Dr. Brian

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: Over the past month or two, I've noticed a trend away from intellectual discussion and towards what I would label as "chatting". That is, people are no longer making well thought out in-depth posts (the kind you don't forget). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I bet any amount of money that some of it is due to good people are just tired of getting blasted and ridiculed by, what really amounts to, a bunch of anonymous jerks, typing behind the protection of their keyboard. So, why bother? Granted, I've already run into a great bunch of people here, always willing to help, but there are some, if your don't walk to their beat, gang up on you. It's not conducive to deep discussion. My $0.02 anyway, since you asked. Have a Happy Thanknsgiving Holiday everyone! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Manieri: I, being a person who checks the board rather frequently, has noticed a decline in new and interesting posts at the board. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not being around since December, to me, everything does seem "new and exciting" and a fresh read. What hurts even more, is people stating "do a search." Kind of stifles conversation. My 0.02 zloty ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by phil stanbridge: Either the AI is the best in the world, or it CHEATS. Maybe I'm a bad loser?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's likely the computer player "cheats" then. Software developers have been doing this for years, giving the computer player "advantages" in order to cover up the lack of AI the computer opponent possesses. In computer games, as the level of "expertise" of the computer opponent increases, what occurs? They computer opponent hits better, you miss more often, or they build faster units, etc. There is no increase in the skill level of the computer opponent. However, as the computer game industry advances, players are demanding better computer opponents. I hope that a tactical/strategic AI will be developed (i.e., expert systems). This looks like it's a long way off though, due to the limited budgets and need for quick profit from game companies industry wide. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

I had a post related to this a while ago. In Computer Games Magazine, there was a review of CM. It clearly stated that when a FO dies, the HQ unit can take over duties for the FO. Maybe, somebody figured it out? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OGSF: However, "mouseholing" or blasting through adjoining walls to get from building to building was a tactic specifically developed by the Americans in the ETO 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you certain? From all the accounts I've seen and read, it was done in practice first by the Red Army, and culminated at Stalingrad, with the bleeding of the German 6th Army. That's two years before in 1942! I think the US was the first to write it down, but, clearly, the Soviet Union used it on a large scale first. In any event, the current model seems to a-historical for city fights. My 0.02 zlotey. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 11-20-2000).]

OPPS. Sorry. I'm getting off the topic of threat assesment. Anyway, I've been BURNED numerous times with my AFV shooting at infantry, and enemy AFVs coming over a hill, or around a corner, when I'm telling them NOT to shoot. I had a SP Gun about 700m away from any threat. There was some infantry on a hill to my right, but the town, when enemy AFVs were located, was to my left. I kept telling my SP Gun Not to shoot, and turn his covered arc to the town. Each turn, he'd rotate to attack the infantry. When the enemy AFVs came out of the town, I didn't have a prayer. THIS....pissed me off. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paullus: The Russians suffered huge AFV losses to PzFausts on the final drive into Germany. Zhukov lost something like 500 - 600 tanks on the attack on the Seelowe Heights and beyond. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But not all are accounted to PF attacks. You have armor, mines, mechanical breakdown, AT Guns, and of course, armor. I disagree about the old guys and young boys. If I was of military age, I'd lack the intestinal fortitude as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No way I'd want to get in front of the Red Army with nothing but vengeance and retribution on their collective minds after what Germany did. plus, my instinct to survive would have taken over a long time ago. To this day, I'm amazed at the actions and sacrifices all the nations shouldered. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Historically, the PF was an effective weapon … IF it hit. However, it was not as accurate as one would expect. New numbers came out. I'll dig them up. Basically though, just stay away from infantry. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: No no no, the asterisks indicate simple disclaimers, as you would expect. Refer to the manual, and you will find the following in the small print: * Not actual building ** Digital representation only <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

WOW!!!! I had no idea!!!!! Thanks for the advice, since I'm in the middle of a game, I'm outta there! * * = Holy Crap! Get Out! Thanks again everyone. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Just saw this while playing. I know what a "Light Building" is, and a "Heavy Building", but what is "Heavy Building*" I figure that " * " actually means something. I didn't see anything in the manual. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magua: Did you ever try "Pattons Best" also by Avalon Hill Dr Brian? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HELL YES! And that was the name of my Sherman too! But I agree, it wasn't nearly as riveting as B-17: Queen of The Skies... man, those walking hits sucked! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Thanks for the link. Checking it out now. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 11-16-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ntg84: The first one, by Microprose is what you all are talking about right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No! No! No! The first was B-17: Queen of the Skies. It was a board game published by Avalon Hill. This was before computers … the 1980s… that's when computers came out, right?? Anyway, it was a great game, where you rolled dice (this was a type of early random number generator) and moved chits and pieces on the mapboard (similar to the display we see on the CRT). ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Gee ... does anyone remember the original B-17? B-17: Queen Of The Skies, the baord game by AH? All this talk, I'm going to blow the dust off that one and give it a play. THAT, was the first.. and what all these computer games were based on, FWIW. And, it still plays great! Thanks for bringing back the great memories. I have to go see if my B-17, King America, is still able to fly! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: and for one main reason: TOT (Time on Target). This common technique allowed multiple batteries to have their first rounds to drop on the same location simultaneously. Thus, the target goes from nothing, to being immolated be all manners of shells instantly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is different than the discussion of the time it takes. It may take 2 minutes to get a Time-On-Target response, or it may take 3 minutes, or 1:15 to get a TOT mission. TOT missions are usually multiple batteries at different locations, where the time it takes for rounds to travel different distances, arrive at the same time (as you said). However, will a TOT Fire MISSION be approved for your request, that's another story, and what is one of the things modelled. Well, that's my 0.02 zlotey on this. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ned: The FO's have radio's and are in pretty constant contact with the arty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ned, because, it the mad minute of battle, the Fire Control Office at the battery has enough on his hands ... he can't be answering every little call for how long. To the small unit action occurring in your sector, there are 10-20 more along their AOR (Area of Responsibility). (abbreviated converstation may go like this) Your FO, "We're being flanked, we need that penny nickel nickel! Over!!" FCO to your FO, "Charlie company is being overrun, all assets are taken! OUT" There is no time to waste, and distraction will cost more lives. The modelling of arty, to me, seems good. But take heart. You're doing EXACTLY what low level commanders always do. Complain why they are not getting arty on time. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Just use the rule: IF (LOS to the target is blocked) THEN (countdown takes twice as long) and you'll be fine usually. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Question then. Can you drop arty down, when the FO doesn't see the target (i.e., no LOS)? How bad is the error or, how good is the accuracy? I didn't think you were allowed to do this. You would need a LOS to drop arty, but, am I correct to say you DON'T need a LOS? Thanks in advance! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikeydz: Once the troops are captured, all weapons are automatically stripped from them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Too bad they can't pick up the weapons from the dead guys in the same building, since the weapons are still there. Oh well. Thanks for all the replys! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

A quick question regarding captured soldiers, and any help would be appreciated. Or, is this a bug? Situation… a squad was forward, into a building with an enemy unit. My squad was "captured." The same turn, his unit is eliminated, AND another of my units (an HQ) moves into the same building. However, the unit is still "captured." I would expect them to be "free." What happened? How can I get them back? Is this a bug? Thanks in advance! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Although the Ambrose book is a good read, Maj. Howard said it was not accurate. To what degree, I can't remember (I was told second person, to someone who worked ona project with him). However, it is a good read, and, Maj. John Howard was, and is, a hero. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

I'm curious too. i've seen this a lot. I've even seen it when AFVs use AP versus infantry in buildings. What gives? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Andreas, "Sims" as used in my post has to be taken in context with "sim soldiers" as written. Abbreviated for simulated soldiers, which is what they are … little 1's and 0's running around on terrain modeled by 1's and 0's. Remarkable, isn't it? Adder, Re: Search. Nope. Ninety-Nine plus hits is not "scannable" in my book, but the equivalent of reading a dissertation. That would defeat the point of the Internet, and the interactive nature of this forum … for me at least. All, Thanks for responding to my post. Your help is GREATLY appreciated! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 11-13-2000).]

Okay, I'm playing a night scenario, and my sim soldiers have been subject to a tremendous amount of friendly fire. No matter what I do, they shoot at each other. I've even tried to keep them within command radius of the HQs, but there has been no lessening of friendly fire. This topic isn't even discussed in the manual (what else is new?), so how does one get by this. I can't keep them close together, because artillery will destroy my sims. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: I think CM2 should simulate damage to traverse mechanisms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice idea, but i don't think it adds much flavor to the enjoyment of the game, and will make too much information overlaod. Besides, where are you going to come up with numbers and statisitics to find out actually, for all vehicles for all nationalities, this parameter. A bit overwhelming, and open to much debate and interpretation... the proverbial can of worms. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!