JPS

Andreas, as per definitions used previously in this thread, also mortars can be considered direct fire. I do not know how they were used in practice in WW I, but your quote from Hogg by itself does not seem to solve the issue. Br, Jukka-Pekka

In Hossz with 10 more minutes my scouts could have advanced a bit more ahead the rest of the guys, thus preventing that nasty ambush, thus allowing more effective use of HE to enemy infantry, thus... Oh, the power of wishfull thinking!

And while we are developing the most advanced infantry firepower model to date, how about modeling the ammo consumption effects (cover, experience, ...) for each weapon type individually? For example, automatic weapons used by inexperienced troops would soak up a lot of ammo compared to experienced men shooting proper short bursts (cover or no cover). For non-automatic rifles I would expect experienced troops who are shooting at exposed targets to be able to increase their ammo consumption (effective shots per minute).

Some disclaimers first: I have only PBEM:ed RoW series tournaments, and only TCP:ed a couple of times with a friend. Anyhow, my expectation is neutral or opposite: I have no problem in waiting for contact in TCP-game (the turns go forward quickly anyhow). Sometimes it would be nice to have contact in PBEM games sooner, but in the end the waiting only adds to the excitement! Br, Jukka-Pekka

I use LG 17" TFT (782LS) 1280x1024 and it is ok. And as mentioned above, great for reading text.

The problem with email-server was temporary. Also I received a blank email from Bryce.

To Frunze & MikeyDz: my email server is acting "funny", I can't get outgoing email to work... JPS

Thank you for all the gentlemen in my section; hope we meet again in the next RoW! Although I have shown bad example with regard to AARs (made notes during all games; and then real life kicked in), I would nevertheless urge everyone to provide at least some feedback to tournament organizers and scenario designers in the RoW BBS. Moreover, perhaps the scenario designers could write (more) short "designer notes" about the aspects they tried to achieve in their scenarios? As already discussed in the BBS, some players have had rather contradictory feelings about many scenarios, and it would be interesting to know if that has been by designer's purpose or as a very interesting side-effect of other things. Br, Jukka-Pekka

What do the percentages refer to? Number of shells, or truckloads of ammo, or kilograms of shells? Thanks, Jukka-Pekka

Luckily double-blind tournaments with custom scenarios and Nabla scoring system have already been invented!

Should I say "way cool - and I mean totally sweet" or somefink? Excellent news!

When I try to apply the multilingual patch it claims that "No installation of Combat Mission 2 was found. You have to install... " and then exits the installation. Same happens even if I copy the patch-exe to CM2 directory and try to run it from there. What is wrong? I definitely have the v1.01 installed, it works just fine. Br, Jukka-Pekka

I second what JonS said. Interesting related glitch (i.e. "tiny bug") is that the different versions can report different scores to the players (e.g. 50-50 for one player with 1.01, 49-51 for the player with 1.02)! I presume this is due to the point values of some units (I believe e.g. T-34 variants) being just a bit different in the 1.01 and 1.02 because of the changes in unit stats (armor slope, at least). Br, Jukka-Pekka

All my games in section 2-4 are finished. Thanks gentlemen for keeping up the turn rates! Those were most unforgettable CM moments since visiting Ranville, Dompaire, Kommerscheidt...

JonS, thanks for the clarification. The "dividing batteries" might also lead into the player trying to second-guess the scenario designer's intent on "proper" arty usage. Which might or might not be good for immersion in the scenario situation. I'll try to have a go on your scenario. I don't manage to play that many games in addition to RoW III, but experimenting with arty would be interesting. Br, Jukka-Pekka

JonS, could you elaborate on your findings from scenario design perspective? Or, if you already added commentary like that to your scenario briefing, could you post that part here as well? Br, Jukka-Pekka

Kip, thanks a lot; I have not seen pictures from inside the mantlet, nor examined a real Panther. To summarize, would you say that hits to turret front would be divided very roughly like: - 20% to turrent front not protected by mantlet at all - 20% to to mantlet edges also protected by turret armor behind it - 60% to area protected by mantlet alone If it is like this, then my feeling of CMBB modeling corresponds to this very well. Moreover, it provides at least partial rationale for Germans to study the "Schmal" Panther turret. However, the numbers from "WaPruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944" (quoted in the website referred above) seem a bit optimistic with regard to mantlet protection. Then again, the report presumed 30 degree side angle, which might explain everything. Hmmm... has Steve/Charles/Moon already promised to have a look on possibilities to model turret structure/dimensions on vehicle-by-vehicle basis in the engine rewrite? Br, Jukka-Pekka

Based on http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther.htm and Chamberlain&Doyle's "Encyclopedia of German Tanks in WW2" pages 122-125 I get the impression that i) Panther mantlet covers around 80+% of turret front ii) combination of turret front and mantlet armor is close to impenetrable by e.g. T-34/85 In CMBB, however, I think I have had a fair amount of front turret penetrations by e.g. T-34/85's. I have not made any controlled tests, though. Some questions arise: - is Panther turret front behind gun mantlet protected by armor, i.e. are front turret and mantlet armor cumulative? - does CMBB model hits in turret front area separately for gun mantlet area and the remaining 20% or so of "pure turret"? Best regards, Jukka-Pekka

My understanding (Steve replied to some question like this quite a long time ago, maybe search will help) is that at least dual mag is better than very long range in medium/short/bad visibility situations, so the answer would be no for "simple higher is better" -rating.

I saw MadMatt bump a thread - must be useful! Bump...

The QB engine is extremely well capable of simulating the operational-level encirclement effects on tactical level battle: give the encircled side less than 100% ammo, lowered fitness, and some casualties. And the problem was...? Oh, BTW, many of these new aspects were introduced in CMBB, not in CMBO, so if this is the prime criteria of success for tactical game then CMBB indeed is truly new and successful game.

Lets smoothen the potential miscommunications: noone will be forced to update unless together agreed, as there is always _at least_ the option to install both new and old version of CMBB.

Kingfish and fellow tournament participants, at least in some previous patches it was feasible to run two different versions by having the old and new executable files. Considering this (and IMO the priority that this tournament should have on participants' gaming agenda) I think it is rather rude for anyone to say that they will install the patch no matter what the majority votes.

With all due respect to everyone involved (Charles & Steve most of all) based on the link in Fuerte's sig he does seem have to have at least a tiny clue on programming. Moreover, it seems that he has personally done a bit of programming to make the CM community a better place for everyone (with no financial benefit to himself). Caveat: I have not used Fuerte's PBEM helper so maybe it is or is not useful at all. Maybe his expert judgements are not worthy of attention. Then again, when e.g. Rexford or J.D.S. provide suggestions on various obscure truly groggy issues they are taken worth their word; as far as I see Fuerte has made his contribution in his own area. Oh well: IMHO quick email play is way more important than e.g. multi-multi-player support. If it is not feasible with reasonable coding effort, so be it. Then again, no need to bash those that propose some suggestions to improve the issue.

Does anyone reading this thread have the strategy guide? Any info on topic?