Marlow

You are wrong in oh so many ways: LVII. There is no Peng, only the challenge. #42. Assimilate you? That would require that we want you. We already have enough useless pillocks from [insert your country of origin here], why in the name of Fred would we want another? Secondly. Well, when you said "don't listen" you actually got one right (through blind luck most likely). They never do listen. We tell them time after time to "get out," "sod off," "shut up," but do they ever listen? Noooo.

I seem to remember a game against some lowlife that might have been you. IIRC, you were so inept that I felt sorry for you and was letting you win. No matter, since that file is only a distant magnetic memory on my harddrive. No time for the past send a CMBB setup. Preferably a scenario, but I'll do a QB as well.

I'd have been here sooner, but lately, every time I show up, I step in something like this: Seems like you aren't doing your job as rent-a-car very well. Might not happen if whoever started this thread had posted a better set of rules. ... Who started this thing anyway? ... let me check ... Oh, well that explains it.

Oh, lots of laughs, so long as it is other peoples' pictures.

What would you know about dense? You are a noxious stinky vapor that wafts through the Cesspool. You, Jo Xia are the polar opposite of dense.

Best news I've heard all day (well, that and the Senate elections).

Like Kanigget, like squire I always say. Pee El didn't fall far from the Seanachai tree.

He has proved nothing of the sort. What has been proved is that the difference is not sufficient to be significant in 200 test firings.

Why do you say that? I believe that sgt emren is correct. The variance described by treeburst seems entirely in line with no statistical difference. Masstrictian's test bears this out. (Nice work BTW, Chris).</font>

No I said that I saw this in CMBO. I never mentioned it on the forum. I was taking a look at Shermans vs. mark IVs, and I noticed that the outcome was dependent on which side was AI. I also noticed that this was likely due to the AI usually firing first. Manually targeting gave better results for the human. I don't have the actual numbers any longer.

Perhaps Pasco has given us the clue. By manually targetting, perhaps you are not always targetting the opponent who requires the smallest time for turret rotation, or perhaps you are retargetting to a different tank one the TacAI has already chose, causing an additional crucial delay. I am not discounting your research, but BFC have repeatedly said the AI does not cheat, so until proven it must be assumed the answer lies somewhere else.</font>

Happy birthday Sneezy.

Pardon my intrusion, but what is this “Challenge Ping” thread for anyway? For that matter, what is Peng, and how do you challenge one? Why does BTS allow this junk to pollute the front page of its forum anyway? Shouldn’t it be in the General forum where it can be properly ignored. Also, what is with the sheep, donkeys and gnomes? Shouldn’t you creeps take this stuff to the “alt.perverts” newsgroup, instead of wasting my time? Personally, I think that this Pang stuff should be outlawed, since it probably caused the forum to shut down yesterday, and I couldn’t check up on the latest Tiger tank optics thread. Think about all the bandwidth and hard drive space this crappy thread takes up. If it is going to stay here, can I join the club? Thanks for your attention.

Welcome to my world as a (primarily) allied player in CMBO. Cost of a Panther and easy 8 Sherman are about the same. Which is a better anti-tank tank? Hetzer anyone? There are a few things that can take on the StuG a bit earlier than Spring 44. I'll have to check, but I believe the SU 76 can do the job, and it is available in spring of 43. The SU85 and KV85 show up in the fall of 43. Finally, the much maligned Sherman becomes available in the fall of 42.

Did you show your teeth?

Oh, good. Open mike night at the CMBB forum. Ahem... Oh freddled gruntbuggly thy micturations are to me As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee. Groop I implore thee my foonting turlingdromes. And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles, Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't Thank you very much.

Seanachoo, since you brought up the whole member (down Bauhaus ... Bauhaus?) number thing, it got me to thinking. Might be a good idea to purge the ranks a little of our more stale members, sort of Logan's run style. Of course the Moldy Oldies such as yourself will be exempted. We can start will the ones with numbers under ... say ... 259. We can feed them to Fred. [ September 27, 2002, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Look in the credits to the manual.

Many thanks for the entertaining dissertation, but a simple “some jackass that got banned” would have probably sufficed. As far as Bowling for Deities goes, I would have thought that a polytheistic religion would have made for better ratings. For every spare you get a minor member of the pantheon, while for a Strike, you get Zeus or Vishnu or somfink. Maybe “Bowling for the Great Fred” would be better. I mean, we are talking people who bowl here. Which would you rather see: the winner gets forgiveness of all sin and eternal life, or watching mister polyester pants (Jo Xia would make a good first contestant) go mano-a-mano with the 2000 pounds of teeth, claws, white fur, and bad attitude. [ September 27, 2002, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Does a Craftsman staplegun count? Could cause a nasty flesh wound. Who the hell is Fred? I thought he was our Meeks eating polar bear (after eating Meeks would that be bi-polar bear?). [ September 27, 2002, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

I didn't know that fire and manuever and combined arms were very particular.

I strongly disagree. After playing a couple of battles, I think that infantry moral is just fine. Even in Yelina it seemed about right to me. With proper tactics I was able to even get about half my conscript company to advance all the way to the VLs. Sorry, but I think you have unrealistic expectations of what men should do under fire. CMBB conforms much better to actual battle accounts than does CMBO.

Your focus is too narrow. Germany's defeat was a result of actions by both the Sov. Union and the Western Allies. You only discuss ground fighting (where the Russians did do the most) and ignore other areas. Without lend lease (weapons, food, ammunition, tools, trucks, boots, etc...) made possible by the Western Allies winning the war in the Atlantic, and without the defeat of the Luftwaffe as a result of the stratigic bombing campaign, it is entirely possible that Germany would have won in the east.

Thanks for the response and explanations Major. I agree to the extent that units are performing the tasks assigned, or tasks foreseen as contingencies in the original orders, but the game gives the player the power to change plans at a moment’s notice, and give entirely new orders (perhaps unforeseen even a moment ago) to a large number of units scattered over many kilometers. This seems a bit much without some sort of command delay to simulate the time it takes the HQs to inform the subordinate units of the new plan, regardless of how good the commo net is. Also, direct communications by radio is not instantiations, and going through a relay is even more time consuming (been there, done that). Further, what if your force is using less than state of the art commo? Manual encode and decode of orders takes a while (also been there, done that). What about what we used to refer to as “operator headspace” malfunctions (i.e. the radio works fine, but the operator makes a mistake). This would not be uncommon for a green unit under fire for the first time. Finally, the enemy is not going to ignore your commo, and if they have the capacity, they are going to jam it. This is part of modern warfare that it largely ignored (in all games, not just Tacops). For armored units, this largely makes sense, although I’m not sure you are going to get that APC platoon to advance across that field where the company of T72s now sit as flaming wrecks. For soft targets, it is a little more complicated. At a minimum, pinning should be included to represent units that are under fire and cannot safely move. Not so much a morale, as a firepower factor. I was perhaps unclear. I was talking about buttons that would call up the appropriate menu, as an alternative to the pull down. Not to leave the arty or air support menus up full time.

Yes, I do like the feature, as it lets you make minor adjustments of the sort that the unit leader (squad leader or TC) would make when new information becomes available. An enemy target shows up at the spot your squad is moving towards, and you can change the waypoint a little to one side. This strikes me as the type of decision that the unit leader would make without consulting his PL or CC. I never did abuse this feature in order to maintain flexibility, and in any event, CMBB will penalize you for using additional waypoints (to maintain flexibility) by increasing command delay.