Tris

Say, Joeri, don't either one of us sleep? (andimustvisitmybrotherlaterandpretendilikevickisturkey)

I thought I would next examine the speed of the M4 Sherman tank ordered to Move in relation to foot travelers. Test Parameters: Eight unique classes of Elite foot travelers (all in command) and one M4 Sherman tank over a dry course of 1000 meters ordered to Move. Results: Time Platoon HQ 10:40 M1919 MMG 10:41 M4 Sherman 10:43 Sharpshooter 10:43 60mm Mortar 10:44 .50 cal HMG 17:46 Flamethrower 17:46 81mm Mortar 17:48 M1917 HMG 17:50 Note: As you can readily see this test delineated two distinct groupings for speed, with all classes of travelers closely matched with one another within each of the two speed groupings. Platoon HQ led all the way and reached the 500m mark in five minutes and 34 seconds. The M1919 MMG was close behind (5:34.5). Of the slower grouping, the .50 cal team led by a nose at the 500m mark, recording a time for halfway over the course of 9:16. Of interest is the fact that all of the travelers completed the second half of the course in a considerably faster time, so much faster that it is hard to account for it by any possible delay caused at the startup of the race due to a CC issue. (My observation was that all travelers seemed to get out of the blocks in good order.) [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-23-2000).]

. . . Beetle Bomb!" "You heard that right folks. Just moments ago, in the annual CMBO Sprint Sweepstakes, run over 1000 meters on grass somewhere in the heart of Europe, the most unlikely of nags. . . . " So here's the poop. I selected 16 M4 Sherman tanks with Elite crews to run on parallel tracks over dry grass. In lanes 1-4 we had four Shermans ordered to complete the course at Fast, in lanes 5-8 the next four Shermans were under orders to Move over this course, lanes 9-12 we given the Hunt command, and the final four entrants were rotated around 180^ before the start and ordered to go it in Reverse. The fastest time recorded over the 1K meters was 3 minutes 31 seconds by the Sherman in lane #2. At this juncture the fastest Sherman ordered to Move sat at the 330m marker. The fastest Sherman in Reverse came in under the wire at 4:51. The fastest Hunter completed the course in 6:20. The fastest Move Sherman had by this time reached the 600m marker, and this tank finally crept in under the wire at 10:43. Perhaps this should come as no surprise to us. Appendix B in the manual, p. 157 clearly states that the Move order will direct a vehicle to move at walking speed, whereas a Hunt order will direct the same vehicle to proceed at a medium speed. Now while it isn't clearly stated which speeds will be the highest--except that Fast will move a vehicle at maximum speed--it seems now that our clue to have picked up on was "walking speed." I must say all along I'd supposed that Reverse would be the slowest of the speeds, with Hunt slower than Move. Now I know better. Test Parameters: 16 M4 Sherman tanks w/Elite crews divided into four groups of four Shermans each with orders to move over a dry grass course of 1000 meters at group speeds of Fast, Move, Hunt and Reverse. Results: Speed Time FAST 3:31 FAST 3:31 FAST 3:32 FAST 3:32.5 MOVE 10:43 MOVE 10:44 MOVE 10:45 MOVE 10:46 HUNT 6:20 HUNT 6:20.5 HUNT 6:21 HUNT 6:21 REVERSE 4:51 REVERSE 4:51 REVERSE 4:53 REVERSE 4:53 [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-29-2000).]

Cobb's an interesting man. He's always worth a read, or your time if you're lucky enough to catch him in.

I considered accelerated wire/road-block plunkem's and assumed if this were implemented then these would have to be made to "bend" with the terrain (much the same as roads/walls/hedges) in order to allow trench systems of reasonably flexible design. Pillboxes: I am aware of what's possible in life, Steve, anything is possible in life. I'm telling you that it feels to me (and others who bother to tackle this issue) that we have far too many knocked-out pillboxes early in the game, far too many overall taken out from long-range fire. It's that simple. If you don't believe me, put down your present projects, jump into this game and play it as many hours some of us do out here. Then you shall see for yourself. You need to sit down and devote the time necessary to allow these lines to be drawn precisely in accord with whatever the opposing force dispositions are at the end of each battle phase.... First of all, we don't "need" to do anything. Perhaps we "should" do something, but that is up for debate. It would be just like your personality to quibble with semantics at a time like this. Moving right along: your rationalization re "problems" related to crooked lines does not hold water. No "line" would be need to be drawn, per se, just let units stay where they are when the battle stops. I have no doubt there's an issue with the TacAI pathing afterwards, but some fudge for the one-in-a-thousand cases should suffice. One thing is crystal clear: what we have at the moment does not function well. Not at all. That is the point to take away. More happily, I would like to wish you and everyone on the board a happy Thanksgiving. Should anyone find it necessary to drive please be careful on the road. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-22-2000).]

In the heat of the moment I'd forgotten that point. Yes, pillboxes need to be allowed to do more than "hide" (whatever that means in relation to pillboxes--it doesn't seem to keep them from shooting their MG's at armored vehicles at ludicrous ranges, thus needlessly revealing their positions) in an effort to persuade them to wait until the enemy is close enough to get a good first lick in. This not only calls for an ambush command but brings into question the TacAI as well.

Peter, trenches will be included in CM2 for sure. The current plan is to make them sorta like barbed wire. Put them down where you like, rotate them, and there they stay. Foxholes will also not be automatic for the defender as they are now. It would be entirely more utilitarian to render trench systems in the terrain editor--a kind of combination tile where the scenario designer at once lays down and depresses "roads." In this manner users could design reasonably functional trench complexes (can anyone say the Crimea?) where defenders have ability to move laterally within said trench systems while afforded cover. Just plunk 'em down like wire or road blocks? And what? I suppose there''ll be a price attached to trenches in QB's, too. And won't that be neat: "Hey, guys, look at that that neat 20m stretch of trench!" Your idea re foxholes is good. Here's another thought: compress time (so to speak) either between battles in an operation, or at least between dusk and/or night and/or dawn turns, to allow defenders and attackers alike to dig foxholes. As long as this thread started out about pillboxes: I just had a greyhound take out a pillbox w/MG from 97m with its 20mm through the slit. The pillbox was set back in the woods, plus the shot went through another four tiles of scattered tree and it was an uphill bearing and and the greyhound was angling off to its right from the pillbox at normal speed. This just isn't correct, Steve. I'm sure pillboxes took hits through their apertures, but not all pillboxes were of the giant-slit variety found at Utha Beach, certainly ones designed to house MG's were not. Throw in the kind of incredible hit ratios I've come across against these little forts, plus the extenuating circumstances I just alluded to, none of which is atypical within my limited CMBO experience, and it is hard indeed to swallow what's happening with the pillboxes ingame. And as long as I'm on it: one major change which needs to be made is the way the engine draws a straight line of demarcation across the entire map between battles of an operation. You need to sit down and devote the time necessary to allow these lines to be drawn preciesly in accord with whatever the opposing force dispositions are at the end of each battle phase--yes, this will result in crooked lines, not straight lines . . . as it's supposed to be, I might add. Now. Should the AI and/or human player(s) wish to set up their force(s) farther back from this line, that's something else. But the impositon of your magical line just doesn't cut it. Look. The way it is makes it impossible to conduct an intelligent operation even on a map which was designed (gamey as can be, this) with absolute attention paid to terrain integrity with reference to a north-south axis, and don't even get me going how phoney it soon becomes on a map which is designed with something approaching creativity (i.e., one which has angled roads and start lines in corners with an objective diametrically opposed and so on). Got it? Good boy. Now go to bed, get lots of sleep, then wake up early tomorrow morning and call Charles and get him cracking! P.S. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-22-2000).]

You know, just as I took Beamer (my German shepherd) out for a spin in the park I thought about crew experience levels and wondered if that might not be factored in as well. I kind of doubt if, but it's quite possible just the same. On second thought you'd best ask Steve.

Very good. Thank you. Since you seem to have both time and interest, Joeri, I would suggest you repeat each test you conduct at both regular and hunt speeds as well. You might also want to check what the correlation is between vehicle flotation ratings and various terrain routes @ x speed and tracked versus treaded vehicles. (thatshouldkeephimbusythroughtheholiday...hesaid)

Not sure about Tigers (or Panthers), but it seems to be the case that 60mm mortars will brew up MkIv's real fast with top hits. I do not know if the thread has scrolled or not, but some time was given to this issue over on CG Online when I first bought the game, with reference to this board.

Since QB's come with a practical limit on what one can buy, and with every scenario I've seen to date designed with something less than the sort of preplanned artillery orgasm you've bothered to suggest, it still boils down pretty much to this: is a (as in o-n-e) TRP worth buying? And the answer's still the same: do you feel lucky today? (Still wish I'd had a couple at Stoumont in that fog, though.)

Weeeeell...terrain analysis is pretty handy for figuring out where a guy's gonna be. You mean like the time I carefully planned a coordinated assault with a platoon of veteran infantry backed up by a couple of tanks and a machine gun and a mortar on an enemy platoon dug into their foxholes in a copse of trees . . . only to see Sergeant Tucker maniacally order his men to CHARRRRRGE!!! the enemy after taking a few piddly rounds of fire and get everyone slaughtered to the last man before they'd made the treeline? If he needs to advance infantry through cover, slap a TRP on patches of woods that look like good jumping off points to your defenses. On the maps I play on there are any number of these likely "patches of woods" you so shrewdly observe. Do you buy your TRP's a dozen at a time? If it's a heavily wooded map through which he needs to advance armor/mechanized forces, put TRPs in clearings and along roads. Dunno, I've bought four or five every time I've had the opportunity, and they've always served me well. Well, I must say I was at first disappointed not to have been afforded TRP's in the Stoumont scenario I finished the other night. That crossroad directly to the front of the town looked just too inviting for Jerry to pass up, but with heavy fog a TRP's the only way to get to it with much of anything. As it turned out, though, I needed nothing of the kind after the first 20 minutes of battle. (I was able to hold everything back until the Germans had finished emulating the famous "divide your command in three and charge like hell with your main force down into the river bottom Custer maneuver," at which juncture the old "It's a good day to die" philosophy sprang into my head and away we all went whoop-whoop-whooping! like the bunch of crazy savages we were. The resultant carnage was magnificent to behold. Seven Panthers, two MkIV's and five sundries all galloped off to that great happy hunting ground in the sky. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-20-2000).]

It sounds virtually impossible. But then that's almost my opinion regarding the use of rifle grenades most anywhere on heavy tanks (a Panther's technically a medium tank, but it was well-armored by the day's standards), and I've been told sternly that I'm all wet there. Freak, what message did you receive re specific damage to the tank when your Panther died? That might give a clue.

Yes, except for the small detail that all of the shells are gonna fall on and around that one tiny spot on the map. Should the enemy oblige and march right on over to that spot and park his rear until your ordnance arrives then all's well and good. Otherwise . . . . So, barring very special cases where you know where the enemy has to be, it's a little bit like placing a white chip or two on 00 for the hell of it.

No LOS is required for a TRP. That's the entire point of the exercise: the shot has been calculated beforehand down to the centimeter relative to the position of any artillery unit which chooses to fire at the TRP, and therefore LOS (via indirect fire) is assumed. However. If an artillery unit moves, then it loses forever its ability to fire at the TRP--except, of course, unless it happens to move within normal LOS of the TRP, in which case fire is conducted normally.

I saw this is an issue immediately upon my first play of VoT as the Americans. Second time around it was the same deal, with my Shermans again taking them out with rounds right down the chute. (My heavy artillery did bang on one of the concrete pillboxes until its crew ran for it.) When I played as the Germans the result was similar--tanks took 'em out again from long range. The GI's never got near them, anyway--they were too busy overrunning my poor squads of grunts well in front of my "forts."

The manual (pp. 59-60) alludes to this in an oblique manner with reference to the design decision to exclude white phosphorous ammo, partly for the reason that this ordnance was as often as not used for . . . marking targets. (The tortured logic of this point seems to be that BTS would rather keep the effect of air power as abstract as possible. This is probably a good a good idea, by the way.) The manual also goes on the mention that the primary reason it is not used is a fear on the part of the developers that gamers would likely use this ammunition in such an ahistorical manner as to unbalance play. I found that to be curious for a number of reasons, but I'll limit myself to calling everyone's attention to tungsten rounds, which not only cannot be abused with the way BTS has set it up but are something of a rarity to be seen used in play at all (I have yet to see one of my tanks shoot one off).

Yes, rushes are tough to stop unless you're thoroughly prepared for them. The computer opponent overwhelmed me the one time I played VoT as the Germans with such pell-mell tactics. I was flabbergasted! I'll tell you one thing: the more I play with this title the more I am forced to re-examine my old thoughts of "wargaming" because much of what worked so well before doesn't fly an inch in CMBO.

Allright, my reply to you is in the mail.

Of course the new nVidia technology is faster with new features and much more RAM (DDR at that). But the thing is . . . do you happen to have a use for all that video resource? The answer here is no. I run a modest (by today's state of the art) Diamond Viper V770 yet I have no problem with the games I play, and at higher resolutions. But then I'm not into software that demands high frame rates. If I played flight simulations or FPS then maybe a GeForce2 would be the way to go.

Yes, the line drawn taut as a string across the map not only leads to preposterous changes of real estate in the wink of an eye, some of which can seriously tilt the balance of play in the subsequent battle, but the technique is gamey to the point of being ridiculous. Why this "feature" was chosen is something curious indeed, and it shouldn't be all that hard to fix. Why not just leave soldiers on both sides positioned where they stand at the end of a battle, and then its for the opponents (AI or human) to decide if they wish to maintain their former positions or to set up farther to their respective rears? That would make sense. What we have makes no sense at all.

If you can find a dealer, audition the ViewSonic flatscreen monitors. I have the PT795 (19") and it looked to be the best on balance when I purchased a year and a half ago. I think that model's gone now, but something similar will be offered. As for refresh rates, nothing below 85MHz at decently high (1280 x 1024 and above) resolution cuts it, but don't worry, a quality monitor will handle that and better no sweat. Monitors are kind of like speakers for stereo systems--they're you're main interface with the rest of the system. Don't be afraid to invest a few more bucks.

Since this thread seems to be temporarily stalled I thought I'd toss in the following link: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/interviews/snodgrass/

Yeah, it took him all of thirty minutes to get up to full steam.

Have it your way then re doctrine. I do not complain about experts. I may argue for or against ideas they champion, but I'm fine with them personally. Also, I still have not pronouncd myself an expert on anything. I am an able man, though, and I do not apologize for that.