Maastrictian
-
Posts
374 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maastrictian
-
-
10 hours now!!
--Chris
-
An interesting idea. I think half points is a bit extreme. But IIRC it was something of standard practice to shoot vehicles until they burned, this might make that more common in CM games. Say 100% points for burning vehicles, 90% for knocked out, 80% for abandoned. This may skew game even more infavor of the attacker though.
--Chris
-
I think the analogy works a bit better if you are in car filled with gasoline and high explosives. Not only should you get out of there, but enough small bullets will hit something flamible.
--Chris
-
Your C code could even be incorporated into the CMMOS to change from hi_res origionals to lo_res copies on the fly.
--Chris
-
-
I'm in for $20.
Manx, have you considered setting up a pay-pal donation link on your page? Check out www.paypal.org, that is my prefered method of payment and if it was on your page you might get donations from CMers who like your page but don't check the forums regularly.
--Chris
-
As I am a Red Blooded Capitalist American I do not use mods and can tell you that white is the default color for all mines signs.
--Chris
-
Lets see... slightly less than 6 years of war, five reenforcement slots plus the onboard slot makes six. I think CMPlayer is on to something!
--Chris
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
You appear to be mistaking frequency of use with availability.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whether I am or not, you seem to be:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Tripods existed. They were issued. The scale of issue reduced as the war advanced. *They were in widespread use, across multiple theatres of war*. They were not considered an oddity - the pictures showing training on them indicate that IMO. As the war progressed they were used less often, because the pace of operations precluded their use.
[snip]
*I have no idea how often they were used* but I can point out that Michael and Ben have both indicated they were available for use. The pictures I've provided indicate that they were widespread.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(emphasis added)
The question at hand, as many have pointed out, is one of use, not of avalibility. Your photos go some way towards proving avalibility, but not towards proving use.
--Chris
-
Argh -- a bit of a crisis at work, I won't be able to come.
Apologies to all!
--Chris
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:
perhaps you can even have your AT gun nail your own tank?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've never seen actual HE or AP shells being fired on friendly targets. I wouldn't rule it out of course. I'd be interested to hear if this has happened to anyone.
--Chris
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan Fredriksson:
Was the firing squad only doing a quick desertion, then coming back into line?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At night or (less so) in foggy conditions squads have been known to mis-identify their friends and fire at them, both in CM and in Real Life. Hence the origion of the phrase: "Friendly Fire"
In general the higher the quality of the troops the less chance there is of this happening.
--Chris
-
I will attempt to clarify and condense the arguements so far. Yes, I realize I will fail
There seem to be three issues at hand here.
1) An issue of how to conduct historical research. What consititutes suficient evidence to show that something is true. Brian: Do you belive that a small number of photographs and one or two accounts are sufficient to draw larger conclusions from?
2) An issue of how much the Bren tripod was used durring world war two. Brian (and everyone): Please clarify for us what exactally you belive.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
I was pointing that, by returning to my original comment than I am not some cavalier zealot - rather I have become increasingly convinced with each piece of research that has come to light and been posted, either by myself or others, that the use of the tripod was more widespread and for a much longer period than I, again, at least, had understood.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what do you now, currently, belive? You state that the Bren was used infrequently after 1940. So, to clarify, what exactally are you saying?
Do you belive that in the following years and regions the Bren Tripod was used with the following frequencies:
North West Europe
1940 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1941 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1942 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1943 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1944 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1945 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
Southern Europe
1940 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1941 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1942 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1943 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1944 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1945 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
Pacific Theater
1940 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1941 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1942 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1943 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1944 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
1945 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent
I define my frequencies as follows:
rare -- Isolated incidents and units. No consistant use at any organizational level.
uncommon -- 1 tripod per battalion.
common -- 1 tripod per company.
v[ery]common -- 1 tripod per platoon.
frequent -- 1 tripod per section.
Feel free to give a range of values or even to not answer certain time periods if you don't know. There is great honesty in admiting you don't know.
I belive that the central arguement against your posts (please correct me if I'm wrong) has been that Bren tripod use was "rare" (a I define it) in North West Europe in 1944 and 1945. If others belive that they can characterize Bren tripod use for other times and regions please do.
3) (remeber, I did say three issues way up there) An issue of what level of rarity makes inclusion in CM manditory. This issue has mostly not been dealt with in this thread, but it was central to other threads on this subject, so it is included for completeness.
--Chris
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:
The closest analogy I can use from personal experience is my training in the field of paleontology.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's another paleontologist on the formums?? What's your interest? I'm into dinosaurs myself, mostly K-T boundary stuff.
--Chris
(sorry for the off topic post, at least its not a flame
) -
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
[/qb]
A good example is that of one of the first Tiger I's knocked out in Tunisia. It was done with a 6 Pdr firing solid shot. Highly unlikely, impossible, most wargamers would say. Yet it happened. The only reason why we know about it is because it was very well documented. Yet, if no one else had been around to see it, if it had happened on a lonely road in the middle of no where, that gunner would be told by some around here that his experience counted for nothing - purely because it wasn't corroberated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's true. We would not belive the veteren could be correct because, as you point out, other evidence (armor penetration values of the 6lber) make it highly unlikely.
A lot of veterens have said alot of things. Sometimes, heck often, those thigns are provably false or mutually contradictory. As historians we have to assume that any single account is incorrect unless we have a strong reason for trusting the source. So, as historians, we would be correct in saying that the veteren is likely wrong when he claims he knocked out a Tiger with a 6lber, if there is no suporting evidence.
What the most members of this board are looking for when a new feature or change to the game is proposed is evidence. Not a single piece of evidence from a single source, but multiple pieces from multiple sources.
--Chris
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg42 gunner:
This topic is not debating blood in cm but simply asking if a blood mod has been made ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To answer your question, no this has not been done. It is not possible because the bmps "alive" and "dead" infantry use are the same. Please do a search for "blood" or "bodies" with member number 42 to see why most members of this forum are oposed to such a mod in anycase.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Also looking for a mod tha creates splashes when a shell lands in water.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is not possible as splashes would require a 3D model.
--Chris
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holien:
JasonC wrote:
"As for the typical uber finn distraction, there are several problems with it."
This is a bit harsh when all people are doing is offering some very plausible explanations for where Ammo has gone and what allowances should be made with your model.
I don't know the history of the "Uber Finn" remarks and calling it a "distraction" is IMO belittling someone who has gone to the trouble of offering information which is useful.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "Uber Finn" thing is a running joke on the board. Some Finnish nationalists site examples of whole Soviet divisions being held off by the merest hint of Finnish prowess. The Finns rarely used weapons at all, they considered it unsporting. You get the idea.
As for "distraction," Jason does on for a long paragraph countering the arguements presented and basically saying they are not relevant because the ranges involved are very short as oposed to the long to medium ranges being discussed.
Whether Jason's counter-arguement is valid is a whole 'nother issue. I just don't want the discussion to get side tracked by other concerns.
--Chris
-
You really can't put anything past those sneaky winzip people. They put their program in a self-extracting file.
--Chris
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence:
The folks who work there purport to be monks aand wear habits but arent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow, I'd go even if there weren't going to be cranky grogs there.
--Chris
-
Oct 5th works for me. A manhattan meeting might be most central (and it doesn't hurt that I live on 14th st
). I'm not familiar with area gathering spots though.--Chris
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by New Age Santa:
Btw, I'm not criticising CM or BTS, I am just curious about the issue of accuracy at long range and extreme range in CM, so I used the 88 and 75(I think) as reference weapons to begin with, the tests are still far from over. I plan to test all armor and support weapons at long and extreme ranges and then compare them with real life statistics.
This will, of course, take quite a while.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fair enough. It is known actaully that there is a minimum hit percentage that CM will not go below, no matter what the range. So I am willing to bet that, at 3km range, a 2.5% hit percentage is actually a bit high rather than low. But I don't have any real life figures infront of me. I will leave that to the real grogs and their uber-expensive books
--Chris
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by New Age Santa:
Just illustrating the limits of the 88 in the CM engine, and perhaps showing those who were wondering about the accuracy of the 88 in CM some clear cut stastistics.
Also, to show if what CM represents is really how accurate the 88 is. 40+ shells to kill one target from extreme range seems a bit much, especially with a elite crew.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can you point us to some real life hit percentage figures at 3km range?
--Chris
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:
Just look at the hit change in the LOS display. Works even in the editor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That doesn't take into account crew exp, IIRC.
--Chris
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay SuperTed or MadMatt...
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
He's posting now! I can sit here and hit reload all night if I have to
--Chris