Rattus

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: What of refugees or civilians?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't you guess.. It's a miracle! That's my Juniper bush! Well I think its blasphemous. In this ostensibly Python worshipping country... He's even got the same intials - JC John Cleese.

The Thin Red line - that chap wouldn't shut up even after he was dead! I did NOT see that film! I did NOT see that film! I did NOT see that film!...

Okay Schwein - what you verdammt Tigers know about der prancing. We hav der uber Regiment der mighty Prancergrenadiers! Mobile Prancing! Synchronised Prancing. Today Prancing tomorrow the world! 6!!!! You think only 6 levels of Prancing WE have 27 levels of Prancing with half-pike and triple axial. Tiger could not Prance your way out of a wet paper tutu! Vowarts Prancergrenadiers no prisoners - no except maybe the little prancers...

Bit before Napoleon's time weren't they! No - I had mighty Commodore 64 Exec (with built in screen. A lap top at only 25Kg! I rememeber playing Russian front for hours on tiny 8"x6" screen! Great fun - & came complete with everything editor! Sue don't make 'em like they used to - thank goodness!

Henri, Why are are you always one post ahead (stupid question!) What do you mean viz players unable to communicate - that the players in command of adjact companies/bttns can't communicate with each other during the same time frame of operations ('cos the players are in different TZ but are nominally playing in a related action)? If the players forces are essentially indept then this is no prob. THer would hace to be some catch up betwen the battles but I think this could be built in. I am sure then e-mail would do instead of that crappy old valve set. This sort of campaign op is what would really put the icing on the cake for me. 99% (well 100% actually but don't tell BTS!) I can live with & thoroughly enjoy but the lack of a really good variable campaign sytm is a sad omission.

But there is no U in French? (That was terrible) A U mit umlauts! (worse - groan)

Henri, obviously my posts are out of sinc. I agree enitrely that my Tk should be able to achieve the HD position - the commander /gun can see the real terrain. I/m all in favour of a HD command. What I don't want to see is some kind of too flexible search along the loong line till you find a nice spot type command for lazy players. By making the HD nomination point a small area I wanted the player to commit the Tk to trying to find that HD position. If there is one there, then I would expect (unless green crws maybe), my Tk to geacheive that posn (if possibel) 'cos they can see the real terrain. [This message has been edited by Rattus (edited 08-11-2000).]

Sod's law. Nope - don't quite follow you there, yep read the thread, Don't recall saying you wanted automatically to find ..... (maybe you're not responding to my post! Point was, instead setting a path along which AI might hunt (god know's what length)until it found good spot, To let player use his skill at reading the the 3D map to find that spot that will potentiallty givee good HD positions. If he has picked a really crappy spot then the AI could only do so much. Love your style!

My 3 Shekels & 4 Groats worth... 1) Tiger armour fix... 2) .50 cal accuarcy mod. 3) FAO's who can spot whilst "embarked" & proper OP tks. 4) Attacker (maybe only Assault) can buy TRPs for registered Arty. (&maybe TRPs for MG's in night/fog?) 5) Shrapnel & incenduary ammo..., box barrages & creeping barrages. So I'm retentive about arty !

Here's a compromise between those who don't want the AI to do all the searching for good HD spots & those who are sick of stuffing around trying to achieve an actual HD position in a potentially good location they have picked. Nominate the point at which, within some limited (short) distance you want the Tk to take up the HD position & direction from which you want to be HD. Your tactical/game skill identifies the likely spot. The AI then manouevres the Tk to the actual HD postion along the line of fire within a (short) limiting radius inbuilt to the AI. The quality of the HD position could be a function of quality/Tk design whatever. This is the AI doing its bit to save the inching back & forth etc. (unrealistically in some sense in that all our crews, regardless of quality) are then uniformly as good or bad as the player.) Nice balance or satisfies neither? (sod's law its the latter )

THat could be it john, the Simonov's were also criticised for excessive muzzle blast. Tkarev's seem to have been very popular with Soviet Marines and Naval Infantry. I think I'll skip the soc.history.war.world-war-ii for now

Just think - the dachshunds could go under even tanks with low ground clearance 'course they would have to be slow , but for those rapidly fleeing fascist foes - the faithful soviet greyhound (should that be a US unit ) will get 'em every time!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Erickson: This is the important question as far as I'm concerned. If the firepower of the MP40 drops like a rock after the 100m mark and the MP44 firepower follows a more linear decline from the 100m mark to the 250m mark things would look great. In my games the shooting gets serious in the 120-170m range, and there aren't any stats for this bracket. Unfortunatly it's hard to test the firepower of individual weapons because you can't edit squad content. John<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I think his is the crical point, If there are no mid range point advantagews to the MP44 then I think the values given need to be tweaked. These would then form the basis for my Soviet units (scouts probably) equipped with Tokarev SVT 38 & 40 automatic rifles . Interesting that the AK-47 so close to the MP44 given the Russian had built & used "Assault Rifles" since the mid -thirties. (Simonov AVS-36). They were all a bit delicate - especially the Simonov - but in the MP44 thay had an excellent battle proven weapon whose features they could copy. I don't know what proportion of Soviet troops had the Tokarev (anyone?) weapons captured by the Japaenese at Nomonhan indicated about 1/5 "Automatic Rifles". If such a high proportion was present initially it seems to have been rapidly reduced after 1941!

Ahhh the incendiary pig my personal favourite - and if it doesn't scare the elephants at least you get roast pork! Also incendiary camel carts, Inca war dog handlers, herds of stampeding cattle... Wicker elephant disguises to make camels look like elephants! Camelry disguised as cavalry(!) the camels scare the horses. nearly as well as elephants do. Angry bears let loose into the enemies mines.. baskets of scorpions or maddened hornets cast by catapult.. And always a favourite at the games - the scythed chariot (also used with remarkably little succes in the field by many ancient armies). When you consider Greek fire the old boiling oil/water/(and in desperation lead!).. baskets of unslaked lime... Ah the good old days!

And further to my last... Weight of fixed round (Projectile + cartridge case) of 3" HE was roughly 24-26lb depending on chamber size (see previous post). [The Brass/Steel/Alloy (whatever!) cartridge cases are heavy.] Weight of fixed round of 75mm HE was ?!!! From memory about 20lb or less. The fixed round shell illustration I have shows a cartridge case about 1/2 the length of that for the 3" HE fixed round. That is 350mm long (the diagram is in French!) for the 75mm cartridge case as opposed to 23" (weighing 6.6lb) to 26.7" (weighing 8.5lb)for the 3" cartidge case. Again, variation is due to slightly different chamber size. The 75mm fixed round is therefore lighter and smaller. So ceteris paribus, higher ROF. Eh Voila!

Hogg gives: 76mm gun as used in Sherman & M18 TD (originally designed as AT gun) used same ammo as 3" AT (but different chamber sizes so different mv's) as used in M10 TD & towed equipments, which in turn used same ammo as 3" AA gun. As such thick - walled & small burster: HE M42A1, wt projectile 12.87lb, wt burter 0.86lb TNT. Note: The projectile design originated for the old 3" AA gun so was designed for maximum mv (of course the round wasn't designed to hit anything solid!). Both HE and APC (M79) rounds used similar charges (4.56lb & 4.62lb respectively) but the APC round weighed 15lb so had lower mv (2800f/s & 2600f/s respectively)! Despited the extra m/v of the HE round, its smaller burter & tendency to bury itself resulted in overall(Bold & italics!) ( that is for most purposes) a less efficient HE round. This was the price of standardisation of ammo production & that on a type of HE round suited for AA fire not ground fire. Later a slightly better HE was produced. HE for 75mm M2 (for M3 Tk) & M3 (for M4) Tk same as for 75mm field guns. Originated from moderate velocity field gun so thin walled & large burster: HE M48, wt projectile 14.7lb, wt burster 1,5ln TNT or 1.36lb Amatol. Normal propellant charge 1.05lb. viz APC round M61 of 14.96lb used 2.16lb propellant charge. Note significantly larger burster of 75mm round and disproportionately reduced propellant charges for 75mm HE rounds to give lower velocity in Tk gun. I think I posted the burster info previously but it's a looong thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: He said they used g/mm²I think [?]. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Erk - I thought it was the size of the pit - ie. volume which was the basis of the BH number!

The only uses I'v found so far for crews are 1) guarding prisoners, 2) Occupying "safe" victory locations in the rear; & occasionally 3) killing isolated AT teams - & only the AI leaves AT teams w/o support! At the end of the day they are just another resource & I have no probs with human opponents who want to use them any way they want. I do think the game limits imposed on crews encourages you not to use them like inf - which is good. Hell if the cooks can fight at Batogne...

I understand there are several different Brinell hardness scales - the common one using the little tungsten carbide ball under a 3000kg load giving the best range. Is there any chance that the Brinell hardness figures quoted from different nations use one of the alternative scales? Looking for an education here!

I think that air support is treated like reinforcements - there is X% chance per turn (non-cumulative) of it turning up. Sometimes your lucky & it turns up early - sometimes late or never. I don't think there is any modelling of local air superiority - but there may be different % chance of axis & allied air suppot arriving. (Happy to be corrected here. )I have just had nearly all my armour wacked by Jabos... - pesky buggers turned up about 3/4 way through game & never left!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PatAWilson: About casualties or lack thereof caused by an MG:Side note: is barrel heating modeled? I know this sounds awfully nitpicky but it would be pretty damned cool if it was. It would also show one of the key advantages of the MG34 and even more so the MG42. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless you have a nice water-cooled MG! (Damn shame having to (quick) change the barrel on that MG42. Of course - at least you wouldn't kill yourself trying to move that Vickers/Maxim in the first place - especially in soft ground

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: For simulation in the game, embark a spotter on a vehicle, and if you design the scenario, don't give it main gun ammo, et voilá. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good idea - problem is still can't call in fire "embarked"!

Whilst Jeeps (or 1/2 tracks make good tactical transport for the FAO you can't actually call in fire whilst "embarked". - Not that a Jeep would be very safe! It should be possible to call in fire from the vehicle (say a half track which is at least bullet proof). Better yet a well sited turret down (or accompanying other tanks going forward) Sherman OP tanks would great. I know the Brits, US, Germans deveoped specialised vehicles - even the Russians made effective use of OP in more or less modified tanks. AOP vehicale have an important tactical role so they should be included. How about it BTS?