Juardis

I was always under the assumption that the Mk-IV was the infantry support tank while the Pz III series were to be the tank killers. But at this time of the war the Pz III's were gone and replaced with Panthers and Tigers. So riddle me this. If you're in an all armor QB playing with the Short 75 house rules, which German tank do you pick? Answer, your only choice is the Mk-IV or the Lynx, Pumas, ACs. So yeah, you may be forced to use them in a role they were unintended for. In which case their shortcomings are exposed. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sensible Toad: Yes!!!!!! Now CM Borg, what can you do about a date with Elizabeth Hurley? Will "resistance is futile" work with her?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know, I'll ask her when she spends the holidays with me

No, no, no. Nothing wrong with your suggestion. The Yellow Submarine image just popped into my head and I was LMAO. However, on a more serious note, I don't think you should have to purchase foxholes or earthworks. That should be an option when you create a scenario IMO. Trenches (or earthworks if you will) were discussed previously here and I only say this because, well, because they were. I don't remember who posted to it or what the conclusion was (if any), but search on trenches and see what comes up. It might actually be planned for CM2. I mean, there were trenches in the movie Iron Cross so they had to be there on the Ostfront, right? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

LOL. I have this vision of a yellow submarine, 4 animated british speaking chaps, and one hole. In my vision, one of them says, "I ave a ole in me pocket". Then he takes said hole out and places it in the ground and voila, a hole. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Here's what I'm doing. Havermeyer and I are playing a simulataneous attack and defend scenario. Custom made. We have flags that we must defend and flags that we must capture (i.e., capture the flags). This simulates a simultaneous attack along a static front. I would like the ability to dig in. I know that meeting engagements are supposed to simulate two forces suddenly meeting and hence no foxholes. Fine. This is coded as both sides on the attack. Fine. Since both sides are on the attack, neither side can dig in. Again, fine. If you're defending, you can dig in, but that currently only applies to one side. I would like the option where both sides can dig in. Perhaps meeting engagements can be changed such that both sides are on the defense (thus allowing digging in) or a new battle type be created - static front. What you say? Hmmmm? Pretty please? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mother Theresa: In a recent QB we noticed a strange accurance with a machine gun bunker. After using all of it's ammo (to the demise of many allied soldiers) the 'crew' of the bunker abandon the bunker. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was this with 1.05 or 1.1? I agree that it is a problem. Reason is that you may have reinforcements coming and if you can hang around in your pillbox long enough and occupy the enemy long enough, you stand a chance of staying alive AND keeping your pillbox. Especially if the enemy does not know you're out of ammo. They (the enemy) could spend 3-5 turns before figuring that out. That's 3-5 turns they're not attacking something more crucial. That's 3-5 turns of allowing your forces to regroup and perhaps counter attack. That's 3-5 turns of the enemy advancing cautiously instead of at will. And besides, if I knew my buddies were nearby, it might actually be safer in the pillbox/bunker than outside it. We are talking self preservation eh? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GhostAgent: Do you think that routed or broken squads should have a chance to automatically "split"? Or do you think this would serve no purpose...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great idea! Maybe even instead of breaking they split. Like they have a 50% chance to split and remain unbroken OR a 50% chance to break as a whole. If it's really really bad, they do both. I like it. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Before and After screenshots taken and sent. Now we wait (for a little while only though). ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I concede on the LOS/LOF issue. I'll make my concession speech tonight right before Mr. Gore's . Sorry to sidetrack the real question (that being Hull down). Still like to hear BTS's position on that. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Theron: Tom is correct on this issue. Bunkers, pillboxes and vechicles do not block LOS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I didn't say LOS. I said LOF. To me, the two are different for the reason I outlined. Yes, knocked out vehicles do not block LOS. But you can target them. Which implies that you can shoot at them. Which implies that you can hit them. Which implies that they do indeed block LOF. Same with pillboxes and bunkers (although I really think that you can hide behind a pillbox or bunker which means they block LOS to some extent). That is what I experienced in the Elsdorf scenario anyway. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: [b}Bunkers, Pillboxes, and Raodblocks are treated by the game engine as immobile vehicles and they do not offer any cover either, they don't block LOS or LOF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? You can certainly fire at a bunker or pillbox. So if you can hit it, why would it not block LOF? Same with a knocked out vehicle. You can certainly target it. I never have of course, but you can do it nonetheless. So, if you can hit them when firing at them, why would they not block LOF? Maybe in the case of a knocked out vehicle if you target it, it is treated as area fire. But certainly not the case for pillboxes and bunkers. As for being hull down vs. not. I think like Jeff Heideman here. The overall chance to hit should be reduced if you're hull down since the target area is smaller. The overall chance to penetrate is based on the math (which is the same if the turret is hit regardless of hull down or not). The net result is that the overall chance to kill should be reduced if you're hull down and this should be reflected in the results. I don't buy the argument about aiming. I know what you're saying, but I don't think the accuracy was that good back then. I mean, if the weak spot is always the turret, wouldn't you always be aiming for the turret? Of course you would, but you'd be happy to hit the hull if you missed the turret, right? Well, if the target is hull down that same miss would not hit the hull but would instead plow into the ground, and you're definitely aiming for the turret in that situation. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Juardis, are you sure that FOs don't have lower TTI when in command? I'll experiment this weekend, but it's been my impression that being in command helps the FO get splashdown faster. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Positive. Think about it. The FO radios instructions to the rear batteries. Once those instructions are sent, it's out of his hands. Whether the FO is in C&C or not is irrelevant to how fast he calls in a target and how accurate the rear battery is in delivering their munitions on that target. HQ units will impart their morale bonus and stealth bonus to the FO (and even the fighting bonus but since FOs don't fight, it's a rather useless bonus to confer ) because those directly affect the FO. The FO will also move sooner if in C&C, just like any other unit. The time on target is affected only by the experience of the FO and whether he can see the target/target area. The higher the experience, the sooner the rounds hit the ground. If in LOS, the sooner the rounds hit the ground (approximately double the time shown if not in LOS). ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Saw this question asked in a different thread but it got lost. So thought I'd bring it up here. I'm buying forces for a 7500 point monster game and am considering buying FBs. I know fighter bombers are a risk, a gamble, they may not show up, they might but hit your own troops, they might but not do anything, etc. What I want to know is, does the experience level determine their effectiveness? For example, maybe a crack FB will attack the enemy 75% of the time, your troops 5% of the time, and not show up or get scared off by AA the other 20% vs. a regular FB might attack the enemby 50% of the time, your troops 25%, and not show up the other 25%? Does the amount of damage increase with experience? Does the target selection change with FB experience? What exactly does experience do for FB? I hate to spend the extra money to get a crack FB if a regular FB will get the job done. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mord: I say we all get together on this and make a petition and send it to them with screenshots. Mord<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doh! *slapping my forehead* That's an excellent idea.

Juardis vs. Kunzler. A sad day for the Americans. Kunzler wins. No contest. I don't think I even killed one of his men. Sad, very sad. Thanks IronDuke. Good luck all. Out.

No. The only thing HQs do for FOs is impart their stealth and morale bonuses to them (I think). I'm positive that it does nothing for combat and time to fire. It will affect time to move though. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Kunzler and Juardis. We're on turn 13 or so. His freakin' troops have ko'd 2 or my 3 remaining armor assets. He holds the flag and is reverse slope to me. I cannot see him, he cannot see me. This will obviously have to change and I'm going to have to make it so. Won't be long before the outcome is decided. He has to return my move first though. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Yeah, I tried it and it locked my machine up . You have to hit esc when the movie is done to go back to the desktop. When you get back to the desktop, the macro takes over again and fires up CM again for you to load the next movie. (At least that's the way it worked for me). Since I have a V5 5500 set on 4x FSAA, escaping to desktop and getting back into the game is not a viable solution. Even so, I watched about 10 movies before it locked up (I could not figure out how to stop the macro). Make sure you know how to do that before trying. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I believe Steve said that relative spotting will be implemented (or considered at the very least) for CMII (the engine sequel, not the game sequel). By relative spotting, I mean that in order to be spotted, a unit has to be within LOS of a unit that has either 1) a radio or 2) in C&C of someone who has a radio. Otherwise, the unit remains unspotted. In the case of buttoned tanks, this obviously means a much longer time to acquire a target. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Unfortunately, the guy who responded said he knows not of what I speak. I was mainly pissed about the 2d text becoming corrupted when you esc (or alt-tab) to the desktop then getting back into the game. He said he plays CM, has a V5 5500 AGP (on 2x FSAA) and doesn't see this problem. The main difference between his system and mine (other than the motherboard and CPU) is that he is running Win98 SE whilst I'm running Win95b. So here's my question. I feel like it's up to us grognards to figure this out. For those of you with the 2d corrupted text problem, which OS are you running? As I said, I'm running Win95b (OSR2.1). My other specs: Asus CUSL2 Celery 500 128MB PC100 SDRAM 128MB PC133 SDRAM SB Live Value V5 5500 AGP (in 4X FSAA mode) - 1.04 drivers 3Com 10/100 PCI NIC I run my desktop (and hence CM) with 1024x768x16bit resolution. As I said in a previous note, the only (repeat, ONLY) way I can fix the 2d corrupted text is to run in single chip mode and I simply cannot stand to do that (defeats the purpose of buying a 5500 to begin with, eh). So FSAA is a must for me. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: This post is in part a place to release my anger at this incident, and part to ask if anything like this was ever experienced by anyone else... what follows is a story of endless fields of burning Allied tanks who never stood a chance for no apparent reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehehehe, man, I know too well of which you speak. My armor skills suck. I'm almost to the point where I won't buy armor because all they do is die. Doesn't matter whether they be German, American, or Brits. They die...fast and catastrophically. Good to know I'm not the only one to experience bad luck (I attribute it to luck ) ------------------ Jeff Abbott

1.05 setup just sent. I look forward to burning your retinas out by the flaming hulks of your M4A376's.

CM II is supposed to be a new engine. That won't be done until after CM2, the Ostfront sequel to CMBO. Or so I recollect from various postings by Steve. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Damn, beat by Maximus [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 12-06-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Whiteowl: Works great, looks absolutely treeemendous. Hope this helps someone. Semper Fi, Alan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After playing for half a year with 4x FSAA on, going to single chip looks like **** (no offense). I have been pinging on 3dfx to fix this problem. But if you play 4x FSAA, the text is fine, the mouse problems are still there (but not a big deal). No, the big deal comes when you esc back to the desktop then get back into the game. With 2chips in use, your 2d text in the 3d portion of the game becomes smeared and ureadable. THAT is the problem with 2 chips. With single chip, THAT problem goes away (but so does the FSAA love ). ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The CM Borg: Most definitely assimilated <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, the Borg is back! Alright!