Juardis

When expecting an attack and you want your 76mm AT gun to engage at long range. I made the mistake of hiding my gun, my opponent rushed towards his position, but since he was hidden he never fired a shot. Don't know what'll happen next, but it's very possible he dies without firing a shot. Lesson? Don't hide your troops if you want them to fire before coming on top of you. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: I didn't come across any 'hard' figures for rifle grenade range in CM when I found the pen. value, but I think some people claimed about a 40m working range. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, that's what "seemed" to be the range the TacAI would engage at. So roughly 40m and a penetration of 60mm. Indeed best to get a top shot from a concealed position with rifle grenades. Fausts on the other hand are very scary to the allies ------------------ Jeff Abbott

The reason ambushes work well for using fausts and rifle grenades is because usually they won't fire them if they are taking fire. If you remain hidden, you're not taking fire, and you have time to fire one provided you're within range. Thanks for the rifle grenade penetration, I hadn't seen that. Do you know the range for the rifle grenades? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: I remember someone asking this question a while back; a search might turn up the answer. >>I was screwing around last night and placed about a dozen anti-personal minefields overlapping each other about as close as I could (usually you can get 3 close together, 1 in the middle and one each overlapping the outer edges) and then i marched a US company straight into the field. OH MY GOD! The Horror!!! in short, YES it makes a difference. When a unit walks through a single minefield they will commonly only take a single casuality. In my HIGH DENSITY field, unit were taking 4 and 5 casulties! They would take 1 or 2 and some would break and run and set off more and more mines as they ran away. VERY GORY! I LOVED IT! So yes, it makes a difference! Didn't test on mine clearing of a high density field though. Also as Charles say's, minefields are defensive area denial weapons and untilizing them in this way is a waste of resources. You should use them to CHANNEL thew enemy where you want them and not count on them to casue large amounts of casulties... Madmatt << <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right you are tankersley, I posted the pertinent info from Madmatt above. Thanks for that tip. I had searched before and didn't find the correct thread. Based on your post, I expanded my search and found the above gem. Appreciate it. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

The power supply is not on the motherboard. The power supply is attached to your case. You can replace the power supply without replacing your motherboard or case. I bought a high quality 300 W power supply a couple of months ago for 80 USD. I too have the V5 5500 and SB Live! value. The only text problems I have is when I esc out to windows and then get back in. The text portion gets all fuzzy and that was traced to FSAA being enabled. Since I will not play without FSAA, I just don't esc to windows. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rattus: Could you stack AP and AT minefields together? - that would be useful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, don't know. I think I may have to test some of this later if no one has any decent answers. It's just that my CM playing time is limited and I'd rather play than test. So if someone knows the answers, please don't be shy.

So I'm placing units on the map in my QB and I have some mine tiles (could be anti-tank or anti-personnel). I noticed that I could stack them pretty much, which leads to the question, why would I want to do that? If I stack 2 mine tiles on top of each other do I double the density of mines and hence increase the possibility of killing twice the number of men or vehicles? With anti-tank mines, I can't really see the usefulness of that since it should be rare that two vehicles occupy the same tile at the same time. With anti-personnel mines, I can see the usefulness in limited situations (i.e., use them like an ambush because once spotted the enemy knows to avoid that area (if he's smart that is ). Also, if engineers try to clear said stacked fields, does it take them twice as long for 2 stacked tiles? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Me an Havermeyer work side-by-side and we also have several PBEMs going on. I'm here to tell you that being able to talk to your opponent between turns is great. I view it as the espionage/counter-espionage portion of the game. We talk about the latest moves, never quite knowing whether we're being fed red herrings (false information) or the truth. Sometimes you intentionally lay out absurd situations just to see if you hit close to home. Example, so...how bad did my 60mm mortar rip up your jadgtiger while all the time not knowing he has a jadgtiger and knowing full well you don't have 60mm mortars. Great fun. There's nothing like that human interaction. emails are OK, but you just don't get that same nuance of intelligence gathering as you can with face to face communication. We are trying to suck other coworkers into our coffee kletch, but it's surprisingly tough. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Regardless of the lameness of the review, it has 2 things going for it. 1. It rated CM an A- 2. It appeared in print, in the Business section, of a newspaper. Anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 people could've read the review and became interested in CM. The most glaring problem is that it doesn't say you cannot go to the local Electronics Boutique and buy the game. Kinda wastes any interest it might generate. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

No spoilers yet. It is truly awesome as a double blind PBEM. The first few turns I was feeling good. I was advancing nicely then one of my armored pieces got bogged and Havermeyer caught a few of my troops in the open and sent them running like scared hamsters. I started thinking bad thoughts, but I managed to regroup and gain the slight advantage (I use the term advantage loosely because I rarely felt I had it). I was pressing forward, inflicting more casualties than taking and got a few lucky arty hits in. I'm smelling victory now. Then he takes out some of my assets and halted my advance. He counter attacked and a bitter battle ensued. I had to redirect some units to fight off his attack and I truly wasn't feeling good about the situation. In the end though I managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat (won't say much more for fear of giving spoilers). In one battle I went from feeling good to bad, to good again then to bad again, until I finally won. Much thanks Wild Bill. 5 stars vs. humans. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I'm not really sure about the details yet. Too new But Charles intends to weigh them more towards AT than HE. From what I understand the TacAI will decide which it is when it goes to attack. Although not GREAT at AT, it is better than hand thrown grenades for sure. Should give the US squads a wee extra fear factor for lightly armored German vehicles. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry for digging up an old thread, but in all my searches I could never find the range of the rifle grenades. The panzerfausts have 3 ranges, 30m, 60m, and 100m. Since the rifle grenades act like panzerfausts, I'm wondering the range. I personally have not seen one used in CM1 due to the fact the TacAI hasn't deemed them necessary. But if that's all I have to take out a Stug, I'd like to know how close I have to be before the TacAI even considers this. The research that Los dug up indicated a range of as much as 200m for the M1903 (which I suppose is the type of grenade launcher modeled), but I suspect that it's nowhere near that in CM1. BTW, Los, if you're still here, thanks for doing all the research back in Dec to get BTS to put rifle grenades in the game. Also, how much penetration can be expected? I suppose a rifle grenade vs. a Tiger or Panther is out of the question but what about vs. a PZ IV, or Stug, or Hetzer? ------------------ Jeff Abbott [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 09-06-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Depends... what year? Not going to be fun taking IIIs and IVs against those mean 34s... Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And therein lies the challenge. You could argue that it's not much fun taking on Tigers with Shermans in CM1, but you can do it AND live to tell about it if you're good enough. To answer the original question, I'm neutral. I'll play whichever side gives me the most challenge/fun. Politics don't play a role in my decision. I'm a professional cyber-soldier after all . ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Have played: Midnight Madness at Prum A Second Job Wiltz Considering: Relieving the Rangers Yeagers Farm Are either of these good for a double blind PBEM game? Got a different recommendation? Thanks ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I thought roadblocks provided cover for infantry located in it. Playing Cheneux I did have a squad located in the roadblock, but I don't know if it helped since I don't know if it reduced my exposure or not. Could try a QB with a roadblock to test the theory though. Easy enough to do unless you're at work ------------------ Jeff Abbott

no no no. Did you notice how buggy the S.N.I.F.F. system was. The little guy was running AWAY from the target, not TOWARDS the target. Much like it's close cousin the Hamster. Now maybe if they had either 1) improved the accuracy of the firing device or 2) improved the S.N.I.F.F system they MIGHT have won the war. But even so, the Psychological effect was phenomenally effective. Just watching the video gave me nightmares last night...So perhaps accuracy shouldn't even be considered a problem. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joeri: Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut and just take advantage of it Joeri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not sure what the winky icon means, but don't misunderstand me. You found a problem with the game that, if fixed, will make the game better. Kudos to you, a job well done. I was just wondering why it's still being discussed as if it were an inexplicable problem when Charles said that it WAS a problem and that he's on it. That's all. Again, good job in finding something that escaped everyone else. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Von Brizee, could you please enlighten me on how you blew up the RR bridge and how you plan to blow up the highway bridge? I didn't think that was possible, even if you drop arty on it. So if you could share this that'd be great. I played this as the US against the German AI. It was very tough as the Americans. Couple things I didn't like about it but I thought it was a fairly decent recreation of the battle given the limitations of the game. Don't want to say more for fear of giving away spoilers but I would recommend playing it. One hint if you're the americans. Look for a tank in a heavy building. It's obviously not supposed to be there and you can't move it out of the building, but you can fire out of it. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Thanks for posting. Here are some additional (if you don't mind). If you do mind, let me know and I'll be happy to delete my post. ##### NO SPOILERS IN ANY OF MY REVIEWS ###### A Second Job (double blind PBEM) ****1/2 BY WBW I reserve the other half star until we actually finish it, but we're half way through and it has been very intense. One turn I feel like I have the upper hand, next 4 turns I feel on the verge of being routed. It's a meeting engagement in the city of Vossenack. You are faced with plenty of choices and I agonize over each move and am constantly surprised by the outcome of each turn. Most whole heartedly recommend this as a double blind PBEM. $$$$$ Saving Private Ryan (played as US vs. German AI) ** to *** BY WBW I think this is a decent first battle to play since it's something you can relate to if you've seen the movie. So, for newbies, I give it a 3 star. For experienced people, I give it a 2 star simply because you can easily win as the Americans and much much easier if you take the Germans. I've discussed this WBW and I think he'd agree that this is a good row for the less experienced player. $$$$$$ Midnight Madness at Prum (played as double blind PBEM) **** by WBW Yet another outstanding scenario by the man himself. I played as the Germans. Low visibility, surprises around every corner. If you really want a challenge, play as the US. Haven't played it against the AI yet, but it's another intense battle that takes place both in the country and city. I recommend this as a double blind PBEM or play the US. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Just curious, but why are you guys still trying to prove hull down or not? Charles already posted that he'd look into it. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Nah, the Germans would've never won the war with that. Did you notice how many shots it took to hit the target. The accuracy was so poor they would've run out of ammo well before they pushed us back to the Rhine.

THE most stupidest thing I did was turn down a roll in the sack with the wife so I could finish a CM battle. I paid dearly for that one

Franco, I'm interested. If you're not going to put it up at the CMHQ scenario depot, then go ahead and email it to me please. Thanks, Jeff Abbott jabbott1@carolina.rr.com

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joeri: Hi Guys, For the Jumbo's in hull down position (distance 550m to Tigers): ------------- NS -- LH -- UH --- T ---- H Tig. vs Jum.: 53 -- 0% -- 15% -- 45% -- 60% Jum. vs Tig.: 81 -- 1% -- 23% -- 56% -- 80% For the Jumbo's not hull down (distance 500m to Tigers): ------------- NS -- LH --- UH --- T ---- H Tig. vs Jum.: 45 -- 18% -- 38% -- 29% -- 68% Jum. vs Tig.: 40 -- 22% -- 35% -- 30% -- 87% <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't answer the hull down thing, but it appears that the game is incorrect. What I'm more concerned about is the accuracy of the Tiger vs. the Jumbo. I mean the Jumbo is 20% more accurate than the Tiger? At 550m, with neither tank moving, both crews of same quality, I'd expect about the same accuracy from both tanks. Were both crews of the same quality? Were both tanks stationary? If yes to both questions, then is this the gyro-stabilizer tipping the scales in the jumbo's favor? That's the only thing I can think of, but even then, if neither tank is moving I can't see how that should matter. Most peculiar. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: I´ve a suggestion to do... why not open a little bit the fire arc of the infantry, this way the simulation of 8 to 12 men wouldn´t be so like "one man". For instances if a target appeared inside a -25º/+25º fire arc they wouldn´t have to turn to fire, this way simulating a 8 to 12 men platoon ,who for sure weren´t looking all in same direction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like it! But I don't know how easy/hard it is to code multiple targets from the same squad. It sounds difficult to me though.

OK, at the risk of sounding, oh, I don't know, well, at the risk of pissing someone off, I'd just like to ask this question to BTS. Have you read the posts since your last response to this thread, and if so, is there something that you're considering doing with regards to the 88L71? If not, that's cool since, as has been said many times here already, it shouldn't matter that much in CM1. But I was just curious if "the opposition" (for lack of a better phrase) has persuaded you into thinking that there is a good physical reason for the 88L71 to be more powerful than the other armament as quoted in the various text books (specifically Jentz in relaton to all the other Jentz data)? It sure sounds plausible to this recruit. I mean, that is what you were after wasn't it? A physical reason for the increased penetration? ------------------ Jeff Abbott