dieseltaylor

This is an ease of play feature : ) As you fired the tree moved to make sure the smoke screen was densest around your crew.

Yep, my mother-in-laws mouth.

Thanks for the spread range - I hate extremes! : ) You are right they did. I am just a completist: ) Especially if its not my time!

c3k - decent variation? Could you expand on that as I am conscious that for dome people 40-60 might be decent whereas 20-80 would be horrific in a U shaped graph. You say next test M3's - I had assumed it would be the German Halftracks firing at the troops and seeing if the gunners then truly die more quickly or less quickly than when they simply man the guns. Just to check its not freak configuration result on other machines. However as long as the tests are done it should be interesting.

From my current reading , the two last books of Nicholas Rankin,: I am getting more insights into the non-ground force Italian story. I have also just inherited "Courage Alone: The Italian Air Force 1940-43" which will help get a feel for that area. Looks a very good book .

Are you actually serious!? Or is it sarcasm? I can think of many countries with higher standards of living, longer life spans, better education, less corruption, less unemployment, and decent economies. We therefore might assume their management, to reach these levels, has been superior to that of the US rather than merely matching post-war US levels. Germany might be an obvious case in point. And if you want to choose 1992 as the beginning of a US decline from pre-eminence in management I still think you are doing a disservice to many countries in northern Europe.

JonS- I have not read the book but do agree with the basic premise in spades. I am currently reading a book on the 30th Commando and its genesis comes from the antics of the Germans in capturing the 4th Yugoslavian Army HQ and using the captured ciphers and communications to tell the troops that Yugoslavia had capitulated. Using intelligence to multiply effectiveness or destroy enemy cohesion is not dependent on Army size or superior technology - its the smarts to make best use.

Rather like saying breathing is a good thing. I am astonished that you considered Michael would suggest that a 1941 army would be effective against an Allied Army in 1944. So .... I think its because you are the way you are.

Surely stronger and weaker is still semantics at play. A 1940 Division is stronger in manpower but weaker in firepower than a 1944 division. How well in theory one would perform against the other might then be a matter of terrain and mission. As it happens the more useful view is how well would they perform against their enemies at that date. I have no doubt that the average 1940 German Division was much more effective than Allied divisions, and that in 1944 the average German division was not. I do not see how it can be argued any other way. The technology gap had been eroded and then gone to the Allies. The power in the air was now allied rather than Stuka heaven. Manpower and production wise the Allies were ahead. Germany vis a vis its opponents divisions was on a loser. Saying the German army was 100% bigger in manpower in 1944 is not proof of effectiveness. As I have pointed out that much larger army was spread over most of Europe so if you start stripping out the garrisons and the huge amount of troops in the logistical arm and guarding the lines the actual fighting value - as in number of combat troops available for action might not be hugely different. Its rather like Napoleon controlling Europe. Much bigger army than the UK but the UK under Wellington could land and beat all the armies sent him again and again. Of course Napoleon had a hugest most powerful army but the inability to put it into the Spanish field other than in chunk sized pieces showed that its what you can put where that is important.

JasonC - Long posts to say that their function was transport. No one has said differently so it seems to be flogging a dead horse. Given the time troops spent not fighting to fighting the absence or otherwise of them being in action is not very conclusive in helping to decide how much they were used overall. One imagines in places like the Balkans, Italy or dealing with the Maquis or perhaps a paratroop dropthat in fact they were the heaviest armoured vehicle around and would be used for fire support. I am sure the Germans were familiar with what was dangerous to their vehicles and would not use them unwisely given the importance of being mobile. Obviously from your examples sometimes the Germans gambled or an officer was unwise. Gamers are going to use them ahistorically as they are not required to move troops after the battle. There is an argument that in game they should actually be expensive items if lost so that us commanders treat them more historically/wisely.

I am having thoughts that semantics is being a bugbear. Weaker and stronger are relative terms and if used in terms of fighting value is different from the amount of men in an Army or combined arm force totals. I would have thought pound for pound the German 1940 division being 40% stronger in manpower than a 1944 division [in the unlikely event it was at full strength] had a longer capacity to keep fighting against its foes of that era. Just out of curiosity Jason I was wondering how far the German Army was extended in 1944 compared to 1940. The force in Norway had risen to 370,000 by 1944. Denmark had seven divisions pre D-Day. I have no figures for the Balkans but I know 40,000 were on the Aegean islands just before the retreat from Greece. The garrison figures for the Balkans and France pre-invasion are no doubt significant also. You say " The total manpower in the armed services, all branches, was 6.6 million in 1940 but 12.24 million in 1944. " but is it really fair to count 2.3m non-combatants? Essentially I am suggesting that numbers alone do not prove that an army is more potent. If it is diffused across Europe its overall practical fighting value is lower. I am ignoring also the draining effects of supplying troops over vast areas.

Tarzan - Angle is looking very interesting. V2.xx I assume? baneman - good spot, good testing!

arpella72 - You are correct - but then UK tank tactics were not of the best : ) Actually the real reason they could do that was the 2pdr was aimed by a shoulder brace so that the gunner was the stabilisation method. More accurate and responsive than a mechanical system but still not accurate. Also with 80 rounds for the tiny Matilda stowage/usage was not a problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Loading_Valentine_tank_2_pdr_gun_IWM_E_9766.jpg Once guns became bigger and more powerful this was simply impossible as the weight and inertia in the gun became too great - not to mention the recoil. Longer gun barrels also presented problems when moving and a search of literature will find examples of damaged barrels during movement - famously three Tigers at once. Now consider in the heat of battle firing at an angle to movement with the barrel jumping up and down as the tank bounces along. Just not going to happen.

If effective gyro-stabilised guns were available in 1940-45 it would be brilliant but historically wrong.

Stronger in what way. A modern bridge may be "stronger" in terms of what it can carry in weight but that is not the same question as how hard is it to destroy. There is quite a lot on concrete bridges falling down and being demolished. Also on them being built. Concrete bridges tend to be pre-stressed concrete bearers with panels and designed without any excess over-engineering. I suspect that stone bridges are over-engineered and therefore more massive.

I have looked and you are right that they do vary very considerably giving useless things such as "sighted to" though it was known to be inaccurate at half that range!. I have never found a single source that just gives effective ranges .... and if it did I would want to cross-check : ). I think 80 metres seems to be the concensus for effective range though I think the Thompson should be less AFAIR. One other thing is actually how much ammo did they have and did doctrine require them not to waste it. If you are going house clearing letting fly with half your ammo at fleeting targets 150 metres away would not impress the lads. These comments on a HK MP5 - 1960's designed SMG may be of interest :

Agree with 54 & 55.

Apocal Your post reminded me that in both German and Allied cases the experience gained previously was not necessarily useful. There was a German Panzer unit arriving from Russia got their arses kicked in Normandy and all the lessons that the Desert Rats had from swanning in the desert were no use in mainland Europe. But more to the point their misunderstandings proved to be expensive before re-learning.

larry - I don't particularly follow Matrix/Slitherine so I can only go by the one thread I read so perhaps I am too forgiving. I will do some research ......... I have looked at the three companies websites and see a commonish pricing policy and of course the ability, unlike for BF, of selling into your local market boxed games. I am sure that the pricing policy does make sense for the companies. To a degree earlier games may cannibalise your sales of new products particularly if they are already highly-rated and cheaper than your new games which may have only PR puff. I can know of at least two commercial companies who virtually died by pricing what they did too cheaply. One unbelievably was doing developmental work for GM but was not charging the correct on-cost of the engineers involved. Having happy clients but going tits-up in business happens much more than people think. Depending on the various licenses then Matrix etc can possibly remove the rights of previous retail sellers. Pre-owned disks I am sure will circulate and the price rise : ) PS. I do think you actually still have three managements/developers but they sensibly IMV are trying to minimise costs by better distribution AND not price-cutting to get more sales potentially at similar companies expense.

Thanks Erwin. Yikes! So presumably V2.01. Does not seem believable for mortars and tanks to be doing this in the timescales. Still it does explain why Market Garden was doomed : ) Anyway what can be found on bridge destruction by mortars and tanks. http://www.slobodanpraljak.com/english/knjiga_most_eng.htm PS. For the tanks I suppose if they were very close and firing at their highest rate they may be effective against some of the bridges as they can aim at the weakest point in each structure. Knowledge of where the weakest point is would be good knowledge to have. The fact that engineers are sued to lay explosives does however tend to suggest that two tanks or two 75mm + guns are not the best method. http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/OrdnanceJournal/Issue1/3002_Bridges.pdf

Ah you can always be relied upon to miss any subtlety in a post Jon. : )

Seems an interesting discussion. One of the oddities is that someone believes a thee year old game should be cheap because it is three years old. I wonder what his feelings are about the boardgames Monopoly and Acquire which are probably more expensive than when launched. Is it possible that a very good game is pretty much always going to be a good game? CMAK will always be a very good game so provided it can run on a current operating system should always remain a seller at a reasonable price. If AGEOD has been mispriced by box-shifters down then whoever owns the rights is at perfect liberty to suggest a different selling strategy. Buying from a games house and keeping them going is something most of us can identify with.

Interesting points. I was going to jump in with a QB explanation - including points- but in view of VAB's question I would be wrong. ! I do hope contributors will be able to come up with a good summary in the end.

I would agree that the mortar effectiveness seems very unlikely against stone bridges. I can see parapet walls being damaged and destroyed but given mortar bombs barely penetrate thin armour and the explosive effect is upwards it does seem wrong. Perhaps this a hangover from the early days of CMBN before buildings became more robust - can you provide data on when this was done? Interesting research which for a gamer can be a handy piece of knowledge!

My view on BF is that I want them to be successful - better stated as even more successful. I think any games that educates players on terrain types, history, geography and technology is great. That it can engage the brain creatively and provide laughs is a bonus. Whatever I think of CMBN V1.00 is now history. Given I was never part of the CMSF experience when I came to buy CMBN I thought it was a honed and substantially finished item given all the buzz about the CMSF patches. The super tank targeting a la moderns was a rude shock. But that has been changed. I read the comments above on Manuals and problems. I can understand the late changes etc but it seems to me that an error is to look at the Manual as a static item. If it were linked to an on-line version then the Manual could be amended and effects explained in view of reader feedback. Looking at the downloadable .pdf makes me realise the constraints that there are when making a printed manual to fit a boxed game. Bigger manual constrained by cost and box size is a physical limiter so providing on up-dated and expansive guide on-line surely is good. The other point is to be upfront on the game compromises. It is a highly realistic game but why not make a virtue of explaining why and where it is not historically accurate. For instance " In CM V2 the reverse speeds of all vehicles have been standardised at xmph . This is for the benefit of the AI [ i make that up] but may be changed in due course. Compared to the actual vehicles in WW2 this has been a great benefit to tanks were reverse speeds vary from 1.5 to 5.5 mph. The Tiger with its 4 speed gearbox being the fastest. The biggest losers are the recon armoured cars such as A and B where having two drivers and the right gearbox could travel at speed in either direction." and this " The modelling of the depression and elevation of a tanks main gun has not been modelled because it is computational difficulties which may affect real time play and also very hard on players deciding what there chances would be when going across slopes. The downside is that armour main guns are not hampered in shooting at top stories when very close. Of the two alternatives this is the least damaging to game play." You get the drift. I think the game would be easier to play with a better explaining manual and awareness of compromises - and in my book easy to play equals more buyers. Certainly for CM V2 one might start with a little competition on explaining how Quick Battles score in a pithy style understandable by most and this could form the start of an on-line exampled manual. So your starter for ten is: BTW the manual does make good sense mostly. Though for me it would be nice for screen reading if it were not in the two column format and if web-based provide jpg. examples from game. How much time would be required for a manual to be up-dated online. I don't know because if the community can submit worked examples where it is currently opaque and these are peer reviewed and added once a month to a semi-official site I would think not huge. Are there are enough interested parties judging by the forums for this work? The added load to BF would be presumably to read the monthly up-date to check nothing totally wrong was included! : )