Maastrictian

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: WASTAGE WASTAGE WASTAGE <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point (and rather susinct too ). Don't forget that the Germans didn't have uber-logistics. They would have had some wastage too. I think it is reasonable to supose that the allies had more wastage -- they had farther to bring their weapons (at least those made in USA/Canada). It would be interesting to know how many allied smgs ended up at the bottom of the atlantic due to U-boats. --Chris

IIRC the type of HQ unit has no effect on any benifit except for command radius. Radius for a battalion HQ is about 2x larger than for a platoon HQ. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage: Now the gun is identical to the pak 88mm in c-mission. Except it is minus the face shield. that is what made me think it was indirect fire, as without a face shield even enemy rifle fire would cause the cre to abandon their gun. so what is it? Another question. In a book I saw a picture of a stug 3 it said " the stug 3 assualt gun was a popular infantry support self propelled gun" I was wondering does this make all AFV's self propelled guns? or what please tell. And my final question. why does the m7 priest have a 50. cal (and why is it armoured) mounted on it if it was meant to be in the indirect fire role up to 1 mile behind the front. Likewise for the brittish sexton and the german hummel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1. The 88 was a gun for all occasions. It was used as artillery (indirect), AT gun, and flak gun. The gun was often mounted in different ways though, acording to its role. Wheels/no wheels, shield/no shield. Guns without the face shield were often pressed into service as AT weapons however. This displeased their Luftwafe crews. 2. A "self propelled gun" is an AFV with a big gun that is not mounted on a turret. An assault gun is a sub-type of a SPG that is meant for direct fire. The Hummel is an SPG that is not an assault gun. 3. Even though the SP artillery units are not meant to ever see the enemy, sometimes they are forced to. A machine gun is pretty cheap. I think that is the designers logic. --Chris

New York, NY, USA --Chris

Landmarks can be created in the scenario editor using ctrl-left click in the Map screen. Its not arrows, but its the first half of what you are talking about. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Subvet: This question has probably been asked, but the search function isn't working (does it ever work anymore???). What is the firepower rating, at various ranges, for the MG pillbox and bunker?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the record the search function does work, just not 100% of the time. It seems to do best with a shorter period (last 30 days) or a less general search. Anyway: IIRC fortifications are assumed to be equiped with a standard MG-42 HMG. Bunkers have 1 MG and pillboxes have 3 or 4 (can't remember. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uedel: here is the Technical data of the German Bratwurst: lenght 16cm (u see longer then your P**** :cool: ) diameter 13mm weight 120 gramm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I fear you are horribly, horribly incorrect and I am forced to correct your non-groggy ways. You see, a 1.3cm bratwurst that is 16cm long has a volume of: (.65 * .65) * 16 = 6.76. Assuming that Bratwurst slightly heavier than water (say 2g per cc) it rapidly becomes clear that your weight is off by a factor of 10! :eek: Unless of course you are refering to the ultra-dense uranium bratwurst, but that was only a prototype at the end of the war and will not be covered in CMBB. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig: What I try is to find a way, easy to implement, to simulate this often obscure but crucial work by engineers. The idea just came as I was re-reading "Bagration 1994" by Steven Zaloga (Osprey campaign series Nr 42, ISBN 1-85532-478-4). Page 33 (emphasis is mine): "(...) Two critical, but often overlooked, Soviet advantages were engineer support and logistics. (...)" The author then discribes shortly why this support was crucial to the initial success of Operation Bagration (for instance river-crossing, swamp-crossing, etc). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no doubt that this support was important on a operational or strategic level... but on a tactical level? Your quote talks about an entire, army level, campain, I fail to see how it applies to CM. Its very important to realize that you will be able to get all the effects you are asking for (and more) from the scenario editor. Its unreasonable to expect that the QB map making process and force selection process should model all situations. That's what scenarios are for. --Chris

General Forum --Chris

CM2 pics --Chris

Somebody want to ID those models? I recongnize a few, but I'm sure that some people here can tell me which factory each tanks was made in. --Chris

In general you can pass three vehicles abrest on a paved road, two on a dirt road. The key is to have the passed vehicle stationary if possible and to plot the movement points very finely. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bowman74: Nope, sorry this does not hold water and I wish I had seen the earlier threads and shot them down there. Stars! is a much earlier WEGO game (predating CMBO by several years) and was implemented exactly as I described. How does cheating not happen? Because there are tons of sites out there that host the game and the turns are automatically generated by the server (hence why there needs to be a command line way of doing it with no interface). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately you are comparing apples to oranges. CM is (if I may say so) designed for the mass market. Stars (which I've actually played btw), is not. CM is being released in '01. Stars was released *5 years ago* when cheating was much less of a problem. CM is a single or two person game where having a central server is not needed. Stars is played with up to 16 people. The problem with a central server is that 1) bts would have to host it and 2) any non-bts servers would only be as secure as their admins. Once you give one person the power to process all turns the game becomes insecure. If you read the thread I linked BTS specifially rejected any scheme where one person would be doing all the processing. Whether you agree with this choice or not is moot, this is what BTS is going to do. --Chris

Zamboni --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bowman74: OK, have one. Can we please change the saved game format, it drives me crazy. We have a nice WEGO turn resolution but an IGO-UGO results viewing and orders submission phase. Drives me crazy because e-mail games take about three times longer than they need to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The reason they use the format they do is to prevent cheating. The process can be streamlined but not as much as you describe. Please see: PBEM turns (ahh, my first post) --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: I think this is already modeled through fanaticism. There is a chance that a unit will go "beserk" but the player doesn't know if or when it happens; the fighting effectiveness of that unit is increased. At least that's my understanding of how it works. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I definately think fanaticism does a good job of modeling this, though you are not likely to notice it. For instance, I recently had a 6lber open fire on a colum (5 tanks) of German tanks at 500m. Hey, I had a flank shot on a Panther, figured he would die honorably. The plucky little guy faced down all five tanks, slaughtering each and everyone of them, despite sustaining three minutes of direct HE from them. He took 4 casulaties, but that lone guy just kept fireing. If that's not beserk I don't know what is. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fernando: Pablo Ruiz Picasso was a Spaniard <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Picasso lived most of his life in Paris. (i'm glad we are discussing art, really brings the culture of the forum up a notch.) --Chris

Order them to "move" to the towing vehicle. Basically the same way you make infantry board a vehicle. --Chris

I'm having problems too, with IE. It works some of the time, but definately not all. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Maas says "the western allies weren't conducting the war in a way that produced many POWs", meaning apparently, broad front vs. pincer movements. But the Allies in the west took more prisoners than the Russians did. The Germans had 1 million missing in Russia, a portion of whom were KIA rather than POW, but 3 million missing overall, before the final collapse. In other categories, 2/3rds of the losses occurred in the east, but in prisoners it was 2/3rds the other way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting. As I said, I don't have any sources, this is just the impression I have from the books I have read. Some questions follow, the first of which is: -What are your sources for your data? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> He also says there were few pockets in the west. But 250,000 men were taken in Tunisia, 100,000 at Falaise, groups of 10,000 to 25,000 at a time in the fortress ports starting with Cherbourg, between 50,000 and 100,000 in the Colmar pocket, against the Alps, and on the order of half a million in the final Ruhr pocket. We can perhaps exclude the last as simply the end of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My intent was to say that the really large pockets were in the east. Tunisia is a special case, I was only speaking of western europe really. And with their backs to the sea I think we should expect a massive surender. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Pockets account for between 1/3 and 1/2 of the prisoners taken in the west. Broad front captures make up in time operating whatever they lack in scale on each occasion. What you see in the figures is 5 figures every month the Germans are retreating (quite low before that), jumping to low 6 figures for occasional large pockets. Of course, veterans also have said it was much easier to surrender in the west.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That doesn't really make sence. "5 figures every month the Germans are retreating," I assume you mean Sept '44 to May '45. That's 8 months of fighting at 50,000 a month? That's only 400,000 for the entire retreat due to broad front. If your figures are correct that implies that 1.5 million Germans were captured in pocket (strategic level) actions. -Can you please put up or provide a link to your figures? I would love to take my own crack at analysing the stats. -Also, how many of your 2 million figure POWs were taken Jan '45 to the end of the war? I bet most of the POW discrepensy can be acounted for by the preference Germans had to surendering to the western powers vs. Soviet Union. Thanks --Chris

I actaully rather like the current one: "Peng just challenged my newborn son andwill still lose." Just makes me picture the little tyke banging on the keys as Peng's tanks burst into flames. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Under 20yrs old - 43.0 million 30 - 39 yrs - 31.5 million 40 - 59 yrs - 14.7 million 60 & up - 6.2 million <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There were no Russians between the ages of 20 and 29? --Chris

Very good! Might I add one that you missed? Mod Pureist -- Belives that CM should be played as god (in the form of Steve and Charles) intended it, with no mods at all. Constantly tries to convince others that he has a perfectally servicable machine, he just likes it this way. Tried the MDMP-1 a year ago and found it interesting. Even played with it for a day or two before he found out that Steve doesn't use Mods. He's considering playing some user-created scenarios but feels it might be too dirty. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: On the subject of PWs, it is not true that they only occur in big pockets through successful operational maneuver. That is one way, sure. But they also happen a company and a battalion at a time, when a force is locally outmatched, runs out of ammo, gets cut off tactically, or succumbs to firepower tactics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I never said that POWs "only" occur in big pockets. In fact, I said the exact oposite: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian: Most POWs are not the result of tactical actions but of strategic ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The operative word there is "most." Because of the way the fighting was directed on the west front (broad vs. narrow front) there were very few large scale envelopements. So most POWs taken were from tactical level actions. But there were (I contend) much fewer total POWs in such situations. Consider (if the data even exists to do such a thing) the POWs taken by the western allies from June 6th to September 16th (from the normandy landings to the begning of Market Garden). Lets exclude any POWs taken from the Falaise (as I think we can all agree that this was a strategic envelopment). Take this number as a proportion of the total Germans engaged at this period of time. Now lets look at Kursk, a similar sort of campaign (looking very generally). Again look at the whole of the campaign, assault *and* pursuit, until the line stabalised. (I don't know the east war anywhere near as well as the west so I can't give dates). Total the POWs the Russians took. Find the proportion of POWs to total Germans engaged. My feeling (and I admit it is only a feeling) is that the Kursk proportion will be much larger than the western one. Anyway, my point remains that most POWs are taken at the strategic level. The exception is western europe b/c the allies were not conducting the war in a way that would cause them to take many POWs. I never said that POWs were *only* taken by strategic actions. --Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Chris, those are some good points and I agree with them mostly. I do suspect they would be more relevant to the East front than the West as that Theater seemed to see far more mass surrenderings than the West, at least up until the last few months of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would argue that my points are relevant to the whole war. I certainly agree that in Italy and in France and the low countries '44-'45 there is a much smaller difference between the "strategic" caluculation and the "tactical" one (with or with out POWs). But this is difference is a result of the terrain of Italy and the strategic choices in western europe (broad offensive vs. narrow one). So I would argue that the lack of difference between strategic and tactical figures on the west front '44-'45 is a result of strategic choices that caused there to be less mass surenderings, the cases I describe are still applicable. --Chris