dieseltaylor

JC - the specific point that I wanted answered was how do you account for players moving guns and then finding that an enemy tank has appeared in a position which gives your gun an unfair advantage. Your answer not to play me hardly seems adequate as the point is a general one for all players. One option is to ban players from moving guns but then the cure is worse than the problem surely. As for playing you JC that would never be my wish as your fame is such to spread fear amongst many players - even to the extent some avoid the BF forums. Incidentaly I agree with you about 37mm armed US tanks but I cannot recall you mentioning a fix for that. I use them still as I believe that you have to play with what the game provides. My only exception is the Italian para SMG troops where there exists reasonable alternatives. Do you restrict them in your games?

Even these day camera enthusiast reports on optics highlight significant differences in optical clarity, flaring, vignetting, etc. Sixty years on and there is still difference : ) I am sure though the military don't skimp on quality now days!

Precisely why the Shermans with a 76.2mm acquired a very Germanic muzzle brake. There was concerns it might be too German looking for safety. More here: http://wapedia.mobi/en/M4_Sherman?t=5.

I would prefer better data but .... and I was aware there was a mistake or two in the data. For effective purposes I think the 88mm in any guise was going to kill any Western Allied tank so I worry not on that point. The Panther - way wrong. The Tiger I was not obsolescent in terms of being a tank that was now vulnerable to other tanks - but better armoured than most and capable of defeating vanilla Shermans quite easily. Seemed to do mighty fine in quite a few battles. However when compared to BFronts rapid fire Allied tanks with big guns then the picture is made too rosy for the Allies. Panthers being historically more correct for Normandy - true.

I have found it - my thread at WeBoB

It is interesting to see that Battlefront gave a generic rate of fire to all Shermans despite it being known that the Firefly and 76.2mm US were 50% slower firing than other Shermans. Obviously this makes them more potent than in real life as they have the killing power of a Panther and fire quicker than any kitty. Furthermore the dust thrown up by the 76.2mm was such that when first introduced it helped to have another tank spot for where the shell went! Definitely not conducive to rapid aimed fire - unless particularly close to a large targeted building : ) If I can find my notes AFAIR the Fireflies were firing pretty one more than a Tiger per minute. The Tiger book I have quotes a rate of 8 rounds per minute which I assume is semi-aimed fire. It has to be appreciated that the Tiger was possibly a better gun platform than a Sherman with HV cannon shoehorned into a small turret. *Incidentally, in a scenario, I found that two Tigers would shoot vanilla Shermans rather than Fireflies even when given targeting orders just so they can get a percent or two better chance of a hit. They only both died to the Firefly - which rather screws the historicity as German Tigers would always go for Fireflies as a priority target in RL. So just bear in mind to always have a vanilla sacrificial Sherman out front whilst using your Firefly.

? Insightful or inciting?

I am now looking forward to the banning of all US 37mm armed US armour on the basis of JC's statement they are ludicrously overpowered. What fun we can have sorting the game out. Borg spotting minimised by playing at level one only. Yippee. We can solve all these important bugs if we really try. Then lets get started on the Russian 76.2mm .... Mind you I know some plonkers who play it for fun! Phew weird !

ZDNET reveals attackers name: : )

Third time a charm?

Not having experimented with this defect I really cannot argue whether you are correct in stating that it is only infintesimal lobes or not. My gut instinct is that there are not many positions that would meet your criteria on a normal CM map - the subtlties of contour simply do not occur very often. However I would never waste time seeking them out to prove or disprove your contention. You still avoid the very pertinent point that if I advance my guns across a hillside I might accidentally arrive in such a situation - what is the cure. Judging from your remarks you must play some quite gamey characters - or ones you are distrustful of. I only play for fun and in the probably 300+ games I have played I have only had a couple of games where someone has cheated deliberately. That people may have accidentally put their gun in a position where I accidental blunder into it and it is well shielded from I put down to Dame Fortune, and for me, her daughter Miss Fortune. I will continue to treat my opponents as honest men - and having played 70+ opponents I have probably played many more than most non-ladder CM players.

Apologies had not read the dates of the posts. Subject matter too interesting. My point about guns being approached by tanks from areas which would then put the gun in an unacceptably advantageous [to you] position you do not answer. I am at a loss to think what is the answer in that case: Do you require the ATG to be moved to a position where it can be killed? Or put on a covered arc to stop it firing? Never place or move guns where there may be an angle that creates the situation? As the attacker has chosen that route do you ask him to desist using that route as it is playing on your sportsmanship in not using your gun? What is the practical answer?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=4614&tag=nl.e589 Kind of major threat. How to screw the superior browser. It does tell you how to protect yourself by turning off the Microsoft add-in

: ) and Les Grogs?

Typical bloody Berlusconi - straight as a corkscrew. Your darn right there should be an apology - if not more. It has just struck me that the recnt removal of Berlusconi's legal immunity by the Italian High Court nay not be unrelated to a move to get rid of the stupid old goat.

: ) 4.52 on my second go .. when I actually understood what I was doing. My closest scores being a pair of 0.2units

http://woodgears.ca/eyeball//index.html Actually rather a fun one and not too long.

Hindsight is wonderful - but a failed attack at Messina would have been catastrophic. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-MTO-Salerno/USA-MTO-Salerno-3.html and

Not a very funny subject really Which raises the whole question of people damaging themselves for gain. PS - I wonder if they asked about steroid and drug habits ......

EEEK no! It has a practical and an educational use which an i-phone does not. I can sit and read interstin stuff while having a bath, or more likely waiting for my wife, or away on holiday. And then there is always a chance someone will stop and ask you a question like where is Anapolis : )

Cheating - no fear. Simply to read at my leisure or carry to less enlightened friends without computer access! I cannot think how anyone of passing intelligence would not want to carry one. : )

Sergei - you seem ignorant of what the UK did use its womanpower for. But feel free to comment anyway : ) Just in case you wondered the Royal Navy grew by 731,000 during the war. The Merchant marine was about 280000 and lost 40000 so a higher loss rate than the fighting forces. [bomber Command had a 44% loss rate for aircrew-125000] Perhaps you have figures/percentages of population for the other combatants? This may help: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/nw-europe/15313-normandy-no-real-british-manpower-shortage.html showing a number of AA units being used to provide infantry If you want further information on the UK's use of people look under Land Army, WRENS, WRAAF, etc. - and most industries had female labour replacing men.

What not to do or how to screw your company: http://www.edn.com/blog/1690000169/post/1830049583.html?nid=3351&rid=7231091 The readers commments are illuminating also.

I am not rich either - despite my joke interest in the 11500$ TV. Technology in TV's is going so fast now that one can quite happily miss a couple of generations and still be a very happy bunny. Good, nay great design, does not get overtaken very easily. His vacuum cleaners are still pricey even with competitors in the market. The patent protection on this is probably again watertight so I dont' see the price dropping for the odd 20 years! Thank god its not a film or book they get at least 70!!!! Thanks Hollywood.

Following the last up-date my computer that could play EoS cannot [yet] so I cannot look at the game. My first reaction is that spy planes are very specialist and very expensive in the real world whereas maritime patrol planes are cheap. To return to WW2 the planes like the Sunderland, Emily, PY4b and Condor were used for reconaissance [and sometimes attacking]. The Sunderland had a range of 1800 miles and carried more MG's than any plane during the war.The Condor was the first plane to fly commercially non-stop across the Atlantic and is implicated in the destruction of 330000tons of shipping. The Emily had a range of 4400miles!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuF4wGkHA5g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_H8K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sunderland Recon over enemy territory required very fast or highflying planes like Mosquitoes, Spitfirs, and Lightnings. Completely different from the maritime planes.