dNorwood

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw: The answer -I- got (don't recall from whom) is that the "nuke" thing is supposed to represent a large dust cloud spreading from the collapse. With a bottom of the line 8M 3d card, I generally don't see much difference between -anything- . Maybe when I get that new card...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Greybeard 101st: Always American, Sorry just can't play the germans, no offense, my father spent 4 years fighting them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Similar feelings - My Dad was a 20 year combat engineer, and my grandfather drove landing craft in the Pacific. (And my Mom's family is Hungarian, most of whom now live in Germany - where I'm going in December! WooHoo!!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: Damn! all this proposal writing is getting in the way of CM. Do ya think the NSF is interested in supporting some gaming...I mean modeling... of WWII small unit tactics? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm...probably not NSF. But my dissertation was paid for by the Navy (ONR), the Air Force (AFOSR), and DARPA (before they became PC and turned into ARPA), so there's GOTTA be money for this somewhere!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GIJim: I am not a historian by trade, meerly a game playing physicist <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW. There's two of us? Amazing! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is my understanding that a 'majority', if not more, of crews turned off their gyrostabilizers as they proved more of a nusience that help. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I asked this question as well (it was a half-remembered line from the old Squad Leader game in my case). I was told that the stabilizers WERE a great help and were generally left on (but note above comment about loader), but that crews weren't adept at maintaining them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just wondering. It is quite a boost to the allied tanks in the game, but may not relect history correctly. Someone please set me straight. Jim<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My reading of the forum gives me the impression that BTS recognizes that this is somewhat unrealistic and an advantage for the allies, but is a necessary compromise. The "invincible 0.50" is another issue though - not so much as availability (I have no idea) as to lethality. My current PBEM opponent (who I only now find out is a SERIOUS student of the war - GULP!) and I have one for the ueber weapon file. Suffice it to say (at least until the fight is over!) that even as the beneficiary, I find it seems out of whack.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Disaster@work: I can't believe the number of times I curse at the screen wishing the little guy could hear my warning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I'm pretty glad they CAN'T hear - when you consider the abuse I've heaped on heavily armed men....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GI Tom: My English has a touch of Yankee, but my Pig Latin is flawless. Ixnay ona hetay renchfay <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm a little rusty, but shouldn't this be: Ixnay onay e-thay ench-fray?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: I, for one, am one of the high velocity crowd. Remember when Pres. Reagan and Sec. Brady were shot? Reagan nearly died and Brady was, sadly, crippled for life. And that was from a piddly .22LR (small bullet, high velocity)! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I decided long ago to stay out of the "which gun is better" debate, but part of the discrepancy in Reagan's comparatively mild wound (he was back at work in two weeks)and Brady's was that Hinckley used exploding ammunition and the one that struck Reagan failed to explode.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: You're not supposed to fire them from the shoulder - you plant your rifle butt in the ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was my Dad's point. To be honest, it sounds like the kind of story someone would make up eventually if it didn't really happen. But as so many say, the weirdest things DO happen. (And he had the 20 years, so who am I do question?)

My Dad tells a story of a guy in training who broke his shoulder with a rifle grenade. (And I can't doubt him - he's my Dad!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Lets start with physics and work our way out from there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [sigh] I really tried to stay out. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Kinetic energy has alot to do with energy. Momentum does not relate to energy. One is a scalar and one is a vector. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Apropos of nothing: Kinetic energy is indeed a scalar (and by definition the other form of energy). Momentum is definitely a vector - if I form the dot product of momentum with itself (thus getting the squared magnitude of this vector) and divide by twice the mass, I get kinetic energy. Momentum relates DIRECTLY to kinetic energy. You may trust me that it is a DESPERATELY long way from these simple definitions to an answer to the current debate. It really is best to find out what is EMPIRICALLY true rather than trying to baffle people with...well, you know.

Other than CM, I play a game similar in scope (but no comparison) called FIREFIGHT. Western front WWII with ten "units" (armor or squad). I think of it like the old MicroGames - highly abstracted, but it plays really fast - 15-30 minutes per game, start to finish.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zaffod: I hear Bavaeria is die beste!! Munchen ist der shisse!! Zaff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh no! You're going to Bavaria!! Please leave something - I've got tickets for December!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamo: Dearest Havermeyer, I must disagree. Still, you saw it and I didn't. It would indeed be cool if what you saw was a deflected round. Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I gotta come down with Havermeyer on this. My (now tedious) story (but it was the coolest thing I'VE seen) was a Sherman firing past a wreck. Shell ricochets off the wreck and explodes in front of the Sherman (causing them to button up). I also replayed this from many angles (and distances). Now, I KNOW the Germans had panzerschrecks in this scenario, and it's possible that an unseen shot blew up in front of the tank. But then the Sherman's HE shell just disappeared, because it did NOT blow up downrange (once I figured out what happened, I looked for it). So, I believe that in CM, shells can ricochet and then blow up somewhere else. As to whether that is "realistic", that's someone else's call.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveT: I have a few, This is just what I have on DVD about WW-II. [snip list] Any body know of any thing WW-II on DVD Dave <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't know if it's on DVD, but you need to get "Battleground" in there somewhere. THAT is the quintessential "grunts" WWII movie (the vacuous and superficial "Saving Private Ryan" notwithstanding). (And that's pretty high praise for me when you consider that I hate Van Johnson)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: You load them in the game as a PBEM battle. Then type the provided password for whichever side you are viewing. Madmatt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I tried, but got some kind of "incombatible version" error. I presume that is because theyhaven't upgraded to 1.03 (which I think I have). If either of the principles are listening, is this true?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: You must be using the ambush command incorrectly. I can have my MG bunkers easily hold fire until the enemy are 30 or 40 metres away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For regular infantry (note the lower case "R") to hold fire, the have to under command (true?). Does the same go for teams? And if not, do they do a better job if they ARE under command?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: I think that the day of the MBT is probably coming to an end. Of course, it all depends on your point of view. I've talked to tankers who'd burn me alive for posting this, so... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would imagine they'd rather wait and have the last laugh. THe same sorts of things were being said in the 30's (AT guns are cheaper than tanks). The march of technology DOES clearly change the prosecution of war, and you may very well be right. But we scientists have been burned WAY too often trying to EXtrapolate. We content ourselves to INterpolate. (Even though it's not NEARLY as much fun!)

39. Almost to middle age....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kosn: I have used US Armored Cars to stunning effect. On game six I purchased a handful of AC's and one or two tanks. (These were about 500-700 point battles) I managed to take out the AI's tank and I ended up with 2 total victories in a row. I mean the victory was 97 to 3. The enemy infantry were stopped cold as I drove the AC's up into position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Similar experience for me. I'm learning my way around with a combination of "book-learnin'" and experimentation - QB's are PERFECT for this. I'm doing mostly random force choices now, and my most lop-sided victory (100-0) was a platoon of infantry (US), a Sherman, two Bazooka's and a (useless) mortar. All transported by HT's and an armored car. Everybody races to the victory location (lucky on the covered approach), jumps out - infantry moves up, followed by a couple of HT's, while the Sherman and the rest of the HT's race around to the enemies rear. Lotta luck on my side, but those HT's don't seem so shabby!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: AT guns CAN rotate in place.. You must be doing something wrong Intelweenie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does it have anything to do with the size of the gun? Are any of the guns in CM too big for a crew alone to manhandle? Or if they've suffered casualties? [This message has been edited by dNorwood (edited 08-02-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborne: I was able to use smoke from the shermans to blind him while I maneuvered against him. I've not had any trouble getting tanks to fire smoke. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll keep working on it, but my situation was similar - trying to get smoke cover for an infantry advance. Thye just wouldn't cooperate. but I'll keep trying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Hell, I don't think I've EVER seen an AT gun fire smoke come to think of it. What version of CM are you playing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> which brings up a question I've been meaning to ask. Is there a secret to getting a tnk to fire smoke? I've never been able (they always switch to another target and fire HE).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Greybeard 101st: There's a saying that after 3hours into a game, most players forget the graphics and concentrate on the game play. I know that as I play more and more I hardly notice the quality of the graphics, only as to how they help the game play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> THat's me, anyway. I finally loaded QuickTime and saw the opening movie, and the graphics LOOK primitive, but since I KNOW what units are and WHY they're doing the things they're doing, I just don't notice. The MEANING breaks through and I don't need pretty graphics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Sure I would like to see better graphics, but not at the expense of any of the great parts of this game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The best part for me is that I'm using a primitive 8k graphics card. As soon as my brother in law gets that nVidia card, I'm a happy guy!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: Then again, there's MY typical CM experience, where I order a mortar team to target an AFV and they shoot one round and then go back to sleep. This happened for four consecutive turns one time (fire one round, then targeting line goes away). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Me too. In fact, I practically have to put a gun to their heads to get them to target armor. And I've gotten hits - no effect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buddy: Can't resist this one...(clearing throat noises) You can't be going." (Thankyou, thankyouverymuch)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was awful. I'd horsewhip you if I had a horse.