securityguard

I think that e-mail not might work anymore so just in case e-mail to junk@the111.com instead

I'd really to see it, but I haven't recieved an e-mail yet! Maybe my yahoo address doesn't work. Emar, e-mail junk@the111.com if yahoo address doesn't work. I'm a sucker for big ops even if I don't play them that often.

walpurgis can you e-mail me it at that_horseguy915@yahoo.com ? i'll host it

that_horseguy915@yahoo.com

Then do I have a story for you. You remember Paul (aka Makjager)? He had a t34/85 fire at a Panther, hitting his upper hull, richetting off and returning to the t34/85 . . KNOCKING HIMSELF OUT! Now, when Paul approached me at CMHQ with this story I thought to myself, ahem, yeah feckin right this *really* happened. So i asked him to send me the turn, which he did. And sure enough I saw with my own 2 eyes, this in fact did happen (was a game vs Jwxspoon, I believe)! Next time I catch him over at CMHQ, I'll see if he can post the pbem turn on this thread. </font>

I can't really tell through the pictures, but did the AI even use a trench? It looks like he dumped all his men on tree lines with particularly bad LOS and threw his trenches out in the open. With the same amount of artillery / infantry guns and maybe half the platoons that battle could still be won with some difficulty. I know you mention the AI sucking but it just isn't even close to having a human opponent set that up. He would've used trenches, put stuff in better LOS and used proper fire control, all of which the AI doesn't. Defender in trees = bad! You should try the same thing versus a human!

I don't know if anyone noticed or not, but it seems russians get extra points in the armor section of their purchase menu and germans get extra points in their vehicle section. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the year or whatever, but thats how it is on combined arms battles.

One time I killed a vehicle that was totally unidentified. It was strange seeing a "TANK?" grey model on fire.

I recently was able to use Incendiary Rockets versus an opponent in a quick-battle op we both created. I thought they would be invaluable on the attack (urban enviroment, I wanted to burn the buildings down he would be in) and spent a ton of points to buy the spotter, but even as a prep barrage the amount of flames and damage done was extremely minimal. Almost nothing burned down or caught fire and the only times I inflicted tons of casualties is when I predicted his counter-attack on his last hoorah before the surrender. I kind of wish the incendiary effect was more area based so stuff would catch fire easier, but maybe that isn't realistic. Anyone have any historical info on these types of rockets?

as far as I can tell they both have same calculations i'm not sure if tanks even override infantry, there is a certain threshhold for all units on flags. so if two panzershrecks meet the threshhold then a platoon of infantry couldn't take the flag. i've personally experienced this in some static ops ive played.

Has anyone tested out AA vs Aircraft with any solid statistics I can chew on? Especially with CMAK's new unit in patch, the Bren AA, I'd like to know how it stacks up vs other AA types.

what is it at dusk?

I haven't seen an auto surrender since CMBO. They have indeed made it too low, to a point where it's obvious the other person will win and it still won't trigger. In CMBO it didn't seem too sensitive. By the time I began sweeping up flags the battle would end abruptly but I'd still take the win.

They're both semi automatic, but like others have said a Carbine is a smoother ride. I have no idea how many rounds a Carbine can shoot under 40m - all I know is the person typically has more control than using a Garand. Also, it seems you're taking the abstractions a little too directly - indivual bullets aren't modeled in CM, regardless what you see or hear. The ammo count is merely an abstraction of how much ammo they actually have overall. As for how many ammo points a Carbine uses, I'm not totally sure, probably more than the Garand since it's flinging more ammo more easily (?). CMx2 will probably make all this more clear considering each man will have his own ammo count instead of a pool of ammo for the entire squad. [ March 19, 2005, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: securityguard ]

They were probably just spotters.

They were probably just spotters.

with all the talk its 100% going to be a WWII game which theatre is up for grabs though

You guys have mentioned that you will attempt to vary each countries usage on fire teams, movement, etc. Because each side didn't have the same assault doctrine. Will you guys be modeling the nusainces of tank crews too? Such as Russians not leaving their tank until they absolutely forced to, or having attatched small squads to their tanks, etc.

Absolutely. One of the biggest reasons casualties are so apparent is the way morale is handled through squads. It is far too easy for an entire squad to break, then lose men by men as they all run away. 1:1 should prevent a lot of this 'ant like' behaviour. Really 1:1 will be the biggest change for the CM series. And it can't come soon enough. Yesterday I had a MMG turn an 11 man FJ Squad completely broken - and they didn't even lose one guy! They were rattled for no reason whatsoever, every single guy, and it ruined the entire squads combat effectiveness. 1:1 will be a godsend.

I can only imagine hackers being insanely obvious, and since its a mano a mano game it's easy to only play people you trust. It sucks but I don't see it as a huge problem.

99.9% sure you don't. Keep those POW's secure!

Someone said before that they were probably people who had ran away or got lost (this abstraction is present in CM) but in my opinion I bet the enemy had a squad who saw another friendly squad and thought it was enemy. They probably ended up exchanging fire on each other, killing and wounding. I've had it happen on a few occasions myself, it's not too rare.

I always thought that CM modeled the most brutal rare instances of frontline combat. The casualties are abnormal only due to the situation at hand, not because of realism issues. Have people been saying casualty numbers are unrealistic? Two big factors for high casualties in CM are the players relentless pursuit to win - there's no real fear of loss other than flat out getting defeated. Secondly I would say the scenarios present in CM are the upmost violent, head on clashes that could be seen in war, not freak skirmishes or small disasters. I don't think the simulation is at fault for high casualties though.

I don't think you can really tell statisticly or anything, but you can gauge by how accurate it is. One time I bought a crack hurricane II (CMAK). I assumed it came out elite, because it dropped its bombs almost perfectly on an enemy convoy and 20mm'ed two half tracks to death with precision. I've found veteran or lower skill level pilots to bomb much more inaccurately, or they will attack futile targets more commonly.

someone shouldve briefed that pilot