dieseltaylor

Well, the story so far. 1. Infantry firing from behind walls lose to prone infantry. However if they hide behind the wall they do not take any casualties[ ignoring rifle grenades etc] 2. Infantry placed in front of walls and buildings do not suffer as badly as infantry in the open. So essentially if you want a fire fight put your infantry in front of walls not behind them. ANd depending how far in front affects the number of losses. I look forward to your report Placing troops in front of fences! Barbed wire? Do advancing troops fire more accurately than stationary troops?

I am sure another officer might be able to cancel the order but presume without a radio you are going to need to be in speaking range of an officer who does have a working radio. So in a lot of circumstances that presumably does not allow enough time for that to occur. Therefore perhaps BF dropped it as an important must do coding. I am guessing. : )

I wonder what happens if you give it to women/ Surely more important : ) And to answer my own question: http://diabetes.emedtv.com/fenugreek/fenugreek-side-effects.html whilst this site has some history and also has it curing most of the worlds diseases! http://www.vortexhealth.net/fenugreek.html

SO, the big question in my mind is - was this true of CMSF?? Which I never bought.

Maximum daily rate was 76,000 shells in BoTB. The problem was individually addressing the shells fast enough : ) Of course some short-cuts were taken as some Germans were NOT called Fritz. In "Tank Men" it actually records a Sherman 75mm crewman saying how they really appreciated the short barrel where there were plenty of trees as they played on the fact the Panther was handicapped by its very long barrel. Nice to have a positive. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Men-Robert-Kershaw/dp/0340923474

Ah! This thread explains why I have had some dubious e-mails from Magpie OZ. I kid you not. My address is in his e-mails program!! Two so far offering a link to sites which have obviously been seeded: ://urban-samurai.com/fastcheck.php I have taken off the http. Urban Samurai actually oi a legitimate site. I did send a warning to all those on the list but it occurs to me MagpieOZ might be blanked from recieving responses .... who knows. Generally speaking I always am very circumspect on sites suggested by new posters ... .....!!

Interesting I think. Worrying.

Not who you thought! You have to admire the cojones in patenting something that was actually unpatentable. "The geodesic dome Fuller was most famous for his lattice shell structures - geodesic domes, which have been used as parts of military radar stations, civic buildings, environmental protest camps and exhibition attractions. However, the original design came from Dr. Walther Bauersfeld. Chapter 3 of Fuller's Book Critical Path states: ... I found a similar situation to be existent in World War II. As head mechanical engineer of the U.S.A. Board of Economic Warfare I had available to me copies of any so-called intercepts I wanted. Those were transcriptions of censor-listened-to intercontinental telephone conversations, along with letters and cables that were opened by the censor and often deciphered, and so forth. As a student of patents I asked for and received all the intercept information relating to strategic patents held by both our enemies and our own big corporations ... An examination of the geodesic design by Bauersfeld for the Zeiss Planetarium, built some 20 years prior to Fuller's work, reveals that Fuller's Geodesic Dome patent (U.S. 2,682,235) follows the same methodology as Bauersfeld's design.[26]2 Wikipedia

I have not seen it anywhere on a thread so I was wondering if anyone knew why the dead disappear. 1. In terms of realism its not great. After all a pile of bodies does help identify the interesting areas of the battlefield 2. When I look at a unit on the GUI I have very large icons of the weapons and even wounded weapons. Why not show me weapons in red so I can instantly gauge how the unit is suffering/suffered and what my guess is to its morale state. Guessing a US units original strength is not too difficult but I do not want to have to memorise all the various German units and their original strength.

I daresay you will find they surrender as they cannot rout exit the map. Well known facet of WW2 warfare.

Normally I respect your remarks but I have to say your comment seems a peculiarly lame and lightweight defence of the current situation. I would suggest that 95% of all known cases in World War 2 the defender does not park his trucks with 800 metres of a known attacking enemy and refuse to move them as the enemy approaches. It is patently absurd. Even if I was told the points from their loss does not matter I am offended by the sheer idiocy that I am meant to be in command and yet cannot even order a vehicle to flee destruction. For ***** sake I even have mortar crews with no shells and I have trucks that could get them to safety but no I have to sit there like an idiot to be killed or captured. What part of realism am I being introduced to?

I understand that particular case. However it does not change what should be the default as that is the most realistic. The exceptional scnario design can do as per CM*1.

I read your comments about scenario designers but surely the default position for BF should be that in RL people/vehicles do leave the battlefield. Map edges have always been a problem with accusations of gaminess, In some ways the desire to use the edge of a map, knowing that your troops will not retreat off-map and can only take fire from a certain quadrant, must appear attractive. Here is a mechanism that would actually work to deter such tactics. It is a great shame it has not been thought through as to what is preferable as the default. I suspect it is not just scenario makers who forget that retreat has to be engineerd in. I would bet a very large sum all the supplied maps will also stop retreats. What is the rationale for hard edges?

Given the claims to realism I am suffering a lttle despair that in one scenario where my force is designed to loose the Germans are forced on keeping lots of soft-skinned vehicles on the map. A child of five would realise that unarmed unarmoured transport vehicles should skedaddle away from people bent on making holes in them. But no scenario designer man insists for unknown reasons presumably unrelated to realism or common sense they hang around. I understand BF designed it by default that the boundaries are rigid [why?] but believe designers can use exit hexes in their bag of tricks. So the question must be why don't/can't they?

Troops in the open do fire off there rifle grenades at a 140 metre distant wall though accuracy is variable. In the tests I did it was using Vanir's fanatics so is possibly not that representative. What does seem to be coming out is that troop quality is hugely important in the results. Whilst this may score great in the realism stakes I am not sure ultimately how user friendly this is if designers do not prime the scenario players. To be fair in one of my current games I am told they are rubbish but I have no idea if my opponents troops are equal rubbish worse rubbish or excellent. Whilst this is no doubt exellent FoW I am left wondering how well my scenario designer understands the game mechanics. I do wonder if the ever so important suppression model reflects modern combat training.

I hope you did not pay full price for the bitched batch. And in handling relations with customers, and assuming you have e-mail addresses for the clients, advising each and everyone early of your commercial decision to use the manuals to get them into their hot grubby hands would have been a good decision. Better than let it fester on the Boards for weeks. Incidentally publishing the .pdf in its toned version was also not that helpful to people who like to read a paper copy. I though you did that deliberately to make printing difficult so people would want the manual. Hah!

Good point re HMG's

From a game I am playing : Is this symptomatic of the super ballsy behaviour problem. It says minefield and we run throug it,

I can live with walls. Apparently bullets at 140 metres do not go through stone walls so the next test must be are soldiers hiding in small houses as well covered at that range. Walls of even small stone houses are thicker than stone walls as they are taller and carry a roof. Putting your ahead above a parapet has never been wise. However if one prepares a wall by knocking out a few stones here and there and making slots you are on to a winner. Arguably your best bet is to rubble the wal to a degree. However that goes against the biggest benefit that you can move unseen if you traverse along it or a short distance away.

I have done a little more. If the men hide behind the wall and each of the three platoons fire at a singly point on the waal there was a total of 6 casualties. 3 at ech aim point. The third platoon were firing light and caused no casualties. Therefore my belief is it was the rifle grenades that did the damage. The test ran for three minutes and the damage occurred in the first minute, after that the two platoons with target orders were out of rifle grenades. It is quite possible if I had spread the fire out equally along the line the casualties may have been lighter. Firing light uses more bullets.

Walls - walls are what houses have so why believe they offer protection? Ok so they look like stone and are probably a foot thick : ) To be fair I am not convinced that shooting prone soldiers is more difficult than shooting men whos head is above the wall. Be that as it may after a minute the same result pretty much as you. Radio operators and officers seem to take a higher proportion of hits. Useful to know.

What is with the hysteria stuff? If we re-wind a couple of months the talk from some was how well the olld reastor design had withstood the disaster. That is obviously a false view derived from the information made available at the time. So we now have further information relevant to the scale of the disaster. IT IS WORSE THAN CHERNOBYL in terms of radioactivity release. I am glad I cannot provide heaps of bodies as an immediate proof for you Elmar. I think, and I hope I am wrong, is that we will find that there is damage to humans. Or possibly the fish that the Japanese rely so heavily upon , in coastal waters may not become dangerous. The quality of the Al Jazeera article may be spotty in parts but I unfortunately have been distracted by a new Battlefront game coming out which is eroding my serious time.

Great linky Lemuel. This does seem excellent info. Stucco [rendered] seems a unlikely description for a stone built building but it is possible that at the time it was rendered. The current pictures show it as natural stone. Armchair General has more to offer with more links and a discussion of tacticsa http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11655&page=4

Yep complete bollocks. So lets avoid the unfortunate news that it is worse the Chernobyl in terms of radioactive release. That in fact there appears to be no real plan on how to sort out this mess. And what other news yet to come.

I was reading last night about a paratroop action against a Manoir - not a very big manor house in this case : http://www.armchairgeneral.com/walk-where-they-fought-la-fiere-82d-airborne-division-d-day-1944.htm/2 The article does have pictures and there are plenty more on the Web of the house and grounds. Notice that the idea of shooting the occupiers to death from outside the house does not happen! Unfortunately the article is rather lght on numbers involved and the quality of the German troops if one were thinking of scenario design based on this account. Regarding Maggies commnets on riccochets etc. that is obviously true. However if the defenders are disobliging and lie on the floor in the ground floor then you accomplish not very much apart from suppression and using up ammo which is a very real consideration. Aiming at the upper floor windows the bullet will travel into the roof structure. So whilst it may be suppressed the house is a problem in that you cannot ignore the defenders so you have to take it. Grenades work both ways and as pointed out the defenders may have slits etc for fire or observation. There is also the probability that standing to one side of the window gives a sight-line for the defender. Incidentally glass is the same Mho hardness as flint. So is 5 inches of glass going to stop a WW2 bullet? How about 10" I have no idea !!