Dittohead

Mars Attacks!!!!! What were the parameters? Day, Night, Fog? Were any chariters involved? .

Well once the QB setup parameters are available for review by both players, the prospect of the person who sets up the battle having an advantage or even "cheating" will be removed. Nothing is certifiable fair or foolproof. Just ask Florida Voters.

I think it would be a great idea to have an open category where you can choose any level of morale and have the max pts to spend in each force category, IE.- inf, armor, mech. fortifications, support. The way it is now, the four preset force selections don't always offer the most flexibility. This way two gamers who trust each other can setup any type of battle they want.

Try the military book club. Got mine a month ago.

When I post a reply to a question on the board I noticed that there is a spell check button at the bottom of the page. How does it work and why don't more people use it?

In theory the KT did have a weak spot on the front that could be penetrated. But there is no documented evidence that this ever happened. Plus in WWII very rarely did stuarts engage KT. The laws of probability just caught up to you. Now on another note, in theory and in practice the turrets of Panthers could be traversed quickly. Shhhhh Tony

Lets see some basic math and <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The rewrite of the graphics engine is certainly NOT going to happen for CM2. Unless you want to wait for an additional year or so<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Otherwise people will have to wait for about 1.5 years FROM NOW before they can get their hands on the Eastern Front. I don't think anybody here is willing to wait that long, seeing as many were calling for us to do Eastern Front first<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So 1.5 years -1 years = 6 months till CM2. Remember past performance is no guarantee of future results. Tony

The best solution would be to limit the maximum amount of tungsten rounds available to each tank. I believe that for US tanks this would be 1 or 2 for tanks and maybe up to 3 0r 4 for TD.

Looks like a US vs Canada version maybe needed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When CM2 comes out this BBS will be even larger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> pant pant drool drool When CM2 comes out I don't think BTS will have to worry about their cash flow. [This message has been edited by Dittohead (edited 12-07-2000).]

The actual problem with MG teams running is that they will then be hit by bouncing HE shells, thus rendering them ineffective.

What size artillery are you using. 76mm or 81mm mortars are best used to suppress dug in troops esp if they are vets. Use the bigger stuff if you want casualties

They were smoking lucky strikes and eating their hershey candy bars. Further proof that smoking is bad for you.

That's nothing I had a reg panther hunt up 15m to a small ridge and fire on an avre 200m away. I targeted the avre before moving to make sure it would fire at it. Of cousre on the way to its firing position a inf sqd retreats across its los at 150m just before it acquired the avre. It proceeds to rotate its turret and fire at the inf. Doh. Then it realizes oh look an avre which begins backing, rotates gun lines up and fires at 32 sec, not even close, shell landed about 50 m short left. Avre fired at inf at the 14 sec mark had the panther los at 26 sec mark. Avre immediately begins to back up and proceeds to fire at 38 sec while moving backwards and at 223m lands the shell only 1 meter behind the panther, only shocking it, but still kind of bad bad luck. Arghhh

Is there a maximum amount of ammo a unit can use per turn? I know I had a vg rifle sqd use up 11 pts in one turn. It fired briefly at several targets one of which was assaulting them. It did seem a little too high for a 1 min firefight.

This brings up another point, why do some tanks carry so many smoke rounds? Limit the number of smoke rounds per tank to 2 or 4.

Just a reminder

I think even green american troops get a small benefit from the gyros. So why wouldn't the same logic apply to turret speed rotation. The logic behind the gyro's inclusion are not much different then the reasons to include faster rotation speed of the panther turret. IMHO Tony [This message has been edited by Dittohead (edited 12-01-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Remember... the German philosophy was to have their tanks engage in long range (1000m+) battles whenever possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well if that was their philosophy then they would have had superior optics to do just that.

I think you might want to check your math. 7"x 2.54cm/in =178mm etc... I just had a feeling you must be from florida. [This message has been edited by Dittohead (edited 11-29-2000).]

Actually I heard that GW Bush may refuse to move into the oval office.... well at least until they get all the "stains" out of the carpeting.

Actually im waiting for the movie on How CM was made, sorta like that bill gates and steve jobs movie.

Two things I would like to see with QB would be an open force selection with max pts in each category and the ability to delete elements of companies. That way you can get a decent inf mix and 1 or 2 tanks in support. The way it is now under combined arms you are forced to buy too many tanks and too little vet inf when you defend. Esp the US who are forced too pay for all those company assets.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does anyone know anything about Russian optics & gunsights?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Considering the current crisis in the mideast, I would think the Early Arab Israeli wars would be a good indicator of the respective quality of US vs Russian sights. Considering the Arabs used a lot of T-34/76/85 and The Israeli's used various models of sherman tanks.