DevilDog

Oh... Gawd... so I guess we'll be looking at your usual wildly unbalanced scenarios again? The entire Syrian army vs the Von Trapp children, I suppose? That's not nice. The Syrians aren't THAT weak....

I booted up SC the other day for the first time in a while and got hooked again (until my computer froze - right when I'd stopped the Nazi encroachment into Russia - gamey AI). I still think CM is the best game I've ever played that can be done in 5 minute turn increments. So much so that I purchased four copies so that I could play with friends and family via e-mail. I'm looking forward to the second itteration, and sorry that real life has kept me from giving my two cents into what the second game engine should include.

Haven't had time to play much lately, but from Rommel's books that I'm currently reading it sounds like your compaints are actually historicly accurate. He said fixed infantry positions were usually not very useful and the battles usually were decided by mobile tank forces. Whether or not "historicaly accurate" = "really fun" may be another matter of course.

In "Panzer Aces" (a book of somewhat questionable accuracy) it is recounted how in German tanks as the shell casing is ejected it falls into a canvas bag designed and positioned so that the casings don't get in the way. True? I don't know, but it sure makes sense as long as there's enough room.

I guess the AI isn't as stupid as some claim.....

RHIP.

Actually, Truman did not fire McArthur in person. You're probably thinking of the visit he did a short time before McArthur was fired. The first McArthur knew he was fired was when he read it in the paper (or maybe he heard it on the radio, I forget which). I don't particularly like what I know of McArthur, but that was a particularly low way to relieve someone of command - not even through the chain of command. Of course it was no suprise to McArthur since he forced the issue.

Michael: Of course what I suggested is historically inaccurate. But the CAS code is not going to be changed until the engine rewrite. My suggestion is a possible work around with the current code so that those who move to contacts slowly don't consistantly get wasted by their own CAS.

It looks like a possible interm solution might be for scenario designers to use CAS only as reinforcements and not allow them until at least 1/3 of the scenario turns have expired. It seems that CAS as currently coded will light up whatever they can see, even if all they see are friendly forces. If the entry of the CAS is delayed to allow time for the ground forces to engage, the percentage of friendly fire occurrences may decrease somewhat.

The reason that 45ACP wins over 9mm with regard to stopping power is related to penetration. While the .45 round is much heavier, the 9mm has a higher velocity, which contributes more to the kinetic enegry than the weight. However, 9mm rounds often suffer from overpenetration, which means that a large portion of their kinetic energy is not absorbed by the target. In other words, the effect of a round with higher kinetic energy which overpenetrates will usually be less than a lower energy round which imparts its entire energy to the target (i.e. plastic collision, or the round stays in the target). A .45 round has less velocity and a larger cross-section, which means that it will not penetrate nearly as much as a 9mm, but at the same time usually guaratees that the full kinetic energy from the .45 bullet will be absorbed by the target. Now which you prefer is a matter of preference and use. A 9mm would be much better suited for shooting at someone with some type of body armor on (even if the vest stops the rounds, the shock can still kill the victim), while for law enforcement situations, the .45 would be preferable over the 9mm because there is a lower chance for overpenetrations injuring innocent people. I personally prefer and own a .45 handgun. [ January 21, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

I got it in Houston yesterday...

No wonder they lost the war. A stupid symbol like that probably destroyed their morale....

Bet it gets covered in the first patch. They shared models in CMBB too, which were later patched. I for one appreciate that - it means we get the game a little sooner, but we can trust the BFC crew to patch it in the near future.

I read something interesting this morning in a non-grog book that I hadn't heard before. Don't know if is accurate or not. The book claimed that for over a year, possibly up to two years the Brits didn't know the Germans had face hardened armor which caused Brit AP shot to shatter. Inability to spot the impacting AP rounds (I don't remember the reason why) lead the Brits to mistakenly think they simply had accuracy problems and they worked on improving marksmanship, instead of realizing there was a serious technology gap. Is it possible that the discrepancy between CMAK and RL reports is the result of projectile shatter? I know the Allied shells had serious defects early in the war (one of the results of which was the propensity of liberty boat hulls to shear under minimal forces). I know shell shatter was discussed wrt CMBO & CMBB. Just thought I'd bring it up again since the armor and shell grogs are here.

I read something interesting this morning in a non-grog book that I hadn't heard before. Don't know if is accurate or not. The book claimed that for over a year, possibly up to two years the Brits didn't know the Germans had face hardened armor which caused Brit AP shot to shatter. Inability to spot the impacting AP rounds (I don't remember the reason why) lead the Brits to mistakenly think they simply had accuracy problems and they worked on improving marksmanship, instead of realizing there was a serious technology gap. Is it possible that the discrepancy between CMAK and RL reports is the result of projectile shatter? I know the Allied shells had serious defects early in the war (one of the results of which was the propensity of liberty boat hulls to shear under minimal forces). I know shell shatter was discussed wrt CMBO & CMBB. Just thought I'd bring it up again since the armor and shell grogs are here.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Not just tanks though - one of my HTs got a first shot hit too. I remember there used to be problems with being able to hit HTs in some instances - maybe this was over compensated for? [ November 21, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

Well I don't have experience with WW2 vintage bazookas, so maybe the backblast from them isn't quite so severe as the SMAW. But I seem to remember reading somewhere (I have no idea which book it might have been) that the one thing the PIAT had going for it was that it was the only anti-tank "rocket" that could be fired from inside a building due to back blast. Otherwise the PIAT was considered inferior to other systems because of the low velocity of the round. I wasn't kidding about there being no frame of reference for firing the SMAW though. One of the benefits of being a Marine officer is that you get to fire all the USMC weapon systems up to battalion level (with the exception of the Dragon). So this instructor is feeding us this line about how you can't fire the SMAW inside an enclosed space because the back blast will kill you, and we're all looking at each other thinking "what kind of sea story is this guy trying to tell us?" After firing one round from a position out in the open I didn't want to fire any more I can tell you. And there was no doubt in my mind that you would indeed die if you shot that thing inside a structure. Just to give you an idea of the kind of force behind the SMAW, the bunker busting round can penetrate 11' of packed earth, and the anti-armor round penetrates 300mm of homogenous steel IIRC. [ November 21, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

I haven't experienced this in CMAK yet, but I DO have real life 'zook experience (Marine Corps SMAW). You can't fire them inside buildings at all because the back blast will kill you. The concussion is almost disabling out in the open - you have no frame of reference until you experience it yourself. Its' kind of like someone pounding your whole body with 20# sledge-hammers. The PIAT could be fired inside buildings because it was self contained - like a rifle round, so no back blast. The newer US Javelin and Predator systems also have no back blast, so they can be fired from within an enclosed space. [ November 21, 2003, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

Yeah, that seems to have done the trick. I only had 2 Autocad applications, 3 internet browsers, 1 stocks streamer and several word processing apps running in conjunction with CMAK. BFC please fix or sumfink!!!!!

Great demo. I've mostly played through the desert scenario. I downloaded the windows version and there seems to be a problem with the 1-minute turn counter. If I press the forward or rewind buttons, or if I go to desktop the turn never ends and the opposing troops keep moving right through my troops without engaging them and eventually walk off my edge of the board. It doesn't keep me from playing the demo - but I only get to watch the movie once, and in real time. I though the BFC crew might like to know so you can fix it when you get some free time. [ November 19, 2003, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

Houston, Texas.

I didn't find anything about this with a search, so here goes. Here's a wish-list for artillery commands which would augment realism in CMAK: 1. Couldn't find this during my search, but I know it's been mentioned before - the ability to specify the number of rounds requested in a fire mission. 2. It would be nice to specify the shape of the impact area of the artillery rounds (like in real life). This could be done with a couple of new unit commands, coupled with click and drag and/or point and clicks with the mouse to specify the area. The commands could be: A. Linear fire mission. After selecting this mission, the player would need to click the mouse at both lateral limits, which would define the axis along which the artillery round would impact. B. Circular fire mission. Similar to what is already in place in the game, except after picking this mission you would click on the map where you want the mission centered and then drag the cursor out to specify the radius of the circle. There are more types of artillery missions currently used in the millitary, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. These aren't major changes (although they might require major code writing for all I know), but would certainly increase my already high enjoyment with CM. Anyway, my 2 cents.

OK, you talked me into it. I can't wait to see my wife's face when I tell her what we're doing for date night.... [ September 18, 2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

Good idea, but still underpowered. Only a 40% chance to hit at 250 m? That should be an automatic hit. I can hit a man sized target at 500 m with my first shot and I'm no sniper.

Yeah, I wish Battlefront would e-mail the 'shrek cheat codes to ME.....