dieseltaylor

Actually it loses a lot of its laugh if you realise 99% of the readers don't know who the Australian I am referring to is! : (

I am confused is that France, China or the UK? : ) Pine forests tend to monoculture because the pine needle carpet prevents other species from growing, its not just a light thing. There is also root warfare for example: Fascinating stuff. Beautiful street scene RockinHarry. I had no idea how complex the modelling side could be. And the range of trees ... wonderful.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/diver-snaps-first-photo-of-fish-.html?etoc&elq=109fbee3755d4df0a30b732a3ad0da9a Well it looks like we underestimate what the rest of the animal kingdom can do.

Sorry I have not got all your stats. Are they available anywhere? I do have the test set-up and the first stats. As to using other tanks it might establish if there is a generic spotting regardless of tank. And for that matter if you have less crew : ) If this seems bizarre to want to know it really is not if you want to have confidence in moving and fighting knowing how often and big serious differences are changes how many men you put to the task.

One thing about the spotting should be the range if we are going to compare the comparative spotting abilities of the tanks. We could also get cute and see if actual tanks differ. And whether looking inot the sun is significant, and in low light do the superior optics make a difference. However what I am finding interesting from a players point of view is the amount of variation in spotting times. There are two things here: 1. Confidence as a player in what one might expect in spotting terms. 2. Can it be right that in identical circumstances there is such huge variation Whist siffo's figures show wh o spotted first graphing them shows there is something interesting. Panthers do not spot at all in 17 instances and Shermans 4 times. Off hand I cannot recall the rnage. Siffo am I right in what I observe?

I love maps and I love travel. I love to see scenarios where you really buy the scenery. I am not the world greatest expert on land use, or the pre-1940's but I thought I would mention that if you desire to make great scenary you have to move your mind to a critical level. Ali-Baba has done a really nice map - Acropolis- and it has some truly inspired touches - the soccer pitch, the worked out quarry used as an ampitheatre. That is beautiful stuff. We have exchanged e-mails on a couple of points which are not big but are valid for discussion by my critical eye motto. The rail line has a very nice bridge but being built 100-200 metres inland would have made more sense as no bridge would be required. To the railbuilders the bridge is an expensive option to build and maintain. Its not a biggy and for most people perhaps would go unnoticed. But Ali-Baba wanted a bridge : ) And I say why not - a designer should be free to do what they want. However if you are going to try for realism as your ultimate goal then looking at each item and say does this make sense is a good practice. I know you can have multi-storey buildings, up to 8 levels. Think carefully as to how common were tall buildings pre-1940. Pictures of bombed cities do show taller buildings but 8 stories would be extremely rare outside a major city centre. Four stories would be fine for most tall buildings in a biggish town. Why do you get taller buildings in towns? Because land is expensive, where there is lots of land people would build a town outwards at lower level as it is cheaper. Another thought harking back to CM*1 days is that try to think of scale - I remember an old map where apparently the natives felt substantial bridges a 100 metres apart was a likely thing to happen in the midst of the countryside over a smallish river. It may have been done for play balance but it was also jarringly unlikely. Anyway that is my little piece on realistic terrain. If you are curious if your finalised map rouses any thoughts in me feel free to contact me through clicking on my name and sending a message for my e-mail address. Of course you have an absolute right to design what you want, and you may know physical features I do not, so I am not at all dogmatic as to what is right and wrong. I only suggest : )

I am surprised that thye are a "mine field". In a game I played two squads wafted right through and one guy in the third squad got hit. When I say wafted through they just did not know the minefield existed.

I have a little mini-drill kit with a range of attachments. I would imagine doing plastic models using a little grinder on the end of the flexible hose would be a lot safer. : ) And for getting rid of those annoying bumps left by the sprue.

I thought about it a lot : ) But then it is a pet topic for the last 4 years. Perhaps familiarity with bocage type hedges means I feel aggrieved in how thye are portrayed. In CMAK an M8 would go through in about 10 seconds. Given I had read a US tankers account of what a real bastard it was to charge and bounce off etc etc I thought it rather underplayed in the game. I blame the propaganda news reels showing M3 Honey's charging through mini-hedges conveniently located near passing cameramen : )

Thanks for the detail Wine Cape. I ran some tests with a zig-zagging Sherman at fast on normal terrain versus a stationary MkIV and the Sherman was occasionally nailing the MkIV with first time shots at 1000 metres whilst moving. ANd then adding a couple more as it travelled on. The actual set-up I got from another player who also reported high hit rates whilst moving at 1000 metres - I did zig-zag because that should be more diifficult for the Sherman gunner. However learning it was to be sorted I have never written it up though I have a few tests saved. The details you have from the manual seem the same as mine regarding emergency use. The information about the gyro-stabiliser is highly interesting and having read it I can see why the British were not very keen on using it. SO as I understand it the fire on move has been tweaked and is/is not to be tweaked again? MikeyD - I have just finished my fifth PBEM.,am adding to a little CM wiki, and running a little mini-competiton with 10 players, checked a film AAR for typos language, and looked at two scenarios for typos etc, so I am not really doing much looking at the system myself.

SO you mean all our p******g around has been a waste of time because you and the other playtesters and BF knew it was nerfed and were working to sort it out. Good to know. Incidentally is it not customary to have beta-testers with a tag so we know who actually knows what is going on as opposed to just Joe Soap.? As for the firing on the move at under 600yards can you direct me to the manual as it would be interesting.

Roulette wheels have no memory but then the chances of them being perfectly balanced is another matter entirely : ) And as for the skill of putting the ball into play ..... For some reason casinos keep a very good record of the numbers turning up on each wheel - perhaps they don't believe in totally random either. : )

I have no finished my game where my veteran officer was shooting across 61 metres to a squad issuing from a doorway . I think the potential 32 rounds from an MP40 did not do the damage expected but will go back and check how the five casualties credited to him were gained. His end was ignominous in that being aware of enemy troops on the corner of the building three of them run right in front of the very large window of which he was looking out. Not only did he not fire he apparently did not see them at all to recognise they would enter the house and shoot him in the back as he continued to stare out the window. Hopefully having both passwords I will be able to run these episodes a few times.

There is acomplication in that tanks sometimes report an enemy icon but until it becomes a tank will not fire. I think this mucks the figures slightly. Out of 6 tests the Shermans are 5 to 1 ahead. The last one was an icon job where despite spotting a US icon with 40 seconds to go it was never resolved as atnak and despite fire form the 0.5" and two hits from a 75mm it remained that way with the Panther backing up. I did check for sun direction but it is laid out north south and is 9 am. Seventh test. No spotting until last ten seconds when Panther spots the Sherman. Sherman oblivious.

plebiscite= referendum plebians, plebs = f, pertaining to, or belonging to the ancient Roman plebs. 3. common, commonplace, or vulgar: a plebeian joke. –noun. 4. a member of the common people. ...

There are other Tiger engines on YouTube : ) I accept what you say re the popping but what is the real difference is the way the Maybach seems to shift the air - it is a very visceral experience and I wonder if there are some subsonics not consciously registered. Perhaps some reverb to account for what may be screened out by the varied sound equipement built into modern cameras. Just a thought.

I have just run two tests and in neither did the Panther spot the Sherman until it was hit by the 75mm shell.. However the variation in spotting and firing between the two tests was remarkable. In the second test the Panther was spotted within 2 seconds and the first shot 29.50. The first one the Sherman saw a shape at 29.53 but commenced aiming at 29.33 and fired 29.10 PS. I wondered if having a wall a hundred metres behind the Panther actually makes it easier to see. There may be a presumption that an empty edge is a foliage covered back-drop and that helps the Sherman blend in.

Interesting stuff. I have an observation. Firstly that hopefully this is already being dealt with to a degree in V1.01 in terms of speed of target acquisition. Secondly, you say spots and shoots first. I would be very interested to know if the spotting time is the significant feature. The delay to shooting time is something I could live with as the Sherman I would expect to fire more swiftly following sighting at the same time. I will do a download : )

Fair enough womble. Perhaps the honest answer re coding is more helpful than a non RL example

Driving down a length of bocage should be impossible. The mass of earth is reinforcing its strength. Also the straddling effect would be hugely dangerous for the Sherman going onto its belly with tracks in limbo. And if someone could find any instance of this sort of behaviour I would be amazed but pleased to be proved wrong. Surely knocking over bocage at right angles and reversing to hit another section would be the correct way to simulate multiple sections being knocked out.

I am not playing any of the campaigns yet as I think V1.01 will make some significant gameplay changes. And I would hate to be mid-campaign when the changes occurred! : )

Wow . Just lets get this straight. Firing on the move may be difficult but possible. I understand that hitting tanks size targets whilst on the move in late WW2 should be extremely rare, particularly if it is not virtually point blank range. However if you have any evidence other than the two known cases please bring them centre stage. I thought this particular idae had been nailed in its own thread.

True. However I think we were hoping you would give some valid* reasons for being dismissive of Zaloga. *or invalid

Vark the above is what JonS said before he changed it - so you are not cracking up : )