a tank in the area, the TacAI will invariably attack this higher priority treat, giving the AAA all the time it needs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did you test this before declaring me wrong? Probably not so I tested this for you. I'll save the hard numbers but results were as follows... Both AA and PB start with LOS.... Pillbox won 72% AA Starts hidden. AA won 53% I only ran each test 20 times, so I'm sure the margin of erro is high, but I have a baseball game to go to so can test anymore right now. What does it prove? Getting the 1st shot can be very important. But also important is that the Pillbox can suppress, and then kill the AA faster than the other way around. SO it's much more important that the AA get the first shot to have a chance to live. But then again, almost every unit in the game depends on getting that first shot off faster than the enemy to have an edge. So this isn't exacly a relevation here. And as far as the the Pillbox targeting the tank example, I'll turn it around and say before the AA can kill the pillbx, a fighter-bomber comes on screen and the TacAI retargets it. Them's the breaks... We can go back and forth describing hypotetical scenarios if you want, but it's pointless. There are thousands of variations of scenarios where the AA will smoke the pillbox, and thousands more going the other way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Me..... 3rd. If the Pillbox has any support, then the AA is most likely dead meat. Apex..... Wrong again. The supporting units usually don't even have the time to react. I can send you the PBEM turn in question (we cancelled the game anyway because of this) if you'd like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once again, is this just a guess? Sure your PBEM file probably shows your supporting units failed to suppress the AA before it could get a kill, but war is hell. That is going to happen. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Me..... And if this is a QB, what are the odds of one side taking pillboxes, vs the other side taking AA guns.. Apex..... After people get wind of this? 100%. Look at patbovin's post above. patboivin..... AAA, here I come!! I have to give this a try, now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, so Pat is going to give it a try. What hell probably find is that if he trys to use the Bofors as a major offensive weapon, he is going to be disappointed. The bofors is a good AA asset, is incredible defending against infantry, and if it gets the drop on a pillbox, it can kill those too. I don't think that we are going to see anyone developing an effective "Bofors Rush" tactic anytime soon though.

Well, I was going to test the .50s effectiveness against the pillbox, but unfortunately, I couldn't get the .50cal to stay targeted on the pillbox. It won't target using target next, but you can manually target during the order phase. But the problem is the TacAI cancels the target order after the first burst, so you can't sustain fire on the thing. I doubt that the .50 should be as effective, at least as far as causing gun damage/knocking out. But I would think that it would have some small chance, with a slit penetration, of causing a crew casualty, or at least providing some suppressive effect on the crew. [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 08-20-2000).]

And how do you they haven't already started. It's not like all they have to do is write up some code... They have to start gathering all thier research, documentation, ect. Lay out some type of design goal, ect...

I think I know what's going on with your placement problem You need to do 1 of 2 things. 1. When creating your scenario, make sure you padlock the pillboxes to lock them down. 2. Make sure when you "play the scenario", make sure that you set the computer setup option to "stick to scenario default" I'm willing to be that will get the results you want

Regarding your problems getting the pillbox facing... I had no problems.. you have to use the rotate command to get it facing which ever way you want. Are you saying that the bug is the 40 wouldn't fire at the side or rear of the pillbox? Nope. not a bug from what I know... The reason the AA didn't fire is because there is zero chance, as far as the AA is concered, of penetrating the thick concrete sides of rear to get a kill. The only way the AA can get a kill is to get a slit penetration. Since it can't hit the slit from the side/rear, it's not gonna waste the ammo. Also, concerning the Bofors "kills" on the pillboxes. When I ran my test, I did not make an actual count of the numbers, but probably a good 90-95% of the "kills" were actually abandonments, after the AA caused gun damage, or causing a large number of casualties inside the pillbox. I just finished running another series of tests using an M36 anainst the pillbox. On average, it took 4.4 shots for the 36 to score a kill. But the difference here is that 90% of these "kills" are real (ie knockouts). Of course this is just my minds eye, and I have no clue if any real life tests were conducted using AA against concrete enplacements, but I can imagine that an AA gun spewing tons of lead at a pillbox will probably squeeze quite a few rounds into the slit, and some of those rounds will damage the gun/crew, as we see from the CM tests. Without any real life data to refute the possibility, how can we characterize this as a bug. We don't know... But here is the main point of this whole argument. Was what Apex witnessed a fluke? I say yes because it came about purely because of of the circumstances concerning the setup each side made, LOS, phases of the moon, ect. And if this is a QB, what are the odds of one side taking pillboxes, vs the other side taking AA guns...

Germanboy stated.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What do you try to say? These are not realistic? (shock horror, falls over, gasping for air, hyper-ventilating...) You, you can not be serious!!!!?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course it's not realistic. Realistic was me kicking your butt in the Demo.... You might be tougher now with your army of Gerbils backing you up...

Mr. Test here... I ran a test pretty much like you did. Bofors vs 75 and 88 pillboxes. All forces Regular. Distance approx 750m. Ran 100 test fires. On average, it took 5.89 shots to knock out/cause abandonment of the pillboxes. Average time was about 25 seconds. Now you might say... "Wow, the pillboxes are worthless, look how fast they die facing that AAA." I think you would be wrong. The only thing this has proved that unarmed pillboxes that have no friendly units helping are dead meat against the Bofors AA. I set up the same battle using a wooden mg bunker instead of the gunned pillboxes. While the AA won most of those match ups, the mg was able to suppress and pin the Bofors a couple of times. Using a 75 Pillbox against an unarmed Bofors, the AA was usually pinned by the 2nd or 3rd shot, in an average of about 25 second. So what can we conclude... 1st, it's going to be very rare that a bofors vs pillbox matchup will occur, because since both units have very low/no mobility, they will generally only engage because they both "setup" with LOS to each other. 2nd. In a head to head engagement, the pillbox generally will render ineffective the AA before the the AA can get the kill. 3rd. If the Pillbox has any support, then the AA is most likely dead meat. So sorry, but you don't get your PhD in CM-ology. [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 08-19-2000).]

Woo-hoo... Impressive list in the readme...

Another thing about men flying thru the air. Isn't that more of a hollywood effect than anything else. The most times that I can remember men "flying" because of an explosion comes from action films from Stallone, Arnold, or Van Damme. I think the true effects would be to gruesome to tactfully represent on screen. Even if we get to a 1 for 1 representation of men on the battlefield, I think that the current method of the fallen soldier just appearing at the spot would suffice.