Mannheim Tanker

Hehe...I'm a quantitative researcher, and I'd agree with you. Good points! Subjective data is tough to express quantitatively without misleading anyone. As far as snipers/sharpshooters in CM, many people have brought up some good references and points that suggest they were much more important at smaller scales than the global scale. I wouldn't want to put a number on it, though EDIT: Spelling [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-20-2001).]

Actually, I think what Michael is disputing is the implied level of precision that your numbers provide. If this were submitted to a scientific (peer-reviewed) journal, I'd bet that every reviewer would dispute your arrival at those numbers. Your abstractions are valid (and quite interesting, I might add), but impying a level of precision beyond that which the data supports is misleading. When in doubt, it's probably best to just leave the abstractions as, well, abstractions.

At least I can 'win' at sex occasionally! LOL!

Therein lies the rub; the TacAI probably isn't capable of determining hull-down status any better than it currently can with the Hunt command. As others have stated, hull down status is very relative. You might be hull down to a particular part of the battlefield in one position, but move forward 10 feet and you're suddenly no longer hull-down to that location. I can't envision how any additional command can do this better than Hunt already does. You asked a "real" tanker's opinion, so here it is: IRL, we acheived hull down as follows: TC: "Driver move out" Gunner, looking through his sights, waits until the target becomes visible over the hill/obstruction/berm/etc. Once in view: "Identified! Driver stop!" That's it...nothing more to it. Using Hunt does JUST this. No need for another command IMO.

Ahem...and there were several before yours! Double Thief!

Speaking of civility, Tom: When in hell are we going to play that long-awaited TCP/IP game? Send me an email when you're ready - or are ya chicken? (MT trying to change the subject...)

-Doug Be sure to read part two "Thanks for the Memory" also... Thanks for the great link, Doug. Edit: HTML fix [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-14-2001).]

...prowess at Combat Mission! Perhaps I can really rake in the babes if I show them how well I can use my Panzers, or even my big...

See, this is exacly the argument I've heard against getting >128MB RAM for Win98. Now I'm really confused, considering this flies in the face of advice given above. Not trying to doubt you, Soddball; I'd just like to clarify this matter. My experience with Win98 tends to support your side of the debate. It's almost as if the infamous Windows98 memory leak kicks in somewhere between 128-192MB, as I've noticed considerably different performance in software at work (Not an app like Word, but rather mapping software). Significantly better performance on an NT box with 192MB than on a Win98 box with 128MB. This involves data sets of varying sizes, from a few KB to >200MB.

Thanks for the info, Col. I'm currently using a PII-450 with 128MB and a 32MB Matrox card. Interestingly enough, since upgrading from a 16MB card to the Matrox, I haven't experienced any of the "freezes" that you did when rotating the view, despite having only half the RAM (actually one quarter of your upgrade). There might be something else at play here besides memory...I'm still strongly thinking of getting another stick of 256 though. Maximus, can you simply substitute a stick of DDR RAM for a SDRAM stick? Forgive me if this is an ignorant question - I'm still getting my feet wet with the hardware end of PCs (it's been mostly software experience up until now). I'll do some detailed research on my own, but I'd like to get the opinions of all of you gurus too

Hehe...I'm in agreement with you on this point! Thanks for the info, Schrullenhaft. That's probably the best clarification that I've heard to date, and explains a lot of the 'conflicting' advice that I've heard regarding RAM and Win98.

Colonel, what OS are you using? I've heard from several sources that Win98 doesn't benefit from anything >128MB. I'd love to resolve this question, as I've heard conflicting evidence from both sides of the argument.

...the grill for making parking easier in those hard-to-maneuver spaces. Of course, if her bag falls off, you still have yours on. If that falls off, you'd better...

Probably not, but that's not their intended purpose. Hidden minefields aren't designed to inflict massive casualties, and Daisy Chain (on top of the ground) mines even less so. Their purpose, as MarkIV stated, is to funnel an enemy into a kill sack, or alternately to deny him 'good' terrain. As we were taught in 12B school, their main purpose is to slow, stop, or reroute an enemy attack. If the terrain allows it (especially heavily wooded or swampy terrain), they work as advertised in CM. The same goes for AP mines.

Guns are VERY effective if you place them wisely. It's best to set them up so that they have a "keyhole" shot across a likely avenue of attack. I think that many people lose them easily when they set them up in prominent locations (IE where they can be seen from a wide area).

...you wake up in the back seat of some stranger's Honda Civic, still wearing the same clothes you had on the day before (at least most of them). There you are: shirt on backwards, three empty MadDog 20/20 bottles on the floor, and some chick that looks like...

As one of your regular opponents, Jake, I'll offer a few thoughts on this topic. Do I play to win? Sure, but it's not my all-encompassing goal. If that were my goal, I'd just play the AI, since I have a much better chance of beating Hal! LOL! My primary goal of PBEMs is to have fun, swap some good jokes, and try to play my best while doing so. If I happen to win while playing, then great, if not, no big deal. Chalk it up as another lesson on my now-infamous impatience. I appreciate a good move on my opponents' part as much as I do my own moves (One of my opponents has a history of humiliating my forces with ripped up, smaller units...amazing how he pulls them together.) I'll usually play to the end, even if I can't win. If I can still cause damage or slow down my enemy with some ambushes, artillery, or potshots, I'll do so. If I can't even manage this, I won't bore my opponent with non-turns (IE I have no orders, because all of my men are panicked and crying for mommy). I'll continue to play under even these circumstances if I know that my opponent is NOT bored yet... To date, I've only surrendered once that I can recall. In short, my favorite opponents are those that can exchange some witty banter along with some good gameplay.

...the expected gamey jeep rush. Just then a spotting round from an 81mm mortar fell perilously close to the Paras' positions. The commander looked around, then ordered,"Quick men, bring up the..."

Yeah, I've noticed this trance-like state as well. One thought: often times the tank just sits there without even returning fire. Perhaps it just can't spot the location of the gun, and therefore doesn't know which way to retreat. In this case, it seems realistic to hesitate...it certainly is annoying, however, when they trade shots with a know AT position.

In my experience with Crocs in CM, you don't specifically target the flamethrower. Just get in close to the enemy (within the range of the flamethrower - I forget what it is at the moment), and the croc will usually flame the crunchies on its own. Note that the croc will NOT use its flamethrower if you lose the TC...I found that lesson out the hard way. ------------------ "Oooh, tough crowd. A real bunch of nihilists. Let them eat chads..." - Lawyer (who else!?)

I agree...that's one of the few things I'd change about the interface. BTW: Love your sig!

Having been in a real tank unit, I'd actually argue that the player in CM has a lot more control over his units than a real commander does. As has been said above, the commander really only gives fairly general orders (IE "Advance to Phase Line Apple, move out! 32, speed it up, you're lagging behind!") The player simulates several layers of command, but in the end, it's best to leave some of the freedom to the TacAI, as it is best equipped to simulate the split second decisions made by the TC or squad leader. I experience enough micromanagement at work [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-08-2001).]

Mr. Rogers poked his head into the Cess Pool. "Hi, neighbor," he said, putting out his hand. Do you mind if I...

Hehe...good one! Hey, if you find out how to stop sucking at CM, let me know. I could use a few lessons Hello motherly figure.

Not necessarily. IRL, the men are walking in some formation (wedge, column, etc). If they're keeping proper spacing, they'll never lose contact with HQ. Messages get passed back and forth through the formation (IE psstt...pass it on) either by word of mouth or through hand signals. This works around corners and in rough terrain (woods, etc) as well as in a straight line The TacAI simulates this through your contact lines with the HQ - unless you string your units out too far. Pretty realstic already if you ask me... [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-08-2001).]