SenorBeef

Gimme an email if you need tech support. I'm a semi-professional.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: No, the FAL always was designed for what was then called the T30 NATO standard cartridge. The British had an alternative round, .280 Enfield, based actually on the .276 Petersen round, but it was never used in any weapon except the Enfield Personal Weapon System, a completely admirable weapon that looks just like the current British IW. I was not aware that FN refused HK the license on the FAL. HK produced maybe 10 thousand of the weapons, but I have no information on the assembly line, so it is possible they built from parts. Certianly FN sold the rights to its designs to every other country in barking distance. Of course the NATO standard GPMG, the MAG-58, was refused by German because it was already producing the MG-1 (MG-42 in 7.62x51mm) and this caused problems, multiplied by the fact that the US went and adopted a slightly less reliable GPMG, the M-60 (now retired 40 years later in favor of the original NATO standard GPMG, the MAG-58).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did a quick search to reinforce my point, and here: http://www.gunsworld.com/belg/fal/fal_art_us.html German Denial West Germany purchased test lots of the FAL in 1957 and were very happy with the guns. They called their version the Gewehr- 1 or G1. The government had every intention of adopting the rifle to completely rearm the Bundeswehr, Germany’s defensive army. However, when the Germans approached the Belgian management of FN to obtain a manufacturing license, it was summarily denied. It is pretty clear that the denial was the result of grudges held against the Germans for the Nazi invasion and occupation of Belgium. The Germans began to look for other options and decided to go with the Spanish CETME rifle, which was based on German designs brought to Spain by refugees of the Nazi arms industry. The West German government easily obtained permission to manufacture and market the CETME rifle and soon had it in production by Rheinmetall and Heckler & Koch (HK) as the Gewehr 3 or G3. HK marketed the G3 aggressively against the FAL. The G3’s major appeal was its relatively inexpensive tooling and the ease to manufacture in an unsophisticated or small industrial base. Also, licenses to manufacture it were easier and cheaper to obtain. As a result of this aggressive marketing by HK, many countries that perhaps would have adopted the FAL, instead opted for the G3. Indeed, some 38 countries that purchased FALs ended up switching to G3s, not because the gun was necessarily better, but largely because it was cheaper. Very likely, if the West Germans had been licensed to produce the FAL in the first place, they would have instead marketed the FAL around the world and the FAL would have dominated much more than it did. Nevertheless, the FAL was still used by more nations than the G3, even though the G3 was manufactured in slightly more countries. EDIT: Same article: While the SAFN rifle was the approximate equivalent of the M1Garand, experience in World War II with the German 7.92mm Kurtz Stg44 assault rifle indicated, to many of the forward thinking arms designers, including Salve, that a selective fire assault rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge was the infantry rifle of the future. As a result, Salve took his well-proven SAFNN design, chambered it for the short 7.92mm Kurtz round, and reconfigured the rifle to have a readily detachable magazine, a straight line buttstock with a separate pistol grip, and a selective fire capability. This was the first version of the FAL. --- Both the EM2 and the FAL were modified to chamber the U.S. T65 round as well as improved versions of tile British .280 round. In December 1953, following extensive testing both here and in England, a committee representing the newly formed North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bowed to U.S. pressure and recommended the adoption of the .30 T65 cartridge. The next year it was officially adopted as the 7.62mm NATO. Thus, because of U.S. pressure and influence, the FAL evolved from a lightweight, selective fire, assault rifle firing an intermediate cartridge to a full-size battle rifle firing a cartridge ballistically equivalent to the .30-‘06. --- In effect, the FAL—which promised to be a truly superior selective fire assault rifle chambered for a 7mm cartridge—became a much bigger and heavier conventional rifle firing a full-powered rifle round. Our insistence on the .308 doomed the FAL to a reputation as a poor weapon for full-auto fire. Indeed, many if not most FALs were manufactured as semi-auto because they were uncontrollable on full automatic because of the substantial recoil of the .308. [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LC-: I agree with the argument that in war there is no rules. In the pacific theater during WWII the marine medics would always get rid of their big red medics crosses. Its just asking for trouble when you walk around with bright colors looking important during a jungle war where camoflague is a major tactical advantage. All I know is if I were in that position, I would take my red cross off too. and I certainly wouldnt want a medic who still wore the red cross near me if we were setting an ambush or something. War isnt about playing fair. Hopefully there will be less and less war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, this comes from the fact that the Japanese specifically targetted medics above other soldiers. They found it best not to mark yourself specifically.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Not only did they want it, it was adopted as the G2 and used in limited numbers until it was retired when the G3 was introduced. Germany basically supported the NATO standard rifle program, which is why they and England adopted the FAL (which had more teething problems than anyone can believe. People speak with love and fondness about it now, but when it first came out it was soundly hated). When the US backed out of the NATO standard rifle and tank systems, Germany, disapointed at the FAL in service, dumped it for the superior G3 from the new arms company Heckler and Koch. The French had already turned their nose up at the FAL, and also turned their nose up at 7.62x51mm, choosing instead the 7.5mm French round fired out of the SAFN. The rest of NATO but the US and Italy adopted the FAL. Italy adopted the excellent BM-51 after carrying 7.62x51mm M1s for several years, while the US adopted the M-14 which was a complete failure in services, and whose production was ended in 1962 by Defense Secretary McNamara, leaving some US forces, primarily the Navy, National Guard, Army Reserve and training formations using the Garand until the end of the 1970s. The G2 was kept in reserve for some time by the Germans, but since they had never had very many of the weapons it was really not even issued for training, so it is less common for reservists from the 1950s and 1960s to have used the weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, this isn't true - The germans were very interested in the FAL.. but belgium - through genuine fear, or grudge refused to sell them the license to build it. Only then did they turn to the CETME design of Spain (by some germans who fled after the war) and turned it into the g3. Oh, and btw - the FAL was originally supposed to support one of the newer intermediate cartridges (.280 enfield? I can't remember) - but it was pushed into a 7.62 by the US adherence to the round.

Feel free to distribute the maps even while we're waiting for those two... I like having a few days to look over the map before commiting to a deployment, if at all possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef: The REAL question is: 1000 panthers vs one finn with a spork, who wins?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Woops. This somehow got on the totally wrong thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dogface: ok dangit i cant remember who made it???? I wannt put it on my web site sos i can listen to it over and over again untill my coworkers barf...heheheeh god i love it so but i want to give the proper resect to the creator, or i wanna give props to my peeps w/ |)a 1337 |\/|P3 $k|11z<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The REAL question is: 1000 panthers vs one finn with a spork, who wins?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: And according to US bomber pilots, they shot down the entire Luftwaffe about 6 times over. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Those are some tough pilots. Were THEY the ones using those extra million SMGs?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CombinedArms: So, which one is it? We generally don't get a choice, but would you rather have the command "star," the fighting "thunderbolt," the morale "heart," or the stealth "?" for your HQ units? My initial impression is that maybe the command "star" bonus might be the most valuable, for the simple reason that being in command is the foundation of all other HQ benefits: if the unit is in command, you'll get, at the very least, quicker response times and some resistance to breaking, and these are the foundation of effective combat. It also extends the effects of all other bonuses. But I may be wrong--maybe the command bonus seems best because you can literally SEE it's benefits--in the red command line stretching to far off units. Other benefits may be less tangible; you can't really see the number of increased casualities you might be causing through a fighting bonus, for example. The stealth benefit is particularly hard to visualize. Anyone have any further thoughts--or hard data--on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I tend to think command and morale are about equal in importance. In defensive setups especially, that a good HQ with morale bonuses have saved my support weapons long enough to save my ass in the battle. Command is important so that you can disperse your assets against arty while still having benefit. Combat and stealth modifiers are a little more nebulous. Personally, I've never really 'felt' them make their presence known. It doesn't seem to me that stealth really keeps things stealthy, and that combat does anything beyond a few extra FP here or there. On offense, naturally, combat is better than stealth, and probably the reverse for defense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by R_Leet: I currently have 256MB of CAS2 RAM in my system. It is an Athlon 800, Asus A7V133 MoBo, running WinME. I would like to add another 256MB in the second DIMM slot. Do I need to get CAS2 type, or will the MUCH cheaper CAS3 be compatible? Anyone have a definite answer on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CAS 2 is a rating, rather than a type. It means it has been tested to be able to run at cas 2 (which is faster than cas 3).. but you can take cas 2 ram and run it in cas 3 mode.. and you can sometimes take cas 3 and run it in cas mode, its just not tested/garunteed to do so. So yes, you can use the cas 3, there won't be a problem with it. You'll have to set it up to run at cas 2 in your bios if you haven't already though, unless you can get the new ram running at cas 2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silvio Manuel: Just to toss an idea out there.... maybe for these leaderless squads, another Platoon HQ could take them into C & C, but NOT grant them any Combat/Morale/etc bonuses. This would simulate them taking commands, but not being the well polished machine that a squad might be when working with the HQ they've trained and served with over time. any thoughts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good call on that one. Also, the way split squads rejoin now - end the turn in the same positions - perhaps that can also be applied to 2 squads from the same platoon that are at half strength or less.

Player picks.

I'm not changing my vote, I still vote player picks, but IF it turns out to be duke picks, I have a suggestion: Both sides, BEFORE picking who has which side, must agree that the units selected are fair. That way no one can get screwed with 'my units sucked, I lost from the start'.. because they agreed that it was a fair game for either side.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaldaen: I was wondering if anyone else would like to have a "fallback" command, kind of like the withdraw order (no delay with slight morale hit?) only with slower movement and with your men retaining their facing and fighting back (perhaps at half strength?)as they head towards a new position... this would be very helpful when you want to withdraw from a position but keep some heat on your attackers (so as not get gunned down from behind)... So what do you all think? Just My Two Cents, Jaldaen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds interesting, I like it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olandt: I've heard in a couple of spots now about how a SMG rush is "Gamey". Why is that? Isn't the POINT of a SMG squad is to have overwhelming firepower at point blank range? To get to point blank range, you need to rush them. I thought this was just good infantry tactics. The Germans knew this, that's why the squads where created. In fact, they had a predessesor in WWI where the germans used similar squads to great effect in their last big west front offensive. As far as being common on the battlefield, someone else posted that the Volksgrenedier squads composed 40% of the Army at one point (I'll have to find the post). Something I find gamey is the tactic of ordering artilery barages on single spot and then cancelling them, and then reordering, basically emulating a TRP. THAT's gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There were several discussions regarding various "gaminess" issues involving SMGs. 1) Rushes/human waves were seen as too effective because attackers didn't have to worry about friendly fire, and defenders were limited to one target per team. 2) SMGs are gamey because, if you do the math, they're actually more accurate than garands at 40 meters, in CM game terms. Look for jason's infantry ammo posts for the math. 3) Rushes in general aren't accurately modelled because even though you're moving at, I believe 3.4 m/s, really running at a target, CM still models half the squad laying down cover fire, leapfrogging, ect. 4) SMGs are ridiculously cheap for their usage. They actually cost less than regular rifle platoons - and I don't think anyone is going to argue that rifle platoons are more effective. There are probably more - but I wanted to illustrate that there were several issues around "smg rushes" - people aren't dismissing them as ahistorical, but inaccurately modelled. [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: captured vehicles cordorouy roads I am starting to get excited... fitness... but do they really mean that Ambush will be replaced with Cover Arc? this sounds like you can't set the distance at which troops will open fire - only a certain arc...? [ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cover arc: Click on two points and your unit will direct its attention to the triangular area created by those two limiting points and your unit's location. Except in extreme circumstances, your unit will only open fire on enemies inside this zone. So you can set the direction and range of engagement, which is very useful for ambush (which this command replaces), conserving ammo, or focusing a directed defense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: You've sold me, SenorBeef. I support your idea, and hope that BTS will meet you halfway on this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bumpity bump...

I'm going to have to vote "player pick" on this one. I'm a historical buff myself, and I do like to play historical games for fun - but I don't like to hand over control of my situation like that in a strictly competitive tournament.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KnockOnWood: This is probably a stupid question but is it difficult to write batchfiles for mods? How is it done, c++, VB? Is there any sourcecode available or any tutorial or something? I would be happy for any answers you can come up with. Take Care!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Batch files are precisely text files with a list of DOS commands. For example, a bat file might look like: cd\mydir ren myfile.txt myfile.tmp ren myfile.old myfile.txt ren myfile.tmp myfile.old Something simple like that would automatically 'switch' 2 files that you want to have the same name. Its the same as manually typing the commands in DOS, its just automatic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: Strange... On a board that generates 200 posts about ROF of ISU-152, one would expect this to cause a dicsussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was an interesting read. I don't have any huge depth of knowledge to discuss, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speedy: No it wasn't rickets, we had adjoining setup areas, whereas he had plenty of cover and set up all his troops there, my cover was more limited and I only stuck half my troops there. Result I lost half my troops to little gain :mad:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was a really painful loss, too. 3 platoons were down by the time the clock hit 0:01.. I had to take pictures But, given that the game was pretty much decided at that point, I'm really impressed by the fact that speedy managed to inflict 180 casualties on me after that point with a much weaker infantry force. He did a great job of turning a potential total victory into a measly tactical victory, and really ruined my stylish victory

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clinton: Does Cm work with the one release the other day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which ones were those? I'm using the 12.10 drivers now with no detriment to CM - in win 9x, CM seems to function fine given whatever you throw at it.. but CM in win2k seems a hopeless cause for us nvidia users.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clinton: Does Cm work with the one release the other day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which ones were those? I'm using the 12.10 drivers now with no detriment to CM - in win 9x, CM seems to function fine given whatever you throw at it.. but CM in win2k seems a hopeless cause for us nvidia users.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yosoce: I think it would be cool if you could choose a battalion or company or combination of units that actually saw action in WWII and used their order of battle. Obviously not every company could be chosen, but with just a couple of you Grogs rummaging around Im sure you could come up with a "timeline" for a couple of your favorite units. Example: You want to fight a company sized battle in June 1944. So, you choose from a list of companies and the computer gives you the force composition and strength that the unit actually had at that time. You could even add a realistic armor force by attaching part of an armored section that was nearby. Now I know this sounds like way too much information to realistically have, but in reality all you would have to do is read the battle reports for a unit to find out what its composition was and what was nearby.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If BTS were to allow importable files into the scenario editor as I'd asked for then I could write an editor that would allow you to design a particular historical force, and let you 'plug it in' to any scenario. Additionally, those grogs out there could release these files and there could be collections of "historical OOB files" out there like mods now that you could plug into scenarios as wanted... [ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will the setup for PBEM games be made more secure, specifically regarding "computer Purchase" of units? As we all know there are some "cheats" involved in this that renders it unusable for playing secured ladder-type games with unknown opponents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not exactly what "cheats" you are describing. However, it is the problem with Player 1 starting up, selecting random forces, then restarting to get better ones... the only way to fix this is with an extra fileswap. I don't think we are going to be able to do that for CM2. However, when Rarity is on (either Fixed or Variable) this problem will be greatly diminished. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What I think hes refering to is the fact that the host can set up human-pick for himself but computer-pick for his opponent, giving him an obvious advantage. The opponent has no way of knowing whether the computer picked the hosts force or the host did. I proposed a fix for this a long while ago, quite simply display, at the start of the game, the QB parameters to the players, in the same way that the game says "Allies are playing with a 25% bonus" is now displayed, or whatever it says precisely.