Kingfish

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: And no one to spot targets - ever sit inside a tank and look through the periscope? Try it. Tell us what you see. Driver is too busy watching his guages to see when he has to shift gears, and figure out where the hell he is going; the MG gunner - I don't know what the sights/periscope was like on a kangaroo turret, but I am betting it wasn't too great. Actually, I will check with the guys at 1CACR.org and see what they have to say. [ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<hr></blockquote> Who spots targets for the bow gunner of a tank that lost it's T/C? Actually, who spots targets for the bow gunner of an intact tank? The T/C? In the middle of an armored battle I doubt he will, yet the bow gunners have no problems engaging on their own.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kettler: Kingfish has vanished from the planet.<hr></blockquote> What !?! :confused: I've been waiting for you. Looks like my last file was sucked into a black hole. I'll resend it tonight.

Here is your system: 1. Player 1 gives turn 1 orders. 2. Player 2 gives turn 1 orders. Movie is calculated. 3. Player 1 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie data and turn 2 orders are sent to player 2. 4. Player 2 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie is calculated. Here is Elvis's system from almost 2 years ago: Player B: place orders for turn 1 --------------- Player A: place orders for turn 1 --------------- Player B: watch playback turn 1 and orders turn 2 --------------- Player A: watch playback turn 1 and place orders for turn 2 Perhaps there's something I'm missing here, but they do look alot alike. Now, notice Leland's response: >>The FIRST player to watch a playback CANNOT be allowed to issue orders before the opponent has also seen the playback. If you allow this, that player can recalculate the turn multiple times to achieve favorable results.<< Here is another quote from Leland: >>The problem is that the orders files themselves don't contain all the information needed to generate the results due to randomness in the execution/calculation - issuing the same orders does not necessarily produce the same results.<< IOW, there is a randomness in the movies that will generate different results if played multiple times. That randomness can be used by a player to their advantage if he is allowed to watch the movies and issue orders before his opponent. To be honest I would love for your system to work. However, it looks like Elvis came up with an almost identical system 2 years ago and it was shot down for the reasons stated above.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>the movie has already been calculated on other player's machine, so you cannot "re-calculate" it, you recieve a movie data and CM plays back it to you.<hr></blockquote> But you could reload it and get a different outcome over time. Here are a few quotes from a couple of old timers who know the system well: Fionn: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>"Why is this done? To stop CHEATING.. Some players would simply replay the resolution phase until the MOST favourable results possible came up and then send it off to you. By not allowing them to see the results of their orders until you see them first no cheating can occur."<hr></blockquote> Leland: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Player B: watch playback turn 1 and orders turn 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the problem, the same one Steve pointed out in response to ianc's suggestion. The FIRST player to watch a playback CANNOT be allowed to issue orders before the opponent has also seen the playback. If you allow this, that player can recalculate the turn multiple times to achieve favorable results.<hr></blockquote> Leland again: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>A generate/watch turn one movie A doesn't like results he got A generate and watch new turn one movie A likes this result better A plot turn two <hr></blockquote> So you can see that even though player 1 calculates the movie, player 2 can reload the movie until he likes the outcome, then send back to player 1. This process can be repeated throughout the game giving one player an unfair advantage. You can't have one player generate new orders until the turn is officially over, and that means both players have seen the movie. BTW, unless I’m missing something here, you still need three e-mails exchanged with this new system before a turn is resolved. Here’s how I see it: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> 1. Player 1 gives turn 1 orders. (E-mail) 2. Player 2 gives turn 1 orders. Movie is calculated. (E-mail) 3. Player 1 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie data and turn 2 orders are sent to player 2. (E-mail) 4. Player 2 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie is calculated. <hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>3. Player 1 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie data and turn 2 orders are sent to player 2. 4. Player 2 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie is calculated.<hr></blockquote> You are correct, this has been brought up before, and what I do rememeber from those discussions was you can't issue orders to a new turn until both players have seen the last turn's movie. Something about player 1 having the capability to reload a bad movie until he gets a favorable result, then issuing orders before player 2 can respond. Something like that.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker: Because with a title like "Silent Nacht" it tells me that it's probably a nighttime Bulge scenario, giving me a heads-up to work on my night-time snow tactics. <hr></blockquote> BUUUUZZZZZZ.......wrong answer! It's a raid by Finnish ski troops against a Russian supply column somewhere near lake Lagoda. What's really cool is the way the horses panic once the heavy arty...Ooops, I've said too much already. Sorry

2 pdr - 40mm 6 pdr - 57mm 17 pdr - 76mm 25 pdr - 88mm 3" - 76mm 4.2" - 107mm 4.5" - 114mm 5.5" - 140mm 7.2" - 180mm 8" - 203mm 14" - 355mm [ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Kingfish ]</p>

This weekend I'll gather up a dozen of my friends, dress up in old military uniforms, then go down to the junk yard and take a picture standing next to an old, beat-up truck. I'll then e-mail it to the guys at Al-Jazeera with the caption: "US SF ambush Taliban supply convoy"

A question for those in the know and those who love to speculate... Is the fuel trailer for Crocs (Sherman and Churchill) modeled? I'm not talking about the graphical representation, but the actual armor specs. IOW, if you were to shoot at a croc from directly behind, would the computer calculate the fuel trailer or the rear of the tank when computing armor penetration?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw: It's hardly definitive and I'm no expert BUT ... I threw together a quick test with a Sherman Easy 8(no ammo) stuck on an island and faced frontally by a Hummel (only HE) 550m. away. The Hummel killed the Sherman on the first turn, the second turn and the fourth turn in three tries. What makes you think the 150 CAN'T kill a Sherman? Did you have a game in which it didn't happen a couple of times? I had some non-penetrative hits but obviously SOMETHING got through. Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just ran my own tests for fun. I copied your parameters, but tested both the Hummel and the 150mm IG. Each weapon was tested three times. The Hummel scored kills on the second, first (one shot) and second turn. The total shots expended for all three tests was 8, with only one miss. Then I tested the 150mm IG. The first test lasted 8 turns. The gun got off a total of 11 shots (1 miss) before the tank crew bailed. The tank was never really knocked out, only immobilized. The second test was even more remarkable. 13 turns, 19 shots (again 1 miss) and the tank's MG finally caused the gun crew to panic off the map. We are talking about a tank who just took 18 direct hits in the turret and hull front with a 150mm HE round, and not only is the crew unfazed, but the bow MG and optics work well enough to kill half the crew of a dug-in gun 500 meters away and drive off the rest. The third test lasted 5 turns and the tank was killed with the 8th shot. Like Joe's said, these tests are hardly definitive. Nevertheless, it does seem odd that two very similar weapon systems end up with such different results. Edit: The Hummel's 150mm gun has a blast rating of 200, while the IG has a BR of 164. [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

I've seen a few maps that cover an area several kilometers long. How big a map do you need?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: In WW II, air defence was still "Ack Ack" was it not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What does a cat coughing up a hairball have to do with air defense? :confused:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina: PS. If there are any rules that were agreed between any of you and Stix please let me know so i can continue in the same manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Stix had promised to surrender on the next turn. Let me know if this is a problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: To the six of you who were playing Stixx: Send/resend your latest "Stixx" file to CapDogInChina. I will send him everything he needs within a couple hours. Welcome aboard CapitalistDogInChina! Treeburst155 out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ooops... :eek: Stixx, If you read this, please send the latest in our game to CapDog. I've cleaned out my PBEM folder and recycle bin a while ago, and I don't think I have it anymore. Thanks

While first use might be common for Panthers and Hetzers, Mark IVs mistaken for Tigers almost always get an AP round first. The second round is usually a 'T' round, but its still in the barrel because MY %#@*&! TANK FIREBALLED!!!!

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

Panzerfausts in CM come in three versions: PF30, PF60 and PF100. The number is the max range of the weapon. However, usually the squad won't fire one unless the target is within half that range. Effective against just about anything in the Allied inventory, they are also fired against infantry in close combat situations. AFAIK, they cannot be fired on the run (could be wrong here). Panzerfaust [ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Kingfish ] [ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

Fields lined with Bocage must have a break for vehicle access (pg.125 of the manual). [ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When will the "public" be able to read these AARs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Trust me, you do not want to read the AARs. You'll want to D/L each one and save them for a double blind PBEM or TCP game. Do everything you can to preserve the FOW for these 8 scenarios. You will not be disappointed.

Well, if it isn't the 'Rocket man' himself. Thanks for the info John. I never knew WW2 rockets could be fired individually. That answers one question. How about the second question? Considering how inaccurate rockets are, how would the FO know that the battery was locked on?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: It would save time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, but TRPs will not only give you a faster response but better accuracy as well. That's what I'm having trouble understanding. How is a rocket battery firing on a TRP more accurate than one without? Both are firing on the same coordinates, only one got the coordinates a few minutes sooner. Keep in mind that my questioning is based on the assumption that rocket batteries are not 'tweaked'(for lack of a better word) onto a TRP. I've always understood them to be area fire weapons, not something you can walk towards a target one round at a time. If someone has info to the contrary please let me know. Thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dunc: Is it possible for mines to be recognised incorrectly? such as, AT mistaken with infantry mines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. The signs are hard-coded. Edit: one way to fool your opponent is to overlap or stack different types of mines. Since AP mines are harmless to vehicles your opponent might plot his tanks across them, only to fall prey to the AT mines underneath. [ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It still might let the FO communicate the exact intended target easier, right? And in theory, the velocities of the projectiles are probably known, so maybe they precalculated an approximate trajectory to use. Sounds somewhat plausible to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But how is that any different from a FO calling in a strike w/o a TRP?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alan: My engineers spotted some mines in a QB last night. The mines were on a road next to the building the engineers were hiding in. I don't know if they were anti tank or anti personel mines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you can see the sign then zoom in until you can read it. An AT minefield will say 'Actung, minen panzer'