Juardis

I have a V5, and I use hypersnap. I thought you had to use hypersnap in order to get the FSAA effects to show. Something about the way printscreen takes the image from a buffer in the vid card but in a V5 that buffer is prior to combining all the signals into the final glorious FSAA shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigAlMoho: Also, I suspect that half-squad foxholes do not protect a whole squad as well as a whole-squad foxhole... Al<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Al, do you mean a whole squad will not fit into the half-squad foxhole? In the game, it says the whole squad is indeed in the foxhole. So is there some special coding that we don't know about? That seems contrary to the level of detail that BTS has coded already (as in, that seems like too much detail for BTS to code into the game for something that would not be noticable).

Illuminating test engy. The conclusion is that whichever man is killed is roughly based on percentage of squad composition. i.e., the sharp is not specifically targetting anybody. In a HQ unit (represented by 4, 6, or 8 men), there is only one leader. Yet you can kill 3/4 or 5/6 or 7/8 and yet still have the leader bonuses applied even though the actual leader was killed. Think about that. One last thing, how can moving targets be killed easier than stationary targets? Makes no sense to me.

There most certainly is. There are Scipio's sound mods, Magua's or Panzertruppens building mods, some really nice hi-res grass and tree mods, some gorgeous sky mods, and there are online clubs to join. Now, where to find all these? Start with CMHQ and work the CM web ring sites. Oh, and welcome back.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: C'mon guys, doesn't anyone want to admit to even a touch of 'game burnout'? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had it for a little while around Christmas, then I cured myself . Seriously, tournaments, campaigns, custom scenarios, on-line clubs, TCP/IP, PBEM, this particular forum...etc. There is so much to keep one's interest up. If all I did was play meeting engagements against other people or just against the AI, I'd have quit a long time ago.

I had this idea last year but haven't yet followed through due to lack of time. But I am going to take the best screen shot I have, go buy a tee-shirt, print out the screen on iron-on paper (you can buy that stuff for the printer these days), and iron on the screenie to my tee. I have no idea how it'll look, but I figure it's worth a shot. Pretty pathetic huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Is this something that peoplewould be interested in???? Peter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, ever since the first month of playing CMBO back in June of last year the thought of the CM engine and Korea has been a recurring wet dream for me

Yes, I think you're correct. But what I'm taling about is 81mm spotters. Sorry, should've made that more clear.

So I'm dropping like a bazillion rounds of smoke to support an attack and I want to move my target a little. I, of course, cannot see worth a flip since the target area is obscured with smoke. So my question is simple. Does the LOS blockage affect my current target orders? Or only subsequent orders? I mean, if the fire mission continues on for several turns and I do not move the target one mm, does the accuracy decrease once I lose LOS? I don't think it should and I don't think it does, but I cannot be too certain given where the last few rounds have landed.

I read that bit about tank morale too. The only question I have is this. If you cannot communicate with your fellow tankers, and you do not have LOS to them, then how in the world are you gonna know when to back off? Seems to me that if you were part of a 4 tank platoon and your 3 buddies just bought it but they were out of sight, then you would have no idea that you were suddenly alone, unless of course you had a radio which early war Russian tanks did not have.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mensch: ya laugh it up chum, I still have my laywers working it out... I know BTS burned a special CD just for me so that could happen. PS I hate fog of war against the wife. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was that you mensch? Man, I still laugh out loud just thinking about it!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robo: I think that absolute spotting is really the only way to go. The problem with relative spotting is that the game would have very inconsistent gameplay since the player already has absolute spotting once a minute when plotting orders. You'd have alternating relative (during the turn) and absolute spotting in the game. No, I think that absolute spotting, unfortunately, is a requirement for a game of this type. It's a side effect of the unrealistic control a player has over his forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Reread Steve's response again. He said you CANNOT target something YOU see unless that target is already on the units' spotted list. I for one appreciate how this will work and am looking forward to seeing it implemented.

hmmmmm, how do you know she's not on this board already? Maybe she's MadMatt, or David Aitken, or PanzerMan?

Earth, 3 planet from the star called Sol in a boring little section of the universe. Harrisburg, NC

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: What will you do dump here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God, I hope he doesn't dump here! He can dump her if he wants, but this place already has a cesspool and he can dump there if he wants, but not here. By the way, has she bought an assault boat yet? Old joke. Last year, some guy taught his wife to play and while playing their first or 2nd game, he spent 2 or 3 turns attacking what he thought was a jeep? only to find out it was an assault boat parked in the middle of nowhere. LOL.

I think this has already been mentioned, but one of the new commands in CM2 is assault, which is half the squad runs forward while the other half provides cover fire, then they switch roles with the half providing cover fire doing the advancing. It is represented on the screen as one squad moving at normal speed and the effective firepower is halved. So it seems to me that a fallback command could be accomplished using similar coding except the unit is moving away from contact. FWIW, I like the idea and wished I had it a couple times in CM1.

Steve, I understand your point. You want hard numbers. Fine. You probably won't get them. So why not just assume something low? Like 1-2% of all shells fired were duds. Even in the best of times, seems like there would be 1 or 2 duds per 100 shells. I mean, we all acknowledge that there were duds and by not including them, you're being even more inaccurate than including a small number of them (how's that for logic )

Well, if you look at the HE penetration data, it is none too shabby and will penetrate most German armor. So the lack of AP is not as detrimental as it would first appear. I played a canned scenario that had the 88mm Flak and allied FBs. The flak gun drew a target line to the jabo as it flew over. Whether it fired or not, I do not remember. But why draw a target line if it cannot shoot? So I'm assuming the M2 could as well. So, how sure are you guys that these big AA guns cannot fire on FBs? I'm at work right now or I'd test it myself.

After playing this game for over a year now, I have yet to buy the M2 90mm gun. I don't know why, just never have. But I was experimenting with it last night and have come to see the possibilities of this gun, especially in tank fests. The 90mm gun is similar to the 88mm flak gun the jerries have. It can kill tanks (even the heavies), has good HE blast radius, and a decent ROF. And at 90 points (or thereabouts), it's an OK buy (not good, but OK). It doesn't have as big a blast as the 105mm inf gun, but it has more armor killing capability. It doesn't penetrate armor like the 76mm AT gun, but it has a bigger blast and is better against inf. Plus, for those rare games that have German fighter-bombers, it'll keep the gnats away. The main drawback, other than perhaps the cost, is that it is immobile once setup. Seems like a great general purpose gun. Why is no one giving it kudos?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: It's a bunker-buster. I imagine that an HE round, however big, would not be as effective against pillboxes in CM as a hollow charge, and therefore BTS were compelled to model it this way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahhhh, that explains it then. Thanks. But if it's a bunker buster, wouldn't also be good for killing troops in heavy buildings? My experience is that it is marginally effective at killing men inside buildings. I guess with bunkers the volume is so small that the blast radius doesn't have to be large, but with buildings, there's much more space to hide in?

bttt Maybe they got thwacked by the off board arty batteries? hehehe Seriously, perhaps planes are treated like in bound arty. A turn cannot end while the arty is in the air, so after 60 sec arty is still falling from the sky. Maybe while the planes are inbound the game cannot end and since they had selected their target the turn before, they're just following that target off the map. It's not like you could have done anything about it even if the Tigers were still on the map, so no big deal IMO. Still, kinda funny to see it happen.

Couple of questions. Last year I asked about riding around in a tank with a round already loaded in the breach. It seems to me that CMBO does not model that since it always seems to delay firing that first shot about as long as the delay to fire subsequent shots. Here we read an account of the ST riding around with a shell in the breach already. Therefore, if modeled correctly, the first shot could be fired on the first turn and the 2nd shot not until turn 8 (or whenever). That gives you 2 shots in 8 turns. Slow, yes, but not *too* slow. AVRE? I've never understood why it's shell was hollow casing. Why is that? Isn't it supposed to be a close support vehicle for busting up infantry or buildings?

Duds? I like it. Especially for arty shells.

OK Deadmarsh, here's your answer. There is nothing wrong with giving the defender a 10% bonus. However, you're going to do that, then you have made a defense against an attack more like a defense against a probe. Which then begs the question. Why not just make it a probe to begin with? The main difference between the two, other than the point differential of course, is that a A/D scenario has more flags deeper in the defenders setup zone where a probe has flags closer to the middle of the map. Now, I personally have never given myself a bonus or handicapped my opponent, so I don't know what your opponent sees. Will he know that the force multipliers have been changed and what they have been changed to? Obviously, if you both agree to it, then it is clearly acceptable. [edit: Oh, you do know that the victory point conditions are different for A/D scenarios than they are for ME don't you? You can lose several flags and still win a A/D scenario. The scoring system accounts for the initial point discrepancy. I'm not sure what is needed to win though. My last defending game I had pretty much all my forces wiped out, but I managed to keep one flag gray and killed a lot of his stuff. He won a tactical victory. I was very surprised given that my global morale was around 25% by games end. So it's a different scoring system to account for the fact that you're already starting out unbalanced.] [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Juardis ]

Well, first off you have to know that you cannot defend everywhere. So even if you go random map generation, you pick the ground that's most defensible. 2nd off, you may be able to pick the terrain, but the attacker picks the time. So if you insist on picking the terrain, the attacker should get choice of time of day. And finally, go random weather. Keeps the attacker honest (who's going to buy a Jadgtiger in deep mud?) Other than that, winning as a defender is very hard to do. I don't know why you'd even try it in a ladder game unless you don't care about your standings. I'm in a few "ladders" but I don't typically care about my rank. I care more about having fun and being challenged. Defending against a probe satisfies both requirements and if I'm really itching for a challenge, I'll defend against an attack.