Col Deadmarsh

How close did you come to having a stroke when you didn't see the CD in the package?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: There is little doubt that CM units occasionaly have trouble deciding where to run for cover. In a recent PBEM I had a platoon on top of a hill out in the open, but using a stone wall as cover from the enemy infantry firing up at them from the trees at the base of the hill. 2 of the squads paniced, but instead of simply ducking down behind the wall or runing back away from the hill crest they ran over the wall half way down the hill towards the enemy troops where they became pinned to slowly machinegunned to death over the next few turns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL, that sucks. I'm playing against Sock Monkey right now and his troops did almost the same thing. They were hiding in some scattered trees on the slope of a large hill where I couldn't get to them. Well, something spooked them (possibly my halftrack firing at the building in front of them) so they got up to run away but instead of running back for cover behind the hill, they ran up the hill where ALL of my units nearby had LOS on them. They lasted about 5 more seconds running back and forth like a duck at a shooting gallery before they were killed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken (Official BTS Butt Kisser) Deadmarsh, you saw something bad happen once and you're demanding a code change. I'm sure every real-world military commander has seen plenty of ridiculous behaviour in their troops which defies explanation, but on the battlefield when your life is at risk, and you've got to make critical decisions in split seconds, sometimes people get things wrong, or indeed, can't cope and start to panic. CM models this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not demanding anything. I'm just pissed off and throwing out my opinion. Sorry if I don't phrase it the way you prefer, Dave. Like I said, I can understand greens and conscripts doing this but these regs do have training, even though they may not have seen much combat time. The enemy infantry firing at them shot through a crease between a house and some woods so they weren't out in the open for very long. My zook team was crawling away from the enemy too so it's not like they were panicking because they were heading in their direction. Now, if the infantry would've just panicked, I would've simply cussed them out. But having them "broken" after 2 seconds from infantry firing at ranges up to 400-500m is just too much. I sincerely hope this is a once in a blue moon thing as I never usually buy regulars much because I believed them to be panicking way too early in other battles, but this takes the cake. [ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

I can accept this if they were green or conscripts, but not regs. They shouldn't panic that quickly. What bothers me more is that they had cover in front of them less of a distance from the cover behind them and yet they chose to run back. Remember, these men shooting at me are 400-500 meters away. I think a panic like this from regular army men is premature and the code needs to be tweeked. Lately, I've been asking myself why even bother buying Regulars anymore. They panic way too much and it just seems like buying Vets on the medium setting is the only way to keep your line intact.

I had a "Regular" zook team crawling from one patch of woods to another when a couple of enemy infantry squads open fired on them from 500m out. The infantry state went from OK to Panic to Broken in less than 2 seconds. This is pure Bullsh*t! These are trained soldiers, not green reserves. In real life, a team like that would not panic that soon going from one patch of woods to another which by the way are about 2 feet apart. What really bothers me is that they only needed to crawl another 2 seconds to the next patch of woods for cover but instead they get up and panic and run away. Now the team is utterly useless because they've "broken." Can't something be done about the code here? If the infantry team's destination is close and yet they're receiving fire, why can't they just continue? I can see if they had to go a ways further to get to safety but not if it's only gonna take them another sec or two. This is very annoying to watch teams like this do completely stupid things. A change in the code is needed.

C'mon. I can't believe that no one knows the answer to this. BTS, how about an official comment on this topic?

Interesting Rex. Do you know if this is modeled in CM? Has BTS ever stated that armor slope on vehicles/tanks will have an effect on richocheting arty shells? I'm sure it's modeled on top for direct hits but what about the sides, front, and back for richochets? Also, what about skirts like the one on the Stug IIIG? Does this help in defelecting shells which land nearby? I'd seriously like to know if BTS has ever stated this as it seems it would be very important to know, especially if one is on defense and has thin-skinned armor units in stationary positions for most of the game.

Combat Mission (insert graphic here) Fire For Effect!

If you have a vehicle that has let's say, 8mm of armor on its side with a 30 degree slope, does the slope come into play in CM when an arty shell lands nearby? In other words, will the slope help in deflecting the round or is this only with tanks/AT teams?

Can somebody explain VT to me? Why does this arty cost so much more than the regular stuff?

Sounds good, I'll give it a try. Anybody out there making A/D scenarios and have posted them somewhere?

Okay, I'm sure it can't but I had to ask anyway. I have seen some good ones in my time (8-9 games now ) and I've wanted to keep a few or keep one and alter it a little in the map editor. Is a scenario file created for the QB? Is the QB in Tournament Save when you create it? Is that why it can't be edited?

Well, since CM isn't gonna see a patch any time soon (or ever for that matter), I propose that some of these map makers get together and make some probe, attack, assault maps which will provide the CM community with maps that give the defense an even chance at winning. We have a whole crapload of historical maps to play now, let's concentrate on making ones fair for both sides. This would especially include deeper maps so a mobile defense is possible. Think of the possibilities! A whole new dimension to this game has been untouched because we have had to settle for the QB maps which don't allow for this. It would be great to go over to Combat Missions or one of the other sites and pick out a cool new attack/defense map for you to play with your opponent. And with all the mapmakers out there, I'm sure we'd have lots to choose from after they get started. So, I'm throwing it out there. Would anybody like to step forward and volunteer to help out making some fictional scenarios for fair play? Your time would be most appreciated by the community.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: Colonel-Deadmarsh, I couldn't agree with you more. That's the way I looked at it when first coming aboard but like you I don't even notice it now. I was actually surprised that Detroit Man did, but he's new so would just like we did. Also, if I recall the board was changed not too long ago and it seemed like everybody was wanting it back the way it was - looking like this so it was changed back. So I take it most like it. I actually preferred the new colors but hey that's me and I really don't care that much as long as it functions the way it currently does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know what's funny-even though I don't notice the graphics anymore, when we changed the board, at first Matt had the white backgrounds for the posts. I freaked out because they took away these lovely shades of blue.

I hope for your sake you don't already have a social life...

Detroit Guy, I felt the same way as you when I first saw the site. I was concerned about what kind of a game I was about to buy from a site that looked thrown up there in haste. With time though, I learned not to care and now I really don't notice the graphics anymore. My only concern is with the postings on the board and the next game in the works. By the way, if BTS is gonna hire anyone else to re-design the site, it's gonna be me.

Forget about that, what about the fact that you get better armor with the Stug than the Wirble. That should equal everything out. P.S.--I'd like to request a comparison between the Wirble and the Ostwind. With a 37mm gun, and about the same points, it seems the Ostwind would always be the way to go.

Tanker demonstrated how to do this with two squads but I think Jaldaen is proposing that we need a command like this for a squad to retreat while taking cover and firing back at the opponent who might rush them as they move away. The withdraw command is only for emergencies. It "is" the "get out of dodge" command. The advantage is that you get out of there ASAP. The disadvantage is that you put yourself into a position of being hit from behind while running away. The other disadvatage is that you can't rotate back to face the enemy after you withdraw. Jaldaen's suggestion (I hope you don't mind me expanding on this) would allow a squad to slowly move away while still somewhat facing the enemy to shoot back at them if they were being followed or rushed at. The advantage is that you aren't shot in the back while running (which doesn't allow you to use cover) and that if you are followed by an enemy squad, you can suppress them and keep them at bay while you slowly move away. The disadvantage would be that you move away at a slower pace than withdrawing. (The morale hit would be less than withdrawing just like Jaldaen said.) I think he has an excellent idea here and I'd like to see it in CM2.

Just wondering if there are any problems with this one because if I take back the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX, I'll have to exchange it for this card. Can anyone verify that this card works good for CM?

BUMP--Does anyone know of a way to fix these problems I'm having? It seems like half the time I load the game I get "blackouts". Other times I'll be in a game, then Esc out, then come back in and it shows the graphics in the game along with my desktop blinking together.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Col. Deadmarsh - All kidding aside, I just found it interesting that someone who has been around as long as you hadn't thought about this before. Perhaps what is confusing to you is that you are thinking only of Seigfried Line, Maginot Line or Atlantic Wall concrete "bunkers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um...I have no freaking idea of what you're talking about. I may have been around awhile but I am still naive about WWII terrain, units, soldiers, you name it. I need to read up on the subject if I can just make the time to do so. So much else on my plate... Thanks for the explanations though.

My thread has been tainted with the leakage of Peng... When you people get through with your jabbering, can you tell me how big a gun or arty shell you need to be able to penetrate each one from the front? Also, how many people in reality are usually in each of these structures? I'm assuming that there are more in a bunker since it's dug out and underground. [ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

I feel kinda stupid asking a newbie question like this but it isn't covered in depth in the manual when maybe it should be. So, would someone care to describe exactly what they are and their strengths and weaknesses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: You know, this thread title should have given me the information that it was about Attacks. Sorry again for sounding like a maniac As for making Attack/defends fair, I believe they are pretty evenly balanced. In a QB, I would actually prefer to be the Defender, since they seem to have a better time of it. There is DEFINITELY no reason to give the defender an added advantage, or even to modify any of the game parameters. [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As the person who started this thread, I have to say that I named it "attack" just as a general term to cover all different forms of attack: probe, attack, and assault. It's been interesting though hearing about the difference in each and seemingly how one is harder than the other. I'm a little surprised Panzerleader that you so easily agreed to the fact that attacks are much easier to defend than assaults. Can I also assume that you think probes are easier to defend than attacks? I'd also like to know your reasons why assaults are so much harder to defend against than attacks. What advantages are given to the defender in this case in exchange for having to deal with receiving a much smaller amount of points? Why isn't this advantage worth it? Anybody else can feel free to answer too.

I used to look forward to his posts each and every day. It was quite a challenge to decipher his words and try to come up with a theory on what he might be saying in his posts.