Juardis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Could somebody explain this to me? Does it mean you can't give stationary vehicles a ROTATE order? (You have to move them some distance to get them to rotate)? Much cornfuzed. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Apparently . It means you cannot string together a hunt, move, or move fast command then a hide command at the end. Your tank must be stationary to give the hide command. Rotate has nothing to do with hide unless you're asking whether you can string together rotate and hide only, without any movement commands. If so, I don't know. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: "We Go" concept has been seen before. First time I saw it was in the old SSI "Computer Ambush". Still a good idea reintroduced within brilliant packaging does not lessen the life affirming entity which has become "COMBAT MISSION". HOO-WAA!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First I saw it was Global Conflict. It was similar to CM in that there were 60sec turns with order phases in between. It was 2d, overhead, futuristic though. But the mechanics worked pretty good. 1992-93 time fram IIRC. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: But by how much? Using 3 Panthers, while not a large sample, would be a good indicator of if the BNH varied greatly or only by a little bit. And since the testers do not mention any sort of large variation in the BNH of the 3 captured Panthers one could assume they did not vary significantly. Thus you could infer they maintain a BNH factor close enough to 280 to infer from. Jeff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or it could be that they weren't testing whether BHN had anything to do with the results since all 3 test subjects were Panthers. It could be they overlooked the BHN or just assumed them to be the same, but regardless, I don't think the testers were trying to compare a Panther to a Tiger2, just what it takes to kill a Panther. I don't think there is enough evidence to make all the inferences you made and come up with a correct conclusion. All IMHO of course. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Wow, this is uncanny. I log on this morning to ask the status of the final patch and I'm greeted with this tasty morsel of news. Good job guys. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: As far as I know, only A is true. My understanding of the armor flaws is that they just weren't as capable of stopping AP shot, not that the metal was extra brittle (which would cause B and C most likely). Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? That's surprising. I would have definitely said it meant the armor was more brittle, less structurally sound. But if all it does is affect thickness, why include armor quality at all? Unless you do so for the diehard numbers guys who insist that the front turret of the KT is 120mm thick and not 100mm thick . As an example. The Titanic had flawed steel which, when combined with the cold weather, made it more brittle than it would have been. Hence, it ruptured when it might have dented. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JessRobinson: I kept the Shermans stationary while firing. A painful lesson learned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What's the problem with that? True, you're easier to hit when you're stationary, but it's also easier for you to hit. Also, you got off 2 shots before the Panthers did. I doubt you could do that if you were moving. I much prefer firing from a stationary position. If they miss, they miss and I chalk it up to a bad firing solution. If happens repeatedly, chalk it up to a bad random number seed in the AI . ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Playing some more PBEM with the beta and I noticed my tanks were firing smoke between the opfor armor and my infantry that was being engaged. Very impressive since I didn't give the order and it saved my infantry. Some of those same tanks (in that platoon) also were area firing into a copse of trees where some opfor infantry was. I did not order that and quite frankly was surprised. Not that that is a bad thing so long as my tanks are not fixated on area firing (which used to be the case). What happened was his infantry ran away from that copse but my tanks kept firing. No need to do that. Especially since there are opfor armor assets just behind every rise seemingly. So next turn I cancel the area fire order only to have it done again. Is this intentional and why would my tanks area fire into a copse of trees where there is nothing? Or is it possible that the area target line is left there to show the last target but the tanks aren't really firing there anymore? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

No turn limit = bad. No incentive to attack a well defended position. Game would never end. Variable turn limit = good. By variable, I mean 20 turns +/- 2 turns or 30 turns +/- 3 turns or 40+/-4... You get the idea. You have to have that uncertainty on the early end as well as the back end of the specified limit otherwise you'll still get the wait till turn 19 to rush the flag and hope that I can hold for 1-6 turns. BTW, this was not my original idea, but I like it anyway. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: I get WWII and Military History. Pretty good, casual reading (bus, bathroom, lunch, etc.) Another for gaming, is Command Magazine. In all, the articles are pretty good. The readers usually alert the editors of any errors. Therefore, the writers have to be on their toes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks all, I might have to check out Command as well. I especially like that the information seems accurate. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Schalburg: Only drawback is the small ammo load, and their thin roof armour, enemy mortors will kill it easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can a direct hit with a 60mm mortar kill it? It's 8mm thick up top but I don't know the penetration data of a 60mm mortar. The JP is 20mm thick up top. I'd say that's impervious to 60mm mortars, but again, I don't know. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mensch: Any millionaires out there playing CM.. I know the old Hanomag factory in hannover is pretty much dead.. if you could toss it up a bit you could start producing tanks again as it did during the war.. what for tanks.. I have no idea.. but knowing hannover it was most likely Panzer II model F or something...LOL.. would still be cool.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, that's an idea. Steve and Charles must be millionaires by now. I propose they buy the plant, build every tank that was in the ETO, Russia, and Africa. Then conduct penetration and gun accuracy tests. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Just read half the chapters. Very interesting. Couple of things surprised me. The amount of mud and the relative lack of direct fire. Also, the time on target missions sounded particularly devastating. That would be really cool to model in CM. Well, come to think of it, I guess it is modeled via TRPs. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Sounds OK to me. But I'd have a hard time deciding between my aryian hunk persona or my wargaming geek persona. Can I have 2? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Just found a copy in my local grocery store (of all places). Intrigued, I bought it for 3.99USD. The articles seem to cover lots of different conflicts from China, Norway, US Civil War are the three I've read so far. Very interesting reads. I can't vouche for the accuracy, but they seem credible. Any way, I'm thinking of getting a subscription. Does anyone read this magazine and would you recommend a subscription (19.95USD for 6 issues)? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfe: Hitting a very exposed lower hull, presumably. - Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> could be, I don't remember. I do remember one in particular. A JP was on the high ground about 400m away and my Churchill crocodile was in a town. 1st turn they spot each other. 2nd shot from my croc killed the JP. He was backing up fast at the time too. Lucky shot? Probably. But the fact remains my croc killed the JP.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: What 75mm gun? Jeff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, 75mm tank guns firing AP shells. Shermans and Churchills mostly. [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 01-06-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Benny Manieri: I use partial.......anybody who rags on me for that is a queer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No rags Benny. I wanted to know if people actually used either option because if not, perhaps BTS could save some coding and use it for other stuff. But if even one person uses it, I guess it's worth it. Fight on. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I've been able to kill JP's with 75mm guns, frontally. I haven't been able to kill a JT with a 75mm gun, from any angle. O've even struggled killing a Panther with a 75mm. I've killed the 4 JPs I've come across but haven't killed the 2 JTs or the 3 Panthers. Not a large sample I know, but too much of a coincidence given the paper specs. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Jager is correct. Min range is 100m. Max range is 600m (or could be 400m, don't remember). Sharpshooters have no other weapons that I know of, not even grenades. They're easily killed once found. Even easier if found inside 100m. Rushing them works well provided he doesn't have any friends nearby. However, they're not easily found. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: People change FOW? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Benny Manieri: Nationalities...? Of Course: Russian and German. But what about, Italians and Poles? Another question, will scenarios begin at the start of the invasion of Poland? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Last I heard it was Russians, Germans, and Finns. Last I heard, it was Barbarossa and beyond (41-45). Last I heard, background work has started (i.e., research), but no coding work since only one programmer and he's finishing CM1. ------------------ Jeff Abbott [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 01-05-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Benny Manieri: Nationalities...? Of Course: Russian and German. But what about, Italians and Poles? Another question, will scenarios begin at the start of the invasion of Poland? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Last I heard it was Russians, Germans, and Finns. Last I heard, it was Barbarossa and beyond (41-45). Last I heard, background work has started (i.e., research), but no coding work since only one programmer and he's finishing CM1. ------------------ Jeff Abbott [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 01-05-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keith: Do you realize it took over 1,000 man hours just to build a single Tiger tank? Germany did not even have the fuel to keep the tank running anyways.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So if you could only field 100 tanks, why build a 1000 mediocre tanks when you could build 100 uber-tanks? Makes more sense to build the uber-tank to me. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I think most of us are using full FOW. Is anybody playing with partial or no FOW? If so, why? The field manual clearly states no FOW or partial FOW is good for inexperienced players or scenario designers, just wondering if that is true or if anyone just prefers that option over full FOW. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: They can take out light armoured vehicles just fine under 200m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What can?