Scipio

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf: That would only make sense if all squad members took over the flamethrower in case the main man is KIA, like it is done for the LMG. However, this would be nonsense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you forget the game abstraction. The speed of an infantry unit is the average of all squad members. If you see it this way, it makes sense. The squad members are not modeled as single men. If the last man of a squad carries an LMG, he is still as fast as the squad was, not as slow as a normal LMG team.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Where and when?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now at WarfareHQ

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf: They were not supposed to walk around in field of enemy fire. They were used against enemies that refused to come out of a positions where they couldn't be hit hard enough by non-flemathrower units, but on the other hand had no mean to cover the area around their position with fire anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In other words, they can't be used realistic, cause CM don't modell defenders this way. In this case we don't need Flamethrowerunits in CM, cause they are only expencive waste of purchase points. I propose to cut them out of CMBB. Alternative, add them to the engineer squad, and make the whole squad slower.

I just wonder : I often read that Flamethrowers were an sucessfull attack unit. How did they made there job if they are only slow cannonfodder as they are in CM?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mud: Er, why? I understand why integral MGers move faster in a squad -- they're bringing along less ammo and additional gear (tripod, extra barrels?). There's no assistant in an FT team carrying "extra" gear as far as I can tell, so the speed boost would make less sense. Maybe give them the ability to move fast but make it much more tiring than normal. *shrug*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, what is the second man in a Flamethrowerteam doing? The FT is a one man weapon. Or do they have two flamethrowers?

a)I wonder how the BTS has determined the composition of infantry squads. Do someone has link about it? b)Wouldn't it be more sensefull if Flamethrowers are part of the engineer squad instead an independent team (like the LMG)? They are currently mostly useless, cause they are to slow to move over open terrain, while their range is to short to hold position and wait for an enemy. But Flamethrowers were mostly used as attack weapons vs fortified positions. As part of the squadf they could move quicker. Especially interesting with the CMBB assault command.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cubbies Phan: Good. But probably a bit too heavy on the whitewhash. Which mod did you use for a base? Kwazydog's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, Pablo Soriano's from CMHQ. He was conteted with it.

Download this beauty at WarfareHQ

You are all wrong. I have seen it in a book about secret German weapons already. It's the warhead of a V-3. Thanx god that Germany was never able to make use of it, cause the rockets were to small. The first sucessfull test of a capable rocket (Saturn V) was made in the 60s.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: I don't really see the problem here. Franko's August Bank Holiday has plenty of long range action if the Allied player allows it. A decent very large map can be made in just a couple hours. Forget QBs. Purchase in the editor. Fight better battles on nicer maps. It's worth the extra effort. Just my opinion. Treeburst155 out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, but you need always someone to do the purchase secretly (I play only PBEM). Maybe it would be if pregenerated maps can be used for QBs? I guess that's only a simple technical problem. And yes, I want bigger maps then 4 x 1.2 km. This is not big enough for a tank battle

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: Scipio, The feature to reduce the visible area of a map to save resources already exists, it's called "Horizon range" and you can define it in 500m increments...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...yes, and it looks like bull****, because it simply cut the map. BTW, don't missunderstand me - I run CM on a 1000MHz machine with a 64mb Geforce2 GTS and 512 MB RAM. I don't have a problem. But not everyone has my PC power. The viewrange issue should be an additional feature. [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If a human has a lot of units to command, he simply will not do it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He will not do what? [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

A problem of CM is IMO : the maps are to small, especially for realitic tank battles. Even the biggest maps are not really big enough. Part of the problem is IIRC : the bigger the map, the more polygones and textures must be processed, and big maps with lots of units are already tough for older PCs in CMBO. Maybe it would be a good idea to add a 2D map view with simple 2d icons for the units? The view mods '7' and especially '8' are anyway absolutly senseless, it's just not even possible to use them for a general overview, cause you can't distuingish or even see your own and the enemy units. 2d maps can be real big, I guess it's no problem for everything above a Pentium I, and it helps to take an overview and move units over larger distances. In the 3d mapview, the real viewrange is used - the rest of the map disappears in 'fog' - so the visible 3d area is 'naturaly' limited, and the older computer can work with it. Instead of the static viewrange we have now, the player can better esimate the general viewrange of the map. And this could also allow more realistic weathereffects - the viewrange don't have to be static for the scenario - intensity of rain/snow/fog or the daylight influence the viewrange and can change, even within the timerange of a CM battle. BTW, cities must be much bigger.

I recomment Valium + Whisky. You will have a good time until CMBB comes out - if you survive, of course.

Well, sometimes I have the feeling that CM is a kind of action game with tactic elements. The system has some 'weak points' - the unrealistic artillery system for example, while tanks seems to be modeled very detailed. Another is the poor modeled housefighting. The maps are to small, especially for tank battles. I would like to know more about the engine internals : how is gun accuracy for example calculated? This point is discussed here to dead, but (and because) nobody still knows how it works. Other wargames shows the formulas very detailed in the manuals. OpFla is indeed a fine game, but I also wouldn't compare it directly with CM.

Ooohps - forget it [ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: perhaps the muzzle velocity of any shell, right at the opening of the muzzle...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the one and only muzzel velocity = Vo, and must be different for all ammo types.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti: Scipio, it's spelled out in the thread I linked above. Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, got it. Everything must be said twice to me . BTW, ammo drums were AFAIK only used on the MG34, not on the MG42.

Why has each gun in CM the same muzzle velocity for all ammos? It must be different for each type of ammo, too. For example the German 3,7mm AT gun: 110 m/s Stielgranate © 675 m/s Sprengranatpatrone (h) 745 m/s Panzersprenggrante (Panzergranatpatrone) (a) 1020 m/s Panzergranatpatrone 40 (t)

Nice articel. I hope the next bones we get will show us the (hopefully) new ruins. I will be really pissed if I must fight the Stalingrad battle on a map with flat 'rubble' tiles

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: I think this is not a bug. The reduction in firepower is because there are no belt feeders for the Heavy SMG squad, but the SS Motorized Squad has enough men to have riflemen act as belt feeders thereby increasing the MG42's firepower to full strength.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice argument, but a reduction of 60% is a little bit to much. And why is it bigger at 500m? 38 compared to 36 at SS Mot

This was reported by Lurker, a member of my ladder: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I noticed that the VG heavy SMG unit has 6 mp40s and 2 mg42s but that the 2 mg42s only have a combined firepower of 40 at close range instead of the normal 50 each. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I checked it with the same result. The SS Motorized Squad has the correct firpower : two LMG42 with 100 together.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cubbies Phan: And how long does it take to dig a foxhole now? An hour or so at best. What's the average time limit on most CM scenarios? About 30 minutes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you have a mad drillsergeant in your neck, you dig fast. VERY fast. I can speak of own experience... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Digging a foxhole in the middle of combat is probably not a good idea anyway. This is something you do prior to the battle. And only if you're defending. This option is available, but only via the scenario-creator's disgression for the defender only. The foxholes will appear for any infantry unit that is out in regular ground. In otherwords, not on any road or in any building.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't agree. Dig in makes always sense when your movement is stopped and you don't see a chance to get out at the moment. And 'dig-in-under-fire' is a known tactic, for example reported by Erwin Rommel in his book 'Infantry attacks'.

Greetings from Germany. First: Please don't rise your right arm and say hello with 'SIEG HEIL'. Remove your swastika wallpaper and the Hitler portraits if you have any. Don't wear your SS uniform. If your visitors don't like your normal wargamers equipment, send them back to Germany. No, send them to somewhere else. Afganisthan for example... But serious, we Germans are only a little bit more critic about our history then other nations. We are not fanatics. Except your visitors are strict anti-military. Then may god be with you

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commander: Don't you have to choose Multiplayer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ???