Olle Petersson

Excuse me. I have only been into wargames for less than two decades, and don't know that many games... The first wargame I know to use WeGo is Johnny Reb (ACW). I don't know when it was first relesed, but it was around in the early-mid '70ies and the latest edition is still for sale. Johnny Reb lent much of it's orders system to Command Decision (WW2) that was released around 1980 and later spawned into Combined Arms (Cold War era) and Over the Top (WW1). It's worth to notice that all of these are miniature wargames though. Cheers Olle

I have just been appointed commander of the CMBB Scandinavian Community (that will change name shortly). It's a site that will be aimed at Nordic beginners. The main language is Swedish, initially. Cheers Olle

Here's my advice, that you may allready have figured out by reading between the lines on the previous replies: Use the CMBO demo! Cheers Olle

This is why I prefer the "random" setting for rarity. Cheers Olle

They can be. Just check the minefields used in the desert. They could be up to 5km deep. It took engineer units several nights to clear a path, not even attempting to clear the entire field. Then it's a matter of how you define "front". - If you equal front to MLR, then there should be MGs and other stuff covering the minefields well ahead of the front. - If you equal front to the line of forward observation posts, then the heavy ATGs should be quite some distance behind the front. Cheers Olle

I just remembered another very obvious thing to do: Turn off all other programs running in the background! The easiest way to do that is to run EndItAll immediately before starting CM. Cheers Olle

A recap on what Assault means, compared to the other options: - Greater point difference (in QBs). - Defender gets fallback foxholes (in QBs). - Defender is well fortified (in QBs). - Attacker needs to penetrate deep into the defense (in QBs). - Both attacker and defender is willing to spend more ammo and take more casualties before surrendering. Cheers Olle

They have 14 rockets. With an average reload time of 4 minutes that's 13*4=52 minutes of non-stop firing! Compare that to how long it takes the Brummbär to deplete it's ammo storage... Cheers Olle

Here's what I think: Those C&C3 images are all with the "camera" at the same angle, and at the same zoom level. Unless you can move the "camera" around freely in height and direction, as you can in CM, then for all practical purposes it's 2D and less of a hog on the hardware. The IL-2 pictures look like paintings and not like the real thing. There are also very little troops in them. What happens when you have two or more infantry companies supported by a tank company in fairly close view? My own experience with IL-2 is only the demo, and there AFVs seem to be pretty low in detail as you fly by... I think BTS has really hit the right level of hardware requirements for both CMBO and CMBB. These games can easily be played on a computer that had moderate performance (for a new computer) about two years before the game came out, which I'd say is a very good approximation of what many of BTS' intended customers have. (With "intended customer" I mean the typical 30+ year old family father and wargamer that rarely, if ever, play computer games, but have a computer forinternet surfing and work.) Cheers Olle

I can't provide you with a definite answer. I have noticed though that AFVs can spot sounds way too easy no matter what. In my opinion the only way an AFV crew could hear moving infantry and vehicles at all is by being stationary, hiding and unbuttoned. A buttoned AFV would be as good as deaf, and even unbuttoned with the engine revving would give a hard time hearing anything but big guns. As it is now I've had AFVs hear infantry moving through woods hundreds of metres away... Cheers Olle

What do you mean by "loading the movie"? - Do you mean retreiving a PBEM file? Then the solution is to get a faster internet connection. - Do you mean when you start a battle and it says "Downloading 3D graphics"? Then you could speed it up by playing smaller scenarios, use low res textures, get a faster HDD or a faster main board (data bus). - Or do you, as I'd presume, mean when the turn is "crunched" (all calculations are done)? That can be sped up by keeping firefights to a minimum, AT fire is the worst hog on the CPU. Another option is to turn the sound off before you press GO after giving orders, since the sound use CPU cycles as well. Cheers Olle

I'd support this, with a tweak. When using the LOS tool or about to issue a Target order and pointing at the intended target, the text "Unspotted" would appear (just like the current "Hull down" message). Then it would be possible to use the Target order exactly the same way it's handled now, with "Unspotted" being treated as if there was no LOS. Target the enemy unit directly and shooting will begin once the target is spotted. Target the ground nearby and it will be immediate area fire. Cheers Olle

Using no FOW is good for one purpose only; to see how the AI makes it's own setup. Once the battle begin (with the first order phase) behaviour will be very different from a setting with FOW. The AI now know the location of all enemies and TRPs and will act accordingly... Cheers Olle

Just like the Swedish language where we put words together to make new ones. Using the words separated can make quite a change in meaning. Assault gun = Stormartillerikanonvagn (in direct translation assault artillery cannon vehicle) Assault gun battalion will thus be stormartillerikanonvagnsbataljon. Heavy tank destroyer (= heavy SP ATG) = Tung pansarvärnskanonvagn (heavy antitank cannon vehicle). I'm not sure there's ever been any heavy tank destroyer battalions mentioned in Swedish, but my best guesstimate for a correct military translation would be "pansarvärnsbataljon, tung, bepansrad". Cheers Olle

Your link doesn't work, I get a "You're not allowed to get this URL" message... Cheers Olle

Maybe it's possible to implement (with relative ease) a speed reduction with each crew member lost? The heavy guns move very slowly normally, with a speed reduction they'd be practically stationary. 100% crew => 100% speed 50% crew => 50% speed &c Cheers Olle

I don't know about "attached", but there were no organic AFVs in the divisions. Cheers Olle

Checking out the MMP issue more closely it strikes me that the equations assume that the vehicles weight is evenly balanced over all road wheels. This give a bit optimistic figures for vehicles that are front or rear heavy, such as the JgdPz IV. Cheers Olle

Hi all! I recently found this site with scanned pages from some scientific papers regarding the ground pressure of different vehicles. I haven't had time (yet) to compare the numbers listed there with the ones presented in CM. Mean maximum pressure (MMP) seem to be the way to go though, when comparing cross country performance... Cheers Olle

Today we had below -20C and heavy snowfall for a while, most of the day it's been light snowfall. Another possible option to use is fog, especially at dusk or dawn. Cheers Olle EDIT: I'm not sure -20C counts as "extreme" though. Should be below -30C or so, IMO... [ January 06, 2003, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Olle Petersson ]

Yes! Send a couple of cheap vehicles, like jeep/kübelwagen/truck in front of the tanks. Cheers Olle

I disagree with Tigrii. With EFOW it's just as easy to detect the opposition as with FFOW. It's proper identification that gets tricky. For the situation pointed out by Tigrii, with dug in ATGs waiting for approaching armour, these may well misidentify the attackers and open fire at the "wrong" range. Either by underestimation and open up with light guns before they can do any damage. Or, more likely, overestimate the opposition and hold the fire of potentially effective light guns and instead expose the heavier guns too soon. It's also more difficult to identify HQs, FTs, AT teams and other high priority targets. Conclusion is that I think it gives a very slight benefit to the attacker. Cheers Olle

The 50mm mortar and most of it's peers had a lousy accuracy, poor max range and the punch of a handgrenade. It had little use that couldn't be better handled by handgrenades or 81mm mortars. The 50mm was more of a burdon on logistics... The US 60mm mortar is more like a shrunken version of the 81mm, and had therefore better accuracy. Cheers Olle

Compared to the few other relatively new games I've seen I think there are a couple of areas where the CMBB graphic rule: - Vehicle accuracy and detail. I've seen many a scewed or otherwise odd looking vehicle in other games... The only downside in CMBB is the non-round wheels. - Explosions. Compare to "Battlefield 1942" and you'll see what I mean. Cheers Olle

Let's see... DShK have; - Shorter barrel => Lower MV - Heavier bullet => Lower MV - Gas outlet => Lower MV But what about propellant? More an/or faster burning propellant can increase internal pressure to offset all of the factors above. What about the Browning mechanism? I don't know how the Browning operates. If it's (semi-)locked bolt the remark about gas operation apply, but if it's open bolt action I'd be suprised if it's any better (wrt MV)... My point is that the DShK doesn't have to have lower MV by design, but that it is a preferred and deliberate choice. Cheers Olle