Scipio

Aha, thanks. I must confess, I have noticed this for the first time within 19 month, so I can agree that it is a rare incident. There are surely more important issues - like the ability to hit on the move, what is - for a WWII tank - extremly difficult in reality, with or without gyros. Modern battle tanks can do this, but they have very complicated and extremly expensive fire guiding systems. The price of the fire guiding techiques makes up to 40% of the price for the complete tank LeopardIIA6, for example!

Well, why not? Even if the Maus was a terrible tank - to slow, to heavy. More like a movable pillbox. But I would really like to see the JS-III. It was for sure as rare as the JT, but it was long enough on the front to be known as Tigerkiller.

All that rarity issues seems to count more for German forces than for Soviet forces. The German forces had never enough heavy tanks, while the Soviets had legions of T-34 tanks, which could beat every German Pz-III and Pz-IV.

Just something I noticed today - a Sherman fires on a moving tank and hits it - altought the target has moved out of LOS in the time between the shot and the hit. I assume this is a known bug and will be corrected in CM:BB?

Player A prepares the setup The QB is send to Player B, and Player B starts with the purchase. Or am I thinking to simple? [ May 10, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

We should place bets for the release date. I bet it will be June 22, 0315 European time

Yeah, hundreds and hundreds of people desperate to give you money. It's terrible, I tell you. The more money they give you, the worse it gets. Poor poor BTS. </font>

When they open the preorder, it will be more like that: four lone gunman looking through a pillbox slit...early morning, June 6, 1944, Normandy. After one hour they will also feel that way.

Tero I think this would be - at least partly - solved by the suggestion I made!?

Yes, they are used for both armies. The most sounds are shared by several different units, only a few sounds are assign to a specific weapon, like the BAR, MG42, MP44.

Michael, you mean like Colonel Kilgore in 'Apocalypse Now'? CMPlayer, you should have met my Captain. It was back in 1990 - the time of second Gulf War - when my Captain proposed seriously that we - our company - should go down there to fight. He was really hot to get into action. That kind of person doesn't get better. If I shall compare him with someone in a movie, then Hauptmann Stransky (Steiner - The Iron Cross) would fit best. Mattias You are right, our points are not that far away from each other. But I do not fully agree regarding the combat bonus. I agree to the argument regarding the influence of the leader, but I think the bonus sould be a combination of both - the leader, and the training. If the leader has special abilities, he may have trained his men in this things more, or maybe the squad has this special abilities 'natural'. So the squad has a basic bonus (maybe up +2), and the leader could give an additional bonus of (maybe) +1. So if the leader is gone or dead, the squad stays with his basic bonus. [ May 07, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Doug Okay, I agree to all, and especially this : ...or giving the gunner bearing to next target. Do you think the gunner will always drop a potential threatening target? I didn't meant that the tank will always stay full functional, but, well sometimes when it is eye to eye with an enemy target... I think there should be at least a random factor. And BTW, a tank that has lost a crew member is always buttoned - wouldn't for example the gunner play double role as TC and gunner? I really don't know if this was a common practice, but it would make very much sense - it is known how 'blind' a buttoned tank is. Slapdragon Yes, I remember something that I have read about two KV-1 tanks. The Germans immobilzed them, but they wasn't able to destroy them. But after some time the crew surrendered, morally wrecked and nearly deaf by the bouncing shells.

Mattias I must meditate about this . I'm not really convinced. Regarding the many bonuses, as I proposed, why not a 'negative bonus'. As I said, my Lieutenant was very good, but my Captain was nothing but an arrogant asshole - we all hated him. I would give him a -3 moral bonus... [ May 06, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Well, I look at my own experience during my military service (I was a 120mm mortar gunner) - my Lieutenant was a real good man, excellent soldier, and he trained us very well. When we were on shooting range with our mortars, we were for sure all the time in command range. But fact is just - at this moment the Leutnant wasn't on my side or at the side of any other gunner. There was me, the two other gunners, the driver and the Unteroffizier as troop leader. At this moment everything we had was we had trained. Our only leader was the Unteroffizier. Mattias, I absolutly agree with you, a good leader will produce an excellent trained unit. But when the action starts, then is the training over. Every men must know his place and his job. Does the lieutenant run around and proofs the actions of each single soldier during the whole battle? Of course I never was in battle - I can only speak of my experience during military service. Without doubt has the lieutenant lead the troop to achieve the goal, and maybe he has made a round once or twice, but the the troop were lead by the corporal during the action. And every troop had his individual 'combat bonus', depending how well they have learned during training. Moon, I haven't written it down so detailed like you, but I didn't meant that something of this is wrong. But I still think that all of this must be trained before the battle - once the battle has started, the leader must reach the goal - he leads the corporals, the corporals lead the soldiers. The Lieutenant does usually not lead every single soldier. What if the Leutnant is dead? In a German platoon HQ this would mean that there are only some messengers, mostly not even a NCO. Does this mean that the messengers lead the squads as well as the Lieutenant, does it mean that the squads loose all there training in this moment, or does it mean that the squads can continue to fight as well as before, because they are still trained?

Inspired by another threat, have I thought about the HQ-bonus concept - and to be true, I can't imagine the thoughts behind it, and what should be abstracted with it. a) stealth - is a question of training. But the unit is trained before the battle, so how can a HQ influence it in the short period of a CM battle? combat - same, training c) moral - well, not training, but I guess it falls in a similar category. The moral depends on the 'spirit' of the men before the battle. The unit may trust his leader, or they know that they will get food, supply, medics etc when they are in command of their HQ, but that are all questions of a long time, maybe important if we had a campaign, but not in the (maximum) one hour of a CM battle. d) command - okay, this makes sense. The better a HQ unit can forward orders, the faster the subunits can execute them. So, I think it would be a good idea if each unit has it's own bonuses, independent from any HQ. The only bonus that makes a benefit for subunits is the command delay. BTW, how about a 'negative bonus' (don't know the correct English term). I guess especially conscript and green troops can be below the avarage (if we assume that no bonus = average).

-moved to own thread- [ May 06, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Just a suggestion, it would be kind if BTS will document the calculations of the engine. Not each detail of course, but least enough that we can estimate why something happens, and how the things work together.

00005000 - Snow 00005001 - Rain 00005002 - Fog I wasn't able to assign the rest of the sounds. It seems to depend on daytime, weather, maybe even the month.

Veteran, I don't think we need to go that far. The experience of a squad is the average of all men in the squad. A squad leader in CM terms is not represented with special abilities. He has no bonuses and can not rally his men - maybe this could be changed, but then every single squad would need own combat bonuses. And maybe that is not the worst idea. This could be explained as the abilities of a team, I guess that's what Ace had in mind. So, loosing some members or even the squad leader woudn't influence the combat bonuses. The question in this case would be - for what do we need HQ units? Guide artillery fire for example...well, I'm sure there would be some things.

Slapdragon, I agree that it is to late to be changed in CM:BB - at least I assume and hope that they are already in the final stadium. A CM-KIA is, as I understand the concept, a person who is not longer able to continue his job. No matter if he is dead, mad, wounded, deserted or whatever else. This includes of course all leaders. A replacement for the leader depends on the HQs TO&E. The problem is, a replacment during a battle of the CM-timeframe is problematic. If an NCO is there, okay. But where does he come from? The German platoon TO&E doesn't have a NCO (see above). Replacement from another unit would need time. A first step could be to give the HQs there historic TO&E. And well, maybe (for the big engine rewrite) it would be something to think about: the single soldiers are simulated. Not each with an own graphic, but in the unit stats? [ May 04, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Ace, Devising of abilitys on someone else doesn't sound like a realistic concept. Mattias, I don't think it is nit picking when a tank loose the TC and get's inactive in a critical moment. Or when a platoon looses the leader. Someone once proposed to make Flamethrower teams to a part of the squad to give them a higher chance to survive. Steve of BTS called this absolutly unrealistic (and I agree), because this would mean that the other boys in the squad would draw away the fire from the FT on themselves. But it seems it works that way for leaders. [ May 04, 2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

I know about weapon-pick-up, but this confirms only what I said in my inital post: the leader is always the last men standing. It is true, a US (mountain) rifle platoon HQ for example had 1 Lieutenant, 1 Technical Sergeant, 1 Staff sergeant, 3 privates. An NCO can take over the command here. But in this case, the leadership bonus should at least change. HQ units were assembeled very different in size and organizaton, depending on the nation, branch, unit size, special weapons etcetera. But nohing of it is reflected in CM. Maybe here is something to work on? Generally, most HQs were larger then in CM, even if we exclute the - usually not 'combat relevant' - field train.

Okay, this makes sense. At least in some cases. The TC can replace the gunner, the loader, or the radio operator, but it is difficult for the driver. All this depends of course how the turret and tank compartment is build. The turret of French tanks for example was a closed compartment, even if this not relevant for CM:BO or CM:BB, but wasn't there something with the early T-34, too? I do not fully agree. Of course it is important what has happened to the TC. A quick and silent head shot can be missed for some time, the rest of the crew is maybe a bunch of cool bastards... Well, I didn't mean that 'Shocked' doesn't make sense - but I think it should be a random incident, also influenced by the experience of the crew. I agree to engine limitations, but not to the second argument. The leadership bonuses, as I understand them, reflect the special leadership abilitys of the commander, not of the whole HQ. If he dies, the HQ should loos the bonuses. Beside that, I don't think that a CM HQ will be still operable. A German Jaeger platoon HQ for example has 5 men: Leader, 2 messengers, 1 strecher bearer, 1 horse leader. There is no one who can take the command - and we have only 4 men CM platoon HQs anyway. Maybe a squad leader would replace him, but this isn't possible in CM because of engine limitations, and BTW maybe a bit unrealistic in a combat situation. A HQ unit has also the ability to rally troops (restore the moral). But who should do this, if not the leader? [ May 04, 2002, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

1a) Why is the tank commander always the first casuality in a tank? 1b) Why is the whole crew always 'Shocked' when the TC dies? Especially in critical situations this is a problem - but will the gunner really always notice it, or care for it, when he is in combat with an enemy tank? 2a) Why is the leader always the last person that dies in a HQ unit? I assume that the leader bonus counts only for the leader himself, not for the rest of the HQ unit.

Volker, I had the same mortar problem in a scenario today. The condions were perfect, nothing what hinders the mortar to fire - but he didn't. I had own troops very close to the target zone - maybe that was the reason? Silvio This is right, if you want to attack a tank with a Panzerfaust or demo charge, do not give a target order. Just move your squad close enough. The AT weapon will be used with very high probability. [ May 03, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]