Scipio

JasonC, indeed we only trained to align the whole section with the same fireorder, so in princip, all barrels were paralell all the time. BTW, I agree to your description of barrages. I think the most common type of an artillery mission was the preparing barrage (that we will have in CM:BB). Of course, in reality it was much longer (even hours) and with much more ammo then we can and will see in CM. But hell, how impressive it would look

That's what happens in CMBB. They "might" come down in the wrong locations...</font>

I wonder how Arty mission wthout LOS will work in CM:BB. It is totally unrealistic that they come down just more dispersed, cause the FO is out of LOS. They will come down with the same disperse, but at the wrong location. Indeed I even don't know if it is possible to order fire with more or less disperse - I served in a 120mm mortar section during my military service, and I have really no idea how this should work.

Thank you to invide WarfareHq to this tournament. I will ask my elite player(s). No comment about the rules. I think the best ones will win everywhere.

I thought it's Acapulco Gold

I agree, CM sucks. We all play it because it's software heroin. We are simply all addicted. Maybe CM has a lot of 'errors' and problems. But damn - if your wive is ugly, but talented, just turn off the light and have fun!

Slapdragon, Adolph Eichmann said about himself always that he wasn't guilty, that he only followed orderes, that he was only a specialist blah blah blah. What someone write or say about his own intentions, especially regarding things like dropping a-bombs, must be seen at least with caution. The sources I given were the result of a quick search for the terms 'Hiroshima' and 'Stalin'. But there is much more. At least I can base my arguments on several different sources, not only on something that a politician said about himself. What makes you believe that Trueman does not simply tried to justify it for himself and for history?

I would really like to know what Freud had said about that statement...

Slapdragon: [ May 27, 2002, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

This is unfortunatly not the full truth. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war. That is only the public justification. The military occupation of Japan had caused tremendous casualties? Japan was military nearly helpless at that point. The fleet was destroyed. They even hadn't planes for the Kamikaze pilots anymore. Japan was economical isolated, out of supply and resources. There is no oil, iron or bauxite on the Japan islands. Less then 20% of the Japan can be used for agriculture. Already isolation had forced them to capitulate - it only had taken more time. An A-bomb some miles from the coast over the sea to threaten them, too. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed for other reasons : to test this brand new weapon on real targets before the war is over, and to show Stalin that the USA is able and willing to do this - cause the cold war were in princip already running. Beside that, if you prefer another example : Pearl Harbor does not justify Tokio.

I have heard that this site [ ogrish.com ] installs Trojans or spyware on visitors' machines. I can't say if that's true or not, I went there once to DL something, but my firewall may have blocked it. ZoneAlarm didn't notify me of any attempt, though, maybe I am infected, or maybe it's just a rumor.</font>

Yes. If side A uses the same methods as side B, then they are both the same scum. Cruelty does not justify further cruelty. Crime does not justify further crime. Pearl Harbour does not justify Hiroshima. Some casualties and emotional stress does not justify Mi-Lay. And of course, madness and rassism does not justify Auschwitz. Don't missunderstand me. This things has been done. All them time, always and by many people. Nothing can and will ever justify human cruelty, Anyway, this is a part of the human nature. We can be all monsters, if we can only justify it for ourselves, at least for a moment. [ May 26, 2002, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

I agree to all except that. Most people in all nations fall somewhere between these two poles. And Germans do not and did not tend to fall to the 'negative' pole. No nation on this planet is free of guilt. Especially not the USA (just name them because they described themself so often as keeper of peace, justice and freedom)

US Ranger Company TO&E, 29 February 1944 Company HQ 1 Captain - .45cal M3A1 SMG 1 1st Sergeant - .45cal M3A1 SMG 1 Corporal - .30cal M1 rifle (company clerk) 1 Private - .30cal M1 rifle (messenger) -------------------------------- 2 Platoons, each with Platoon HQ 1 1st Lieutenant - .45cal M3A1 SMG 1 Tech. Sergeant - .45cal M3A1 SMG 1 Private - .30cal M1 rifle (messenger) 1 Private - .30cal M1903A4 rifle (sniper) 2 Assault sections, each with Section HQ 1 Staff Sergeant - .30cal M1 rifle Assault Squad 1 Sergeant - .30cal M1 rifle 4 Privates - .30cal M1 rifle LMG Squad 1 Staff Sergeant - .30cal M1 rifle 2 Privates - .30cal M1 rifle (ammo carrier) 1 Private - .30 LMG (machine gunner) 1 Private - .45cal M1911 pistol (assistant) Special Weapons Section 1 Staff Sergeant - .30cal M1 rifle 1 Sergeant - .45cal 1911 pistol + .55cal Boys AT-rifle (if required) 2 Privates - .30cal M1 rifle (ammo carrier) 1 Private - 60mm mortar (gunner) 1 Private - .45cal 1911 pistol (asst gunner) Source : US Army historical center, Carlisle Barracks, PA [ May 26, 2002, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

...as long as they are ready til anniversary day...

Yes, they must be ready til anniversary day, or we will be really annoyed.

Some kind of scripting would be very helpful. When I make a scenario, I have a raw idea how the attack should run. That does not mean that it is the one and only possibility - but with scripting I could give the AI at least a senseful 'standart attack'. BTW, if someone want to test the scenarios, both can be downloaded at www.warfarehq.com

Thanks for the help. The 'unhidding' helped, however, the AI guided attack was a desaster. I guess I better create scenarios for H2H.

The question is not what we want, but what is historical correct.

Must I do everything on my own?

I created another small scenarios,Allied attacks. I tested it vs the AI. It was okay when the AI played the defense, but when I set the AI to attack... There were two large VLs in the scenario, no river to cross or another impassable terraine. I waited til turn 20 of thirty, but not a single attacker showed up. I surrendered at this point, just to see what the attacker is doing: nothing! They were all still hidden in their start up positions. What am I doing wrong? [ May 22, 2002, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

I wasn't clear enough. That's exactly the point I was trying to make: in CMBO, vehicles have one set of characteristics (such as discrete location, binary dead/alive status, transport capacity) and infantry have a completely different set of characteristics (such as area footprint, incremental casualties, no transport capacity). No unit in the game blends these attributes now, and my guess (yes, just a guess) is that vehicles and infantry are coded so fundamentally different in the program that a unit like horses, which would require combining some infantry attributes with some vehicle attributes, cannot "relative[ly] easy be modeled."</font>

Right, but that is not the point. We have trucks and HTs as transport, but indeed were horses and carts much more common then motorized transport. And as I said, with a bit abstraction they could be modeled relative easy. [ May 22, 2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

P.S.: Of course this has been discussed already. Every aspect of CM has been discussed already. But do we have something better to do until CM:BB is out?

Really? The horses were not that far away from gun positions, cause they had to move the gun out of the danger zone if necessary. And they were of course also used to bring the guns in position. Even under fire. And what's the issue with the coding effort? All this can be abstracted. 4 horses in the units description, a change of the movment speed, maybe a small symbol somwhere to show that this gun is horse drawn. The same would work for carts. [ May 22, 2002, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]