CMplayer

Depends on the size of the battle. I like battalion sized battles, but it can get a little choppy at times, yes. I once played a very small night/fog scenario I threw together just for fun. I was amazed how smoothly it ran; it was really beautiful to watch actually. Still, it's good enough to play, and that's what matters. FYI I have an out of the box iMAC with a G3, 350 mhz, no idea about the card, except that transparant effects do work. (the next computer will definitely have an uberprocessor, tons of memory and a great graphics card, for CM's sake, if nothing else) regards, --Rett

For some reason I prefer for the game to look like a boardgame. So I use unit bases and low quality smoke. But I tried high quality just a few hours ago and enjoyed the explosions. I'll use it for Lt. Boom scenarios from now on. regards, --Rett

I usually have high quality smoke turned off, but in any case I am referring to something else, which is visible even with fast and compatible smoke. There is a definite difference between a brew up, and a 'catastrophic' brew up, as they are calling it here. The latter shows a shock wave go out. MadMatt didn't seem to be talking about this one when he answered, so that's why I asked. regards, --Rett

No, I mean something else. Sometimes the tank just goes 'clunk' and looks dead. Sometimes it brews up. Sometimes (without changing the fog/smoke setting) you get a graphic which resembles the explosion of a house collapsing, with a concussion wave going out and big hunks of metal flying through the air. That is why I wondered if such a potent explosion could have an affect on infantry. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-27-2001).]

Sure, it could be a dud, but it would be odd if we are supposed to believe that every time one of those big shells top penetrates a tank, that it happened to be a dud. regards, --Rett

Okay, but I'm talking about a shell that actually achieved a 'top penetration'. Landing near a tank is enough to knock it out, but when it penetrates, the engine seems to handle it differently. regards,, --Rett

I don't have those mods, but if they are the 'house collapse' explosions, and not just run o' the mill brew ups then yes. Nice pics, btw. regards, --Rett

I can buy that explanation. But I did another test where i let a bunch of american tanks fire 75mm HE at the front of a tiger. They got one hit after another, up to 20 hits per turn, BANG BANG BANG, on the front of that tiger, doing 'no significant damage'. What I was trying to discern was whether all that noise, and impact would shake up the Tiger crew so much as to make them less effective at returning fire. I didn't get a conclusive answer, but those optics seemed pretty tough. regards, --Rett

Okay, but then the turret wouldn't be able to rotate. The gun could still shoot, right?

You mean to tell me you never bought a 14" spotter, upped his ammo, custom-named him Lt. Boom, and let him pound the living bejeezus out of a village full of conscripts just to watch the explosion graphics? Rett

I tried out the following test: In a confined area an exhausted, conscript platoon of german infantry starts out with pinned status. 31 men. They are packed together in the center of several tiles full of barbed wire. Around them are six chuchill crocodiles, a bit farther back is a cliff boxing them in entirely. (Though in their present condition they have no chance of exiting the barbed wire). The churchills start firing at them and get immediate surrender. I then order systematic area fire (with the flamethrowers) of the entire barbed wire area. After two turns of this, all the surrendered squads are eliminated, without having moved even a meter. Then I call in artillery onto the TRP which happens to be on that dead German infantry as well. 15 elite 155 VT spotters empty their loads, as well as 4 105 VT spotters. The Churchills remain during the shelling and continue to area fire the barbed wire with flamethrowers. Eventually most of the Churchills are immoble or otherwise damaged. Then, 6 14" naval gun spotters completely plaster the area. (In order to make this work, I had more German troops at a remote part of the map, just to prevent an autosurrender. It was also necessary to shift dates to get both VT fuses and 14" in the same scenario) The final result, of 31 Germans in the 'kill zone', was 31 casualties, of which _10_ were KIA. Now I believe that every single wounded man would have died in that artillery bombardment. Hence the 'KIA' figure in the after action screen is just sheer baloney, some randomly generated number. Obviously I have taken an extreme unrealistic situation, but there are many cases where similar things happen in real games, for instance if there is a nasty infantry fight in some woods, and artillery is called in shortly after. All those wounded lying on the ground have not suddenly become immune to being killed. You might not call in artillery there right away, if you know you have wounded there. You might want to move those guys out first. Another case is if there are wounded in a building which catches on fire. In that situation you might even see the enemy helping to move your guys out. I would love to see some better modelling of wounded, medics, stretcher bearers and perhaps even red-cross marked ambulances and aid stations available for some scenarios. Perhaps this isn't anything for CM, but it would intensify the game to have to think about and plan for trying to take care of the guys who go down. Even an abstracted handling of wounded, which takes into account the fact that they can be be killed could be of interest. This is not just to add realism in the sense of 'scenery'. One practical effect this could have on the game is in campaigns, where some more lightly wounded would already be ready for action again the next day. But if you shell the woods where they are waiting for treatment, you might not have them tomorrow. And in normal battles, the difference between the number of wounded, and the number of dead men would be a real indicator of your skill, instead of just empty 'bells n whistles'. regards, --Rett . [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-27-2001).]

You mean that a 37mm AP shell, hitting the back of the turret was able to damage the optics?

A fourteen inch navel shell achieves a top penetration of a tank. It seems the tank just gets KO'd like any other penetration, and there is no blast effect on the surroundings. Is that tank some kind of iron stomach, with an infinite capacity to absorb? Very lucky for infantry that may be nearby. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-27-2001).]

Sometimes you just get a normal brew up, but sometimes you get an extra explosion graphic added on, like when houses explode. In the latter case, can the blast cause damage?

Just for fun I put a greyhound behind a no-ammo King tiger at let it fire away from about 10-15 meters. I wanted to see if an unlucky ricochet might penetrate the greyhound doing the firing. Anyway, the King Tiger's turret was turned away from the greyhound the whole time and it never rotated the slightest. (I had put some halftracks out front at long range to occupy its attention). Imagine my surprise when i hit the KT's gun! That must have been one heck of a shot, like when beetle baily does cannon firing practice. Up, around, loop da loop, and back down again or something. Is there some realistic explanation for this? regards, --Rett

[edited because I just found the same question _on the front page!_ sorry] I've noticed what appears to be a new thing, that sometimes when tanks get knocked out they explode witht the same graphics as when buildings blow up. What I was wondering is whether nearby soft targets can be injured or damaged by this blast. (I don't mean the ordinary brew up graphics, or the ordinary KO graphic) I tried testing it with 'exhausted' infantry around a tank which I let a jagdpanzer blow to smithereens repeatedly, but with my bad luck I just got normal KO's and brew ups, without that effect. Anyone know? regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-27-2001).]

This would of course be a great thing to simulate but it would seem to need to wait until there is relative spotting. A certain unit might have a dark background from one direction and be skylined from another. Perhaps drawing the LOS past the unit and checking the background for 'dark' or 'light' could be used within the present spotting system by adjusting the delay time to target or even changing the chance for a hit. regards, -Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-27-2001).]

I think these are very sound comments. I would just like to add that as the defender you shouldn't worry too much about defending territory, i.e. VL's. Just think of the VL's as valuable intelligence about where the attacker is likely to go. Set up your defence to inflict casualties on the attacker, not to hold VL's at all costs. This is especially true if some of the VL's are very untenable as defensive positions. An example of this is the Nijmegen map in Close Combat. (Sorry to take an example from there). There is a critical VL called 'Hunner Park' which is right at the foot of the bridge. But this open park is faced on three sides by tall stone buildings. Obviously, whoever holds those buildings has a commanding influence over the park, so the houses are the point to defend, not the park itself. (In the same way, attacking the park directly will only lead to catastrophe) You can win on points, even without holding the VL's, and if you destroy the enemy then you get the VL's at the end anyway. regards, --Rett

The 37mm works great against infantry! If the shell hits a guy, it takes his head right off. regards, --Rett

Why not a 'wide area target' rather like the command that already exists for indirect fire. regards, --Rett

It's worth looking into...thx enfors.

View level 5, right. I'll give it a try, thx.

It is a big deal. A heavy blockhouse takes up its entire tile, so there is no open ground in front of it. Of course my defense shouldn't expect everything to rest on one little tile of mines, but if the only reason I can't put them there is a miss in the programming then it's frustrating. Anyway, in case BTS doesn't already know about this then they should. Thanks for answering, especially for pointing out the 'quirk' about placing the mines first, then the buildings. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-24-2001).]

It's flat. Also, the AI was able to place mines there. regards, --Rett

I'm definitely against the use of violence. But like someone said, sometimes it could be worse to just stand by and watch. I just like wargames because I'm male. It's like with girls and horses. They never grow out of it. regards, --Rett