IntelWeenie

WRT the "Best Army" thread: "...the investigators revealed an atmosphere rife with low morale, drinking and discord between enlisted soldiers and officers." Reading that line reminded me of tales told of conditions in the Soviet Red Army. Guess what? It's the US Army! Read more at: http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent/?file=FL_campbell_trimble ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Ditto. (Already had D/Led the file, but still it's still nice of 'em!) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: And I don't know anyone with a TNT card that ISNT getting fog Madmatt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I did not get fog with my TNT video card (STB Velocity 4400) until I installed the newest reference drivers, which caused some problems with other games on my PC (not that I care too much since CM looks so much better now ). I think it speaks volumes for the quality of the programming that most of the 'fixes' in all the patches have had more to do with gameplay than display issues, crashes, etc. (especially since it runs on PCs and Macs! How many recent games can claim THAT?) Bravo, BTS! P.S. Eagerly awating v1.04 ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robo: Is the download the actual patch or a front-end app that downloads the patch over the net when you run it? What I got is only 1.66 MB, is that it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Looking at my copy of CM here at work (for storage, not play; I have NT here :mad , the Combat Mission.exe (v1.0) is only 3.49Mb! That really shows how little bloat there is in the game engine. Now if only Microsoft's programmers (among others) would take note of this.... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Units will drop a smoke order in a heatbeat if they spot a better/dangerous target. One question, Olle, did any of your units have direct LOS to the suspected spotter's location? If so, an area fire command may have worked better, especially with the heavier cannons. If not, I find the units best suited to this sort of fire mission are mortars. I nearly always try to set them up in a 'hide' position and use a spotter. This way, they have no direct LOS to other targets and virtually never will have this happen to them. Also, do you have v1.03 yet? There is another 'stickyness' fix in it, but I'm not sure if it will do anything for this situation. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coe: so you are all saying that the germans didn't filed an "as portable" equivalent of the 50 cal. at least on the ground?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, the only countries to widely use a .50 cal (approximately) MG for dismounted ground troops were the US (and some use of the same gun by our allies) and the Soviet Union (the DShK). While it has served many (about 80!) years with distinction, The M2 HMG really doesn't fit some of it's traditional roles too well. It's way too heavy to be easily portable by infantry and too light for really effective AT work. IMO, this is why this caliber of weapon isn't seen too much. It does pretty well for longer range MG fire support, low level AA and vs lightly or non-armored vehicles, though. (Last 2 reasons are mainly why US tanks have featured them) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

To the victors belong the spoils...and the war crimes courts. Atrocities of varying degree were commited on all sides during WWII, I don't think anyone would disagree. But the allied powers felt the need to gain the moral high ground (even during the war) and covered up much of the crimes commited by their own troops. I think that we (allied powers) should have done much more to punish persons who ordered or commited war crimes within our own forces, even if it would have had to been done quietly (to 'save face'). Having the Russians on the court at the Nuremburg trials is probably one of the best examples of this two-faced approach to war crimes punishment, IMHO. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

I've tried futilely to get my wife to play. Even tried the "you might just kick my butt, you know" tact to no avail. Maybe it's all for the better... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Just checking in again to voice my complete opposition to any VOLUNTARY exiting of vehicles by crews. I remember long ago this sort of thing was a big issue on an ASL forum (specifically, could an AFV crew abandon their AFV to occupy terrain to satisfy victory conditions). Thankfully, CM does better in the VC department than ASL (AFVs can control flags in buildings, etc.), but if crews are allowed to bail on demand, there is way too much room for "gamey" uses. This was the source of much of the opposition to it in ASL. As far as I have seen, crews are currently doing what they should when immobilized. They usually will bail if the situation is bad (like being under fire by superior forces) or otherwise just stay in the vehicle (since they are normally safer under armor and can at least try to fight back). I agree there are some issues with bailed crews, but hopefully some of them will be addressed in v1.03. Just MHO. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: I think BTS will say that setting explosives to blow bridges is beyond the scale of the game, however, I would like to see charges that can be set during operations and as part of the set-up for scenarios. Playing U.S. Engineers facing Jochen Peiper's panzers would be nice. Wayne. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are several important questions to be answered first before including bridge demo: How would it be detonated? How hard to code it so it can only be placed on a bridge? Could enemy units "cut the wires"? (etc., etc.) I think this is why they aren't in the game. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Visions of gamey crews bailing from their HTs to form the "1st Assault Crew Co. (Provisional)"..... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

I think KiwiJoe has a good point here. Resupply is best done at asafe distance from the front (well, relatively safe, at least. ) For depicting historical actions where units were actually resupplied on the battlefield, the best you can do is give them more ammo in the scenario editor. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon: Again this argument would be mute if we could mod the OOB's or someone would come up with an editor to hack the OOB's in the tradition of most good Wargames that couldn't do every unit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good Wargame + Hacked OOBs = ungodly number of incompatible copes of Good Wargame thus nearly eliminating PBEM or (dare I say it? Yes, I dare! ) TCP/IP games. I do understand the yearning behind it; I, too, would like to see a little more variety than what there is now (especially for the Allies). But the cost of doing it this way is just too high. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: I assume that means the bottom armour (underneath the tank). Isn't it a terrible waste of "material" and increases weight of the tank for no reason? Or was it accually usefull?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only time belly armor is useful is when crossing a tall obstacle (see various "bocage" threads) or defending against mines. I think the South Africans have shown that innovative shaping and design of the hull and suspension components is much more effective in the latter role than adding thicker armor. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

First off: good thread, no flames <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trooper: [bElsewhere on this site, look up the CPX AARs for TacOps, you'll find a lot of the players during the self-criticism section keep saying that they wished they had gone with a plan and stuck with it, instead of dithering here and there. NTM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IMHO, having at least some forces in reserve is an integral part of any good plan. As stated before, flexibility on EXECUTING one's plan is often one of the keys to victory. Having a reserve force does not mean it should be wasted on unimportant tasks. Within the scope of CM, I find a platoon reserve to be really helpful in longer scenarios when everyone's ammo starts reading LOW and they're the only ones who can shoot. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

I thought the best part of SPR's Tigers was the way they shook the ground. Pretty ominous... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

The size of the reserve depends mainly on the size of the unit in question and the situation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trooper: A platoon doesn't have a reserve.NTM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As Henri pointed out, most common platoon formations do include a reserve. The platoon's reserve is one squad (or even a 1/2 squad). Does this mean that squad is supposed to hang back far enough to not be engaged? Not always. It just needs to be back far enough to be able to easily break contact and maneuver. Likewise, it needs to be close enough to be able to react in a timely manner. Depending on terrain, that can be as little as 20-30m or as great as 80-100m. The same holds true for larger formations. I almost never keep fully 1/3 of my force in reserve, but will keep enough back a bit to plug holes, exploit success. How far back depends on the range of their weapons and their mobility. Notice that if the reserve's weapons are long ranged, they can still be used for fire support if you need it and remain out of the main fighting. I think the only unit that would not have a reserve would be the squad. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Keep in mind that real-world snipers don't simply gun down everything in view. Ideally, they will wait for a high priority target (MG crew, officer, spotter, etc) and take a shot or two - and then move *snip* However, those 10 shots can be incredibly effective if it equates to 10 officers, spotters, or machine gunners! Just my $.02...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You forgot to mention tank commanders... , or (depending on the situation) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: Interesting points. Re: German disorganization. I think this could be applied to any combatant since more often than not squads entered combat at less than full complement. CM doesn't allow any fudging to show reduced strength squads except as part of an operation in progress. The strict adherence to TO&E is probably necessary but I don't think it accurately captures the way units in the field were really organized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Especially so for airborne operations. How many squads were intact or close to intact following their drops? Wouldn't mind seeing a 'reduced' squad for the AB in the editor. (using 1/2 squads is OK, but they can be recombined to full effectiveness) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

"I hit a flamethrower with a mortar" Sounds like a country-western song! ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: What new bugs or new "undocumented features" have been discovered? -tom w <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A bug has been found in the software that will erase any social life you once had. (or is it a "feature"? ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by herbjorn: What about the MG42 heavy machinegun? Could it do the same job as the 0.50?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This brings up something I had trouble figuring out when I was (much) younger: What constitutes a heavy (or medium, light) MG? Basically, it boils down to the role it was used in on the battlefield and by which army's defenition you used. "Heavy" MGs are normally defined as used in company or battalion support and are designed for sustained fire (note the difference in ammo between the MG42 LMG and HMGs in CM). They are often water cooled, but don't have to be. They are nearly always mounted on a tripod or similar mount, sometimes with optics attached. LMGs are typically portable and (for short spells, at least) usable by one man. They normally are only used with a bipod, but can often be fired from the hip or shoulder (not recommended, no matter what Rambo does). They are typically used for company/platoon level support and are more often seen in offensive situations than HMGs (due to their better portability). Of course, some obviously "heavy" MGs (US M1919 on a tripod comes to mind) are sometimes designated as "light", but remember, it's function, not weight. So to answer "will the MG42 HMG do the same job as a .50 cal?" my answer would be "Yes against infantry, no against armor". (the .50 was, after all, originally conceived as an AT weapon) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tank_41: ALERT! SPOIL INSIDE! *snip* Do this experiement, order your Wittman move directly through the smoke so that it faces numbers of enemy tanks all of the sudden, I am willing to bet my money here (as I tried many time myself) that Wittman would never back off into the smoke to avoid exchanging fire with 3 to 5 tanks at the same time. The end result is mostly likely a dead Tiger on the road <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I read what the AI is doing correctly, it will tend to back off when confronted by "superior" armor. However, it seems to me that if your tank is not being targeted by the "superior" enemy, it is less likely to run. That's why M5A1s can sneak up on and take out King Tigers Not sure why in the above situation Wittman should not reverse out. Could be a combination of orders given (Fast or move instead of Hunt?) and where the waypoints are placed (It could still be trying to reach a waypoint after encoutering the allied tanks). I, for one, definitely use German armor differently now than when I first started playing CM (a LOT more conservatively!). ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Milt Smegma: I have a similiar prob with flame guys: if you get them to target say... a building they will keep flaming until ALL 6 of their "shots" are gone,which takes exactly one minute(turn) is there a way(if not then there needs to be one programmed)to tell units to "fire once then hold"? Very frustrating to watch my flame unit keep pouring flame onto an already burning building.......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think they keep firing until they hit their "point of aim" (same for smoke). Even if flamers miss, they often can still start fires. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Also worthy of note when setting up zones: Units placed outside of setup zones can be moved to within them during the setup phase unless "locked" during design. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb