Scipio

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: The problem with not reading the discussion and just dropping your opinion in at the end, is that it confuses the discussion and rehashes issues which have already been settled. The only way a discussion can develop is if people consider the points already made and expand upon them, or indeed, choose to say nothing if they have nothing new to add. Otherwise the thread just keeps repeating itself and goes nowhere. Not particularly important in this thread, as I think most of us have said all we're going to say, but just a point of order.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And the most gamey of all is : telling other people how to act on a free forum. Some people are so boring...

I haven't read all the other posts, here is just my five pence: It's gamey to be an asshole and complain about something that wasn't excluded before the match. Extra rules like the Fionn's are extra spice, but not anti-gamey. It's gamey to replay a turn. But that isn't possible in CM anyway. So aside from that, nothing is gamey. What do you think are we doing here? This is war. I try everything to win, and I also expect from my opponent to try everything to beat me. If it would be possible, I even would order my men to fart in the general direction of the enemy!!! :eek:

I currently read 'Stalingrad' by Anthony Beevor. He writes about German tanks attacking Russian KV tanks from behind. They were abolutly unable to penetrate the KVs, but after a while the crews bail out - absolutly deaf and dismayed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ned lud: ....and another question ? Is it best to use 'target' or 'target wide' on the wife? ... I can almost guess the next posting !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhm...I guess that dependents on the size of the target - is she small and handy, or more, ehm, voluminous??? Well boys - I'm 32. I live together with two beautifull budgerigars. I must feed them twice a week. Close to my chair lies the sweatshirt I've taken off a few hours ago. In the kitchen you find the dirty dishes of one week, my clothes are not tortured with hot irons...etcetera etcetera and I play always as much CM as I want! Why should I ruin it with women when my LIFE IS SOOOO WONDERFUL :cool:

As addtion/correction : the movement 'type' would be better defined as 'movement speed' - slow, normal, fast So slow defensive = sneak and hide slow and agressive = sneak and engage Well, we will see if and when this will be realized

Would it be a good idea to change the current order system by combining movement type and aggressivness? For it example: I have now a sneak order, which causes my infantry to take cover when dicovers, a normal move, and a fast move. If I could now set the agressiveness for a unit like 'agressive' - priority is fighting 'neutral' - priority is movement 'defensive' - prioty is cover Now combine this with the movement - (crawl), sneak, move, run for example - sneak agressive: sneak through the wood, kill everything that moves sneak defensive: sneak through the wood, hide and spy the enemy run agressive - assault a target run neutral - reach a position, don't engage even if you get under fire from somewhere run defensive - try to reach a position, but don't let Fritz make a Schaschlik from you. Well, just an idea

I'm a Borg queen - :cool: :cool: :cool: Well, there's nothing left to discuss, the sense, pro and contra has been pointed out, and we will see what (or if) BTS will do with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: When virtual spotting comes in scouts will have a better time of it, since they will only be useful if they are in "command", that is they can yell "there is an MG up here guys".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Virtual Spotting? BTW, if a special Scout unit would only make sense when in command - what sense would it make to use a Sniper for recon/scout? Even if CMBB is only an 'engine update', why not include a recon team as support unit? We will have hundreds of new units anyway. Was it common in WW2 to have a special recon team? I don't know - but I guess it was and is anyway unusual that a commander can select his force!

:eek: Double posted [ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: On the topic of splitting squads, it would be good if BTS would fix a minor but important problem. You split a squad which is in a heavy building, for example, and suddenly half the squad starts the next turn in open ground outside. This aint right. As it is now, when you split, one squad seems to stay where it is and the other appears right next to it. They should both be able to slide a little bit to keep sharing the same cover. This is not the same thing as the cover being too small for two teams, btw. --Rett<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, a very good idea. Slap, what means 'TO and E'? [ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Username, most squads are bigger! Slap, have you read my second post? I do NOT want to split out a LMG The idea to take sharpshooter as recon is the current practice, but I think ~20 or more points for ONE person is a bit expensive. Maybe it would be a better idea if we could purchase a special recon/scout group - maybe 3 men with MPs?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: ...as this would soon get into the realm of tracking and directing individual soldiers...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree, but that wasn't my idea. It also wasn't my idea to select special soldiers to split out. I only meant something like a 'send Recon group (~three men)' command.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: IMHO, the problem with TRPs is not who or what can fire on them, but rather the rather pathetic range you can adjust off one before time and accuracy penalties start stacking up. I think 20m is the max distance. Really, any adjustment up to 3-400m from a TRP is should - IMHO - be swift, and show a fairly steady decline in accuracy out to that range. In the attack (and defence, for that matter) FOs are trained to lay out TRPs at regular intervals on 'likely' enemy locations and approaches. The beauty of a flexible artillery system such as the Brits and US had is that any target near one of these TRPs could be engaged quickly and accurately by initiating a fire mission at an adjustment from a previously recorded TRP. Of course, to balance all this, there is the overall swiftness of the artillery as presented in CM. 2-3 minutes to get from the initial call for fire to FFE is very quick, even today using similar methods but vastly better communications and computing resources. In Real Life 5-10 minutes is more likely: Time 0: call for fire Time 90 (seconds): first round of adjustment T 120: Round impacts T 125: observer calls first adjustment T 160: second round of adjustment T 190: second round impacts T 195: call of 2nd adj T 230: 3rd rnd of adj T 260: 3rd rnd impacts T 265: 0bserver calls final adj and goes to FFE T 300: first rnd of FFE lands. Now, thats only using 3 rnds in adjustment, which is pretty slick. A mis-read on the opening grid can easily push that out to 8 rnds or so in adjustment, each one taking up about 1 minute in total. For my money, time spent on improving the artillery model for CMBO, CMBB, or CMWhatever, would be much better spent addressing the limited way TRPs can be used, a better adjustment model, and a better range of impact distributions, rather than futzing around with indirect fire for tanks. Regards JonS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> About the TRP - if I understood right - I agree, the possible adjustment should be bigger. But the artillery system is anyway wrong, so I hope it wil be changed for CMBB. I was in a 120mm mortar platoon in my military service. The biggest errors are 1) if the guns are adjusted on a target once, they can fire on that target again with VERY short delay (if the distance between the TRPs isn't to great)- the target coordinates are written down. So in princip, every excuted fire order produce a new TRP (for this FO only, of course) 2) in CM, we can only order a barrage. Someone on this board has written that a barrage is the only thing that makes sense within the timeframe of a CM match (I think it was Steve, but I'm not sure). But I disagree with that. I guess it can be said that we have a similar need for artillery support like a real troop leader - and sometimes I want a barrage, bud sometimes I only need a few rounds per turn to disturb the opponents deployment. 3) The allies only (that's in princip wrong, too) can purchase a spotter for VT shells OR a spotter for HE shells. But in reality, all kind of shells are available (if supply is working good, of course), but NOT in unlimited numbers. For example, we usually had the same number of HE and VT shells, 2-3 starshells and only a view smoke rounds if nothing else was ordered. But surely not 180 smoke AND 180 HE shells. More sensefull would it be to preset this in the purchase and share out the 180 shells between the different ammo types. BTW, I'm not sure if they where common, but weren't phosphor shells used sometimes, too? About the delay - IMO, it's realistic. But it mostly depends on the quality of the FO. An experienced FO (should) need only two or three rounds for adjustment.

woof woof...I want a bone, too :cool: [ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Will it be able to split a squad into something else then two half squads? It would be fine if I could split out ONE group of three men for recon or split the squad in two halfes for...uhm...whatever

Well, Slap, I don't have doubts that you are right, but the whole setup procedure is been done BEFORE the battle when TRPs are used. Of course, only the defenders has a benefit, cause they are only allowed to use TRPs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The secodnary sources for my comments on artillery are: Field Artillery and Fire Power by Jonathan B. A. Bailey is the best Field Artillery source for practices. While not targeted on World War Two, it is a great learning tool, and does contain a full discussion of the use of field artillery in that war. On Artillery by Bruce I. Gudmundsson, which includes some nice technical discussion on artillery at a fairly easy to understand level. On Time, on Target: The World War II Memoir of a Field Artillery Paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne by John D. McKenzie is an autobiography that is nice to read, but is less useful for anything except helping figure out every day practes. The Field Artillery: History and Source Book byBoyd L. Dastrup is more of a longer scope history piece, but it does help understand how it was employed by World War Two. Use and Practice of Field Artillery in World War Two. This is a GPO book written in the 1950s as a study of artillery systems and compares the British FO system, the US infantry system, and the German FO system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Back to the post by JonS - the reason why I want to know what problem he see with TRP is: An on map mortar can fire on a TRP as long as he don't move. The problem with the time needed to bring a vehicel into fire position can be avoided the same way. Of course, that doesn't helps with the minimum range problem - BUT : a) will we have bigger maps in CMBB? is it a problem for all vehicels, also with smaller calibers?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Goober the calender for future CM's is pretty well known - CM3 is to be Africa and Med including Greece, Cretee, Italy etc. CM 4 is to be early war Europe - Poland, Low Countries, France, Yugoslavia?? Then there's to be a major re-write of the 3D engine. A lot of people would like to see earlier period treatemnt of CM, but personally I don't think that the engine has the required features (from a non-techical knowledge level!) - close combat with edged weapons and massed black-powder formations are nothing at all like WW2! For an excellent 3D semi-Napoleonic game I'd thoroughly recommend Sid Meier's Gettysburg - a fabulous game that deserved a hell of a lot more development!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and the Pacific front? What about the Pacif front?

...or paste into any graphic editor

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SuperTed: Oops! It looks like I got the scale all wrong. I am trying find maps of 1:10K or lower. Thanks again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Ted, try this Maps

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: Scipio, if you use a 105mm, 75mm, or 25pdr FO then SPA can be in CM, firing indirectly. Just because Off Board Artillery isn't on the map, doesn't make them a non-entity in the battle. Their FOO is their link to the battle. If that link is broken, you (or your enemy) loses that capability, then as now. IMHO, there are much more fundamental problems with the artillery model than Wah! I can't fire my M4A1 indirectly. Commando Comic # 5324 showed them being fired indirectly, so clearly it was common practice, so why can't I. BTS, fix it or do sumfink Yes, I am aware that there are better sources than Commando Comic regarding using tanks in indirect fire mode. But what about the completely emasculated TRP presented in the game? Don't you think that's kind of more disturbing? Regards Jon PS. Read what Babra, Michael Emrys and Slapdragon have written. Please. [ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> JonS, I have read what they've written. (BTW, it would be fine if some people could refer to their source when they post here). What do you mean with 'emasculated TRP'? Please excuse, I'm German, and my English could be better.

You mean like this OakA or this Dot-44? I started the work on this some time ago, but skipped it for some other projects. I wanted to continue in the near future [ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

About the general idea: YES YES YES GIVE IT TO ME BABY :cool: :cool: :cool: Just to compare with Close Combat III - the game is (IMO) a little bit, uhm, simple... but I really LOVE to lead a force through the whole war, see them rise etcetera... It makes this average game good, so what could it make for CM?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: A 105mm FO can be calling in rounds from an M7 Priest as easily as towed 105s. Who says it's not? Want to use Shermans indirect? Get a 75mm FO. I won't get into the on-map range too short argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The counter question is : why do we have on map 81mm mortars and mortar HTs if a 81mm FO can do the same? IMO, if tanks and especially self-propelled artillery were/are able to fire indirect in reality, they should be able in CM, too. [ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The limit was put in place to prevent, in theory, some potential gamey behavior. However, on balance it was probably not a good decision. As Lewis stated, Ambush markers are already out of the game. Covered Arcs are in. There is no range limitation, not even one that is tied to max weapon range. Just easier to program the thing that way Since putting a Covered Arc out to 5000m doesn't mean a SMG unit can shoot that far, there really is no harm in not having the range capped by weapon max range. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, cool - I posted this idea some weeks ago. I didn't expected that it was already planned for CM2! Maybe it's a good idea if BTS post the planned engine changes or a general info page about CM2.