Col Deadmarsh

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker: And to add - the thick red line occurs when two units are shooting at each other. A thin red line (sounds familiar) indicates fire that is one-way. <hr></blockquote> I didn't know this...are you sure this is correct?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PawBroon: You've mixed multiple parts of Feldgrau's and mines. <hr></blockquote> Mine's? Did I just enter The Sopranos? Maybe you'z could tell me where to find this Feldgrau fella, or at least show me where to find dem mods of his, capiche? Thanks for your help. Be sure and tell Vito hello from me and the boyz. Gratzi.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: why don't you post a picture of what the hell you are talking about? In your situation I am sure a picture is worth a thousand words, and would illustrate to the interested parties what it is you are describing.<hr></blockquote> Ask and you shall receive... Now you see what I'm talking about. What's missing here? Also, how do I get rid of that spare tread glacis plate bmp on all my vehicles and just have the normal look? [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ] [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ] [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ] [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms: 5. Speed. Again, this matters a lot in some scenarios or on some maps, not so much on others. In most of the games I've played--which are usually on midsized maps with AT assets poised everywhere to murder the unwary--speed is a lesser consideration. I zippy Cromwell can be great in some scenarios, but less use than a lumbering Churchill in the combined arms tank-infantry attacks against prepared positions with AT assets with overlapping fields of fire which constitutes most of the CM games I've played. These positions need to be methodically dismantled before speed can emerge as a major asset.<hr></blockquote> Can you explain what you mean by this? It sounds like you're talking about an attack/defense scenario in which the defense needs to be dismantled before continuing an attack on that portion of the map with high-priced tanks. I'm confused though as to why speed would be an asset to the attacker as the defender would be on his back lines the entire time, thus preventing a flank. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> My observation is that the German armor tends to excel at either category 1 or 2, and often both. Some German AFVs are good at both and still quite cheap. There is NO cheap US AFV that is good at both 1 & 2, and none below 175 pts that is any good at 1. Most German AFVs are also good at category 4 and seem to get that for free, whereas US HVSS tanks are wickedly expensive, among the worst bargains in CM. You seem to be paying for an excess of good psi, since 12.5 psi, native to the Panther and PzIV, is about all yo need in most situation. British tanks are sometimes really good at 1 (Churchill VII, VIII, Croc) and sometimes good at 2 (Firefly, Archer, Achilles, Challenger), though rarely at both. Still, British armor is often both more effective and a better bargain in CM. The Churchill VIII is strong at categories 1, 2, and 3. (2 because of the effectiveness of the 'c' round, though that's iffy because there aren't so many of them.) It's about equal to a vanilla Sherman in category four. It's slowness is a drawback, but that's also what makes it cheap. In many situations I can live with that to gain 1, 2, and 3.<hr></blockquote> I'm wondering how you'd rate the Sherman IIA in comparison to the other American Sherman versions and the IIA's British counterparts in terms of combat worth per dollar spent. I've never used it before but it seems with it's 76mm gun and fast turret, the IIA would have a place on the battlefield in certain situations where the M10 with it's slow turret would be a liability.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Because that's part of the glacis plate .bmp! Most Shermans carried a great variety of equipment on the glacis, esp tracks and spare bogey wheels, in attempt to add any extra armor. That's what's being simulated.<hr></blockquote> Where did this bmp come from? It's on all my tanks and I can't get it off. I don't see any option for this in CMMOS. Also, where is Feldgrau's Wasp so I can fix this "yellow triangle" problems I'm having?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PawBroon: The Wasp with the Air Recognition Panel is Feldgrau's. You might have either installed both to test them and hadn't uninstalled one properly or you are using Feldgrau's all along and that's why mine isn't showing... As a side note, I do use Feldgrau's Wasp. I've reMODed it to my taste but nobody in is right mind would want to use one of my MOD over Feldgrau's. <hr></blockquote> Well, you don't uninstall a mod, right? You simply copy over the last one. So, I'm a little confused as to why there's a part of the Wasp missing (big yellow triangle which looks like a graphic is supposed to go there) Where do I get Feldgrau's mod? I'll try installing that over the one in there now.

In a QB, their only real worth would be to guard flanks. Usually I'd rather have 1 HMG as opposed to 2 LMG's, but when guarding flanks you need 2 mg's for crossfire in case an enemy rushes you.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stephen Smith: I have another question about hull down. Is a tank either hull down or not (i.e. on or off, 0 or 1), or is a tank either hull down or not RELATIVE TO A LOCATION ON THE MAP? For example: imagine a tank being hull down behind a rise in the ground, that is overlooking a valley in front of it. That tank may be hull down relative to opponents down in the valley, but NOT hull down relative to opponents on the slope on the opposite side of the valley-they may even be higher than that tank, and be able to get 'top' shots! My guess is that in CM a tank is checked to see if it is right behind a high point in the terrain (rise in the ground, wall, etc), and is thus either hull down or not (0 or 1), and is considered hull down for the purposes of any firer from its frontal arc (which is incorrect, of course). But I've always wondered how the game actually does it. steve<hr></blockquote> Tanks are hull down relative to their position of others. I've been able to pierce the upper frontal armor of a Hetzer who was hull down to everyone else but not my TD on top of a big hill. The extreme angle of my tank's round hitting his 60/60 armor pierced through because the degree of slope was completely changed by my position relative to his.

Problem 1: I installed Pawbroon's Wasp mod but I've been using CMMOS 2.1 to change nationalities with my vehicles. For some reason, I'm not seeing Pawbroon's mod in my game but another one with stars on the vehicle (denoting U.S.) and a big yellow triangle which seems to be an option that wasn't loaded for the mod or something. Anyone know what I'm talking about. Problem 2: The other strange thing I'm seeing using CMMOS is that my tanks have tire tracks going up the hull in the front. It does this no matter which option in CMMOS I select. I'm confused as to why it does this, what it is, and how to get rid of it. [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

Am I correct in assuming that every vehicle in CM can acheive "hull down" status and get that bonus?

Good lord, I've entered grog hell...

The Daimler has 3 men in its crew. Is this vehicle like the Wasp where if 1 of those men gets killed, the vehicle is rendered powerless to fire its gun? In other words, is this one of those vehicles that need to be buttoned up the whole game?

Okay thanks. They don't have it under 3rd party mods yet where they other one was.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: 3. Not sure. What vehicles are you refering to?<hr></blockquote> For instance, the 250/1 and the 251/16. They both have forward mg's. Are these on the front hull, the same as the bow mg's on other vehicles and do they differ in any way? Regarding the Vickers mg, if the caliber of the round is about the same as the American 30 cal, why does it have a higher firepower rating? Can this be attributed to more rounds per second or is it a higher muzzle velocity? [ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

It's not at CMHQ--they only have version 2.1 there. I can't find it at any other sites either so where is it?

(1) Is the American MMG, a 30 caliber gun? (2) What is the caliber of the British Vickers mg? (3) Is a forward mg the same as a bow mg?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms: Any other favorite price-performance bargains in the CM armored field? (I know this has been much discussed, but it's hard to resist returning to it!) The German AFVs offer many possiblities, among which I might choose the Hetzer (though the Panther and Tiger are also, arguably, real bargains.) On the US side, the only possibilites as bargains seem to me the M8, Hellcat and Jackson--none of which offer any protection, but at least their fairly cheap gun platforms. <hr></blockquote> I think the Wasp is a great bargain and one of the best reasons to take the British. It's only 57 points compared to the German 251/16 which is 74 points. In comparision, the Wasp has a 75 meter range compared to the 50 meter range of the German vehicle. Although the 251/16 has an mg, the Wasp makes up for this by having a smoke mortar to get out of bad situations where enemy vehicles show up. The speed and armor averages out to be about the same for both vehicles so basically with the Wasp you're getting a flame vehicle with a better range for 17 points less. That's a bargain in my book.

Frankly, I would never agree to play as Allies on a map with anything less than medium trees--human or computer picked forces. I suppose as the Allies you could win by smoking and manuevering but that just doesn't seem like fun to me--or fair either.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: Why not just alter the normal attack command? Just something like this: when I order an infantry unit to target a vehicle (or maybe even any other target) a request pops up like 'Attempt destruction yes/no', so we can directly order if we just want to shoot the tank with rifles, so it must just close the hatches, or if we want to try to destroy it, so the troop attacks with everything available until the tank is detroyed, out of range or the squad is out. <hr></blockquote> This is exactly why we need a command like this--to provide a clear order on what to do in this scenario. Does this sound like a realistic situation to you? Sarge: Okay boys, you see that hill up there with the tank on top? Well, I want you to run up there till you're right next to the tank. Private: I don't understand Sarge. Do you want us to try to put a grenade down the hatch? Sarge: Oh, I don't know. I hadn't really thought about it. Why don't you just run up there to the tank and then we'll play it by ear... I don't know about you but if I'm that private, I'm getting out of that detail. This command that's being proposed is not to take out any randomness in the game. It's to clear up confusion on the player's part about what his orders are. Maybe having your infantry squad chase a slower moving vehicle is too much to code for CMBB and too hard to do. I think though that when you send your squad to attack an enemy vehicle that they need to know whether to button it up with gunfire or to physically assault it my climbing on top of it. In this case, I'm not up for any "randomness." I want to give a clear order and if my men screw it up, then that's fine. But I want to be in control of giving them the command, (as risky as it may be) of attempting to assault the vehicle. [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Shriker: It's true that an "assault vehicle" command would not be perfect in all situations. Perhaps there would need to be more coding added; possibly aborting the squad's order to assault if the vehicle moved X distance from its position at the start of that turn. <hr></blockquote> In addition to Shriker's comment about having a maximum distance the squad will chase, I think it should also be alerted to the enemy squads in the area in that it will only chase the vehicle if it is not under heavy fire. Of course, the term "heavy fire" is a matter of semantics and would be determind by BTS. What I'm also thinking is that the squad ordered to attack will know whether or not they are faster than the vehicle so they will know whether or not to rush the vehicle or whether to seek cover if the vehicle moves away. (This would be the same as when your Greyhound climbs over a hill to see a Tiger tank staring it down from 500 meters away. It doesn't take more than a few seconds before the Greyhound's commander orders the crew to descend back down the hill and seek cover so they don't get their heads blown off.) As far as the opponents of the command...you all seem to be envisioning a worse-case scenario when a naive or newbie player would carelessly order his infantry squad to attack a vehicle while trying to dodge enemy fire from 3 squads nearby. If the player is stupid enough to try to do this, then that squad should indeed be mowed down while attempting to assault the vehicle. I think some of you are missing the point. The command would only be used when the vehicle is not supported by a good deal of enemy infantry (at least to the player's knowledge) and the player doesn't have any AT teams at his disposal. This is not uncommon in games and it's scenarios like these which warrant a command like the one I'm proposing. In this case, I WOULD want my squad to attack the vehicle and even pursue it for a few meters trying to kill it while I feel reasonably safe that there is no heavy infantry in the area there to defend the vehicle. Two scenarios which come to mind: (1)Flanking a tank in the enemy's rear area where there is no supporting infantry to protect it. (2) Assaulting a vehicle at the end of a battle when enemy infantry is scarce. Keith, are you beginning to see the light...?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Keith: This "Assault Vehicle" idea is bad because: 4) I would never use the command. <hr></blockquote> What was I thinking? I completely forgot to check with you first Keith to see if you'd use the command before submitting it to the rest of the forum.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skelley: You come to TH talkin' a lot of smack about you being the best and wanting to play Swamp. Well, we all know Swamp will walk all over you like you weren't even on the battlefield. So I challenge you to a game. I am the #4 guy on the TH ladder so u should have no problem beating me, seeing that you are "the best". All you have to do is come to TH chat to try your luck. For some reason I doubt you have the stones. You are all talk with nothing to back it up. What ever kind o game you want.<hr></blockquote> We really need a name for that "other ladder" at TH to distinguish you gamey bastards from us at the CAL ladder. Something like Gamey Bastards Ladder would suffice. All kidding aside, I've played people who are unaware that both exist or who don't understand that they must post a CAL game on the CAL page and so forth. I'd like to see TH cleaned up a little so navigation is easier and the page is cleaner. And while we're doing that, let's make it clear that there are two ladders for TH for players to choose from to avoid further confusion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman: Whats the point of the said command. Men already assault tanks and/or vehicles if they are close. It sounds to me like you want BTS to make a graphical display of the action, nothing more. <hr></blockquote> It sounds to me like you didn't read my post clearly. The main thing I'm asking for is an actual command "Assault Vehicle" so the infantry squad will advance towards and follow if necessary (and possible) the vehicle it's trying to kill. I don't want to have to order my men to a certain spot only to find they have picked a new target and are getting shot up by the vehicle in the mean time. There might be a make-shift way of doing this now if you target the vehicle with your infantry team and then charge them towards the vehicle but I'm not sure how effective this is. Why not just have a seperate command for assaulting vehicles? Just something for BTS to think about...

I can see how joining a team would be fun for operations if each member takes a certain role in the operation and there is day to day dialogue with other team members as you are pitted against another team doing the same. For battles though, I can't see how each member working independently of the other team members can be part of the same team. If you're not working with your team in a game, what good is it? It's like those stupid clans we had for Close Combat. You don't have any regular correspondence with any of these people and it hardly seems like you're on a "team" at all. Like I said, I can see how this would be fun in operations but with battles, if each team member is in a different game, then it doesn't make sense to be on a team at all. Just my 2 pesos...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Specterx: I think the sort of animations you describe would be pretty hard to implement. However, if you look closely you can already see visual evidence of an assault in progress in the form of flying grenades/panzerfausts/demo charges/etc.<hr></blockquote> I'm not asking for anything complicated but you would need some kind of graphic or animation to show that the men have carried out your command. Otherwise, you wouldn't know whether they're assaulting the vehicle or if they ignored you and are instead doing something else. I really think this order is needed as the way things are right now, no one knows what to do when trying to assault a vehicle. No one knows where to place their men in relation to the vehicle and if the vehicle moves, then you're really screwed.