dieseltaylor

I do not know if it is modelled in the game but I have always understood that if you have many guns firing at a target then correcting your own aim becomes quite difficult if shots are landing pretty much simultaneously. How do you know which miss, or even a hit relates to your aim, how do you correct it? Is it you shooting over or are you the one shooting short? Good this be an example of subtle programming?

Could the order they are spotted be a reflection on the size of the object? Trucks and halt-tracks then jeeps ..... the infantry guys are not going to be that big. I agree it is a little offputting to have correct i.d's at range but then if I saw a truck up within shooting range I would kill it quick on the basis it can tow unpleasant a/t guns and carry a suad or spotters - a very good reason for clocking them. In reality I know that they are not carrying supplies but in Russia I would assume they are this close to the front bringing ammo,food or reinforcements -- all vey good reasons for a quick death. As T34's are pants at killing Stugs I would'nt necessarily get too upset at going for the light stuff first. {You do not say if the units are moving which would make them even more visible at range}

Thanks for the info. I read your previous post also but if I have nothing to offer I do not like to add extra useless posts ---sort of like this one !! But then again if it encourages you to research and post then it is worthwhile.

I dislike the idea. The atmosphere and the attention to detail would be degraded by faked "english". Now as to having an available mod, no doubt a huge project to do, to switch into english seems a nice idea. But .... My strong concern is it seems to be a form of cultural imperialism - I can't be arsed to guess/learn what the exclamations mean so lets put it into English [with the dangerous thick foreigner syndrome because the characters do not speak proper English ]. I suspect in some countries it would become the de facto standard mod - realism would be lost for what I consider to be an unfortunate reason. I play CMBB without understanding either language - but the tone of voice and situation the troops are in is normally clue enough. My pennyworth P.S. For some of the best spoken English you need to go to India

Extracted after a search!!! I was setting up another June 1941 game and was surprised by the variety of Rocket artillery available to both sides at the start of the war. German June 1941 158mm Rocket – 36 tubes 108 Ammo This is presumably the 150mm Nebelwerfer 41 or more properly called the Wurfgranate 41? (could fire He or smoke) Presumably this represent a battery of six – each of which has six launchers. (Ok apart from disagreement over calibre this is ok) 280mm 36 tubes 72 ammo This is presumably 280mm Wurfkorper Spreng Incendiary Rocket 337mm. Is this the 320mm Wurrfkorper MF1 50 that had an incendiary warhead in heavy liquid form? These two-rocket systems service date starts in 1940 and originally had wooden carrying crates that doubled as launcher platforms. Seen period photos of them been fired singly from the ground or could be mounted on the sdkfz 251 with six rockets or other vehicles including captured French tanks sometimes with only four Rockets. Again only small argument over calibre. The Germans used Rocket artillery from the beginning of the war. Four Nebelwefer Regiments of the Wehrmacht were among many artillery units that opened fire on June 22nd of 1941 at 3:15am, beginning the Operation "Barbarossa". Russian June 1941 132mm M-13 64 tubes 82mm M-8 64 tubes This time we have the luxury of knowing what system is represented. I have issues with such an early representation as it is known that Red Army used rocket artillery for the first time on July 14/15th 1941, firing at the rail station at Orsza (controlled by the Army Group Centre) on the Minsk-Moscow route. As far as I am aware the Russians at this time had only one battery operational and Stalin considered them a state secret and the battery was carefully guarded by the NKVD. I am not sure what type was used on this occasion but I have always assumed it was the M-13 on Zis trucks Therefor Russian rocket systems should not appear in the game until July and be very rare on this occasion. Although it is known that the Russians put a lot of effort into researcher multiple rocket systems in the 1930s and the M-8 ad M-13 were designed in the late 1930s. I am not sure when Russian Rocker systems start to become common – I would suspect Oct/Nov 1941 at the earliest. Like the Germans a wide variety of launcher platforms were used including T-70 tanks, and Studebakers, Fords, Chevrolets trucks. Late in war armour-piercing and flare rocket types were produced for the BM-13. Checked for June 1942 and by then following had been added to lists by then German Rocket 214mm Probably the 210mm Nebelwerfer 42 or 21cm Wurfgranate 42 Spreng. If so the date of introduction is to early because it first went into action on the Russian Front in 1943 as problems with the launcher design delayed its introduction. The tubes were reduced from 6 to 5. Russian Rocket 300mm M-30 These were first fired from their Rama frames in German fashion sometimes diretly at tanks and houses at close range. In March 1944 a mobile launcher was introduced that carried 12 rockets on a Zis–6 truck. Only had HE warheads and the range was much shorter than the other systems limiting its use. Info from the Achtung Panzer site and WWII: The Directory of Weapons book. To sum up for 1.02 patch can Russian Rockets be moved back to July at least and be made a bit uncommon until 1942, the German Rocket 214mm is to early if I am right in thinking that is the 210mm Nebelwerfer 42 its entry date should be Spring 43 (February - my guess on this exact month). Pretty please with holly on top. Maybe also adjust calibre of German Rockets as listed in game. [ December 17, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear

In fact from the quote you made it is unclear what is meant. AFAIK I have done both but always assumed that advance meant your men were naturally taking advantage of any cover [hollow or hillock] possible as they advanced. If you are not time constrained then plottting their route so that you put them through more "useful" terrain would make sense. The downside is that advance is a tiring form of movement and the more way points you plot the longer they will take to cover the distance.

Bumpity bump. Very good site, interesting articles - particularly about Hobart. Fancying being Montgomery's brother-in-law! Worth exploring - but don't rush from the main index and keep the speakers on.

A certain amount of dogmatism and pigheadedness is necessary in science." - Karl Popper JasonC ... now I see it was a well-chosen motto by you Obviously no point in quoting examples of Wellington acheiving objectives without too much loss then. I give-in Wellington was not major league. But how do we convince the rest of the world??? It is awkward that he never played in the major league but then he in the sub-100,000 class along with Marlborough, Gustavus Adolphus, and Frederick the Great. Perhaps can we not agree that he was an extremely able corps commander with strategic vision, organisational and political skills. And he was very lucky. ?

Originally posted by dieseltaylor: "I say Wellington was a fine defensive commander not because he never attacked ..." And I was quoting JasonC who had commenced this part of the thread with : "Wellington was nothing to write home about. He was a competent defender, that is about all that can be said for him." I must say I think that certainly there were very good Allied commanders - notably Blucher [and his staff!]. But JasonC is still dismissive of the Duke on the basis of his record in the 100,000+ class. Well it's unfortunate he only had a played one won one record but then as it was a knock-out that was it! Still can we look at his previous history of being lucky and extrapolate a bit? Salamanca 1812 French losses 14,000 out of 49,500 and the British/Portugese/Spanish 4,762 out of 51,562. Admittedly the Duke did not pursue the broken French and his seigecraft did not look good but not everything was great. Vittoria 1813 French @ 57,300 losses 8,008 Allies 88,726 losses 4,927 Not an overwhelming result but a large force in difficult terrain in which to bring numbers to bear If you look at the way Wellington turned the line of the French defences along the river Bidassoa you must admire his skill in getting what he required with minimal loss of manpower Again demonstrated at the crossing of the Nivelle line! And he did quite nicely in India too! Come on JasonC upgrade him slightly!!!

pbem helper rocks ... and sucks Great little utility for PBEM really really useful. Sucks. The film per turn thing has been a bugger to get working - only managed it once. I suspect my opponent and I are screwing up somewhere. I look forward to the day we master it!!!!

It is hard to say whether JasonC is being provocative or he his expertise does not include the Napoleonic wars. "Wellington was nothing to write home about. He was a competent defender, that is about all that can be said for him." I suppose we will just call him lucky actually. I am not sure if he ever lost a battle but lets say his win/loss record was exceptionally good. Now he might have been a bit underhand and only fought battles he knew he would win. And then again to always [nearly] to arrange to fight in defensive positions was no doubt a tribute to the enemy in bringing him to battle. Definitely a lucky general. I agree absolutely with JasonC terrain limitations to army size. But I think the willingness to take English gold by Continental nations and fight on was helped by the knowledge that the Spanish, Portugese and English were able to give the French serious grief in Spain. OOh! JasonC recanting a little "I say Wellington was a fine defensive commander not because he never attacked .." Well I suppose it beats "..was a competent defender"

Yes happened in a PBEM game completed to last week - finished at about 33. Very confusing as in PBEM with all the mailing back and forth I was getting v. confused as to how many minutes passed. Now that really is Fog of War and as you can imagine if I had had any troops left I hadn't a clue as to timing the last minute flag rush!!!!

Hat Trick's idea of a longer period after a flag changes hands has a lot of merit - simple to implement and effective.

Have you accidentally turned your smoke off? !! Actually in my current game I am popping smoke like a train , mortars off=board , on-board and my Valentines. The t34's are providing smoke when they burn........ Five Panthers get lots of respect at 800 metres when you cannot flank them. It seems the Soviets did'nt use smoke tactically from their tanks - shells or smoke mortars. In another recent thread [last ten days] this is discussed more knowledgeably.

bump

Regarding samey ME. I started a thread in March - Patrix's Uncertainty Principle which was exploring the benefits of choosing mismatched forces [points] in meeting engagements. You over or underspend by the 100/200 points and adjust the score in the flags at the end of the game. It prevents people knowing you have to go for the majority of flags and deducing your force make-up. Please give it a read and give me your comments http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006366#000000

Congratulations - great site, great idea I am hoping to launch a tourney in my local area, using the library and press, myself stumping-up for some prize money. Early days yet but this kind of site is brilliant for introducing the uninitiated to the "Great Game". I believe it to have immense educational value and compared to the trigger reaction games is far more likely to get youngsters to realise war can be very terminal

I have been following this tourney since the beginning ,mainly because my brother is involved, and we have played some games using the same settings. However given that they are all apparently PBEM we have experimented with 3000 pointers [on huge maps]which take no longer to play than the 1500 pointers. The blessing is that with 3000 points you can get a balanced force with reasonable scouting artillery tanks and infantry. This 3 tanks and thats your lot leaves one very conscious of how much "lucky" shots can ruin your day. I recommend you look at the possibility

Nice foregoing item with the actuals. My initial reaction to the post is that I naturally assume that second line equipment goes to quieter areas of the front. Yugoslavia, the garrison units in non-active occupied Europe have very high percentages of the lesser AFV's. Your best tanks go to Russia and North Africa and therefore would justifiably be more common than a simple percentage of total AFV's would indicate. Secondly I think the rarity factor has the unintentional and saddening effect of meaning some tanks will never see action. In meeting engagements, with unit restrictions, where humans choose the choice tends to be simply the most effective bangs for the buck and you this virtually always means MKIV's MKIII' and Sturm's and whatever flavour T34 is cheapest at that time. With two rational people you can pretty much guarantee the number of AFV's per side. You can also guarantee about 19 tanks you are never going to see because of the cost/rarity equation! But its a wonderful game.

bumpity bump Very slick. Haven't quite mastered the two turn mode but my brother and I will master it. Probably after we have read all the instructions and the threads. Coo at that stage I think we will try playing in different rooms!!!!

If I recall correctly the game was never envisged to be in the micro-management school so I think the game works fine in that respect. It would seem from the postings that a 20mtr last leg is fine for the AI to work with. Also that if you are not travelling fast the AI is OK. All in all I think the game delivers.

I was wondering if there was/had ever been clever programming that covered the general deterioration in gun-laying that should occur if multiple sources are firing at the same target. How do you know it's your shell that was short/left/right etc? Presumably in WW2 this would have been a problem.Is this a grog question?

I was going to say well done , excellent news to have another in the fine series so soon - but then apparently thats already been said. So BUMP

MikeyD - so your still in favour of the magic spells then? That instant marsh under the Jagdtiger was a killer, haven't laughed so much for ages

I have actually played games where I have deliberately ignored going for the flags but regarded them as bait. Admittedly not all battlefields are conducive to this approach. A friend of mine in CMBO played a game in which all flags were in this small town. As the Allies he had decided to buy some 14" artillery .... laugh .... the German player? Disappointed would cover it amply. A more commom approach for me is to see if I can flank the flags and waste the units he has put into position around it/them expecting a frontal assault intent on grabbing the flag. Even more amusing is when you crawl a unit on a hide order into woods adjacent to his units and negate the flag value at the end of the game.