IntelWeenie

I searched for "armor quality" and found a thread where Moon stated it represents an increased chance of weak spot hits. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I think it needs lotsa snazzy graphics and some background music. Maybe Madmatt can put a movie or two on the start page or some cool Java program to simulate CM in your browser. What, doesn't everyone have a T1? Seriously, I vote for simplicity, function and content. Say, a CMHQ without the ads. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: Steve said: My question is the other way around. Why can a squad target an ambush marker created by an AT weapon instead of the squad's HQ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My answer would be that the infantry is supporting the AT weapon's ambush. At least, that's the way I rationalize it to myself. 2LT: O.K. guys, you need to keep an eye on that AT gun over there. Don't fire unless they do, since we don't want to give away their position. BTW, what is the limit for number of ambush markers? Has anyone counted? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franko: the Rangers' had a lot more squad automatic weapons, organized more along the lines of a USMC squad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, it HAD to be the other way around! (sorry, Bullethead) ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Ok, to get a little bit back on subject. The article I mentioned in an earlier post is now available. It's not at CMHQ, but was graciously posted by Michlos at his website: http://www.combat-mission.com/ There are two parts, a Tactics article and an AAR. Any comments are certainly welcome! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS: As for jamming.....well if the enemy has enough balls to try and jam the entire battle field of GPS receivers, and especially encrypted sattelite transmissions, their gonna be toast anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thus disposable jammers. They are too hard to locate (either by sight or DF since you usually use a lot of them) and are deliverable to the enemy's rear area by artillery, aircraft or Special Forces. MoJam (mobile jamming) is another answer, since DFing moving tartgets is harder. Encryption has no effect on jamming. Encrypted signals are still radio signals, just ones you can't understand. Jamming frequency hopping radios is another matter, but you can still do broadband jamming though you typically loose some (or a lot)effectiveness. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911: Why are improved positions not included as a purchase option for the defender?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The defender automatically gets them when the attacker is "attacking" or "assaulting" in QB. No need to purchase what you already have for free. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911: I'm not asking that ambushes be opened up to out of command units, rather that ambushes be limited to the ambush marker that the units HQ set up so that there can't be targeting of a panzerschreck's marker by a squad who's HQ is out of sight over a hill and similar situations. I think it's too powerful right now, and unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this part of the argument about ambushes. I think infantry squads should only be able to target their own HQ's marker. That they can do otherwise is just beacuse every ambush marker is identical once it is placed without any regard to ownership. However, I would say that any unit capable of placing an ambush marker (HQs, tanks, AT guns, etc.) should have the ability to target any ambush marker. Why? Ambushes (when properly done, at least) are coordinated between several different units. Just yesterday I sent an article off to Madmatt about setting up AT ambushes in CM. Once (if?) he posts it, I think my point will be a lot clearer. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

.50 cal MGs mounted on T-8s, which were then considered too effective and prodution stopped. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

From what they say about the radio gear, I wouldn't worry too much about enemy DF (direction finding). It sounds like it's UHF or SHF with really low power given the LOS and range issues. To lock in a radio signal, you need at least 2 DF stations and preferably 3 or more. All these DF'ers have to be networked in some way so that they generate a LOB (line of bearing) at the exact same time to ensure they're looking at the same radio transmitter. Even if the radio range is extended out to 1Km, the DFers would need to be within that range and have LOS to receive the signals, which is WAY too close for my comfort (we intelligence weenies do like our comforts, you know ). Still, I suppose getting a single LOB is better than not knowing anything about your enemy's whereabouts. GPS would be pretty easy to jam (known frequency and LONG distance between transmitter and receiver), but jamming is a two-edged sword. You would lose the use of GPS for your own forces, too. Still, we (101st MI Bn, 1st ID) used to have some 20W disposable VHF broadband jammers that would have been good for 'fuzzying' an area if the frequency was adjusted for GPS. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 09-22-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: Medics would be an interesting addition but would they add to game play, probably not. One thing that is not model correctly in this great game is the buddy system. When a man was wounded one or more buddies would take him to the rear. So for every wounded man 1 or more buddies were taken out of the fight. This was studied by SLA Marshal and was a point in limiting the attacking (and defending ability) of US and other allied units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I remember reading somewhere or another that this was part of the justification the Japanese used for fielding their crappy 6.5mm rifle ammo. It was more likely to injure than kill, but they figured that was OK because taking care of the wounded requires more resources than burying the dead. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

IIRC, the standard load for a M1 Garand was something like 176 rds (22 8-round clips). Of course, most troops would scrounge extra ammo. Airborne troops in particular would drop with as much ammo as they could carry since resupply was obviously not a sure thing. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Purple4Ever: There was also a battalion of Brumbar (sorry I don't have the 'umlaut' key on my american keyboard )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any Windows users out there can get umlauts or other special characters using different key combinations. Ü = Alt + 0220 ü = Alt + 0252 To see what keys combos to use for different characters, use the Character Map program (you may need to install it from the Windows Setup tab in Add/Remove programs). ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: I always wanted a first-person warship.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you switch between all the different crew stations? If not, then why bother? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I'll chime in with my best wishes, too! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I should also say I think the random QB are right on -- especially in smaller contest. You get all sorts of funny German units that no one buys otherwise, and you have to make this heap of oddball units work for you -- it can be very fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hee, hee. Once in a QB the computer bought me a Crack H-39.... It only caused one infantry casualty since I was rather tenative about using it. I think the Sherman points are fine. If you really want better (more historical) odds, ask for bonus points if playing as the US on an open map. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RudeLover: Hmmm, wouldn't have guessed this; the US 76mm was better than the Russian 76mm or 85mm? Is this regular APCBC or APDS?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, the main reason the US 76mm was better was due to higher velocity than either Soviet gun. The quality of manufacture of the shells might have something to do with it, too (just like US 76 vs Brit 17 pounder). ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ianc: 4) Have the game wait for the CD to be inserted instead of exiting out upon startup. Ooops!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> YOU'VE REMOVED THE CD?? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>6) I'm often confused by wheatfields. Sometimes they offer almost no restriction to LOS, others lots. This seems to be dependant on the season. Duh. Possibly in the seasons where wheatfields were in full growth, the hedge (or maybe bocage, if late in the season!) geographical game shapes could be used (covered with wheatfield textures of course) to more accurately portray the LOS degradation from these features. A problem is, if units are in it, how do you portray this? I say, just depict the very top of the unit (same as if a unit is in hedge or bocage now), or even just its base, but leave it clickable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would go for different wheatfield tiles depending on state of the crops (fully grown or too short to block LOS). ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I've been playing more with AT guns lately (trying to polish my technique) and I am currently in the process of writing a hopefully useful 'tactics' article outlining how to create a successful AT ambush in CM. If I don't get it done soon, I'll post more info here. If I do get it done soon (end of this week) I'll try to find a website where I can post it. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Anyone tried the same tactics with the German Kübelwagen ? Or is this "feature" only related to the "improper" use of Allied vehicles ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> FINALLY! The Kübelwagen DOES have a purpose!! Oh, and ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusjm: IBM wouldn't have invested 300 million USD in Linux if they didn't want to make some cash.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The main reason IBM (and most other major computer makers, IMHO) are getting on the Linux bandwagon is for the back end server products, not Linux on the desktop. IBM will find a way to make money off of "free" software the same way they always have: consulting fees. ($150/hr and up, oh my! ) BTW, my boss is investigating running Linux on our S/390... ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I must agree with Seanachai here. Intel is not the all-seeing, all-knowing eye in the sky that many people think it is (I know, note my handle!). Most current NATO maps are at a 1:50,000 scale and lack significant details. At this scale, a typical CM map (say 2km by 2km) would be just under a 2" square. Now imagine seeing all the clumps of trees, individual buildings, etc. in that little square. I can imagine WWII era maps were slightly less detailed. TOE is a factor, too. You fight with what you have, not what would be perfect for the situation. Remember, were talking about 1/2 hour engagements, not week-long battles where asking for and receiving attachments might be more likely. I like the current system since it forces you to develop a balanced force structure, develop a plan, then apply it to the terrain you are forced to fight in. More like Real Life™ that way. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The value of each and every order must be huge in terms of gameplay return before it gets added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this might be one of those issues that meets this qualification. As Jeff said, this is the whole point of having a turreted vehicle. I can think of numberous situations where it could be an important factor during a 60 second span. some examples: Moving tanks past a potential AT ambush. (say, a corner in the road) The "tophat/lowsky" maneuver, when targets are known to be to the flank. Better coverage of infantry threats to both sides of the tank (BMG covers one flank, CMG the other). If not for CM, please consider it for CM2. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Yes, but I was considering the TacAI's actions, not player-initiated ones. Maybe I haven't seen it so much since I haven't played too many night/fog scenarios. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Hey, Madmatt, why don't you put a link to the CM webring index page in your sig? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right