Mannheim Tanker

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: ...I'm confused! Don't get me started on polyorchard..something or another. Is that when a tree has more than its natural share of spherical fruit or what? russelmz started rolling his eyes and said, "<big>NO SILLY!</big>...Polyorchidism, the ability to have...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...multiple...

I remember reading a website about the making of the movie when it first came out. The reenactors had several of their own vehicles - including a Marder which was used in filming the Ramelle battle. Perhaps they added a cover to their Marder, and that's what you're seeing in the Ramelle battle scenes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric Young: Two points I don't agree with: ------------------------------------------- <<1) Could not have the detailed ballistics and armor penetration algorithms going on in real-time. Would take a 2 GHz processor just to keep up. ------------------------------------------- //Yes, this can be done. And you only need a 400mHz machine to run it well. 3D graphics has more to do with the video card than the CPU. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, it's apparent to me that they can't. Every time you hit that "GO!" button and watch the computer "think" it's going through all of these calculations. If this is true, then how can these possibly be calculated on the fly using a 400Mhz machine when it currently takes several seconds?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: ...of...of...err? What was the subject again? Anyone?...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Something about sheep in the outback IIRC. Someone mentioned little balls dangling from...

Triumvir, have if you are looking for a more *realistic* wargaming experience (which is an oxymoron in itself...a game can never realistically portray war or the true feel of command), how is changing the time limit going to affect this? Command delays already range over 15 seconds in many cases (as they should). Anything under 60 seconds is just begging for micromanagement. I already know of many guys that take eons to do their TCP/IP turns because they feel the need to micromanage routes over every anthill and crater. Decreasing the turn length is just going to exacerbate this... Some people may actually want to micromanage the game. Many of us don't. If it was easy to make the change as an optional setting, then I say BTS should go for it. Since it would apparently be a bear, then I say they should leave well enough alone and work on more important issues (it's a long list!).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: How long do you think they would wait IRL for that mortar fire to start falling ? They are in the open, already under fire so it is fair to assume they have been spotted. And they know the enemy knows they know they have been spotted. I do think there should be some variation to that running to bit though. Instead of running they should also be able to use other methods of moving away from the spot. Like crawling. Now they seem to get pinned down and get more and more suppressed until they panic and flee. Ceterum censeo: something should be done to that "run to cover in the same foxhole with the enemy" quirk. Most annoying when you sneak/move troops ahead in preparation of attacking the position and the troops decide to jump the gun (and get killed) by charging ahead to take cover in the same patch of woods the enemy is in and you are about to attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, this isn't necessarily unrealistic. The standard drill in most armies when ambushed is to assault the enemy position in an effort to disrupt the ambush.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: How long do you think they would wait IRL for that mortar fire to start falling ? They are in the open, already under fire so it is fair to assume they have been spotted. And they know the enemy knows they know they have been spotted. I do think there should be some variation to that running to bit though. Instead of running they should also be able to use other methods of moving away from the spot. Like crawling. Now they seem to get pinned down and get more and more suppressed until they panic and flee. Ceterum censeo: something should be done to that "run to cover in the same foxhole with the enemy" quirk. Most annoying when you sneak/move troops ahead in preparation of attacking the position and the troops decide to jump the gun (and get killed) by charging ahead to take cover in the same patch of woods the enemy is in and you are about to attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, this isn't necessarily unrealistic. The standard drill in most armies when ambushed is to assault the enemy position in an effort to disrupt the ambush.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Randl: Watching the movie is one of my favorite parts of the game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Especially when you're killing my Poles, eh, Randl? Thanks for the tip on using view 8 - great idea!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nathan: just wondering how come fire doesnt put out any light. if a unit is next to a burning building or another burning unit it should be as visible as in the daytime. is this too hard to model or am i just missing it in the game. thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A search on "Dynamic Lighting" should fill you in on all the details. In a nutshell (going from my swiss cheese memory here), it's too much of a hit on the hardware, and requires a super fancy graphics card. Therefore the hardware requirements needed to do this were deemed too steep by BTS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: commanding peaks, from which observers could...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...probe for possible enemy penetrations. To guard against this, she...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beltfed: A few thoughts on grenades, btw not a grog, Grenades as stated above are not as powerful as depicted in most movies. It is totally possible to be standing next to one as it detonates and have the blast not hit you. It is rare but it has happened more than people suppose. They are meant to shock as well as injure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find it funny how they depict grenades in a lot of movies. The grenade comes lobbing in, and people get thrown through the air, but land without so much as a scratch. Have you ever actually seen a fragmentation grenade explode? It sure as hell got my attention...and that was just on a range! :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: No argument there but in the scope of CM a quick and hasty command arrangement can be done. Which though not perfect is better than isolated squads moving around without direction. This cna happen at the platoon level and not just coy and Bn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with that...there should still be a reduction in unit cohesion once the command arrangement has been restructured.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: Gentlemen, As a good officer I must agree with a fine Snr NCO. Troops (quality depending) are trained to respond to rank...all rank, not just the ones in their chain. I've seen re-grouping done in a trench dog-fight. If two remnant sections (or as Yanks call em squads) happen onto a Platoon Sgt or Platoon Commander from the same Bn they will: 1) Recognize him and 2) Do what he says as long as it isn't suicidal. They can be coordinated in short order (a few minutes) and will perform much better than when left alone. Platoons know each other and even if all else fails, when the sh@t hits the fan they will be drawn to someone who is suppose to be in charge. Hell the Chaplin could get a grip on guys who are rattled without a mission. I'll take it one step further. Sections which are at 50% strength or less should be able to be rolled into another section. A section commander will grab these guys anyway if they are leaderless and wandering. Command and Leadership are much more complex and robust than what is portrayed in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True enough, but as one of the former followers (as opposed to a leader such as yourself) I can tell you that a good leader gets better results from earned respect rather than from the insignia pinned to his collar. This is especially true for the junior officers. The guys in the foxhole will likely follow the orders of some new, gung-ho LT that swaggers in to save the day, but they will be cautious about the trust they place in him until he has proven himself to be more than just another member of the brass with an attitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juha Ahoniemi: If snipers are indeed included in CM2 we will see much more buttoned AFVs. In some game against my friend Ari his sharpshooter (I don't remember was it crack or elite) took out my TC from about 350-400 meters. We watched that situation afterwards and it was clear case. Having snipers could lead to some very gamey selections IMHO. With all that camouflage they will butcher relentlessly and walk away with it! At least sniper unit cost must be very well balanced! Juha<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, if snipers are modeled well in CM2 (if they are even included for that matter), there shouldn't be too many opportunities to abuse them. Realistically, they will only get 2 or 3 shots off at the most in a 30-45 minute scenario. In real life, not many snipers would plink off 10-20 rounds in the course of a 30 minute battle, as that would really be placing themselves at risk of being detected.

Seriously, I'd like to see these charts too, so I'm bumping it. Anyone? Bueller?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: ?|T???iginally posted by Mannheim Tanker: [qb] I had PC in paperback several years back, and I'm nearly postive that the paperback edition had a few maps in it. In particular, I remember some for his battles in Normandy in July of '44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My paperback edition (WW II Military Library) does not seem to have any maps.[/QB]

I'm feeling charitable, so I'll give it a shot: Originally posted by Detroit Guy: 1. Whats the difference between a yellow "targeting" line and a red one? Red = outgoing fire, yellow = incoming fire. 2. Engineers and Flamethrowers... how do you guys move these buggers up without them having to hit the dirt constantly? seems like if i had an enemy postion beat down bad enough to be able to move these guys into place safely i wouldnt need them! lol Like when moving any unit forward (but moreso with these fragile little guys) make sure you mass firepower against the bad guys to keep their heads down. If possible, advance them hidden through or behind cover. 3. How do HQ units effect battle? Morale bonuses and such i assume? Yep, it's all explained in the manual (which I assume you don't have yet if you just ordered) Also, HQ's allow mortars to plot fire on targets they can see, but that the mortars under their influence can't. 4. What is the proper use of "spotter" type units? Hmmm...I could write a novel on indirect fire support (where's Jason C when you need him? ) Spotters are used to call off-board arty in on targets to soften them up and/or disrupt enemy attacks. They're also useful for laying down smoke screens. 5. if there is FAQ explaning this stuff point me to it so you dont have to waste time on my idiot questions. Hehe..you bet! Just look around on the first two pages for a thread with "FAQ" in the title by Russel (it moves around depending on when it's been bumped last). I'm too lazy to look for it and link to it. 6. Yes im still just playing the demo Try playing a human ASAP in a PBEM or TCP game. That will teach you more than a hundred games against the AI. Welcome to the club! Enjoy... thanks again Detroit Guy[/QB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeeves: I guess you could split the squad, withdraw one half while providing cover fire with the other half, then swap roles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There's a man that's thinking. Good idea. BTW: I love what you listed as your occupation, Marlow! LOL! I had to look down the hall to make sure I didn't have a partner in crime here

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PawBroon: On the Penetration Charts Mace would get a Grammy...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROTF! It's funny how Mace is the - ahem - butt of everyone's jokes lately.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: Break contact the real world version. The squad falls back one man at a time as the rest of the squad covers for him. The first man empties his magazine towards the enemy, and then hi-tails it to the rear. The next man in the squad then does the same thing, and so on until the last man in the squad. He pitchs a grenade, smoke, or something else that goes BOOM in the direction of the enemy, and takes off after his squad mates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's one method, but at a larger scale (platoon level and higher) you can already do this in CM. Until CM allows multiple targets per unit, I can't see how your method would work, Marlow. I agree with you how it's done at the squad-level, however (that's how I was taught to do it).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Let's not forget "Panzer Commander" by Col. Hans Von Lucke -- and amazing book altogether, and a very good depiction of that particular break-out by one of the men who orchestrated it. Sadly, no maps though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had PC in paperback several years back, and I'm nearly postive that the paperback edition had a few maps in it. In particular, I remember some for his battles in Normandy in July of '44.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paco QNS: I thinkEpaminondas was GAMEY in that way, too! cited from The Great Battles of History <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> only if he was a memeber of the flat earth society and there was an empty void on his flank. Sorry...apples and oranges.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian Rock: Using larger maps is one solution, but it raises other problems. Make the map big enough and you have to consider supporting forces on the flank - forces which don't appear in a game like CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I've found large maps to be the perfect solution. You don't have to worry about supporting forces or other enemy forces on your flanks per se, but you do need to be conscious of flank security, much as you do in the real world. On a large map, an opponent can easily sneak a few units around your flank if you're not careful. At the same time, a map-edge-creep on a large map will usually force the attacker to go way out of his way if he wants to use this tactic, and therefore eat up a lot more time (and possibly fatigue his men).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Just plain good tactics. The defender should be able to readjust his positions to meet the attacker from the new angle. If done properly and quickly the attacker has won nothing but only lost time. I know this is not necessarily easy. Flanking attacks are of the big reasons to keep a mobile reserve. It can buy the time you need for adjustments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not really good "tactics" but rather taking good advantage of the map edge. In other words, it's a great "gamey" use of the tools given to him - and that's fine if he didn't have any agreement in place before the game to avoid this. Flanking movements are one thing, but clustering all of your troops in a small bunch while hiding up against the map edge is another. IRL the attacker would be at risk from being hit from the area just off of the map edge. Is it a good tactic in CM? Sometimes, yes. Is it realistic? Not really... All this said, it does sound like your defense was inflexible. A flexible defense would have smashed this gamey assault - map edge creeps are easy to smash if you can pivot and nail them with MG and arty fire. HEhe...you might even scare some of them off of the edge of the map (as I once did to an opponent that tried this move). [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaldaen: I was wondering if anyone else would like to have a "fallback" command, kind of like the withdraw order (no delay with slight morale hit?) only with slower movement and with your men retaining their facing and fighting back (perhaps at half strength?)as they head towards a new position... this would be very helpful when you want to withdraw from a position but keep some heat on your attackers (so as not get gunned down from behind)... So what do you all think? Just My Two Cents, Jaldaen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IMO you can already do this. To properly withdraw (as opposed to running like hell for the rear!), the situation requires that someone cover the retreating unit. If you can sufficiently suppress the enemy fire with one unit, you can withdraw the other a ways back. Then the unit(s) that was suppressing becomes the withdrawing unit while the withdrawing unit(s) provides cover fire. Wash, rinse, and repeat. If you're looking a way to withdraw and provide cover fire from within a single squad, then you can't do it under the current system. Then again, if you're in the situation where you must do a single-squad withdrawal, you're already screwed and had better retreat with the current command at your disposal! My $.02...