tar

Is it really the computer crashing? There is a known problem, related to captured units that can affect TCP/IP play. It is often called the "ping of death". You can try to see if you can continue the battle with a PBEM exchange. Doing that for one turn is reported to sometimes be sufficient to clear up the problem. If it is actually a computer and not just a program crash, then I'm at a loss for an explanation.

Of course there is the general observation that if the success of our plan really depends on being able to get such split-second timing down, it isn't likely to be a very robust or effective plan.

Well, I did see an enemy HMG unit get credit for eliminating their own AT gun during a night QB in the rain. OK, I was assaulting the AT gun at the time (I didn't see it until about 10m away!), but in the process of spraying my assault squads, they seemed to take out the gun as well. I didn't have an AT gun and none of my guys got credit for it, but one of the enemy did.

I'm beginning to wonder if Steve is making some of the problem a bit too difficult, although that may depend on the particulars of how the LOS computation is made and, more importantly, represented. As it stands now, an LOS computation will be made to determine whether things are in sight or not. Now if this LOS check, if unblocked were recorded in such a manner that it was easy to find all LOS vectors close to the one chosen to shoot along (say by maintaining azimuth and elevation from spotter?), then the potential targets for the danger zone would also be identified. (OK, there is a cover vs concealment issue hiding in here, but I'll skip that for now.) It seems to me that the information required to check for danger in the line-of-fire is largely already present in the game computations. I guess the only caveat (which could be a killer, BTW) is that this requires also doing LOS checks against friendly units and not just against enemy units. And since that is an N-squared phenomenon, it would require 4 times a long. But with some cleverness, this could be reduced. Operating under the assumption that most lines of fire would, in fact, be clear, one could have the TacAI make a provisional fire decision and then doing a more limited check along the line of fire That would greatly reduce the number of friendly units to check. If too many (any?) friendly units are in the danger zone, then consider abandoning it and substituting the second most favored target.

This seems truly incredible, with the meaning of unbelievable. I'm not an expert on tank layout, but it was my impression that the exhaust was vented out the top of the vehicle. It must be really tough getting enough CO into a foxhole, when the exhaust tubes point up. In fact, I would think that considerations of crew safety from carbon monoxide, as well as a desire to have a more reasonable fording depth would dictate that you don't put the exhaust pipes on the bottom of the tank. Besides, that would make them a bit vulnerable to damage from all of the other stuff the tank is running over, wouldn't it?

Re: Limbering & unlimbering. I would like to see more variability in this. There are lots of things that can go wrong and delay the process. Having more variance would nicely simulate that, not be particularly CPU intensive, and would take some of the control (or at least predictability) away from the players -- perhaps encouraging more cautious play. Of course increases in variability could also be applied to many other areas (i.e., command delays -- if they still exist).

I agree with the Reindeer Cavalry. I think that a major missing tactical element is the need to consider keeping lines of fire clear. That's why the height of tactical brilliance is the "L-shaped" ambush and not the "U-shaped" ambush. In CMx1, a U-shaped ambush works much better than an L-shaped one. In the real life it doesn't. Ideally in CMx1 you would actually completely surround a unit and fire into the center, a military formation which is usually described as an <insert offensive ethnic reference> firing squad. One should have to keep the line of fire clear. For purposes of this check, I think there are a number of algorithmic shortcuts that can be used. Given the relative speed of projectiles versus unit movement, there does not need to be a check on the millisecond level. It should be possible to establish a 3D rectangle-shaped "danger zone" and just consider possible effects for the generally very limited number of units in that zone. A full LOF check would only be needed against that small number of units. Besides, if this feature is actually present, then there will be even fewer occasions when it would be needed, because the players will avoid situations where the LOF crosses friendly units. (Of course that may be offset by the attempt to setup such situations with respect to enemy units.) In any case, I think the tactical ramifications of firing down a line or column of enemy units, as well as the need to keep the lines of fire clear will be a great advance in simulation fidelity which will affect the in-game tactics.

Well, I will point out that the CMBB & CMAK armored vehicle pictures added the qualitative color bands to show relative armor strength. I guess if there would be something similar for the gun penetration, that would perhaps satisfy the OP. As for the tactical tips, it may not be that easy. On the other hand, there is the StratAI which has to do some things. But I agree with the replies that suggest that having some focused training or lesson plan style scenarios would be good. For example, how to attack with infantry. How to defend a town against tanks. How to attack a town with tanks, etc. There have been some of these produced by third parties for the CM series, but trying to have some either in-the-box or downloadable from the BFC website would be nice.

Because if you don't do collision computations, you won't know if the bullets would be blocked by terrain. It is collisions with terrain or other cover that would need to be calculated.

I agree. Those overrunning mechanized units were clearly not operating under move to contact orders.

Well, not to rain on the parade too much, but I suspect that the niche nature of CM makes most sorts of mass-marketing strategies rather wasteful in terms of actually encouraging sales. Most of the games that get bundled are either targeted at a much larger part of the computer using audience or they are there to showcase a particular technology. CM fits neither description. (Oh, by the way, the iMac G5s come (came?) with Marble Blast Gold and Nanosaur 2.

And the question about number of points per squad? Will it at least be one per team? I do hope that there is at least some, even abstract, notion of a more spread-out formation. (I'm tired of losing entire squads in CMBB to a single round of cannister).

Well at least one of the parts of the cavalry was smart! But yes, formed units with steady morale could not effectively be assaulted by cavalry. This was true even in the era of the pike. Cavalry was used mainly to pursue and cut down retreating and especially routing enemy units.

Re: Panzerblitz. Also, don't forget that the smallest represented unit in PanzerBlitz was a platoon. Rather a different design direction from the 1:1 representation of CMx2. As for horses, they would typically be as useful on general CM type engagements as the trucks already are. It is pretty clear that you don't really want to use trucks except on the very largest maps where there is a fair bit of cover. Trucks and horses in WWII really served more of the role of logistic support (not represented at CM scale) or else strategic or operational mobility (also not represented at CM scale). Even as early as Gettysburg, horses were typically not used directly in combat anymore.

I kind of wish that HMG and Mortar units would abandon their weapons when given a Withdraw order. And perhaps also while routing.

I guess in this case the "HE" is an abbreviation for the Heisenberg round? But more seriously, it should be possible to do something about the ready round storage issue. As a first cut, one could have a fairly simple model with a ready rack and the other storage, each with their own reload delays. Replenishing the ready rack should happen either (a) not during combat at all or ( under user command. The problem with doing it under TacAI command is that it really requires a bit more context than the (current) TacAI has. You want to do this when the vehicle is disengaged and preferably stationary or moving smoothly. That is more of an Operational AI or player control level. I would think that this simple model would actually suffice. As far as ready-rack proportions, I would think that a formula wouldn't be that hard to develop, based on minimum numbers of particular rounds to keep ready and letting the rest be proportional to the total ammo loadout.

I guess in this case the "HE" is an abbreviation for the Heisenberg round? But more seriously, it should be possible to do something about the ready round storage issue. As a first cut, one could have a fairly simple model with a ready rack and the other storage, each with their own reload delays. Replenishing the ready rack should happen either (a) not during combat at all or ( under user command. The problem with doing it under TacAI command is that it really requires a bit more context than the (current) TacAI has. You want to do this when the vehicle is disengaged and preferably stationary or moving smoothly. That is more of an Operational AI or player control level. I would think that this simple model would actually suffice. As far as ready-rack proportions, I would think that a formula wouldn't be that hard to develop, based on minimum numbers of particular rounds to keep ready and letting the rest be proportional to the total ammo loadout.

A friend sent me this link, and since it is highly relevant to this group, I will pass it on: The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–1945 Available online on http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-corpus-WH2.html This fifty volume series covers all areas of New Zealand's involvement in the Second World War, from detailed accounts of particular battalions, to the political and economic background and consequences, to full accounts of particular episodes and campaigns.

I've often had good luck with PIATs at close range. Although there was one incident (in CMBO) where I watched the PIAT shell bounce off of the target tank and back into the room with the PIAT team, killing them....

OK, this one is only a model, but perhaps someone can identify it anyway?

I was wondering if the lower of the first set of photos is an air-mobile armored vehicle. It kind of looks like it has some very thin helicopter blades. Either that, or it operates in a region with very poor television reception.

Short answer: Apple hasn't said. Speculation: Macs will remain distinct hardware and you will most likely not be able to build your own. I would guess that the only major change in Mac hardware design will be in the processor itself, and all of the other Mac-specific parts will remain more-or-less as they are now.

Well, a hot laptop isn't always such a bad thing: We're cooking, now!

IIRC even in CMBB you could not get snow on the ground with clear weather in the QB generator. You could only get that combination by creating a snowy map and importing it or by doing a scenario design. The QB weather choices are more restricted.

So can you, after a while, although the indications are subtle. You have to look at the portrait of the tank crewman. The commander is different.