Col Deadmarsh

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: That last Sherman you got was a bit of a bitter pill to swallow. Bouncing a shot of a Hetzer at less than 100 meters and then buying the farm. There have definately been some interesting events over the course of this battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I felt pretty confident about that move because I was hunting towards you behind a small ridge. I figured you'd have to get a gun hit or you'd be toast because the lower hull was blocked, keeping me hull down--plus no Tungsten in July 44. By the way, while we're on the subject of strange happenings, I recall a game I had where I had an Allied tank (M10 maybe) and my opponent's Tiger was shooting at the multistory building I was behind. Apparently, a stone block or something broke off and landed on my smoke discharger. After that, the thing was broken for the rest of the battle. This got me wondering...what do those things look like? Does it protrude out of the hull like a gun does? I assume it must in some way since it was crushed by falling material from a building. [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: I hadn't even noticed that that is what happened to that armored car. I went back to the movie file and saw it. It's kind of funny from my perspective. I guess that sort of evens it up for the two tanks I've lost to mines. I've never had it happen to myself but I did see an opponents Priest do the same thing. Try to shoot through a building and blow itself up in the process. I wonder if only open top vehicles can do that? sounds like test time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahhh...I thought you knew about that. Hope that little tidbit doesn't help your cause. After bagging that last Sherm, I may now have enough to stop you although your seemingly endless wave of infantry rushing the front does nothing to improve my confidence in winning this battle.

I'm playing a PBEM right now where I am defending with Germans in a village. I had positioned a 234 in back behind some buildings to take care of some enemy squads that were preparing to bull rush my infantry in the front. Having LOS seemingly through a window or something, (LOS line through the building) I ordered them to target and shoot. Apparently what happened was they tried to shoot through this opening and missed! The round hit the side of the house and took out the AC. Everyone abandoned the vehicle and I was left with my mouth wide open in disbelief. Has this happened to anyone else? How rare is it to see something like this?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: An answer that often works for "why choose a ___ ?" is, because that's what they used in WWII. This would apply to 75mm arty, HMGs, LMGs, half-tracks, jeep MGs, and the many other subjects of "why bother with ___" questions. If you are trying to accurately simulate a historical battle, or even a realistic but generic QB, it's often illuminating to use the same weapon systems available to the historical "players". Some weapons, like Wespe and flak, were designed to fulfill other roles, but are pressed of necessity into a CM-scale battle. Some are around because armies had tons of inventory and shipped it to the theater to fill real or perceived needs. RL commanders didn't get to push their cart down the aisles of the CM supermarket prior to an engagement, and select uberweapons of choice. They had to make do with what was at hand. One of the attractions of playing the better historical scenarios is "being stuck" with unappealling weapon systems, just like the original commanders, and having to make them work for you in an emergency.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In reference to your first couple of sentences, I understand what you're saying here. All the games I've played have been on ladder so far, so of course I'm looking for the units who are worth their price--and let's face it, even though BTS did a pretty good job with the unit rates, there are still some units that simply make more sense to buy. I would though like to get away from that from time to time and play someone who knows what a realistic set up would be, just to simulate a real life battle more realistically and not have the ladder competitveness hanging over my head as I play. For one, I have never taken planes in a ladder game and have only been on the receiving end once. This is definetely one thing I need to experience. Actually, this whole thread has made me realize that I don't really know the game that well--mostly due to time constraints and the fact that PBEM games take a long time to complete. Although I'm familiar with tactics because of all the turns I've completed, I don't know a lot about the units of the game, because I've played a limited amount of games. Like I said, I'd like to get away from ladder and try out some other units, especially in realistic situation and try to make due with a setup that doesn't necessarily maximize one's points given per battle. Now that I think of it, it's kinda weird that I haven't experimented with planes yet in this game and haven't made my own scenario to try out and yet CM2 is just around the corner. Must do something about that...

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I would love to save maps that the computer makes, in fact, out of about half the games I've played which is about 10, I would have to say that 4-5 were very well designed...by the computer. I've tried making my own and I can't believe how hard it is to get it to where it looks good. If you don't have the elevations just right or the buildings a certain way, your map will look a little strange. Even though you may see what you want in your mind's eye, it's harder than hell to get it down on that editor to where it looks the same. Thank god for that button that allows you to whip up a QB while in the editor so you don't have to start from scratch. I find it's much easier to just start with that and then work from there. Here's hoping that in CMBB, we will have the power to save maps that the computer generates in our games. I've already lost some great ones in my past battles that were definite keepers. I gotta say, this is an awesome game but it's quite possible that the Quick Battle is the best option of the game. Where would we be without the computer making us these great maps time and time again...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Oh grow up and buy a sense of humor. If you are going to post brain-dead questions like these or several others you have flooded the board with lately without bothering to do a search or testing it yourself, be ready to take a little flak. [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The "Search" button doesn't work anymore, remember? Now who's the one who sounds dumb... I re-read my earlier post and I don't see why you have such a problem with my "brain-dead questions". Part of what I asked was opinions on what works, or if they thought a certain unit was overpriced. The other questions you thought were stupid have answers that are not known to people like myself who have only played a handful of games. As much as I'd like to, I find it difficult to play this game and read up on all the history behind WWII. As for the rocket question, maybe I could've researched the rockets myself but I thought I'd save some time and ask the experts out there instead. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>StellarRat said:The intelligent person saves as much time as possible finding answers to known problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you. This sounds like someone who's read, "Think And Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill. Form your mastermind group and use it instead of trying to learn everything yourself. And that's just what I was doing. Just trying to save a little time so I know what to get for the next game. Sorry I didn't get your humor Spkr but your playful barbs come across as insults. [ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Temper, temper. I would just think someone who has been registered for a year would maybe have TRIED playing the game a little to discover some of the answers (like maybe creating a scenario to examine the effects of VT artilery on troops in buildings or maybe purchasing a few rocket FO's to see if I can hear the airplanes and see how the rockets land). As for your social life and work, I'll see your work and social life, raise you fifteen hours of overtime a week, four kids, responsibilities in church, and until very recently, evening graduate classes. Just because you're busy doesn't mean you have to be helpless. Maybe you should try a decaffeinated brand - I hear they are just as tasty as the real thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You must have a real tough job if you're in here posting your smart-ass posts every afternoon. As for me, I don't have to test everything in the game before I pose a question. Got that? Now go away and bother someone else.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Are you serious? You have been registered here for over a year and you are asking these types of questions? Do you actually OWN the game, or do you just hang out on the message boards and post random thoughts? For the record, the answers are: (1) 75mm has around twice the blast factor of an 81mm mortar, which has about twice the ammunition and response speed of the 75mm. (2) Let's think about this one a bit - why do we call some vehicles 'jeeps' and some vehicles 'trucks'? Maybe its because some ARE mortars and some ARE artillery pieces! (3)VT-artillery doesn't do well against houses (though it can break green or conscripts, even in houses); does very well against any units other than closed-top tanks in most other terrain. (4) Are you serious here? German rockets coming from planes (that you can't see or hear in the game)? Do you actually own the game? Have you ever actually tried a quick battle with these units? Do you even know what a quick battle is? I ask because these have to be the most inane questions I have ever seen from someone who has been around as long as you have. [edited because spelling might be vaguely important] [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excuse me a*shole! Unlike you, I work and have a social life so I'm not glued to the boards like yourself day in, day out. Just cause I've been around a year doesn't mean I know everything. For one, I only play PBEM which has been a total of about 9-10 games. I haven't had the chance to use the rockets yet, and I don't remember it saying anywhere in the manual about the difference between mortars and artillery guns. I guess I missed that post on the boards...but then remember, unlike yourself, I don't devote my entire life to learning everything about a damn computer game. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

1) What good is the 75mm team? I mean, spend 10 more clams and you can get the 81mm which has 120 more rounds and more punch to it. This seems like a no-brainer to me. What possible reason can there be to take the 75 unless you're short a few bucks? 2) Why do some off-board arty teams say "mortar" and others are just regular arty? For instance, the 4.2 inch is called a "mortar" and yet the 4.5 inch is not. What gives? 3) Is VT arty only good against infantry outside of houses? How many of you have had success with these in your games? I assume that since VT is set for tree burst or air burst, it's useless against infantry inside buildings. Is this correct? Has anybody here been glad they threw down some more cash for the VT in a scenario? Does it really do more damage to enemy infantry in woods or pines? 4) What are these rockets on the German side? Are they launched from planes? How accurate are they compared to the off-board arty guns or mortars? [ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

Please put me out of my misery and lemme know if there's gonna be a change for CM2 in this area.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: Of course I don't know anything about this BBS software, but if the programmers encoded the message identifiers using signed 16-bit integers, then the wraparound point is at 32767 messages... - Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well who doesn't know this..

Us ladder players really need an overhaul of that rudimentary handicap option that's currently in place. As it stands right now, the minimum penalty you can give attackers is -20%. Some people might be willing to play with this as a disadvantage as the attacker and some won't. We really need to be able to input our own number there just like we could in Close Combat. In that game, you could make your own maps, have the other person take a look at them, and then bargain between the two of you what points you think would be fair for both sides. Can we do something like this in CM2? At the very least, I'd like to see a drop down box with percentages in 5% increments or smaller or points in increments of 25 or smaller. In fact, you could do away with the option altogether and just have an input box where you could type in the points for each side with a default value showing for probes, attacks, and assaults once the player enters the screen. Please consider this as it would greatly benefit the game to have this option to fine-tune the point values for each battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SuperTed: I forget the exact ratios used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here they are: 1) Assault (1.75 - 1) 2) Attack (1.50 - 1) 3) Probe (1.35 - 1)

Capt, If you can pry yourself away from Tenille, email me and lemme know if you've gotten any email from me yesterday (Wed) or today (Thurs). I've emailed you the last turn 4 times now and it keeps bouncing.

Pilgrim, you are forgetting two factors in calculating the percentage to hit: Those are Time Of Day and Weather. With what you told us, I would assume that it's high noon on a clear day. I think you'll find though that by playing under some heavy cloud conditions or at dawn/dusk, those first shot hits will be seen much less. With that said, I would actually vote for BTS to go back to thier original statistics where tanks are less accurate. I don't know if this would make things more real or less real, but in my opinion it would make the game more fun. My reasoning for this is that it would allow for more manuvarability with one's tanks to attack infantry and not have to worry about constantly putting one's tank at a great risk when you need to move it from skirmish to skirmish. As it is right now, I'm always worried about making a break for a ridge line or trying to scoot from one patch of woods to another with my tanks because too often I've seen the enemy take me out with one shot. So, I would agree with your first instinct and say that during the day with clear conditions, tanks are still a little bit too accurate for my own taste.

My mail to you keeps bouncing. This is the second time this week this has happened to me with one of my opponents. It's probably on my side as I have PacHell as my ISP. Can you give me another email to send the file to until we get this straight?

Does anybody know exactly what Allied units used these rounds? Also, how were they fired? Out of the main gun? I assume they weren't fired from another gun on the hull like the German "Nav" was. I remember in CC2, the Firefly was also equipped with these rounds and if you thought the Stu's rounds suppressed the enemy, the Firefly was even more impressive. If your infantry in the area didn't have their nose to the ground, you could kiss their ass good-bye.

Didn't Allied tanks have these kinds of close assault guns that were similar to the German Navthingamajig? And if so, does anybody know why they aren't included in the game?

Sheeeiiitt! Usually I don't make lame mistakes like that. Why can't we edit the post titles on this board so we don't look stupid? I don't think file size is the problem. We've been playing for weeks now and it hasn't been a problem before. Enoch, if you read this, get in touch with me.

Apparently I can't get any turns sent over to you so can you give me an alternate addy to send them to?

That's a good idea. I've got the perfect film reel to send Steve and Charles too which clearly illustrates my point. I can understand how hard it must be to code all these variables to get a realistic outcome every time but I'm confused as to why you can't include a variable to tell the AI NOT to act like a duck in a shooting gallery and instead make another decision on what to do. That decision couldn't possibly be worse than walking back and forth in open ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: AI goofs are annoying, but it is hard to get rid of them. I was told that the charge in the wrong direction problem, originally found in Chess sims, had to do with the computer AI facing a situation where it would normally be stuck between two different courses of action and thus would do an idiot dance, instead deciding to move randomly to break the gridlock. Until programming becomes less linear, there may be no way around this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I don't know anything about C++ but it seems like the bug is fixable. I mean why can't you simply plug in a statement that has to do with distance to cover and then choose the one that's the least amount? Lemme demonsrate this using a simple If...Then command. Close your eyes and pretend it's C++... 5 Nearest cover from squad = Cover X, Cover Y 10 If {distance to cover X < distance to cover Y} Goto 50 20 If {distance to cover X > distance to cover Y} Goto 60 30 If {distance to cover X == distance to cover Y} Goto 70 50 Keep moving to original target (X) 60 Go to next nearest source of cover (Y) 70 Keep moving to original target anyway even though it may not seem logical to you 80 End Okay, so it doesn't resemble any programmming language, but I think you get the picture. The computer simply makes a decision to go to the nearest cover whether or not he's being shot at as he approaches that cover. I wanna know why the computer makes the decision to stop running towards the cover which is 10m away and instead, run back and forth in open terrain while giving me a 45 second delay for moving on the next turn when he already had his orders...

Time after time I see this happen in my PBEM's. I'll have a squad that's moving or running to cover when a tank, which is dierctly in line with them begins shooting at the men. Instead of following orders and moving to the cover they were instructed to go to, they panic and run out into the open field only to get shot and take more casualities. What's really annoying is that the cover they were headed towards is closer than anything they're running to when they change direction--and of course when they do change direction and get hit again, they run back towards their original destination, and so on and so on--thus producing the "shooting gallery" effect. If the infantry squad sees where the fire is coming from, and they know it's not where they were told to go initially, then it makes no sense for them to run back into an open field where they can get hit once more. It seems as if it's coded that if an infantry team gets hit in the open, they automatically are to change direction, even if there is no cover in the new direction they are headed. Why isn't the code looking for the cover that is 5 feet in front of them and telling them that even though they're being shot at, continue to move towards that cover. Even if they panic, they should still move towards that cover if the cover doesn't prove to be a danger. I'd really like to see this fixed in CM2 as it's proving to be as big a frustration as the "smoke bug."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: A search of this BBS will yield far more threads where people are complaining that gunnery is too sloppy rather than too precise. When have had huge debates in such threads and came out feeling quite confident that CM's gunnery and balistic elements are fair representations of reality. There are no changes planned for CMBB in this regard. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, just to give you an example: In one of my games, my opponent had a Panzer IV and a Marder on a hill, both regular crews, both buttoned up, both behind some woods. I was trying to get my Sherman from behind one ridge to another and so I lofted some 60mm smoke rounds on top of the hill to block their vision as I made my run. Well, the Panzer's vision was blocked but not the Marder's. My Sherman sped on by and fired 2 rounds at the Marder, both missing. This to me is realistic as I didn't expect him to hit being on the move, the Marder behind some woods, and the Marder probably hull down too since the hill he was on was enormous with me a good ways below him. The Marder though fired once and killed me before I reached my destination. What bothered me at the time is that this crew took out my Sherman with their first shot. Now, with these details in mind, can you give me a ballpark figure as to what you think the percentage was in the Marder hitting my Sherman going full speed like that? I'm assuming that this was a lucky shot and rarely happens considering the Marder had a regular crew, was buttoned up, and was also behind a chunk of woods. It would seem very unlikely they would be able to hit on a first shot like that.

Can we get back on topic? Username, SlapDragon, when you finish sparing be sure to turn off the lights and lock the door. :cool: