IntelWeenie

Just to confuse matters (hee, hee), let's not forget the Christie tank suspension that ALLOWED the track to be removed, leaving the tank to run on (paved) roads using only the wheels. So if you ever see a picture of a tank doing this, it's a Christie-based tank. CM2 reference: Didn't the BT-5 still have this capability (not that it was ever used)? ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

IIRC, BTS also used some proprietary software to make the 3D models. I can fully understand them not wanting to open this up to the public. (It would be nice, though, if there was someone doing more vehicles for a future patch/expansion ) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LaiKay: Thks for all the information. I get a better understand of PF. So is those panzerfaust30, 40, ... 100 is like those FP in ASL of 44 version, 45 version etc? (Sorry keep using ASL as a comparision cuz it's easy for me to understand). Thank you LaiKay<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep. An easier way to think of it is the version of PF (30, 60, 100) is the effective range in meters. PF100 = 100m range(+ or - some). ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Could be a case of barely having LOS, but missing the shot(s) which impacted the corner of the building unintentionally. I've seen that once or twice. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

1st thing I would check is if it is the real .cmb file or just a shortcut to it. Right click on it in Explorer to see which kind it is. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 08-22-2000).]

Most of this discussion goes beyond my meager resources, but if the 88/L71 behaves differently than predicted by an equation, how would this be corrected within the game since: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: How do I reach this conclusion? The simple physics behind it. Combat Mission does not use "penetration tables" or charts to determine armor penetration. Instead it uses the mathematical equations described in "Penetration of Armour Plate" originally by (British) Ordnance Board Subcommittee of the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee (reproduced by U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information Service #PB91127506). *snip* Charles <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 08-22-2000).]

The only malfuntions I've seen are MGs jamming. Yes, experience plays a part in the jam happening and how long it takes to clear it. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Now I'm REALLY confused. Scott, are you talking about the same game as The Commissar? If so, whose troops were they?? Or is it a case of "it happened to me, too"? ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: David, Check you 1944 British, UK and German TO&Es. They DID assign men specifically to carry PIATs around. The basic idea was that out of a 36 man platoon you'd have roughly 34 be rifle carrying infantry and 2 would be chosen to luck the bazooka or the PIAT etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Germans had PIATs in their 1944 TO&E? (Just kidding, Fionn; not often you trip yourself up and I just couldn't resist ) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Experience may play a role, too. The lesser the experience, the stupider things troops seem to do. OTOH, I have seen Veteran or better squads charge an ambush (which is an acceptable tactic depending on circumstances). ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

A lot of people here seem to look forward to huge armored behemoths slowly clanking across the steppes blowing up everything in sight, but I can't wait for the early war "clash of the midgets" (as a good friend of mine calls it) Anyone else looking for a good BT-5 BBQ? (or PzKfwIII roast for that matter) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

If they are included, would it be implemented in a similar manner to gyrostabilizers? Or would it be a separate vehicle with increased point value? ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LaiKay: I have played several scenario in which I never seen any German troop fire their panzerfaust at any tank at all. The only time I saw it being used was against another UK squad. Now my problem is in what range will these troop fight this anti-tank weapon at another tank. I have ever seen that my squad is as close as 30m to a station tank but they dont fire too. From the information that I read from book and from ASL exp. Panzerfaust should have an effective range ( I means good chance for hitting the target) of up to 80m or so. Anybody have any idea? Thks. LaiKay<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Others beat me to the punch, but if you think of it in ASL terms, your squads are probably failing their PAATC. Like Jeff said, also check the unit detail screen to see what version of PF they have. My troops have never seemed too shy about using their PFs, even when they're inside a building and end up pinning themselves, torching the building.... Anyway, PFs are controlled by the TacAI, so about all you can do is get your troops to a good firing position and hope they do the right thing. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

OK, I'll bite. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: There's many units in CM... hehe. But what the hell do some of them do? How do you use them? eg. The Archer! Watchutalkingaboutwillis?! or.. Security teams? Pionners over engineers? difference? those tracked but gunless armored cars? Anyone dragged an AT gun around the field? If you you've used one of these or any of the 'funny' units well and found a good niche for them, please tell us all! PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Archers are usless as a tank. Use them like an AT than actually CAN move around the battlefield. AT guns can barely move on their own (some not at all). Hitch them up to a prime mover (truck or HT) to move long distances. Security teams are just a different squad type. Get the CM unit database from CMHQ to see the differences in armament, # of troops, etc. Pioneers and enginners are the same. Not sure what "tracked but gunless armored cars" you mean? Only completely unarmed vehicles I know of are trucks, jeeps and KUBELWAGENS! (oh, and assault boats) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti: Malmvig, Have you tried using the M8 Greyhound? I've found that to be a very nice recon vehicle. The 37mm packs enough punch to take out HTs and armored cars easily... Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with Ben. The M8 is quite a formidable vehicle when handled correctly. Small, fast and the 37mm can take out any light armor and some heavier stuff head on (PzKfw IVs for example). The British Daimler is no pushover either, though the lack of HE is something of a handicap.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: One thing I am finding out is that for one reason or another, CM is not too hot at reproducing historical battles. A discussion of why that is might be very interesting if you ever want to take it up. What it is very good at is at illustrating what WW II combat was like in a general way. That's why I fight QBs and generally give "historical" scenarios a wide berth. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think we may have one of the answers to that right here. Many of the more rememberable or interesting historical battles contained some circumstance or event that was unusual and not easily modeled in a(ny) computer game. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

As long as CM2 isn't rushed (by us ), I think it will be a compelling buy for anyone interested in WWII tactical combat, as is CM1. Just a quick look at the number of folks that are asking for the Pacific, N. Africa, etc. will show that people will be interested in a quality WWII game no matter what theater it is in. The biggest problem I can see is finding supporting documents/maps for historical scenarios! ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From the GamesDomain review: ...although a completely accurate damage model was rejected by the designers because it was judged to be too punishing and would cause players to run through the entire 100-man roster in less time than it took to finish a campaign.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee, I guess realism isn't important to WWII wargamers. Don't think I'll even bother with the demo when it comes out. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Noba: HeHeHe....we're safe in Australia....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, yea? Weasels are amphibious, you know! ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: I dont like the tone here of NOT including a scenario because it makes the game look bad. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think it makes the game look bad. I would agree that it *might* have been better to not include it, since the circumstances of the battle were quite unusual. Besides, what about the other 49 scenarios on the CD? Do you see this same problem when playing them? (You do play them, don't you? ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually Whittman wasnt just lucky. He jumped on an opportunity that presented itself that CANT be modeled in the game. The halftracks were all nose to tail and his experience told him to just charge them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There, you said it yourself. The Villers battle CAN'T be modeled in CM!

There were a lot of vehicles left out (like all allied SPAA! ) of the game, mainly due to limited time/programming resources from what I have heard. And no, I have heard no offical word whether or not there will be any updates to rectify this. Personally, I doubt it, since TCP/IP and CM2 are getting emphasis right now.

I think farming out some of the "artwork" would not be doable for the AFVs, since there is so much involved behind the scenes. HOWEVER! Sound effects, infantry uniforms and terrain artwork (buildings, especially) are all possibilites as long as the underlying 3D models are not greatly changed in CM2. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Others have already mentioned them, but I'll second their motions. Night vision, better body armor and grenade launchers make the biggest difference. I think training would also be a big factor here. The average soldier today has had more and probably more realistic training than a '40s counterpart with similar time in service. As for the rilfes themselves, the only comparison (for any modern assault rifle) would be to the StuG44/MP44. Both weapons are at least as good as a SMG at close ranges, but still pack a good punch further out. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Well, I hate to bring more fuel to the fire, but I must say that everyone here is ignoring the 2nd most useless vehicle in the game (1st being the Kubelwagen ). The Archer. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Green Berets with John Wayne. Worst scene of the movie is when they're massing (1-2ft away from each other!) to attack and he gives an order to 'pass it on'. You then see something like a wave as faces turn to tell the guy behind them then face back front. (Similar performance in The Longest Day, though I loved the scene with Priller on the phone!) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb