Dr. Brian

This struck me as weird. I was calling down some rocket artillery. I had some rounds left at the end of the turn. Now, knowing that rocket artillery is NOT something you can just correct like normal arty, I tried to "adjust" my fire. I was expecting not being able to. However, CM allowed me to adjust fire during the middle of the barrage. So, what is being "modelled" here. Rocket artillery as I understand it, is some Katushya or Nebelwerfer are lined up, throw up some spotting rounds, and then when the Fire For Effect comes over the hand set, whoosh, whoosh, whoosh. About 200 rounds from a truck or two go flying off in a split second. It's not the same as dropping a round in an mortar tube or loading an artillery peice. Thoughts appreciated. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 02-20-2001).]

They were not as effective. There was of course some effect, but what it comes down to, is softer ground does lessen the blast radius. Marsh, soft sand, mud, will lessen the damage. That's my thoughts. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Huh? It was all feints and screening attacks as far as I recall. Please provide a reference. I'd like to read how the German army thrust through (and rolled up, breached?) the Maginot. Thanks! Brian ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Jasper, I'm all for bringing Willy Pete into the realm of arty and gun rounds. You analysis on the effectiveness of the smoke is impressive, however, I'd like to see the smoke effected by the weather. That is rain, mud, wind, etc. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

This information is also important for those of us that are "gamey" players. I need this stuff... sort of along the lines of an ASLRB. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

I think part of the problem is, that to get 4-5 pillboxes, you have to spend a lot of your points, and this will weaken your force pool considerably. Plus, from the scenarios that I have played so far, they only seem to give not enough, like the spoiler I mentioned above. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

I just played All or Nothing [sPOLIER] . . . . . . . . . . . . Those two damn mg pill boxes lasted for 2 rounds, and 1 round. What's the point? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

This is from the Bunker Bug thread… and I thought it deserved it's own thread. Thanks for all those about to participate in this. Quoting John Kettler from the Bunker thread: quote: As it is, smoke is more powerful and prevalent in CM than in real life, since it lands, billows up and stays put, without regard to eddies or even high winds. There are no restrictions on its use, yet routine defensive techniques which somewhat offset smoke and degraded visibility are simply not modeled, therefore are unavailable to the defender in CM. This has the net effect of simultaneously weakening the defense while strengthening the attacker. This to me seems neither fair nor realistic. All I can say is wow. That is so on the money. I'm playing a scenario right now. The briefing said it has been raining for days, the ground is all mud, it is still raining, and there is no restriction on SMOKE usage. My oppneoent and I are using it just like it was a dry, calm day with no winds. When it's raining heavily, ground filled with mud, etc., doesn't it make sense that the effects of SMOKE are negligible? Smoke rounds would not last as long as on a dry sunny day, let alone be used. CM does lack weather effects, and SMOKE being used in heavy rains, is (I hate to say it) ahistorical. Thoughts appreciated. Also, what are your thoughts about arty damage in mud conditions? I've noticed that arty is still as destructive to ground troops. Shouldn't mud "muffle" and soak up some of those explosions? This should be true for marsh as well, which is soft ground. Soft ground helps ground troops vs. artillery, that is a known fact. I can't seem to get CM to model this. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

And Steve says.... Totally agree. However, once the battle is joined (i.e. CM scenario) attrition is very much the name of the game. At some point you actually have to take out the enemy's forces, and that time is what is simulated in CM. You just addressed my opinion. I see it, and so do you. So, when does a game of "indirect approach" get developed? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Yep ... I see your point. On another note, i hate to call myself a follower of "manuever warfare." I do prefer the "indirect approach." As defined by Lind and the "spirit" of his book, it is my opinion, that CM has difficulty modelling this. Well, at least the scenarios I've played. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Steve, this is the whole thing about the Boyd Cycle. You don't need to "physically" take the bridge. Most of the time, just possing a hill, or twon, or some key, dominating peice of terrain will accomplish that. I think that's what others (well, at least me) are saying in way too many words. What it comes down to is your definition of manuver vs. Henri's or my definition of manuver. And that is based on how much schooling we've each received. There is no clear cut definition. And your manuver is my attrition. Thoughts appreciated. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

My o.o2 zlotey.... You can't use manuver warfare to it's greatest extent in CM. We are limited by the maps, and the fact that the maps have boundaries (i.e., edges). This makes application of the Boyd cycle difficult. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Ummm, number 3 should be: Gamer Grog. Gamer's are grognards too. Please, let's be PC here, and stop the alienation. "Can't we all just get along?" ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

How can I get it? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Actually, the idea of engineers being able to actually use their demo charges for blowing buildings is a good one. They can set them in a few minutes, and boom, rubble a building. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

btt

Regarding the sharpshooters, I beleive they won't fire if by doing so, it exposes their position. If the halftracks are w/i 100m or so, they may not fire. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Hey, I read about the into movie in my game, but haven't seen it after all this time. How do I enable it, and then, how do I turn it off. Would like to see it. Thanks in advance! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

I'm not looking to get anyone upset, nor stir up a flame war, but I'm just laughing here in amazement. We had that whole discussion why crew use was "gamey" because it was unrealistic. Many of the same people above that said crew use was ahistorical have just said it's okay to leave an AFV w/o a main armament (MA) in play. If that ain't ahistorical, I don't know what is. When the MA is disabled, any TC is going to leave the battlefield at the first opportunity, otherwise, they stand the chance of finding themselves in a gun duel, without a gun. As the all knowing player (and thereby knowing your opponent's TO&E), you are using "gamey" knowledge knowing there are no weapons to knock out your AFV. Something a tank commander wouldn't necessarily know. You guys crack me up sometimes. In any event, I consider it "gamey" and a tactic worthy or use in any of my games. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

IMO, this is 100% "gamey." That doesn't mean I'm saying not to use it, in fact, I will try to in my gaming future. But, as it appears to me, the game engine and game restrictions (i.e., map edge) were used, therefore, not "realistic" and hence gamey. However, I applaud your innovation and insight into exploiting this! I like it. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

You didn't post what type of scnearios. I've asked this before an a somewhat related, yet unrelated topic. In any tournament, the scenarios MUST be balanced. Has there been any reporting for scenario balance in CM at all? In ASL, we have what is called R.O.A.R. Players report their scenarios, what side won, side played, etc. Some scenarios have over 1000 reported playings, and the Axis/Allied win/loss ratio is 50-50. This is a great scenario for a tournament. What does the CM crowd offer? Thanks in advance! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 01-15-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeAcH: Therefore when, lets say you are playing a 35 turn game with a turn modifier of +/-10, then it COULD end on turn 25 or 45. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree that it is not realistic. However, as member of the "gamer" crowd (as opposed to "simulator" crowd), this can totally skew the play balance of a fun scenario. I'm looking for scenarios that are evenly matched no matter what side you play. Your request goes against the very fiber of competitive game play for a "gamer" like me. A scenario must be balanced, and the length of the game is paramount to that. However, in a campaign (operation) type series of scenarios, this would be okay, as victory is only determined after a number of days. Just a "gamers" $0.02. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The solution is to have a built in "memory" for each unit and to have quite a bit of logic built to utilize it. This is not something we think we can do for CM2, unfortunately. So we will just have to find a way of making this system work better for now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, there is a simple solution. Program the logic as an expert system. You'll need to come up with rules, but it'll be easier in the end. I'm so sure of it. This is just such an awesome and perfect application for an expert system. It has a well defined, narrow domain (tank combat). And there are tons of experts to input their expertise into the knowledge base. All you need is someone who can be the knowledge engineer, and there are a lot coming out of the colleges now. Anyway, just to throw more gas into it. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GravesRegistration: In CM the tanks turn their turret, fire and then the hull immediately starts turning which would blow the second shots aim in real life. It's not unrealistic for them to turn the hull towards the threat but I've noticed the hull moves little bits between each shot (if firing at a moving target) this would be disastrous for the aiming and it's destroying the threat that truly will save the tank not the front armor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is what I have a problem with. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unless there is a gyrostabilizer around, these AFVs are losing their acquisition. Quite often, it is more important to get the shots off before the opportunity to penetrate your opponents armor is more important than rotating your hull. A Sherman who's targeted the side of a Panther should not be turning it's hull (as it makes no difference since the Panther gun will rip into the Sherman). It needs to get shots off as fast as possible, without losing acquisition. If I'm a Sherman TC and my hull is facing opposite the Panther, I'd wouldn't rotate the hull (since it'll make no difference). I'd give my gunner the best opportunity to hit the side before it's too late. Make sense? Question, is acquisition lost when moving the hull? As stated, it realistically is. Does CM model that? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

btt (for those that had a hard time like me) ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!