Bruno Weiss

Nice one Noob. Good to see ya working on the Germs now. Say, er ah, you wouldn't consider doing some optional vehicle markings now would ya, huh huh, would ya...

Now that's what we're fightin for boys!

...and pics of the Danish Bikini swim team wouldn't hurt.

GEFORCE2!?! Pssst, hey kid. Get yerseff a graphics card that'll carry the load. A Geforce4 is what ya need. I run one on a PIII 733mhz Coppermine, and got no complaints at all.

Michael emrys wrote: I dunno Michael, perhaps in the early years paint was issued with a vehicle, (but that wouldn't explain the green and brown pigments you cited which was used in later war schemes). I imagine that later war years saw a pretty scarce supply of spare stuff being issued with the vehicles. And, the preponderance of simple bicolor schemes in the photo record indicates that complex camo schemes were not the norm for early to mid-war years, and even into the later years on the East front. I like this Stug above. But aye now show me a Stug in weathered bluish gray with a faded sand yellow wave patterns. Dats a speecy spicey! Ain't none of you guys got Panzer Colors? The majority of camo patterns in the photo record seems to me to be those of simple, or hasty, camo schemes using what was probably most often a scarce source of vehicle paints in the supply depot inventory. The most striking examples in the Panzer Colors books are the sand yellow and gray patterns, very pleasing to the eye with the bluish gray patterns over sand yellow particularly where they are weathered a bit. [ December 02, 2002, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

Okay, now lets make this a little bit controversial. Given the mods for CMBB thus far produced, does anyone agree with me that there seems to be a predominance of tricolor camo schemes on early German vehicle models? Because of their primary dates of use, e.g., earlier model Stugs, MkIV's, SPA's etc., and the apparent pattern/scheme progressions from a sampling of the pictorial record, shouldn't they infact be sporting bicolor patterns with more emphasis on gray/dark yellow single line or tortoise shell schemes, instead of the large brown/green/yellow mixes and ambush patterns? [ December 02, 2002, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

I would agree with that Michael, and as the German situation in the East became increasingly more desperate it follows that their camo schemes would become increasingly more complex. I believe what Panzer Colors shows is the history if you will, of camo experimentation to some degree over a time line which lasted many years. About the time that the dark yellow/sand base coat became standard on German vehicles, it is obvious that they became much more concerned with camo patterns. But seemingly their patterns for quite a while consisted of bicolor schemes, often of the single line type (for lack of a technical term), where say dark brown, or gray, was used in a zebra or tortoise shell pattern and not very often did the scheme sport a third color or if so, it was a very basic addition and not nearly as complex as the West front or even later East front versions that would follow. [ December 02, 2002, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

Probably had frequent flier miles.

Was browsing through my Squadron Signal, Panzer Colors series for the East Front and noticed a subtle but distinctive difference in camo patterns used by the Germans in Russia and those used later in Europe. I would qualify the speculation with an acknowledgement that a few pictures from a single publication series do not absolute history make. Never the less, there seems to be an appreciative difference in patterns and colors. For example, on the East front there seems to be more usage of bicolors, such as reddish brown pattern lines on dark yellow/sand, or gray patterns on dark yellow/sand, sometimes with olive/green mixed into the gray. Many variations of this pattern exist and definately seem to outnumber the tricolor patterns and ambush patterns. And, even when the examples show tricolor patterns, they look different somehow than their later West Front adaptations. Only a very few tricolor schemes seem to be on the order of what one might say were difficult to distinguish between East and West front camo. Now am I seeing something, or as I said in the beginning are a few pictures just not enough to base such an opinion on? [ December 02, 2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

Not sure, I think at last count we were wishing on CM4.

Cherkassy! The Korsun Pocket. Makes a splendid project me thinks.

Will there be an intermission?

{{Michael has ofcourse, technically breached protocal by jumping directly to the Triple Dog Dare, and bypassing the Double Dare, and Double Dog Dare respectively}}.

Modem! You'd need to FedEx that one.

Ooo Ooo, can we listen...

Friction! Hell I thought it was just on account of the two opposing forces didn't much like each other.

Well...Really! My opinion having been challenged, I'll fix ya's. I'll just go and declare that I refuse to bestow upon this forum any of my infinate wealth of tactical knowledge for the remainder of today. You can all just suffer then. So there! [ November 28, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

Awite DD ya lil tease. Gimme dat mod. Outstanding!

I don't unnerstand why some folks are experiencing this problem, as I haven't as yet. Only on one occasion, and it was because of what I'm going to point out. The ISU is clearly out in the open. I can't see from the camera angle, but it does not appear to be hull down, just dangling up there on the ridge in the open. Now, the MkIV, is behind trees, at a lower elevation. Meaning, in the world of AI LOS computations, the ISU is potentially at threat from a shot to it's frontal underside, or at least out in the open, where the MkIV is more covered. I'll wager if the ISU were nicely hull down, and barely peeping over that crest, then there wouldn't be a problem. I think the fact that it took the ISU some time before it spotted the MkIV, only proves my point. It does not have as good of an LOS angle (percentage of kill chance, etc), as the MkIV. The one time I had an experience like this, was when I ran an armored unit out in the open against a 20mm armored car, and it back away. A turn or so later, I edged the same unit through scattered trees, gave it a good hull down position, and it never flinched and took out the same target with one shot. I believe the CMBB AI is more concerned than in CMBO, with individual unit survival, and places that calculation as a priority over attack calculations.

Thanks SD, the ice effect is really nice. I grabbed this one yesterday.

Stratego was my second favorite.

Nothing worse than that cuffs and collars not matching.

I ain't getting nuffin again. Just a page with some logo, no pitchure.

Pre-planned barrage, pre-planned, pre-planned, hmmm, crap. Now I gotta go read somefink. Are there pitchures?

Well the lil bugger doesn't seem to really want to target infantry. It will, but rather oddly. In one instance I targeted infantry near a vehicle. The first shot it fired was at the infantry I targeted, however succeeding shots were at the vehicle and when the vehicle ducked for cover, the Ampulomet stopped firing altogether. In another instance, I did the same and targeted infantry and it fired one shot at them, then abruptly stopped even though the infantry target was in plain LOS. Altogether, it don't seem to reliable.