Steve McClaire

Also, many university and public libraries have a copy of this book (and many of the other US Army official WW2 histories). They're commonly called 'The Green Books' (because of their green cloth binding, I assume ).

You need to set it up so the externally-visible machine / router forwards all requests for port 7023 to your private IP address, and your friend will need to do the same. Most routers have a fairly simple 'fowarding' setup where you just type in the port number and then IP address the router should forward to. Steve

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/ucmaps/soviet.html Modern topos, but probably still a good basis for a CMBB map.

Edit: Never mind. Heard from Carl. [ August 02, 2004, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Steve McClaire ]

Edit: Never mind. Heard from Carl. [ August 02, 2004, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Steve McClaire ]

Edit: Never mind. Heard from Carl. [ August 02, 2004, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Steve McClaire ]

I'd suggest leaving any player who did not finish completely out of the calculations, as if they weren't even in the tournament for that battle. Since we can't know for certain exactly how the battle would have come out had they finished, any system that leaves the DNF players in is basically a guess and is going to be unfair to some of the players who did finish, depending on which way it skews the average score. On a side note, how could the inclusion of more players skew the average score higher? Your example for Firefight '40 doesn't make sense to me. Were players who did not finished given a score of 100%?

I'd suggest leaving any player who did not finish completely out of the calculations, as if they weren't even in the tournament for that battle. Since we can't know for certain exactly how the battle would have come out had they finished, any system that leaves the DNF players in is basically a guess and is going to be unfair to some of the players who did finish, depending on which way it skews the average score. On a side note, how could the inclusion of more players skew the average score higher? Your example for Firefight '40 doesn't make sense to me. Were players who did not finished given a score of 100%?

I'd suggest leaving any player who did not finish completely out of the calculations, as if they weren't even in the tournament for that battle. Since we can't know for certain exactly how the battle would have come out had they finished, any system that leaves the DNF players in is basically a guess and is going to be unfair to some of the players who did finish, depending on which way it skews the average score. On a side note, how could the inclusion of more players skew the average score higher? Your example for Firefight '40 doesn't make sense to me. Were players who did not finished given a score of 100%?

Try Goldwave. I think they still have a shareware version, or at least a free demo. http://www.goldwave.com/

Reducing recoil force is important when you're designing a high velocity cannon. The higher the recoil forces the more metal has to be used (to handle the stress), making it heavier and more expensive, and the shorter its lifespan will be before it wears out. The physical distance the weapon recoils can effect whether it will fit in a tank turret, too.

I'm not an expert on the Vickers MG, but I believe it was water cooled. Intuitively I would think this would perform better than air cooled MGs like the MG34/42 with high air temperatures. Everything I can find on-line (hardly a definitive source, but all that's handy) seems to indicate the Vickers was rugged and reliable. Steve

Repeating some US Army OOB issues: 81mm mortar spotter for a mechanized force type (armored bn/armored infantry bn) should be 3 tubes only. 4 tube division level 105mm spotter rarely appears on the list of units. I have not tested to see exactly what combinations of date/force type allow it, but it should be pretty much universally available. US Engineers never had flamethrowers as TO&E US Engineers never had (AFAIK) 60mm mortars as TO&E. At least not on TO&E 5-17 Mar. 44 or later. Would be nice if there was a US 4 tube 25pdr spotter available in North Africa from Nov. 42 on (to allow correct representation of the 175th FA Bn, which was using 25pdrs).

No explanation to add, but I noticed this same thing in a recent game. My Vickers MMGs would consistenly jam, as often after less than 1 turn of firing. I had written it off to bad luck, but now it seems there may be more to it than that.

I've read somewhere that american M4 tank commanders fired at Panthers with phosphorus round, in order to blind the optic devices. Is that the same procedure you've just described? German crews often bailed out then, due to fighting incapacity of the main gun.</font>

I suspect that the current definition of the problem is correct - probably the game checks LOS from the spotter at the begining of the turn because that is when all the crunching is done to generate the events that make up the movie for that turn. I don't think BFC will consider this a bug, in the sense that what happens now is probably the intended behavior. Annoying for the player, perhaps, but given the way the game works it may be the only reasonable way to deal with the situation. If the spotter's LOS ends up blocked when the game is trying to resolve the spotting rounds and generate the turn's movie, what should the game do? Right now it just assumes that LOS is lost for good and fires an unobserved fire mission. While it might be better in some situations to have the game add another minute of delay to the fire mission in the hopes that LOS will be clear next turn, this won't always work. If the spotter has lost LOS for some reason other than smoke / dust, he may never regain it. If the spotter has moved behind an obstacle, or a burning vehicle or terrain tile is not blocking the LOS, it will never clear and the fire mission would be endlessly delayed. Assuming the code can easily determine why LOS is blocked, a compromise solution might be to add another minute to the delay if dust or white smoke is blocking the LOS, while just firing the blind strike if terrain or black smoke is blocking.

I suspect he was continually adjusting off the 'blind' fire mission, rather than waiting one turn to get a new fire mission.

Isn't there a 120 day deadline for the end of the first round? Seems to me that it would be reasonable to give people another week to finish AARs and then you could post final results. Steve

Isn't there a 120 day deadline for the end of the first round? Seems to me that it would be reasonable to give people another week to finish AARs and then you could post final results. Steve

Isn't there a 120 day deadline for the end of the first round? Seems to me that it would be reasonable to give people another week to finish AARs and then you could post final results. Steve

Will you still be informing us if an AAR is 'full credit' or 'partial credit'? Steve

Will you still be informing us if an AAR is 'full credit' or 'partial credit'? Steve

Will you still be informing us if an AAR is 'full credit' or 'partial credit'? Steve

That must have been it. Thank you, Martin. Steve

Searched and did not find anything on this. In a recent PBEM I had a set a unit on 'cover armor', predicting that enemy vehicles were going to appear in the covered area. Sure enough, the enemy AFVs moved into the covered area and came straight at the covering unit. The covering unit did nothing. No target line. It just sat there. The enemy drove right up to within 50m of the covering unit before the turn was over, and still they refused to engage. The next turn I ordered the unit to target one of the enemy AFVs directly, and then it did engage and destroyed them both. The covering unit was not hiding, had AP ammunition, could easily penetrate the enemy tanks from any angle, and was in command of an HQ unit. Any ideas why they refused to fire? I have a movie of this if BFC believe it could be a problem of some sort. Thanks, Steve