Scipio

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlowMotion: I meant that my current schreck sound is more unique than the one in your update. Not necessarily as high quality, but very easy to recognize from other battle noises. I wish BTS used one sound for schrecks/bazookas and another for recoiless rifles. I would use your sound for the latter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would like to see this - and many other extra sounds - too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: I had no problem distinguishing the sound of my RCL in action, in fact unusually for me it bagged 4 afv's in the battle, so you may just have invented the first combination sound and luck mod <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, don't say it to loud - I already see a dicussion about the gamey use of my sound mods

The victory is calculated in princip (if we forget the scenarios with exit zones for a moment): Axis casualities + Allied casualities + Victory location = 100% of points The victory points for both sides is now their share of this 100% (= enemy casualties + held VL). This seems to be a bit simple - imagine a scenario without VL where one side looses only one Jeep. The opponent would win total. Or is it maybe good that simple?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: What the hell is a recoilless rifle anyways? What is the difference between this and a gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Check this link: Recoiless Rifle It's sometimes called an American invitation - but that isn't true. The first US RR (57mm) is based on German 75mmm and 105mm Leichtgeschütze (I hope the name will be corrected in CMBB), captured in North Africa. [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

I wonder that find nearly no material about WWII Recoilless Rifles. They are very fine weapons in CM, but how common were they on the real battlefields?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlowMotion: ...because it is too similar to other big guns...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? I think it's very significant - to make the difference audible is one of my primary goals! I check this once more under battle conditions.

BUMP No one praise me? Seems I have made bad work this time. :eek: :confused: Where is my rope? I can't live with this shame

'Motorized' means in princip nothing but an infantry unit with attached trucks for tarnsport. Most WWII infantry units were still marshing, without own transport vehicels available.

Well, only cause you asked for it: 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird 512 MB RAM 64 MB Asus V7700 Geforce2 GTS I build the system on my own. Yes, I'm a hardware slut. But if you think this is a big caliber: I made a scenario, just to proof the look of mods, so I have one piece of each unit on it. Once i hit the GO! button to see what happen, and it took about 5 mins to calculate the turn. I won't know how long it had lasted on an older machine. Okay, the movie then runs straight - I've heart some people has problems in big scenarios. But I fear that's not an hardwareproblem, it could be a problem of the CM graphic engine (I don't know which one they use, I assume an own). Well...what was the point? I've forgotten it.

Maybe you take a look on this page for general OOBs.

I spend my military service in a 120mm mortar platoon. The deadly range of our mortar was ~50m. So I guess that's more or less okay in CM. Can't speak for the big calibers, but keep in mind, if you're close enough it's not necessary to catch some shrapnells with your body to die, the pressure can rupture your lung, and that's it. As I understand it, the blast range in CM is the deadly range of the shell. Generally, I must agree, the artillery system has a lot of errors and is a great weakness of CM.

In my neverending search for perfection I have revised three of my soundmods: the 37mm tank/AT gun, the 88mm high velocity tank/AT gun and the recoiless weapons (recoiless rifles, zooks, schrecks). Especially the new 'recoiless sound' is much more spectacular then before - Recoiless Rifles are very LOUD guns. But I hope it's not to spectacular for the zooks and schrecks now. CM use the same sounds for both. I hope you like them. To download as usual at WarfareHQ [ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Well, what is a FO worth if all the artillery he represent has used up all the ammo? Nothing. But you still get 30 points if you take him out. Even if CM simulates only the tactical level, that doesn't mean that stratic level doesn't matters. We get (in princip) heavy artillery support from high command. In Stalingrad tank crews were used as normal infantry. When the big Soviet attack started, a lot of tanks were without crew. Maybe that doesn't matter in the battle itselve, but that doesn't reduce the importance of tankcrews. And how about CM Operations? In an operation it matters if the crew survives to drive an earlier abandoned tank again. About the 'demerit mark' argument, that would still work, or not?

CMPlayer - yes that's the point. In princip, a conscript Tiger and an elite Tiger costs the same pp - I mean the pure tank. The difference of pp between a conscript and elite is in fact the cost of the CREW, not of the tank. But the others have still also right, a Kingtiger elite crew (for example) would be worth ~250pp, and this would end misuse of crews, too. Noone would risc to waste them in a scout mission. Just think about the effect on the battleresult when a lot of crews are capture (=double victory points). A question is of course if the ratio of 'hardware' and 'software' costs should be so extreme, or if the 'hardware' must be more expensive. Anyway, to make a 'kill' complete, you would need to knock out the tank and the crew. That's how it's rated if the crew dies together with the vehicel. I would nearly call it a bug to get additional points if the crew is eliminated later . [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: Good observations. Bump. --Rett<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excuse, I'm German What means 'Bump'???

I made some test to learn more about the victory calculation. a) If I destroy an enemy vehicel, I get the pp that it has cost. If the crew was completly killed together with the vehicel, I get the same points. c) If the crew survives, I get additional points if the crew is 'killed' later. I think that's not right, the crew should always be included in the purchase points, so a surviving crew should mean that I get only the points for a vehicel minus crew. We should keep in mind - a tank is a tank, it's the crew that makes it 'Regular' or 'Elite'. In case of a King Tiger for example, this means a difference of ~250 points between Conscript and Elite!!! Another thing, and that's a real small thing : what I can say, the end result seems to be always rounded down for the Allies and always rounded up for the Axis. Well, this CAN mean the difference between a minor and a draw... [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Publishing errata for the book was discouraged by some friends since it might look bad. Since the changes were important and we did not anticipate major future revisions, we wanted book users to have the correct information as early as possible even if some sales might be lost due to appearances. One of the strongpoints of CM has been the willingness of BTS to consider the need for changes as they arise, and to implement justified revisions. Some typo's were contained in the original CM publication (75L48 muzzle velocity and penetration, tungsten core slope effects), and the game has been corrected. Large productions are bound to have a few things here and there in the original versions that could be improved upon. After living with the book data and equations for many years, and using the information in wargame design and posts on various sites, the validity of published information looks good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This means, this material is used in CM:Bo already, or will be used in CM:BB? This would mean the end of my doubts about armor penetration!?

Pals, you seem to have big knockledge in this things, maybe you can help me with that: In CM, hits mostly penetrates the tanks, and a penetration means in most cases the loss of a tank. When I now read above that - even for a PZ IV - several shots was needed to take it out, does this mean: a) the other shots don't hit the shots hit, but don't penetrate ?? My personal problem (or maybe misdunderstanding or lack of knowledge) is, it really doesn't matter which tank I use (except a few like the Panther), a hit of something equal or bigger than a 75mm usually means the end of the tank, and this appears to me a bit hard. Also when I read that the losses wasn't so extreme as most people (me included) believe. [ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I would assume that the book by Guderian (the son) about 116th Panzer should be available in German. I tried to find it the other day. Alternatively, check in on www.feldgrau.com and ask for German language sources. Not really my area, I focus more on the Pommies <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you have the exact title?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: May I recommend that instead of thinking about it, you would learn a lot by reading about it? Whether it appears logical to you today or not is reasonably irrelevant in light of the words of the tankers who got shot at then. I gave you a number of good recommendations that showed this point in the other thread. Here's another one, and that is excellent: 'The South Albertas' by Donald E. Graves. Does not come cheap, but worth every Pfennig. The best regimental history I have ever read. Staying in a tank that was hit but not immediately killed was a great way to get yourself a medal, a mention in despatches, and a black-rimmed telegraph to mom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gimme some GERMAN titles please. I'm no English professor. I guess you can already read my accent

A hollow charge (like used in Panzerschrecks, Bazookas etcetera) works this way: the explosion builds a fucosed 'jet stream' of high pressure and temperature. This powerfull jet penetrates even the best (WWII) armor (if the hollow charge is big enough). The result in the tank is high pressure and heat. Both causes great harm to the crew and the equipment, especially ammo and/or fuel starts to burn/explode. The tank is normally irreparable damaged. Normal AP rounds (tungsten rounds included) produce lots of fragments in the tank and cause also great harm to crew and equipment. In CM, the crew often bails out unwounded after the hit of a hollow charge. This seems to be unrealistic - heat and pressure should (fataly) injure them, and the tank should tends to start burn easy. Generally, the casualties of crews after an AT hit should be much higher - they are not killed always, bad often badly wounded and not able to run around - or am I wrong here? And a more personal wish - it would be nice if knocked out tanks would look a bit more damaged. The sad lowered tube is so...

Their was a discussion about bailing crews, the general result was that the crew tents to jump out of the tank at the first serious hits to save their lifes and get a new tank. After thinking about it for a while, this seems to be unlogic. A tank crew was an easy and valuable target when they have left the tank. The don't know about the situation outside of the tank. Wouldn't it be more sensefull to stay in the tank as long as possible? I currently read 'Stalingrad' by Anthony Beevor. He writes about German tanks attacking Russian KV tanks from behind. They were unable to penetrate the KVs, but after a while, the tanks were already unmovable and the turrets badly damaged - the crews bail out - absolutly deaf and dismayed. That doesn't sounds to me like 'we better get out before we are hit again'.

I guess, the purchase costs are generally not very realistic. I remember something that it should (also) model the rarity of a unit. But doing this by using purchase points only is - IMO - bull****. It would be more sensefull if the game generates the types and numbers of available units, combined with a realistic purchase system. In reality, a commander can request special units - especially tanks/support/artillery, but that doesn't mean that he will get them. Please don't ask me how to model that!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sitzkrieg: I believe what Scipio is talking about is the Nashorn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, yes, I mean the Nashorn

Why costs a German 88mm PAK more then a Elephant tank with the same gun? A hint to the people who will recomment the search function : please don't bore me.