IntelWeenie

"Shots" are abstracted in CM and not meant to represent single rounds. For more, search on "shots" or look to some of the posts in this thread about snipers and shots in particular: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum7/HTML/000041.html ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Geez! Do a search! (Just kidding!) I think the bigest thing I missed over the weekend was "The Great Grid Debate". 132 posts, last count! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007761.html ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PvK: Troops only very rarely would go about trying to clear minefields during combat, especially minefields they'd just found some minutes ago. PvK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I remember reading an account about a column of troops from Patton's 3rd army (4th Armored??) that was stalled most of an afternoon because no one wanted to touch a yellow ribbon strung across a road... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

My understanding of the situation: v1.0 Original CD pressing (preorders only) v1.01 Update patch for v1.0 v1.02 (demo and subsequent CD pressings) Same as having v1.01. v1.03 Patch for v1.01 and v1.02. Currently in beta testing. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lanzfeld: The problem I have with the Air Support is that it is not loud enough. The aircraft sounds are very faint (the aircraft engine sounds should be loud because there is no terrain up there to absorb the sounds). Also you can never tell when an A/C has been shot down. The message that tells you is usually too vertical and out of sight to read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it's not too bad. It can really scare the cr*p out of you if you're not expecting it (especially on the lower view levels). Go to an airshow and see how loud a P-51 is coming in over the treetops. Pretty quiet until it's too late to do anything about it! Do the AA crews say anything to proclaim a victory (like the tank crews' "Ja!")? ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: I still have the original Squad Leader plus a number of modules, and my son later got ASL and replaced me at pushing two-inch-high stacks of cardboard counters, after I gave up playing SL after losing 3 games in a row to the cat . Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 07-24-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, the good ol' OTA (Onboard Tabby Artillery)! And now, to invent the 'cat'apult! Did anyone ever play the game called "Ace of Aces"? It was WWI fighter combat played with 2 booklets. Great for trips or during school! ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

With regards to mortars killing NON-open topped AFVs, has anyone seen it produce an IMMOBILIZATION result? I would think this to be nearly as likely as an outright kill, especially if the mortar bomb is found to strike the engine deck. Whether the offending mortar is spotted or not, I think the vehicle should make some effort to get out of the impact area, especially so if it's lightly armored or open topped. (I would) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

I'm as anxious to see 1.03 as probably anyone, but I must say that BTS has done better in this department than any other publisher I have seen for some time. Remember, folks, the game was released less than 2 months ago! IIRC, one of the testers said the changes to PBEM will make current 1.01 and 1.02 games unplayable in 1.03. Maybe try a search? ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

I have played it once as the Allies and had no problem going the left flank route. Actually, Henri's tactics seem really close to what I did with the exception of the marsh! The Infantry I ran a platoon bounding up the left edge of the map using the trees for my overwatch positions. This was enough cover for me to close in on the buildings and gain a toehold on the crossroads. My forces in the center didn't do a whole lot at first; my main intent was to use them as a blocking force to prevent reinforcements from the other side of the map. Next came the HT assault on the large building in the center which pretty much wrapped it up except for the stragglers. The AFVs I kept the HTs back in the trees to provide long-range fire support for both the left flank platoon and some for the rest of the infantry in the center. The Stuarts were spread out at first to provide long range fire support but I moved them all after the first few turns to support the main (left flank) thrust. I only ended up losing one near the center (to mortar fire, I think). ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: My only comment is that the maps based on SL maps seem a bit on the stark side compared to maps generated by the game or other sources. This is probably because SL/ASL are 2D games and CM is true 3D. Wayne. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I noticed this as well. I'm guessing it's probably from the different scalings used (50m hexes vs. 20m squares), but it seems to create really open terrain with a lot more LOS than in the original SL/ASL boards. I'm (slowly) working on a conversion of "Dorset Wood in the Rain" and have opted for a "interpretation" of the ASL boards. Similar terrain overall, but I'm not even going to try a hex-by-hex conversion. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

For AT or general work, I'll take the Panther any day for all the reasons stated many times before. When facing infantry with no or little AT threat, the Wirblewind or Ostwind are truly "Uber", IMHO. Of course, if I'm playing as the allies, my favorite German armor is the kind with extra ventilation holes.... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

IIRC, the reason for the "push back" effect is from the calculation of the front lines and "no-man's land". Unrealistic? A bit, perhaps, but still not too horrible, IMHO. I would like to see this improved, too. I especially like the idea of weighting positions based on the terrain (sounds like ASL ). ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Not exactly WWII tankers, but... I have seen some Air Corps and more recent Army training materials on the proper way to lead a target when you're moving (A.C. was air to air gunnery from the IMPACT 'zines and the Army stuff was for helocopter gunners, but the principles are similar). Basically, instead of leading in front as you would for a moving target, lead behind to compensate for your own movement. If both are moving, it gets really complicated and the suggestion was usually to fire center mass and adjust on your tracers from there. Hmm, a reason for tank MGs to fire before the main gun! ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Greg Scurlock: ( Isn't this great. I'm structuring my whole system to play CM) Any advice on this would be apreciated. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After loading the Riva TNT reference drivers for my STB Velocity 4400 (in order to get the fog), the sound crapped out on a my stepson's "Beetle Buggin'" (kinda fun game, actually) game. Guess what didn't get changed back.... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slappy: I know that I'm going to get killed for this, but the desert always struck me as a line 'em up and plink away at 4000m tank duel. Not very interesting for a game at the level of CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you implying that anyone on this forum would take undue umbrage with your opinion?!?! I was under the same impression until I actually got stuck in a REAL (Suadi) desert. There are all sorts of contours, hillocks, wadis, etc. It's definitely not a billiard table (like some games make it out to be). CM's map contours will be very welcome! Ranges are extended, yes, but most tank guns of the period wouldn't be accurate at all past 2000m or so (shorter barrels, lighter rounds). ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mensch: you see everytime I drop 150mm Rickets on my troops heads he comes in and sweeps up!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So don't buy Rockets.. (seriously!) Given their horrible accuracy, on anything other than a really large (1000x1000 or bigger) map, they tend to end up doing as much damage to your own troops as the enemy's. Go with smaller stuff or 105 tube arty. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anytime I rush my exausted guys up to his MG's he mows me down, everytime I advance on his Flamethrower positions that I know were they are, he roasts me... What can I do better!!?? my surrendered troops are getting tired of eating his K-Rations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like you need to work on basic fire and manuever tactics. When attacking a position, it's always a good idea to have part of your force stationary and providing covering fire. Then, move your assault squad/platoon in from one side to take the defenders under fire from in close. This can be expanded on by the (careful) use of artillery to soften up a target, closely (the same or next turn) followed by a conventional attack. Likewise, smoke can help get your assault force in closer without coming under fire until THEY are ready. Taking care of FTs is a lot less dangerous if you're careful to stay at least 50m away... Hope these pointers help! ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

I have been hearing many rumblings lately about the 1.03 patch being in beta testing with a release date in the near future. Is it too early to release a readme (with concern to issues addressed/fixed/changed)? I, for one, would like some sort of official word about what the patch will address when it's released. Maybe it would reduce the amount of re-hashed subjects that are already being fixed in the new patch? ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Seeing how nearly all vehicular MG (with the exception of the .50 cal and the remote MGs a'la the Hetzer) were pretty close to being the same (~.30cal, similar ROF, etc.) I would not have a problem if BTS just used generic guns. The differences are just too small in most cases to matter. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

I would think losing the commander would have to be the problem here. He sits right behind the FT and would operate it. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

**Shameless Plug** I still like the idea I had on this (well, who doesn't like their own ideas?) Looking bcak over many of the examples given of crews being used as infantry reveals a common element in nearly all of them...the presence of an officer (the major exception being self-defence). So, allow the use of crews as infantry only when in the command radius of a HQ. When not in command radius, the AI makes them sit tight or head towards the rear/safety. Taken in conjuction with some of the other suggestions (point value, ammo, etc.) would, I think, preclude any "gamey" use in nearly all cases. I would think could be doable programming-wise, since there is already one routine that chacks for command radius already (mortar spotting). As for me, I generally don't do anything with crews as it is other than to move them out of harm's way. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

Sometimes the AI doesn't NEED to flank you.... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k: I (and others, I'm sure) would be happy to help. -Andrew <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I 2nd this! I'm usually not far away from my PC 8AM-5PM (forum time) weekdays, so drop me an email if you want. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: [bSo, broadening the topic, what were the main drawbacks of the early Shermans in different terrains, compared to German armour? Did they tend to throw tracks more easily in wooded terrain, less capable of climbing slopes, problems in rubble? Any info (or pointer to the search function) greatly appreciated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One (lesser known?) problem the Shermans had was in icy conditions they tended to slip 'n' slide a lot, at least on roads. This was due to the rubber track pads (to reduce vibration and track wear - you changed the pads, not the whole track). Anyone who's driven a such a track on ice knows what I mean. AFAIK, this was not wholly resolved by the use of grousers and was one of the things altered in the Easy 8's. I have also read (can't remember where, it's been a while) of some British troops removing ALL the pads in order to get more 'bite' from the tracks and accepting the additional wear and tear. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

OK, all this begs a simple question: What factors are taken into account when checking a vehicle for bogging in CM? Three main ones come to mind. 1) State of the terrain 2) Ground Pressure 3) Speed of vehicle Does (I hope) experience play any role? How about mechanical reliability? (Does bogging also simulate simple mechanical failure?) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevin Peltz: The FlaK 18/36/37 was designed as an anti-aircraft weapon first- somebody probably sat down and figured out that 88mm would be the optimum size calibre that would fill 'x' area of the sky with enough lethal fragments at the right altitude to make it uncomfortable to fly through<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All kidding aside, I think Kevin has it pretty much right. The requirement to "produce this effect" will usually dictate the caliber of the projectile. Since physics are the same for everybody, that's why most bullets/shells designed for the same purpose will have the same general shape. I imagine they figured how much explosive they needed, combined with range and a few basic shell shapes is what produced the final 88mm diameter. The only reason I know of where a caliber was dictated to the designers beforehand would be for commonality of ammunition with a current weapon. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb