StellarRat

I don't think a burning vehicle counts in the same way as "real" smoke-screen. You have to the remember that the actual size of the vehicle and smoke is really tiny in relation to the true ranges involved. Try putting you unit sizes on the "realistic" setting to see what I mean. This is also the reason that units don't block LOS.

Sinclair. Are you trying to shoot while moving? Are you using the HUNT command or move or fast? Don't forget hull down will help your tanks survive. The Germans do have an advantage at long range too.

I like it better than before, so your statement "game that no one wants to play" is totally wrong. I want to play it. By the way, if your .00000000000001 is were right than the Earth would have a population of at least 10 trillion people, so that's wrong too. [ November 01, 2002, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

Maybe. I'm trying to think of how much you'd really have to return to your API program.

Two Hungerian MG pillboxes holding off an entire battalion of Russians trying to advance across open ground and in the end killing about 150 of them.

I still think that BFC should give us an API that lets you see what your units see and manuever/fire your units (all within the framework of the rules of course) that way anyone could try writing their own custom AI if they wanted.

It has nothing to do with the actual LOS calculations. It has to with the computer trying to figure out what to do with units that CAN see each other. Example: If two units can't see each other the computer doesn't need to make any further calculations for those units as far as, spotting chance, FOW, who to fire at, whether or not a unit needs to take cover, etc, etc... The only thing that effects LOS calculations is the number of units on the map. [ October 31, 2002, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

I think the troops might still be a little braver than "real life". How many bullets flying around you would stop you from doing something? My answer is one bullet or even someone pointing gun at me without shooting.

Well, from an optics points of view (I feel qualified to comment here because I'm into telescopes) anytime the primary (main)lens of a telescope is a little larger than the human eye you are going to have better low light viewing. The larger lens will concentrate more light into one place than your eye can. Even a cheap pair of binoculars will give you far better night vision than the naked eye. If you don't believe me grab a pair of binoculars and go outside and look at the stars some night than compare what you can see to what you can see without them. However, if the primary is close to the same size and there is high magification in use, you will have worse night vision.

Someone else told me that conscripts don't get covered arcs. Sorry. I guess the reasoning is that they simply aren't trained enough to have that kind of fire discipline. It's not a bug.

"Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz, my friends all have deuce and halfs I must make amends, and Lord won't you buy me an RPG..."

I like them on all random. You have to learn to fight in any conditions with any equipment (or lack there of). It's good practice.

I was a little surprised that the reviewer had all sorts of good things to say about the improvements in CMBB over CMBO, however he didn't really say a lot about the improvements in the infantry model other than a few words about the new commands and fitness and fatigue rules. I think the changes in MG fire and how units are pinned down by fire are actually the most important and best improvements vs CMBO. BTW, I really don't care if there is an index of any kind in the manual. It's not that big. I've written a game manual before and indexing is a pain the ass. You basically have to generate the index then decide what keywords to keep and whether or not to toss out multiple occurances manually then every time the manual is changed you have to go through the same process again. Moon is dead on when he says some terms show up dozens of times. A glossary and outline are probably all the the manual really needs. [ October 30, 2002, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

You know it's interesting that you brought this topic up. I just won a game with the Russians on the offense. This was the very first time I had tried to play the Russians. I was surprised at outcome to say the least. By using what other posters had written I was able to achieve a Total Victory. I used one squad to scout the enemy while three squads and T-34s overwatched. Whenever I encountered any enemy fire I made sure to return fire with every available unit, even if it was only area fire. I only advanced my squads when I had the enemy under heavy suppressive fire and I always used the ADVANCE command when moving from cover to cover. I did everything in bounds. One units moves, two - three units overwatch. I took my time. I waited for units to move up so that everyone was always in command and control from their HQ. Maintaining cohesion is really important especially when playing the Russians. I also took the time to allow my heavy MGs and 50mm mortars to setup and cover my advancing troops. This made a huge difference, because they were able to pin down the enemy foxholes while the infantry advanced. I made sure that each platoon could get covering fire from another platoon while advancing.

I agree with Black Void. What you are seeing here is the exact reason why infantry could not advance in WW I. You really have to have armor and artillery to move over any kind of open terrain with infantry. I'd say 2 to 1 would probably give you a 50/50 chance most of the time. However, sometimes when the AI chooses the wrong equipment for itself you can still kick it's butt at 1.5 to 1.

Yeah, and it seems much more realistic to me. I'd trying to burrow under the ground if someone was shooting at me.

Anyone that has had the experience of carrying ammo can understand why they don't seem to have much!

See what I mean?

I think they're supposed to a non-sensical insult match somewhat akin to the insult clinic in Monty Python's Flying Circus. They seem to occasionally be related to games that the posters are playing against each other. I haven't really read to many of them and have no desire to post there.

I couldn't get my pillbox to even use a covered arc last night. The option wasn't even in the action list. I don't why that happened. Maybe because they were conscripts? Don't know.

One good thing about it though, it sure makes for some interesting surprises at times.

And I thought I was living in a fantasy world...

It doesn't take a lot of extra time. The code is basically the same, but the compilers are different. The only time this makes a difference is when you are dealing with hardware related issues such a graphics and sound glitches. For game play and realism issues it's not that much of an issue. If you know why and where to fix one version fixing the other is easy.

Where did you find a wife that likes wargaming? Is there a special website for wargaming singles? I would love to find a woman that plays wargames and skis! You are a lucky man!

My only gripe about the games I've played against humans is that a lot of people just quit when they are losing without telling you or quit when you lose connection (if they are behind) instead of trying to reconnect. I have a lousy phone line and I warn people about that, but in almost every game I've played where I was ahead if I lost connection the other player made no attempt to re-contact me to finish the game.