Scipio

Carts were used for nearly evering. Heavy MG, mortars...and for a lot of abstracted things out of the CM scope like ammo, wounded... Guns were mostly drawn by horses. Don't nail me down on numbers, but I assume it was more then 50%. They were of course not so fast like trucks, but I assume they can speed up the transport.

It's well known that we don't have horses in CM:BO and also not in CM:BB. The usual answer is: real cavallary action was rarly seen in WWII, like the suicide attacks on German tanks in Poland. Okay. But of course it is also well known that the normal role of horses in WWII were not cavalery, but drawing carts and guns. Indeed was the horse-drawn cart the most used transport in WWII, not trucks or HTs. So what about carts and transport horses in general? [ May 22, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Why do you assume that they are the same, apart from the designation and calibre? </font>

JasonC Thanks for the answer. At least it helped me to learn that I better use my beloved 120mm mortars or their 4.2inch US counterpart as medium artillery. Oh - BTW, what is - in the real world - the difference between the US (blast=72)and UK (blast=47) 4.2inch mortar???

I assume you never used rockets? They usually come all down within 30 - 60 seconds. But timeshift works good with 'normal' artillery.

I'm curious : can they be used sensefull, and if so, how? I once tried to bombard a village with 6 veteran 150mm Rocket spotters - all with LOS to target. The result was : 2 destroyed buildings, only few enemy casualties. The target locations were all within a radius of 250m. What am I doing wrong?

Generally : no There excist some purchase rules like the Fionn or the Scipio purchase rules - both can be found for example at www.warfarehq.com - the use is of course no must. A very important tip : if you want to use any restrictions or extra rules, clarify everything BEFORE THE BATTLE!!!!!! The biggest pain in the ass are players who start to grumble around about a tactic or purchase of their opponent, althought they have nothing restricted before!

CMMC??? Have I missed something BTW, I guess the real problem of the damage model is, ~95% of all penetrations end with the biggest possible damage. A also have no hard facts on that, but it sounds to me like the wet dream of every AT-weapon builder. [ May 15, 2002, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Mh, and what about "Argh, you bastards have killed my best friend! DIE!!!!" :cool:

The sense of 'Dada' is to have no sense. It's the artistical way to refuse the mad and cruel human society by creating childish, chaotic or senseless art. Must be seen in the historical context, the early Dadaists were veterans from World War One - after there experience in western front trenches they had some reasons to refuse the social and politcal establishment

Fermat's thing is : Pythagorean theorem says a^2 + b^2 = c^2 Please read in your lexicon what this is good for! Fermat's theorem says a^x + b^x = c^x, but only if x isn't larger then 2 The point was, even if this is obviously right, a mathematical theorem can not be placed into the world without mathematical evidence...so all the time the people tried to find the mathematical way prove the Fermat theorem. It's like '42', the well known answer to the live, the universe and all the rest. We all know the answer...but what the hell is the question?

Ehm...500 - 3000 kb per turn for a medium to larger sized battle, mainly depending on the number vehicel moves, 30 turns or more... that's 15 - 90 MB or more for a whole battle. Someone should call IBM, we need Terabyte-sized HDs soon!

Yes...I had a similar thought. Not operations like we have them now, more something like: - open battle (no turn limit); would of course make necessary that the end is decided on something else. - 'break battle to regroup/resupply' - command; could open a lot of interesting possibilities. A limit of breaks would be of course sensefull. I guess in princip this is very similar to an operation, just without moving the viewable map and without a fixed number of turns per battle. [ May 14, 2002, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

You are obvisously Irish. Only an original Irish turns red when someone else utters an opinion that must be suspected to be contrary or a side blow

Can wood be splintered? Will wheat/bushes/wood burn down? Will craters hinder vehicel movement? Do we have AT trenches & AT barricades?

Hehe, BTS should do us a favor... Make the BMP-allocation database public, with fields for season & general terraine. Do we really want to use the same camo for nothern fall terrain like for spring steppe? Or the same building in NW and SE Russia?

Taking completely out soft vehicle damage model for obvious reasons, I came to four main possible sources of your discredit 1-Tanking out a catastrophic situation as an explosion or a fire (this last one is not that uncommon)… You want to know how in a battlefield you manage to know that a tank is abandoned or knocked out by a single shot at a certain distance ?! (Hmm… this is more for FOW and not for gun fire/damage model, but anyway…) 2-Using an extreme situation as an example… You can’t see how a 88mm AP round that penetrates the armor and “hits” only air inside a light/poor armored tank and after that exits on the other side, has as a result that the vehicle is abandoned, even with “only” that “apparent” damage ?! 3-You want to know why a light armored vehicles is abandoned after “only” “four” or “five” .50 AP bullets go through its side armor ?! 4-Tanking out the “hit or not” and the “penetration or not” calculations made by the game and after a careful statistic study of your part … You think/are sure you came to the conclusion that the game determines randomly the damage result (no serious damage; armor flaking; a crew casualty; abandoned; KO) ?! So, wish one is ? 2 is ok still, 3 is too much work </font>

Because anybody will talk about CM:BO anymore when CM:BB is released?

Yes - this is very unkind, isn't it??? Kip Indeed I must noticed that the penetration model always works against me!!! Seriously, I have not so much problems with the pentration then with the damage caused by it. I guess this is a problem of the very limited damage model. Maybe this will be solved in CM:BB anyway.

Tanaka, all this is known. Of course there is a % of - from the logic viewpoint - 100% save hits that miss anyway. But of course we also all know Murphys law. And of course I have no facts to prove if the model is wrong or not - that's why I ask for the BTS facts!

Tanaka, this is not only a question of simple physics. Even in the controlled conditions of a weapon lab is it difficult to achieve the same results for several shots, cause so many factors are important. So desregarding how the accuracy & damage calculation works - it is nonsense if the results are not compared with the results in reality - at least within acceptable limits. Sailor Malan, I knew this page already, thx anyway. To answer you question, (not only) in my personal opinion is both the accuracy and the damage significantly to high, in many ways. First shot hit probability, hit propability on the move and/or on moving targets, damage caused by hits, damage caused by small calibers...just to name a few. But the point is - I can find a legion of sources - mostly eye-witnesses - which makes me believe that I'm mostly right - also the Britwar datas seem to imply this, but this is unimportant if BTS has based there system on completly different and maybe better sources, so their model is maybe absolutly correct. I know it is only of very limited sense to compare two different games. When I take - for example and because of the same tactical size level - a look on SPWAW, I notice that both accuracy and damage is much lower then in CM - the SPWAW calculation thingy is surely much more abstracted. However, at least the casualties should be equal or at least similar, if both programmers have based the results on real-world results. This is not the case here, so I wonder what is closer to reality. The sources BTS used to compare their model with reality are not abdicable for this. So - in princip - all accuracy and damge discussions are useless, cause we have nothing to seriously compare, except the things we have read somewhere and all we what believe we can imply from them. So we can even discuss religion - well, sometimes it sounds like that

Just go and look yourself in the Russian Museum [ May 11, 2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Yes, I know wish factors are involved - but I mean the sources they used to proof their results - I assume they have done this!?

This issue has been discussed so often that it is hard to find something with the search function, but maybe somebody knows already: Has BTS ever told on which sources there calculations for gun accuracy are build on, or the results they achieve? I think they must have compared (as good as possible) the in-game results with battlefield or at least shooting range results - I would be really interested in this material. THX

Where did you pick this up Scipio? M.</font>