engy

<ahem> *bump* ...especially since I was also under the impression of the ultra-reliability of the Vickers, I was wondering if there were any comments...

I completely agree with your first six paragraphs, but I can't bring myself around to agree to your solution (about making command delays dependent on number of waypoints or distance traveled). To keep things short, I'll fire off two "counterexamples" that hopefully will illustrate. 1. I have a squad in woods that I want to get to a building at the other end, but the treeline between me and the building is curved (so that a straight line to the building would cross over open ground). So, in CM, I issue a series of waypoints to keep the squad in the woods on the way to the building. In real life, "Advance to that building along the edge of the treeline" would be the order. So, even though the real order is very simple and would entail little command delay, it needs several CM waypoints to execute. 2. Beginning of game. Low visibility. Meeting engagement. I have a squad I want to run across a *large* open field to get to a patch of woods near the VP. The movement crosses a great distance, but, again, in real life, the order would be, "Get your men to those woods now and don't stop for anything!". There would be little command delay in the real thing, but the proposed solution would unfairly penalize the order. Maybe something more along the lines of your opening paragraphs would be to add command delay for each squad to which a Platoon Leader issues orders. (ie...it's going to take him x seconds to tell squad 1 to take the building, then y more seconds to coordinate squad 2's dash across the street). However, now that I've written it, I'm not sure that's feasible to do. I'm sure someone will come along with an idea. engy

Someone's going to say it, so it might as well be me... Jump into PBEM as soon as you can. No matter how much you play the AI, it won't give you any taste of what a person on the other end will do to you. Once you have the interface figured out (ie, it sounds like *now*) it's probably time to start trolling for games. And, as a bonus , I'll throw in an opinion to one of your questions. Halftracks, as you noticed, are doomed in the slightest presence of any armor or Bazooka/PIAT/PS/PF. However, they(especially the US M3A1) are quite good at suppressing infantry. They make a nice mobile MG platform to provide cover fire for an infantry assault or for flank security on defense. Just be sure to keep a healthy distance between the halftrack and the infantry being suppressed. engy ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte

Okay, sure...I'm groggy after a 6 day weekend, but I still don't think I found what I was looking for in my search, so... Presently, in CM, when firing a turreted AFV to a target not at the 12 o'clock position of the hull, the hull rotates exactly to the turret facing. I'm sure I've read griping in the forum before about not being able to take advantage of a purposeful angle-off defensive position because of the automatic hull rotation (but, these are the posts I can't find. I'll blame it on the turkey and stuffing.) My question: did WWII tankers line up the hull exactly to the turret facing, or did they rotate the hull to some close angle (5-10 degrees, maybe?) to take advantage of the additional angle without presenting too much opportunity for a round right through the side of the hull? Either a response or a raging, screaming command to do a search coupled with the right terms to use would be helpful. ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte

*sniff sniff* ewww. I have to vote #1.

I am just starting a PBEM using Benicourt. Double blind, I took the US. If I start to hear laughing coming from this thread, I'll know I'm in big trouble. engy ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chairman7w: ...Is this strategy outdated? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Outdated? No. The battle of Dien Bien Phu (French vs. Vietnamese) in 1954 (I think) shows both the peril of the high ground if used incorrectly and the advantage of the high ground in competent hands. It would be best to read about the battle yourself, but just to sum up, in layman's terms: 1. The French had a series of strongpoints on hills surrounding a "bowl", at the bottom of which was the fortified French garrison at Dien Bien Phu. 2. The strongpoints were individually overrun by the Vietnamese due to lack of mutual support. 3. The Vietnamese then occupied the surrounding hills, brought well-camouflaged artillery onto the hills (the French artillery commander committed suicide due to his inability to provide counter-battery fire, I believe) and shelled the very strong French force in Dien Bien Phu. AA guns on the hills closed the French airstrip, supply drops were inaccurate, and the French suffered a defeat that shocked the world. Also, another example which just came to mind was the US Marine retreat from the Yalu river in Korea. The Chinese held the ridges on either side of the road. The retreating column could go no faster than the marines wading through deep snow on the ridgelines who were clearing the enemy from the high ground. I'm no military historian, so please don't flame me if my facts aren't detailed down to the OOB and who pulled KP duty the night of the battle. engy ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte Edited to fix grammar and a missing ")" [This message has been edited by engy (edited 11-06-2000).] [This message has been edited by engy (edited 11-06-2000).]

Having had the pleasure of lurking here for several months, I was just struck by the fact that many of the newer folks might have missed some of the glorious posts of days gone by. (Hmmm, I guess I'm included in that group.) Some of these posts have lived on in signatures, while others have faded into the dank mustiness of a unused basement. So, old-timers, resurrect some of the greatest posts (and don't just say, "See the Cesspool"...it's hard to call all of those posts *great*...some maybe, but not all ) of all-time here for us to see, please. And, just to show my helpful willingness, here's mine.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: You've discovered a little-known WW2 tank-grog thing here that BTS, in its search for the ultimate in realism, has modeled in CM. I've been waiting to see if anybody else noticed this. Most people assume that the M in US vehicle designations means "Model". Thus, the Medium Tank M4 Sherman would be the "Model #4" Medium tank. This is incorrect. The M actually stands for "Mortality" and the number represents the life expectancy of the vehicle in minutes. Thus, Shermans were rated officially at 4 minutes of survival in a combat situation, which is reflected accurately in CM by having them die on turn 4. After the Sherman had been in production for some time and combat experience had been gained, it was noticed in many cases, particularly for the earlier production runs of Shermans, that the official Mortality rating was a bit optimistic. Thus, the designation was changed to reflect the new data. This involved appending the letter A and another number to the M4 designation, the A standing for "Actually" and the new number being the revised Mortality rating. For example, the M4A2 had a combat-proven life expectancy of "Actually 2" minutes. Later on, the designation system got even more accurate by appending a number in parentheses and the letter W. Despite the widely held conviction that the parenthetical number was the caliber of the gun, what these symbols really meant was that the tank had a 75% or 76% chance of going WHOOSH in a big fireball when penetrated. However, some models of Sherman were so inflammable that calcualtions showed they had a 105% chance of brewing up, so they just left it at that and didn't bother with the W, because they were going to WHOOSH regardless. Towards the end of the war, some Shermans gained an E and another number in their designations. The E meant "Extra Cost" and the number was a designator for the manufacturer, to ensure that company got extra money for making the tank. CM accurately reflects this by making these types of Shermans cost more to buy in DYO. Thus, the M4A3E8(76)W designation meant a tank with an official Mortality of 4 minutes, Actually 3 minutes, cost Extra, and had a 76% chance of going WHOOSH. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Edited to add smiley [This message has been edited by engy (edited 11-03-2000).]

Oh, great. Two of my PBEM opponents in here collaborating on scouts and, soon no doubt, how to effectively eliminate mine. *Gets his billy club. Points to the signpost nearby* "OK. Move outta here. Can't you read? It says 'NO LOITERING' That means you two boys. Now, go! And don't let me catch you hanging around here together again!" *Looks menacing* (which is a lot more than he's done in his PBEM's so far, eh, you two?) engy ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte

Oh, dear. Degenerating into a Peng thread already. Cesspool scum everywhere. Where did I put that antibacterial soap, anyway?

Hey all... I'm looking for a couple of PBEM opponents, but I thought I'd give you a little background because I like to find people who are somewhat similar in their outlook on CM...it makes it more fun, I think... 1. I'm a CM newbie but an old-timer at strategy (SL, ASL, Close Combat) and RTS games. 2. So far, I seem to be able to do o.k. against the AI. 3. I have a decent understanding of WWII stuff. (But I'm no uber-grognard. I have no idea what Michael Wittmann's middle name was, and I couldn't tell you how many links were on the track of a Sherman ). 4. Most importantly, I play PBEM (and TCP/IP soon ) for the FUN of it. There's something a lot more fun about taunting someone (or being taunted), about the unexpected that happens with another person sitting on the other side, that just can't be matched with an AI, no matter how well it plays. I love to win, I'd rather not lose, but I don't much care as long as the game is fun. (I've stayed out of the cesspool, though, just because I'd hate to have to take a shower every time I fired up CM.) 5. I can do a turn or two every weekday during the workday (before work, at lunch, right before I go home, etc.). Interested? Email me at mecheng@tpresearch.com engy ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte

*nudge* Too good of an idea to let slide off the first page before it gets more feedback...

For more info, check out www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/NahVtdgW/artnahvtdgw.htm There is a ton of information there, but IIRC, the Nahver...waffe was on a 360 degree swivel at a fixed angle to the ground. You ought to check that link out and previous threads to verify, though. engy ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Tsktsktsk - in fact dear lad, if you have a good look around, you will see that Cesspoolers are a significant proportion of the people making intelligent posts on this board. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahhh, my fault entirely. *Grovel, grovel.* I realize now that it's only in the pool that all the intelligence sinks to the bottom...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak: I've tried to not say anything, But It has gotten to where I really don't understand what the issue is. I view the Quick battles in CM as kind of a WWII chess match. Try and make both sides as even as possible and then ... . . ~snipped...no need to repeat the whole thing~ . . Lorak <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very well put. Couldn't agree more. However, I didn't think that intelligent posts were allowed from Cesspoolers? engy <rats, forgot to include my signature> ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte [This message has been edited by engy (edited 10-10-2000).]

....drool drool.... WHEN is that copy of CM ever going to get here?? ....drool drool.... engy ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte

Hey all.... (and, BTW, YES, i did a search ) Utterly fascinating message board. I'm hooked on the game and I don't even have it yet, which leads me to the problem... I sent off a money order a week ago, and since Battlefront.com ought to have it by now, I was wondering a few things: 1. Do they send off a confirming email that they have received the money order? 2. Do they send an email when they ship the product? 3. How long does it take for sales to respond to emails, usually? I emailed them yesterday morning (because I had forgotten to specify the Windows version) and haven't heard anything. Should I give them a couple of days? Thanks much. engy ------------- ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte

I hate to even bring this up again after it's been beat to death in a different thread, but.... The brief outline of your scale system infers that if you do it across the board, the price for a Sherman will either increase the same amount as or more than the price of a Panther. It seemed that the consensus on the "Overpriced Shermans" thread was certainly *not* that the price of a Sherman should be *increased* relative to a Panther. However, that is exactly what happens with this proposed scale system (even if both prices go up the same amount, the ratio of Sherman:Panther still goes up. Do the math ). While "band-aiding" (note, not "fixing", but "band-aiding" ) one problem it seems like you might be worsening another. The fix? Hmm....errrrr....wellll...uhhhh....Boss is waiting. Phone is ringing. Coffee is overflowing. Gotta go..... engy ---- ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte