IntelWeenie

VT was also used as a cover designation for proximity fuses to help prevent the axis powers from finding out the allies actually made a good proximity fuse. Some more tidbits: There was some research in Britain early in the war that produced a proximity fuse (Pistol No. 710) that used photo-electric cells that detected shadows (from aircraft) to initiate the fuze. The 'typical' VT fuze was actually developed for the US Navy and first used in 1943 in the Pacific. It was essentially a self-contained radar transmitter and receiver that would fire if it got a radar return within lethal range of the shell. It worked against aircraft and ground targets (and in all weather). (all the above tidbits are from "German and Allied Secret Weapons of WWII" by V. Hogg and J.B. King) IIRC, the first use of VT shells against ground targets in Europe was during the Battle of the Bulge. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Unit quality will affect nearly everything except the amount of armor and the AP performance of the gun (anything you see on the unit info screen regarding vehicle characteristics). Movement delay, spotting ability, accuracy, prioritizing targets, bogging/unbogging, likelihood of bailing from a damaged vehicle, etc., etc. are all affected. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Now... I can't remember if I mentioned that this Rarity feature was going to be optional, so to be on the safe side I should mention that it will be, in fact, optional. Optionally yours, Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you're saying we don't have to use it if we don't want to? IOW, it's optional? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: [bActually, I think it would make them extinct instead of rare. If Pumas cost more than Mark IVs when using rarity, who in their right mind is going to ever buy a Puma? This would be a problem with any unit that was very rare, but not unusually powerful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, bad example. I meant that the "bang for the buck" for the rarer vehicles would generally be lower than for common ones. Better example: Two similarly capable vehicles (same base points, roughly same armor/guns). One is a variant that was somewhat rare. This vehicle would cost slightly more (how much more depending on how rare) than the more common vehicle. How to keep interest in buying the rare vehicles? Randomize the rarity on a per-vehicle basis, unlike ASL where you rolled for a "ceiling" rarity factor that you could buy up to. Since this is on a per-vehicle basis, it could minimize the usefulness of "re-rolling" the setup of a PBEM, since you might get one rare vehicle that you want on the cheap, but other equipment might end up more expensive than normal. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

A clarification about historical rarity: It would NOT have to reflect material advantages for one nationality or the other. It would best be a representation of how rare/common a vehicle was for THAT nationality/force. Thus, the allies would not get an advantage by having Shermans being super cheap compared to PzKfw IVs since there were a LOT more Shermans produced, for example. However, Pumas would be relatively more expensive than PzKfw IVs when factoring in their combat capabilities (same amount of points would buy more combat capability in a more common vehicle). Yes, this would make the less common vehicles less common in QBs. Hey, that would be historically accurate! I definitely agree that this should be optional for those that want to just play for the sake of playing. Edit: Gee, nothing like having your views match those of the game designers! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 09-29-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bombardier: I find it hard to believe that the Department of ordnance refused to issue the correct weapon knowing the ineffectiveness of the 57mm against the late model Germans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the 57mm (and Brit 6-pdr) are both actually pretty decent once you get Tungsten ammo. Sure, they're not 100% effective on frontal shots vs. Panthers, but how many guns are? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The two things coming up are: 1. Fixes to offroad speeds and spotting ability while moving "Fast" involving light wheeled vehicles. The values used right now are not correct (more of a bug than a design problem). This will be patched in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds good to me, but why not look at spotting ability for ALL moving vehicles, too? (just in case ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: 2. In CM2 we plan on having an optional "Rarity" system that will radically alter people's purchasing habits if used. This will eliminate, if used, many of the current unit mixes that break the game away from reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree completely with this! I think your idea about a variable rarity would calm the fears of those who worry the Super Pershing and Pumas would never be seen again if rarity was included. In addition to another suggestion I made a couple days ago about adjusting rarity/price depending on mission, how about adjusting it depending on force mix as well? Armor would be more expensive (relatively) when "infantry" or "mechanized" is choosen, and cheaper if "armor" is selected. "Combined arms" could be a de facto "base cost" category. Notice that this could be applied to individual vehicles, as well (StuGs and TDs would have less of a points increase than heavy tanks since they often supported infantry units). Lots of modifiers, but I think the result would be worth it (and not too hard to code). The difficulty would be figuring out how much to modify unit prices! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: So putting all game related type questions, do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tough one. I would say they really don't have an inherent value, but I think this could be accounted for by what I suggested above regarding force mix modifiers. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I think another factor to be considered is that there has never really been any resolution to the Korean war. The fighting ended with the political situation pretty much the same as it was before the war. In Vietnam (as in WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, Falklands/Malvinas, etc., etc.), there were definite winners and losers. I have met several people who served in Korea (during the '80s-'90s) who say that the conflict is still going on. The "peace" is just a really long truce and temporary ceasefire. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Since I had this exact same thought, ( http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010827-2.html ) I have little choice but to concur! I would also propose (if it hasn't already been considered) to combine this with one of the ideas that BTS has been talking about on the "Cherry Picking" thread: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The rough system we are thinking of basically would "roll" to see what degree of rareness the particular vehicle will have for that particular battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The "roll" would be modified by the battle type in addition to historical factors. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: "The British were the first to start using the tungsten rounds along with their "littlejohn" adaptor on the muzzle, which squeezed their 2-pdr down to 30mm to increase velocity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An interesting side note about the "littlejohn" adapter was that it screwed onto the muzzle of an otherwise normal 2-pdr (sort of like a silencer on a pistol). However, since the regular AP ammo did not squeeze down to 30mm, crews were instructed to remove the adapter when they wished to fire normal AP. They would then reattach it when they wished to fire the sqeeze rounds (all of this during a firefight, of course ). Needless to say, most crews left the adapter off all the time. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Also, the Panther's 75/L70 gun actually has better AP performance than the Tiger's 88/L56. It's faster, too. I like 'em! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 09-28-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I love it. The best part is, a building does not have a firing slit to be penetrated, so it is likely that a building will provide better cover than a pillbox!! Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...until the building collapses! Still, this looks pretty good if you're only worried about small arms and small (less than 75mm) tank guns. Hmm, the Pak40 in the casino basement at Ouistreham (from the movie "The Longest Day") comes to mind. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

In the process of making an article on AT ambushes, I played a battle where the AI was attacking down a road. The vehicles all started evenly spaced, but the AI did a very good job of moving up the road using bounding overwatch. For more info and screenshots see my AAR at: http://www.combat-mission.com/ ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Our solution to Atypical force creation was to make point costs higher depending on hor rare the vehicle was for that time period. Unfortunately, this was shelved for CM1 because we didn't have time to implement a well researched and tested system. However... there is CM2 coming up Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How about taking this line of thought one step further? The rarity factor could be further adjusted depending on the type of QB being fought. That way, you would see more recon vehicles and infantry than übertanks, heavy artillery and engineers in a meeting engagement or probe. Likewise, how many ACs would you expect to see in an assault? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: I wonder...I think that the Churchill Crocodile had its flame-thrower mounted along side the main gun in the turret whereas the Sherman Crocodile had its flame-thrower mounted in the bow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, the Sherman flamer came in two varieties. One had the flamer replacing the BMG and was originally tried out in the Stuart. The other (used only by the Marines?) had it in place of the main gun. (It had a pipe that looked like the normal 75mm to fool the Japanese into thinking it was it's less harmful brother) Edit: Look at combat footage taken on Iwo Jima or Okinawa to see this puppy in action. The Churchill Croc was only produced with the FT replacing the BMG. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 09-26-2000).]

What if you had several PBEMs and they all had different passwords? That might be a problem... ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Bump. Any official answers? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fernando: I was shocked so I checked Jentz's book about the Panther and I found the following text: "The Panther is basically invulnerable to artillery fire. However, direct hits by calibers OVER 150 mm on the roof of the hull and turret had the effect of DEFORMING the armor and causing internal damage. Hits by lighter caliber shells hitting the comander cupola and the roof armor showed NO effect" *snip* but it seems that light and medium artillery couldn’t penetrate Panther’s top armor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee, the Panther only has about 16mm of top armor (according to my copy of the CM unit database). I can't see how a 75mm+ HE shell couldn't penetrate unless it was point detonating or VT. Maybe this is what Jentz is talking about? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Uh, I'm stupid. (Don't quote me on that )I was thinking of the half-squad purchase issue in the editor. It's definitely a Monday! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger: As far as the G3 goes, I do think it is going to be replaced by the G11 (?) which has caseless ammunition for more firepower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AFAIK, the G11 is in limbo. Apparently nobody wants to foot the bill for it and its ammo in the post-cold war era. HK has developed a new line of rifles to replace the G3/G33 line called the G36. It's still 5.56 like the G33, but otherwise is an almost totally new design. It features a built-in carrying handle with integral 3.5x scope. There is also a carbine version. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

IIRC, you need to go back to version 1.03 to be able to do that. You can then load it up in 1.05 and it will be automatically updated but leave the units intact. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

What category do FT teams fall under? (at work, no CM) Also, I find it a bit odd that even though Baz, Schreck and PIAT teams are very similar to mortar teams (The weapon is the unit served by a crew that has no inherent small arms) I have NEVER seen one of them abandon their weapon like a mortar crew. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Getting in on this late, but it seems like folks here are forgetting that CM2 is going to be 41-45. The last year of combat (roughly) was not on Soviet soil. We'll get terrain and scenarios from eastern Germany, Poland, Hungary, Austria, etc. Don't forget Finland, which (from what I've heard, at least) was pretty heavily forested in places along the Soviet border... ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Since no one has mentioned them, PSW 234/4 (Like the 234/3 but with a Pak40) LVTs (Buffalos) Weasels (the vehicular kind, not the furry ones) Sherman Caliope Mineclearing flail/roller tanks! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Just to toot my own horn a bit and in case there are those in CM-land that didn't hear, I recently made up a short how-to article about setting up and executing Antitank ambushes in CM. I also wrote a small AAR for a scenario I did as an example of a successful ambush using some of the lessons from the article. It can be found at: http://www.combat-mission.com/ Thanks again Michlos, for posting it on your site for me! Any (constructive )comments are certainly welcome! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right