WWB

It was not Windows Update you were using, but that 500kb IE-retriever application uses the same web servers, I would give it another shot before giving up. I am not certain of this, but I think IE6 will not install on win95 anyways, for no good reason other than MS wanting people to pony up dough for XP. Sounds like there is some sort of short in that slot. It will not hurt anything to leave the little delete plate out. If you have not thrown out the modem, it might still be good. WWB

Pvt. Ryan, It looks like alot of people were having a similar problem. It seems that someone at MS screwed up big time and made the Windows Update server unavaliable, meaning you would get the exact type of error message you have been getting. Go here for details. WWB

Uh, so long as the server resides in Maine, it will likely be kept on local time, Eastern Standard Time. Grenwich ceased being the center of the world after 1918 or so anyways <G>. WWB

Interesting circular discussion folks. I think that FT teams should remain seperate unit by all means. One thing we forget alot is that a CM battle is quite a bit more rushed than the real thing. It was not unheard of to take a few hours carefully manuvering the FT into place near a strongpoint that needed cracking. Real battles did not have a hard 30 turn time limit. An interesting example is from the Battle of Kursk, where Das Reich sent FT-equipped pioneer detachments forward to crawl across no-man's land overnight in preperation for the next day's assault. In CM, flamethrowers are kind of like making that $2 horn bet on 12 in craps. It pays 30-1, if it pays. But it seldom pays. One thing that would help greatly in CM would be to give FTs the ability to run, at least for short distances. Part of the problem now is that if they happen to come under fire while crossing a small bit of open terrain, they are pretty much dead because clearing the area with any haste is not currently an option. WWB [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]</p>

*WWB writhes as he screams "PLEASE! No more! I can't handle it!" Great job guys. Now I have no need to have a life. Nice quote Croda. WWB

Leave well enough alone. The only real reason to upgrade to Win98 is because forthcoming DirectX will not work. But they are business machines and need no DirectX, at least not DirectX8+. Rule #1: If it ain't broke don't fix it. But if you decide to break it, I highly reccomend doing a clean install. If you are on a network with internet access, then all you really need is the NIC drivers handy and all the rest can be done on the fly. WWB

While I am not up on ranks, they appear to generally be subordinated to Regimental commanders, usually from the force which supplied the bulk of the infantry. Don't know offhand what that rank would be. WWB

I would play you KingFish, but that would not be too double blind, now would it? WWB

Note that the same handbook is avaliable at major bookstores (Borders, Barnes & Noble) for about $40. And they cover every piece of german equipment, down to fields kitchens & telephone wire. WWB

Very true about horses. There is little wonder why horses disappeared from the battlefields so soon after the advent of the internal combustion engine. An interesting side note to the unreliability of horses discussion happened when Western Europeans first met the Arabs in battle. There was a slight problem because the Europeans rode steeds, while the Arabs rode ungelded mares. And 10% of mares are in heat at any given time. Needless to say, that put a stop to fighting at times. I will see if I can dredge up a source on source of the term Cataphract tonight. "The Roman Army at War"(A.K. Goldsworthy, Oxford UP) is a rather new, and very, very good comprehensive work on well, the Roman at War. You seem to have a decent enough background in Roman history to understand the work, and I highly reccomend it. The Graham & Webster work Amazon is offering as a companion is great as well, for techinical and organizational detail and is a great buy as well. Constantinople fell on 30 May 1453, after the first determined assault supported by cannon. Those cannon included "Urban's Bombard," a cannon which threw a 1 ton stone 1 mile. It backfired one day and that was the end of John Urban and his bombards. WWB [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]</p>

Offhand, I would say there were relatively few StuGs in those formations. I think the panzer divisions should have had a company at most, while there should have been a battlaion with the 17th SS. The main reason that the handheld AT weapons were so effective is the terrain. Bocage country is made for the panzerfaust. WWB

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy: Agreed Iron! WWB, I'm not referring to the Byzintine cataphracts, I'm referring to some of the early units formed in the Imperial Roman period. Note, I'm not trying to compare tactics to the middle-aged nights, only the "armored horse and rider" appearence. My sources show, however, that the first regular cataphract units were formed by Emperor Vespasian in 69 AD, and were Sarmatian auxiliaries. And, of course, the shock effect of a charge of massed cavalry is perhaps the most effective weapon the horse has. In all consideration, awe and terror were probably the elephant's most effective offensive weapons as well.<hr></blockquote> Ok, those Cataphractoi. Unfortunately, my copy of "The Roman Army at War" is in a box miles away, so reference is not really possible. But you are correct, they did exist, albeit in small numbers (2 ala, IIRC). One of the unfortunate problems with the term is it was generally applied to any armored horse and rider setup by any greek writer into the renissaince. Interestingly, the name means 'cooking pot,' IIRC. If you have ever stood about in the Mediterrainian sun in the summer, you will understand why. One interesting thing about charging horses: they cannot be made to run through a solid object. Which means if you had a line of men, buck naked and standing shoulder to shoulder, they could stop a cavalry charge dead if they were willing to stand. WWB

Now playing at a CM Scenario Depot near you: __________________________________________________ Title: Too Little, Too Late Author: Wyatt 'wwb_99' Barnett Type: Allied Attack Date: May 45 Location: Bad Pilzen, Germany(fictional) Forces: SS vs. US Army Time: Day Weather: Clear Ground: Very Dry Size: ~3500 Points, Armored and Mechanized Length: 25 Turns Description: In the war's final days, fanatical SS troops make a last stand in a small town. . . WWB 11.11.01 wwb_99@yahoo.com _____________________________________________ This is a great scenario for those heavy armor and mech inf fans. Enjoy it, and remember to review. WWB [EDIT: it helps when one spells URLs correctly] [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CJMello: Running a PII 400 and will go with a PIII or PIV. Whatever I can afford now and probably max the RAM out. After this, next time will be a whole new machine which I am not looking foward to. Too used to this one.<hr></blockquote> Well, you are probably limited to slower Pentium 3s, your motherboard cannot handle much more. Pentium 4s will definitely translate into a new machine. WWB

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy: From Iron: I have to agree with wwb on this one. Scipio's father was a senator and General. Scipio may not have become as famous, and the Rome so powerful so fast, but Scipio would have proved his genius eventually. Perhaps he would have subdued Gaul before Caesar was born, or soundly defeated the Parthians early on. Who knows how well we'd know him if not for Hannibal, but he'd be in Livy and Polybus, I'm sure. <hr></blockquote> The Parthians were just emerging from what is now Northern Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan when Scipio fought at Zama. But in the late 3rd century and early 2nd centuries BC Rome was moving down the Balkans and into Asia Minor. It was a good time to be a young roman of patrician status. Your mention of Livy and Polybius reminds me: one of the main reasons Hannibal is so revered is that we have several extant literary sources on him and his campaigns. Trajan, for example, might well have been his equal, but we have no tome on his Dacian or Parthian campaigns. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> As for ancient cavalry...yes, cavaly were often used as shock troops, but they were more "reliable" in the skirmish, scout, flank, rout, and persue role. However, violent line breaking charges were performed with cavalry, as in many of Alexander's greatest victories. It must be remembered that the main weapon of a cavalryman of this era was a spear, not the sword. The Roman spatha was used if the spear was lost or broken (often the butt-spike was used as a secondary spear, as archeological finds show square penetrations in ancient helmets...OUCH!) Based on evidence from some Roman tombstones, some cavalrymen may have carried more than one spear into battle, or have a aid waiting in the rear to "refill" his master's hands. The late Roman era saw the adoption of "Cataphracts" by the Romans, after their experiance against the Parthians. These mounted troops are the first sign of the move toward the "mounted knights" of the middle ages. The rider and horse were both covered with scale armor(in the case of a horse, it was kind of a "blanket") with mail on the joints of the rider. Again, the primary weapon here was a long spear, which was braced under the right arm, and layed diagonally across the horse to the left side. <hr></blockquote> Good point, some ancient cavalry was used for shock effect. One thing to keep in mind, the sight of a mass of horses bearing down on oneself could easily cause infantry to break, stirrup or no. The Byzantine Cataphractoi you mention did not develop until well after the stirrup arrived in Asia Minor. The Parthians did have some version of a Cataphractoi much earlier, but there is no evidence of a 'charge' in the european mideaval sense. WWB

Intended to post these responses earlier, but got inturrupted while posting at work and could not complete: 1) Castles & Gunpowder: As has been pointed out, some did withstand cannon quite well. But these were the exception, rather than the rule. Note that, should an opponent be determined and rich enough, any set of walls were penetrable. My pet example is the Theodosian Walls of Constantinople, which had reflected all invaders for 1000 years before Mehmet took the city in 1453. And, having seen the remains, they are still huge (now only ~10m tall, ~15m thick). I doubt if the parties in the English Civil War could motivate even a quarter the resources that Mehmet could. Bottom-line, executive summary: the advent of the cannon fundamentally changed warfare by ending the impregnability of the castle. 2) Scipio: He was brilliant, and he was a Cornelii. Meaning that should Hannibal have never existed, we would probably know him as Scipio Macedonicus, Hispanicus or Asiaticus. 3) Roman Saddles: good points gentlemen. I was doing the short, sweet version for those who are not so well read in pre-modern history. From what I have read, the Roman saddles fixed riders enough for them to stab, hack and slash. But not quite well enough for one to do a massed shock charge. I could be wrong, and no longer have access to the journal articles where I read this. WWB

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy: By the way, would anyone be intirested in an ancient warfare mod for CM? I was thinking this before the conversation anyway. It'd be very VERY crude mind you, mostly graphics mods and infantry running around with "low" ammo, but I thre together a Zama scenario last night and it actually functions ok. Just a pet thought, I dunno if I'd find time to do the work.<hr></blockquote> That would be awesome. You can already use CM to replicate ancient fields (see the CM map case, I am lacking URL). I did a 'Horns of Hattin' map, and I am working on a Granicus map. That one should be sweet, because I have actually been to the proposed site. WWB

Not really, at least in the current engine. There is no way to dynamically caluclate just what is blocked as it stands now. Back when the game was being designed, this was simply too much calculation to undertake. WWB

Well, they have a number of uses from a scenario design point of view: 1) Local security elements for ATGs, IGs, etc. Every source I have read indicates that there was usually an MG or 2 about to keep the squishies at bay. 2) Simulating depleted platoons. Such as a 1x HQ, 2x Mot Squad, 2x LMG to simulate an understrength Motorized Platoon. WWB

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: haha, no my question marks are not a sign of hostility. But battles are still foguht in very much the same was as back then, just with different weapons. The only time war fare realy changed was in World War1 when both alliances were bogged down by each other and it degenerated into mass trench warfare.<hr></blockquote> 1) Modern battles are far, far different than anything that came before. Aside from weapons with ranges beyond LOS, the major difference is telecommunications. The ability to transmit orders in real time to someone outside of vocal range makes a much different form of warfare possible. Wellington was personally at nearly every critical juncture at Waterloo. A century later, Foch never even saw the front at the Marne. 2) There were many, many radical changes in warfare well before World War I. I will mention just a few: 1) Chariots: the main battle tanks of the 2nd millenia BC. 2) Hoplites: well lead Greeks kicked butt. 3) Romans: better led Romans sliced and diced Greek butt. 4) Stirrups: now you can put a Viking (aka Norman) on a horse and he can charge effectively. 5) Gunpowder: now you can shoot the heavily armored viking off his horse. And pound castles to dust to boot. 6) The Socket Bayonet: now your pikemen and musketmen are one and the same, slashing army budgets everywhere. And that is a brief list. WWB

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: "Celtic Hordes"??? They were Carthaginian, though Hannibals army was made up of many nationalities. Canae is the perfect example of a battle of annihilation. No General in the peloponesion wars killed 50,000 soldier in one day. No general in World War2 killed 50,000 soldiers in one day. There is a reason why all General to this day study Hannibal and attempt to replicate his success.<hr></blockquote> 1) No one in the Peloponesian Wars could field a 50,000 man army. That would have to wait for Roman mass levee & logistical tricks. Alexander and the Diodachi might have come close to that figure, and some Indian monarchs might well have been able to put forth that many, but west of the Euphrates it was an unheard of number. 2) Hannibal never, ever won a war. Not the 2nd Punic, not defending Carthage, not ever. Even in his later days as a 'Military Consultant' he never won a war. So while Cannae is well studied, there is no real success for anyone to replicate. WWB

I will be upgrading soon, but not necessarily for CMBB. The system will be: Abit KG7 RAID Mobo Athalon XP 1500 or Seriously OCed Athalon 1ghz (200mhz FSB model, rumor has they can do 1.4ghz without too much sweat.) 512mb PC2100 DDRam 2x 30gb HDD running in a striping RAID0 SB Live 5.1 GeForce2 Pro w/ 64mb DDR DVD, CD-RW, etc., etc. Mainly for OFP and IL2, but it will do real nice for CMBB. WWB

I have a similar setup, and 15.70 w/ 2x FSAA seems to be the magic number for me to. I understood what people were having a caniption about after using the 23.10s. WWB

PL: If you have to use a 35mm camera, use slide film. They have devices now which can take a slide and digitize it quite, quite well. WWB

Soviet Naval Infantry did do a fair bit of fighting in the far north, around Murmansk. They gave a rather good account all around, but I cannot claim to know if they used a different TO&E than their army counterparts. I would like to see them too, although I suspect the sailor uniforms were quickly dispensed with, especially come winter. And speaking of marines, what about Rumanian Marines, who gave a rather good account fighting down on the Black Sea coast in 1941. WWB