Radar

Yes, save your turn and end your game. Restart your game by hitting [Play Game] there you'll find your turn listed as a 'saved game'. Then just play it as a PBEM. You can resume a TCIP game the same way.

Yes, running does 'speed' your units movement through wire. Be careful, BTW, the terrain the wire is placed on isn't added for purposes of exposure. IOW, your gonna be hanging in the breeze as you go through it.

I've noticed that piats have an exagerated difficulty in hitting targets at a higher elevation than they are. This might be a problem for zooks also. Has anyone else noticed this? I've run a small test..not too conclusive, but it supports what I've seen.

Hey, your link doesn't work..

Not good there. (A) Rubble tiles reduces LOS. The tile size depends on the size of building.(B)IIRC, The AFV wont be considered to be hull-down either.

Yes, thats my point. I only used the paintball example to show that how fast you could blow through rounds. Its not that only 20-30 percent of the soldiers would fire in combat. Not firing doesn't always mean not fighting. Making it sound like 75 percent the army was non-combatants isn't believable.

While I was looking for propety corners for a highway centerline survey in Harvey, Illinois I found a .38 cal handgun.

I've been playing painball for quite some time and something I've noticed comes up all the time. As for laying down fire, you use up rounds. The amount of ammo a soldier(WWII) carried isn't more than 300 rounds (thats heavy, IMO). IMHO, doesn't take very long to use up 300 rounds when your laying down area fire in a fight. But not every soldier is going to fire at the same rate either. But they all fire.

A slight correction: you can do with two sensor teams if one of them wanders from the second to the third observation point. You need three points, but only two at a time. Not that it changes anything about MBB's style of discussion.</font>

Hey, if you are using your math, there will be two solutions for each sounding... Determine a base bearing and throw out the other result. What your doing is nailing down a position by what is called distance-distance determining. There will be two angle solutions for each distance.

Hmm. What problem do you seem to be having?

The plowing of the field is a fine job but I think the soil has a bit too much clay to raise wheat.

I would like to point out that you could area fire at the infantry target instead of directly targeting the squad. The blast effects can still be deadly. Or you could reposition your Sherman 105 to a spot that obscures the sight to the HMG.

I'd like to see buildings with deviant setbacks from the roadway. There is nothing more unbelievable than looking down a 300 meter street lined with buildings and see them line up in a perfect row. I'd like to see bush dodads to be included to the tiles also.

I'd like to throw in on this.

Ya, the arbtrary 'to the rear' direction of withdrawal order is pretty pointless at the short scale environ as the CM battlefield. If I understand corectly, CMBB has unkinked the 'withdrawal' command to be ominidirectional.

Well, I'd like to add to our long winded comments here. No you can't view the movie from a TCP/IP, due to, IIRC, the fact that the computer calculates the movie after you use the save game function. Both of your orders are then entered and the turns movie is produced as a one-time thing. This is quite a beautiful thing, BTW. PBEM is where you can get to review your movies if you are the type of player who saves them. You can add a characters in your filenames to flag the movie turns (I also do that to tell if my turns are odd/even and Axis/Allied). I hope this helps.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: If you want to simulate this, place a field of mines where you want the building to be, then add the building in the map editor. Use multiple fields for really booby trapped buildings.<hr></blockquote> Cool, thanks for the info. :cool:

Something else you don't get to see in CMBO is sealed off and/or booby trapped buildings, made by the defender to ambush attackers. Hopefully with the engine rewrite more detail will be included such as this.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: Regarding the original question, as others have mentioned it wasn't normal procedure for either the Germans or Russians to have normal AFVs acting as spotters, so I doubt that you'll be seeing this feature in CMBB. The Western Allies could have normal AFV command units (platoon, company, etc.) calling in artillery, but I don't know how common a practice this was. As someone else mentioned, an armored FO existed for the Germans and possibly the Russians (not sure on that, but it is a possibility). The Germans sometimes had FO's in half-tracks or specially modified panzers (no main armament or sometimes no turret). The intent here was to give the mechanized units an artillery spotter to keep up with them and to give the FO some armored protection and mobility for the radio sets. I don't know if CMBB is going to model the armored FO or not. As for using tanks in the indirect fire role - the Canadians did it in Operation Goodwood or Epsom with their Shermans. It took a bit of preparation and I believe that it served as just a field expedient method to increase the number of barrels in a barrage and not to provide accurate, directed, on-call artillery fire; a role that it couldn't perform to anywhere near the level of dedicated-purpose indirect fire guns.<hr></blockquote> As for Operation Goodwood: Not so much preparation would be involved, I think each Tank plt was firing on the same quadrant and elevation, IIRC, and the biggest layout was additional ammo laid out and used for the mission. The scale was immense, true, but the calculations wasn't needed to be of very fine quality and so given the plan, the FDC could crank out fire missions very rapidly. But I think it would depend entirely on the experience and trainning of the subject units to perform such a role, not that it wasn't 'my job' kind of thing. [ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Radar ]</p>

Ok, the squads, I'm pretty sure, if I follow what you mean, can't be modified. However, the platoons can be modified using the scenario editor. There you can change leader bonuses and a few other stats. You can delete squads and support equiptment at your leisure. [ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Radar ]</p>

I've been running test fields on this and one glaring thing pops up...ya can't seem to hide barbwire. And you can spot it at unreasonable distances through concealing terrain. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to add one and one. :mad:

Yes, I've noted this happening in my PBEM.

I also find that you can use BARBWIRE to make a path for tracked vehicles through otherwise impassable terrain. I was wondering that if Barbwire made the area it occupied clear for fire purposes that it would do the same for tracked movement. I setup a test field and what do ya know? It took a bit of probing but it seems that you can enter impassable terran. I didn't fully investigate this mechanism. I did note however, that if I had plotted a path that crossed a point of impassability the tracked vehicle might just sit idle or the AI would replot orders and reverse out... [ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Radar ]</p>