Priest

You want realistic battles then add after effects. Try CMMC. Honestly I do not think that CMBO is inherently too fast, more to the point most players make it that way. Also two minute turns is not the answer and this has been dicussed way too much. Stock answer is: This is a game not a movieviewer, two minutes is too long and hurts playability.

YES!

There is another fundamental difference between trucks and HTs versus horses. HTs (especially) were ridden into combat (although as stated dismounted before engagement) and then at times used for local infantry support. Trucks were already something being coded in for the Allied side, giving them to the Germans was easy, they are the same unit, either side. HTs are in for a good reason, trucks are in because they are easy. Horses are out because there is no good reason and that they are not easy, if they were Charles would take care of it. Charles and Steve say they are not, so they are not. See plain as day!

AAAAAAAAAAH! Gordon, Andrew, Marco and everyone else (sniff) you make me sooooo proud. NOW GIMMMMEEEE!

DOH! Hello alienation of your core fanbase, goodbye respectability. Yes yes Matt sorry sorry.

(clears throat) HI MOM!

Well his name is "MADD"matt! Regardless I cannot wait for CMBB, hmmm lets see my credit card is ready, my supply of caffine enriched drinks are here, and my new GAME room is almost complete. YES THIS IS MOST EXCELLENT!

Actually the Panzer IIIN was loved by their crews and a good portion of the Panzer IIIM production was switched over to the 'N' Model. The reasons I have read are below: * Better AP performance of the short 75 * The 'C' round (hollow charge) had a similiar if not better penetration performance as the L60 50mm gun. As a side note, the 88mm gun earned it's reputation on the Steppes of Russia, but Panzer IVs with their short barreled 75s (and Stugs) also gained their reputation (a the genesis of the idea to upgunn them to true AT vehicles) by using their 'C' rounds. Similiar to how the 95mm Churchill VIII has gained popularity in CMBO.

Depends what you are doing, the PIV is a better AT weapon, the Sherman is a better AP weapon. Both can kill the other and each has trade offs. Personally I think the PIV looks better but the Sherman was a better (slightly) designed tool, for whatever it is worth.

Actually just lock them in there without CMBO or CMBB for faster results!

Capt Wackie's new sound mod is EXCELLENT if I do say so my beta testing self!

The reason it was used was due to the fact it was very compact. I am away from my resources but I believe it had some type of coil recoil system which saved a lot of space. Since it preceded the Pershing in production you could say the Chaffee was the first "modern" tank the Americans put into production (torsion bar suspension, sloped armor, I believe it had a 4 man crew, etc).

I have had serious luck with the Chaffee. Twice now in about 7 or 8 games with them I have bounced a 88mm shell from a KT of the hull, the sloped armour is great. Also the Chaffee does not use the same gun as the Sherman, it uses a gun derived from the Mitchell (a bomber) although I believe it could use the same ammo. Considering the suspension, sloped armor and gun I would almost choose the Chaffee over most models of the Sherman.

And the CM world has changed forever...

M3 Grant/Lee

Actually guys Stix is right I am not a modder, but understanding the limitations (actually pure lack of) skills I did what I had to, I found some graphically competent folks and said "GET TO WORK ON THIS YOU BASTICHES!" The "team" and I still have to contact the modder that we are basing our first creation on (Mike's Churchill) but it will have a star and I think we may be able to work in spare tracks. It will be Hi Res and with Mike's permission we will soon have it ready for download. Oh and hurry me all you want, I am not doing the work

Whew I needed that!

Need the BMPs that make up a Pershing, if you tell me I promise to share the Mod! Ken

Doug I would have to agree. As I have always said, I do not like the "BORG" spotting, but unless a relative spotting method is found that does not sacrifice playability, then why change what works so well overall. One other thing, the tank example that you use is slightly off though Doug. Let's say for example we have a LOS to the enemy tank but the tank is firing at the infantry as in your example. As a player we do not know when a tank "chooses" to fire at the infantry and when it does not "see" the tank. Only the TACAI knows this, although I am sure that "not seeing" the tank occurs more often than "choosing" the infantry as the preferred target.

Thank you ooooooooh so much Andrew!

ALL OF YOU OWE ME FOR THIS, I MEAN SURE ED IS THE ONE WHO DID THESE, BUT WHO INTRODUCED ED TO CM, HUH???? WHO???? ME THAT IS WHO, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA I RULE YOU ALL!!!!!!!! (ahem) So when are they ready Ed I would love to incorporate them into my daily game

Be the next member of the BTS staff.

True Ozzy soooo True.

Ed u better not have any pictures of me!

Now Stixxy be nice, Mace is correct, I mean I know I could do it!